=========================  Criminal Case 3357  =========================

    Machiavelli violated Rule 1504 by failing to pay this fine.

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

Caller:                                 Walker
Barred:                                 Machiavelli

Judge:                                  Fool
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY

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

History:

Called by Walker:                       02 Jul 2013 00:28:56 GMT
Assigned to Fool:                       08 Jul 2013 16:48:26 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by Fool:              15 Jul 2013 14:06:04 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

On 27 May 2013 21:02, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3310
>
> =========================  Criminal Case 3310  =========================
>
>     Machiavelli violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish the IADoP's
>     report last week.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Fool:

HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I
     versus
TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI)



Charles Walker on behalf of the Crown alleges that Machiavelli failed to pay a
fine ordered by CFJ 3310, wherein the defendant was convicted of failing to
publish an IADoP report, and for which the judgement was, in its entirety,
"GUILTY - FINE (2 VCs)", handed down by Charles Reiss (aka woggle).

It seems the Crown in this case presents no further evidence, and Machiavelli
has nothing to say for himself either. So who gets to do the digging for you?
Muggins, eh?

Very well: it turns out that while the defendant did have quite a few VCs when
3310 was initiated (April 22), by the time sentence was passed (May 18, took
long enough) all VCs had been reset (May 8), so he had no VCs to destroy. Nor
did he thereafter earn a VC, until proposal 7450 passed (June 10), and then
VCs were reset (June 17). His next VC was from proposal 7477 (June 29), and
this case was initiated 3 days later (July 2).

I quote Rule 1504:

      When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement,
      the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in
      effect.

      The valid sentences are:
[...]
      * FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for
        rule breaches of small consequence.  An amount is only valid
        if the currency's backing document binds the ninny (the Rules
        are considered to bind all players) or the ninny has this
        amount of the asset, and the backing document specifies a
        maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
        maximum.  When in effect, the ninny SHALL, in a timely
        fashion, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer
        it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged
        to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if
        sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into
        effect more than once.

There are some questions in my mind about this rule, foremost, who wrote this
junk? I suppose this is the Agoran pragmatism that people keep raving about?
Sure, during Agora XX we complained about Agora's initial ruleset, didn't we,
well now, you guys have had twenty years, and this is what you all came up
with ... look, never mind, rule 217 instructs me to apply common sense and to
consider the interests of Agora, and by that standard it is clear that
everyone is guilty here. So I just need to find appropriate punishments.

Charles Reiss, for your sentencing antics, I fine you twenty berks (same as in
town), and I haven't bothered to check if you have any berks, nor do I even
know what berks are good for anyway. I just know that if you don't pay,
there'll be trouble. Possibly involving a pointy stick.

Charles Walker, for making me dig through archives unnecessarily, I sentence
you to print out a hard copy of the agora-official mailing list from May
onward, therewith to beat yourself over the head until you are cross-eyed.

Tanner Swett, for starting this mess by not writing a simple report, I
sentence you to three days at a dismal job where you'll be constantly pestered
for totally pointless reports like that guy on Office Space.

The rest of you, smarten up. Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good
mood, because I'm usually a hanging judge.

This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen.

{ NOTE FROM THE COTC: This pretends to be a judgement. However, since there is
no clear sentence, I am not treating it as such. }

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

although it appears that this case may have been judged GUILTY, I can't figure
out in any case what the sentence was.

Additional arguments on CFJ 3357: since I did not possess any VCs on May 18,
and I had no reasonable means of obtaining any in a timely fashion, it is not
the case that I "could have reasonably avoided committing the breach", so
condition (e) for a sentence of GUILTY on CFJ 3357 is not satisfied, so I'm
scot-free. The fact that I could have destroyed VCs later on is irrelevant,
because even if I had done so, I still would have committed the breach.

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

Judge Fool's Arguments:

I thought I was quite clear on what the verdict and sentences were, it's just
that they were invalid.

I suppose you want a valid judgement. Very well: NOT GUILTY, because, as I
say:


it turns out that while the defendant did have quite a few VCs
when 3310 was initiated (April 22), by the time sentence was passed (May 18,
took long enough) all VCs had been reset (May 8), so he had no VCs to
destroy. Nor did he thereafter earn a VC, until proposal 7450 passed (June
10), and then VCs were reset (June 17). His next VC was from proposal 7477
(June 29), and this case was initiated 3 days later (July 2).

Given rule 1504 as it was at the time, how was he supposed to destroy 2 VCs in
a timely fashion?

Proposal 7507 improves 1504 somewhat, but note it doesn't actually help in
this case.

And I stand by what I said: in reality everyone is guilty, as I explained.

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