On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > 3343: FALSE > > If any party's constitution actually authorized party members to act on > its behalf, then such an inference would be valid. However, no party's > constitution currently does so. >
I intend to appeal this judgment with 2 support, as I think that this fails to adequately address the complex and nuanced ISIDTID arguments, and in particular the amount of authority that the ruleset gives to a Party constitution beyond that given by the rules. -scshunt
