============================== CFJ 2929 ============================== For a rule which purports to allow a person to perform an action "without objection", N (as defined by Rule 1728) is implicitly specified by that rule as 1. ======================================================================== Caller: Murphy Barred: omd Judge: Yally Judgement: FALSE Appeal: 2929a Decision: REMAND Judge: Yally Judgement: Judge: G. Judgement: TRUE ======================================================================== History: Called by Murphy: 16 Dec 2010 01:35:40 GMT Assigned to Yally: 20 Dec 2010 07:02:28 GMT Judged FALSE by Yally: 23 Dec 2010 23:16:30 GMT Appealed by Murphy: 24 Dec 2010 01:05:27 GMT Appealed by Roujo: 24 Dec 2010 01:22:41 GMT Appeal 2929a: 24 Dec 2010 01:40:55 GMT Appealed by omd: 24 Dec 2010 01:40:55 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 18 Jan 2011 20:44:25 GMT Assigned to Yally: 18 Jan 2011 20:44:25 GMT Yally recused: 04 Feb 2011 22:48:43 GMT Assigned to G.: 14 Feb 2011 21:35:57 GMT Judged TRUE by G.: 14 Feb 2011 22:41:55 GMT ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by omd: The default value of N is clearly defined in Rule 1728, not the rule purporting to allow the action. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: "without objection" = "without 1 objection(s)" used to be explicit, and still is the ordinary-language reading, especially since "objection" is singular. ======================================================================== Judge Yally's Arguments: Indeed, I agree that without objection implies that N=1. However, Rule 2324 explicitly overrules this, and thus, I judge this FALSE. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by G.: Actually, I intend with 2 support to file a Motion to Reconsider with these arguments: > Did you take into account the fact that R754 puts common language in > higher-powered rules (e.g. the singular form of "objection") as having > precedence over explicit definitions in lower-powered rules? > > The purpose of that in R754 is precisely and directly intended to > protect against someone re-defining a common term (say using a lower-power > rule to define "the" in a higher- powered rule to mean "I have power-3"). ======================================================================== Appellant omd's Arguments: I support and do so, noting again that Rule 1728 explicitly allows specification otherwise. ======================================================================== Judge G.'s Arguments: On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > > > > > > I support and do so, noting again that Rule 1728 explicitly allows > > > specification otherwise. > > > > Gratuitous: The question is whether the singular term "objection" > > with no N uses common language under R754 guidance to "otherwise > > specify" 1 as per R1728, so an "other otherwise" specification of > > N=8 conflicts (and would only therefore only potentially work at > > power-1). -G. > > Hmm... I didn't think about it that way. You're probably right, actually. I still think my above argument looks correct, that "without objection" with no N is sufficiently singular to "otherwise specify" N as 1. TRUE. ========================================================================