2008/7/15 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> comex got out of being found guilty in a criminal case by alleging that
>> the act occurred a long time ago, even though it didn't (with
>> appropriate disclaimers), thus forcing an OVERLOOKED version.
> Wouldn't e be guilty of lying then?
>
> (with
>> approp
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>> >
>> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if th
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
> >
> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
> >by the specified rule at the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>
> * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
>by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
>
> with this text:
>
> *
4 matches
Mail list logo
