Charles Reiss wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:17, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I CFJ on the following statement: The message sent by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> on "Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 +0000" (see evidence 1) was successful in >> initiating a CFJ. >> >> I argue for a FALSE judgement in this case. The statement in the message >> is clearly an inquiry case. Rule 591 (see evidence 2) governs inquiry >> cases. In Rule 591, we see that, "the initiator is unqualified to be >> assigned as judge of the case." >> >> The message in question clearly does not indicate who sent the message. >> Without knowing who sent the message, there is no way to ensure that the >> initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. For all we >> know, Sir Toby was the sender of the message. Since he was assigned as >> judge of the resulting CFJ, it is possible that he was illegally >> assigned as judge to that CFJ. > > While I agree that it may have been IMPOSSIBLE to assign Sir Toby as > the judge of that case (not ILLEGAL, I suggest CoE'ing on the relevant > docket and such), I don't think it has much relevance in the success > of the initiation... > > -woggle
The example I gave of the possible legality problems with assigning me as the judge of the CFJ in question when it is possible that I initiated the CFJ was more an indication of the problem of submitting a CFJ anonymously, rather than an indication that assigning a judge to the CFJ was impossible. That should probably be a question for another CFJ. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
