I'm unclear as to why we need a separate CFJ on how to interpret the
accusation in the first CFJ; isn't that a matter for the trial judge
in the first CFJ?
On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby call for judgement (of the inquiry variety), barring comex, on
> the statement: in
Proto-proposal: define "notwithstanding".
AI=2
{{{
Amend rule 1023 by creating paragraph (d) as follows:
A phrase of the form "X notwithstanding", where X unambiguously
identifies zero or more rules or sets of rules, means that the rule in
which the phrase appears asserts of itself that it t
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I'm unclear as to why we need a separate CFJ on how to interpret the
>accusation in the first CFJ; isn't that a matter for the trial judge
>in the first CFJ?
It could in principle be dealt with that way, but no criminal judge
has so far made a serious examination of the issu
Ben Caplan wrote:
>Proto-proposal: define "notwithstanding".
That's pretty much what "notwithstanding" ordinarily means, except that
you expressed it less clearly than a dictionary usually does. This is
not ambiguous in the way that words such as "must" and "cannot" are.
-zefram
The problem is that I'm not sure whether rule 1030 recognizes
"notwithstanding" as a valid means of claiming precedence. I'd rather
patch the ruleset than invoke a CFJ, as I'm not fully certain what
would happen if the wording was ruled ineffective.
Perhaps there's a more plain-spoken way to accomp
Pavitra wrote:
>The problem is that I'm not sure whether rule 1030 recognizes
>"notwithstanding" as a valid means of claiming precedence.
It does. R1030 doesn't directly govern what qualifies as claiming
precedence. It speaks of a rule that "explicitly says" that it defers to
another rule; it do
> If you're interested in working in this area, Maud (sometime player,
> currently watcher) has offered a nominal reward for a proposal that does
> away with the current precedence mechanism altogether. See if you can
> avoid rule conflicts entirely, or (easier) if you can come up with a
> more st
On Sunday 12 August 2007, Pavitra wrote:
> I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but in the absence
> of a proper search tool for the archives, I'd rather risk the flames.
You can download the full mbox for each of the three lists, import the
files into your mail client of choice, and
On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dates given are generally from the "Date:" header of the applicable
> message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an
> approximation of it. See the message in question for exact timing.
Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I'm somewhat
root wrote:
On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dates given are generally from the "Date:" header of the applicable
message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an
approximation of it. See the message in question for exact timing.
Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I
10 matches
Mail list logo
