I wrote:
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Ed Murphy<[email protected]> wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3128
============================== CFJ 3128 ==============================
The above purported attempt to initiate a criminal CfJ failed
because it did not allege that the defendent violated the rule
it named.
========================================================================
I judge TRUE. The reasoning is straightforward: if nobody alleged that
the rule was violated, then the rule allegedly violated was not
specified.
I intend (with 2 support) to request reconsideration. Especially in
light of CFJ 3126, "X committed crime Y defined by rule Z" clearly
(albeit implicitly) implies "X thereby violated rule Z". If Rule
1504 said "explicitly specify", then it'd be a different story.
Anyone want to second/third this?
