moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> Hi Mac,
>
> That says the judge had to base her decision on whatever was presented by
> Paula Jones as factual. She determined that the actions of Clinton
> described by Jones were not outrageous conduct. Call it as you will. I
> call Wright's decision deeply prejudiced.
I believe she states that if you look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff,which she is required to do, any action by Clinton didn't meet the standard.
Should she have lowered the bar? Your claim of prejudice still is unwarranted and not
supported by the facts.
> It was more than "boorish and
> offensive" conduct when done by an employer against an employee.
If it was done at all
> to Judge Wright to determine whether such conduct constituted an actionable
> tort. It was not up to her to determine the truth of the charges. She
> decided a jury had no right to determine that because the conduct was not
> sufficiently gross to be actionable if it was precisely as described.
Before it can get to a jury certain criteria has to be met and in this case it
wasn't.Which according to the law and the facts of the case she was absolutely correct
in
her decision.
>
>
> Remember, Mac, you charged me with not reading the decision. Maybe you
> should look it over.
I have Terry and your interpertation of it is, IMO, wrong and highly prejudiced on your
part.
...Mac
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
