[ Elysion: This probably is actually CFJ #1066 ]

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

CFJ 1065

"I (the caller of this CFJ) am my own Executor." 

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

Judge:       Kolja A. 

Judgement:   FALSE 

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

Not eligible: 
Caller:      Swann (not a Player) Barred: On request:  Vanyel On hold:     

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

History:
  Called by Swann, 29 Oct 1997 19:16:18 -0500 (EST)
  Assigned to Kolja A., 30 Oct 1997 14:55:02 +0100 (MET)
  Kolja A. judges FALSE, 4 Nov 1997 14:17:58 +0100

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

Decision & Reasoning Judge: 

I hereby judge the statement of CFJ 1065, 

"I (the caller of this CFJ) am my own Executor.", 

to be false. 

Reasons and arguments:

We are dealing with an interesting question of (real and potential) conflicts
and various precedence regulations here. The rules concerned are 1738 and 1478
(see evidence below).

1. By rule number, 1478 takes precedence in case of a conflict. 

2. 1738 states "This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would
specify a different Executor for an entity in Probate." This precedence is
based on a condition: it only applies to other rules that try to specify
executors for an entity in probate. However, if this condition is met, the
_whole_ rule 1738 has precedence over the other rule, not only the paragraph of
1738 that allows the notary to assign executors in probate.

3. 1478 states "Except when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a Player is eir own
Executor." This explicitly defers to rules that define a player's executor to
be someone else than the player emself. However, this precedence clause only
concerns the one question of who is executor, not the rule 1478 as a whole.

Swann has been assigned an executor in probate. Thus, 1738 "stipulates
otherwise" than the default given in 1478 would; 1478 defers to the regulations
of 1738, and Swann's executor in Probate is still eir executor. The statement
of this CFJ is thus false.

There remains the interesting question of what powers this executor in probate
has. I mention this point here, because one _might_ argue as follows:

--  

1478 states 

      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.
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
while 1738 limits the powers of an executor in Probate significantly:

      The Executor in Probate of an entity is the Executor of that 
      entity, and empowered only to submit Transfers Orders for that 
      entity.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


There are other things the EiP can do, but clearly 1738 allows less than 1478.
Reading the sentence quoted from 1478 as a _definition_ of "Executor", the EiP
described in 1738 (who has smaller powers) cannot be the player's executor. -- 

However, I argue that the above argument (between the dashes, --) is false. The
sentence quoted from 1478 is not a _definition_ of "Executor", but an
assignment of certain powers to the executor. This assignment does conflict
with the, much more restricted, assignment of 1738.

We have seen above that 1478 does not define a different executor as 1738, so
the precedence clause "This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which
would specify a different Executor for an entity in Probate." from 1738 does
_not_ trigger, and the conflicting assignments of power to the executor are
resolved in favor of the lower numbered rule, 1478.

So an analysis of the argument enclosed in dashes (--) does not only show that
this argument is false (this is why I'm talking about the issue in this
Judgement), it also shows that the executor in probate does have the large
powers given to executors in 1478. The latter point is not strictly relevant
for this CFJ, but does confirm the way we've handled the situation so far.

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

Evidence (added by Judge): 

1. Rule 1738/0 
2. Rule 1478/0 


--- 
Rule 1738/0 (Power=1) Executors in Probate

      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.  E shall announce this
      appointment in the Public Forum.


      The Executor in Probate of an entity is the Executor of that 
      entity, and empowered only to submit Transfers Orders for that 
      entity.  An Executor in Probate also has the power to execute 
      and vacate certain Payment Orders, as specified by the Probate 
      Code.  This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which 
      would specify a different Executor for an entity in Probate. 

      The Executor in Probate of an entity shall, upon eir nomination,
      arrange for the disposal of that entity's assets and debts,
      according to the procedures specified in the Probate Code, and
      shall do so in a timely manner.

      The Executor in Probate of an entity ceases to be its Executor
      in Probate when e announces, in accordance with the Probate
      Code, that the entity is no longer in Probate, or when e
      announces that e resigns as that entity's Executor in Probate.

      The Notary shall keep a record of each entity in Probate, and 
      the Executor in Probate of each entity in Probate. 


--- 
Rule 1478/2 (Power=1) Executors

      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. 

      Except when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a Player is eir own
      Executor.  Any other entity has an Executor only when the Rules
      specify either a Player or a means to designate a Player to be
      the Executor of that entity.

      Whenever a Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e
      is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e
      is doing so.  If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e
      is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be
      presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf.

      A Nomic Entity (other than a person who is not a Player) which 
      has no Executor, or whose Executor is not a Player, may not 
      perform any action except when required to do so by the Rules. 

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