Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why are lawyers such disgusting people?
Collapse
X
-
^^^ Ask Tiny to help you with that Friday night drool cujo.
images (1).jpeg
Originally posted by Arthur Daley View PostTiny thinks he needs to try to look creepy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cujo View PostYou mean like the London Central Employment Tribunal, or something like that?
It's important to keep those records so that a clear timeline of the decision can be established -- people have a habit of lying about these things.
Comment
-
The thing about legal documnts is that they can be so confusing.
For example what would a lawyer make of this?
"The Claimant asked the Tribunal to call a member of the Respondent’s HR
department, of the Tribunal’s own motion, rather than on his application, so that the
Claimant could cross examine them. He said that the Respondent had made
assertions in its Response for which there was no evidence. The Claimant wanted
to cross examine a Respondent HR witness, to prove that the assertions were
incorrect. The Tribunal said that, if there was no evidence to support some of the
Respondent’s contentions, then the Claimant could make submissions about that.
It was not necessary for a fair hearing for a witness to be called, and cross
examined, to prove that lack of evidence. It would not be in accordance with the
overriding objective to order a witness to attend to prove an absence of evidence
– this would increase the length of the hearing and costs, and would not alter the
state of the evidence.The Claimant asked the Tribunal to call a member of the Respondent’s HR
department, of the Tribunal’s own motion, rather than on his application, so that the
Claimant could cross examine them. He said that the Respondent had made
assertions in its Response for which there was no evidence. The Claimant wanted
to cross examine a Respondent HR witness, to prove that the assertions were
incorrect. The Tribunal said that, if there was no evidence to support some of the
Respondent’s contentions, then the Claimant could make submissions about that.
It was not necessary for a fair hearing for a witness to be called, and cross
examined, to prove that lack of evidence. It would not be in accordance with the
overriding objective to order a witness to attend to prove an absence of evidence
– this would increase the length of the hearing and costs, and would not alter the
state of the evidence."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View PostHmmm, well that seems to me to be a clear cut case of someone suffering Dunning-Kruger and demanding procedural matters they weren't entitled to.
Doubtless the type of person tripped-up by their own haughty arrogance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post
Shouldn’t the claimant have counsel?
And there are many legitimate reasons for doing so but also others like Dunning Kruger, a sense of entitlement and narcissistic rage that can mean that someone would end up representing themself and having an idiot for client.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cujo View PostFor example what would a lawyer make of this?
Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Postprocedural matters they weren't entitled to.
Anyway, carry on recreating your dribble with the other two muttpack muskahounds that built the "let's preserve smeg info and obsess over it" TD thread of a decade ago. It's clearly far more interesting than your miserable jobs and parenting responsibilities, so don't blame me when you end up with a choking amount of egg on your face.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arthur Daley View Postof a decade ago.
nope, this hypothecal example was pretty much last month.
You know, when you were in Phuket, so cannot possible apply to you.
Besides, this hypothetical example couldnt afford a 64 quid train fare to London, so it couldn't possibly be a high-flying retired business man like you, eh smeagles?
Comment
-
In most cases yes however it's a right to represent yourself.
And there are many legitimate reasons for doing so but also others like Dunning Kruger, a sense of entitlement and narcissistic rage that can mean that someone would end up representing themself and having an idiot for client.
Sad but true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Post
I should add that in the cases I have researched for my thesis on Narcissistic Injury such a person would also likely be inclined to develop a whole fantasy scenario behind such devastating a blow to their ego. Maybe even go so far as reporting it themselves spun with fantasy elements, casting themselves as the hero of the piece, and developing an entire narrative based on fantasy, lies and distortions.
Sad but true.
Comment
Comment