==============================  CFJ 1782  ==============================

    pikhq initiated a criminal case in Message-id:
    <200711041446.04509.josiahw@gmail.com>

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

Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       04 Nov 2007 22:14:47 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         05 Nov 2007 10:12:14 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      06 Nov 2007 17:34:41 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 1504 requires the announcement initiating a criminal case to
clearly specify the identity of the defendant.  pikhq's announcement
attempted to specify the defendant as "the Promoter", which raises
two issues:

  1) The rules spell the name of the relevant office as "Promotor"
     rather than "Promoter".  However, this difference in spelling
     does not create an ambiguity in meaning, so by Rule 754 (1) it
     is inconsequential.

  2) Earlier in the same message, pikhq incorrectly identified the
     holder of this office.  I argue that this makes eir later
     attempt at identification unclear, and accordingly recommend a
     judgement of FALSE.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

The message in question contains two parts.

The first part of this message, prior to the CFJ, misidentifies Murphy
as the Promotor (the Court agrees with the Caller that the spelling error
is inconsequential - though try telling that to Harry Buttle).

However, the CFJ statement itself makes no particular mistake: it merely
alleges that "the Promotor" committed an offense.  The action of calling
is most appropriately treated as severable from the preceding text (and
mistake).  If distributed by the CotC as a case, it would stand alone
and exist in the record outside the early portion of the message.

Therefore the question is, does the following portion of pikhq's message:
   "I call for judgement on the following statement (this is a criminal
    case against the Promoter): proposal 5269 was never submitted, and
    therefore should not have been distributed. Since the Promoter did
    this without a submission to the proposal pool, he made a proposal
    outside of rule 106, and is therefore in violation."
clearly specify the identity of the defendant, as required by R1504(a)?
The requirements of R1504(b) and (c) are clearly met by this statement.

In the case of identifying a person, a precedent already exists.
There is no argument as to the identity of the Promotor at the time
of the alleged event, the time of the CFJ, or now: it is a matter of
public record and has not changed.

Therefore, "Promotor" successfully and inarguably identifies
Zefram in the same narrow context that "Beverly" specified root in
CFJ 1361.  This identification is properly made at the time of the
CFJ, not at the time of the alleged offense (if the promotor had
changed in the interim, this is taken care of by finding the new
promotor innocent of the specified charges).

Therefore, pikhq's statement met the requirement of R1504(a).

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

Judge G.'s Evidence:

Rule 1504/16 (Power=1.7) [excerpt]
Criminal Cases

      There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
      A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
      particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
      of the rules, and to punish the guilty.  A criminal case CAN be
      initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies
      all of the following:

      a) The identity of the defendant.

      b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.

      c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
         by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.

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