Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Levi wrote:
Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for
this appeal?
Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time,
so I just filed it away in case it led to an actua
On Jan 14, 2008 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Levi wrote:
>
> > Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for
> > this appeal?
>
> Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time,
> so I just filed it away in case it led to an actual pan
Levi wrote:
Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for
this appeal?
Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time,
so I just filed it away in case it led to an actual panel action.)
Having considered it more carefully, I stand by my opinion tha
Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
whether the alleged event occurred.
I would prefer REMAND. There's no
On Jan 14, 2008 11:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1828a
>
> I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
> comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
> whether the
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
whether the alleged event occurred.
I would prefer REMAND. There's no reason the origina
On Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
> comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
> whether the alleged event occurred.
I would prefer REMAND. There's no reason the original judge cou
Zefram wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1828a
I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
whether the alleged event occurred.
8 matches
Mail list logo