Index ← 1118 CFJ 1119 1120 → text
                               CFJ 1119

    Kolja did not have effective control of more than three Voting
    Tokens at the time Proposals 3829-3830 were distributed, because he
    had granted Power of Attorney to Steve.


Called by:           Steve

Judge:               Kolja A.
Judgement:           TRUE
Judgement Appealed

Appeals Board:       Crito (J), Murphy (S), Michael (pro-CotC)

Decision of Justices:

  Justiciar Crito:   OVERTURN/FALSE
  Speaker Murphy:    OVERTURN/FALSE
  pro-CotC Michael:  OVERTURN/FALSE

Decision of Board:   OVERTURN/FALSE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Andre, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Kolja A., Michael, 
Not eligible:
Caller:              Steve
Barred:              Blob
Had their turn:      Ørjan, Macross, Blob, General Chaos, Murphy, Peekee,
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             Ørjan, lee

Justice selection (random replacement of CotC Steve, cf R911/8):

Eligible:            Chuck, elJefe, General Chaos, Macross, Michael,
                     Morendil, Peekee, Vlad

Not eligible:        
Caller:              Steve
Barred:              Blob
Already served:      Kolja A.
Orig. ineligible:    Ørjan
On Board:            Crito, Murphy



  Called by Steve:                         Mon, 08 Feb 1999 20:49:50 +1100
  Assigned to Kolja A.:                    Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:13:48 +1100
  Judged TRUE by Steve 
     (acting as Kolja's Executor):         Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:35:28 +1100
  Appealed by Michael:                     Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:54:54 +0000
  Appealed by Chuck:                       Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:38:24 -0600
  Appealed by Vlad:                        Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:46:39 -0600
  Judgement published:                     Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:56:29 +1100
  Assigned to Board of Appeals:            Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:56:29 +1100
  Justiciar Crito Judges OVERTURN/FALSE:   Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:27:46 -0500
  pro-CotC Michael Judges OVERTURN/FALSE:  Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:11:25 +0000
  Speaker Murphy Judges OVERTURN/FALSE:    Wed, 03 Mar 1999 01:16:41 -0800
  Decision of Board published:             as of this message

Caller's Arguments:

Kolja granted me his Power of Attorney commencing on 01 Feb 1999 00:00
GMT, about five and a half hours before Proposals 3829-3830 were
distributed (at Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:36:00 -0500, according to the
Assessor's Report of the results).

Now, R1842 states that:

      When the Holder is granted Power of Attorney for the Grantor, that
      means that the Holder becomes the sole Executor for the Grantor
      for as long as e has that Power of Attorney.

So while I hold Kolja's Power of Attorney, I am Kolja's sole Executor.
In particular, this means that Kolja is not his own Executor, and is
therefore incapable of executing Transfer Orders, at least of a kind
which the Recordkeepor is required to record (see R1817). According to
the definition of "effective control of an asset" in R1873,

      Effective control of an asset (e.g., a unit of Currency) is the
      ability to dispose of that asset as one wishes.

But Kolja manifestly cannot dispose of his assets as he wishes while I
hold his Power of Attorney, for he cannot dispose of his assets at all;
only I can do so, as his sole Executor. Hence Kolja did not have
effective control of any assets whatsoever when Proposals 3829-3830 were
distributed, and could not have incurred a Duty to Vote on those

Judge's Arguments:

Acting as Kolja's Executor, I hereby deliver the following Judgement:

I accept the Caller's arguments and deliver a Judgement of TRUE.

Justiciar Crito's Arguments:

I hereby vote to overturn the above judgement and return a judgement of
FALSE for CFJ 1119.

At first blush, the original judgement seems reasonable, since granting
PoA to another Player does indeed technically deprive the grantor of the
ability to make Transfer Orders for the duration of the granting.
However, because the PoA Rules allow the grantor to revoke PoA at any
time, without warning or restriction, there is never a time during the
the grantor is actually unable to make use of eir assets, if e so
desires.  It is this judges opinion that such an ability amounts to
continuous "effective control" over the assets in question.

This means that Kolja did indeed incur a Duty to Vote on Proposals
3829-3830 and the original penalty assessment was valid.  Since these
penalties were vacated by the original Judge, it appears to be my duty
as Justiciar and Lead Justice for the Appeal to issue Appellate Orders
reinstating these penalties, as long as one or both of my fellow
appellate justices concur with this finding and certify that these
orders should be issued.

--Justiciar Crito

pro-CotC Michael's Arguments:

I hereby move to OVERTURN the judgement and replace it with one of

Andre has pointed that regardless of whether or not Kolja granted
Power of Attorney to Steve, he still had the ability to at any time
retract this grant and then assume complete control of his assets.
The issue then becomes one of deciding whether or not this constitutes
"effective control".  As many have pointed out, Kolja certainly did
not have exclusive control of his assets as Steve could have also
spent his currencies while he had PoA for Kolja.  Nonetheless, the
rule in question only asks us to decide whether or not Kolja A.  had 
effective control of his assets.  

This Justice believes that he did. 


Justice Murphy's Arguments:

I find that the original Judgement is incorrect, and move to reverse it.

Even while Power of Attorney is in effect, Kolja is still able to act as
emself, because e *is* emself; e does not need the power of Executorship
to do so.  Kolja is able to spend eir Currency, or lock it up in a
Contest which prohibits Steve from doing anything to it on behalf of
Kolja.  It is my opinion that this imposes no significant penalty.  It
is also my opinion that Steve's ability to beat Kolja to the punch does
not deny Kolja effective control; effective control need not be