On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> I opine REMAND.
>
> As noted by the appellant, clause 6 of the PNP contract is sufficient to
> rebut the judge's arguments.
>
> The appropriateness of the empty judgement is less clear. Criminal
> prosecution of comex failed (CFJ 2435), and prosecution of the PNP
> and/or its parties would presumably fail on similar grounds (absent
> repeated attempts that they willfully failed to prevent). However,
> the initial furor directly led to (1) the PNP being voted out as
> Promotor and (2) a fresh attempt to repeal partnerships, and the PNP
> parties could reasonably request punitive damages on those grounds.
>
I opine REMAND for the same reasons.
