On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The judgement of FINE on the question on sentencing is still in
>> effect, as I never appealed it. Since it has not been appealed since
>> then, and it
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The judgement of FINE on the question on sentencing is still in
> effect, as I never appealed it. Since it has not been appealed since
> then, and it has certainly been more than two weeks since it was first
> assigned, it now can
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the result of the appeal, I don't think there's any good
> reason to assign a judgment other than GUILTY on culpability. Now, as
> for sentencing, the appeals result suggested that FINE was not harsh
> enough. A se
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And Ivan Hope's voting
> limit is currently 1 and likely to remain so for a while, making
> CHOKEY not very interesting.
I don't believe interestingness is part of the criteria for sentence
appropriateness. I don't think
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 16:26, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I change all sitting players to standing.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2107
>
> = Criminal Case 2107 =
>
>Ivan Hope violated R2149 by making t
5 matches
Mail list logo
