Ed Murphy wrote: >Per the judgement of CFJ 1703, comex's claim was false. However, >only "deliberately or recklessly" making a false statement >violates Rule 2149, and per the judgement of CFJ 1699, comex >did neither. Accordingly, I judge UNIMPUGNED.
You seem to have misunderstood the available verdicts, and possibly also the charge. I intended the charge to be interpreted as "doing that which R2149 prohibits, on this particular occasion". Doing that would certainly be a rule violation, so UNIMPUGNED would not be an appropriate verdict. If comex has not violated the rule then e has not done what e was charged with, and so a verdict of INNOCENT would be appropriate. If you ignore the "violating rule 2149 by" part of the charge, then the (as you point out) the charge is not sufficiently specific to make the action it describes necessarily illegal. In that case a judgement of UNIMPUGNED is appropriate, and what comex did is irrelevant to that. Your judgement mixes parts of these two scenarios. What reasoning did you intend? -zefram
