Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3128 ============================== CFJ 3128 ============================== The above purported attempt to initiate a criminal CfJ failed because it did not allege that the defendent violated the rule it named. ======================================================================== Caller: Bucky Judge: Tanner L. Swett Judgement: TRUE Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE ======================================================================== History: Called by Bucky: 19 Nov 2011 19:14:22 GMT Assigned to Tanner L. Swett: 20 Nov 2011 18:17:38 GMT Judged TRUE by Tanner L. Swett: 25 Nov 2011 02:04:01 GMT Reconsideration requested by Murphy: 25 Nov 2011 03:56:39 GMT Tanner L. Swett recused: 25 Nov 2011 17:25:54 GMT Reconsideration requested by omd: 29 Nov 2011 01:20:10 GMT Reconsideration requested by Pavitra: 29 Nov 2011 19:51:39 GMT Assigned to Tanner L. Swett: 29 Nov 2011 22:33:44 GMT Assigned to G.: 04 Dec 2011 17:24:07 GMT Judged FALSE by G.: 05 Dec 2011 19:55:02 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: It appears that the ruleset at one point contained a rule making it ILLEGAL to commit a crime, and this was later repealed. If it did, committing a crime would violate that rule. Since no such rule exists, I conclude that committing a crime does not violate any rules. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Murphy To: Agora Business Cc: Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 10:04 AM Subject: Re: BUS: I'm probably going to get away with this. > Bucky wrote: > > I taunt the police specifying 6. > > Inquiry CFJ: Committing a crime violates the rule defining it as a > crime, even if the rule does not explicitly define it as a violation. > > Arguments: This should be covered by Rule 754 (3) and/or (4). > > I intend (with 2 support) to make this case Notable, suggesting that > the annotation be attached to Rule 1504 (which only explicitly targets > rule violations). > > Criminal CFJ: Bucky committed the Class-6 Crime of Naughtiness (as > defined by Rule 2356) by publishing the message quoted in evidence. > > Evidence: the above-quoted message. rule 1504 with excerpt below: > (c) a rule allegedly violated by that action/inaction. ======================================================================== Judge Tanner L. Swett's Arguments: I judge TRUE. The reasoning is straightforward: if nobody alleged that the rule was violated, then the rule allegedly violated was not specified. ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by Murphy: I intend (with 2 support) to request reconsideration. Especially in light of CFJ 3126, "X committed crime Y defined by rule Z" clearly (albeit implicitly) implies "X thereby violated rule Z". If Rule 1504 said "explicitly specify", then it'd be a different story. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by omd: Long precedent and Agoran tradition holds that "explicitly" is defined as "". ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by Pavitra: Support. It's not reasonably ambiguous which rule was allegedly violated. ======================================================================== Judge G.'s Arguments: I accept the arguments in the Motion filed by Murphy. FALSE. ========================================================================