Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and as far as I
> > could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> > wanted.
>
> If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
> needed. I don
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and as far as I
> could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> wanted.
If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
needed. I don't think this interpretation is a go
Murphy wrote in a-b:
> Proto-Proposal: Defend the judiciary
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2158 (Judicial Questions) by inserting this paragraph after
> the paragraph containing "A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only
> as defined by the rules.":
>
> In the interest of defending t
3 matches
Mail list logo
