spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ

["Harrison, Andrew" <andy.harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's a bit much really. I would have thought it was perfectly clear that
it was invalid. So much so infact that I would not have said it needed an
RFJ in the first place. Actions are deemed to be taken when they arrive in
the public forum. Therefore Poulenc ruled before he was recused. Therefore
the recusal didn't apply. Anyone disagree?

--
The Kid


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Downes [mailto:jwd@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 April 2001 03:49
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
> 
> 
> I refuste to hear this judgement on the grounds that it lacks a clear
> stateent. There is no indicaton as to why the plaintiff believes the
> action was invalid.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jonno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Antonio wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:28:43 +0200, Antonio 
> <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
> > :
> > 
> > >I submit a new RFJ:
> > >
> > >The recusal of player Poulenc from the judgement on 
> RFJ#40/0 and the
> > >assignement of RFJ#40/0 to player Blest Lax Monk Pal were invalid.
> > 
> > Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno
> > -- 
> > 
> > zagarna
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
>