root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
Appelant's argument:
This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate a criminal case because e did not claim to.
CFJ 1772: comex did not initiate an equity case because the rules are
not a contract.
Conclusion: comex simply did not initiate a judicial case.
The judgement of CFJ 1773 goes beyond merely declaring its own statement
false, and also declares CFJ 1772's statement true. There have also
been arguments raised against "the rules are not a contract", though not
necessarily strong ones.
