TTttPF (hah!) -- ais523
-----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 14/05/2008 15:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host yzma.clarkk.net [66.219.50.42]: 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: User unknown ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [147.188.128.127] (helo=bham.ac.uk) by sun60.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1JwHp8-0004pu-OU for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:18 +0100 Received: from exhub1.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.127.153] helo=EXHUB1.adf.bham.ac.uk) by bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JwHp8-00034V-Eb for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:18 +0100 Received: from engmail3.adf.bham.ac.uk (147.188.146.209) by EXHUB1.adf.bham.ac.uk (147.188.127.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:18 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:18 +0100 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a Thread-Index: Aci0rq5ZiTVvAgqWQHyc3jWr712hcgBG4YiaAABvFYc= References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (sorry for replying to the wrong message, I couldn't find the original) Goethe wrote: > I bar root and ais523: You can't bar two people in an inquiry CFJ, according to rule 591. Does = that mean that nobody is barred, or that the CFJ didn't happen in the = first place? If and only if the message archived at = <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-Ma= y/010548.html> did not initiate a CFJ, then I call for judgement on the = following statement, barring Goethe: If an appealed equity case judgement is REMANDED or REASSIGNED, the original (prior) judgement remains a binding agreement. If I filed a CFJ earlier in this message, then the following is my = evidence. If I did not file a CFJ earlier in this message, then the = following are my gratuitous arguments in the CFJ that Goethe filed in = the message above: See Goethe's message that I linked above. As e pointed out, rule = 101(vii) seems the only rule likely to be capable of preventing the = original judgement remaining, and that would only apply when the = judgement was in fact a punishment; equity case judgements can be = punishments, but often are not, and in the case that they are, it seems = to me that rule 101(vii) would prevent the second judgement being given, = rather than the first one, if both were punishments. (The mere act of = reassigning does not necessarily imply that the new judgement will be a = punishment; in fact, if it did, that would seem to me to be a[nother] = huge abuse of the judicial system. Rule 101(vii), instead, prevents the = second judgement being a punishment if the first judgement was one.) = This seems, in the case of criminal cases, at least, to be a bug; in the = case of equity cases, it is less problematic, because the judgement is = only put in place after a week, or when all parties to the contract in = question have agreed, and if any of them wanted to appeal they would = likely do so before the week were up. --=20 ais523
