Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2534 judged TRUE by Rodlen

2009-05-31 Thread Ed Murphy
Rodlen wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Ed Murphy > wrote: > > ehird wrote: > > >>> I intend to appeal this as Rodlen clearly has not considered private > >>> agreements taking effect as is the precedent. He seems to think this > >>> CFJ a

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2534 judged TRUE by Rodlen

2009-05-29 Thread Rodlen
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > ehird wrote: > > >>> I intend to appeal this as Rodlen clearly has not considered private > >>> agreements taking effect as is the precedent. He seems to think this > >>> CFJ asks "if Warrigal re-did the action in a-b, would it work?". It > >>>