On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:05, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Y'know, after reading R2230 (the NOV rule) I don't know that the above >> did anything (which is somewhat ironic given the nature of the dispute >> over this NOV). If the above failed to initiate a criminal case I do >> the following: > > Contesting it without raising a criminal case makes it Contested. If > the accuser (or others) accept your explanation when you contest it, and > no one initiates a criminal case, it stays contested and no rests are > applied. > > The additional step of raising the criminal case is only needed if the > accuser isn't satisfied with your explanation and wants to call > in a judge to determine if the guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt (or you > anticipate that the accuser won't be satisfied, so you do it yourself > just to keep the process moving). > Bah! And get salary for serving as Insulator? shame.
BobTHJ
