On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Roderick and Ellen Robertson
<rjremr_at_fsFSnrqiOokNnvk3iTxNZIeE1kJHCQkpp3S9P9mMFhDdivmMfkKzyvmS80srSD_SKKWmQl4gF8oUWxfkRw.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> Jeff can argue that in his game I'd get a penalty for my argument; well, try
> to get a claim against an outlaw in *my* game and you'd be laughed out of
> the moot!
>
> RR
I'm just suggesting that there are a lot of factors that would go into the judgment for or against these arguments. Did the clan know their kin were killed before the outlawing judgment came? Did the clan that outlawed the killer inform the other clan? Was there a representative of the slain kin at the moot? Has a year passed since the outlaw judgment? And so on...
The actual details are probably the keys in the decision that would come, not from a broad rule such as the two arguments that have been presented.
Powered by hypermail