On May 29, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Got it. Seems like an easy counter argument though: > An event that could not yet have happened is not "substantially" the same > as one that could have. That has some measure of common sense, and > has some precedent too (eg no pre-objecting , as an event which might > not ever happen has no "substance" to it).
I almost agree with this. "Taunting the police, specifying 3, on June 22nd, 2013" is not an act, in the sense of "something done", because it is not something that has been done; it is something that *could* be done. However, Rule 1504 talks about an "alleged act"; it doesn't have to be something that has actually happened. It could be argued, though, that the "alleged act" must necessarily be something that's alleged to have already happened; thus, the actual alleged act is "taunting the police, specifying 3, on June 22nd, 2013, on or before May 29, 2013", which is not the same "alleged act" as anything that might be CFJ'd in the future. —Machiavelli
