==============================  CFJ 1318  ==============================

    Rule 1470 explicitly permits all transfers of Property from the
    Bank, and therefore no transfer of Property from the Bank is
    unauthorized for the purpose of Rule 1981.

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

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  solublefish
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       12 Sep 2001 14:23:40 GMT
Assigned to solublefish:                12 Sep 2001 17:01:36 GMT
Judged TRUE by solublefish:             18 Sep 2001 15:29:05 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1470, excerpt

      (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint
          Authority.  The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank
          Currency. The Bank is permitted to transfer Property in its
          possession to other entities.

Rule 1981, excerpt

      (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity
          which is made without being explicitly required or permitted
          by the Rules is unauthorized.

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

Judge solublefish's Arguments:

    The decision to be made here is simple. We must only ascertain whether
the last sentence of 1470 (a) 'explicitly requires or permits' a transfer.
'.... is permitted ...' seems to grant explicit permission. Initially, then,
I was inclined to rule the statement TRUE.

    However, I am required to consider judicial precedent set in the
judgement (Judge Steve) of CFJ 1288. That judgement states:
"The second paragraph of R1470
prohibits the Bank from transferring Stems except when it is
*specifically* authorized to do so by the Rules. The first paragraph of
the Rule does not provide this specific authorization"

Steve gives a resonable argument as to why that is the correct
interpretation of 1470. I won't repeat it, but it hinges on the existence of
the second paragraph, which seems to imply that the authorization in the
first paragraph was not intended to be 'explicit'. Please see the judgement
of 1288 at http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m1215.html

Now I must answer the question of whether the ruling in 1288 applies to the
case at hand.

It seems to me that the ruling in 1288 no longer applies. The reason for
this is that rule 1470 has changed significantly since the time of that
judgement. In 1288, the clause being considered was:
"Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency shall be a Limited Executor of the
Bank, with the authority to execute transfers of units of that Currency,
from and on behalf of the Bank."

There, "authority" can be read as defining the scope of the Limited
Executors mentioned. In the current version of 1470, the clause in question
is:
"The Bank is permitted to transfer Property in its possession to other
entities.

In the current world, it is the second paragraph (b) that deals with the
Limited Executors, using much the same language as before. There seems to be
no purpose for the clause in question except to explicitly allow the bank to
make transfers. If fact, it's hard to imagine a more explicit authorization.
Therefore, I conclude that the ruling in 1288 does not apply to this case. I
therefore rule, based on the plain text of the rules, that "Rule 1470
explicitly permits all transfers of Property from the Bank, and therefore no
transfer of Property from the Bank is unauthorized for the purpose of Rule
1981."

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