On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal: Fix OVERLOOKED
>> (AI = 1.7, please)
>>
>> Ivan Hope and Pavitra are co-authors of this proposal.
>>
>> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>>
>> * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred
>> at least 200 days before the case was initiated
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>> * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged
>> a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated
>>
>> [Closes the loophole where the defendant can force OVERLOOKED by
>> falsely alleging that the breach occurred a long time ago.]
>>
What if the initiating announcement alleges a rule breach, but doesn't
specify when it happened, but it is referring to something that
happenened 200+ days ago?
