Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 462861" data-attributes="member: 484">8&nbsp;Been thinking bout your post.&nbsp; Why was his data not included.&nbsp; His black book, if accurate would most surely been included.&nbsp; As would have been the delivery records.&nbsp; After all, it is those days that ups was calling into question.&nbsp;&nbsp; And it is the very lack of response that the arbitrator remarked were very telling in his lack of a good reason for low production.&nbsp;So why was it not allowed???&nbsp; I have a really hard time believing that, unless UPS showed before hand that the data he tried to present was either faulty or manufactured.&nbsp;Either way, this evidence was not even mentioned in the hearing, which it would have been had there been any.&nbsp; Kinda like the tape recordings.&nbsp; Mentioned, discusses, allowed, retracted.&nbsp; But it was documented.&nbsp; At no time were they mentioned.&nbsp;Had there actually been some, someone would have mentioned the &quot;drivers proof that was not allowed in&quot;.&nbsp;I see a lot of that with the really seriously criminally insane in the news.&nbsp; They dont want that lawyer, he doesn&#039;t know anything, he is not representing me properly.&nbsp; Of course in this case it might have just been something like the driver just refused to listen to council?&nbsp;&nbsp;the grapevine is a really poor place to get accurate news.&nbsp;So while I believe there is a lot more to this story than has been posted, I am reluctant to believe second hand gossip.&nbsp;d</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 462861, member: 484"] 8 Been thinking bout your post. Why was his data not included. His black book, if accurate would most surely been included. As would have been the delivery records. After all, it is those days that ups was calling into question. And it is the very lack of response that the arbitrator remarked were very telling in his lack of a good reason for low production. So why was it not allowed??? I have a really hard time believing that, unless UPS showed before hand that the data he tried to present was either faulty or manufactured. Either way, this evidence was not even mentioned in the hearing, which it would have been had there been any. Kinda like the tape recordings. Mentioned, discusses, allowed, retracted. But it was documented. At no time were they mentioned. Had there actually been some, someone would have mentioned the "drivers proof that was not allowed in". I see a lot of that with the really seriously criminally insane in the news. They dont want that lawyer, he doesn't know anything, he is not representing me properly. Of course in this case it might have just been something like the driver just refused to listen to council? the grapevine is a really poor place to get accurate news. So while I believe there is a lot more to this story than has been posted, I am reluctant to believe second hand gossip. d [/QUOTE]

Verification