Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> Judge ehird's Arguments:
>>
>> GUILTY/SILENCE; when the obligation was created, the AAA was a
>> contest, and obligations don't automagically stop existing because
>> they wouldn't if they were calculated now.
>
> I appeal the judgement of GUILTY in CFJ 2402. Given that it took an
> inquiry CFJ to figure this out, I believe I am NOT GUILTY by:
>
> (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the
> alleged act did not violate the specified rule;
>
You have no support.
