On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > root wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ed Murphy wrote: >>>> ============================== CFJ 2418 ============================== >>>> >>>> Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being >>>> transferred to a different owner than their previous owner. >>> The only place where the word "spent" is used in the rules is rule 2126. >>> This rule defines it as "destroyed" in a parenthetical. Based on this >>> and the lack of a reason to find otherwise, the statement is TRUE. >> >> By "lack of a reason to find otherwise", are you intentionally >> excluding CFJ 1854? > > According to your arguments, "spend" was not defined by the rules at the > time. Now it's arguably defined by Rule 2126.
Yes, I'm not claiming that the above judgement is unreasonable, given the parenthetical. I'm merely curious whether the judge was aware of the precedent. -root
