From: To: agora-off Subject: OFF: CFJ 1184 Judged FALSE Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:27 PM ====================================================================== CFJ 1184 Any Player who is subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts of the United States of America and simultaneously a director, officer, employee, or agent of an American public institution, as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), is required as a matter of law to observe the Constitutional requirements of due process in the course of conducting eir business as a Judge, Justice, or Officer, or as the Speaker. ====================================================================== Called by: Kelly Judge: Chuck Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Chuck, Crito, Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee, Michael, Murphy, Palnatoke, Peekee, t, Wes Not eligible: Caller: - Barred: - Had their turn: - Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: Blob, Steve On Hold: elJefe ====================================================================== History: Called by Kelly: 06 Dec 1999 16:38:52 -0500 Assigned to Chuck: 07 Dec 1999 23:27:31 -0800 Judged FALSE by Chuck: 09 Dec 1999 01:00:25 -0600 Judgement Distributed: As of this message ===================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ====================================================================== Evidence attached by the Caller: ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: I believe this statement may well be true; the Rules require me to Judge it FALSE; therefore I hereby Judge this statement to be FALSE. I will assume for the sake of argument that U.S. law does include a requirement as described in the statement, although I have not researched this topic. According to the Rules, however, no such requirement exists. No such requirement is stated in the Rules, and thus is permitted by Rule 101 (excerpted): Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it. Now, I believe that some Players are subject, as a matter of law, to U.S. law. But is this enough to allow me to Judge the statement to be TRUE? It is not, and Rule 217 is quite clear on the one standard for Judging that is placed ahead of all others: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. The Rules state quite clearly that ignoring the alleged requirement is permitted. Thus--regardless of fact or my own beliefs on the subject-- a Judgement of FALSE is in accordance with the Rules, and a Judgement of TRUE is not in accordance with the Rules. Thus, by Rule 217, this statement must be Judged FALSE. It has been suggested that U.S. law could be one of the "other standards" a Judge could choose to apply, mentioned in Rule 217. But game custom, commonsense [sic], past Judgements, the best interests of the game, and other standards can be applied *only* if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the issue. The Rules here are quite clear, and thus I am not permitted to apply any other standards for Judgement. ======================================================================