Index ← 1183 CFJ 1184 1185 → text
To: agora-off 
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1184 Judged FALSE
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:27 PM

                              CFJ 1184

    Any Player who is subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts
    of the United States of America and simultaneously a director,
    officer, employee, or agent of an American public institution,
    as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), is
    required as a matter of law to observe the Constitutional
    requirements of due process in the course of conducting eir
    business as a Judge, Justice, or Officer, or as the Speaker.


Called by:           Kelly

Judge:               Chuck
Judgement:           FALSE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Chuck, Crito, Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee,
                     Michael, Murphy, Palnatoke, Peekee, t, Wes

Not eligible:
Caller:              -
Barred:              -
Had their turn:      -
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          Blob, Steve
On Hold:             elJefe



Called by Kelly:                      06 Dec 1999 16:38:52 -0500
Assigned to Chuck:                    07 Dec 1999 23:27:31 -0800
Judged FALSE by Chuck:                09 Dec 1999 01:00:25 -0600
Judgement Distributed:                As of this message


Caller's Arguments:


Evidence attached by the Caller:


Judge's Arguments:

I believe this statement may well be true; the Rules require me to Judge
it FALSE; therefore I hereby Judge this statement to be FALSE.

I will assume for the sake of argument that U.S. law does include a
requirement as described in the statement, although I have not
researched this topic.

According to the Rules, however, no such requirement exists.  No
such requirement is stated in the Rules, and thus is permitted by
Rule 101 (excerpted):

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is
      permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing
      the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or
      implicitly permit it.

Now, I believe that some Players are subject, as a matter of law,
to U.S. law.  But is this enough to allow me to Judge the statement
to be TRUE?  It is not, and Rule 217 is quite clear on the one
standard for Judging that is placed ahead of all others:

      All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however,
      if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the
      Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game
      custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of
      the game before applying other standards.

The Rules state quite clearly that ignoring the alleged requirement
is permitted.  Thus--regardless of fact or my own beliefs on the subject--
a Judgement of FALSE is in accordance with the Rules, and a Judgement
of TRUE is not in accordance with the Rules.  Thus, by Rule 217, this
statement must be Judged FALSE.

It has been suggested that U.S. law could be one of the "other standards"
a Judge could choose to apply, mentioned in Rule 217.  But game
custom, commonsense [sic], past Judgements, the best interests of the
game, and other standards can be applied *only* if the Rules are silent,
inconsistent, or unclear on the issue.  The Rules here are quite clear,
and thus I am not permitted to apply any other standards for Judgement.