G. wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, comex wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal <ihope12...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> This, this. >> >> G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a >> substantive set of arguments? In particular, it would help if you >> made some reference to my arguments for appeal, especially the cited >> CFJs. >> >> Thanks. > > Sorry, I should have said that by agreeing with Murphy's second statement > that I was also giving general credence to your arguments, though I didn't > look through the cases specifically in doing so. Think you got a poor > analysis here. > > I transfer a prop from Murphy to comex, for Murphy's using as arguments for > affirming a guilty that were self-contradictory, with half the argument > supporting overturn exactly as argued by the defendant.
Gratuitous: There was not necessarily a contradiction in those arguments. As I understood it, Yally's judgement (still up in the air, but at least it's been put forth for consideration) amounts to: Stating "X (disclaimer: Y)", while fully aware that X is false for reasons unrelated to Y, may violate Truthiness despite the disclaimer. Now this *may* fall apart on the grounds that Y is overly broad and thus is related to X after all. (I would've changed my opinion to REMAND, but I thought all three opinions had already been given; I missed that the second and third opinion messages were both from Tanner.) But it may not. The relevant precedent was of the form "single statement (disclaimer: this may fail)", while this case pertains to the form "series of statements (disclaimer: some of these may fail)" - and we might decide to interpret that "some" is sufficient to imply "because I CANNOT, because the recipient doesn't qualify". Anyway, the case has now been remanded (formal announcement coming up).
