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. -G.