On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> ========================= Criminal Case 2435 =========================
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> I suggest that the judge of that case apply the standard punishment, but
> (per rule 2145) apply it to comex, rather than to the partnership as a
> whole (a criminal case is needed to do that, an NoV isn't sufficient).
>
> In addition, and to shake matters up further, I think the PNP may
> actually be NOT GUILTY on this one. R2215 bans making a statement that
> is "intended to mislead others as to its truth"; the PNP, being a legal
> construct and not a natural person at all, cannot have intentions in the
> common-language sense (and this is clearly a different sense of intent
> to that used in R1728).
Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742
case against comex?
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
