On Dec 20, 2007 4:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the time that each of the alleged acts was committed, Rule 2149/7 > was in force, and it did proscribe the publication by a knight of a > statement believed by em to be false. The defendant has laid out in > eir defense that e did not at the time believe the statement to be > false, and I have no evidence to the contrary. I therefore rule > SLIPPERY in CFJs 1837 and 1838.
Come to think of it, BobTHJ has an additional defense that I neglected to adequately research. E was not a player at a time of either message. All knights were players, so e was not a knight, and the R2149 prohibition did not apply to em. My judgement of SLIPPERY was therefore not appropriate (the alleged act clearly says "as a knight"), but a judgement of INNOCENT would be. The same is true of the hypothetical recklessness charge. -root
