It is often in the manner by which one utilizes and applies an implement, which determines whether or not to characterize the tool as either a “sword” or a “shield”. Thus, a shield used to pummel an opponent is to use the defensive tool as an offensive weapon, and the use of a traditional sword in parrying in order to ward off an attack, is to use the sword as a shield.
Words; language; “the law” — all can be used in offensive ways, as well as by defensive maneuvers. Preemptive argumentation can be considered as both a sword and a shield, depending upon how the reasoned soliloquy is presented.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, it is important to weave one’s legal argument both as swords and shields — providing legal citations, argumentation, reasoned explanations, etc., in presenting why you meet all of the legal requirements and criteria encompassing the global compendium of issues which need to be addressed, from invoking the Bruner Presumption when applicable; to explaining why the Bracey standard of accommodations has been met, and to preemptively strike against anticipated objections which will be plentiful and appearing to be valid, as argued by OPM.
Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.