On Thu, 15 May 2008, comex wrote: > Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe > trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with > Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such "double > penalization" (of being called to court twice for violating two > different rules with the same action, which is exactly the situation > in my 'duplicate' criminal case against em), it would be forbidden to > initiate a second criminal case even for a different rule.
That doesn't change my argument. R101 would have precedence and prevent the trial altogether. It's not implicit, it's explicit. -Goethe
