"or where an appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence has been handed down by a trial court."
Federal courts sometimes ask State courts what the hell is going on in state law before making their decision. However, yeah. On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > * in front of that 'Judge' > > I'm writing horribly today lol, sorry. I used 'case' a bunch of times in > that last sentence too, jesus. > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe it's like that the CFJ is the CSI and the Referee is the >> traditional Judge that then takes the CSI's information to give verdict. >> >> CFJs also give word on interpretation though, and gratuitous >> argument/counterarguments is very similar to lawyers in court in from of >> that 'Judge'. >> >> It's also possible to CFJ "Is this cardable?" though, in which case the >> CFJ Judge can act as a Referee and the real Referee just becomes a peon in >> that case. >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >>> >> My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has >>> pledged >>> >> to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/ >>> >> action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically >>> >> pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a >>> >> valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player >>> would >>> >> gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well >>> not >>> >> have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this >>> >> particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document >>> >> in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't. >>> > >>> > Gratuitous: >>> > >>> > 1. At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter >>> "the >>> > Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and >>> > clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran >>> action. >>> > (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it). >>> > >>> > 2. I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document >>> > meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit >>> > was why I specified character length). In the end I didn't. >>> > >>> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT. If I >>> > broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others >>> > wouldn't matter. If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some >>> very >>> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was >>> still >>> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible >>> proscription >>> > with the same hash and length. But I'd argue that the odds are so low >>> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence. >>> > >>> > If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the >>> > grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work >>> > that would be great. >>> >>> We have here an extremely unusual relationship between the CFJ system >>> and the Referee system. In this case, the CFJ system can find fact - but >>> cannot impose punishment, while the Referee system can impose punishment, >>> but cannot find fact. To my knowledge, there are no similarly bicameral >>> judiciaries anywhere else. >>> >>> There are, certainly, plenty of appeals courts - and up until now, the >>> CFJ system has served, at least in my mind, as the court of appeals for >>> Referee decisions. There are certainly plenty of trial courts, and both the >>> CFJ system (which can establish precedent) and the Referee system (which >>> can’t) somewhat fit that niche. However, I can’t think of anywhere where a >>> trial court might defer to another trial court for sentencing, or where an >>> appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence has been >>> handed down by a trial court. >>> >>> This is fascinating. Thank you. >>> >>> -o >>> >>> >> >
