========================= Criminal Case 2455 =========================
Wooble violated R2230 and committing the Class-4 Crime of Libel by
publishing a NoV regarding Andre's Writ of FAGE.
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by scshunt: 20 Apr 2009 00:23:17 GMT
Defendant Wooble informed: 20 Apr 2009 00:23:17 GMT
Assigned to omd: 20 Apr 2009 02:42:39 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by omd: 20 Apr 2009 13:13:08 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:
Andre continues to be deregistered. It may be true that e
was registered for a period after eir deregistration in a Writ of
FAGE, but e subsequently became deregistered again. R1789's
"henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE"
implies, to me, that all may know this going forward into the future
indefinitely; "henceforth" in a legal context implies no end to the
(from West's Encyclopedia of American Law):
>From this time forward.
The term henceforth, when used in a legal document, statute, or other
legal instrument, indicates that something will commence from the
present time to the future, to the exclusion of the past.
Game custom has been to include information about each Player who has
ever deregistered in a Writ of FAGE in the Registrar's report; this
affirms my interpretation of the rule.
As I could have reasonably believed that I was not violating the rules
by posting the NoV in question, I am NOT GUILTY.
Judge omd's Arguments:
The relevant text is:
As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of
deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,
as long as the Player remains deregistered.
The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
The "henceforth" sentence merely says that the notation 'will' ensure
that all may know etc, not 'shall' or 'should'. Therefore it serves
only explanatory purposes: although the statement becomes incorrect if
the notation is later removed, this does not forbid the Registrar from
removing the notation. The 'remains' bit is more ambiguous but most
likely only applies as long as the player has been continuously
deregistered. It ceases to apply when e registers even if e later
Nevertheless, Wooble's defense demonstrates that e believes the NoV to
be correct. Therefore, NOT GUILTY (innocent).