Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2713

===================  CFJ 2713 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    If a criminal case based on the NOV noted in evidence were
    judged GUILTY / SILENCE, it would create at least one Rest in
    coppro's possession.

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

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       06 Oct 2009 17:42:01 GMT
Assigned to coppro:                     14 Oct 2009 18:07:17 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

BobTHJ wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 09:32, Charles Walker
> <charles.w.walker@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Murphy wrote:
>>> coppro wrote:
>>>> Walker wrote:
>>>>> I concur with coppro's arguments (to the extent to which they do not
>>>>> argue towards eir innocence) and intend, with 2 support, to judge
>>>>> GUILTY/SILENCE on 2710 and set the fine at 1 Rest.
>>>> I support.
>>> I also support.
>> Having received two support, I judge GUILTY/SILENCE on Criminal Case
>> 2710, setting the fine at 1 Rest.
>>
> Why are the members of schwa being punished individually instead of
> punishing the person (schwa) that made the violation in the first
> place (and allowing Agora's built in mechanisms of
> rest-distribution-to-basis to take place)? I'm not asking because I
> think one is right and the other is not, I'm just pointing out that
> there are two different methods here. I'm curious if the following
> will generate any rests in the possession of members of schwa or if
> R101 vi will protect them:
> 
> I publish an NOV:
> 
> Schwa violated R2158 (power=2 rule) by not assigning a judgment to CFJ
> 2700 on time.

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