On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can't find this on zenith.
>>
>> Regardless, with the support of the panel, I intend to cause the panel
>> to judge REMAND. There are issues to look at
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's appealable then the judgement isn't in effect yet.
Well, there should probably be a presumption that if the CotC's report
says it's a CFJ and a judge ruled it's a CFJ we should probably act as
if it's a CFJ in the absence
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 2090, although you obviously didn't miss it since you appealed it.
>
> Of course, if the appeal is successful this will cease to be a CFJ
> again and we'll no longer be horribly late in assigning a judgment.
If it's
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Err, I guess this is a CFJ again. I support this intent.
>
> It is? What did I miss?
CFJ 2090, although you obviously didn't miss it since you appealed
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err, I guess this is a CFJ again. I support this intent.
It is? What did I miss?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2019 was never a CFJ, since it wasn't initiated by a first-class person.
>
> So how is there an appeal of it?
No one realized "oh, wait, the prior case was ineffective" until after
the appeal was allege
Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2019a
>>
>> Appeal 2019a
>
> I can't find this on zenith.
I deleted 2019 and 2019a, on the
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2019 was never a CFJ, since it wasn't initiated by a first-class person.
So how is there an appeal of it?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2019a
>>
>> Appeal 2019a
>
> I can't fin
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a
>> bonus.
>
> Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are
> theoretically supposed t
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a
> bonus.
Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are
theoretically supposed to be rewards, I think.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal case against the CotC (Murphy) for violating
>> R2019 by not assigning the Default Justice (myself) to be member of
>> this appeal
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate a criminal case against the CotC (Murphy) for violating
> R2019 by not assigning the Default Justice (myself) to be member of
> this appeals panel.
Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a b
13 matches
Mail list logo
