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]