On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 10:11 -0700, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I remind the appeals panel in CFJ 2480a ({Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger}) that
they CAN and SHALL destroy the 4 rests I own:
{{{
If a verdict or sentence that led to
the
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 08:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
= Criminal Case 2480 =
Appeal:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
= Criminal Case 2480 =
Appeal: 2480a
Decision: REMAND
Judge: Taral
Judgement:
Rodlen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk
mailto:ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
= Criminal Case 2480
=
Appeal:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:14 -0700, Rodlen wrote:
I do that rest destruction stuff.
Unfortunately, you need the support of the other two panelists. Intend
to do it, and you can do it if the other two agree. (Which they have to;
Agora is weird and/or strange sometimes. They have to do it, but you
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:21 -0700, Rodlen wrote:
Okay, I hereby consent to that rest destruction stuff.
Oh dear, now we're going to have an argument about what unanimous
Support of the panel's other members in rule 2157 means. Just to make
things unambiguous, could you intend, with unanimous
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I remind the appeals panel in CFJ 2480a ({Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger}) that
they CAN and SHALL destroy the 4 rests I own:
{{{
If a verdict or sentence that led to
the creation of Rests is overruled, remanded, or
7 matches
Mail list logo
