=========================  Criminal Case 1964  =========================

    Ivan Hope violated rule 2149 by making a public statement that two
    plus two is five.

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

Caller:                                 Machiavelli

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              UNIMPUGNED

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

History:

Called by Machiavelli:                  21 May 2008 20:22:16 GMT
Defendant Machiavelli informed:         21 May 2008 23:17:15 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  28 May 2008 23:17:15 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        29 May 2008 06:08:45 GMT
Judged UNIMPUGNED by omd:               08 Jun 2008 16:23:35 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

R101(i) gives me the privilege of
doing what I will, which includes stating that two plus two is five.
R101 also states that "A person's defined privileges are assumed to
exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the
contrary", but this doesn't mean that if there is an explicit, binding
agreement to the contrary, my defined privileges do not exist; R101(i)
not only makes that privilege "defined" but also states that I do, in
fact, have it, meaning rule 2149 cannot restrict it. In case this is
not sufficient evidence, I don't believe I've explicitly and bindingly
agreed to the rules--I have become a player, but the rules don't state
that they apply only to players, so I don't think this should be taken
as an agreement, much less an explicit, binding one.

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

By the precedent of CFJ 1738, if ihope had had the RIGHT to do what e
wilt, then Rule 2149 would conflict with this right and would be
invalid.  However, e only had the PRIVILEGE to do so.  R101's
treatment of rights is a lot stronger than of privileges.
Nevertheless, R101 claims to take precedence over any rule "which
would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges."

This, combined with the fact that ihope's privilege to do what e wilt
would be severely restricted if e was in violation of any rule for
doing things, leads to the conclusion that Rule 101 did indeed
conflict with Rule 2149, and ihope did not violate the Rules by
publishing a false statement.

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

Judge omd's Evidence:

Rule 101/7 (Power=3)
Agoran Rights and Privileges

     The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or
     privileges.  Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
     or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
     remove a person's defined rights.  A person's defined privileges
     are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding
     agreement to the contrary.  This rule takes precedence over any
     rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or
     privileges.

Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)
Truthfulness

     A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes
     that in doing so e is telling the truth.

From: ihope <ihope127@gmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:22:16 -0400

By the way, two plus two is five. I initiate a criminal CFJ against
myself for violating rule 2149 by making a public statement that two
plus two is five. My arguments: R101(i) gives me the privilege of
doing what I will, which includes stating that two plus two is five.
R101 also states that "A person's defined privileges are assumed to
exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the
contrary", but this doesn't mean that if there is an explicit, binding
agreement to the contrary, my defined privileges do not exist; R101(i)
not only makes that privilege "defined" but also states that I do, in
fact, have it, meaning rule 2149 cannot restrict it. In case this is
not sufficient evidence, I don't believe I've explicitly and bindingly
agreed to the rules--I have become a player, but the rules don't state
that they apply only to players, so I don't think this should be taken
as an agreement, much less an explicit, binding one.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

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