==============================  CFJ 3294  ==============================

    With 1.5 Agoran consent, I CAN destroy the judicial panel composed
    of Agora and woggle.

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

Caller:                                 woggle

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Wes
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by woggle:                       20 Jan 2013 06:01:24 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        09 Feb 2013 17:51:07 GMT
omd recused:                            11 Mar 2013 18:42:48 GMT
Assigned to Wes:                        11 Mar 2013 18:50:13 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wes:                    16 Mar 2013 01:02:01 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The judicial panel composed of Agora and woggle is also a Marine and owned by
the Lost
and Found Department.

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

Judge Wes's Arguments:

Evaluating this decision turns out to be somewhat more complex than it
first appears.

First, per Rule 591, this judgment shall be ruled "based on the truth
or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was
initiated." Therefore, the rules in effect on Jan 20 will impact this
case, notwithstanding the subsequent repeal of rule 2386, which is of
key importance to the evaluation of this statement.

That said, there is an apparent conflict between various rules. Rule
2376 clearly states "Entities with less than 9 props are Marines." The
word "entity" is not explicitly defined in the rules, therefore we use
the normal English definition of the word: "A thing with distinct and
independent existence." A judicial panel would appear to exist
independently, as defined in Rule 2157, and must therefore be an
entity. Being ineligible to possess props per Rule 2376, it must
certainly possess fewer than 9, thus we can conclude that Rule 2376
attempts to declare a judicial panel to be a Marine.

At the time this CFJ was called, Rule 2386 also declared that "Marines
are a type of unit," and that "A unit is a type of asset..." Rule 2166
states " An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contest
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its
backing document defines its existence." This exact phrasing becomes
of key importance in the evaluation of this judgment.

Per Rule 2166, the "backing document" for the definition of a Marine
would be Rule 2376 as the "rule or contest" defining the entity.
However, judicial panels do not exist solely because Rule 2376
declares them to exist - on the contrary, they exist due to Rule 2157,
completely outside of the influence of Rule 2376. This would appear to
create a conflict, with Rule 2376 declaring judicial panels to be a
Marine, and therefore an asset; while Rule 2166 denies them status as
an asset. As the higher-power rule, Rule 2166 takes precedence, and
judicial panels are not considered an asset as a result of possessing
fewer than 9 props.

We see no other rule or other condition that might arguably cause a
judicial panel to be an asset, or to allow for some other means to
enact the destruction of a judicial panel with 1.5 Agoran Consent, and
must therefore return a judgment of FALSE.

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