On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > In the case of a direct violation of a contract, there's not that much > point. In this case: > > * An equation declaring "the AFO no longer qualifies as a partnership" > may or may not be effective. R591's last paragraph says that an > inquiry judgement declaring the same thing would not directly make > the declaration true, but the eventual outcome of the judicial > process (including appeal) is prima facie accepted as accurate.
A mechanism I had in mind: This judgement laid out some minimum conditions for the AFO to prove that it actually devolves responsibilities to its members as required by R2145. If it fails to do so, given fair and adequate warning, it is direct evidence that teh AFO does not qualify as a R2145 person and any person could deregister it via R869 last paragraph. If the deregistration is challenged, an inquiry judge could use this case as direct and specific evidence and precedent that the deregistration was valid. -Goethe
