On 8/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the only problem I saw also. Could a judicial panel be interpreted as a
> binding agreement betweeen three players to judge a judicial case?
I don't see how. If so, then R101(iv) could have some interesting consequences.
-root
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 8/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
of CFJ 1711.
I also intend to cause the panel
On 8/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> >>> of CFJ 1711.
> >>>
> >> I also intend to cause t
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
of CFJ 1711.
I also intend to cause the panel to register.
Panels are not persons and so cannot register. I consid
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> of CFJ 1711.
I will agree to this judgement if BobTHJ does, although as I stated in
my own analysis, I would prefer a judgement of REMAND.
-root
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> > of CFJ 1711.
> >
>
> I also intend to cause the panel to register.
Panels are not persons and so cannot register. I considered t
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> of CFJ 1711.
>
I also intend to cause the panel to register.
The appellant states that
In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
correction in the form of an additional set of votes to insert
into the prior message; it is clear how adding these votes
affects the totals, so I see no need for the revised totals to
be
> Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
>
> We have commonly accepted a published correction to a prior report as
> constituting a new report that incorporates the bulk of the prior report
> by reference. In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
> correction in the form of an additional set
On 8/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >PLAYERS (16)
>
> eekeeP and hedgehogcull are missing from the list of players and the
> activity list.
Their playerhood is in question (or was at the time of report; I've
been out of town and haven't fully caught up yet), so I too
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5183 Oi 1Murphy Dora the Explorer (who teaches children ...
> 5184 Oi 1Goethe If 2.0
> 5185 Oi 1Murphy Dishonor Rolls
PRESENT on all 3.
> 5186 Oi 1Murphy Retroactive Long Service awards
FOR * 9
> 5187 Oi 1Levi
11 matches
Mail list logo
