In the 1960′s women go to work in micromini skirts, see thru bras and Playboy Bunny ears. They screw everybody in the office and turn the business office into a whorehouse. Then, when big, bad men start grabbing their goodies and making lewd, lascivious advances, women decide that they are being “sexually harassed”. Sound like bullshit? That is exactly what it is.

Now, in the instant case, a female lawyer exposes all her goodies for all the world to see. She flaunts her boobs and butt in living color on the pages of Playboy and then professes to be offended because a Playboy exec grabs her butt and sends her (“Horror of horrors”) dirty Emails! Shock, gasp, faint. It is almost as good as Mae West filing a lawsuit because someone made a “pistol in the pussy” joke.

Female shyster argues that sex only belongs in the magazine, not in real life. It’s like “I can walk around bare ass at the beach but don’t you dare use a video camera to look up my skirt”. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, not having the dubious benefit of a legal education, I can actually think straight.

I think that is what Dick Cheney has always tried to maintain about it family life.

That is why we have so many CoA decisions that make nonsense in the big picture. They recently upheld that the wife of the deceased parent is a better placement than the natural biological parent. Go figure how many hey days that this result will make in the real world. We have One Family Court, yeah right. Where all decisions are to be made by the Same JUDGE regarding the best interest of the children. Interesting to note, the Biological Fathers rights had never been terminated, suspended or interfered with.

I think, yes, sometimes I do. Is the CoA should have remanded the case to the Circuit Court, retained Jurisdiction over the case and recommended that the Family should file a Ltd Guardianship to determine who should have primary custody with rights of visitation. Until the case, step-parents had no rights. They now have, as it appears from the case the same rights as natural parents…

That is interesting about conservative in the abstract and liberal in the “particular”.

Labels are poor methods of understanding how people think. Like you, I am “conservative” on some issues and “liberal” on others. For example, I have no compassion nor understanding for abusers of the weak or innocent whether it be the elderly, children or animals. But I do believe people’s actions are not always a voluntary choice as in the case of mental illness or extreme deprivation. Also I find myself being more “conservative” in the abstract, and more “liberal” when faced with a specific set of facts and a real live breathing human being before me. I like to think of myself as a rational skeptic, hence my avatar.

I must say your analysis of this was excellent and was educational. You even sounded, dare I say it, conservative on some of your points and I agreed with the majority of what you said. Although it might be that I am becoming, my god the thought of it, a little bit more liberal in my thinking.

Lottakatz:

Larry Flint is a despicable individual and I think Hugh Heffner is a putz, the only way he could get a woman to sleep with him is either rape her or pay her which in essence is what he does.
Groping women is for chicken shits and has no place in business but……….

I dont think it is systemic, I just used that as an example. There are some women that do do things like that, I am not condeming the entire fairer sex for the actions of a few.

“Pretty Woman.” I didn’t see it, I don’t do ‘Cinderella’, idealization or elitism. As close as you will get to Cinderella and sex workers is “Live Nude Girls Unite”, a 2000 documentary of an organizing effort in a strip club. It’s a good flick. I do though do Labor Activism.

“That a woman working in the sex industry might be held, culturally, in lower esteem than a male (supervisor) simply plays to a jury’s cultural bias. A lawyers trick.”

****************

I guess I would respond that in determining credibility most every relevant circumstance concerning the complainant should be explored especially when that person seeks to imprison another for a substantial period of their lifetime or deprive the defendant of the fruits of his/her labor. That a person is a convicted felon certainly bears upon his/her credibility. That a person works in a profession that requires secrecy and deception and is further illegal certainly bears on the person’s capacity to be believed. I think you have adopted a position which holds that a person claiming victimhood should not be challenged on their word. That is simply bad law and bad policy and is a kind of elitism borne of protecting one class of people against another. While that might be appropriate in limited circumstances such as when a child is victimized, it has no place in the world of adult interaction.

I suspect you have an idealized view of so-called “sex workers,” a la Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman.” I have no such illusions. There are reasons people subject themselves to physical degradation in lieu of social welfare or lawful employment. Most people would agree, I suspect, that that such a lifestyle choice bears directly on their character and when another person’s life or liberty stand in the dock against the word of such a person, I find it incomprehensible that their word should remain insulated from their character as disclosed by what they do for money. That’s not a lawyers trick, that is common sense.

I like your postings and the level of discourse on this blog. I would hesitate to take issue with most things stated by the posters here. You folks entertain and teach me too much to let my inner troll surface.

That the facts in this matter are opaque leaves us plumbing ourselves and not the story. The portion of your last post quoted above is the most relevant regarding this story and one I am in complete agreement with. Just as I am in complete agreement with Maggie Knowles position that it shouldn’t matter if a person does sex related work for a living or not. No means no.

The standards for bringing and proving a case of sexual harassment are pretty clear. The same standards apply to all employer/employee relationships. That it is the sex industry does not broaden the standard as written and settled by case law. That a woman working in the sex industry might be held, culturally, in lower esteem than a male (supervisor) simply plays to a jury’s cultural bias. A lawyers trick.

I quibble without apology

Good story, but bad lawyering. Our defense lawyer should have stopped asking at question number six. He could have then argued the exact point to the jury and avoided the “comeback” line he so richly deserved for fumbling the opportunity.

The “facts” are contained in my hypothetical question. You quibbled with them by saying that the credit card denial was implausible. That is “fighting the facts” of the question I asked. It’s a common tactic among law school students trying to avoid the issue raised, and I wasn’t going to let you or Maggie Knowles get away without thinking of the more extreme situation to prove that your all-encompassing “never blame the supposed victim” position is just as unjust and untrue as always blaming the victim. In essence every cases rises or falls on its own facts, and general statements about how things should “always” happen are rarely true and even less useful in deciding human interactions. That was the point I was making.

You’re absolutely right on both points.

If you ever testify in court, you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman. He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial. The lawyer was trying to undermine the policeman’s credibility..
Q: ‘Officer — did you see my client fleeing the scene?’
A: ‘No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away.’
Q: ‘Officer — who provided this description?’
A: ‘The officer who responded to the scene.’
Q: ‘A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?’
‘Yes, sir. With my life.’
Q: ‘With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?’ A: ‘Yes sir, we do!’
Q: ‘And do you have a locker in the room?’
A: ‘Yes sir, I do.’
Q: ‘And do you have a lock on your locker?’
A: ‘Yes sir.’
Q: ‘Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?’
A: ‘You see, sir — we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.’
The courtroom EXPLODED with laughter, and a prompt recess was called. The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year’s ‘Best Comeback’ line — and we think he’ll win.

Hopefully, it will be as funny as this.

Does someone falsely accusing someone of theft have any bearing on the legitimacy of cases against people who actually have stolen something? No matter what the crime, someone is bound to try and frame someone for it. One example does not systematic abuse make.

Some of the discussion might be tongue-in-cheek. Such he said, she said cases as this are never black and white, just like broken relationships. Without conclusive evidence there is simply no way to know who is lying in this situation; bring in the lawyers.

Respectfully, there were no facts, only a ‘what if’. I have no personal experience with paying for sex but the stories my male acquaintances told me lead me to believe that challenging the payment later wasn’t typical or even part of the equation.

Regarding personal anecdotes: I never had any misunderstanding with anyone I DIDN’T have sex with. Sitting on it or keeping it in your pants is the one way to avoid misunderstanding, personal or legal, maybe a little more of that would make a discussion like superfluous

I am amazed that on a blog that has such a high number of apparently well educated and learned posters the discussion seems to break pretty cleanly along sex and a tendency toward ‘blame the (alleged) victim’ seems to be so prevalent. I’m a female, maybe we’re just coming from different life experience.

I am not diminishing her role in life and she should not be either. She is writing for a Men’s Magazine that she has posed for the magazine in the past Nude.

When does it become harassment? I can only think that she liked the attention and now the magazine is having publication issues like a lot of papers. Both of the major Chicago papers have filed Bankruptcy. The good ole boys made a hard decision and let her go. Humm, where does this lead us? Oh yes, to a lawsuit. Is this any different than the jilted lover.

Last but not least, who runs this magazine? Hughs daughter. Did she grope her too. If I was the defense team I would have a hey day with her and point out all of the things she has done.

The ad that she has with her big breasts so prominent. You may not get some things in but the rules of evidence allow impeachment as well as conforming conduct. So I would say lets bring it on.

You’ve got your Bazookas and I’ll bring my Tommy Gun or Gatling. Lets see what and who is standing last.

ovy

If no is no and no is yes then yes is no. Had she said no then said yes but ultimately said no, then no is yes is no. The problem arose when he thought she said yes but after said no.

Actually she may have said oh yes, yes, yes, yes, oh no!

Quibbling with the facts won’t get you anywhere. Fact is the bank can deny the charge and you can dispute it as well. Prostitution is illegal and the debt is unenforceable at law. Thus the scenario is more than plausible; it actually happened in a case here in Richmond.

Wouldn’t that be “Yes means yes unless it means no?”
No always means no.

no means no unless it means yes. how about women with “buyers” remorse after a blanket rangle that say they were raped? My father inlaw had one of those cases once, the young man almost got convicted and sentenced to 20 years in jail.

You’re fudging on the example a bit aren’t you The transactional nature of the contact would be relevant but that’s not how the business works- the money changes hands (card is swiped) before the transaction takes place otherwise nobody would get paid. (That’s what I’m told anyway.) If the card doesn’t clear no transaction takes place based on plastic remuneration.

And the fact that she dresses ‘inappropriately’ is what Rush hung his hat on too. There are always reasons to blame a victim. “No” means ‘No”.

I know the elements and the decision of this case must derive from facts and not potential gender bias. However, I sure would like to read some lady lawyers’ perspectives on this case; not that the gentleman lawyers’ views have not been interesting and legally enlightening (because I never knew that *canons* of law was more correctly spelled with 2 n’s (nn).

This is a somewhat attractive woman, although her false façade and the rather unprofessional legal website would not entice me to seek her legal advice. However, if she passes the bar and advertizes within the allowable limits of her jurisdiction and First Amendment rights, then I certainly cannot judge the quality of her legal services.

I think that her work history is legally relevant given the specialized nature of her business interests.

“I don’t think it should matter if a person does sex related work for a living or not. No means no.”

*************

Hooker A charges John B with rape after his credit card is rejected but the deal is consummated. Do I take from your assertion, that the jury should not hear that Hooker A is a sex worker? For her, did “yes” mean “no?”

“If this case goes to trial, I would expect a lengthy motion in limine to exclude any evidence relating to Ms. Fetman’s history as a Playboy model. Failing to exclude such evidence would probably constitute reversible error in the event of a defense verdict.”

************

Let’s review the case. Plaintiff, a lawyer (with a self-described “tenacious argumentative” style) and former nude Playboy model, seeks redress for alleged sexual harassment at the hands of a co-worker (or superior–the record is not clear). Defendants seek to introduce evidence that the Plaintiff engaged in actions designed to entice men’s sexual attention, and now produces a racy column ostensibly providing titillating sexual advice as part of her manifest campaign of self-promotion. While I agree that “no” means “no,” plaintiff is not immune from a defense that she expressly invited or consented to the conduct, or that the accusation is a fabricated publicity stunt. I think her prior employment seeking attention by portraying herself as an object of sexual desire, coupled with her current work writing a sexually suggestive column as the “Lawyer of Love,”in a “men’s magazine” has some, albeit not conclusive, relevance to the issue of consent or fabrication. This is especially true given her proclivity for self-endorsement as evidenced by her website, suggestive billboard ad campaign, publicity photographs, and numerous media appearances portraying herself as the ‘world’s hottest lawyer.”.

I am not saying she should lose her case, just that the jury has the right to know this is not “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” we’re talking about.

you are probably right on the generational mores and men being bigger pigs today.

But what has caused that?

Heff always struck me as a bit of a reprobate. Typically organizations take on the character of the leader so I think I have validity on that point.

I understand that no means no but a good many women give very mixed signals. My grandmother used to tell me that when she was young if you had a man up to your room, which was rare, you told the land lord and you left the door wide open. I suppose the idea was that men are pigs and you need to take some responsibility for the outcome.

That being said the workplace is indeed no venue for grab a…., but I would think Playboy probably attracts the type of person (male or female) that would be willing to engage in that sort of behaviour.

I also notice from the firm web site that Fox News has dubbed her the world’s “hottest lawyer,” which I guess implies that she is actually a toll booth operator who dates about twice a year.

It’s always sad for those whose face is their fortune — the account dries up so quickly.