Heres my story...

Ok seriously... you 2 are making me dizzy... lol

I do not know what is gonna happen here at all. All I know is I am going to
do my best to make them pay. I do believe I do have a case...and I do believe I was defamed. I do not know much about the law and what not... and YES I do live in an "at will" state. But regardless of that I do believe that one of the "protected grounds" was breached. I cannot go after the person(s) who started the lie that got me fired cause I do not know who they are and I prolly never will. Prolly a good thing I dont cause seriously my fist would end up down her throat.

What pisses me off is these people know that I cannot afford a lawyer so they just keep getting away will all this crap. We do have a legal system here that people like me who have no damn money at all can still get legal representation. And boykinmama you are right...the Hotel business pays for sh*t but I do like it... and yes I have thought about getting out of it... but no I would not prefer the medical field. Something more on the lines of Computer Graphics or Web Design.

If nothing comes of this and I never get legal satisfaction over this...I can still take pride in the fact that the General Manager bolts in the other direction when he sees me...and acts as if he looks me in the eyes I will turn him to stone.

Wow, and I thought you could teach your teenage children... Grade school it is. Just try not to teach reading. You are too used to simple sentences without compound thoughts. Makes a difference apparently.

What is so clear about your posting is that you don't CARE what the original poster needs nor what she is feeling about this situation. Interrogatories CAN be used to find out what people KNOW about a situation... This is evidence on where to start in eliciting testimony from witnesses... especially if they are trying to protect themselves from what they have done.

It also gives our poster information on who is friendly and who is not. Those who are not won't answer honestly, if at all. That is primary information in this sort of 'she said, SHE said' deal.

So let's agree that she has experienced a horrible situation and that she needs to work it out. She needs to know she has done her best. And I hope the pro bono types in your area are not over committed as they are in many areas today. It can be very frustrating to be way down the list and NEVER get any assistance. That is why YOU need to be very proactive in getting the information that will tell you if you CAN mount a case or if you will be unable to refute lies that will be used to protect the guilty.

You should recognize that suing the manager as your only defendant is NOT going to be easy when all the potential friendly witnesses WORK FOR HIM. If he is willing to treat you badly, he will treat THEM badly if they testify for you. Ask yourself if your relationship with them is important enough to them to ensure they will support your suit. Most of the time the answer is that they will protect themselves first.

Wishing you luck and the wits to determine whether you can win. Free attorneys don't come along often, so be prepared with as much information as you can get before you wade into this case with him. Don't bother using him as a shoulder to cry on. Think of using him as a sounding board on whether your case is strong enough to convince a jury. Be ready for a negative opinion if you have not found anyone to testify for you.

You know, your posting always deteriorate into these general griping personal remarks. You said I cannot understand compound thoughts, but you NEVER specify WHAT error I made.

I, on the other hand, point out specific sentences you write that are incorrect and I show WHY as a matter of LAW, what you are putting forth is INCORRECT. This thread is just another of dozens of your postings where you toss out general blah blah whining statements intended to imply I am wrong BUT the gosh darndest thing is you NEVER are specific.

Why?

Because you cannot. There isn't anything you can point to that shows a single thing I have said that is wrong. This is precisely why you MAKE UP things and attribute them TO me like "You shouldn't say she has no case"----then YOU say the exact thing repeatedly!!! EVEN in this thread you tell her if she has no one to testify ( Hello?????????????SHE CAN TESTIFY! HELLO!???) then she should be prepared for "negative opinions"--allllllllll of this after telling ME not to tell her she has "no case". Good God Almighty..


I am not surprised to see your bias and prejudice extends beyond lawyers, judges, and the current system of jurisprudence to include teachers. Wow, that's an unpopular position to take, don't you think? Anyone that has actually obtained an education in ANY field knows that UNLESS a child has a strong foundation when he or she IS in grade school, then they simply CANNOT achieve at the higher grades. I'm not surprised the bias you show against anyone in any field who has achieved where you could not ---these statements suggesting that a grade school teacher is somehow beneath a higher level teacher shows your ignorance.

I taught first grade and fourth grade before getting a Masters degree in Criminal Law and going to law school. Look at it this way, my dear hate filled one----I laid the FOUNDATION for ANY possible future educational success. If the FOUNDATION of a building is NOT adequate, it cannot stand.

Now, don't you feel snipey with your negative comments that now extend to teachers, and that suggest that teachers of grade school children cannot comprehend "compound" ideas? I do feel a twinge of regret that you have no understanding of or appreciation for the utter magic that happens when a child, after much hard work and instruction finally "gets it". It is nothing short of magical. Such a foolish position---to mock those teachers who expend themselves daily to make ANY dream a child has possible by building confidence, knowledge, and most of all---hope--NONE of which is possible or would be possible without what I do and have done being done WELL.

Only a fool mocks that which he has never obtained and can, sadly, never understand. No wonder you spew such hatred. Anyone in any accomplished position has your scorn--lawyers, judges, courts, teachers, and even men have born the force of your fury, all reflective of your own sad experiences and failures. You spew such hatred for all of the people just mentioned---and frame all of it with alarming amounts of Anti-American sentment. At least you had the sense to post your Anti American comments under another user name. That's something at least. I pity you more than you know.

However, interestingly enough--you have yet to specify which "compound idea" I misunderstood.

Was it your mislabeling of the word INTERROGATORIES? You are harping about grade school teachers and telling me I don't understand compound ideas---yet you are telling the poster to conduct INTERROGATORIES without a lawyer ( nevermind that interrogatories are NEVER used with regards to questioning witnesses).

I am honestly embarrassed FOR you.

Ah, yes the big FUDGE from the original WRONG position.

INTERROGATORIES CANNOT BE USED TO ASCERTAIN WHAT WITNESSES KNOW. That is the function of DEPOSITIONS. FEEL free to oh--I dunno--EDUCATE YOURSELF. What kind of person SEES information from a legitimate source that PROVES they are wrong, and they reject it?

Your first sentence says I don't care what the original poster needs. What does THAT have to do with her LEGAL options? This isn't a forum about MAKING UP WAYS to fictionalize something that cannot, as a matter of law, come true just so her FEELINGS are soothed. Where did she ASK for MY FEELINGS? I don't think she is HERE for SYMPATHY. She is here for LEGAL advice, my I-Don't-Have-A-Clue-What-Interrogatories-Means-Misguided-One.

Of course interrogatories are used to get information ( DUHHHHH). Who said Interrogatories do NOT yield information? That wasn't what YOU said. YOU said she is to conduct affidavits ALSO KNOWN AS INTERROGATORIES to gain INFORMATION from WITNESSES. AND as I pointed out (from the law--not my imagination) interrogatories are NOT used in deposing WITNESSES. Reword it all you want---you were wrong then and you are still wrong. No one ever said interrogatories don't provide information. BUT YOU told her to CONDUCT THEM TO GET WITNESS INFORMATION. Now you are padding it with yada yada, find out who will answer, blah blah. LISTEN---SHE DOESN'T NEED ANYONE TO ANSWER. SHE CAN TESTIFY HERSELF. Understand? And, it isn't rocket science figuring out WHO would be willing to and who would not. AND even if you DID have to waste time thinking about that, a SUBPOENA SOLVES that problem. You are saying---well, NOTHING.

Well, there you go. It would seem as though you already figured it all out FOR her as to "who will and who wont testify". Why are you talking in circles? Remind me again why she should be conducting "Interrogatories"? (eyeroll)

Focus on this question. ON WHAT are you BASING this statement that IF she has NO other people willing to testify, she cannot win a lawsuit against the hotel. Do you have some case law where a judge ruled against the Plaintiff BECAUSE she/he was the ONLY person who was testifying? On what LAW or PRECEDENT are you basing your advice that IF she cannot get ANYONE else to testify she HAS NO CASE?

I just don't get it.

How you can predict she has no case or she cannot win a lawsuit unless she has someone ELSE to testify has no legal merit whatsoever and is, in a nutshell, wrong.

Of course, the MORE witnesses you have, the stronger your case may be. However, she does not HAVE to have another witness in order to bring her case. YOUR telling her otherwise and your predicting that they will "give her negative responses" unless SHE conducts "interrogatories" first to find people to corroborate her story has NO legal truth or veracity whatsoever.

You really should be ashamed.

Let me remind you that YOU are the one who decried that my compound thoughts and sentences made you dizzy. Why don't YOU stop complaining about how difficult you think I make things for YOU. I don't think Poster has had any problem understanding what I said.

Excuse me a second---

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

YOU are telling me I cannot read?????????

SCROLL DOWN --does THIS COMMENT by the OTHER POSTER LOOK FAMILIAR?????????

ROFLMAO

I REST my CASE!!!!

Say that part again--the part about my not BEING ABLE TO READ?????

God, I love my job. I actually laughed out loud. I don't think you make ANYTHING difficult. I think you willfully toss out things you know aren't true in an attempt at perpetuating your distain for the law.

Difficult for me? You have GOT to be kidding.

I love what I do or I would not go to such painstaking lengths to TRY to educate everyone--including those who refuse steadfastly to be taught.

And, hey, anyway--you NEVER did say which law says if she cannot find corroboration, she cannot bring a claim.

While you are at it, how about you tell her exactly HOW to conduct those interrogatories of her WITNESSES. Does she do that by telephone? Email? Courier pigeon?

ROFL!!

REMIND ME again?? I love it when ya do that.

Switch to "DONALLIE". You made more sense on that name.

Poster is dizzy because your postings are vehemently negative and continuously intended to slap at my postings without cause. While you seem to be the word police (exceptional arrogance for someone who misspells as often as you), you don't seem to have anything else to complain about except that YOU are dizzy because I use compound sentences.

Grow up .... or find something else to do with your time. Or just go away.

ROFL! Find something to do with my time? Only one of us has put time and money into the serious pursuit of the law and it isn't you.

Slapping at your postings? I am CORRECTING the alarming doses of misinformation you are perpetuating, my dear. You did not use compound sentences. You used a lot of sentence fragments you hooked together that covered everything from ME to "interrogatories". The POINT was not your grammar--the POINT was none of it 1. fit together, 2. answered the question being asked or 3. made any relational sense whatsoever.

I never once indicated that your postings made me "dizzy"--you misread and misquoted the ORIGINAL poster, a elementary flaw you routinely lay at MY feet.

And you still have not addressed the questions on the points YOU insist are in answer to her query.......

1. Which law says she has no case without someone to corroborate her story? and
2. How exactly DOES one go about conducting those interrogatories you told her to use to DEPOSE her witnesses BEFORE she hires her attorney?

No response?

I didn't think so. Allow me:

1. A consideration of if she has a case or not is NOT dependant upon corroborating witnesses. SHE IS THE WITNESS. There is no proof what you are saying is TRUE.

2. Interrogatories are NOT used in obtaining information from witnesses. Read it yourself.

You are wrong--twice over. Listen and learn something. If you do not want to, at least don't keep HER from listening.

I don't GET anything for explaining the law, except for a sense of satisfaction-----it isn't MY law I am explaining. You take this personally because YOU are perpetuating YOUR law, YOUR ideas, YOUR opinions, YOUR FICTION. So, if the error of your "advice" is displayed, you make personal attacks. You are hugely offended because what you do here is about how YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE, not about the LAW.

If you don't want to learn, at the least, do not keep someone ELSE from benefiting.

Ok seriously... no offense... but is this a LAW forum to seek legal advice
or a place to hash out flame wars? You 2 obviously hate each other.

And btw boykinmama, your statement here is way off...
Please dont tell me how i feel or why i said what i said...

Truth is youre both making me dizzy with this back and forth bickering crap.


And I never asked anyone to care about my feelings. All I care about is
CAN I MAKE THESE BASTARDS PAY FOR WHAT THEYVE DONE?

I think I can... I just need to find the right lawyer who will take my case.

Hate is a wasted emotion that does more harm to the bearer than the intended receipent. I hate no one.

What I hate is MISINFORMATION and IGNORANCE and DISRESPECT --not for me, but for the LAW, which is WHY I go to great lengths to CORRECT it when it is incorrectly presented.

Bottom line--even if no one else corroborates YOUR claim, you can STILL sue IF protected grounds were violated.

And, laying the burden for conducting interrogatories at YOUR feet and telling you that it is YOUR responsibility to conduct them BEFORE you hire an attorney is unnecessarily burdensome at a time when you have enough to focus on. And, the PURPOSE and function of interrogatories is NEVER to depose witnesses.

THAT is the point--not her. Not me. Anytime ANYONE posts misinformation, expect it to be corrected.

I don't preach how I think it should be or what I think you should do. I have no opinion about that. But, I have told you on what grounds you COULD sue (according to the law) and I have corrected misinformation intended to mislead and misguide you in hopes of harvesting distain for and disgust with our system of justice which, in spite of all its flaws, yielded us the greatest country on the face of the earth, hands down.

Good luck.

I apologize if I overstepped, Annette.

I'm sure you can tell by the length of a posting just who is very strongly emotionally engaged in a war against other people on here. I've had too many others tell me to just ignore her... but I don't appreciate her over the top behavior. I think those who allow it are actually creating a monster.