On 8/4/2019 9:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
 > Yay, directly contradictory judgements.
 > R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to
 > think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was
 > issued and now.
 > I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet
 > another CFJ?

Since one didn't reference the other, yeah - a CFJ that mentions both of
those is probably needed now.

Or a ratification + legislative clarification and don't worry about what
the past state was.

Other option, after reading more thoroughly:  I think the later CFJ is more
correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the
previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that.  Depends on which
one you (as Officer) think is most correct.


Reply via email to