COMMENTS- Video "The breakfast sucks"


Newest comments first


Not only a pleading about well-proved harassment acts and obvious violations/abuses of all kinds was not allowed by the Great man during a pseudo-hearing at the afternoon, but the court did not take the necessary time to study the submitted documents before a “délibéré”. They opted, contrarily to the norms, to take the decision the same day of the pseudo-hearing which was held during afternoon together with plenty of others. They took maybe just a quick look during dining late at the evening at the end of all hearings and then they took a hasty decision which they announced early next morning!@#. Why that unprecedented rush!? Justice is rather what the judge ate for dinner. 
WTH is “délibéré”? Le "délibéré" est l'espace de temps au cours duquel les juges qui ont entendu les parties ou leurs mandataires à l'audience, se retirent, pour débattre collégialement des dispositions qui constitueront le jugement ou l'arrêt. Au cours du délibéré le juge qui a présidé l'audience et ses assesseurs échangent leurs avis après avoir examiné les pièces du dossier. Si les opinions exprimées sont contradictoires, le Président soumet la ou les questions litigieuses au vote. En cas de divergences, son opinion est prépondérante. La discussion terminée et les votes ayant été exprimés, il se désigne lui-même ou désigne l'un de ses assesseurs pour rédiger le projet de jugement qui sera ensuite dactylographié ou imprimé par le personnel du Greffe et sera soumis à sa signature. Dans les affaires délicates comportant un très grand nombre de pièces de procédure et de documents, le Président peut désigner un des assesseurs pour faire un rapport qui selon le cas peut être oral ou, plus rarement, écrit. Les juges peuvent ainsi se réunir plusieurs fois avant qu'une décision soit prise. 
Indeed, they ridiculed justice in all terms.

Obviously, we are oppressed not only in the workplace, as we can't speak out, but also inside the courtroom in the hearing of such big statements, as we would get the risk to pay a fine by showing disrespect to the judicial authority. But a disrespect towards the victims who bring to justice legally various corporate offenses is not punishable.

Defamation (in bad faith) towards those who denounce harassment in workplace is permitted by allowing fake accusations of the harassers to be pronounced within the courtroom but the victim is muzzled for not making “defamation” referring to real harassment acts proved by a plenty of obvious evidences. Revealing the truth, uncovering lies, discussion on obvious evidences concerning harassment acts is prohibited even within the courtroom, it’s illicit according to the great man! Indeed, the labor courts serve for ridiculing the justice. What is the role of judge? To determine the facts of a case and resolve disputes…by simply putting a muzzle!**! When the “defamation approach” is adopted even by the justice itself for resolving a case in the court we have sadly reached a breaking point, we have indeed reached a drama.

Maybe at a certain time in his career the great man was asked “What do you want for not going to the court” and he replied “I want to become a judge” and he became a great one. Such growth excuses the approach of harassers “we need harassment in order to become directors”. If one does not choose the side of the oppressors they become unemployed.

Indeed, great men as Pierre Bellaiche who refuse a debate within the courtroom by the opposing parties regarding harassment claims allow the truth to prevail and judge with knowledge. The judge’s main objective is to find out the truth investigating the case and a final decision is based on arguments made during the trial and examination of evidences LOL. The labor courts feed satire richly. Definitely, he becomes top reference.

Post a Comment


Tracfone Beginners Guide - New to Tracfone? Start Here!