On 4/11/2020 3:04 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ, barring P.S.S., 'The above attempts to impose fines by the Cold > Hand of Justice on twg and Murphy for failure to timely respond to a > petition failed by Rule 2531(3), because each was an attempt "to levy > a fine with a value that is blatantly and obviously unsuited to the > conduct which constitutes the reason for its levy", after considering > the sentencing guidelines in Rule 2557, or, in the alternative, failed > because each was not enabled by Rule 2557.' > > (Sorry for the length of the CFJ statement; it's an experiment in > writing a relatively self-contained one. I welcome comments on whether > or not that's a good idea.)
I'm not keen on this approach (I thought about it a bit), in looking at the "longer" statements in the CFJ index I think it decreases browsability and I don't think it particularly aids findability, and if it became a habit would take a re-think of how to design the index page. I could be wrong though, and serves as a reminder that I still haven't implemented search! [The amusing bit is that, for all its specificity, it jumbles the actual evidence, because "The above" doesn't have a referent when put in the case logs. It's always a (very minor) bother when callers use message-positional references in a statement because that usually changes in the case log and requires some annotation].
