« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2024, 10:24:13 am »
I wager that, when the submissions are read, something entirely similar may well be rehearsed.
Hopefully, as their application cannot possibly satisfy any of the criteria for a review of the original decision. The adjudicator was entirely correct in everything he said - and so was the representative - re the inadmissibility of evidence. They did not even submit a Witness Statement. Enough for the time being.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2024, 10:29:05 am by Hippocrates »
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.
"Hippocrates"
ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ