Index ← 2867 CFJ 2868 2869 → text
==============================  CFJ 2868  ==============================

    In the quoted message, Wooble published one or more judicial


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Machiavelli

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          23 Sep 2010 20:07:53 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                03 Oct 2010 17:51:59 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    17 Oct 2010 21:19:57 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     17 Oct 2010 21:21:46 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 24 Oct 2010 05:59:33 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

E is assigned as judge of a pending CFJ, but didn't
identify that CFJ in this message; is being a judge required?  What
about being the judge of a closed CFJ?


Caller's Evidence:

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
> I publish the following judicial declarations:

(from ##nomic)
 I specifically didn't mention a case because of how broken
declarations are.


Judge ais523's Arguments:

I judge CFJ 2868 FALSE. "Judicial declaration" is not defined in the
rules, they merely trigger on judicial declarations made in certain
contexts. Whether this actually works is mostly irrelevant due to rule
2212, which makes judicial declarations self-ratifying only if they are
required and published in conjunction with the rules. There is one (and
only one case) case where it does matter; rule 2314 allows for judicial
declarations that a position on the list is ambiguous to be made and
have effect separately, rather than via rule 2212. (If not for this, I'd
have ruled IRRELEVANT.) There is no definition in the rules, but we can
fall back on both a plausible legal meaning (via rule 754), where you'd
expect judicial declarations to be made in the context of some case or
similar legal proceedings; the precedent of CFJ 2865 ("a judicial
declaration is some kind of declaration made in the context of a CFJ,
presumably by the judge"; note that Judge Taral immediately assumed that
the CFJ in question was more important than who made the declaration,
demonstrating how the obvious meaning is that a CFJ must be specified);
and game custom, whereby previous judicial declarations had always taken
care to specify a CFJ (comex/omd's attempted judicial declaration scam
deliberately specified a case, even though it had nothing to do with the
scam otherwise). All these lines of argument point towards FALSE.