comex wrote: >- rule: 2149 >- action: eating cake. R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
>- rule: 2149 >- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149 Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes an unqualified allegation of rule violation. R1504 speaks of an "allegation" internally, but only as a way to identify the parameters of the case. For the record, I was undecided about this issue when I drafted it. -zefram
