Reversal of 169:6 ruling

From: Glenn Overby II (
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 08:28:41 PDT

Thank you for your courteous input.  (I knew I wasn't particularly well-schooled for
taking up this bench!)

I still believe that 169:6 violates the spirit of RO4.  But I am convinced that the
past precedents and practices of the Committee as presented do in fact allow this
rule to be considered VALID.

My initial ruling being at variance with this, I reverse it.

Rule 169:6 is VALID.

I am still preparing my response to the questions raised on 169:7.

Da Judge

Rule Date: 2001-09-27 15:30:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST