On Dec 27, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
R2149 was specified clearly
enough that the H. CotC was able to process the intended CFJ and
assign the case for a ruling.
You misremember: actually I rejected that message, having not
pe
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> R2149 was specified clearly
>enough that the H. CotC was able to process the intended CFJ and
>assign the case for a ruling.
You misremember: actually I rejected that message, having not perceived a
specification of rule allegedly
Draft #3:
R1504 lays out the requirements for initiating a criminal case, that
the CFJ message must clearly specify:
a) The identity of the defendant.
b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
OscarMeyr wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. A statement in the CFJ
argument is not a clear designation in the CFJ statement proper of the
rule allegedly breached. FAIL
Criminal cases don't have statement
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Given that comex did not meet the requirement (b) for submitting a
>criminal CFJ, I rule FALSE.
That matches my logic. You could perhaps do with expanding your
discussion of what constitutes clarity.
-zefram
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
This CFJ may hinge on an adequate
specification of "clearly specify."
Yes. I think "clearly specify" is a stronger requirement than
"specify".
-zefram
After further review, I think comex did
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> This CFJ may hinge on an adequate
>specification of "clearly specify."
Yes. I think "clearly specify" is a stronger requirement than "specify".
-zefram
On Dec 20, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no
other rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider
this to adequately identify the rule in question (although not
as clearly as
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider this to
adequately identify the rule in question (although not as clearly as
I might prefer). PASS
Rule 1504 says that the
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
>rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider this to
>adequately identify the rule in question (although not as clearly as
>I might prefer). PASS
Rule 1504 says that the announcement m
On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
(Murphy owes the Oracle four pieces of fluff and any hand tool.)
Would you settle for three pints and a sandwich?
Don't forget the peanuts.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
OscarMeyr wrote:
(Murphy owes the Oracle four pieces of fluff and any hand tool.)
Would you settle for three pints and a sandwich?
PROTO JUDGEMENT in CFJ 1845:
R1504 lays out the requirements for initiating a criminal case:
a) The identity of the defendant.
b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
by which the defend
13 matches
Mail list logo
