>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Fri Jul 21 23:08:51 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA07618 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 23:06:48 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA18693 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 10:09:11 -0700
Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA18478 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 10:08:19 -0700
Received: from [144.92.180.142] by audumla.students.wisc.edu;
          id MAA14249; 8.6.9W/42; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:06:54 -0500
X-NUPop-Charset: English
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 12:05:06 CST  
>From: "Charles E. Carroll" <ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
Message-Id: <43514.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 787
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

Judgement of CFJ 787

elJefe receives 5 points for speedy Judgement.

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

CFJ 787

Caller: Andre

Statement: KoJen was in Violation of Rule 663 when he issued an
  Injunction with CFJ 781.

Barred: KoJen, TAL

Requested Injunction:  That the annotation, asked for in said
  Injunction, will be removed if already added to the Ruleset,
  and will not be added to the Ruleset otherwise. 

Judge: elJefe
  Judgement: TRUE
  Injunction: none

Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this message):
  JonRock gains 3 Blots
 *elJefe gains 5 points due to speedy Judgement

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

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

History:

  Called by Andre, July 7 1995, 10:48 METDST
  Assigned to JonRock, July 7 1995, 8:56 UTC
  Defaulted by JonRock, July 14 1995, 8:56 UTC
  Assigned to elJefe Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:49:09 -0500
  Judged TRUE by elJefe Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:47:06 -0400
  Judgement published {as of this message}

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

Arguments of Caller (Andre):

Rule 663 says, among other things:

      A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is
      specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction 
      must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the 
      time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter
      addressed in the corresponding judgement. 
 

There are 3 Rules in the Ruleset which permit Injunctions, Rules 665, 789 and 
908. Rules 908 and 665 do not apply, as they only apply if the CFJ alleges 
a move is illegal, or if it alleges that someone violated the Rules, which 
CFJ 781 did not. Furthermore the type of Injunction is mentioned only in Rule
789. 
 
However, Rule 789 clearly states that it can only be applied if the statement 
is Judged TRUE, which it wasn't. And so there is no Rule allowing the 
Injunction issued by KoJen, and so he was in Violation of Rule 663.
 
============================================================

Arguments of Judge (elJefe):

Rule 663 says:

  A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is
  specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. 
 
The only Rule which permits an injunction to annotate a Rule, is
Rule 789.  Rule 789 only specifically permits such an injunction in 
the case where the CFJ was Ruled TRUE, which CFJ 781 was not.

Earlier judgements have dealt with the question of illegal injunctions
(CFJs 697, 714, 716, 724, 729, 735, 736, 773, and 785), and where
ruled TRUE have often issued injunctions of their own for a Formal
Apology from the person issuing the illegal injunction.  In fact,
CFJ 736 explicitly dealt with the question of whether the Game Move
of making an injunction is can actually occur if the injunction is
illegal, and held that such a move does occur, but without the
effects it would have were it legal.

Therefore I find that KoJen did accompany his Judgement of CFJ 781
with an Injunction, and that this particular Injunction is not
specifically permitted by any Rule, and this was in violation of
Rule 663.

I do not issue any injunction with this Judgement.  It is enough to note
that no annotation has been made, and that the present statement is a
statement "to the effect" that KoJen's Injunction does not meet the
criteria for a valid Injunction, and that this judgement supports that
contention. Therefore by Rule 663 it is illegal and has no legal force.

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

Evidence provided by Caller (Andre):

----------------------------------------

Rule 663/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Injunctions--General

      There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may 
      accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as 
      provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of 
      statements specifying an action or actions which must take 
      place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that 
      Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players 
      must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours 
      after its publication unless one of the following conditions
      then apply: 
        - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing
          appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal 
          process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal 
          has been published which would overturn that decision if
          passed, and said proposal has not failed. 
        - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a
          pending CFJ. 
        - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is 
          undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of
          the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but
          a proposal has been published which would overturn that
          decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. 
 
      A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is 
      specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction 
      must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the 
      time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter 
      addressed in the corresponding judgement. 

      If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does 
      not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ
      to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the 
      contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall 
      be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.
 
      This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.
 
History: 
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995

---------------------------------------- 
 
Rule 789/1 (Mutable, MI=1) 
Injunctions on Interpretations of Rules 
 
      When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be 
      interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of 
      Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in
      question.  If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may 
      include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor 
      to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ 
      and the list of relevant Rules. 

      The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the 
      list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ
      determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described 
      below.  While it remains, it shall guide the application of that 
      Rule. 

      If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the
      Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no 
      longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is 
      Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.
 
History: 
... 
Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995 
----------------------------------------

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

Evidence provided by Judge (elJefe):

CFJ 781 (excerpt)

  ======================================================================
  
                          JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 781 (CORRECTED)
                  ("The correct interpretation of Rule 1466...")

  ======================================================================
  
  Judge:          Michael (defaulted)
                  KoJen
  
  Judgement:      FALSE
  
  Caller:         Troublemaker At Large
  
  Eligible:       Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, Ian, JonRock,
                  Kelly, KoJen, Steve, SugarWater, Swann, Vanyel,
                  Xanadu, Zefram
  
  Not Eligible:   Troublemaker At Large (caller)
                  Blob (1005)
                  Coren, Pascal (1005 & On Hold)
                  Michael (defaulted)
  
  Effect:         Michael gains 3 Blots and is not eligible anymore
                   as a Judge. BEWARE! The 10 Point loss given earlier
                   does NOT apply.
                  KoJen gains 3 Points for timely Judgement.
                  Rule 1446 should be annotated as described in
                  the Judge's Injunction
  
  ======================================================================
  
  History:
    Called by TAL, June 22 1995, 13:16 SET
    Assigned to Michael, June 23 1995, 09:00 UTC
    Defaulted by Michael, June 30 1995, 09:00 UTC
    Assigned to KoJen, June 30 1995, 15:50 UTC
    Judged FALSE by KoJen, July 6 1995, 15:56 -0400
  
  ======================================================================
  
  Statement:
  
  The correct interpretation of Rule 1466 implies that it does not
  limit the effect of a Currency Directive on adoption to only one
  moment in time.
  
  Requested injunction:
  
  I request that the Judge make an Injunction on the interpetation
  of Rule 1466, as described in Rule 789.  (Even though this request
  is not necessary for the Judge to make the Injunction.)

  ======================================================================
  
  Decision & Injunction:
  
  My judgement on CFJ781 is FALSE.
  
  Injunction: Rule 1446 shall be annotated as follows:
  
      This Rule should be interpeted such that a Currency Directive causes a
      one-time change to a Treasury, in the same manner as in involuntary
      transfer.

...

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

End of CFJ 787

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