On 9/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm republishing this for the new judge assignment in case 1711a, and
> I intend to cause the panel of BobTHJ, Wooble, and myself to judge
> REMAND with these arguments, with the consent of BobTHJ and Wooble.
I consent to having the panel judge RE
On 8/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just playing devil's advocate here: a failure to satisfy an
> > obligation before it is removed is still a failure to satisfy that
> > obligation. In any other circumstance there would be no issue
On 8/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >Arguably, removing an obligation does not count as satisfying it.
>
> Indeed it does not. But it does mean that there is no longer an
> unsatisfied obligation. Precedent is pretty clear that there is no
> obligation unless the ru
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Arguably, removing an obligation does not count as satisfying it.
Indeed it does not. But it does mean that there is no longer an
unsatisfied obligation. Precedent is pretty clear that there is no
obligation unless the rules currently impose one.
-zefram
On 8/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >This might be considered a violation of Rule 2157, wrt the R2158
> >requirement to assign a judgement ASAP.
>
> I believe not, because self-recusal removes the obligation to judge.
> However, as there's only one qualified panel for
On 8/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/28/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend to cause the panel to recuse itself.
> I support this, and note that you haven't responded to the email I sent you.
>
You'll have to resend, I can find any such e-mail.
BobTHJ
On 8/28/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to cause the panel to recuse itself.
I support this, and note that you haven't responded to the email I sent you.
Ian Kelly wrote:
>This might be considered a violation of Rule 2157, wrt the R2158
>requirement to assign a judgement ASAP.
I believe not, because self-recusal removes the obligation to judge.
However, as there's only one qualified panel for this case, I'd just
have to assign the same panel again.
On 8/28/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> > > of CFJ 1711.
> >
> > I will agree to this judgement if BobTHJ does,
On 8/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> > of CFJ 1711.
>
> I will agree to this judgement if BobTHJ does, although as I stated in
> my own analysis, I would prefer a ju
Levi Stephen wrote:
>Why doesn't a panel qualify as a partnership under Rule 2145?
It's not a contract. It's governed solely by R2157, and is not subject
to amendment or dissolution by the procedures of R1742.
I designed judicial panels to be non-persons but to take advantage of
some of the conc
On 8/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the only problem I saw also. Could a judicial panel be interpreted as a
> binding agreement betweeen three players to judge a judicial case?
I don't see how. If so, then R101(iv) could have some interesting consequences.
-root
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 8/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
of CFJ 1711.
I also intend to cause the panel
On 8/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> >>> of CFJ 1711.
> >>>
> >> I also intend to cause t
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
of CFJ 1711.
I also intend to cause the panel to register.
Panels are not persons and so cannot register. I consid
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> of CFJ 1711.
I will agree to this judgement if BobTHJ does, although as I stated in
my own analysis, I would prefer a judgement of REMAND.
-root
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> > of CFJ 1711.
> >
>
> I also intend to cause the panel to register.
Panels are not persons and so cannot register. I considered t
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> of CFJ 1711.
>
I also intend to cause the panel to register.
The appellant states that
In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
correction in the form of an additional set of votes to insert
into the prior message; it is clear how adding these votes
affects the totals, so I see no need for the revised totals to
be
> Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
>
> We have commonly accepted a published correction to a prior report as
> constituting a new report that incorporates the bulk of the prior report
> by reference. In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
> correction in the form of an additional set
20 matches
Mail list logo
