=========================  Criminal Case 1868  =========================

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

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

Caller:                                 BobTHJ
Barred:                                 woggle

Judge:                                  pikhq
Judgement:                              INNOCENT

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

History:

Called by BobTHJ:                       14 Jan 2008 23:43:10 GMT
Defendant woggle informed:              15 Jan 2008 00:09:12 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  15 Jan 2008 16:47:32 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 woggle:

I reference the arguments of Murphy (in highly related CFJ 1866),
which I supplement below.

I note that if a judgement of REASSIGN was inappropriate, even the
judicial panel did not violate rule 911; instead, the panel would have
violated rule 2158 (and as Murphy's arguments state, the members of
the panel would arguably have violated rule 2157). Rule 911 defines
when judgements are appropriate (in an appeals case) but makes no
requirement that appropriate judgements be assigned or that
inappropriate ones not be assigned.

BobTHJ's arguments suggest that bribery is not an appropriate
considering in ruling REASSIGN in an appeals case. Although BobTHJ's
use of the Vote Market agreement did not materially play into my
supporting a ruling of REASSIGN on the case, I believe that using it
as such would be entirely legitimate. By placing himself under
contractual obligations to rule in a certain way on the CFJ (and not
placing any obligations on the person who actually selected the
verdict that the verdict was appropriate), BobTHJ has created a
situation where e is obliged to rule in a certain way regardless of
whether e believes it is appropriate. In a situation of this sort, a
panel ought to be able to consider this conflict of interest combined
with the flimsiness of the arguments to justify its "serious doubt" in
making a ruling of REASSIGN.

My arguments in CFJ 1860a (which are quoted in Murphy's arguments)
show several flaws and omissions in BobTHJ's arguments on CFJ 1860. I
think each of these was alone sufficient to establish "serious doubt"
necessary to rule REASSIGN. But since the verdict of REASSIGN being
appropriate is an absolute bar to guilt here, I submit the following
additional arguments for the appropriateness of the verdict:

The appropriateness of a judgement of IRRELEVANT on any question of
whether an action violates a rule is almost always of "serious doubt"
if it is possible to perform the alleged action (which it clearly is
in this case) and present evidence of such an action in a criminal
case (which is also seems possible in this case). If the CFJ in this
case were FALSE, a verdict of UNIMPUNGED would be appropriate;
otherwise a highly relevant-to-the-game verdict of, for example,
GUILTY - EXILE might be appropriate. In this case, the argument for
irrelevance is even more weak because the pikhq has alleged that e has
falsely claimed something to be a protective decree to Steve Wallace.
As far as I can tell, BobTHJ's arguments don't make any attempt to
explain how a verdict of IRRELEVANT is appropriate despite the
apparent relevance to criminal cases.

I also note that BobTHJ's interpretation, apparently requiring a thing
to satisfy the definition of a protective decree to violate R2159's
prohibition (on "falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a
protective decree"), (in addition to being contradictory to R2159's
text) naturally leads to a ridiculous conclusion: it would be
impossible to violate the prohibition in R2159. Apparently false or
incomplete reasoning that leads to such bizarre results ought to be
enough to pose serious doubt about a judgement.

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

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.

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