Taral wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're too concerned with the facts of this case. > > Patent nonsense. BobTHJ, your arguments lead me to believe that you > have no basis other than personal (or contractual) bias on this issue.
Agreed. BobTHJ also recently wrote in a-d, regarding appelant Sgeo's lack of arguments: "Judicial corruption at its finest. Why have a reasonable argument when we can simply push this through by sheer force alone?" > H. Murphy, would you be willing to approve the decision of a majority > of the panel? As CotC, I support Goethe's intent to make the panel judge AFFIRM, as it has adequately responded to appelant Ivan Hope's arguments.
