On Jan 14, 2008 9:58 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, even if the judgement of 1860a was inappropriate, Rule
> 911 would have been violated by the panel, not by me; I would have
> instead violated Rule 2157.
>
Ah, drat. I referenced the wrong rule :(
BobTHJ
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I assume that BobTHJ is referring to this comment by Goethe on
> January 10:
>
>> [statement by Goethe]
>
> However, this is a mis-statement of the precedent in CFJ 1804,
I think e was referring to my actual judgement, which was more
precise in its use of
2 matches
Mail list logo
