No they don't, see my gratuitous arguments in 2698. We had reasonable
notice of the amendment (i.e., "replace the entire text with blah"),
but not necessarily of the intent (I intend, without objection, to
amend Points Party by replacing the entire text with blah), because
there was one amendment but many intents.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:49 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
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
