On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2698: TRUE > > I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments; > in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based > methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review > the notice-based change that e actually had in mind.
These arguments contradict judge c.'s arguments in CFJ 2697, where e explicitly ruled that the amendment in question did give a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment: c. wrote: > Although there was a plethora of objections in this case, ais523 made > it clear that e intended at least some of eir (identical) amendment > attempts to go through despite them, and nobody could have reasonably > discounted this as at least a possibility. In this case, therefore, > every player who was a member of at least one public contract had the > reasonable opportunity to review the amendment. Is there a defined process for appealing arguments but not judgements? To me, the combined judgements suggest that the mousetrap scam worked, but the contradictory arguments make me hesitate to resolve the issue by "using" the scam, in case one or other of the judgements is incorrect. -- ais523
