On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 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. >> >> That doesn't change my argument. R101 would have precedence and prevent >> the trial altogether. It's not implicit, it's explicit. > > Sorry, I didn't mean "prevent" the trial, I meant make it illegal to > start the second one, as doing so abridges/limits etc. my rights.
While I agree with you that double jeopardy is a serious issue, what would then prevent a person from breaking a rule, initiating a specious criminal case alleging that the action broke some other rule, then go on to assert that any further prosecution presented an illegal violation of eir R101 rights? -root
