On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as >> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose >> chamber-wise other than to determine the *initial* chamber of the >> decision; instead, chamber of a proposal is the same as chamber of the >> corresponding decision. > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. The chamber of a proposal > (fairly recently) used to be defined based on its AI. This could have > been the referent, so the intention was ambiguous.
Looks like this is going to appeal. I ask for a judgement other than REMAND, so that this case can get a fresh judge and I can get a fresh case. --Warrigal
