Much of the case is spelled out in a series of affidavits, claims and counterclaims that the judge found didn't meet the basic requirements for court proceedings in that they were full of "argument, inadmissible opinion, conclusions (without the necessary facts being stated), conjecture, speculation, invective, insults and hearsay."
Jing Lu claimed Catherine Shen called her son's high school to verify his grades when he was admitted to Harvard. She then called Harvard with questions about his degree. (Charles Krupa/ Associated Press)
Lu was the first to sue.
She claimed Shen accused her online of being "too poor to buy a house" and then started making derogatory comments about her son. When Lu's son was accepted to Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., she claimed Shen contacted his high school to verify the fact.
And when he graduated from the Ivy League school, Shen emailed Harvard to question the validity of his degree — writing: "Whoever lies will cause the death of his/her entire family. You are being fooled by the fraudster and running in circles."
Lu claimed she had to sell a cafe she owned after Shen took pictures of her serving customers and posted them online, claiming she was so poor she had to work in a restaurant.
'The most famous cheap woman of Shanghai'
But Shen responded to Lu's original lawsuit with a counterclaim.
All what Jing Lu sued me (for) is what she did to me," Shen claimed.
She claimed Lu had lied and made up stories about her and her son for the past decade, putting up what she called "big face photos" to defame them.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge said the feud between Jing Lu and Catherine Shen bordered on the irrational. (David Horemans/CBC)
In October 2009, Shen claimed Lu accused her of wearing "loose sportswear making her look like an 'old aunt selling bus tickets.' "
She said her rival called her a homeless dog, accusing Shen of being an "uneducated woman without virtue" and suggesting that her son "should be chopped up and oil put on him."
Beyond what Adair identified as a lack of "logic" to the organization of the pleadings in front of her, the judge also said the two women could not sue for reputational injuries they claimed had been suffered by their sons.
Adair said that a statute of limitations also meant that many of the allegations fell outside the time frame set by the courts
