Xref: utzoo misc.legal:3203 alt.flame:1271
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!ames!lll-tis!mcb
From: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette
Message-ID: <21957@tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 13 Jan 88 02:31:10 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu> <3O31@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 38

[soc.{men,women,motss} dropped from newsgroups. misc.legal and
alt.flame remain.]

In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
[...]
> >>           It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
> >>loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
> >
> >[Weiner:]
> >It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and
> >rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this.  The
> >idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you
> >(obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss
> >of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it.
> 
> Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should or
> should not be offended by what someone else says to them.  Since judges
> have ruled in my favor in several such cases, your opinion is worthless here.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, I'll try one more time.  Names of parties.  Dates.  Places.  Name 
of court.  Citation to reported decision, if any.  Docket number, if not.  
Smith has been gabbling on about various litigation, but other than
the docket number of the case discussed above, the only other action
I've ever seen real documentation of is something that came up in the
Larry Lippman debacle, where the docket simply showed a suit filed and
a dismissal.  Is there a published decision in the case discussed
above?  Are there other cases?

A few months ago I wrote to Smith (two addresses) to take her up on her 
offer to provide details via an attorney who was knowledgeable about
this. That letter was not answered.  Last week I posted some legal
notes about "removal" and "remand" and I also posted my original letter 
taking Smith up on the offer of documentation.   Frankly, at this point I am
beginning to wonder whether these cases supposedly decided in Smith's
favor actually exist, or are "pseudos" themselves ...

Michael C. Berch 
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb