On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> As I indicated previously, I don't mind minor corruption of the >> judicial system through the Protection Racket, however I am not >> interested in bringing down all the upstanding citizens of Agora upon >> my head. I therefore invite ehird or notehird (whichever) to provide >> some valid lines of reasoning that would make the case for overturning >> past judicial precedent and ruling TRUE. >> >> BobTHJ >> > > You will be violating the Protection Racket if you don't judge TRUE. > Also, 'ehird' is > merely my old name, I am now 'notehird' (Quazie thankfully did this to > escape me from > the pledge that started all of this.) > Yes, I would violate the Protection Racket if I don't judge TRUE, unless Ivan Hope agreed with me to de-protect this case.
> Anyway, I think it could be 'not envisioned'. I mean, obviously I was > aware that it was > *possible* that someone could deregister me, but I hoped (and > believed) that it wouldn't > happen - since anyone looking at it would realise it's not a novelty > to discover it could > be used to deregister me. I was hoping for things like what Murphy and > ais523 did, those > were what I envisioned. > While it may not be what you envisioned this is not an equity case it is a inquiry case. I don't think I can rule on that basis. Essentially, I'm asking that you provide an argument that would allow me to rule TRUE on this case and have that be considered an acceptable judgment....otherwise I am inclined to attempt to de-Protect this case. BobTHJ
