On 5/13/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [If a bug in the appeals allows the original judgement to stand as well
> as the remand, that's a different bug.]
>
> Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia.
This Latin phrase, while perhaps a fair rebuttal of my argument
regarding equity in a set of one, is not an Agoran rule.
I initiate a criminal case against Goethe alleging that e violated
Rule 217 by submitting a judgement (on behalf of an appeal panel) for
the appeal case CFJ 1932a.
Arguments:
The best interests of the game DO NOT include exercising judicial
authority to bust a possibly valid scam, ESPECIALLY when a judicial
case (CFJ 1938) that would clearly determine the appropriateness of
the appealed judgement is already in progress, will be judged soon,
and is open to fair appeal. I called for an inquiry case on the
matter, unaware of CFJ 1938, but the issue is the same: for the best
interests of the game, the prior judgement MUST CLEARLY be determined
to be inappropriate before the appeal case is reassigned or overruled,
and it has NOT.
Goethe did respond briefly to ONE of my concerns in the discussion
forum, but e then proceeded to reassign CFJ 1932 despite CFJ 1938 not
having yet been judged. This is an egregiously inappropriate-- if not
in the Agoran sense of the word, in the common-- appeal judgement.
Evidence:
Rule 217/6 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.
Note: In CFJ 1296, Peekee was tried for violating Rule 217; the case
was dismissed only because a rule then existed that stated that
inappropriate judgements must be dealt with by the appeals court.
That rule no longer exists, and I do allege that the appeals court
itself has acted inappropriately.
