On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In criminal cases, it has been found (CFJ 1863) that outright bribery of > the judge is only of limited importance in determining whether a judgement > was appropriate. However, in criminal cases, judgements are chosen from > a discrete set of outcomes (legal judgements). Equity cases allow more > grounds for flexibility for a judge, so this is grounds for more oversight > being permitted by appeals boards in determining "reasonable." So it is > not out of keeping for an appeals board to consider the motives of the > judge in a matter of equity. Whether or not the contract in question is > agreeable to root, and whether or not it is reasonable as a whole, the > direct and obvious bribery and resulting collusion by the judge is > sufficient grounds to question the reasonableness of the judgement, and > seek another judge. Therefore, on the matter of the appeal (CFJ 1932a), > This Board moves to REASSIGN.
You have not opposed the position that, because there is one party, any judgement is equitable, therefore reasonably equitable, therefore appropriate; in which case there would be no "serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement".
