Eris wrote:
> On 3/4/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal: Secure more judicial aspects
>> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Do we need to bring back some notion of a 'property' of an entity so
> we can auto-secure rule-defined properties?
That wouldn't help for things like types of judicial classes. What we
could do in some cases (where the list of X is expected not to change
often, but the details of X are large and volatile enough to warrant
multiple rules) is to follow the pattern of Rule 693, e.g.
Only the following subclasses of judicial case exist, as
described by other rules:
a) Inquiry cases.
b) Criminal cases.
c) Equity cases.
d) Appeal cases.
Only the following judicial questions arise, as described by
other rules:
a) For inquiry cases, veracity.
b) For criminal cases, culpability and sentencing.
c) For equity cases, equation.
d) For appeal cases, disposition.
