Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No frivolous prosecution

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/17 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled "No frivolous >> prosecution": > > Violates R101. I don't think it does. Inquiry cases are still available. -- Taral <[EMA

DIS: Re: BUS: No frivolous prosecution

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled "No frivolous > prosecution": > > { > Amend R1504 by inserting ", with 2 Support," after "A criminal case > CAN" in the first paragraph. > } Ooo, I like this one. -- Tar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No frivolous prosecution

tusho wrote: > 2008/7/17 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled "No frivolous >> prosecution": > > Violates R101. Announcing intent would still initiate a formal process, with the reasonable expectation that at least 2 players will support any no

DIS: Re: BUS: No frivolous prosecution

2008/7/17 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled "No frivolous > prosecution": Violates R101.