On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly non-existent judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the self- referential loop is the best way to finally resolve the issue of conflicting precedents or pseudo-precedents.
I don't follow. What can an appeal of CFJ 1684 accomplish in this regard that the judgment itself does not? Regardless of the statuses of CFJs 1622 and 1623, CFJ 1684 is a more recent judgment, and so we should abide by that precedent rather than by the older ones. -root
