Index ← 1947 CFJ 1948 1949 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 1948  =========================

    Goethe breached Rule 2157 by failing to ensure that the panel met
    all of its obligations in appeal case 1932a.  Specifically, the
    panel failed to meet its obligation to assign an appropriate
    judgement in that case.


Caller:                                 root
Barred:                                 G.
Barred:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  pikhq

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              INNOCENT



Called by root:                         13 May 2008 06:33:03 GMT
Defendant G. informed:                  16 May 2008 05:14:56 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  16 May 2008 05:30:32 GMT
Assigned to pikhq:                      16 May 2008 05:56:39 GMT
pikhq recused:                          30 May 2008 07:28:00 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  30 May 2008 07:37:11 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by OscarMeyr:           30 May 2008 23:03:05 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The judgement assigned by the panel in 1932a was REASSIGN, which per
R911 is "appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement".  This was not established by
the panel.  The closing paragraph of the panel's judgement found that
there was serious doubt as to the "reasonableness" of the prior
judgement, but this is not sufficient; for the prior judgement to be
inappropriate, it must fail to be "reasonably equitable", not

It may be the case that Panelist Goethe was simply careless with eir
words in that paragraph and meant "reasonably equitable" wherever e
wrote "reasonable".  But even correcting those words leaves us with
this puzzling statement:  "...whether or not [the contract in
question] is [reasonably equitable] as a whole, the direct and obvious
bribery and resulting collusion by the judge is sufficient grounds to
question the [reasonable equity] of the judgement..."  Huh?

In fact, what seems to be the case is that the panelists simply wish
to penalize the prior judge for eir participation in the scam, so they
point to obvious collusion in forming the prior judgement (which is
not illegal per se) as evidence that the judgement was inequitable,
ignoring that the equitability of that judgement was in fact an
important goal for the conspirators, and despite that the nature of
the scam provided no motive whatsoever to assign an inequitable

This evidence is therefore exceedingly flimsy, and no other is
provided.  In the preceding paragraphs, the panel convincingly argues
that equitability is to be determined by a "reasonable disinterested
observer", not by a party to the contract, but they provide no
argument either that the prior judge held any unreasonable interest in
the equitability of eir judgement, or that any other "reasonable
disinterested" third party might actually consider the judgement
inequitable.  In fact, panelist Murphy even suggested a replacement
judgement that would use the *exact same* clause to equitably resolve
the state of affairs that led up to CFJ 1932 in the first place.

In summary, the members of the panel in CFJ 1932a have assigned a
judgement that requires there be "serious doubt" but have failed to
establish that such exists; and moreover, they have done so not with
the honest intention of establishing a more equitable resolution to
CFJ 1932, but rather in the political hope of providing the judge of
criminal case 1938 with the precedent e needs to get a conviction.
This is a clear abuse of the panel's authority as an appeal judge, and
this court should not stand for it.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Judicis officium est, ut res, ita tempora rerum quaerere.
(It is the judge's duty to enquire not only into the facts,
but the circumstances.  -Ovid).


Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

CFJs 1948 - 51 all address the appeal panel in Appeal 1932a ruling
REASSIGN on CFJ 1932, and whether this was a criminally inappropriate

I consider the act of challenging a judge over the performance of eir
duty must be held to the highest standards available.  The caller of
1948 - 50 makes a good case that REASSIGN may not have been the best
ruling in 1932a.  However, I consider REASSIGN a valid ruling under
the circumstances, and therefore appropriate.  I am strongly swayed
by Wooble's defense in CFJ 1950 in support of my opinion.