On 8/17/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I judge FALSE. BobTHJ was not recused "because a judicial question > > has remained applicable, open, and unjudged"; e chose to recuse emself > > because (or so e said at the time, and I see no reason not to take em > > at eir word) e didn't have enough time to judge the case. Indeed, e > > initially asked the CotC to recuse em from the case, which was not > > possible as e was not late in judgment. In my reading of 2126 I > > believe the purpose of the penalty for being recused is to punish > > those who are removed from cases due to not meeting their obligations, > > not to punish any Judge who recuses emself whether because of time > > constraints or because of a conflict of interest. > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement.
Is there anything in particular that's wrong with it? -root
