Michael Slone wrote:
The correctness of the Judge's blank assertion that the rules do not designate the position of Speaker to be an office depends directly on which if either of the above two interpretations of the first sentence of Rule 1450 is correct. We therefore ought to set an explicit judicial precedent for the interpretation of the construction used in the quoted sentence, so that similar cases don't have to be resolved with new CFJs. I therefore propose that we appeal the judgement of CFJ 1599.
I agree...to me the decision completely contradicts Rule 1450 for the reasons you set out, and appeal seems to be the right course of action.
Cecilius
