Taral wrote:
> 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.
> 
comex just judged it.

Reply via email to