On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote: >The problem here is that if CFJ 1684 is overturned on the grounds of the >assumed precedent of CFJ 1623, It's not, if the other appellate judges agree with me. I did not treat CFJ 1623 as binding precedent. I treated the Pineapple Partnership's purported judgement of CFJ 1623 as the most comprehensive analysis so far of the legal issues, which it is independent of its official status. That analysis is something that any argument the other way must address. Eris's judgement was lacking in that respect. I think it is appropriate for the appeal court to rule on the basis of the failure to seriously challenge the analysis that informally prevailed.
It was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that R754 was not clear on the matter, which is patent nonsense as "person" is not primarily a legal term. -root
