Index ← 2434 CFJ 2435 2436a → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2435  =========================

    comex broke Power-2 Rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance the
    PerlNomic Partnership contract by failing to ensure the PNP obeys
    the rules of Agora to the maximum extent by causing the PNP to
    publish that the proposal pool was empty when it was not.


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY



Called by ais523:                       26 Mar 2009 16:53:11 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 26 Mar 2009 16:53:11 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      28 Mar 2009 16:07:24 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by Taral:             01 Apr 2009 00:46:02 GMT


Gratuitous Evidence by woggle:

Evidence from PerlNomic's log.txt:

Thu Mar 26 08:56:32 2009 - agora-propose.cgi: comex added proposal
/var/www/sites/ to the
Thu Mar 26 08:56:35 2009 - agora-distribute.cgi: Distributing Agoran proposal


Caller's Arguments:

I suggest that the judge of that case apply the standard punishment, but
(per rule 2145) apply it to comex, rather than to the partnership as a
whole (a criminal case is needed to do that, an NoV isn't sufficient).

In addition, and to shake matters up further, I think the PNP may
actually be NOT GUILTY on this one. R2215 bans making a statement that
is "intended to mislead others as to its truth"; the PNP, being a legal
construct and not a natural person at all, cannot have intentions in the
common-language sense (and this is clearly a different sense of intent
to that used in R1728).


Gratuitous Arguments by Taral:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Taral  wrote:
>>> Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742
>>> case against comex?
> And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here.  Proponents
> claim that partnerships can't have intents, but the origination and
> whole point of partnerships is that they can have things that persons
> have (such as intent).  If "partnership=person" isn't a mockery,
> partnerships should be judged to have whatever intent their legal
> mechanisms allow their basis to express.

But my intent wasn't to mislead, because I forgot about the statement.
 Still, publishing inaccurate information like that ought to be
against the rules-- it will be, in fact, once Murphy resolves my
proposal-- but wasn't when I did it, for better or worse.  In fact, I
pledge to create a Rest in my possession ASAP if I'm judged NOT GUILTY
in this case.


Judge Taral's Arguments:

The question before the court is whether the PNP breached Rule 2215 by
making a public statement intended to mislead. The only way for one to
construe the intent of a partnership is by the intent of its partners.
Based upon the known nature of the PNP and the statements made on
these fora, the court finds that comex was the only active partner in
the making of this particular statement. Additionally, the court finds
that their only intent was the rapid distribution of the proposal
contained in the message -- the (incorrect) statement about the
proposal pool was incidental, not intentional.

The court judges comex NOT GUILTY (innocent).