From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 12:34:44 PDT
Richard S. Holmes wrote: > > Perhaps my ruling was not sufficiently clear. The inconsistency is > not between 185:5 and some future rule; the inconsistency is between > 185:5 and the ROs, because 185:5 in combination with the ROs requires > that future rules, in order to be declared VALID, must be declared > INVALID. No, it's saying that future rules must be declared INVALID, and the Judge may then choose as his option to exercise his new rights under 185:D to change the ruling to VALID. -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 19:34:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST