On 1/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are explicitly-prohibited actions also possible?
Yes. Whether prohibited-actions have legal effect depends on the
relevant rules. For example, the second paragraph of rule 1769
prohibits certain actions but permits the actions to have legal
effect
Michael Slone wrote:
>Of course they're *possible*.
Are explicitly-prohibited actions also possible?
-zefram
On 1/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hang on, Rule 101 doesn't say that. It is silent on the issue. The Rules
are silent on the issue of whether regulated actions are possible when
not explicitly prohibited.
Of course they're *possible*. Regulating an action doesn't magically
make i
Grey Knight wrote:
--- Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/31/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Due to a technical error, my first Notice of Rotation was
ineffective.
The assignments of CFJs 1607, 1608, and 1609, as well as the second
Notice of Rotation following them should a
Michael Slone wrote:
> dismissal is a regulated action, so by rule 101 the CotC has
>no right to perform it unless authorized to do so.
Hang on, Rule 101 doesn't say that. It is silent on the issue. The Rules
are silent on the issue of whether regulated actions are possible when
not explici
Michael Slone wrote:
>Dismissal by the Clerk of the Courts is not a judgement. To answer
>your second question, since rule 2024 states that the CotC may dismiss
>a Call for Judgement if certain conditions are satisfied, then by rule
>2125, dismissal is a regulated action, so by rule 101 the CotC h
On 1/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some questions on dismissal: is dismissing a CFJ the same thing as
delivering a Judgement of DISMISSED? Is the CotC capable of dismissing
CFJs even where not explicitly permitted by Rule 2024?
Dismissal by the Clerk of the Courts is not a judgement
Grey Knight wrote:
>However, the situation here is the reverse of that described in R1871;
>it talks about "selecting a Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal who is not
>eligible to judge that CFJ or Appeal solely because e is turned",
>whereas here the Player in question *was* eligible, and what is more
--- Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Due to a technical error, my first Notice of Rotation was
> ineffective.
> > The assignments of CFJs 1607, 1608, and 1609, as well as the second
> > Notice of Rotation following them should also be con
On 1/31/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Due to a technical error, my first Notice of Rotation was ineffective.
The assignments of CFJs 1607, 1608, and 1609, as well as the second
Notice of Rotation following them should also be considered in error.
This is exactly the kind of situati
Some questions on dismissal: is dismissing a CFJ the same thing as
delivering a Judgement of DISMISSED? Is the CotC capable of dismissing
CFJs even where not explicitly permitted by Rule 2024?
-zefram
11 matches
Mail list logo
