comex on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:25:23 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] RFJ 0008 judgement

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 8:51, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> Could be even worse: on at least one occasion, a CFI was judged TRUE
> because the player who stood to benefit from the CFI's truth offered
> bribes to two of three Judges. But this is why RFJs "guide further
> interpretation" instead of being absolute law - there's no reason why
> the RFJ can't be reversed later. Even without judicial corruption or
> negligence, it's perfectly possible that a judge might simply miss an
> important rule and so misjudge an RFJ. In that case, we're free to
> simply ignore the judgment.

[[I wonder what will happen, then...]]

I submit a RFJ:
The Statement contained in this RFJ is determined by its Judge.

Attachment: pgpHYzFpEKDEN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

spoon-business mailing list