On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Then I do so without resolving the intent.
n.b. "without resolving the intent" is meaningless
Walker wrote:
> On 24 July 2011 19:11, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The relevant announcements, in order:
>>
>> 1) Pavitra attempted (with the support of the other panelists) to
>> directly cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with prejudice
>
> We still have Rule 2341, right?
Yes, it governs the opinio
On 07/24/2011 09:37 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I support and do so (resolving the intent).
>>
>> [I want to see what happens if the same case is appealed twice in parallel.]
>>
>> Pavitra
>
> However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
> an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an ass
> I support and do so (resolving the intent).
>
> [I want to see what happens if the same case is appealed twice in parallel.]
>
> Pavitra
However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by
a judgement in an appeal cas
On 07/24/2011 07:46 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 24 July 2011 23:17, omd wrote:
>> GUILTY / EXILE.
>
> Uh...
>
> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement.
I don't support; if scshunt thinks it's unjust, e can appeal by
announcement, and if e doesn't think so, I see no reason
On Jul 24, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 24 July 2011 23:17, omd wrote:
>> GUILTY / EXILE.
>
> Uh...
>
> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement.
I support.
On 24 July 2011 19:11, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The relevant announcements, in order:
>
> 1) Pavitra attempted (with the support of the other panelists) to
> directly cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with prejudice
We still have Rule 2341, right?
--
Charles Walker
I wrote:
> Clerk's Docket
>
> Date of this report: ...
No shenanigans here, just failure to edit. (I leave it this way in the
draft copy, and normally enter the current date before c+p+sending.)
8 matches
Mail list logo
