You do realize that, legally, the arguments aren't really part of the judgement?
-Aris On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I (self-) file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3568. -G. > > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [ > > I got bogged down on this and wrote some long arguments that cover lots of > > ways of calling CoEs. They're not finished but I'm running late on it. > > > > So here's something very simple, I plan to motion for reconsideration and > > add full arguments (with the same result) in the next couple days. > > ] > > > > > > > 3658 called by twg 27 August 2018, assigned to G. 9 September 2018: "The > > > Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is > > > doubted." > > > > > > Judgement for 3658: > > > > TRUE. Specifically, G.'s CoE, quoted in the evidence for that case, > > cast legal doubt on EXACTLY ONE PORTION of the Treasuror's Report dated > > Aug 27 16:59:04 UTC 2018 - the portion that was a list of all instances > > of Indulgences (the Indulgence column). No other section of the Report > > was doubted. > > > > [The longer judgement will deal with the ambiguity in past CoEs that might > > arise from the above finding, as pointed out by Caller twg. spoiler - not > > much of a problem I think.] > > > > > > > > >
