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 can see is Judge OscarMeyr's statement that 'CFJ 1765 established that "SHALL do X" implies "CAN do X by announcement."' What CFJ 1765 actually established was that "SHALL do X by announcement" implies "CAN do X by announcement"; indeed, "SHALL do X by announcement" is what Rule 2019 says. Therefore, a judgement of AFFIRM seems appropriate. (Shall I argue that this assignment was not valid since my name is not Ivan Hope?) --Ivan Hope CXXVII
