On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You appear to have ignored my > reasonable (or so I think) arguments that UNDECIDABLE is never > appropriate. I believe these arguments consisted of the fact that in > the case of ambiguity, there's extremely strong precedent that > UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate, and in the case of contradiction, one > contradictory thing will take precedence over the other--if not by > some explicit precedence clause in the rules, then by rule 217. > > I can initiate criminal cases as a member of the PerlNomic > Partnership, which means that I can initiate criminal cases against > judges and members of judicial panels for judging GUILTY and AFFIRM > inappropriately.
Normally I would like to give ihope the benefit of the doubt, because people should not be penalized for stating their opinions about a controversy. But it is true that ihope used this statement, unqualified, as arguments for a criminal CFJ [1]; e did not even bother to defend himself [2]; and now he is threatening the judicial system. I intend, with the support of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case, if only to let Judge Wooble pick a better punishment. [1] http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012744.html [2] http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/format.php?cfj=2107
