Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions

Good luck in court with that one (view source)

Revision as of 08:38, 8 October 2021

129 bytes added , 8 October 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,890

edits

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 So, these curlicues accrete and, through time, one’s templates silt up with pedantic, fussy language, [[Organisational scar tissue|organisational scar tissue]], the fossil record of prior calamities, work-arounds and ungainly compromises reached to accommodate uncomprehending, truculent risk managers who have long since moved on. So, the templates become inscrutable, unknowable — literally ''ineffable'': they acquire some kind of mystical reverence, because no-one has the mandate, the time the energy ''nor the interest'' to question them. Their very baroqueness gives the [[Rent-seeker|rent-seeking military-industrial complex]] something to do.
-This allows plain language windbags, like yours truly, to rail freely about the enormity of classic legal drafting, knowing it to be an entertaining way of blowing off steam about a problem that cannot be solved. For it is ''always'' worth defending textual elegance, not just in the name of handsome prose — though surely that is reason enough — but in defence of simplicity, adaptability, clarity, and operability.
+This allows plain language windbags, like yours truly, to rail freely about the enormity of classic legal drafting, knowing it to be an entertaining way of blowing off steam about a problem that cannot be solved.
+Quixotic our quest may be, but we are honour-bound to make it. For it is ''always'' worth defending textual elegance, not just in the name of handsome prose — though surely that is reason enough — but in defence of simplicity, adaptability, clarity, and operability.
 ''Think global, act local.''
@@ Line 45: / Line 47: @@
 This is where ''you'', my crusading [[legal eagle]], can make a ''difference''. ''Don’t stand for it.''
-Besides, acquiring a reputation for anti-pedantry brings its own rewards: your counterparts will learn to fear you.They will avoid engagement. They may start to heal themselves, finding that to be a path of less resistance. The hollow pleasure that comes from inserting ''[[foam]]'' into your manuscript will not be worth the bother, as you will be certain to to spend [[tedious]] hours arguing for its removal again. M
+Besides, acquiring a reputation for anti-pedantry brings its own rewards: your counterparts will learn to fear you.They will avoid engagement. They may start to heal themselves, finding that to be a path of less resistance. The hollow pleasure that comes from inserting ''[[foam]]'' into ''your'' manuscript will not be worth the bother, as you will be certain to to spend [[tedious]] hours arguing for its removal again.
+Make it known that there will be no easy [[in your face|swept-back wing and knee slide]] moments when you are on the other side of the table. Those who get to know you will tire of trying.
-ake it known that there will be no easy [[in your face|swept-back wing and knee slide]] moments when you are on the other side of the table. Those who get to know you will tire of trying. The best argument is the fictional session before the [[Queen’s Bench]] at which one might litigate this hypothetical point. And here we turn to our old friend {{jerrold}} to illustrate.
+The best argument is the fictional session before the [[Queen’s Bench]] at which one might litigate this hypothetical point. And here we turn to our old friend {{jerrold}} to illustrate.
-{{subtable|{{Court scene|II|v|straightens his papers and looks up brightly, only for his face to darken at what he sees|arises sclerotically, fidgets unsubtly with his undercarriage and addresses the court with a pained expression||||||}}
+{{subtable|{{Court scene|II|v|straightens his papers and looks up brightly, only for his face to darken at what he sees|arises, fidgets unsubtly with his undercarriage and addresses the court with a pained expression||||||}}
 :'''{{cmr}}''': Now, Sir Jerrold: this one seems open and shut, even for you? “'''Confidential information''' means all information relating to a party.” Couldn’t be much clearer than that, could it? The plaintiff was a party, was it not? And your client, the defendant, published the plaintiff’s unpublished audited financial statements in the “personals” section of the ''Luxemburger Wort''. Is not your client bang to rights here, Sir Jerrold?
@@ Line 55: / Line 59: @@
 :'''{{cmr}}''': Oh?
 :'''{{jbm}}''': Quite so. It was information about the plaintiff's ''business''. Not the plaintiff.
-:'''{{cmr}}''': Your argument is that sensitive information the plaintiff gave the defendant ''about its business'' should somehow be taken as ''not'' being “about the plaintiff”?
+:'''{{cmr}}''' ''(After a disbelieving pause)'': Sir Jerrod, am I to take your contention to be that sensitive information the plaintiff gave the defendant “about its business” should somehow be taken as ''not'' being “about the plaintiff” itself?
 :'''{{jbm}}''': Those are my instructions, m’lud.
 :'''{{cmr}}''': So, you would have me adopt a quite perverse interpretation in order to subvert the plain commercial intent of the arrangement?
-:'''{{jbm}}''' ''(frantically scanning his brief)'': Yes, that’s it exactly, my liege.
+:'''{{jbm}}''' ''(Frantically scanning his brief)'': Yes, that’s it exactly, my liege.
 :'''{{cmr}}''':  Would you say that is fair?
 :'''{{jbm}}''' ''(Scanning the courtroom for that damnfool solicitor, [[Graves]], who is nowhere to be seen)'': I would have to take instructions, m’lud. In the mean time —