BobTHJ wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
> Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Which word?
"P". (Your second posting of the judgement was also to a-d.)
Ed Murphy wrote:
>There was a "CFJs and judgements must be public" proposal or proto
>at some point. What's the current status of that one?
Proposal 5015, adopted four days ago. CFJs must be by announcement,
but it doesn't address judgements.
-zefram
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
> Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Which word?
BobTHJ
BobTHJ wrote:
Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
On 6/27/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remind BobTHJ that when e was previously pseudo-judge of these CFJs
> a Judicial Order was executed requiring the Pineapple Partnership
BobTHJ wrote:
Oops! I missed that message the first time around, and thus I figured
I was still waiting on the PP.
Based upon the above-referenced message I judge as follows:
Not to the PF, but apparently R591 doesn't require it to be.
There was a "CFJs and judgements must be public" proposa
On 6/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I remind BobTHJ that when e was previously pseudo-judge of these CFJs
a Judicial Order was executed requiring the Pineapple Partnership to
disclose its membership, both present and historical, and the Pineapple
Partnership then did so in the message
On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJs 1661-5 are hereby assigned to BobTHJ.
I pseudo-issued a judicial order (and I beleive The Hanging Judge
officially issued it) to the Pineapple Partnership to reveal its
membership, historical and current. I don't know that it ever complied
with
comex wrote:
>CFJs 1661-5 are hereby assigned to BobTHJ.
I remind BobTHJ that when e was previously pseudo-judge of these CFJs
a Judicial Order was executed requiring the Pineapple Partnership to
disclose its membership, both present and historical, and the Pineapple
Partnership then did so in the
9 matches
Mail list logo
