
What is more interesting to me however is a very intriguing omission from the 80 000$ complaint. Although some 37 pages long, it omits mention of a fundamental legal definition which would underpin the assertion that the imposition of regulations in the case discussed was "arbitrary and capricious". I suspect that this was an oversight rather than deliberate, since if their employment law lawyer had thought to use this argument it would clearly have substantially bolstered (if not actually won) the ACCG case. For this reason I'm not going to discuss it further here until the ACCG have lost the case and decided it's time to stop ruining the already tarnished reputation of the trade which it represents.
Watch this space, this omission is really funny. What clowns. It's almost poetic justice:
Are they sure they covered everything, is it all on the list?
Really, I don't think they have, what a disgrace.
Perhaps they should've asked an archaeologist.
Although the answer is staring them in the face !
..... eat your heart out McGonegall !
Are they sure they covered everything, is it all on the list?
Really, I don't think they have, what a disgrace.
Perhaps they should've asked an archaeologist.
Although the answer is staring them in the face !
..... eat your heart out McGonegall !
!
No comments:
Post a Comment