Re: BUS: Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-24 Thread Ed Murphy
Pavitra wrote: > On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote: >> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the >> case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the >> contract are also unqualified, except while this would result >> in all e

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-24 Thread Pavitra
On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote: > The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the > case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the > contract are also unqualified, except while this would result > in all entities being unqualif

Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-24 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> for a pledge, all first-class persons should be witnesses by default. > > Seems like a good idea. Witnesses should also be barred from judging > related equity cases. The two of those together would bar everyone from judgin

Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-24 Thread Ian Kelly
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 23 October 2008 03:40:51 pm Alexander Smith wrote: >> Wooble wrote: >> > I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket >> > contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ. >> > ehird a

Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-23 Thread Roger Hicks
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 15:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should create a more general solution. Rather than each > person be either a party to a given contract or not, there should be > a third state, that a person can be a witness to a given contract. > Witnesses are consider

Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-23 Thread Pavitra
On Thursday 23 October 2008 03:40:51 pm Alexander Smith wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket > > contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ. > > ehird and BobTHJ are, and have been for quite some time, in > > material breach

DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

2008-10-23 Thread Alexander Smith
Wooble wrote: > I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket > contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ. ehird > and BobTHJ are, and have been for quite some time, in material breach > of Section 11 of the contract by remaining Supine and thus ineligible > t