From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 08:07:04 PDT
"Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com> writes: > <this is not a rule> > I beg to differ. It only describes a special case that would be true > anyway if Rule 185:1 is VALID. Under RO6, rules must be consistent with > previous rules. Therefore, all subsequent rules that claim defamation > must be consistent with the criteria for defamation set out in rule 1, > if rule 1 is VALID. It's not changing the criteria for validity, only > elaborating on them. > </this is not a rule> The relevant text is: > > The Judge > > > > will deem such rules VALID if they meet the criteria set > > out above, The defamation criteria alluded to do not include any requirement of consistency with all restrictions imposed by the rule itself, all previous rules, and the ROs. The criteria therefore are less stringent than those established by the ROs: A rule that was inconsistent with the ROs, but consistent with your defamation criteria, must be declared INVALID according to the ROs but VALID according to 185.1. This is an inconsistency with the ROs which invalidates 185.1. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:07:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST