Quazie wrote:
> So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that
> make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were
> assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning, if they don't exist, then
> they weren't judged. If they weren't judged, then they couldn't have
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if any of those end up not being CFJs there is a criminal case
> against the CotC
Yes, but trivially UNAWARE if e reasonably believed that the cases in
question were CFJs, and I see no reason to think otherwise. I can't
imagi
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that
>> make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were
>> assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning,
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
> So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that
> make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were
> assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning, if they don't exist, then
> they weren't judged. If they weren't judged, then
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2073
>>
>> == CFJ 2073 ==
>>
>>Ei
5 matches
Mail list logo
