On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The key part of Rule 2149/8 is that a message doesn't have to be true, > but > > that the person who writes it believes that it is true. comes tries to > > exploit a loophole that he thought would work, so Rule 2149/8 doesn't > take > > affect here. I proto-judge INNOCENT. > > E didn't believe it to be true at the time e allegedly published it. > E believed that it would *become* true upon ratification. > > A better argument for INNOCENT would follow CFJ 1905, which found that > the message in question was not public. > > -root > Good point. So the proto-judgement would like this: According to CFJ 1905, comex's message isn't public. Therefore, Rule 2149/8 doesn't apply because Rule 2149/8 only applies to public messages. Therefore, I proto-judge INNOCENT. -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
