From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 10:57:52 PDT
Christopher Bartlett wrote: > > 169B, for (for the chaos factor) I fail to see the appeal here. But in any case, the proposal is pure nonsense, since it refers to a rule which does not exist, "*the* rule which the Judge *has* re-labeled..." Now, could this possibly be a proposal to change the decision of the Judge, under RO 8? No, because there is no such decision. Neither does the proposal propose an amendment or temporary overrule of the ROs, as described under RO 9. I can therefore only conclude that this is not a proposal of any type described by the ROs, and therefore is without effect whatever the outcome of the vote. So I'm ignoring this one, too. Of course, this depends upon the interpretation of the Judge, who is responsible for interpreting the ROs. Judge Glenn? -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2001-10-03 17:58:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST