============================  Appeal 1268a  ============================

Panelist:                               Steve
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               Chuck
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               Elysion
Decision:                               REASSIGN



Appeal initiated:                       08 Feb 2001 16:24:14 GMT
Assigned to Steve (panelist):           10 Feb 2001 21:32:36 GMT
Assigned to Chuck (panelist):           10 Feb 2001 21:32:36 GMT
Assigned to Elysion (panelist):         10 Feb 2001 21:32:36 GMT
Steve moves to REASSIGN:                16 Feb 2001 07:58:58 GMT
Chuck moves to REASSIGN:                17 Feb 2001 04:01:06 GMT
Elysion moves to REASSIGN:              17 Feb 2001 15:00:15 GMT
Final decision (REASSIGN):              17 Feb 2001 15:00:15 GMT


Panelist Steve's Arguments:

In the Appeal of CFJ 1268, I overturn lee's Judgement and move to re-assign
the CFJ to a new Judge.

This is a difficult decision. There is a significant line of argument that
lee did not consider in eir Judgement, a possible defence for Peekee against
the conviction for Misrepresentation from Rule 1575. My personal view is
that this defence is likely to fail, and so it is tempting to sustain lee's
Judgement, which I think is essentially correct. But my personal view is
neither here nor there. I am not the Judge of this CFJ, but a Justice.
Peekee deserves the chance to have his defence heard by a Judge, where at
least he can Appeal it if he thinks the Judgement is unsatisfactory.


Panelist Elysion's Arguments:

lee accidentally submitted eir decision early (see below), less than 10
hours after being assigned as Judge. It is important in a criminal case to
give the accused a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, which
includes giving em sufficient time to respond to the charge. Whether or not
Peekee's defense is valid or reasonable is for a Judge to decide, not a
Board of Appeals.


Panelist Elysion's Evidence:

Subject: Re(2): DIS: Re: CFJ 1268 assigned to lee
   Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 07:23:11 -0600
   From: "_lee _kinkade" <lee@schawk.com>
     To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au

"    Furthermore, 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, or that e reasonably did not
      know that e was required to perform an action, when such
      nonperformance is defined as a Crime.  A Player shall not be
      convicted of a Crime if this defense applies."

I had not intended to send the judgement when I did. I  am still not sure
how that message got sent.  I had intended to do more research before
submitting the final judgement. However in answer to the above possible
defense, I do not think it reasonable that Peekee reasonably believed the
actions in question were not a crime. Changing an Application and claiming
to have signatures that were stricken when the application was amended is
very nearly the definition of the Crime e was accused of. Since e did make
an application, get signatures, and submit the application e demonstrated
a familiarity with the rules governing submitting applications.

"Agortia - an object either in motion or at rest tends to go haywire when
someone reads the Rules" -- Wes