Rodlen wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk
> <mailto:ais...@bham.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > ========================= Criminal Case 2480
> =========================
> > Appeal: 2480a
> > Decision: REMAND
> >
> > Judge: Taral
> > Judgement: NOT GUILTY
> >
> ========================================================================
>
> I remind the appeals panel in CFJ 2480a ({Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger}) that
> they CAN and SHALL destroy the 4 rests I own:
> {{{
> If a verdict or sentence that led to
> the creation of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the
> Rests are still considered to have been created, but the appeals
> panel CAN and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.
> }}}
> Actually, this obligation was incurred ages ago, but still hasn't been
> fulfilled. Annoyingly, the rule forgets to specify a time limit; but I
> think there's a decent chance that an NoV against panelists would end up
> sticking if they don't destroy the rests, given a warning (like this
> one) and a decent opportunity.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
> I do that rest destruction stuff.
>
> --
> --Rodlen
You need consent from the rest of the panel.
