Its all over.
The appeals Court denied the appeal of Round 1 dismissal without prejudice, as the Judge has control over its Court's docket. The SJC (Supreme Judicial Court) refused to consider the case. On Round three, the court granted Defendants' second summary judgment motion, claiming that I didn't have sufficient evidence of their bad intent, ruling their extortion letter was not admissible. The appeals court, affirmed the judgment and SJC refused to consider the case.
What I have learned:
Do I have regrets?
Overall, no, but I do have some. The treatment that I was fired for getting did help. My publicizing my case helped others. Some employers have discriminated against me because they saw this site.
I regret some of the bad feelings for MSI. Dick Gorgens is really not really a bad guy. But it felt as though part of case became a pissing contest. Dick came up with some really good ideas and got alpha versions implemented quickly. Dick can be hot tempered at times. I admit that I can be stubborn too. But, the results of the products were sloppy, as it was put together quickly and not well engineered. CaLANdar died earlier than it should have, as it should had been re-engineered instead of just 'fixed'. I can understand some of his reluctance to redesign the product, as he had a Mac programmer spend a year porting CaLANdar to Mac, resulting in complete garbage. The released Mac version was a result of the work by Larry Mason, who wrote the Mac version from scratch. Of course the re-engineering would have made the Mac and server versions much easier to build.
Last timeline entry: March 26, 2003,
January 27, 2003: The US Supreme Court told Mattel to get lost.
July 24, 2002: Speech-Zilla lost attempt to silence Barbie Girl.
June 15, 2002: MP3 audio of the Oral arguments are available online.
June 5, 2002: Schwartz does not deny that he has committed a fraud on the court.
May 16, 2002 : Oral arguments in the appeal was heard today.
December 12, 2001: http://www.barbieslapp.com, dedicated to Barbie, Mattel's SLAPPs and worker abuses.
June 29, 2001: Defendants' answers stricken, the judge gives them 30 days to answer.
Please help decide which apology that should be posted.
February 20, 2001: Mattel lost another attempt to silence a critic.
November 15, 2000: http://www.mattelabuse.com will be a site that is dedicated to uncovering the vast abuses of Mattel. For now, www.mattelabuse.com will point here. If you have information on Mattel's abuses, contact me here.
Silverstein fights back! Mattel failed to shut down Silverstein's website and censor him from speaking out against discrimination by using frivolous and abusive litigation. See some examples here.
Silverstein, on this website, complained that Mattel / TLC / MSI violated the ADA, MGL c.151B (the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute), FMLA, and the workers' compensation laws. These complaints are protected acts under those same laws.
Mattel used, and continues to use, the continued threat of litigation in an attempt to censor Silverstein. This must be stopped. Mattel must be prevented from doing this again to Silverstein and others. They must be punished!
Mattel (TLC and MSI at the time) counter-sued Silverstein for libel, claiming that his public complaints and the site that detailed his first lawsuit were libelous. One may argue that when the counterclaim was filed, Mattel may have had a belief that they had been libeled. But, they could not have had that belief after judgment was entered for Silverstein. The entry of judgment makes Silverstein's site true -- thus could not be libelous. If Mattel dropped this counterclaim after judgment was entered, as Silverstein requested, there would have been no new lawsuit.
Mattel pleaded public figure libel, claiming that Silverstein published false statements, either with malice or with recklessness. Mattel admitted that Silverstein believed what he published; therefore eliminating their "with malice" claim. Silverstein had asked Mattel what was factually incorrect, but there was no response. Silverstein asked for documents that might have shown his statements were false, but they refused to provide any supporting documentation. Therefore Silverstein did not publish those statements recklessly.
The entry of a judgment of more than two years' salary establishes the validity of Silverstein's lawsuit; thus the validity of Silverstein's statements.
What is all this about????
Originally, this was a standard employment lawsuit. Mattel / MSI / TLC violated Silverstein's rights. Silverstein was using this site to:
Mattel / MSI / TLC filed a countersuit for libel, thus turning this into a free speech issue. Mattel tried using litigation to censor Silverstein. Mattel must be stopped from this abuse. Other companies must learn that they use abusive litigation to censor law abiding people.
Mattel continued this counterclaim only to extort Silverstein's silence. This is a clear violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA, MGL c.151B, and the FMLA.
This site works! I started this site as a way to guide and to help other people who have been harassed, or who have been discriminated or retaliated against simply because they asserted their rights under the law. It is my hope that others would be able to avoid the physical and emotional agony, injury, torment and abuse that I've had to endure from a bad employment situation at Microsystems Software. If people know their rights under the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) , the ADA, and workers compensation, they may avoid some suffering and further injury..
On 1/17/00, I received a post that said, "Your web site, Boston Globe coverage and TV appearances gave me the hope and strength to file a complaint with the MCAD. My company also fired me for similar reasons. I had my first hearing at the MCAD on 1/18/00." On May 1, 1999 another poster said, "Very interesting and informative web site. Good luck with the case. I'm going to go back to work (at a small college) and make sure I do everything to accommodate a lady who is having RSI."
Sensible employers are SERIOUSLY considering the facts of my case. They are taking steps to prevent this kind of thing from happening to their employees. One would hope that all employers would do what is right solely because it IS RIGHT. Certain employers, the smart ones, want to avoid paying out large court awards. They will read my story and immediately take steps to avoid having large financial judgments involuntarily levied against them. Sadly, the ONLY thing that some managers will pay attention to is the bottom line. To get results from this group of people, we must make it cheaper for them to "do the right thing". Only by accomplishing this goal can we be convinced that they'll accept reason, and thus rightfully commit themselves to take forceful, constructive action. Such action is crucial in not only protecting our health, but also to guarantee our rights under the law.
I have fought the monster and lived to tell about it. Mattel / TLC / MSI just does not want me to tell about it. Who typed this diatribe?
Shop Amazon's Outlet Deals in Computers, Office & Software Computers,
Another William Silverstein
site. Copyright © 2002-2013 William Silverstein. All rights
This site is copyrighted material and its use is subject to non-exclusive license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license, leave this site immediately, or you are bound by the terms of the license. Your use of this site signifies your agreement to be bound by the terms of this license. The use of this site is free for personal and non-commercial use - particularly for those wish to learn about and protect the rights of employees and those who oppose their abuse by employers and large corporations, but there are significant fees charged for certain other uses.