Roger Hicks wrote:
>On Jan 14, 2008 4:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You are obligated to deregister. Please, do not make any further game actions
>> before I sic the equity court on you.
>>
>An obligation which I have the next seven days to fill.
You're now well overdue to
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Ok, so the panel did say that the prior judge's ruling was "clearly
> wrong", which was too strong a phrasing in retrospect. The arguments
> used to support that statement indicated that the prior judge's
> arguments were "clearly wrong", not necessarily ei
On Jan 14, 2008 5:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how you jump to that conclusion. SLIPPERY is not appropriate
> if an appeals court rejects the decision. It has.
SLIPPERY is, by definition, "appropriate if the information available
to the judge is insufficient to det
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> That's rich, considering that you're showing a complete and utter
>> misapplication, misapprehension, and misunderstanding of burden of proof
>> in a criminal versus an inquiry trial.
>
> The "beyond reasonable doubt" bit applies only to w
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>That's rich, considering that you're showing a complete and utter
>misapplication, misapprehension, and misunderstanding of burden of proof
>in a criminal versus an inquiry trial.
The "beyond reasonable doubt" bit applies only to whether the defendant
performed the alleged act
On Jan 14, 2008 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure. If an argument is coincidentally the right judgement
> but for the wrong reasons, and is corrected in arguments either through
> a concurring opinion or a new judgement, the original judgment might be
> considered inap
On Jan 14, 2008 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really should have added the issue of burden of proof to the judgement.
> Reading eir arguments that led that way, I would assign the arguments an
> "error rating" of 20-40% (as e made the arguments for "non-nomicness" but
> didn't
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> ...So if IRRELEVANT were ultimately found to be appropriate in
> 1860, then EXCUSED would be inappropriate in 1863 (it can't be true
> that "the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in
> a manner at least as serious as that alleged"
On Jan 14, 2008 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I considered whether a reassigned judgement that was also "irrelevant"
> would lead to INNOCENT, but since the arguments were rejected, I felt
> that would still be "EXCUSED", so the excused vs. guilty are appropriate
> choices.
The
On Monday 14 January 2008 17:05:15 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I recommend EXILE for anything he is guilty of.
>
> Criminal sentences take a week to become active anyway.
>
> -root
So? :p
On Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend EXILE for anything he is guilty of.
Criminal sentences take a week to become active anyway.
-root
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The appeals court has rejected BobTHJ's arguments given for CFJ 1860,
>> so there are two choices; EXCUSED (following the precedent in CFJ 1804)
>> or GUILTY.
>
> Not quite. We determined th
On Monday 14 January 2008 16:56:28 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are obligated to deregister. Please, do not make any further game
> > actions before I sic the equity court on you.
>
> An obligation which I have the next seven days
On Jan 14, 2008 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Arguments: As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
> > the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
> > to REASSIGN was made based upon the appe
On Jan 14, 2008 4:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are obligated to deregister. Please, do not make any further game actions
> before I sic the equity court on you.
>
>
An obligation which I have the next seven days to fill.
BobTHJ
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Arguments: As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
> the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
> to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the
> bribery involved in my original judgment. R
On Monday 14 January 2008 16:43:10 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As BobTHJ states, if a claim is made to something which is not a nomic,
> > it is fairly reasonable to call the truth of the claim IRRELEVANT to
> > R2159 ("false" might also
On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The appeals court has rejected BobTHJ's arguments given for CFJ 1860,
> so there are two choices; EXCUSED (following the precedent in CFJ 1804)
> or GUILTY.
Not quite. We determined that BobTHJ's arguments concerning
irrelevance we
18 matches
Mail list logo
