On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 12:16:50PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> >I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as
> >the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then
> >after that the third, and so on. As far as I can see, there is
> >nothing to stop an infinite regress.
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> That's not how the process works.
>
> Please read the Paris Draft before making
> any further inaccurate statements.
John Reynolds just quoted chapter and verse about how the language
permitted repeated hearings, and Bret just allowed as to how it might
be good to clean up that language.
It is certainly possible that I could make a mistake -- there are
lots of documents floating around, and it sometimes is hard to keep
track of them all. If I do make a mistake I will apologize. But it
appears that in this case I was accurate.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
