============================== CFJ 1597 ==============================
An appeal of the Trial Judgement for CFJ 1594 may not be initiated.
Called by G.: 22 Dec 2006 22:50:52 GMT
Assigned to Michael: 31 Jan 2007 13:03:46 GMT
Judged FALSE by Michael: 31 Jan 2007 22:11:39 GMT
As Murphy noted in public (see evidence), it can't be determined
with finality if Goethe or Sherlock was legally the Trial Judge for CFJ 1594,
due to the nature of the paradox. But only one of them
was, so only one of them delivered a valid judgement.
By Rule 1564(a), it is not a CFJ overall that is appealed,
but the judgement of a specific Trial Judge. By standards and
precedents of clarity of communication in Agora, since there are
two potential Trial Judges, it would be necessary for anyone calling
for appeal to be clear about which Trial Judge was being appealed.
But since, no matter which Trial Judge is named, it is not possible
to tell if they made a valid judgement, it is not possible to
actually initiate the appeal.
Rule 1564/13 (Power=1)
The following are subject to Appeal:
a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.
b) The grant or denial of a Motion.
c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order.
d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required
A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:
i) Three Players Appeal it.
ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em.
iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a
A single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order)
may only be appealed once.
As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player
becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the
Courts shall announce the event.
> I make a CFJ on the following statement
> CFJ 1594 has been judged.
I assign this CFJ to Goethe.
I publicly note the following:
* Both Goethe and Sherlock presented reasonable interpretations
of Rule 1789. Which of these interpretations we apply is
determined by which of eir purported judgements was effective.
* If the purported Writ of FAGE was successful in deregistering
Goethe, then Sherlock's judgement was effective; but then the
purported Writ of FAGE was unsuccessful. Contradiction.
* If the purported WoF was unsuccessful, then Goethe's judgement
was effective; but then the purported WoF was successful. Again,
* The question of whether Goethe is still a player cannot be
determined with finality. Thus, the legality of assigning
Goethe as judge of the CFJ above cannot be determined with
Judge Michael's Arguments:
The caller attempts to argue that because any putative appealer of CFJ
1594 can not name the Judge whose judgement they are appealing, they
fail to meet Agoran "standards and precedents of clarity of
However, Rule 1564 does not require that a Trial Judge be named. Nor
does R754 explicitly require that entities be named (as opposed to
identified, which would be achieved by stating "I appeal the Trial
Judge of CFJ 1594's Judgement of CFJ 1594").
Nor, indeed, is precedent with the caller: appeals have been
traditionally expressed as "I appeal this Judgement", or "I appeal CFJ
", with no explicit mention of the Trial Judge (name or identity)