Please note CFJs 1911-1914, which explain that the rules cannot supersede
physical reality.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 05:37 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it would be best to combine the two.
>
> On 11/28/2017 09:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
I think it would be best to combine the two.
On 11/28/2017 09:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Proto: amend r217 by taking out the whole rule-change voiding
> clause and replace with: RttCN, a person CAN always initiate 2
> CFJs/week by announcement (other rules might allow more at
> an economic
Proto: amend r217 by taking out the whole rule-change voiding
clause and replace with: RttCN, a person CAN always initiate 2
CFJs/week by announcement (other rules might allow more at
an economic cost, but this is the baseline at power-3).
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 29
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 20:24 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Gratuitous Arguments
H. Judge, I request you examine all the reasons that Slamming the Door
may have failed (i.e. if it's interpreted
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 20:24 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >> I AP-CFJ, on behalf of VJ Rada, "Rule 2507 does not exist." This is
> >> because its enactment was INEFFECTIVE,
I agree with Ørjan. This CFJ is _not_ about this particular instance,
it's about the adoption of the rule. The judgement should only
consider whether the rule facially impermissably interferes with the
right to judicial processes, not whether the rule interferes with that
right as applied to me.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
I AP-CFJ, on behalf of VJ Rada, "Rule 2507 does not exist." This is
because its enactment was INEFFECTIVE, per paragraph 3 clause 1 of Rule 217.
This is CFJ 3611, I assign it to Aris.
That was actually my request, so no! (I should have put "by G." after
"Gratuitous arguments"). Much appreciated.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> I AP-CFJ, on behalf of VJ Rada, "Rule 2507 does not exist." This is
>> because its enactment was INEFFECTIVE, per paragraph 3 clause 1 of Rule 217.
>
9 matches
Mail list logo