On 30 April 2011 02:46, Ed Murphy wrote:
> b) Rule 101 does not exist. (These cases are intended to determine
> how the rest of the rules attempt to work; once that's established,
> then we can work out what falls afoul of no-double-jeopardy.)
Gratuisilly: arguably pretending rule 101 d
omd wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> No, because I appealed, and so the sentence was suspended. Then I
>>> appealed again. Then the first appeals panel voted AFFIRM, so the
>>> sentence was reapplied. If then second panel votes to affirm, it would
>>> be applying a
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> No, because I appealed, and so the sentence was suspended. Then I
>> appealed again. Then the first appeals panel voted AFFIRM, so the
>> sentence was reapplied. If then second panel votes to affirm, it would
>> be applying a second sentence w
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 19:31, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> >> When 3004a was affirmed, I was sentenced to TIME OUT, and if 3004b is
> >> affirmed, I will be sentenced to TIME OUT again, which I contend will
> >>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 19:31, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> When 3004a was affirmed, I was sentenced to TIME OUT, and if 3004b is
>> affirmed, I will be sentenced to TIME OUT again, which I contend will
>> not count.
>
> How much time out have you actually
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> When 3004a was affirmed, I was sentenced to TIME OUT, and if 3004b is
> affirmed, I will be sentenced to TIME OUT again, which I contend will
> not count.
How much time out have you actually served, and are you serving time
now. Re-appealing the same
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 18:13, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be
>>> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
>>
>> Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net
>> punishmen
G. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be
>> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
>
> Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net
> punishment, this argument has no bearing. Without extending this
G. wrote:
> On a previous case, I remember finding that it was possible that due
> to such consideration, the punishment would "stop working" in some
> sense. I think it was finding that some Rests could be expunged and
> some couldn't.
CFJs 2709-10 and 2712-14 (I came across the latter while re
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be
>> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
>
> Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net
> punishment, this argumen
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> >> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be
> >> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
> >
> > Since "two simultaneous time-outs
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be
>> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
>
> Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net
> punishment, this argume
12 matches
Mail list logo
