On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Ed Murphy 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.
Gratuitous: Comex's actions directly led me to change my vote in the election from PNP to coppro; that was the last vote cast in the election and that (plus those who endorsed my vote prior to that) swung the outcome. Also, the judge should not mistake "died down" for "patiently awaiting for justice in the outcome (instead of blathering on) having made one's case". -Goethe
