On Dec 20, 2007 4:43 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't INNOCENT be more appropriate, then?
I don't believe so. While BobTHJ's defense was plausible, it is not
evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, as Goethe has
noted, the defendant's word that e acted in good faith sho
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 3:47 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby, in linked fashion, assign root as judge of CFJs 1837-1838.
>
> At the time that each of the alleged acts was committed, Rule 2149/7
> was in force, and it did proscribe the publ
On Dec 20, 2007 4:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I note that a similar case in which the defendant is charged with
> being "reckless regarding the veracity of" eir statements while a
> knight, also proscribed by Rule 2149/7, may have different results.
By the way, I hope that somebo
3 matches
Mail list logo
