On 5/30/26 09:59, Gregory Hayes via agora-discussion wrote: > The best theory I can come up with to justify the ruling in CFJ 3990 is that > when Rule 2531 says that "established by a preponderance of the evidence", > what it actually means is, "established by a preponderance of the evidence > that would be available after an investigation". I suppose this does not > directly contradict the plain text of the rule, but it's certainly not the > only viable interpretation and I find it worrying to just insert an entire > clause in there.
The reasoning is that to "establish" can be read to include an investigative process, rather than a purely mechanistic process (and that this reading wins the R217 tiebreak in this context). It doesn't require reading any additional text into the rule. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
