>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Tue Aug  8 22:13:06 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA01773 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 22:13:04 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA25753 for nomic-official-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:10:16 -0700
Received: from timbuk.cray.com (root@timbuk.cray.com [128.162.19.7]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA25733 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:10:04 -0700
Received: from sdiv.cray.com (root@ironwood-fddi.cray.com [128.162.21.36]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.12/CRI-8-1.16) with SMTP id VAA21231 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:07:53 -0500
Received: from birch111 by sdiv.cray.com (5.x/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv)
	id AA07730; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 20:15:07 -0500
Message-Id: <9508090115.AA07730@sdiv.cray.com>
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Subject: OFF: Decision on CFJ 801
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 20:15:06 -0500
>From: David Bowen <dmb@birch111.cray.com>
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

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

CFJ 801

Caller: TAL

Statement: The Confidentiality of Contracts Rule 1459, shall be interpreted
  such that a Judge or a Justice has the possibility to ask the
  Notary to disclose *all* contracts that fulfill certain
  conditions.

Barred: Vlad
Requested Injunction: none

Judge: Steve
  Judgement: TRUE

Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this report):
  *Steve receives 3 points for judgement.

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

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

History:
  Called by TAL Thu, 03 Aug 95 10:18:04 SET
  Assigned to Steve Thu, 3 Aug 95 04:53:27 CDT
  Judged TRUE by Steve Tue, 8 Aug 1995 10:27:44 +1000
  Judgement published {with this report}

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

Arguments of Caller (TAL):

The unique purpose of this CFJ is to expose which Players made
a Contract with Vlad concerning the latter's Proposal 1661.

To do this I use a loophole I think exists in Rule 1459.
In fact the Rule states:
" However, the following disclosures are legal, as noted:
  [...]
 * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to a Judge or
   Justice who believes that knowledge of the contents of the
   Contract is necessary for em to Judge a CFJ."

This of course, leaves it in the hands of the Judge to decide
which Contracts e might need, without *any* check or penalty
for abuse. So much for the truthfullness of my statement.

If the Judge agrees with me, I appeal to the Judge to use this
unlimited power to ask the Notary for *all* Contracts that fulfill the
following condition: Vlad is one party of the Contract and the
number `1661' appears in the Contract.

By Rule 1459 the Judge is not allowed to add these Contracts to
the Judgment, but nothing forbids the Judge to publish a list
of Players that entered such Contracts.

:-)

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

Evidence provided by Caller (TAL):

Rule 1459/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Confidentiality of Contracts

      A Player who is or has been Notary may not divulge any part of
      any Contract which was entered into or was in force during the
      time that e is or was Notary.  However, the following
      disclosures are legal, as noted:

      * Disclosure of part or all of a Contract, to any party of that
        Contract;
      * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to the current
        Notary;
      * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to a Judge or
        Justice who believes that knowledge of the contents of the
        Contract is necessary for em to Judge a CFJ.

      If a Judge or Justice requires disclosure of a Contract to em
      for the purpose of Judging a CFJ, the Notary is required to
      provide a copy of the Contract to the Judge or Justice as soon
      as possible after the Judge's or Justice's request.  The Judge
      or Justice receiving the contract is then bound by the same
      strictures of nondisclosure as is the Notary, and is further
      prohibited from attaching a copy of it to eir Judgement as
      evidence.

      This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require the
      Notary to provide such records upon request, and which would
      require a Judge to include a copy of a Contract as part of the
      evidence justifying eir Ruling.

      In addition, this Rule shall never be construed such that a
      Player may not disclose part of all of any Contract of which e
      is a party.

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

Arguments of Judge Steve

I Judge that the Statement is TRUE.

In fact, it seems trivially true to me. At first glance, it seems made
true by the clause in Rule 1459 that allows a Judge or Justice access
to any Contracts if e "believes that knowledge of the contents of the
Contract is necessary for em to Judge a CFJ." But in fact, even were
this or any similar such clause absent from Rule 1459, the CFJ would 
still be true. This is because Rule 1459 places restrictions only on
what the Notary may divulge, *not* on what a Judge or Justice may
ask the Notary to divulge. As far as the Rules are concerned, a Judge
or Justice (or indeed any Player) may ask the Notary for information
concerning any Contracts whatsoever, even Contracts the contents of
which it would be illegal for the Notary to divulge. Responsibility
for compliance with Rule 1459 lies entirely with the Notary, and e must
determine for emself what limits e regards Rule 1459 as placing on em.

As for TAL's purpose in calling the CFJ, I'm afraid that it has not
been met. Although, given the above, it would be perfectly legal for
me to ask the Notary to divulge the contents of all the Contracts
concerning Proposal 1661 to which Vlad is party, I also believe that
it would be illegal for the Notary to provide me with this information,
since it is evident that I do not believe that knowledge of the contents
of these Contracts is necessary for me to Judge the CFJ. Indeed, it
is evident from the above that I have been able to reach the Judgement
that the CFJ is TRUE entirely without the need to see any specific
Contracts at all. Nice try, TAL, but no cigar - this time.

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

End of CFJ 801

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