On 28 Nov 2008, at 19:31, comex wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement on sentencing in
CFJ
2273. CHOKEY is far too lenient.
Support.
I support and appeal it.
If comex gets EXILED, cantus cygne
Ed Murphy wrote:
>The judgement of CFJ 1773 goes beyond merely declaring its own statement
>false, and also declares CFJ 1772's statement true.
Actually the judgement itself is only "FALSE". The judge's arguments did
declare the statement of CFJ 1772 to be true, but without considering
any of the
root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
Appelant's argument:
This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
>
> Appelant's argument:
>
> This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate a crimin
4 matches
Mail list logo
