On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > > ========================= Criminal Case 2480 ========================= > > Appeal: 2480a > > Decision: REMAND > > > > Judge: Taral > > Judgement: NOT GUILTY > > ======================================================================== > > I remind the appeals panel in CFJ 2480a ({Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger}) that > they CAN and SHALL destroy the 4 rests I own: > {{{ > If a verdict or sentence that led to > the creation of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the > Rests are still considered to have been created, but the appeals > panel CAN and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement. > }}} > Actually, this obligation was incurred ages ago, but still hasn't been > fulfilled. Annoyingly, the rule forgets to specify a time limit; but I > think there's a decent chance that an NoV against panelists would end up > sticking if they don't destroy the rests, given a warning (like this > one) and a decent opportunity. > > -- > ais523 > > I do that rest destruction stuff. -- --Rodlen