[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
As long as you just make things up you can prove anything.
Arkansas law specifies a single act of outrageous conduct as sexual
harassment. Damage to the plaintiff does not have to be proven in this case
but is assumed. In order to dismiss the suit in its entirety Judge Wright
had to find that the action as described by Jones was not outrageous. This
she did. That is the law and the decision.
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Poor Terry
>
>I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision reached by
>Judge Wright. I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both Republican and
>Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal beagles,
Paula did
>not have a case. Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was already
defined in
>the law and she followed the law.
>
>Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the forest
for the
>trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use in
making her
>decision. The part that led to the decision was the failure to provide
evidence
>that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect. There are two
parts to
>the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards. The act
and the
>consequences of the act. In this case, she did not meet the standards set
out in
>law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act. Wright has to
follow the
>legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you or
others decide
>is the accurate decision. If you know anything about law then you know
that. In
>this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which she was
correct
>in doing.
>
>jackief
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Oh Jackie,
>>
>> Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She did not
>> decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description of
>> Clinton's conduct.
>> Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as presumed
>> true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not "outrageous"
>>
>> If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had to face
>> removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same supporters
>> Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have planned a
>> bright future.
>> Best, Terry
>>
>> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
>
>
>--
>In the sociology room the children learn
>that even dreams are colored by your perspective
>
>I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
>
>
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
>
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
