Heres my story...

EVERYTHING you listed is exactly what she stated in her original posting. SHE said she was fired for allegedly being a "witch". You repeat what she said and insist no one has "pointed that out".
Someone did---SHE did.

Did you even read her posting?

Nothing you said changes the fact that in order to WIN a defamation suit you MUST prove damages. It won't do her good to prove she was fired for this exact reason because THEY DON'T have to give her ANY reason for firing her if she lives in an at will state. SO, they could have fired her because they didn't like her dress. It is just that simple.

In order to win a defamation suit she must prove she was damaged--which is WHY I asked her how she was PREVENTED from GETTING another job because that could be defamatory ( see previous posting). She did not comment on my question asking how she was deprived of another job due to these comments.


I did not address the hotel industry--if she is happy with those wages, then so be it. If she loved her job and wants to work in this field, I say God bless her. I don't see anywhere where she asked for OPINIONS about hotel workers wages at large.

I only answered her question... and pointed out that her quest would be of little value to her. I don't see the relevance of pretending that she HAS NO CASE... when all you had to do was tell her how the case might come together, so she could see the kind of hoops she would have to jump through.

Seriously, this is a loser for her. People know when they have been wronged. She won't simply "go away" because you told her she didn't have anything she could bring.

She knows she does... the trick, realistically one should call it "the WORK", is to outline who has to testify so she can gauge for herself the likelihood of getting that to happen. And then to outline the initial cost and the likelihood of delays costing huge sums more.

Courts are for rich people... and lawyers.

She wasn't asking "how a case might come together"--and besides, how would you know? You are guessing, as would I be were I to say such an insipid thing. You have no way of knowing how a lawsuit she may file will "go". There are hundreds of possibilities--you are merely guessing.

Here are TWO of your statements:

"......and pointed out that her quest would be of little value"..

"Seriously, this is a loser for her".

And one statement you offered ( wrongly ) about my statements:

"............ I don't see the relevance of pretending she has no case".........

Just curious there, hon......... what exactly IS the difference between YOUR telling her that to sue would be of "little value" and "seriously this is a loser", and your allegedly and wrongly saying I said "she has no case".

Those two statements mean the same thing---and I never said she didn't have a case. YOU made the statement and you are arguing with YOURSELF.

How bizarre. You offer three statements, identical in intent, to presumably offset one another. YOU wrongly state I said she had "no case", when you yourself just said a lawsuit would be of "little value". SAME THING.

YOU say this case is a loser, but you said it RIGHT after saying "I SEE NO NEED TO PRETEND SHE DOESN'T HAVE A CASE."

Confused a bit today, are we?

In any regard, YOU suggested I said she had no case.

Which of my statements in my other postings led you to that erroneous assumption?

Was it any of these statements?

"If they (-*-) up your life, and if there is a tangible way to demonstrate that, then yes, you can sue."


"This does not mean you cannot bring a lawsuit privately against the person you believe posted that sign. You may not be able to prove you were terminated for allegedly being a 'witch', but you can demonstrate a hostile workplace environment and possibly racial motives as demonstrated by the use of the word "black"."

Certainly wasn't one of those statements, was it? Help me out here---I don't see anything in any of MY postings that state she "has no case".

What I referenced ( and you did not even acknowledge) was the LAW regarding the specific grounds for a lawsuit. Thankfully, I referenced them---(remember those---gender, creed, nationality, religion, etc.) and spared her the "outline" about what she needs to do based on what may or may NOT happen.


It is honestly beyond me why someone with such distain for and ignorance of the law spends time in a LEGAL FORUM espousing ignorance and disgust for the laws of a country that, ironically enough grants them the right to perpetuate prejudice at random. Your personal vehemence against judges, courts, and lawyers really is tiresome.

It's a shame, really.

Anyone who doesn't believe that we have, without a doubt, the greatest system of jurisprudence in this country doesn't deserve to be here.

Don't like it here?

Don't stay and complain about this country.

Leave.

It is tricky getting people to testify? Really?? They make OUTLINES for this sort of stuff?? Wow...who knew?

This is hard to "gauge"? Her case is based on who feels like taking the day off work to go to court and discuss post it notes with rude sayings written on them? How do you "gauge" who will and who will not show up? What do they base that on anyway--a mathematical equation? A statistical probability? The weather?

How silly.

How about, oh, I dunno......... a SUBPOENA? There's a thought. That JUST MIGHT take a *little* bit of that ole *trickiness* out of the mix---ya think??

I predict with 100% certainty that whomever receives a subpoena will show up and will testify.

I am SUCH a problem solver.

The bulk of this case is NOT making outlines about who may or may not be willing to come to court and testify.

The bottom line is HAS some protected grounds for discrimination been breached? (race, gender, religion, creed, etc) and does she work in an "at will" state where they do not have to give you grounds for termination?

Making OUTLINES of your calculations of the ODDS of who will show up and who will not isn't "work" at all.

Self preservation would stop most people from testifying against themselves, no matter WHAT you did to elicit testimony that would tend to prove they created a hostile work environment... or that SHE did. People actually tend to lie to make their own actions seem plausible and if not correct, at least forgivable... when the facts are that there are some people who have little common sense and absolutely no ability to fathom how real life runs.

As for courts and judges, I've seen too much of late where people are found to be responsible for things they didn't do because the judge is an associate much like any RICO associate... like three lawyers and their paralegals, three CPAs and at least one banker... who do not follow the ethical rules of their professions, but work together to confound justice and steal millions from their community by way of Ponzi, Medicare Fraud, and business fraud. Fortunately, the appeals court in another part of the state has seen through the subterfuge and will serve as a beacon for the truth of the situation.... long after the ugly deeds have put me here to try to provide help from what I learn from those who pay attention to the problems and respond with real advice and not the expectation that by quoting the law you can make lawyers out of common folk.

How you think real life is has nothing to do with the law. Your experience, as jaded as that may be, has nothing to do with how the "law" works. And you have yet to reference 1. the law or 2. the legal grounds for a lawsuit in this thread. You OPINION is of no more value than is mine.

Self preservation keeping people from testifying against themselves has NOTHING to do with what you SAID.

YOU said she has to figure out who she can "get" to testify. Testifying ON her behalf has nothing to do with admitting GUILT. The RIGHT against self incrimination is guaranteed by the laws of this land. She doesn't need to OUTLINE that. But what you are saying now--that people under oath don't want to incriminate themselves is NOT what you said earlier.

Previously you said her work was to gauge the "likelihood" someone would testify. Whomever gets a subpoena has to testify. Period. But, what they actually SAY on the stand cannot be controlled----so what "work" is that for her or what VALUE is that in deciding if she should sue or not?

It isn't.

The LAW says there are specific grounds for suing for wrongful discrimination/termination. You have yet to reference ANY of them.

If you failed to read my postings correctly, I cannot help you. Since that has been a continuing fault with your responses, I shall drop your insipid remarks as just another posting from the Most Important Person here. Not worthy of my time. Learn to read.

What I said still stands... if she can find a hotel manager willing to give her a deposition or testify against her last hotel for a bad reference... or a person who was privy to this MOUTH person enough to testify that she said what she said about BLACK WITCH issues, THEN she has a case. But until THAT happens, she should save her money and find another profession. It appears she has been blacklisted in town. Not good, but not worth spending hard earned money on if there is a possibility of getting another, better paying job using the economic problems of today to fund the education required. Go for THAT.

I find it hilarious when I use a word like "insipid" and you repeat it throughout the thread. If you put the same creativity into your adjective usage as you do into your postings, I, for one, would be delighted.

At least this time, you remembered the CAPS. That's something.



Listen carefully. What ANYONE is willing to do is irrelevant. If she listens to you, she would make a few calls, have everyone tell her they don't want to get involved and then according to you, since no one is "willing", she is dead in the legal waters. WRONG.

A consideration of "if she has a case or not" is NOT based on anyones willingness to testify. Re-read until you understand. WRONG. IT is based on protected grounds ( race, creed, gender, etc.) EVEN IF HER OTHER CO-WORKERS NEVER TESTIFY, THERE COULD STILL BE GROUNDS FOR A LAWSUIT IF ONE OF THE PROTECTED REASONS WAS BREACHED. Someone willing to testify about it is irrelevant---SHE WOULD TESTIFY ABOUT IT.

The HOTEL MANGER can be compelled via subpoena to testify, as would anyone else that you SUBPOEANED. However, by virtue of the fact that the person IS the manager ( i.e. the one ultimately responsible) expecting them to willingly testify is stupid----since, obviously, the management of the HOTEL would be NAMED as a PARTY--therefore they would be present.

The key word is SUBPOENA. While it is ignorant to think a manager ( i.e. the ONE RESPONSIBLE for what happens in the workplace) would WILLFULLY TESTIFY as to how bad things were at her former employers, (you DO remember your blah blah about self incrimination, don't you?) it IS reasonable to understand that 1. a subpoena would force OTHERS to appear and 2. you wouldn't realistically subpoena the one responsible since SHE would, most likely, be NAMED as a PARTY in the lawsuit--no subpoena necessary.

Congrats. You have successfully posted three postings, all of which contain NO reference to the possibility of her being in an "at will" state and that even if someone/anyone is willing to testify and even if you SUBPOEANA someone/anyone who is NOT willing to appear, you cannot SUE UNLESS PROTECTED GROUNDS have been BREACHED.

That is the proverbial bottom line and you have successfully avoided any vestige of reference to the law, PERIOD.

Now you are getting to MY POINT... that your answers are unimportant in the scheme of things, because if she did what YOU said without knowing that the answers could just as easily be constructs to prevent the person from being perceived as a bigoted person who created and promulgated a hostile workplace... whether it is the person who said it or the manager who allowed the crap to go on... and that by the time she would find that out, she would have PAID HER MONEY FOR A LAWYER WHO CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT LIARS on a She said, SHE said kind of problem... So her ONLY bet is to troll around her friends in that Hotel and see if she can get anyone to testify or give an affidavit. If she can, she still needs to get proof of damage from ANOTHER hotelier who should be able to quote from his notes on their references for our girl.

But listening to you say there is no case is hurtful to her. She knows she has been wronged. She just needs to know what kind of information will allow her to subpoena one or both of the CAUSES of this situation and expect them to be AFRAID to lie.

THEN SHE HAS A CASE... But if she can't get these witnesses to testify, SHE HAS NO CHANCE TO PROVE HER CASE... or at least not one I'd be willing to put $5k down on. Thus she has to get the affidavit... also known as an interrogatory before she pays a lawyer.

And OBTW... she can ask for legal fees and court costs in a defamation suit... so THEY will have to pay if she can get her witnesses lined up.

Oh my god. Read these sentences, as you wrote them, in this order:

1. that your answers are unimportant in the scheme of things,

2. because if she did what YOU said without knowing that the answers could just as easily be constructs to prevent the person from being perceived as a bigoted person who created and promulgated a hostile workplace...

3.... whether it is the person who said it or the manager who allowed the crap to go on...

4.... and that by the time she would find that out, she would have PAID HER MONEY FOR A LAWYER WHO CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT LIARS on a She said, SHE said kind of problem...

5.So her ONLY bet is to troll around her friends in that Hotel and see if she can get anyone to testify or give an affidavit.


FIVE dependent phrases, totally unrelated in one long sentence. What in the world does all of that blah blah mean?? Look at number two, for instance. You reference that "what I said for her to do without knowing the answers" what in the love of God did I tell her to do that she "doesn't know the answers to"? You have no idea what you are talking about, so you cover up ignorance with large doses of stupidity.

I told her to do NOTHING. So you REFERENCE something I said without actually being specific about what I told her to do THEN disagree with someone that was never said. You made more sense on your other name.

YOU, in one sentence are warning her about asking questions the answers to which are unknown to her, and the next sentence, you are telling her to CONDUCT INTERROGATORIES. Gawd.



Even though I taught elementary school, I am having difficulty making this simple enough for you to understand. God, where do I start?

Lets start with the most GLARINGLY OBVIOUS ERROR ( it's so hard to choose--they are so prolific).

Lets look at this little gem:Thus she has to get the affidavit... also known as an interrogatory before she pays a lawyer.

Wow...... an interrogatory is an AFFIDAVIT you get BEFORE you hire a lawyer?

Allrighty then. Just one TEENSY LITTLE PROBLEM there...........

WRONG.

An INTERROGATORY CANNOT be used to gain information FROM A WITNESS.

Did you read that? AN INTERROGATORY CANNOT --CANNOT be used to gain information FROM A WITNESS.

Pre-trial discovery evidence to be gained from a witness is taken by deposition under oath.

An interrogatory is NOT an affidavit. IT is NOT a deposition and it CANNOT be used to gain information from a witness.

Of course, feel free to read it yourself.

What is the Difference Between an Interrogatory and a Deposition?

Just curious--does it EVER occur to you to actually LOOK UP information BEFORE spouting off this nonsense? Shame on you for your carelessness.

Moving right along.....

WHERE DID I SAY SHE DID NOT HAVE A CASE?

COPY and paste that sentence : ___________________________

Go ahead. Find it.

I never said she did not. Why do you ignore that? Shame on you.

And, listen carefully--EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE CORROBORATES HER CLAIM, SHE can be the ONLY PERSON to testify about it and she could STILL WIN.

IF she was discriminated against on protected grounds she HAS a case. PERIOD. EVEN if she never finds anyone else 'willing' to testify (no idea why you are ignoring subpoenas) SHE CAN TESTIFY and PRESENT EVIDENCE. YOU said she HAS NO CASE if no one else TESTIFIES.

WRONG.

IF she has a case depends on if she was discriminated against on protected grounds and IF SHE HERSELF is WILLING to testify, period. THERE IS NO LAW that says you MUST have OTHER people WILLING to testify in order to bring a case to trial. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

SHE has no legal authority to depose witnesses, subpoena people, and conduct interrogatories. Even her 'friends' who STILL WORK THERE would not want to participte. So, SHE has no experience in nor authority to 1. know what questions to ask that would be permissible and/or relevant and 2. compel anyone to testify.

Honestly, do you make this up as you go along?

I believe you READ the correct answer, then willfully and maliciously make up something you KNOW is incorrect just to sabotoge the reader all because of your hateful view of the American system of justice.

You aren't fooling anyone---despite your rigorous attempts to the contrary.