G. wrote:
> On a previous case, I remember finding that it was possible that due
> to such consideration, the punishment would "stop working" in some
> sense. I think it was finding that some Rests could be expunged and
> some couldn't.
CFJs 2709-10 and 2712-14 (I came across the latter while researching
that clause). The situation was:
* Wooble, scshunt, and some others were members of a contract that
violated some obligation.
* 2709-10 dinged Wooble and scshunt directly.
* 2712-14 found that dinging the contract, which normally would
instead ding each member, would only ding the other members;
Wooble and scshunt would be immune due to 2709-10 and double
jeopardy.
