On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes to
require a judge, the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b) Justiciar. Within three
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this
text:
b) Justiciar. Within three days
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes
to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:57:43 pm ihope wrote:
Unless the CotC did something stupid, like act on behalf of the
Justiciar to say both.
Which, in the Spirit of the Game, is not at all implausible.
Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b)
6 matches
Mail list logo
