On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 15:54, Pavitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/2011 05:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Gratuitous: scshunt was not the defendant in CFJ 3054. > > Wait, what? *rereads* > > ... > > Well, I feel silly. I thought I was being careful and everything. The > errors in this situation seem to just keep compounding. > > If remanded, I intend to discharge. I don't think there's any actual > *controversy* here, just a pile of misconceptions and misunderstandings, > so I'd suggest that the appeals panel overrule with prejudice.
I'd suggest without prejudice. I don't hold Pavitra's judgment against em. -scshunt
