On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 23:59, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> woggle wrote: >> >>> The second NoV (which wasn't on 19 May) named the crime correctly. The >>> first did not. >> >> Does this invalidate CFJ 2537? >> > No it does not. The second NoV, on May 25, was valid (BobTHJ has yet to > post a notice to that effect though). > Yes, it was listed in the Insulator report I published yesterday.
BobTHJ
