BobTHJ wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> BobTHJ wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2047 >>>> >>>> ============================== CFJ 2047 ============================== >>>> >>>> notehird is a registered player. >>>> >>>> ======================================================================== >>> Well, I guess this is where the Protection Racket is put to the test. >>> >>> As I indicated previously, I don't mind minor corruption of the >>> judicial system through the Protection Racket, however I am not >>> interested in bringing down all the upstanding citizens of Agora upon >>> my head. I therefore invite ehird or notehird (whichever) to provide >>> some valid lines of reasoning that would make the case for overturning >>> past judicial precedent and ruling TRUE. >> I can't think of one. Even if the change of nickname gets Elliott out >> of the "anyone can act on my behalf" contract, it doesn't change the >> fact that comex /did/ act on eir behalf to deregister em, and that e is >> still the same person. (E has not even attempted to re-register, and >> would be blocked by Rule 869 if e did.) >> > Devil's advocate: > > What proof do we have that ehird who published the pledge and the > person presently using the same e-mail address are in fact the same > person?
The standard for inquiry cases (previously legislated, still typically used) is "preponderance of the evidence". Up to this point, there has been no suggestion that e is not the same person, and strong evidence that e is (e has discussed what e expected to come of the pledge).
