<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What does Williams mean?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/03/williams-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/03/williams-2/</link>
	<description>Case analysis with an attitude</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:43:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim Trotter</title>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/03/williams-2/comment-page-1/#comment-69585</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Trotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://briefcase8.com/?p=2614#comment-69585</guid>
		<description>Barring a double jeopardy argument, which I do not think applies to seperate animus, why are the facts so important.  Shouldn&#039;t the first concern be legislative intent.  If the legislature intends one shot one count or multiple shots one count seems to be within thier sphere of ability to control by statute.  But the legislature, without money from the feds, seems about as willing as the Ohio Supreme Court to address these issues in a coherent manner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barring a double jeopardy argument, which I do not think applies to seperate animus, why are the facts so important.  Shouldn&#8217;t the first concern be legislative intent.  If the legislature intends one shot one count or multiple shots one count seems to be within thier sphere of ability to control by statute.  But the legislature, without money from the feds, seems about as willing as the Ohio Supreme Court to address these issues in a coherent manner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Gamso</title>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/03/williams-2/comment-page-1/#comment-69584</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Gamso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://briefcase8.com/?p=2614#comment-69584</guid>
		<description>Of course, that&#039;s our supreme court.  One way to try for resolution of the issue would be for Williams (or the state) to ask the court for reconsideration/clarification.  They might even grant it.  Of course, whoever asked might end up unhappy with the answer.  

Letting it go now, on the other hand, gives Williams, at least, three tries to have it come out his way:  Common pleas, court of appeals, and then back to Columbus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, that&#8217;s our supreme court.  One way to try for resolution of the issue would be for Williams (or the state) to ask the court for reconsideration/clarification.  They might even grant it.  Of course, whoever asked might end up unhappy with the answer.  </p>
<p>Letting it go now, on the other hand, gives Williams, at least, three tries to have it come out his way:  Common pleas, court of appeals, and then back to Columbus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
