On 5/30/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second attempt at a valid ruling: > > CFJ 1951 must be dismissed, under R101(vii): Every person has the right to > not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. > > This part of R101 is appropriate because CFJ 1951 is a criminal case > alleging the same act act CFJ 1948, although citing a different rule. R1504 > does not have an appropriate valid judgement in this situation; fortunately, > R101 takes precedence. I therefore DISMISS CFJ 1951.
Nonsense. By your judgement of CFJ 1948, Goethe is not to be penalized for eir act. E can be penalized this time if e wasn't last time... besides, are you trying to infer the existence of DISMISS from R101 only?
