On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Yally wrote: > >> I really can't say I have a clear idea of what "zooping" means. I >> don't know if it's something from a contract, some foreign word, some >> strange nomic word I'm not familiar with, or just a way to add a silly >> word that means nothing. For that matter, I opine that 2736 is FALSE. > > I interpret this as a judgement. I intend (with 2 support) to > appeal it, requesting REASSIGN because the judge made no attempt > to address the evidence giving possible definitions of "zooping".
Gratuitous arguments: I recommend AFFIRM. Per CFJ 1536, the judge not knowing what an action meant is good evidence that it can't possibly have been clear to everyone. -- -c.
