FKA441344 wrote:
I intend to, with two support, file a motion to reconsider this
judgement, on the following grounds:
*It goes against the precedent of case 3152, in which Murphy was found
GUILTY of tardiness for failing to publish the IADoP's report, the
Assessor's report, and the Registrar's
Proposal: I Can't Drive 55
(AI = 3)
Repeal Rule 2347 (Speed).
Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by replacing this text:
(a) The phrases in a timely fashion and as soon as possible
mean within X days, where X is 14 when the Speed is Slow,
7 when it is Normal and 5
On 26 February 2012 19:23, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone wanna support this? Regardless of what you think about the
scam, the judgement is flawed.
sure ok whatevs alright done
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 26 February 2012 19:23, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone wanna support this? Regardless of what you think about the
scam, the judgement is flawed.
sure ok whatevs alright done
Time to move on or force someone else to opine. I support and
