Thursday, November 09, 2006

Asst. Chief Greg Rupp: "since we don't have anything real to give to the judge, let's introduce irrelevant evidence to soil the blogger's character"

Now I understand why they didn't promote Greg Rupp to Deputy Chief. Now I understand why power-hungry bureaucrats desperately try to cling to their status. Now I understand why Greg Rupp provides non-sequitur testimonials after having lost in court.
What I don't understand is why the Dept. of Industrial Retaliation lawyers approved of his irrelevant information into his testimonial. Any judge will clearly see that One has nothing to do with the Other and is tantamount to abuse, and judges usually frown on those who waste the court's time. I would assume that judges want the facts at issue.
Maybe the judge will want to question further about the DLSE's attempt to interrogate the blogger without his legal representation. Maybe the judge will want to know why the DLSE's arrogant lawyers had knowledge of the unavailability of the blogger's attorney, yet the DLSE's attorneys intended to interrogate the blogger anyway. Maybe the judge will question why the DLSE considers the United States Constitution to be the equivalent of toilet paper. What's the reason behind the reason?
This is the reality of the DLSE's position: they are all butt-sore from losing in court, so then they try to come back to court with some half-ass attempt to show actual workplace disruption, when they are the ones that disrupted the work place (my informants told me that Lee Pearson asked like 2 or 3 questions about nothing, then went straight to the blog inquisition...first without a tape recorder, then with a tape recorder [this is their peace officer standard for a Senior Special Investigator?]). But the Retaliation lawyers didn't stop there; Greg Rupp provided information completely unrelated to the issue of the an attempt to throw mud on the blogger. The Retaliation lawyers have all day to waste the court's time: they wanted a different judge, so they got one. They wanted to waste the court's time in wanting two different dates to hear issues, and the judge told them only one date. They had their day in court, so now the judge will hopefully order them to stop wasting the court's time and to wait for their trial date. Soon enough, they will have their day in court, but they insist upon wasting the court's time with their motions. FRAUD, WASTE, or ABUSE? You decide.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home