The ACCG, a no-profit organization, has nevertheless raised some 80000$ to engage Jason Ehrenberg, an employment law specialist to fight a case which is in effect indefensible. Interestingly Mr Ehrenberg is a partner in the same legal firm as one of the ACCG board members (and former President). Furthermore the complaint which Ehrenberg has submitted to Maryland District Court is in essence composed mostly of material clearly taken from Peter Tompa's personal Cultural property Observer blog , a blog the author has all along insisted has been based on "research" conducted in his own time and not connected with his work in Ehrenberg and Bailey. That as may be (though one might wonder then where the ACCG's members' 80 000 dollars have gone - certainly not on the research for the writing of the body of this whingeing complaint). Kimberly ("I see an elephant") Alderman has already set out her critique of this rambling text and her reasons for predicting that the suit will ultimately fail.
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.
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