If this case isn't withdrawn, it might be worth adding to your
arguments the specific rules-hook: re-enactment in R105 describes
things that can be done to "repealed rules", so they are a category
of entity that have rules-explicit legal significance.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:29 PM Jason Cobb w
Also, even with the correct Rule number, I think the answer is
guaranteed to be TRUE, since the repeal of a Rule does not cause it to
cease to exist, it just causes it to cease to be a rule, its power to be
set to 0, and to relieve the Rulekeepor of the responsibility to
maintain it. As a furth
Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
4 matches
Mail list logo
