Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Given the ruling in CFJ 1862 of FALSE on the same question, is there >any reason why I should not simply cite that decision in CFJ 1873?
The statements are about different times, five days apart, and so the veracity could be different if anything relevant changed between the calling of the two CFJs. In this case the only relevant changes would be HP2 becoming a person or MWoP titles being shuffled, and neither of those happened. For the legal logic you certainly should cite the precedent; for the facts you merely need to note that nothing relevant changed. -zefram
