CFJ 1053 

          "Elde is Blob's Executor in Probate."


Judge:       Oerjan
Judgement:   TRUE

Justices:    Morendil (S), Andre (C), elJefe (J) 
Decision:    SUSTAIN

Eligible:    Andre, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Crito, elJefe,
	     General Chaos, Harlequin, Michael, Kolja A., Murphy,
	     Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad, Zefram

Ineligible:  Blob (defaulted) 
Caller:      Murphy Barred: On request:  Vanyel On hold:



  Called by Murphy, 08 Oct 1997 23:23:37 -0700
  Assigned to Blob, 10 Oct 1997 20:49:59 +0200 (MET DST)
  Blob defaults
  Assigned to Oerjan, 22 Oct 1997 22:19:34 +0200 (MET DST)
  Oerjan judges TRUE, 28 Oct 1997 21:31:09 +0100 (MET)
  Appealed by Steve, 6 Nov 1997 12:51:56 +1100 (EST)
  Appealed by General Chaos, 05 Nov 1997 21:54:26 -0500
  Appealed by Crito, 06 Nov 1997 09:48:56 -0500
  Assigned to Morendil, Andre, and elJefe, 7 Nov 1997 11:40:07 +0100
  Justice elJefe: overturn and judge FALSE, 8 Nov 1997 00:11:12 +0000
  Justice Morendil: sustain, 12 Nov 1997 14:32:06 +0100
  Justice Andre: sustain, 13 Nov 1997 16:48:08 +0100

(Caller's) Arguments:

Morendil becomes Elde's EiP.
Rule 1738 says that Elde's EiP is eir Executor, so Morendil is Elde's
  Executor and succeeds in reregistering Elde.
Elde becomes Blob's EiP.
By a similar argument, Elde is Blob's Executor and succeeds in reregistering
Elde is deregistered.
No Rule states that a Player who is deregistered loses eir Executor or EiP,
  so Morendil is still Elde's Executor and EiP.
Rule 1478's statement that Executors must be Players takes precedence over
  Rule 1738's claim that Blob's EiP (Elde) is eir Executor, so Elde is no
  longer Blob's Executor.
However, no Rule states that an EiP who is deregistered ceases to be EiP,
  so Elde is still Blob's EiP.

When Elde ceased to be Blob's Executor, e did not cease to be Blob's EiP -
precisely because the equality of EiP and Executor (which exists only because
Rule 1738 says so) is broken by way of Rule 1478 starting to take precedence
over Rule 1738.

Decision & Reasoning Judge:

I judge TRUE.

As the Caller argues, no Rule requires an EiP to remain a Player after e has
been selected.

Decision of Justiciar elJefe:  Overturn and judge FALSE

CFJ 933 established that all units of currency had disappeared on 15 July, and
no new ones were minted before October.  Thus I find that when Blob deregistered
on 6 August, e possessed no units of any currency.

Thus Blob was not placed into Probate by Rule 1601.  Unless the Rules authorize
the Notary to place people into Probate arbitrarily, or to appoint an EiP for
entities not in Probate (which I doubt), I find that Blob was never in Probate

Further, when Elde was deregistered on 25 July he also had no Currencies and
thus was never in Probate, and so Morendil could not be his EiP.  Thus
Morendil's attempt to reregister him had no effect.  When the Notary attempted
to appoint an EiP for Blob, Elde was not a Player.

For both (or either) of these reasons, the Notary's attempted appointment of
Elde as Blob's EiP had no effect.

Thus Elde was never an Executor in Probate for Blob.

Addendum: I now realize that this misreads Rule 1601 and is incorrect. -- elJefe

Decision of Speaker Morendil:  Sustain

Judge Oerjan argues that a person, when assigned as a Player of Agora the status
of Executor in Probate, by authority of the Notary, retains this status even if
e later ceases to be a Player.

The Caller, for their own part, argued that even though, when a person ceases to
be a Player, e may no longer be an Executor, the status of Executor in Probate
is granted independently from that of Executor and may therefore be retained.

Rule 1478 (Executors) states, in part :

      The Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the 
      Rules to act on behalf of that entity, as if e was that entity. 

Rule 1738 (Executors in Probate) states, in part : 

      The Executor in Probate of an entity is the Executor of that 

The above provision in 1478 establishes two distinct effects of the law :

* that only some persons, namely Players, may qualify as Executors

* that a person who is designated as an Executor is empowered to act on the
   behalf of some other entity.

These consequences, let me add, are not deduced from the bare statement "The
Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered, etc." and its wording, but
rather by construing this provision in the light of other provisions pertaining
to Executors.

(Judge Kolja A. in 1065 : "The sentence quoted from 1478 is not a _definition_
of "Executor", but an assignment of certain powers to the executor.")

For instance, Rule 1735 states that "The Chancellor is the Executor of the
Bank." This is clearly seen as granting on a particular Player the status of
Executor of some particular entity, with the associated prerogatives.

The above provision in Rule 1738 is quite similar to that in 1735. It identifies
a particular Player - one who has been designated by the Notary as the Executor
in Probate of a particular entity - and grants that Player the status of

In both cases, should the person granted the status of Executor cease to be a
Player, e would therefore cease to qualify for this status under Rule 1478, and
eir continued exercise of the 'powers of Executor' with respect to the entity e
was previously the Executor of would therefore be inconsistent with Rule 1478.

However, that person's identification as either Chancellor or Executor in
Probate of the relevant entity may be obtained independently of that person's
status as a Player.

For instance, we have recently been made aware that a person could come to hold
an Office without necessarily being a Player. Such a situation could conceivably
apply to the Chancellor; in this case, I would interpret Rule 1735, not as
dictating that that person cannot be Chancellor, but only that that person
cannot be the Bank's Executor.

The part of Rule 1738 which assigns to a person the status of Executor in
Probate of a particular entity reads as follows :

      Whenever there is an entity in Probate which does not have an 
      Executor in Probate, the Notary shall nominate a Player to be 
      that entity's Executor in Probate.. 

This provision could conceivably interpreted such that, to qualify as an
Executor in Probate, a person must be a Player at all times; however, it could
also be interpreted, in a manner more consistent with recent custom that a
Candidate in an Election may come to hold Office even while no longer a Player,
such that a person must only be a Player at the time of their appointment as EiP
to qualify for that status.

I therefore see no strong reason to overturn Judge Oerjan's Judgement, and - I
must add, with some reluctance - Sustain the original Judgement of TRUE.

Decision of Justice Andre:  Sustain

Nowhere do the Rules say that the Executor in Probate needs to be a Player. The
only thing they say is that to be elected as an Executor in Probate one needs to
be a Player.

The Appellants have argued that R1478 says that an Executor of an Entity is a
Player, and R1738 that an EiP is an Executor, and thus an EiP must be a Player.
However, this is not how Agoran logic works. In Agora this means that the two
Rules, in a case when an EiP is not a Player, are in conflict. In Agora this
means that the lower precedence Rule's requirements are void. However, even if
R1738 would be the lower precedence Rule here (which I doubt), this still only
means that Elde is not Blob Executor, but not that Elde is not Blob EiP.

Thus I find the Judgement CORRECT.