On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of >> further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent >> to the posting of such an opinion is binding. > I preemptively consent to a judgement of AFFIRM on behalf of any > judicial panel with myself as a member. > > I change my mind and revoke the above consent. > > Not binding.
1. Just because the nature of the agreement allows you to change your position, doesn't mean your expressed agreement in between changes isn't binding. If in-between your two statements, someone managed to "slip in" and deliver the judgement, they would be delivering it with your expressed and (at the moment) bound agreement. 2. We've been incredibly sloppy with judicial panels. The above isn't an agreement to deliver a particular message, but a whole class of messages. It's quite possible that this doesn't even count as sufficient under R2157 (we've generally allowed this, but that's not to the letter of the law). 3. The above is no different than transferring your ability to vote to someone (then revoking said permission). That has been established as a clear and binding agreement in the courts, even when you can change your mind at any time and when it (arguably) imposes no burden on you. -Goethe
