Goethe wrote:
While I was temporarily unaware of UNAWARE, I still prefer EXCUSED as
a precedent for this. If a Judge is aware of some contrary argument,
e should still be ethically charged to "not avoid" making *what e believes
in good faith* to be an appropriate judgement, even if e is aware
On Nov 28, 2007 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I was temporarily unaware of UNAWARE, I still prefer EXCUSED as
> a precedent for this. If a Judge is aware of some contrary argument,
> e should still be ethically charged to "not avoid" making *what e believes
> in good fait
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
>> was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
>> change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCU
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 18:15:36 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
> > was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
> > change, e could also be foun
On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
> was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
> change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCUSED covers it.
I forgot about that. I chang
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
>please suggest it].
Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCUS
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
>> please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
>
> I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is the on
On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
> please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is the only appropriate sentence.
> Amend Rule 2158 by r
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Action: assigning an inappropriate judgement to the question on veracity
>in CFJ 1711
proto-judgement:
This is a very unfortunate case. I'm a very strong believer in "no
compulsion of judges." Incorrect judgement should be dealt with by
appeals, wi
10 matches
Mail list logo
