====================================================================== CFJ 927 "The circumstances which led to the Judgement of CFJ 924 no longer prevail, thus rendering the annotation of Rule 663 required by Injunction inapplicable." ====================================================================== Judge: General Chaos Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Crito, Elde, elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Chuck Barred: - Disqualified: Vanyel On hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Chuck, Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:30:03 -0500 (CDT) Assigned to General Chaos, Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:25:43 +0100 Judged TRUE, Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:13:58 -0500 Published, Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:32:21 +0100 ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Reasons and arguments: It is convenient that I have been selected to judge this CFJ, since the question at hand here is whether the circumstances which led me to judge CFJ 924 TRUE, and to issue the Injunction in that CFJ, still prevail. Examininng the reasoning in that CFJ, it is quite clear that the amendment to Rule 663 resulting from Proposal 3509 renders the original argument nugatory. Were I presented with the statement of CFJ 924 now, I would be forced to find it FALSE, because the present form of Rule 663 now permits an Injunction to be made under circumstances other than those specified in CFJ 924's statement. Since I would not find CFJ 924 TRUE under the current circumstances, it is clear that the circumstances which led to it originally being found TRUE no longer prevail. Thus, this CFJ (927) is properly judged TRUE. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: This annotation, I believe, no longer applies, because the text cited in the annotation no longer appears in the Rule. While it is still true that the Rule requires that a legal Injunction must accompany the relevant Judgement, the annotation as listed is now meaningless since the quoted text no longer appears in the Rule. This happened because of some unusual timing. General Chaos judged CFJ 924 and issued the Injunction on Jun. 12. Rule 663 was amended on Jun. 16. But the Judgement & Injunction were not published until Jun. 20. Now if the Rule had been amended after the Injunction took effect, it would have automatically cancelled the Injunction, as it should. But as it is, the Injunction will take effect despite the fact that the Rule has been amended so that the annotation is no longer relevant. Evidence: Rule 663, CFJ 924 excerpted Rule 663/6 (Power=1) Injunctions--General A Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform, or refrain from performing, one or more actions. Such an order is called an Injunction. To be legally made, an Injunction must: i) Specify the Player(s) to whom it applies. ii) Specify the action(s) the Player(s) are required to perform or refrain from performing. iii) Either be attached to a legally made Judgement at the time that Judgement is originally delivered to the Cotc, or be legally made by the Board of Appeals in an Appeal of an Injunction. iv) Be of a type explicitly defined in the Rules. v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules. An Injunction which does not meet these criteria has no effect. History: Created by Proposal 663, Nov. 2 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2684, Oct. 3 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial Authors: ..., Harlequin From: Michael Norrish To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: (CotC) CFJ 924 judged TRUE Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:43:44 +0100 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CFJ 924 "The requirement in Rule 663 that "To be legally made, an Injunction must...[b]e sent to the CotC simultaneously with a Judgement which has been legally made by the Judge." should be interpreted such that, to be legally made, an Injunction must accompany the submission by the Judge of the very same Judgement with which the Injunction is associated, and not merely accompany some Judgement or other which has previously been legally made by that Judge." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- History: Called by Steve, Tue, 20 May 1997 12:52:38 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Harlequin, Tue, 20 May 1997 09:45:03 +0100 Harlequin defaults Assigned to Elde, Thu, 29 May 1997 10:52:30 +0100 Elde defaults Assigned to General Chaos, Mon, 9 Jun 1997 10:13:09 +0100 Judged TRUE, Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:41:35 -0500 Published, Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:43:44 +0100 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Injunction: I also grant the requested Injunction. The Rulekeepor is hereby enjoined to annotate Rule 663 with the Statement of CFJ 924. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ======================================================================