On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2480a
>
> ============================ Appeal 2480a ============================
>
> Panelist: Wooble
> Panelist: Rodlen
> Panelist: Tiger
> Decision: REMAND
>
> ========================================================================
I solicit further opinions on this topic, as it is not clear what
jurisprudence should be set here. In the absence of further
commentary, I believe I shall proceed to re-affirm my previous
judgement. The wording of the rule was not so poor as to make its
intention unclear to a reasonable person. I applaud ais523's steadfast
attempt to argue eir stance, but e must have known e was running a
risk when e decided to try to "scam the wording" of a criminal rule.
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
