On Jan 19, 2008 1:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> > Zefram wrote:
> >
> >> I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
> >> of CFJ 1863a.
> >
> > I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. Arguments:
>
> comex, root, did this look oka
On Jan 19, 2008 3:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex, root, did this look okay? (If you've already consented, let me
> know, I may have misfiled something.)
I support Murphy's attempt to make the panel REMAND Arguments:
The judge's arguments were somewhat reasonable, as laid out
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1863a.
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. Arguments:
comex, root, did this look okay? (If you've already consented, let me
know, I may have misfiled something.)
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1863a.
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. Arguments:
In BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1860, e explicitly cites the last
paragraph of Rule 2159, and accurately discusses its direct
interpretation
On Jan 14, 2008 5:34 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
> of CFJ 1863a.
Zefram, you're aware that my Default Justice prerogative expired at
the end of December?
-root
5 matches
Mail list logo
