==============================  CFJ 1371  ==============================

    Craig's transfer of one HereYouGoKezom to Michael's Pot-Plant was
    valid.

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

Caller:                                 teucer

Judge:                                  t
Judgement:                              DISMISS

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

History:

Called by teucer:                       13 May 2002 11:16:19 GMT
Assigned to t:                          15 May 2002 22:10:51 GMT
Dismissed by t:                         15 May 2002 22:52:24 GMT

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

Judge t's Arguments:

The caller of this CFJ has decided that it is appropriate to call a CFJ
without giving any evidence. This might be true in some cases but here it
is not. The judge has to go and find evidence of a transfer mentioned in
the statement of this CFJ and decide whether the reference to a transfer
is unambiguous - there might have been more than one such transfer. The
court would like to express its annoyance before giving judgement.

The statement refers to "Craig's transfer of one HereYouGoKezom to
Michael's Pot-Plant". The court appends to its judgement as evidence three
messages posted to the mailing lists. The first message contains the
alleged Notice of Transfer and the second message the records of the
holdings and transfers of HereYouGoKezomi. The third message confirms that
Michael does indeed own some pot-plants. The court concludes that the
first message is indeed the Notice of Transfer the caller intends to refer
to (there is no evidence for any other transfers to any pot-plants) and
that the pot-plants referred to are real.

The Notice of Transfer (exhibit 1) is a transfer of one HereYouGoKezom
from Craig to "Michael's pot-plants". Yet the statement of the CFJ refers
to a transfer to "Michael's pot-plant" (exhibit 2 seems to claim that
exhibit 1 is this transfer but this is clearly false). These are obviously
two different things. As the statement of this CFJ refers to a transfer of
which there is no good evidence, it lacks standing and is therefore
DISMISSED.

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

Judge t's Evidence:

1:

From raganok@intrex.net Thu May 16 01:26:11 2002
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 05:51:49 -0400
From: Craig <raganok@intrex.net>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Re: BUS: Currency Creation

>> No, there is a supportable distinction between in-game and out-of-game
>> entities. Such a distinction was articulated in my Judgement of CFJ 1328
>> (Statement: The AgoraEx exists in the eyes of the Rules).

>> There, I claimed that

>>       ...an entity exists as a matter of Agoran law if the Rules,
>>       directly or indirectly, refer to the entity, or govern its
>>       activity in some way, either by enabling, permitting or requiring
>>       it to act in some fashion, or by enabling, permitting or requiring
>>       other entities to act upon it.

>> H. Rulekeepor, perhaps it might be good idea to add this as an
>> unofficial annotation to R1586? Or R1011?

>While I agree with the Judgement, my opinion is that it does not
>distinguish in-game and out-of-game entities at all.  The Rules
>indirectly permit me to water my pot-plants (R101), therefore my
>pot-plant exists as a matter of Agoran Law.  I'm happy with this
>conclusion, but its logical extension means that all of the known
>universe exists as a matter of Agoran law, and that there is thus no
>such thing as an out-of-game entity.

I mint one HereYouGoKezom and transfer it to Michael's pot-plants.

                             --Nostradacraig


2:

From raganok@intrex.net Thu May 16 01:32:54 2002
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 18:51:50 -0400
From: Craig <raganok@intrex.net>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: RE: BUS: with Power comes Responsibility

HOLDINGS of HereYouGoKezomi


Entity        Previous  Change  Current
------------  --------  ------  -------
Craig           <n/a>     + 3        3

Peter Suber     <n/a>     + 1        1

Coca-Cola       <n/a>     + 2        2

A Bond created  <n/a>     + 3        3
and owned by Sir Toby, with a face value of 100 HereYouGoKezomi and a
maturity date of 01 Jan 567890

The SLR         <n/a>     + 1        1

TRANSFERS of HereYouGoKezomi

Date              From                 To                   Amount
Successfull?
----------------  ------------         ------------         ------  --------
----
Tue  7 May 23:08  <created>            Craig                9       yes
Tue  7 May 23:08  Craig                Peter Suber          1       yes
Tue  7 May 23:08  Craig                Coca-Cola            2       yes
Wed  8 May 05:53  <created>            Craig                1       yes
Wed  8 May 05:53  Craig                Michael's Pot-Plant  1       yes
Wed  8 May 05:55  Craig                a Bond               3       yes
Wed  8 May 06:26  Michael's Pot-Plant  The SLR              1       yes


Because the HereYouGoKezom was created for the sheer CFJing pleasure, I am
assuming for the time being that every transfer succeeds. This is not
guaranteed to hold up in court.


3:

From Michael.Norrish@cl.cam.ac.uk Thu May 16 01:22:29 2002
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:06:49 +0100
From: Michael Norrish <Michael.Norrish@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: with Power comes Responsibility

Ed Murphy writes:
> Michael wrote:

> During the time period in question, did you *have* any pot-plants?
> And did you have at least two?  And does "pot-plants" refer to
> marijuana, or to any plant that is (at least partly) inside a pot?

Yes.  Yes.  The latter.

Michael.

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