====================================================================== CFJ 1053 "Elde is Blob's Executor in Probate." ====================================================================== Judge: Oerjan Judgement: TRUE Justices: Morendil (S), Andre (C), elJefe (J) Decision: SUSTAIN Eligible: Andre, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Michael, Kolja A., Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad, Zefram Ineligible: Blob (defaulted) Caller: Murphy Barred: On request: Vanyel On hold: ====================================================================== History: Called by Murphy, 08 Oct 1997 23:23:37 -0700 Assigned to Blob, 10 Oct 1997 20:49:59 +0200 (MET DST) Blob defaults Assigned to Oerjan, 22 Oct 1997 22:19:34 +0200 (MET DST) Oerjan judges TRUE, 28 Oct 1997 21:31:09 +0100 (MET) Appealed by Steve, 6 Nov 1997 12:51:56 +1100 (EST) Appealed by General Chaos, 05 Nov 1997 21:54:26 -0500 Appealed by Crito, 06 Nov 1997 09:48:56 -0500 Assigned to Morendil, Andre, and elJefe, 7 Nov 1997 11:40:07 +0100 Justice elJefe: overturn and judge FALSE, 8 Nov 1997 00:11:12 +0000 Justice Morendil: sustain, 12 Nov 1997 14:32:06 +0100 Justice Andre: sustain, 13 Nov 1997 16:48:08 +0100 ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: Morendil becomes Elde's EiP. Rule 1738 says that Elde's EiP is eir Executor, so Morendil is Elde's Executor and succeeds in reregistering Elde. Elde becomes Blob's EiP. By a similar argument, Elde is Blob's Executor and succeeds in reregistering Blob. Elde is deregistered. No Rule states that a Player who is deregistered loses eir Executor or EiP, so Morendil is still Elde's Executor and EiP. Rule 1478's statement that Executors must be Players takes precedence over Rule 1738's claim that Blob's EiP (Elde) is eir Executor, so Elde is no longer Blob's Executor. However, no Rule states that an EiP who is deregistered ceases to be EiP, so Elde is still Blob's EiP. When Elde ceased to be Blob's Executor, e did not cease to be Blob's EiP - precisely because the equality of EiP and Executor (which exists only because Rule 1738 says so) is broken by way of Rule 1478 starting to take precedence over Rule 1738. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: I judge TRUE. As the Caller argues, no Rule requires an EiP to remain a Player after e has been selected. ====================================================================== Decision of Justiciar elJefe: Overturn and judge FALSE CFJ 933 established that all units of currency had disappeared on 15 July, and no new ones were minted before October. Thus I find that when Blob deregistered on 6 August, e possessed no units of any currency. Thus Blob was not placed into Probate by Rule 1601. Unless the Rules authorize the Notary to place people into Probate arbitrarily, or to appoint an EiP for entities not in Probate (which I doubt), I find that Blob was never in Probate Further, when Elde was deregistered on 25 July he also had no Currencies and thus was never in Probate, and so Morendil could not be his EiP. Thus Morendil's attempt to reregister him had no effect. When the Notary attempted to appoint an EiP for Blob, Elde was not a Player. For both (or either) of these reasons, the Notary's attempted appointment of Elde as Blob's EiP had no effect. Thus Elde was never an Executor in Probate for Blob. ----------------------------- Addendum: I now realize that this misreads Rule 1601 and is incorrect. -- elJefe ====================================================================== Decision of Speaker Morendil: Sustain Judge Oerjan argues that a person, when assigned as a Player of Agora the status of Executor in Probate, by authority of the Notary, retains this status even if e later ceases to be a Player. The Caller, for their own part, argued that even though, when a person ceases to be a Player, e may no longer be an Executor, the status of Executor in Probate is granted independently from that of Executor and may therefore be retained. Rule 1478 (Executors) states, in part : The Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the Rules to act on behalf of that entity, as if e was that entity. Rule 1738 (Executors in Probate) states, in part : The Executor in Probate of an entity is the Executor of that entity. The above provision in 1478 establishes two distinct effects of the law : * that only some persons, namely Players, may qualify as Executors * that a person who is designated as an Executor is empowered to act on the behalf of some other entity. These consequences, let me add, are not deduced from the bare statement "The Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered, etc." and its wording, but rather by construing this provision in the light of other provisions pertaining to Executors. (Judge Kolja A. in 1065 : "The sentence quoted from 1478 is not a _definition_ of "Executor", but an assignment of certain powers to the executor.") For instance, Rule 1735 states that "The Chancellor is the Executor of the Bank." This is clearly seen as granting on a particular Player the status of Executor of some particular entity, with the associated prerogatives. The above provision in Rule 1738 is quite similar to that in 1735. It identifies a particular Player - one who has been designated by the Notary as the Executor in Probate of a particular entity - and grants that Player the status of Executor. In both cases, should the person granted the status of Executor cease to be a Player, e would therefore cease to qualify for this status under Rule 1478, and eir continued exercise of the 'powers of Executor' with respect to the entity e was previously the Executor of would therefore be inconsistent with Rule 1478. However, that person's identification as either Chancellor or Executor in Probate of the relevant entity may be obtained independently of that person's status as a Player. For instance, we have recently been made aware that a person could come to hold an Office without necessarily being a Player. Such a situation could conceivably apply to the Chancellor; in this case, I would interpret Rule 1735, not as dictating that that person cannot be Chancellor, but only that that person cannot be the Bank's Executor. The part of Rule 1738 which assigns to a person the status of Executor in Probate of a particular entity reads as follows : Whenever there is an entity in Probate which does not have an Executor in Probate, the Notary shall nominate a Player to be that entity's Executor in Probate.. This provision could conceivably interpreted such that, to qualify as an Executor in Probate, a person must be a Player at all times; however, it could also be interpreted, in a manner more consistent with recent custom that a Candidate in an Election may come to hold Office even while no longer a Player, such that a person must only be a Player at the time of their appointment as EiP to qualify for that status. I therefore see no strong reason to overturn Judge Oerjan's Judgement, and - I must add, with some reluctance - Sustain the original Judgement of TRUE. ====================================================================== Decision of Justice Andre: Sustain Nowhere do the Rules say that the Executor in Probate needs to be a Player. The only thing they say is that to be elected as an Executor in Probate one needs to be a Player. The Appellants have argued that R1478 says that an Executor of an Entity is a Player, and R1738 that an EiP is an Executor, and thus an EiP must be a Player. However, this is not how Agoran logic works. In Agora this means that the two Rules, in a case when an EiP is not a Player, are in conflict. In Agora this means that the lower precedence Rule's requirements are void. However, even if R1738 would be the lower precedence Rule here (which I doubt), this still only means that Elde is not Blob Executor, but not that Elde is not Blob EiP. Thus I find the Judgement CORRECT. ======================================================================