Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2679

===================  CFJ 2679 (Interest Index = 2)  ====================

    ais523 owns a Dunce Cap card

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2679a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       09 Sep 2009 22:49:38 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    15 Sep 2009 07:33:36 GMT
Transferred from Pavitra to coppro:     16 Sep 2009 03:10:49 GMT
Judged FALSE by coppro:                 16 Sep 2009 03:10:49 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     16 Sep 2009 06:49:57 GMT
Appealed by Tiger:                      16 Sep 2009 09:20:50 GMT
Appealed by coppro:                     16 Sep 2009 16:16:29 GMT
Appeal 2679a:                           16 Sep 2009 16:16:29 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     26 Sep 2009 18:04:31 GMT
Remanded to coppro:                     26 Sep 2009 18:04:31 GMT
Judged TRUE by coppro:                  04 Oct 2009 00:46:51 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 17:41 -0500, pidgepot@gmail.com wrote:
> {
> ais523 is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Justice:
Absolv-o-Matic, Drop Your Weapon, Dunce Cap
> }
> Reason: Notary weekly salary

I transfer the Dunce Cap to the Lost and Found Department. (This works
because rule 2166:
{{{
      The Lost and Found department may own any asset, and have assets
      transferred to and from it, regardless of the asset's backing
      document or any Rule, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
}}}
claims explicit precedence over the equally-powered Dunce Cap (rule
2262):
{{{
       * Dunce Cap        - (Effect) Holding this card is a Losing
                            Condition.  The holder of this card CAN
                            NOT voluntarily destroy it by
                            announcement, and CAN NOT transfer it
                            unless e has held it for at least one
                            week.
}}}
)

========================================================================

Judge coppro's Arguments:

The caller argues that R2166 stipulates that the LFD can have assets 
transferred to and from it regardless of any rule, and this takes 
precedence over R2262, which stipulates that the holder CANNOT transfer 
it unless e has held it for at least one week.

This is correct. Therefore, the question is whether the caller actually 
had an appropriate means.

The caller purported to transfer eir Dunce Cap by announcement. The rule 
that would authorize em to do so is R2166 again, this time with the text 
"An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another entity by 
announcement, subject to modification by its backing document." This 
text indicates that the backing document for Dunce Cap can modify this 
ability. R2262 is unambiguously the backing document for Dunce Cap, so 
the rule is appropriately modified by the backing document.

It is clear that R2166 does not merely provide a general means of 
transfer that defers to the backing document because it is limited when 
the backing document is a rule of lower power or not a rule at all. 
Therefore, given the absence of evidence, the normaly method of transfer 
does not exist.

The caller has also argued that since R2166 stipulates that the LFD can 
have assets "transferred to and from it, regardless of the asset's 
backing document or any Rule, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.", 
and that this implies the existence of a means, and that this must make 
his action by announcement valid. My initial reaction to this was that 
it was not the case. Whether or not an action can be performed by 
announcement in the other specified methods seems uncertain. I think it 
is appropriate to say that whether naked CAN implies CAN by announcement 
depends on the context, both in the specific rule and the ruleset in 
general - for instance, R2164 only implies by announcement for judical 
transfer (by requiring the judgment be in the same announcement as the 
transfer), where R591 directly specifies no mechanism, but a requirement 
that it be in the initiating announcement. By contrast, R2160 clearly 
does not imply the ability to perform an action by announcement simply 
by virtue of it being deputised for. In particular, by announcement 
seems to be implied when there exists no other method, whereas it tends 
not to be when another method exists; it merely authorizes that method.

I do not interpret R2166 as necessarily implying CAN by announcement, 
given that its purpose is primarily to override rules that would prevent 
transfer (specifically, to ensure a fixed asset can go to the LFD when 
it is owned by an entity outside its class of holders). As the final 
nail in the coffin, there does exist another method by which ais523 can 
transfer Dunce Cap to the LFD - by deregistering.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

I meant to recommend REMAND.

========================================================================