[blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael noted:

>AC ruled against this player, based on the dutch
>precedent that a misbid is always misinformation.

Richard Hills:

Law 93B3 permits an Appeals Committee to determine the
facts, whether a particular call was in fact misbid or
misexplained.

But Law 93B3 also prohibits an Appeals Committee from
setting a legal precedent.  Whether or not it should
be a correct interpretation of Law 75 to rule that a
misbid never happens, an Appeals Committee lacks the
power to create such a legal precedent.

Likewise, whether or not the De Wael School's
interpretation of Law 75D2 should be adopted, the WBF
LC minute of 24th August 1998 states that a blmler
lacks the power to interpret Law.  Therefore Herman's
allegation that:

"someone of Richard's stature knows he is breaking
L75D2, and that he does so _with design_",

is nugatory, since Herman lacks the legal authority
to promulgate the interpretation of Law 75D2 that is
the basis of his allegation.

Pocket Oxford Dictionary:

"nugatory - Futile, trifling; inoperative, not valid"


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm