On Jan 12, 2008 9:44 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, so you believed your statement to not violate the version of the > > rule you saw before. But then one could say that your belief didn't > > apply to the current version. > > Again, "if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did > not violate the specified rule". Rule 105/3, "Rule Changes", refers to > "amend[ing] the text of a rule", and in other ways strongly suggests > that after a rule is changed, it's still the same rule, and also says > that rules cannot be changed in any other ways. Therefore, "the > specified rule" is not the same as "the current version of the > specified rule".
Since the rule in question hasn't changed at all since a month and a half before this case arose, I think it would be more accurate to call them the "imagined version" and the "actual version". -root
