On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.) > Devil's advocate:
What proof do we have that ehird who published the pledge and the person presently using the same e-mail address are in fact the same person? BobTHJ
