On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>> >
>> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
>> > by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
>> >
>> > with this text:
>> >
>> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have
>> > violated the specified rule
>>
>> Eh?
> comex got out of being found guilty in a criminal case by alleging that
> the act occurred a long time ago, even though it didn't (with
> appropriate disclaimers), thus forcing an OVERLOOKED version.
Wouldn't e be guilty of lying then?
