Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2436 assigned to Rodlen
On May 6, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Rodlen rodlenj...@gmail.com wrote: Weakening the connection between Comex and the PNP should help the PNP's reputation. With thanks to ais523, I would like to suggest the following judgment: Until May 28, 2009, it is ILLEGAL for Comex to join the PNP. How does that sound to the parties? -- --Rodlen Are you suggesting (i.e. protoing) this judgement or making it? The terms are fine with me but it's unclear to me what you meant to do.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2436 assigned to Rodlen
Rodlen wrote: What I'm doing is getting confused by the equity case rules (I was not expecting this case...). This was an attempt to make a judgment, leaving it to the parties involved to agree to it... An ineffective attempt. The parties have had plenty of time to have their say; give them more time if you want, but then just announce that you make such-and-such judgement (you have until Tue 12 May 03:00:41 UTC to judge on time) and they can either appeal or not.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2436 assigned to Rodlen
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: Rodlen wrote: What I'm doing is getting confused by the equity case rules (I was not expecting this case...). This was an attempt to make a judgment, leaving it to the parties involved to agree to it... An ineffective attempt. The parties have had plenty of time to have their say; give them more time if you want, but then just announce that you make such-and-such judgement (you have until Tue 12 May 03:00:41 UTC to judge on time) and they can either appeal or not. I have to protest that idea. It is right and fitting for a judge to proto and broker an agreement between parties. -Goethe
