On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Smith <spamba...@yahoo.com> wrote: > CfJ:The second NoV quoted below is not valid > > Arguments: According to Rule 2230, "A NoV is valid if and only if... no > previous valid NoV specified substantially identical information (i.e. the > same violation for the same specific act)." The first quoted NoV cited the > same violation and act; therefore, according to the given definition of > 'substantially identical', and assuming the first quoted NoV is valid, all > further NoVs citing the same violation and specific act are invalid > regardless of the identity of the accused. > > (should the first quoted NoV be ruled invalid, the second quoted NoV is most > likely invalid for the same reason.)
Arguments: it's not "the same violation" if a different person is accused. —Tanner L. Swett
