==============================  CFJ 1217  ==============================

    TYHJÄ is not an obvious synonym of one of FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN,
    as specified in Rule 683, and therefore is not a vote upon a
    Proposal.

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

Caller:                                 t

Judge:                                  Kelly
Judgement:                              DISMISS

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

History:

Called by t:                            18 May 2000 14:34:55 GMT
Assigned to Kelly:                      18 May 2000 16:27:02 GMT
Dismissed by Kelly:                     22 May 2000 05:11:12 GMT

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

Judge Kelly's Arguments:

This Court interprets the second paragraph of Rule 683 to mean that
votes upon Proposals are divided into three categories, that those
three categories can be known by the exemplars FOR, AGAINST, and
ABSTAIN, and that the use of those specific exemplars is not mandated
and that any other form of language which will successfully inform the
Assessor as to which of the three categories a given Vote should be
assigned.

One condition which must be met for vote to be successfully cast is
for the Voter to inform the Assessor of the vote.  It seems clear that
the message "I hereby cast one vote FOR Proposal 9999" informs the
Assessor of the Voter's desire to cast a single Vote of FOR on
Proposal 9999; no reasonable Assessor could conclude otherwise.  This
Court therefore holds that the statement of this CFJ amounts to asking
whether the message "I hereby cast one vote TYHJÄProposal 9999"
informs the Assessor of the Voter's desire to cast a single Vote on
Proposal 9999 (that vote being one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN).

This Court has no idea what "TYHJÄ means, or even what language it's
from.  Indeed, it might very well be a random string of characters
with no meaning in any known language.  This Court's understanding,
however, it not the issue.  Rule 683 clearly places the question in
the hands of the Assessor: a message conveys a Vote only if the
message informs the Assessor.  Whether the message of the form quoted
above succeeds in informing the Assessor depends on whether the
Assessor has knowledge of the meaning of the word, "TYHJÄ.
Therefore, the statement of this CFJ may be either TRUE or FALSE
depending on the Assessor's knowledge.  Since the Assessor changes
from time to time, the knowledge of the Assessor will also change, and
thus to conclusively Judge this statement would require this Court
have access to future knowledge about the knowledge of all future
Assessors.  This is clearly impossible, and thus this CFJ must be
dismissed for lack of information necessary to make a determinative
ruling.

Rule 683 does require that when a synonym is used, that it be
"obvious", but does not state to whom it must be obvious.  It is
possible that a reasonable Assessor could consider "TYHJÄ an obvious
synonym for FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN; this Court lacks knowledge to
decide this question; and, again, future knowledge would be required
to judge.

The CFJ is, therefore, DISMISSED.

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