Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill
What a novel idea, work to get the law changed <VBG>. I agree with you, but
then working to change a law may not be as much fun as sitting and bad
mouthing a judge that doesn't do what you consider to be right.
Another topic: Had to share this with you. Didn't get a chance to post it
early this morning. It appears that we have a local controversy regarding
whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are
against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of
the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to
Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to
happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on
tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>
> On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 17:44:05 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> Hi Jackie,
> >>
> >> Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge
> >Wright based
> >> her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male
> >employer
> >> showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it
> >does not
> >> constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable
> >tort. That
> >> is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what
> >an
> >> outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that.
> >>
> >> Do you agree?
> >> Best, Terry
> >>
> >
> >Hi Terry
> >
> >ROTF--agree to a silly statement like that. You must be kidding,
> >right!! She read
> >all the material and Paula's lawyers did not provide enough evidence.
> >Why is it
> >that if a judge doesn't render a decision favorable to what people's
> >biases are,
> >then he/she didn't do the job right. If it had gone the other way,
> >these same
> >people would be saying "what a great judge." But of course, I am
> >still trying to
> >figure out how he blocked the door with his arm across it and still
> >manged to get
> >his hands up her culottes to grab her?? All that acrobatic gyrations
> >ole Bill was
> >going through and she never moved?? But she passed a lie
> >detector--LOL.
> >
> >jackief
>
> Hi Jackie,
>
> I read an interesting story in this morning's paper that made an
> excellent poin about this case. Simply put, many people just do not know
> the law with respect to sexual harassment and what is required to prove
> it. In spite of the red herrings that disappointed people throw out, it
> has nothing to do with an action that may or may not be considered an
> outrage. Clearly, even if Judge Wright thought the actions, if conducted
> as alleged, were an outrage, the case STILL would not have met the
> minimum for sexual harassment.
>
> People should not be coming down on Judge Wright for following the law.
> If they are not happy, they should work to get the law changed.
>
> Bill
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> 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
