On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:38 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> ============================== CFJ 2260 ============================== >>> >>> If the purported backing document for Annoyances as specified in >>> the message purporting to define them existed, at least one >>> Annoyance would exist >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> I judge IRRELEVANT as permitted by Proposal 6044's addition to R591. >> > Not appealing, but I fear that such judgements will simply persuade > people to bring the circumstances in question about and then CFJ again, > which will be a massive waste of time for everyone involved, more or > less.
I think I would have been far more charitably inclined to attempt it if calling parties didn't show a chronic disregard for bothering to make supporting documents part of the case. Sections marked "Caller's Evidence" are there for a reason. (I considered UNDETERMINED based on lack of documentation as well). -Goethe
