>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Fri Nov  3 06:23:42 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com []) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA04298 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 06:23:39 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id EAA01080 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 04:19:51 -0800
Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl []) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA01064 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 04:19:41 -0800
Message-Id: <199511031219.EAA01064@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	( id AA22251; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 13:19:09 +0100
>From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 824: Judgement FALSE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 13:19:08 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

Statement: The entity known as Mousetrap was not created until after
Swann assumed the office of Notary, therefore, it cannot prevent Swann
from assuming the office of Notary.


Judge:		Oerjan
Judgement:	FALSE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, favor, KoJen, Michael, 
		Morendil, Oerjan, SaltWater, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Erick
Barred:		Kelly, elJefe, Steve
On Hold:	

Effects:	Oerjan gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

  Called by Erick, 01 Nov 1995, 11:45 -0600
  Assigned to Oerjan, 02 Nov 1995, 12:32 MET
  Judged FALSE by Oerjan, 02 Nov 1995, 20:31 +0100 (MET)


Requested injunction:
I also request an injunction from the judge assigned to this matter
forcing Kelly, elJefe, and Steve to dissolve Mousetrap due to the
dubious nature in which it was formed.



S: "Steve Gardner" <gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au>

S> The Mousetrap is an Organization of undefined Class, formed
S> about a week ago, with eljefe, Kelly and myself as the
S> Foundors, or Triumvirs, as we are referred to in the Mousetrap
S> Statutes.

K: "Kelly Martin" <kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us>

K>the Mousetrap is an Organization of 'non-Group, non-Contract,
K>non-Contest-type Organization' Class.  that's exactly what Foundor
K>elJefe put in the message to me as acting Notary establishing the
K>Organization.  elJefe is the sole Foundor, by virtue of being the sole
K>person to have sent the Notary that message.  the original
K>Jurisdiction, as specified in the Compact, was elJefe, Steve, and
K>myself.  the Organization was duly created at 24 Oct 1995, 23:31 EDT,
K>upon the receipt of the message from its Foundor.

There is a specific disagreement here.  Steve claims that elJefe, Kelly
and em are all Foundors of Mousetrap, where Kelly claims that elJefe is
the sole founder.  E did not have eir "stories straight" and are thus
contradicting each other.

K: "Kelly Martin" <kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us>

Stated on 31 Oct 1995 08:10 :
K>by the way, Swann, it _is_ possible to be made part of a Group without
K>consenting to it.   i found that loophole over a week ago, but haven't
K>acted on it because i've not found doing so worthwhile.

This implies that she hasn't acted upon it [until now].  Which implies
that Mousetrap was not in fact created at 24 Oct 1995, 23:31 EDT, as
Kelly claimed earlier, which is another contradiction.

Kelly also claimed that Mousetrap "was duly created at 24 Oct 1995, 23:31
EDT upon receipt of the message from its Foundor."  Since this is a
very specific time, it can be assumed that Kelly noted the time that e
received the message somewhere for further reference.  Kelly stated the
time that e received elJefe's message as 23:31 Eastern Daylight Time,
but Indiana, where Kelly's e-mail address specifies that she is, does
not use Daylight Savings Time, and is effectively in the Central Time
Zone during "Daylight Savings Time" and thus Kelly must have either made
up the time when writing the previously quoted message or copied it down
from another source, both implying that the time is not valid.

The following is taken from a message posted by elJefe on 31 Oct 1995:

E: "Erick E. Robertson" <eer640@lulu.acns.nwu.edu>
J: "Jeff Caruso" <jlc@triple-i.com>

E> Notary, take note:
E> I hereby create an organization with the following properties:
E> Administrator: Erick
E> Players within the jurisdiction of the compact: all players
E> Name: The Intelligent Mouse
E> Compact:
E> 1. This organization, hereby known as the Intelligent Mouse, is an
E> Organization of 'non-Group, non-Contract, non-Contest-type Organization'
E> Class.

J>I'm sorry, this violates several statutes of The Mousetrap.

Jeff did not say how, or why, or what statutes!  Nor did e quote these
statues as evidence to be prevented from doing this!  What reasons would
e have to hold back this information?

E> I am allowed to do this since I am not under the jurisdiction of Mousetrap,
E> since that jurisdiction was expanded to include all players before I joined.

J>We thought of this last week.  Rule 1535 (iii) allows this.

Again, Jeff does not provide evidence.  What could Jeff possibly gain by
not revealing this information?  It's not a non-disclosure problem, because
all players are inside Mousetrap's jurisdiction, as has been stated.

I offer that the reason that this information was not disclosed was that the
compact had not been written in its entirety yet, and therefore could not
have been submitted to the Notary on the given day, and Mousetrap had been
illegally formed.

S1: "Steve Gardner" <gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au>
S2: "Steven A Swiniarski" <gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu>

On 01 Nov 1995:
S1>This is more than a scam, this is a blatant statemet of philosophy--
S1>that if a Rule can be exploited to crush the masses, it will be!  

S2>These hysterics are uncalled for, and do you no credit, Swann.
S2>The Mousetrap has not been designed, and has not been used, to
S2>"crush the masses". Nor will it be. Several members of the so-called
S2>"masses" I consider to be friends of mine. I have no wish to see
S2>any of them crushed, nor humiliated, nor embittered, or hurt in
S2>any way. So far, the only person who has been required to do anything
S2>at all by the Mousetrap is yourself, and that for the purely strategic
S2>reason that control of the Office of Notary make the scam easier
S2>to carry out.

The only reason that controlling the Office of Notary would make the scam
easier would be if the correct messages had not been sent to the Notary
at the correct time, and the Triumvirates of Mousetrap needed a Notary to
lie for them.

I reserve the right to add future evidence as it becomes available.

(Further evidence produced by Morendil)

First, a short disclaimer here : I would have dismissed Erick's 
claims as bordering on paranoia, had I not had independent ground
to cast doubt on the claims that the Mousetrap was indeed formed 
weeks ago.Singly, Erick's and my reasons for doubting this claim are 
not sufficent to seriously question the basic assumption which I go 
by that every Player plays the game honestly, but put together...

On Oct. 18, I sent the text of a new Bearerbond to Notary Swann, 
which is reproduced in full in below. Swann accepted my argument
that the Notary had the authority to decide what constitutes 
appropriate notification by a Player of eir willingness to become 
Party to a Bearerbond.

As is evident on examination of the Hot Potato Bearerbond, as I chose 
to call it, it bears some striking similarities to the Mousetrap 
scam. It is what we now call a Compact, with the peculiarity that it 
'forces' Players to come under its Jurisdiction.

Soon after Swann's communication on the matter, Kelly retracted eir 
delegation of the Notary Office. I sent a message to Swann requesting 
em to transfer the text of the Hot Potato to Kelly. Some time after
this, Kelly announced that e refused to acknowledge Swann's election
to that Office. The Mousetrap scam was revealed shortly afterwards.

There you have it. Since then, Kelly has completely ignored the 
Hot Potato, so I don't know what its status is. It may even be the 
case that Swann did not in fact transfer its text to Kelly.

Whatever Rules have been violated - Truth In Advertising, duties of 
an Officer, whatever else - I deplore the lack of common courtesy 
evidenced by some Players.

Hot Potato Bearerbond, v.1
(Note : there was a v.2 and a v.3 with some amendments, notably one
which at the request of Swann made changing Parties possible.
I do not have the full text of v.3, but this is the initial 
Bearerbond I sent to Swann.)

This is a Statement of a Bearerbond between two parties, known
as the Bear and the Pot Of Honey.

The initial Bear shall be the player known as Morendil.
The initial Pot Of Honey shall be the player known as Morendil.

This Bearerbond may be changed at any time by the Party
known as the Bear..
This Bearerbond may not be dissolved expect as per the Rules.
No additional Parties may be joined to this Bearerbond.
No Party may be released from this Bearerbond.

In the event of a breach of contract :
 if breached by the Pot Of Honey, e is required to transfer all 
Currencies in his possession to the Bear, with the exception of 
Currencies that the Rules do not permit to so transfer;
 if breached by the Bear, no penalty shall be applied to that Party.

The Party known as the Pot Of Honey is required to transfer, at any 
time that any Transfer from any other Entity causes eim to hold a 
positive amount of any Currency, half of the amount involved in that
Transfer to the Party known as the Bear, with the exception of
any Currencies that the Rules do not permit to so transfer.

The Party known as the Pot Of Honey may not divulge the terms
or even the existence of this Bearerbond to any other Payer.

In the case that the Rolebearers for the two Roles of Bear and Pot Of 
Honey are the same Player, the Party known as the Pot Of Honey
shall be under no obligation whatsoever under the terms of this

The Party known as the Bear shall have no obligations whatsoever 
under the terms of this Bearerbond, other those imposed by the

The Rolebearer for the Role of Bear may never be changed.

The Rolebearer for the Role of Pot Of Honey may be changed at any 
time, to any Player who has not held this Role in the same Nomic 
Week, provided that the following conditions are met in the space of 
one Nomic Week :

- the Party known as the Pot Of Honey privately notifies the Notary of
the change, identifying the Player who is to become the new Pot Of 
- the Party who is to become the new Pot Of Honey notifies the
Notary by way of the Public Forum, by eir use of the word
'thereby' (case not significant) in any Move.

This is a Private Bearerbond and may not be made public by the 


Decision & Reasoning Judge:

I judge this FALSE.

It seems to me obvious that the Mousetrap was created between the time
Kelly retracted her delegation of Notary, and the time Swann was chosen
for the Office. Otherwise, there would be no reason for Kelly to retract
the delegation in the first place. 




Incorporated in Arguments