On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 19:42 -0700, Taral wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2480a > > > > ============================ Appeal 2480a ============================ > > > > Panelist: Wooble > > Panelist: Rodlen > > Panelist: Tiger > > Decision: REMAND > > > > ======================================================================== > > I solicit further opinions on this topic, as it is not clear what > jurisprudence should be set here. In the absence of further > commentary, I believe I shall proceed to re-affirm my previous > judgement. The wording of the rule was not so poor as to make its > intention unclear to a reasonable person. I applaud ais523's steadfast > attempt to argue eir stance, but e must have known e was running a > risk when e decided to try to "scam the wording" of a criminal rule.
There's new evidence now, that wasn't available at the time of your original judgement; take a look at CFJ 2530. We really really need legislation in the area of act-on-behalf... -- ais523
