=========================  Criminal Case 1866  =========================

    Murphy breached Rule 911 by assigning an inappropriate judgment to
    CFJ 1860a.

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

Caller:                                 BobTHJ
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  pikhq
Judgement:                              INNOCENT

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

History:

Called by BobTHJ:                       14 Jan 2008 23:43:10 GMT
Defendant Murphy informed:              15 Jan 2008 00:08:35 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  15 Jan 2008 04:58:36 GMT
Assigned to pikhq:                      16 Jan 2008 00:00:56 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by pikhq:               16 Jan 2008 04:40:37 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the
bribery involved in my original judgment. R911 says:

REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
        appropriateness of the prior judgement

Since this criteria was not met, the appeals panel assigned an
inappropriate judgment.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

> Initiator's Arguments:
>
> As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
> the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
> to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the
> bribery involved in my original judgment. R911 says:
>
> REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
>         appropriateness of the prior judgement
>
> Since this criteria was not met, the appeals panel assigned an
> inappropriate judgment.

I assume that BobTHJ is referring to this comment by Goethe on
January 10:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> I hereby initiate a criminal case accusing BobTHJ of violating rule 2158
>> by failing to assign an appropriate judgement to the question on veracity
>> in CFJ 1860 when obliged to, by means of assigning an inappropriate
>> judgement instead.  Arguments:
>
> There is a specific and direct precedent defending BobTHJ in CFJ 1804.  A
> judgement should be considered appropriate unless appealed and overturned.
> I submit this as a gratuitous argument, as a judge should not be compelled
> by the threat of criminal action. -Goethe

However, this is a mis-statement of the precedent in CFJ 1804, which
merely defends a judge from criminal prosecution for delivering an
inappropriate judgement that e reasonably believed was appropriate.

There was indeed serious doubt over the appropriateness of the
judgement of CFJ 1860, as evidenced by panelist woggle's arguments:

> The original judge's ruling is clearly wrong, since it is clearly a
> violation of rule 2159 to claim (to any nomic) a document to be a
> protective decree even if that document does not meet the definition
> of protective decree and even if the alleged protective decree does
> not apply to the nomic in question. I think that BobTHJ's ruling is
> too tainted to allow a simple ruling of REMAND.
>
> Upon reassigning, the new judge is advised to consider BobTHJ's
> arguments on the nomichood of Steve Wallace but also consider:
> * whether Steve Wallace was a representative of or forum specified by
> a nomic such that proclaiming to him would be proclaiming to that
> nomic, including specifically, whether Steve Wallace's attempted
> participation in Agora had this effect; and
> * whether the statement's use of the vague "something" instead of
> "document" matters.

so the judgement of 1860a was not inappropriate.

Furthermore, even if the judgement of 1860a was inappropriate, Rule
911 would have been violated by the panel, not by me; I would have
instead violated Rule 2157.

For both of these reasons, I recommend a judgement of INNOCENT.

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

Judge pikhq's Arguments:

This court does not accept the initiator's arguments, especially the claim
that there was no serious doubt to the judgement in question. By merit of an
appeal taking place (which requires 3 people to agree for the appeal to take
place, for an inquiry case such as CFJ 1860), there was some doubt about the
call for judgement as a whole.

As can be seen in the arguments for CFJ 1860a, the judicial panel had serious
doubts as to the appropriateness of Judge BobTHJ's judgement in CFJ 1860.

As can be seen in CFJ 1863, at least one person other than the judicial panel
for CFJ 1860a doubted the appropriateness of the judgement. This court
accepts the arguments of H. Zefram in CFJ 1863 as it regards the
inappropriateness of the judgement in CFJ 1860 (this court refuses to comment
on the rest of eir arguments, as they have no bearing on this case). Even if
H. Zefram's arguments are thrown out in CFJ 1863, the existence of his
arguments proves that he doubted the appropriateness of the judgement in
question.

This court itself doubts the appropriateness of the original judgement of CFJ
1860.

This series of events leaves 5 people on record as doubting the
appropriateness (the judicial panel and the appellants overlapped) of CFJ
1860's judgement, and 1 person at least implying something was amiss. With 5
people in doubt, and possibly 6, there can be no doubt that there was serious
doubt about the appropriateness of CFJ 1860. Thus, REASSIGN was, in fact, an
appropriate judgement by the appeal panel.

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