==============================  CFJ 3006  ==============================

    Notice of Violation 20110420a is valid.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 Yally

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Murphy:                       21 Apr 2011 05:22:41 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     24 Apr 2011 03:43:18 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The relevant events are as follows (all times are UTC):

  (a) 4 Apr 15:58:55  CFJ 2982 (failure to report) judged GUILTY /
                        TIME OUT, Yally becomes inactive
  (b) 4 Apr 16:54:36  Yally appeals CFJ 2982, becomes active (CFJ 2984)
  (c) 4 Apr 22:35:56  CFJ 2982 affirmed on appeal, Yally becomes
  (d) 4 Apr 23:23:20  Yally becomes active
  (e) 6 Apr 15:40:47  CFJ 2985 (violating TIME OUT) judged GUILTY /
                        TIME OUT, Yally becomes inactive
  (f) 6 Apr 19:00:28  Yally becomes active

NoV 20110420a has two possible targets, (d) and (f), but it's reasonably
clear that (f) was intended.


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

There may be ambiguity because Yally was subject to
two TIME OUT sentences as of (f).


Judge ais523's Arguments:

The conditions for invalidity on an NoV are quite narrow. Even
if the act identified is ambiguous, that might be options for finding
the accused NOT GUILTY, but not for invalidity. (I think "NoV: ais523
violated the power-3 rule 101 by nkep" could be a valid NoV, although
not a particularly meritorious one without a further clarification as to
what exactly nkep meant in that case.) The only clause on which
invalidity could be found would be (2), which bans substantially
duplicate NoVs; but this NoV does not seem to be a duplicate (becoming
active during two TIME OUT periods is different from becoming active
during one; whatever specific breach is being alleged, it isn't "Yally
became active during the first of eir two TIME OUT periods", so this is
definitely a different set of circumstances from the first NoV). Note
that this line of reasoning means that it's likely possible to NoV
someone twice for the same crime, if circumstances have changed in the
meantime; but this does not cause a double-jeopardy situation, as rule
1504 prevents them both being used to find the accused GUILTY, so doing
so would not accomplish much but wasting the court's time. I judge CFJ
3006 TRUE.