On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: > > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. > > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. > > > > I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self-interest shown in > > ais523's arguments regarding respect to the regulation of objection. I > > submit the above excerpt from eir arguments as evidence for the > > appeal. > > > > -woggle > 2095? The scam argument was only given in the judgement of 2094 (read > what I wrote carefully).
The scam argument is not in the judgment of anything, as arguments are not a part of the judgment, bizarre and contrary to the way CFJ precedents tend to be used as that is. It's not clear to me that the arguments for the two cases are seperated by your "in the judgment of ...", therefore. -woggle
