>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Tue Aug 8 20:36:52 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA01432 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 20:36:51 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA05156 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 17:36:21 -0700 Received: from timbuk.cray.com (root@timbuk.cray.com [128.162.19.7]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA05136 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 17:36:17 -0700 Received: from sdiv.cray.com (root@ironwood-fddi.cray.com [128.162.21.36]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.12/CRI-8-1.16) with SMTP id TAA09234 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:36:06 -0500 Received: from birch111 by sdiv.cray.com (5.x/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA05673; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:27:30 -0500 Message-Id: <9508090027.AA05673@sdiv.cray.com> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Decision on CFJ 799 Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 19:27:26 -0500 >From: David Bowen Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ============================================================ CFJ 799 Caller: elJefe Statement: Sugarwater's Injunctions in CFJ 795, are illegal and invalid. Barred: none Requested Injunction: none Judge: Vanyel Judgement: TRUE Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this report): favor loses 2 points for declining Chuck gains 1 point for favor's declining *Vanyel receives 3 points for judgement ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by elJefe on, 31 Jul 1995 14:05:13 -0400 Assigned to favor Tue, 1 Aug 95 02:30:17 CDT Declined by favor Tue, 1 Aug 95 11:23:23 EDT Assigned to Vanyel Tue, 1 Aug 95 13:23:59 CDT Judged TRUE by Vanyel Fri, 4 Aug 1995 04:49:10 CDT Judgement published Tue, 8 Aug 95 17:30:22 CDT ============================================================ Arguments of Caller (elJefe): For one thing, there is no allegation in the Statement against a particular Player. Nor is there evidence in the record that the Vizier committed an illegal act. "Performing the dissolution" is meaningless. The Ordinance says that the group dissolves upon receiving the consent of the members. So are you looking for the person/persons giving consent? And where is the evidence that the Vizier actually gave consent? ============================================================ Arguments of Judge Vanyel: I judge TRUE: Whatever I personally think about the validity of the judgement on CFJ 795, the Injunctions are certainly not valid. The CFJ did allege that a Move (the dissolution of Reform Group) was illegal, thus Sugarwater's Injunctions would seem to fall under the jurisdiction of Rule 665... but Rule 665 requires that "these adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ", and that they were not. Thus, the injunction was not valid. ============================================================ End of CFJ 799 ============================================================