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 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.
That was the gist of my argument that comex referred to. However, note that at the time these CFJs were called, R2019 did *not* include the phrase "by announcement". That was added afterward. -root
