On 9/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm republishing this for the new judge assignment in case 1711a, and
> I intend to cause the panel of BobTHJ, Wooble, and myself to judge
> REMAND with these arguments, with the consent of BobTHJ and Wooble.
I consent to having the panel judge RE
On 8/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just playing devil's advocate here: a failure to satisfy an
> > obligation before it is removed is still a failure to satisfy that
> > obligation. In any other circumstance there would be no issue
2 matches
Mail list logo
