Index ← 1447 CFJ 1448a 1448 → text
============================  Appeal 1448a  ============================

Panelist:                               Steve
Decision:                               REVERSE

Panelist:                               Taral
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Peekee
Decision:                               REVERSE



Appeal initiated:                       20 Mar 2003 00:36:51 GMT
Assigned to Steve (panelist):           21 Mar 2003 00:08:30 GMT
Assigned to Taral (panelist):           21 Mar 2003 00:08:30 GMT
Assigned to Peekee (panelist):          21 Mar 2003 00:08:30 GMT
Steve moves to REVERSE:                 24 Mar 2003 00:54:12 GMT
Peekee moves to REVERSE:                27 Mar 2003 10:57:20 GMT
Final decision (REVERSE):               28 Mar 2003 00:08:30 GMT
Taral moves to REMAND:                  28 Mar 2003 00:08:30 GMT


Panelist Steve's Arguments:

Goethe's argument, while ingenious, seems to me to overstep the limits
of permissible interpretation of the Rules, into a region where the
Rules are violated.

Rule 1941 is very clear that to pay a Fee, a transfer must take place.
R1598 is equally clear that a valid transfer of zero Currency is not
legally possible. The conclusion is therefore inescapable that to pay a
Fee by transferring zero Currency is impossible.

I therefore overturn Goethe's Judgement and return a Judgement of FALSE
in CFJ 1448.


Panelist Peekee's Arguments:

As this is an appeal of the Judgement of CFJ 1448 I shall consider the
correctness of Goethe's Judgement on that CFJ. By which I mean not only
their final Judgment but the arguments e used to reach that final Judgement.

The main Question I ask myself on first reading this is why "a Notice of
Transfer can't be delivered for 0 of a Property"?
OK, a slightly more in-depth reading of the Ruleset shows "Each instance of
a Currency is a Property. Instances of a given Currency are fungible. The
size of a single instance, or "unit", of a given Currency is its Minimum
Unit Quantity" so 0 of a Property is not "one or more Properties".


"A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor receives a valid
Notice of Transfer."

This includes 0-transfers, however as mentioned above such a Notice is
impossible. It is not just the case that 0-transfers are not defined it is
that they are impossible to complete as the Notice of Transfer will not be
valid (although as mentioned in a-d there may be way of getting around this,
but these are not applicable to this case). Not trasnfering any currency may
have the same results as a hypothetical 0-transfer but is not a 0-transfer,
and Paying a Fee only cares about the transfer not the results of the

Regardless of the "sole purpose" a transfer has to be made for the Fee to be

Furthermore even if somehow Cecilius had managed to transfer 0 Papyri to the
Bank or if by not transfering any e had managed to somehow pay a 0-Fee how
were we supposed to know from the messages given that it was solely for
paying an instance of a given Fee? It is unclear how to qunatify inaction(s)
and certainly there are some muddy waters in that direction. None of this
matters as IMO a 0-transfer was required and was not made to Pay the 0-Fee
as such the Proposal was not rubberstampped by the given message.

I therefore overturn Goethe's Judgement and return a Judgement of FALSE
in CFJ 1448.


Panelist Taral's Arguments:

As much as I agree with the arguments posted by my fellow Justices, I
disagree with the unilateral reversal of the Judgement. It is entirely
possible that another line of argument, or even a further clarification
might have come up in further deliberation. Therefore I register my
dissent and simply OVERTURN the judgement.