========================= Criminal Case 1952 =========================
comex violated Rule 101(vii) and Goethe's defined rights by
initiating a criminal case against Goethe, when Goethe is already
being punished for the same single action (by having to defend
emself in a separate, previously-initiated criminal case).
Called by G.: 13 May 2008 16:19:57 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended: 13 May 2008 19:16:27 GMT
Defendant omd informed: 16 May 2008 05:14:56 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli: 16 May 2008 05:44:34 GMT
Judged UNIMPUGNED by Machiavelli: 16 May 2008 20:10:27 GMT
The act of being brought to trial and having to defend oneself is a
punishment. Having to do so a second time for the same action is
sufficient punishment (regardless of case outcome) that it is a violation
of R101(vii) to initiate a second criminal case. Preventing second trials
(not just second sentences) is a standard of double-jeopardy accepted in
free societies worldwide. Note that R101(vii) prevents double jeopardy
per alleged action, not per rule violated, so even though root's and comex's
allegations refer to different rules being breached, comex has vioated
R101(vii) as it refers to the same action. The fact that comex phrases is
as the action of delivering the judgement whereas root phrases it as an
inaction of delivering the correct judgment is not a substantive difference,
it does not remove the fact that it was the act of publishing the message
with support that is under question in both cases.
root's first criminal case, extract from:
> I initiate a criminal case against each of Goethe, Murphy, and Wooble.
> In each case, the rule breached was Rule 2157, and the action by
> which it was breached was failing to ensure that the panel met all of
> its obligations in appeal case 1932a.
comex's second criminal case, extract from:
> I initiate a criminal case against Goethe alleging that e violated
> Rule 217 by submitting a judgement (on behalf of an appeal panel) for
> the appeal case CFJ 1932a.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
This is like saying that speaking out against someone is a punishment.
The only penalization in a criminal CFJ recognized by the Game of
Agora is a sentence, and by CFJ 1488, I am not guilty of engineering
the potential situation in which each case nets you a different one.
(In fact, I somehow managed to not see root's message despite it being
located (in GMail) directly above my reply. Perhaps there should be a
way to "support" a criminal case, and thereby increase the punishment
if the defendant is GUILTY. Mob psychology and all.)
Judge Machiavelli's Arguments:
I judge UNIMPUGNED. Being tried is not by itself a punishment, because
it neither imposes obligations nor limits the actions one is allowed