Advice

[Proserpina]

All trolling (Hi Bali!) aside, the LEGAL question has been answered.

 

[quincy]

My ex said she was going to financially ruin me. Should I have had her arrested?

I'm astounded that the advice given here for men amounts to hell, fire, brimstone and damnation. While advice for the other gender is sugar and spice and all things nice.

I really haven't noticed the bias, Bali.

In fact, I rarely see anything BUT hellfire, brimstone and damnation advice given in this section of the forum, regardless of gender.

That is why, I suppose, I like to hang out in the sugar and spice and all things nice defamation section. The posters who come to the defamation section get along beautifully with everyone in their lives - except perhaps with those in their lives whom they have (falsely) labeled whores, child molesters, rapists or drug abusers.

 

[Bali Hai]

All trolling (Hi Bali!) aside, the LEGAL question has been answered.

I agree. It's none of OP's legal business. You now see why hearsay evidence is not admissible in court. If this rumor went down the line a couple more people (which it has right here on this forum) it would turn into more of a whopper than it already is.

The wife is going to see a lawyer, OP's attempt to get 2 cents from the peanut gallery is meaningless.

 

[Bali Hai]

And EVEN IF he accessed his work email from home on his own time, it's still a termination offense. Regardless of whether he is male or female.

Rule of thumb: If you want to send threatening emails to your ex and not have it affect your job, use your personal email.

You sound like the boss that everyone hates.

 

[cbg]

I don't write the laws, Bali, I just tell you what they are. The law says you can be fired for using your work email for personal matters (and particularly this kind). Whether I would actually fire someone for it is immaterial.

 

[Bali Hai]

I don't write the laws, Bali, I just tell you what they are. The law says you can be fired for using your work email for personal matters (and particularly this kind). Whether I would actually fire someone for it is immaterial.

Well then you must be a Republican or a family court judge. They are the only ones I can think of that want stupid laws enacted and selectively enforced.

If everyone with an employer email account said they didn't send a personal email at anytime in there life, the whole damn work force would be subject to termination. In your mind this is payback to that scoundrel of a husband who you think is threatening to disclose some pictures of his wife. For all we know the pictures might be of her wearing a small size dress when her size is XXXL.

 

[Zigner]

Well then you must be a Republican or a family court judge. They are the only ones I can think of that want stupid laws enacted and selectively enforced.

What selective enforcement? Employers don't enforce the laws.

If everyone with an employer email account said they didn't send a personal email at anytime in there life, the whole damn work force would be subject to termination.

There is no law saying that folks can't use their work email to send personal emails.

In your mind this is payback to that scoundrel of a husband who you think is threatening to disclose some pictures of his wife. For all we know the pictures might be of her wearing a small size dress when her size is XXXL.

Huh?

 

[cbg]

I didn't say I wanted them enforced. I said the law permitted them to be enforced.

But you're just arguing now for the sake of arguing. Goodbye, Bali.

 

[Bali Hai]

What selective enforcement? Employers don't enforce the laws.

There is no law saying that folks can't use their work email to send personal emails.
Huh?

cbg said these things, attack her/him not me.

 

[Zigner]

cbg said these things, attack her/him not me.

No, CBG did not say those things. CBG made statements that you then applied your bias to in order to spit out a meaning that would help support your delusion(s).

 

[Bali Hai]

No, CBG did not say those things. CBG made statements that you then applied your bias to in order to spit out a meaning that would help support your delusion(s).

cbg most certainly did say those things and you even gave them your stamp of approval. Talk about delusional!

 

[tranquility]

U.S. law only.

If we guess WI from the law pulled up the the OP. See:
"Sex, Privacy, and Webpages: Creating a Legal Remedy for Victims of Porn 2.0"
Ariel Ronneburger, SYRACUSE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW REPORTER (http://sstlr.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/1_Ronneburger-SSTLR-Vol.-21-Fall-2009-FINAL.pdf)

 

[Zigner]

Well then you must be a Republican or a family court judge. They are the only ones I can think of that want stupid laws enacted and selectively enforced.

If everyone with an employer email account said they didn't send a personal email at anytime in there life, the whole damn work force would be subject to termination. In your mind this is payback to that scoundrel of a husband who you think is threatening to disclose some pictures of his wife. For all we know the pictures might be of her wearing a small size dress when her size is XXXL.

This is what I "liked":

And EVEN IF he accessed his work email from home on his own time, it's still a termination offense. Regardless of whether he is male or female.

Rule of thumb: If you want to send threatening emails to your ex and not have it affect your job, use your personal email.

Then I said:

What selective enforcement? Employers don't enforce the laws.

There is no law saying that folks can't use their work email to send personal emails.
Huh?

Then you said that CBG said those things.
Ok, where?

 

[Bali Hai]

This is what I "liked":



Then I said:


Then you said that CBG said those things.
Ok, where?

See below from cbg that you "liked". You overlooked that post or forgot to delete it.

I don't write the laws, Bali, I just tell you what they are. The law says you can be fired for using your work email for personal matters (and particularly this kind). Whether I would actually fire someone for it is immaterial.

 

[cbg]

Are you going to try to claim that the law prohibits firing an employee for this reason?

If so, please link to the law that says so. The law does not require it but it most certainly permits it.