On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 19:31, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> See CFJs 1366 and 1369 (and a multitude of others around the same >>> time) for the precedents on this. The property rules have changed >>> greatly since then, but I would expect the same results today. >> >> I transfer 1 VP to CFJ 1366. > > In fact, > > I transfer 1 VP to the office of Notary (not the holder of that office). > As recordkeepor I am treating these as ineffective unless a CFJ finds otherwise.
BobTHJ
