What did this person want sue about in the first place. You all seem a
little overheated about "a kook."  There are a few direct precedents.
There are several which make em-ployers liable for the activities of
their employees. So Eric's theoretical lawyer is probably ocrrect
about suing the university or corporation. The very discussion which
is being pursued however could be interpreted as intimidation into to
obstruct free access to the law through greater means. The precedents
for legal cases and releasing of funds for equitable defense are clear
and numerous in American law. I don't believe that nayone should be
forced to experience intimation nor hate crimes through the net nor
probably be exposed to subject matter which they would pr3efer to
avoid, but in the latter case all precedents relate to the so-called
victim's use of recourse to avoidance. If they did nothing or even
encouraged the exchange then they are in trouble legally. The process
of expressing intent to take legal action is a form of cease and
desist invoked by private citizens: in short, it is your righ` to say
that you intend to take legal action and a proper preparation for
legal recourse. It is not proper procedure nor good legal practice to
threqaten to obstruct justice by financial means nor intimidation
before the fact: both are illegal and can be used against you if said
"kook" goes to court. Corporations may do this but they do not provide
the victim's lawyers with volumes of examples of this process.  As for
aul.your "kook" having announced intent, it is proper for the kook to
maintain the privacy of their legal counsel and provide no further
information on the content of the suit to those involved i.e. a
politician wants to stop the publication of a book but cannot as long
as the content remains unkown. The burden of proof is on the kook's
side and this will require quite a bit of strategy to get the
documents legally before the trial-- in short it might take time. My
point is that the dialogue might be recyced as proff of intent to
obstruct justice and intimidate which might not turn out to be such a
good idea legally. Maybe someone should consult one the lawyers
mentioned to check out how the discussion and similar discussions has
been used pre3viously. I know of one case at Brown where tapes were
kept of intent among adminstrators to persecute a womaqn member of
staff which were very important in proving prior intent and thus
dispelling the calim that the problem was systemic and without any
malicious intent. --
--
 
Dr.Paul S. di Virgilio,  University of Toronto  [log in to unmask]