CFJ 28 (Jim Shea)
"Proposal 445 does not `directly alter the actions which are
required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker', but merely
determines who the Speaker *is* under certain conditions;
therefore, Proposal 445 passed despite the current Speaker's
refusal to consent thereto."
Dave Bowen <>

> Judgement: FALSE
> Reasoning: Proposal 445 does indeed alter the actions which are
> forbidden to the Speaker in that remaining in office for a period of
> longer than four consecutive weeks, an action that was previously
> permitted, would now be forbidden.

{ This CFJ was then appealed by Jim Shea. The CoC's message on 10/9/93
was: }

As per 384, an Appeal Court of 3 Justices is hereby set up:

Vlad <> 
Ronald Kunne <>         : OVERRULED.
Kevin Watkins <>

{ Vlad declined and was replaced by David Nicol. }
{ Kevin Watkins did not respond, was penalised 10 points, and was
replaced by Sai on 14/9/93. }

{ Then, on 16/9/93: }

David Nicol has returned a Decision:


I agree that the question of is the speaker (not) in office, and WHo Is
The Speaker, is NOT the same as the question of what the speaker (who/what-
ever e may be) is (not) (allowed to be) doing."

As Ronald Kunne has also Decided to Overrule Judgement, the Verdict
of the Appeal Court is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED.

CFJ 28 (reproduced below for convenience) is now UNDECIDED.