On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Second, Taral delivered null judgement on the grounds that accusing
> Warrigal of lying should be done via criminal case, but I believe the
> intent of this case was to explore the following issue (which Taral did
> not address): does intentionally becoming an active player of PerlNomic
> fulfill Rule 101(iii)'s "explicit, willful consent" standard? Warrigal
> reasonably believes that the answer is no, and thus that e was telling
> the truth, so there's no point to attempting criminal prosecution.
If Warrigal is not a party, then there is *still* no equity to be
made. Try an inquiry case.
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
