On Nov 12, 2007 2:15 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 12, 2007 7:25 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > perhaps you want to summarize > > >your side, and I will add my counterarguments, and we'll REMAND to the > > >judge for further consideration? -Goethe > > > > I consent to a REMAND judgement. > > I also consent to a REMAND judgement. The CFJ as called does not > contain the necessary forward-looking statement to be UNDECIDABLE, > since the judgement cannot be made until it assigned, thus pointing to > a judgement of FALSE being appropriate.
I'll just note in passing that it seems highly unusual to remand a case simply because the judge interpreted the statement in a way that matches or is close to what was intended. -root
