larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/21/87)
This article, which is somewhat long, deals with the following topics: 1. Akin to "urban legends", many legal myths exist, get propagated, get modified with each propagation, and eventually lose all semblence of truth and reality (if there ever were any). Sometimes legal myths have a basis in fact; other times such myths may be an intentional falsification. Unlike "urban legends" - which are just interesting stories, legal myths can harm people if someone takes an action based upon an alleged "legal right" that is believed to exist (as part of the myth), but in fact does not exist. 2. There are court cases, and then there are "court cases", etc. A court case without a final order or judgement usually proves nothing. Also, some miscellaneous information on the federal court system and how to obtain information on a federal court case. 3. There should be some degree of responsibility on the part of Usenet administrators to see that their users are responsible individuals who would not intentionaly post false information represented as fact, with such information being capable of harm to others. This article deals with what appears (following extensive investigation) to be the posting of intentionally false legal information. I have no magic solution as to how a system administrator can ascertain whether a user is "responsible" or not. I illustrate a "problem" in this article, that's all. At this point, I reproduce an article which I posted to soc.women a few hours ago. The issues in (1) and (3) above which I am trying to illustrate should be self-evident. I could have edited out about 20% of the following article and still made my point, but I decided to quote it in toto since it may shed some light to curious others about what the "Smith" business is really about. Message-ID: <2133@kitty.UUCP> Date: 21 Oct 87 00:50:14 GMT References: <1138@mipos3.intel.com> <1636@dasys1.UUCP> <1162@mipos3.intel.com> <253@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> Lines: 168 In article <253@krebs.acc.virginia.edu>, paw3c@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Pat Wilson) writes: > In article <5477@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > > The way that I want to raise this one level of abstraction is that I want > > to use this article for women to discuss why they think that someone like > > Lippman engages in this kind of hostile behavior. Why is he trying so > > hard to attack Mark's credibility? Why? Because I have reason to believe the readers of this newgroup are being intentionally misled concerning matters of "legal rights", and it is possible that if someone made decisions based upon such misleading or false information, they could be in jeopardy. Trivial example: somone telling their employer that they refuse to use "diminuitive pronouns" because of an alleged federal court case - and then getting fired for insubordination - and THEN discovering that no such court case exists to protect them. > I can't really imagine why Lippman continues to harrass Mark. See above. > If this guy ever did something like that to me, I'd seriously consider > taking legal action against him (off-line). Please, if you are going to take legal action against someone, be serious and follow through with it. Read on... > BTW, maybe the reason Mark isn't bothering to answer this dangler is > that that information is none of Lippman's goddamned business! If it's a court case, it is a matter of public record (except for some family court proceedings); as such, it is just as much my business as anyone else's. > If he wants to know so badly, he can dig it out himself. I did. The rest of this article concerns what I found. At this point I would like to insert a parenthetical message to Mike Robinson: (You're wrong, friend. I am serious. And I do have a "presence" in the state of California, even though I am in Buffalo, NY. And I'm no person you want to tangle with, so cool your threatening email.) I would now like to call to the attention of the Net the following excerpt: In article <5473@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (USENET Administrator) writes: $$> My right $$> to equal, inclusive terms, without regard to sex, has been fully $$> established in federal court. $$> ... $$> Although the ERA has not passed, individual women can still gain $$> equal rights on a case by case basis, as I have. $$> $$> --Mark It would appear that "Smith" claims it went to federal court, initiated a case as plaintiff, WON A FINAL JUDGEMENT IN IT'S BEHALF, established a legal precedent, and is ADVOCATING THAT NET READERS ACT WITH IMPUNITY BECAUSE THEY, TOO COULD GO TO FEDERAL COURT AND GET ERA RIGHTS ON AN "individual" BASIS. Wrong. The above claim of establishing "individual" ERA rights in federal court seemed to be a pretty significant legal precedent which could benefit others whom I know. So I wanted a reference. And I made that request several times to "Smith" in email, with no response. So I then posted this request to the Net. Still no response. All I wanted to know was the specific U.S. District Court, the approximate year of the case, and names of the plaintiff and defendant. 25 words or less - literally. And, of course, I was instantly accused of asking for "too much detail", "harassment", etc. As I said in a recent article, there are approximately 90 U.S. District Courts, and there is no master index of cases - so it presents a pretty formidable task to check each court location individually. But after waiting a few days with no response, I finally went "eeny, meeny, miney, mo" and sent someone to visit the U.S. District Court of Northern Califonia in San Franciso. And much to my surprise, a search of the records ascertained that there WAS a federal court case bearing the following particulars: PLAINTIFF: Mark Ethan Smith, Apt. 208, 2086 Allston Ray, Berkeley, CA 94704 DEFENDANT: Shelly R. Antonio (no address on the docket card) DOCKET NO: C-84-6872-MHP JUDGE: The Hon. Marlin H. Patel DATES: Case opened on 22 Oct 1984, and case closed on 24 Oct 1984 And here's the important part... DISPOSITION: Case dismissed by Judge Patel in favor of Defendant; application of Plaintiff for "in forma pauperis" denied. What does this all mean? 1. Nothing happened. There was no case presented, no trial of issues of fact, no decision on issues of law, and no final order or judgement issued whatsoever. 2. There was no "decision" which pertained to sexual discrimination whatsoever. 3. It appears that Judge Patel made two decisions: (1) the case had no merits which met requirements for a civil proceeding in federal court; and (2) the application of "Smith" for "in forma pauperis" was denied. "In forma pauperis" means appearing before the court as a pauper, in which the court waives filing fees and court costs. In this particular case, "Smith" claimed not to have the $ 120.00 necessary for filing fees - Judge Patel didn't believe the claim. 4. It appears "Smith" appeared "pro se", i.e., without an attorney. As I predicted in a recent article, the complete court records were not at the above U.S. District Court, but were at a federal record center in San Bernadino, CA. At this point, I do not plan to order copies of such records (actually very little additional information, under the circumstances) as I see no reason to do so. The above information which I reported is all in the "public domain", and can be verified by visiting the U.S. District Court of North California in San Franciso. You may be able to verify this by writing to the court at P.O. Box 36060, San Franciso, CA 94102, ATTN: Clerk of the Hon. M. Patel. I don't believe that the court will provide information over the telephone; you pretty much have to go in person or write. In article <5496@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: $$> He has, however, implicitly accused Mark Ethan $$> Smith of lying about a court case. He says he will report the $$> results of his investigation into the court case on the net. When $$> he finds that the case does exist (despite his very strong suggestions $$> that it does not) he owes an apology on the net where he made his $$> accusations. Hence, I am posting this because I would like someone $$> else (who has the stomach to read his postings) to tell me when that $$> apology appears. To which I replied: $$> If I find the court case exists, and if I find the pleadings $$> and a final order support what is claimed, I will most assuredly make an $$> appropriate statement to the Net. Technically there WAS a court case, just like main(){} is a working C program. But the court case was empty and didn't do anything - just like the above program. If someone thinks that my doubt about the existance of a court case was "excessive", then I apologize. I was also wrong about a supposition: I stated that I doubted "Smith" would appear in federal court "pro se" without an attorney. I was wrong. On the other hand, IF THERE IS NO OTHER COURT CASE (other than the above - which is the only one I could find in checking the district where "Smith" lives) whose particulars bear out the claim, then "Smith" has intentionally lied to the Net by stating: $$> My right $$> to equal, inclusive terms, without regard to sex, has been fully $$> established in federal court. $$> ... $$> Although the ERA has not passed, individual women can still gain $$> equal rights on a case by case basis, as I have. If someone has information which suggests another federal court case, please let me know and I will check it out and report back to the Net. I think at this point Net readers know that I am serious. I also think at this point that some soc.women readers owe ME an apology for casting aspersions on my motives - but I doubt that those persons whom I have in mind are "person"-enough to do so. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"