Geoffrey Spear wrote: > the rule requires "the statement" >to be inquired into to be included and I don't think it's sufficient >that someone could take the >initiator's announcement and formulate a statement that maybe e wanted >evaluated from it.
That's a better argument than you made with your judgement. >Let the appeals fall where they may. If you'd made your new argument with the judgement then I probably wouldn't have considered appeal. As it is, although I could be satisfied with the judgement, I'm not happy about it resting on such a flawed argument as we have on the record. This sort of interpretational issue will probably come up again, so it seems important to have a solid judgement. Anyone else up for an appeal? Btw, did you consider the third interpretation, that Murphy's message was so unclear that it failed to initiate a CFJ at all? -zefram
