==============================  CFJ 1448  ==============================

    The Proposal entitled "Full Discretion Fix" was Rubberstamped by a
    message sent by Cecilius today under the subject line
    "Rubberstamping, Take Two".


Caller:                                 Cecilius
Barred:                                 Maud

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1448a
Decision:                               REVERSE



Called by Cecilius:                     03 Mar 2003 16:50:22 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         10 Mar 2003 06:46:30 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      17 Mar 2003 19:20:52 GMT
Appealed by Steve:                      20 Mar 2003 00:10:27 GMT
Appealed by Sir Toby:                   20 Mar 2003 00:25:10 GMT
Appealed by Pakaran:                    20 Mar 2003 00:36:51 GMT
Appeal 1448a:                           20 Mar 2003 00:36:51 GMT
REVERSED on Appeal:                     28 Mar 2003 00:08:30 GMT


Judge G.'s Arguments:

Extract from Cecilius's message in question of 3-Mar-03:
> Having paid the required fee of 0 Papyri, I Rubberstamp "Full
> Discretion Fix".

R1941 reads in part:
      A Fee is a specific quantity of some particular Currency
      explicitly designated as such by the Rules.

Zero is a quantity (and multiple of the MUQ of Stems) so a 0 Stem
Rubberstamp Fee is a Fee.  Further from R1941:
                                                  To Pay a Fee is
      to transfer the specified quantity of that particular Currency
      to the Bank if and only if that transfer is made solely for
      the purpose of Paying that particular instance of that Fee.

But from 1598:
      (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:
          (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by
              the transferor; and
      (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor
          receives a valid Notice of Transfer.

Since a Notice of Transfer can't be delivered for 0 of a Property, a
potential feepayer can't "transfer the specified quantity" of 0.

Is not transferring any stems the same in effect as transferring 0
Stems?  In general, no.  But in the case of Fees, there is a strong
implication of communication of a "sole purpose" required for paying
a Fee, that (in the case of zero) one must do nothing, but at the
same time do *something* by communicating that the sole purpose of
inaction was paying a fee.

This is sufficient to suggest to This Court that "not transferring any
Stems for the SOLE AND COMMUNICATED PURPOSE of paying a 0 Stem Fee"
is more similar to "transferring 0 Stems to pay a Fee" than it is to
"doing nothing for no purpose and to no effect."  Since Cecilius's
informing of purpose was perfomed in public, it was successful
communication with all of Agora.

The fact that Cecilius informs Agora of this in past tense is within
the bounds of flexibility of communication given that it was an
annoucement of having done nothing.  The Rubberstamp was successful.
This court returns a judgement of TRUE.


Appellant Steve's Arguments:

Goethe hasn't responded my post about this Judgement.

To repeat, AFAICS this Judgement is not in accordance with Rule 1941
and 1598. Transferring zero Currency is impossible, so paying a Fee of
zero Currency is impossible. The purposes of communication don't come
into it.