Brown Down
Well-Known Member
They absolutely offer an unbiased judgment on this. Because they have nothing to gain or lose. But keep moving these goal posts I'm sure one of these times you'll kick it right through them
Dana White posts video of FedEx worker throwing packages into truck in NYC
- Thread starter worldwide
- Start date
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
Yeah I'll give you that one .he has found ways.
Don't give me this "move the goal posts" nonsense. You keep taking about lawyers who may or may not be licensed to practice law in the state where the incident occurred . If they are not being retained to represent the parties involved outside of offering to the court a "friend of the court" point of view then what they have to say means nothing.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Their point of view is just like yours? OK got it.
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
Well then actually then you should shut the hell up too because what you're saying means nothing as well Way to go you found another way to be dumber in all of this. @Just A UPS Guy I think I owe you a couple beers at this point.
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
Close down the thread fellas nobody here is a lawyer that's been retained for this and thus nothing we say is worth anything.
But if they are not being retained to represent the parties involved what they have to say means nothing outside of offering a "friend of the court" brief.
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry you haven't been retained for this court case thus anything you say means nothing. Your own words come back to haunt you
Thank god you finally get it.
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
Why are you still talking your opinion means nothing remember You're not a retained lawyer. And your grasp of sarcasm is laughable
And the same holds true to you and all of you guys who have pronounced a completely unqualified judgement of the matter.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
You should check your briefs
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
No you're the one that again has ask for something gotten it ask for more gotten it as for more again and gotten it and won't admit you are completely freaking wrong on this when given proof. No granted you could say I'm talking out of my ass and I've never talked to any lawyers but I think you can ask most people in here that I don't go talking out of my ass like you. And I'm also man enough to admit when I am wrong and I've done it many times on here. So keep moving those goal post buddy.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
We'll catch up after the Coors boys go back to work.
Brown Down
Well-Known Member
Wait since we're not lawyers tied to the litigation can we even talk about Coors or the strike?We'll catch up after the Coors boys go back to work.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
I mean, I'm definitely not a high-ranking teamster appointed to the negotiating committee....
We'd better stfu before they hear us.
You could have a hundred lawyers on your route offering an opinion but if they are not licensed to practice law in the affected state
or are being retained by one of the parties there is very little they can do but as I said offer a "friend of the court" brief but who is going to spend hours looking through law books looking for rule of law to support their brief?
I said earlier that the chances of this matter going to court were low but not out of the question because at the same time there could very easily be a good tort lawyer who upon doing his research discover a rule of law upon which he could base a case in behalf of that worker sufficient to be granted standing by a judge.
It is for that very possibility is why I'm not in agreement with you guys until the final outcome is known .
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
Go
yourself, you just sound stupid at this point. You can use the expanse of your vocabulary so as to express or imply a knowledgeable frame of reference, though, nobody here is enchanted by (what you believe to be) your unorthodox approach to interpreting the demonstrated actions of, and henceforth defense of, the employed.
See? I can do it too. It's just a lot of words to say you're full of
.Brown Down
Well-Known Member
The first two quotes are for your first two post in this thread sure sounded like you knew exactly what the hell should happen. Now all of a sudden it goes to the third post. And honestly the only reason it even got to this post is because you are so hardheaded in realizing you're wrong that you have to keep making new rules to this argument. And before you say you're not moving the goal post it's went to asking who's a lawyer when do they pass the bar to now they have to be licensed in that state and also be tied to the litigation that probably will never happen to even have an opinion that matters.
For those that's going to say tldr. Goal post moved bacha at this point is at a hold my keg moment.
Last edited:
The problem with you brown shirts is that you're so heavily indoctrinated in the UPS militaristic psychology that you actually believe that UPS company policy applies EVERYWHERE including people who don't even work for the company .
Well, I'm sorry to tell you that it doesn't. Therefore, the conclusion that you and others have taken here is obviously based on UPS company policy does not apply in the White case. Those "goal posts" have never moved . Instead you continue to take UPS company policy which appears to be the only thing you know and try to apply to every aspect of the small package industry regardless of the employer or the manner by which it is structured.
