On Tuesday 26 February 2008 23:10 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The prior judge has since gone on hold. I suggest that REASSIGN would > be better in this case.
Good point. I move to REASSIGN with the below quoted arguments: On Monday 25 February 2008 17:34 comex wrote: > [T]he judgement was based on R2019 saying > "by announcement", but in fact that phrase was only added after the > CFJ was called.
