On Tuesday 26 February 2008 23:10 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The prior judge has since gone on hold. I suggest that REASSIGN would
> be better in this case.
Good point.
I move to REASSIGN with the below quoted arguments:
On Monday 25 February 2008 17:34 comex wrote:
> [T]he judgem
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I move to REMAND with these arguments.
The prior judge has since gone on hold. I suggest that REASSIGN would
be better in this case.
-root
On Monday 25 February 2008 17:34 comex wrote:
> [T]he judgement was based on R2019 saying
> "by announcement", but in fact that phrase was only added after the
> CFJ was called.
I move to REMAND with these arguments.
watcher
ihope wrote:
>Ah. Perhaps it would be better to OVERRULE with IRRELEVANT, then, as
>the description of IRRELEVANT is that the veracity as it was then is
>not relevant now.
We've never applied such grounds for irrelevance before, and it seems
unAgoran to do so. In any case, it's relevant because i
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:59 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah. Perhaps it would be better to OVERRULE with IRRELEVANT, then, as
> the description of IRRELEVANT is that the veracity as it was then is
> not relevant now.
It's relevant to knowing whether the alleged assignment of
prerogat
On 25/02/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you didn't know this, judgements of FALSE, TRUE, UNDECIDABLE, and
> IRRELEVANT all include "at the time the inquiry case was initiated" in
> their R591 wording. (No offense, just in case you were unaware.)
Ah. Perhaps it would be better to O
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Appellant comex's arguments consisted of "See root's message in a-d,
> among other things."
I was on vacation so I didn't have time to write up a long argument.
Basically, what root said-- the judgement was based on R2019 saying
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/02/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign 1890a and 1891a to the panel of Ivan Hope, Iammars,
> > and Pavitra.
>
> Appellant comex's arguments consisted of "See root's message in a-d,
> among othe
On 24/02/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign 1890a and 1891a to the panel of Ivan Hope, Iammars,
> and Pavitra.
Appellant comex's arguments consisted of "See root's message in a-d,
among other things." I don't know what message this is referring to,
but the only thing I c
9 matches
Mail list logo
