==============================  CFJ 1268  ==============================

    Peekee has committed the Crime of Application Fraud as described in
    Rule 1626 by claiming that eir Application (included in Evidence
    below) was signed by Players who did not actually sign that
    Application.

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

Caller:                                 Wes

Judge:                                  lee
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1268a
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  Razl
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1268b
Decision:                               SUSTAIN

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

History:

Called by Wes:                          07 Feb 2001 08:14:53 GMT
Assigned to lee:                        07 Feb 2001 09:03:16 GMT
Judged TRUE by lee:                     07 Feb 2001 18:26:04 GMT
Appealed by Peekee:                     08 Feb 2001 16:24:14 GMT
Appeal 1268a:                           08 Feb 2001 16:24:14 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   17 Feb 2001 15:00:15 GMT
Assigned to Razl:                       25 Feb 2001 20:25:56 GMT
Judged TRUE by Razl:                    09 Mar 2001 00:00:00 GMT
Appealed by Peekee:                     22 Mar 2001 12:47:26 GMT
Appeal 1268b:                           22 Mar 2001 12:47:26 GMT
SUSTAINED on Appeal:                    10 Apr 2001 04:02:19 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Peekee solicited arguments for an Application to submit a Concurring
Opinion on CFJ 1259. Several Players responded, quoting the Concurring
Opinion and indicating that they signed the Application. Peekee then
submitted an Application to submit a Dissenting Opinion, claiming that
these Players signed it. Either this was not the same Application, and
thus none of the Players in question had signed the Application, or the
Application had been Amended and all Signatures had been stricken.

Either way, there were no Signatures on the Application which Peekee
actually submitted to the Clerk of the Courts. Peekee then claimed that
the Application did indeed have these Signatures which had not been
added in a manner consistant with Rule 1626.

We are assuming that Peekee did, in some way, believe that eir post
was correct, and therefore would not also be Guilty of the Crime of
Falsification per Rule 1497.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1626/3 (Power=1)
Applications

      An Application is any body of text designated as such by a
      Player.  This Player is known as its Sponsor.

      A Player's Signature is added to an Application when e sends a
      message to that Application's Sponsor indicating that e wishes
      to sign it.

      A Player's Signature is stricken from the Application when e
      sends a message to the Sponsor of the Application stating that e
      wishes eir signature stricken.  Further, the Sponsor of an
      Application may strike any Signature from the Application at any
      time.

      If an Application is amended in any way (except to add or strike
      a Signature), any and all Signatures which appear on it are
      stricken from it.

      An Application is Executed when its Sponsor submits it to
      whatever Officer or other Player is designated by the Rules to
      receive Applications of that particular type, with whatever
      effect is defined by the Rules for the Execution of that type of
      Application.  However, any other Rule notwithstanding, the
      Execution of an Application shall have no effect unless Executed
      within 14 days of the time the oldest Signature which appears on
      it was added.

      If a Player Executing an Application claims that the Application
      contains certain Signatures, but the purported Signatures have
      not been added to it in a manner consistent with this Rule, e
      commits the Class 4 Crime of Application Fraud.


ORIGINAL EMAIL SOLICITING SIGNATURES:

From: "Alan Riddell" <pkpeekee@hotmail.com>
To: "Agora BUS" <agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: BUS: Application
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:32:42 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <OE11A4So3lLdkheqOWu00002e72@hotmail.com>
Sender: owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au

I have been occupied the last couple of days and so this might be to late
now, but if any body wants to sign it go ahead and tell me.
===

Application to Submit an Opinion on CFJ 1259

This is an application to submit a Concurring Opinion on the dismissal of
CFJ 1259 by Judge Murphy.

It is the opinion of the Players signing below that although Judge Murphy's
decision to dismiss CFJ 1259 was correct his arguments for doing so were
wrong.  Murphy dismissed the CFJ under Rule 1565 clause ii), however the
clause only applies a CFJ if "Its Statement can not logically admit to
either being TRUE or FALSE." However the statement of the CFJ could in some
hypothetical universe admit to being TRUE, i.e. the hypothetical universe
where Peekee is owed 100 Stems.

It should be noted that by Rule 1563 the statement of a CFJ must admit under
"...the means of logical reasoning, with the presumption of perfect
knowledge, to be either TRUE or FALSE."  And in this case CFJ 1259 fails to
comply with the Rules, and as such should not be Judged but dismissed.
===

Peekee


APPLICATION DELIVERED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURTS:

From: "Alan Riddell" <pkpeekee@hotmail.com>
To: "Agora BUS" <agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: BUS: Application to Submit an Opinion on CFJ 1259
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:47:22 -0000
Message-ID: <OE49vjkO22ZhCl8aii0000036eb@hotmail.com>
Sender: owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au

Application to Submit an Opinion on CFJ 1259



This is an application to submit a Dissenting Opinion on the dismissal of CFJ
12
59 by Judge Murphy.



It is the opinion of the Players signing below that although Judge Murphy's
deci
sion to dismiss CFJ 1259 was correct his arguments for doing so were wrong.
Mur
phy dismissed the CFJ under Rule 1565 clause ii), however then clause only
appli
es a CFJ if "Its Statement can not logically admit to either being TRUE or
FALSE
." However the statement of the CFJ could in some hypothetical universe admit
to
 being TRUE, i.e. the hypothetical universe where Peekee is owed 100 Stems.



However, it should be noted that by Rule 1563 the statement of a CFJ must
under
"...the means of logical reasoning, with the presumption of perfect knowledge,
t
o be either TRUE or FALSE."  And in this case CFJ 1259 fails to comply with
the
Rules, and as such should not be Judged but dismissed.





Signed:

Peekee

Øjan

Steve

Michael

Crito

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

Judge lee's Arguments:

The Application that was submitted as signed was different than the one
that the Players had actually signed.  The Rule that governs applications
says that the Application may not be amended except by adding or striking
signatures. Since the Application was amended all the signatures were
stricken. These signatures were not re-added. The Application Peekee
submitted had no signatures, yet e claimed it did.

As per Rule 1504/6 (Power=1), I hereby issue a Sentencing Order that
Peekee gains 4 blots. Furthermore, I order Peekee to  submit a Public
Apology with the following Prescribed Words: dehisce, zweiback, seepage,
usufruct,  antepenultimate, pyx,  coriander,

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

Judge lee's Evidence:

Rule 1504/6 (Power=1)
Sentencing Orders

      The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall
      be by Sentencing Order(s).  Upon a judicial finding that an
      entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute
      Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required
      by the Rules for that Crime.

-------
Rule 908/11 (Power=1)
Formal Apologies

      Upon a judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny)
      has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in
      violation of one or more Rules, the Judge so finding shall Order
      that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology.
      However, when the action (or failure to act) is subject to
      penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an
      Infraction, the Order is optional and may be issued at the
      Judge's discretion.

      A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200
      words, to be published by the Ninny in the Public Forum,
      explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire
      for self-improvement.

      The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include
      in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen
      by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology.  If
      the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words
      required must appear within the Formal Apology.

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

Judge Razl's Arguments:

I judge this CFJ TRUE.  As established by the previous judge, the
Application submitted by Peekee was different than the one that the
Players had actually signed and hence had no signatures.  Claiming that
the application had signatures when it had none is clearly a case of
Application Fraud.

Rule 1575/4 states, "It is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that
the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the
time e performed them," but this is not a valid defense in this case.
Peekee's criminal action was claiming that the Application contains
certain Signatures when it did not.  It is not a reasonable belief that
this action was not a Crime at the time e performed it; ignorance of
what is plainly stated in Rule 1626/3 is not a valid defense.

While it is true that e reasonably believed that what he BELIEVED to be
eir action was not a crime, Rule 1575/4 addresses only eir ACTUAL
action, not the action Peekee imagines e performed.  Though I do not see
this as the spirit of Rule 1575/4, I am required to judge by the text of
the Rules.

As per Rule 1504/6, I hereby issue a Sentencing Order that Peekee gains
4 blots.  Furthermore, I order Peekee to submit A Formal Apology with
the following Prescribed Words: coriander, zweiback, zugzwang,
zymolysis, zymurgy, Zurvanism, zooks, zoetrope, zizith, zischäe.

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