On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:57, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> CFJ: It is legal to announce that CFJ 2670 was appealed. > > TRUE or FALSE, possibly UNDETERMINED, but not UNDECIDABLE. It's > either one or the other, and either way the final outcome of CFJ 2670 > is wrong, but no actual paradox is caused by the situation. > > As noted when the CFJ was initiated, this was intentionally set up, > including the submission to Justiciar, judgement of TRUE on flawed > reasoning, and appeal, but I lost Justiciar while waiting for the > panel and the "scam" fizzled. ehird's opinion of OVERRULE/FALSE was > too late for a majority-present judgement (though if BobTHJ opines, > the panel will deliver OVERRULE/FALSE), and the overtime period > expired, so we're now waiting on the Justiciar to "deliver a judgement > of either REMAND or REASSIGN, whichever e feels is most appropriate". > Note that I intentionally withheld an opinion, because my opinion would be to AFFIRM with an error rating. I'm still of the opinion that the conditions can not be ANDed together or the rule would have been broken all along. The only logical way to interpret the rule is to OR the conditions. I realize I may be alone in this belief. I recommend the Justicar REASSIGN.
BobTHJ
