• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Forum consensus, employee who refuses to close bathroom door .

Scopedog said:
I'm not a lawyer, BStrong or whoever in the institution needs to ask a lawyer what to do or hire the lawyer to do it for them or continue burying themselves, wait for the lawsuit, and let insurance handle it. If this is a person intending to sue and also a vexatious litigant representing themselves, then all they want is grounds for plausible accusations conforming to Civil Code or employment law or whatever. There may be innocent explanations and valid defenses, the problem is, the explanations and defenses raise more questions that the vexatious litigant will demand answers for and the defendant is incurring lawyer fees at every step. For example, in a lawsuit, the plaintiff might initially argue that leaving the bathroom door open is a lie, but no matter how many witnesses there are, the defendent will have to pay a lawyer to respond. Another example- if BStrong stops using his e-mail today and that comes up in discovery, the plaintiff will ask why. BStrong will likely have to say that Scopedog advised him to on the International Skeptics Forum, in a thread including discussion of execution methods, or risk perjury.

Edited to add: Even if none of this applies to BStrong's situation, hopefully it's useful to someone.

Edited to also add: The biggest red flag, apart from the antisocial bathroom behavior, is the apparent need to broadcast their IQ to their leadership.
Click to expand...

I don't think BStrong is in much legal jeopardy, or his job's company for that matter. He's not doing anything against the law here. There is no identifying information about the person, business, or anything like that. There's nothing libel about a warning letter as the events are factually happening, and since the individual signed the warning letter (I assumed anyway) that means he's admitting to the actions. Therefore nothing is being done to cause his personal reputation damage that isn't directly tied to the truth.

A lawsuit would require BStrong to identify and shame the individual by name to publicly ruin his reputation (commonly by lying). None of that has been done, it's perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I don't think BStrong is in much legal jeopardy, or his job's company for that matter. He's not doing anything against the law here. There is no identifying information about the person, business, or anything like that. There's nothing libel about a warning letter as the events are factually happening, and since the individual signed the warning letter (I assumed anyway) that means he's admitting to the actions. Therefore nothing is being done to cause his personal reputation damage that isn't directly tied to the truth.

A lawsuit would require BStrong to identify and shame the individual by name to publicly ruin his reputation (commonly by lying). None of that has been done, it's perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

I agree that there's probably no actual legal jeopardy. The problem is the fuel and unintended avenues for the possible frivolous lawsuit that may lead to a lot of unneccessary stress and invasion of privacy.

A vexatious litigant isn't embarassed about more widely broadcasting that they leave the bathroom door open because of their lawsuit. They aren't concerned with any potential, actual grievances like libel or intentional infliction of emotional distress or whatever. They're concerned with using the court to make the defendant's life unbearable through interrogatories, discovery, and endless motions and responses. They also welcome being sued and counter-sued so they can employ their vexatious methods.
 
Last edited:
Again "I'm going to keep crapping with the door open despite being told not to" is not something one just... does.
Click to expand...

They do if they believe they're so smart, talented, and unreplaceable the company will fall apart without them.

"Sure. Go ahead and fire me. In two weeks you'll be on your knees begging me to come back, dropped trou and all."
 
Scopedog said:
I agree that there's probably no actual legal jeopardy. The problem is the fuel and unintended avenues for the possible frivolous lawsuit that may lead to a lot of unneccessary stress and invasion of privacy.

A vexatious litigant isn't embarassed about more widely broadcasting that they leave the bathroom door open because of their lawsuit. They aren't concerned with any potential, actual grievances like libel or intentional infliction of emotional distress or whatever. They're concerned with using the court to make the defendent's life unbearable through interrogatories, discovery, and endless motions and responses. They also welcome being sued and counter-sued so they can employ their vexatious methods.
Click to expand...

The civil suit would still have to pass muster. He would have to provide some form of evidence that he's been a) wronged by some form of lie about him or his actions b) it's caused him financial difficulty or c) he's been unable to perform some action.

I think if he wrote up a lawsuit to sue anyone, including the company, because it was mentioned on an obscure internet forum that an unnamed individual peed with the door open which irritated people, and they wanted money for it. The judge would toss it out immediately with prejudice.

I'm not a lawyer either, just a criminal that learned a few things.
 
plague311 said:
The civil suit would still have to pass muster. He would have to provide some form of evidence that he's been a) wronged by some form of lie about him or his actions b) it's caused him financial difficulty or c) he's been unable to perform some action.

I think if he wrote up a lawsuit to sue anyone, including the company, because it was mentioned on an obscure internet forum that an unnamed individual peed with the door open which irritated people, and they wanted money for it. The judge would toss it out immediately with prejudice.

I'm not a lawyer either, just a criminal that learned a few things.
Click to expand...

I read years worth of and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of pages of court documents about a vexatious litigant that did everything I'm describing, successfully, for years. That vexatious litigant seemed to count on the probability that most people think like you.
 
Last edited:
Scopedog said:
I'm just a person that read years worth of and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of pages of court documents about a vexatious litigant that did everything I'm describing, successfully, for years. That vixatious litigant seemed to count on the probability that most people think like you.
Click to expand...

I have no doubts it's happened. Trump is actually known for doing just exactly that, but he does it to "the small people". I strongly doubt the man referenced here would have the financial resources to have a lawyer on retainer to keep filing this stuff. I think it would get 'teh bewt' pretty quick.
 
Vexatious litigant is certainly possible, but my money would be on fetishist.


Horniness frequently overrides reason.
 
Claustrophobia?

(No, not the fear that Santa is always watching. The other kind.)
 
plague311 said:
I have no doubts it's happened. Trump is actually known for doing just exactly that, but he does it to "the small people". I strongly doubt the man referenced here would have the financial resources to have a lawyer on retainer to keep filing this stuff. I think it would get 'teh bewt' pretty quick.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm wrong but I sympathize either way. It's an unfortunate situation.
 
TragicMonkey said:
That's why I suggested enlisting the assistance of a strike team composed of 10,000 wiener dogs. Wiener dogs cannot be compelled to testify, nor can they be charged with crimes. It's in the law! The Wiener Dog Exclusionary Rule, it's called. It was codified in 1480 in the duchy of Ulbridgeshire when "an maelstrom of wiener dogges did engulf the holy bishop of Blaphsgate, and did tear himme asunder, vestments and alle" but the king's justicemen couldn't bring them to trial. Everyone suspected it was arranged by witchcraft, but nobody could guess who actually commanded the wiener dogs. It could have been any of the bishop's enemies, such as Sir Percival Innocent, Lord Honesty of Truesage, Bishop Friendly, or Lady Sorcerisse Dogcommander of Murderton. Impossible to tell which was the mastermind.
Click to expand...

As a proud "mama" of a number of wiener dogs over the years, this made me laugh much too much.
 
TragicMonkey said:
That's why I suggested enlisting the assistance of a strike team composed of 10,000 wiener dogs. Wiener dogs cannot be compelled to testify, nor can they be charged with crimes. It's in the law! The Wiener Dog Exclusionary Rule, it's called. It was codified in 1480 in the duchy of Ulbridgeshire when "an maelstrom of wiener dogges did engulf the holy bishop of Blaphsgate, and did tear himme asunder, vestments and alle" but the king's justicemen couldn't bring them to trial. Everyone suspected it was arranged by witchcraft, but nobody could guess who actually commanded the wiener dogs. It could have been any of the bishop's enemies, such as Sir Percival Innocent, Lord Honesty of Truesage, Bishop Friendly, or Lady Sorcerisse Dogcommander of Murderton. Impossible to tell which was the mastermind.
Click to expand...

TM, I thought the exclusionary rule was that no two dachshunds can have the same four electronic quantum numbers.
 
BStrong said:
While using the facilities?

I've got one I supervise. Given written notice 28th February of company policy, walk in on them yesterday afternoon.

Is this a new thing I've somehow missed out on? Individual in question is in my age group.

Progressive discipline as provided for in the union contract.
Click to expand...

What??? What did you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom