woggle wrote:
Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
{{
comex is a co-author of this proposal.
Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
This isn't strictly needed. From Rule 591:
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it was
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
{{
comex is a co-author of this proposal.
Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
Oh this is horrid and unneeded though I agree with the arguments.
Just CFJ again, there's no reason a new CFJ
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
Executor
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
How about, er, Power of Attorney? Grantor, Holder,
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this
rule is repealed.
Why not a rule that allows late appeals with a higher support number
(or Agoran Consent, would need that to get this passed anyway).
-Goethe
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
How about, er, Power of Attorney?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R2170 already defines Executor (as the first-class person who sends
it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent). Going
back to Grantor and Holder would work. (History lesson: the rules
used to explicitly
7 matches
Mail list logo
