Gratuitous gratuitous evidence: to my knowledge, making a judicial declaration is not a regulated action.
—Tanner L. Swett On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2865 > > =================== CFJ 2865 (Interest Index = 1) ==================== > > A document purporting to be a judicial declaration is only a > judicial declaration if made by a judge who is explicitly > required to make one. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: G. > Barred: omd > > Judge: Taral > Judgement: FALSE > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by G.: 17 Sep 2010 15:47:05 GMT > Assigned to Taral: 22 Sep 2010 14:16:44 GMT > Judged FALSE by Taral: 26 Sep 2010 18:20:08 GMT > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > Rule 2212 strongly implies that a "judicial declaration" is a regulated type > of > document, and it is not clear that a judge CAN make a "judicial declaration" > unless the rules explicitly require it. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by omd: > > In that case, the clause about ambiguity of the List of Succession is > useless. > > ======================================================================== > > Judge Taral's Arguments: > > Although Rule 2212 says that a judicial declaration made when one is > not required by the Rules is not self-ratifying, it does not actually > define what is and is not a judicial declaration. Therefore we are > forced to fall back on some kind of common sense, where a judicial > declaration is some kind of declaration made in the context of a CFJ, > presumably by the judge. > > ======================================================================== >
