BobTHJ wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2047 >> >> ============================== CFJ 2047 ============================== >> >> notehird is a registered player. >> >> ======================================================================== > > Well, I guess this is where the Protection Racket is put to the test. > > As I indicated previously, I don't mind minor corruption of the > judicial system through the Protection Racket, however I am not > interested in bringing down all the upstanding citizens of Agora upon > my head. I therefore invite ehird or notehird (whichever) to provide > some valid lines of reasoning that would make the case for overturning > past judicial precedent and ruling TRUE.
I can't think of one. Even if the change of nickname gets Elliott out of the "anyone can act on my behalf" contract, it doesn't change the fact that comex /did/ act on eir behalf to deregister em, and that e is still the same person. (E has not even attempted to re-register, and would be blocked by Rule 869 if e did.)
