Zefram wrote:
> (a misnomer, btw: it's
> distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
> nature)
Not quite. The civil CFJ is set up as a civil court, with the
judge's ability to assess damages for Agreement violations in
R1742(i)-(iii) is a specifically Civil procedure, and
comex wrote:
Or just modify Rule 591 to require judgements be published, so I can
continue letting Murphy do the latter. :)
Has anyone ever submitted a CFJ privately to the CotC?
On Thursday 07 June 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
> >much
>
> Not enough, I think. By volume, Civil CFJs (a misnomer, btw: it's
> distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
> nature) and Appea
Ed Murphy wrote:
>CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
>much
Not enough, I think. By volume, Civil CFJs (a misnomer, btw: it's
distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
nature) and Appeals make up a very small proportion of the workload.
I
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for
receiving and distributing Civil CFJs and Appeals.
I don't see the justification for separating these from General CFJs.
CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
m
Ed Murphy wrote:
> The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for
> receiving and distributing Civil CFJs and Appeals.
I don't see the justification for separating these from General CFJs.
-zefram
6 matches
Mail list logo
