On May 30, 2008, at 9:40 PM, comex wrote:
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?
He got hit with two criminal CFJs for the same act. I'm trying to
find a way to dismiss the second one as double jeopardy (regardless
of my ruling on CFJ 1948, as I feel CFJ 1951 should have been
rejected ex genesis), but since it's citing a different rule than CFJ
1948, I'm having to stretch pretty darn far. I'd appreciate some
help here; any suggestions?
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
