==============================  CFJ 3222  ==============================

    There exist CFJs with ID numbers 3217 and 3218, and they are
    assigned to ais523.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  Machiavelli

Judge:                                  scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       03 Jun 2012 20:11:00 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        12 Jun 2012 14:32:41 GMT
omd recused:                            21 Jun 2012 12:54:31 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                21 Jun 2012 12:58:24 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    02 Jul 2012 19:36:36 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    06 Jul 2012 13:38:09 GMT
scshunt recused:                        25 Jul 2012 16:43:10 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         25 Jul 2012 20:37:34 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      25 Jul 2012 23:30:35 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The record of the CFJs seem to be corrupted both on the CotC
website and the email assigning them, so I'm not convinced it's
identified the CFJs well enough to successfully assign an ID number or a
judge. (And I'm not sure offhand what the CFJs refer to, or even if they
are genuinely a criminal and inquiry case linked to each other, which is


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, 2012-06-03 at 10:44 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3217
> =========================  Criminal Case 3217  =========================
>      Sun, 27 May 2012 14:14:46 +0100
> ========================================================================
> ==============================  CFJ 3218  ==============================
>      Sun, 27 May 2012 14:14:46 +0100
> ========================================================================


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

The CotC website has since been fixed.  (I sent a fix announcement, so
3217-18 should exist and be assigned to ais523 now, even if they weren't
at the time this case was initiated.)

Looking up the timestamp in the a-b archive turns up exactly one
message, written by FKA441344, including two CFJs (matching 3215-16) and
a proposal and two more CFJs (matching 3217-18 except for the botched
copy+paste of statements).  In context, while this effort shouldn't have
been necessary, it doesn't seem unreasonable either.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

The CotC is required to "assign" a case, but is not specifically required
to publish it, so indirect references (e.g. "I assign the above quote
this ID number and to this judge") would work for the CotC - we've gotten
spoiled by the excellent and consistent database system.

Still, the forensics described by Gratuitant Murphy are right on the
border of what would be reasonable; as it requires cross-referencing not
merely the time stamp but multiple messages (finding 3215-3216 case
assignments to eliminate two of the four CFJ statements in the original
message, as well as finding the message itself).

I find that, as the reference was generally uniquely identifiable, the
assignment did go as Murphy intended for the purpose of an Inquiry case
about its existence and assignment; therefore, TRUE.   However, were a
criminal case brought against ais523 for failure to judge, e would be
(using a stricter standard of reasonable doubt) NOT GUILTY by R1504(d).