Call for Judgement from Wes (Sun Aug  8 01:42:07 GMT 1993)

   "Rule 342 is equally legal and illegal. It clearly violates Rule
316, as it is impossible to determine if all references that any Voter
makes to the Benevolent, Mighty Speaker involve the proper
terminology, as a Voter may do so incorrectly on his own time,
verbally, without any others able to hear his words. Therefore, Rule
342 is clearly in violation of Rule 316.
   "Rule 212 indicates that Rule 316 takes precedence over Rule 342 in
the case that they conflict. However, Rule 316 attempts to indicate
that Rule 342 is not only without legal force, but that Rule 342 is
not 'possible'. Rule 212 does not make any provisions for the
elimination of a Rule because of such a conflict, therefore Rule 342
would remain as a Rule, which is clearly in violation of Rule 316.
   "By these arguments, the existance of Rule 342 can be argued to be
legal or illegal with equal force. Therefore, according to Rule 219,
we issue a Call for Judgement to this effect. If this Judgement is
declared TRUE, then the winner shall be Wes Contreras, as we are the
Voter who submitted this Call for Judgement."

I find this statement to be FALSE.


Justification: By Judgement #6, it is clear that the argument in the
first paragraph of this 'statement' is invalid, as the Voter supposed
to be making illegal references to the Speaker is still in a position
to check their own actions, and enforce the application of appropriate
rules upon themselves, as indeed they must, by rule 101.