On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment. Yally cannot have > violated Rule 1789 as it imposes no obligations on em. See CFJ 2459.
I missed something? 2459 is still pending, and doesn't have any
arguments to that effect.
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
