Oh an I just remembered from reading the morons on Bluemoon moaning about admissibility. Firstly, Citeh admitted the validity of the damaging material and supplied it themselves to CASS. I have had a butchers at the PL rules and also noticed:
W.80. In the exercise of their powers under this Section of these Rules, a Commission or an Appeal Board shall not be bound by judicial rules governing the admissibility of evidence. Instead, facts relating to a breach of these Rules may be established by any reliable means.
Citeh can then appeal...this will lead to another commission. Then Citeh can try and settle any disputes they have with the Appeal Board via arbitration (X. 2, specifically X.4 which describes when arbitration can be invoked)
In the case of a Disciplinary Dispute, the only grounds for review of a decision of a Commission or Appeal Board by way of arbitration under this Section X shall be that the decision was:
X.4.1. reached outside of the jurisdiction of the body that made the decision;
X.4.2. reached as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith;
X.4.3. reached as a result of procedural errors so great that the rights of the applicant have been clearly and substantially prejudiced;
X.4.4. reached as a result of a perverse interpretation of the law; or
X.4.5. one which could not reasonably have been reached by any Commission or Appeal Board which had applied its mind properly to the facts of the case.
Importantly for Limitation Periods, which do apply in arbitration and something I am sure Citeh's lawyers will invoke:
X.7 An arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced (and for the purpose of Rule X.2 a dispute shall be deemed to have arisen) upon the party requesting an arbitration serving upon the other party (and copied to the Board) a request in Form 26.
This will take years.
