On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> ehird wrote: > > >>> I intend to appeal this as Rodlen clearly has not considered private > >>> agreements taking effect as is the precedent. He seems to think this > >>> CFJ asks "if Warrigal re-did the action in a-b, would it work?". It > >>> does not. > >> Fails, the number of persons needed for the dependent action were not > >> specified. > >> > > > > I intend w/ 2 support to do the thing that I attempted to intend to do > > two levels up in quotes. > > I support. > > So I took the CFJ too literally? -- --Rodlen
