========================= Criminal Case 1951 =========================
Goethe violated Rule 217 by submitting a judgement (on behalf of an
appeal panel) for the appeal case CFJ 1932a.
Called by omd: 13 May 2008 15:10:15 GMT
Defendant G. informed: 16 May 2008 05:14:56 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended: 19 May 2008 17:28:41 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli: 22 May 2008 03:37:10 GMT
Machiavelli recused: 23 May 2008 14:03:33 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr: 27 May 2008 01:48:03 GMT
OscarMeyr recused: 06 Jun 2008 00:04:22 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ: 07 Jun 2008 07:18:42 GMT
BobTHJ recused: 08 Jun 2008 01:32:40 GMT
Assigned to root: 08 Jun 2008 07:15:35 GMT
Judged UNIMPUGNED by root: 13 Jun 2008 05:20:27 GMT
The best interests of the game DO NOT include exercising judicial
authority to bust a possibly valid scam, ESPECIALLY when a judicial
case (CFJ 1938) that would clearly determine the appropriateness of
the appealed judgement is already in progress, will be judged soon,
and is open to fair appeal. I called for an inquiry case on the
matter, unaware of CFJ 1938, but the issue is the same: for the best
interests of the game, the prior judgement MUST CLEARLY be determined
to be inappropriate before the appeal case is reassigned or overruled,
and it has NOT.
Goethe did respond briefly to ONE of my concerns in the discussion
forum, but e then proceeded to reassign CFJ 1932 despite CFJ 1938 not
having yet been judged. This is an egregiously inappropriate-- if not
in the Agoran sense of the word, in the common-- appeal judgement.
Rule 217/6 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
Note: In CFJ 1296, Peekee was tried for violating Rule 217; the case
was dismissed only because a rule then existed that stated that
inappropriate judgements must be dealt with by the appeals court.
That rule no longer exists, and I do allege that the appeals court
itself has acted inappropriately.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
I consider the need to defend myself against this double-prosecution to be
a more onerous punishment that leaving the game, and I will do so before
participating in this infraction against my rights.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Point-by-point with reference to the caller's allegations:
1. According to CFJ 1871, even incorrect arguments are not sufficient
for a judgement to be inappropriate. The Caller argues that the
arguments are inappropriate, but does not make the case for why the
appeals judgement itself (e.g. Goethe's actual action in question) was
2. Judges are under no obligation to follow discussion threads or
respond to every argument raised therein.
3. The existence of CFJ 1938 has no bearing on what is appropriate
until CFJ 1938 is judged and is part of precedent. Until then, Judges
are under no compulsion whatsoever to pay attention to it.
4. There is no evidence whatsoever as to the "motives" that the caller
has accused the appeals board of, i.e. that the appeals board delivered
a judgement solely to "bust" a scam, rather than one based on their
(correct or not) legitimate interpretation of Agoran rules. Opinions
expressed by the judicial panel in discussion fora (before and after the
case) were, to the best of my knowledge, based on law interpretation and
not motive to "shoot down" a scam at all costs, as were private discussions
between panel members.
5. The case itself:
The appeals judgement clearly establishes the ability of the court to
look into whether matters in an equity case are equitable, and also
establishes that the test of whether matters are equitable is *not*
whether parties are satisfied.
It has been argued that what we didn't address is the following clause
A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably
equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to
the matters raised in the initiation of the case
It is argued that a contract reading "party A has to give party B the
10 cents e is owed, but OMG EVERY PARTY GETS a PONY!!! FREE JUDICIAL
PONIES FOR ALL. ME TO!!??! OMG!" is equitable to the "situation at
hand" (the 10 cents) so that adding the OMG POINES does not enter into
the equation itself.
If that were true, it would be possible to say "here's your 10 cents,
but I'm going to arbitrarily punish root by penalizing em 500 points,
and you can't anything about it because it's not part of the "situation
at hand." No reasonable person---and at this point, it is impossible
for me to consider the scammers to be in any way reasonable---would
find this equitable. This example of "negative gravy" shows that the
equity of the situation includes THE WHOLE SITUATION of the
judgement, gravy and all, as that gravy (positive or negative) can
SUBSTANTIALLY SKEW the equity with respect to the "matters raised."
The court is PERFECTLY correct to look at the situation as a whole, and
to consider the situation AS A WHOLE to be part of the "situation at
hand", again even if the parties are satisfied with the outcome due to
being bribed with POINES. This is well within the purvue of the current
Rules and the cited clause in R2169.
This is the standard, laid out plainly and simply: if a clause in the
contract affects the overall material result or relative worth of the
"situation at hand" and "matters raised", or affects the overall
material worth of the contract as a whole, it is part of the equation
and subject to the review of the courts, even if the clause in question
does not deal strictly and narrowly with the quantities involved, and
even (and especially) if the contract results in substantial side-
benefits for any and all parties unintended by the text of the contract
This is despite the vigorous, vociferous, and increasingly shrill
accusations on the part of self-interested scammers who have the
audacity to ascribe "political" motives to legitimate judicial discourse.
Non oris causa modo hominess aequom fuit sibi habere speculum, sed qui
perspicere possent cor sapientiae, and frankly, I hope you all choke.
Judge root's Arguments:
Submitting a judgement on behalf of an appeal panel for an appeal case
is not prohibited by Rule 217. I judge UNIMPUGNED.