The other assignable ones are sproklems CFJ on whether or not I barred ais
in a previous CFJ. And Gael an has 2 linked ones outstanding
On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
> Yes, PSS made the motion. However, a recent CFJ explicitly ruled that this
> case could be reassigned. O was the
Yes, PSS made the motion. However, a recent CFJ explicitly ruled that this
case could be reassigned. O was the judge. Youre good.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 13:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > First, Cu
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 13:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > First, CuddleBeam clearly delivered a judgement in 3509, then filed a
> > Motion to Reconsider it. That first part worked fine.
>
> Can someone point me to the Motion to Reconsider? Looking back t
On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 13:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> First, CuddleBeam clearly delivered a judgement in 3509, then filed a
> Motion to Reconsider it. That first part worked fine.
Can someone point me to the Motion to Reconsider? Looking back through
the lists, I've found two attempts to resolv
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments):
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422
>
> I've just noticed that the gratuitous arguments by me in CFJ 3422 have,
> in th
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments):
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422
I've just noticed that the gratuitous arguments by me in CFJ 3422 have,
in the Court record, an additional line labelling them as
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> In fact, I think Gaelan is legally a Ninny as of the most recently resolved
> proposals?
It is Known.
In fact, I think Gaelan is legally a Ninny as of the most recently resolved
proposals?
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33 Quazie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:32 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> > >
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:32 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess,
> which is
> > > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is
> > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't
> > wanna deal with (which happened to Pud
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is
> why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't
> wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can recuse
> themselves inste
SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which
is why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just
don't wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can
recuse themselves instead of holding up the judicial system.
V.J. - It might be
Apologies for the triple-post, but CB could have just expressed disinterest
in the darn thing.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> This message is just for the convenience of those not caught up, as I
> was not.
>
> Oh dear God just read the full mess. CB (this is a valid nickname
This message is just for the convenience of those not caught up, as I
was not.
Oh dear God just read the full mess. CB (this is a valid nickname, don't
even think about it) submitted a message *pledging* not to submit
judgement. Gaelan then attempted to ratify a document stating that 3509
was judg
Is it legal to move for you to reconsider your own judgement and then not
judge it? I feel like this should be counted as a refusal to reconsider and
we should thus count the original judgement (and Moot it if necessary).
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:47 AM, CuddleBeam
wrote:
> I'm not going to give
15 matches
Mail list logo
