On May 30, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJ 1951 is for the same act as CFJ 1948 (citing a different
rule), and
therefore becomes ALREADY JUDGED.
I think you mean ALREADY TRIED. But note that while it may be
reasonable here, it's not appropriate because ALREADY TRIED requires
that it be the same rule allegedly broken.
My mistake; thanks for catching it. Since that's not a valid ruling,
I presume CFJ 1951 is still in my hands.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
