Re: The TRUTH ABOUT CULTIE SMEARS!!!

Seaappammwo Masieeyy Qkuqwsoeraapn (smq@netcom.com) wrote: Chris Miller <cmiller@lightside.com> wrote:

>I have been reading with great interest articles which acknowledge
>I have been reading with great interest articles which acknowledge >American businesses with policies which assist women in the workplace.
>American businesses with policies which assist women in the workplace. >As a working mother, I am always on the lookout for such businesses and
>As a working mother, I am always on the lookout for such businesses and >for any cause which supports working women (especially single mothers).
>for any cause which supports working women (especially single mothers). >One leader in this field is the lawfirm of Morrison & Foerster and I was
>One leader in this field is the lawfirm of Morrison & Foerster and I was >thrilled when my daughter landed a job there. Morrison & Foerster has
>thrilled when my daughter landed a job there. Morrison & Foerster has CoS representatives tend to be very unreliable sources of information. However, it is only prudent that Morrison & Foerster take Chris Miller at "her" word and ask their employees if any of them have a mother who could be this "Chris Miller."

"Chris Miller" is the person who has a recently demonstrated in a.r.s inside knowledge of the personnel records and activities of Eugene Ingram. Ingram is the unsavory investigator who works for Bowles & Moxon. Bowles & Moxon is the law firm opposing Morrison & Foerster in the Dennis Erlich suit. It would not surprise me to find that "Chris Miller" worked for Bowles & Moxon.

I rather suspect no one from Morrison & Foerster will speak up, even though legal cannons require an employee to disclose having a relative closely associated with an opposing law firm in an active suit. If, or more likely when, they fail to find out who is "Chris Miller's" daughter, then the judge in the case should be asked to require lightside.com to disclose to him just who "Chris Miller" is.

"Chris Miller" should then be asked under oath who this "daughter" is, just to be certain that "she" is not put in a place where "she" could be tempted or pressured into disclosing privileged information to the opposing firm. If there is no daughter, then the posting has interesting potential for a liable action.

>been validated for its pro bono work involving women's rights by Working
>been validated for its pro bono work involving women's rights by Working >Mother Magazine, the Bay Area chapter of Women in Communication Inc, the
>Mother Magazine, the Bay Area chapter of Women in Communication Inc, the >Alliance for Children's Rights, and other groups. I have heard however
>Alliance for Children's Rights, and other groups. I have heard however >that this stance is more window dressing than truth and that some of
>that this stance is more window dressing than truth and that some of >their clients are actually abusers of women and children.
>their clients are actually abusers of women and children. "Chris" or vera or whoever, I think you shot the dog on this one.

Keith Henson