Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Michael wrote: >> However, Rule 1564 does not require that a Trial Judge be named. Nor >> does R754 explicitly require that entities be named (as opposed to >> identified, which would be achieved by stating "I appeal the Trial >> Judge of CFJ 1594's Judgement of CFJ 1594").
>> Nor, indeed, is precedent with the caller: appeals have been >> traditionally expressed as "I appeal this Judgement", or "I appeal CFJ >> <n>", with no explicit mention of the Trial Judge (name or identity) >> at all. > This argument entirely and completely ignores the facts of the case, > that "traditionally" appealing a CFJ is synonymous with appealing a > specific trial judge's judgement, so there's no confusion if you > don't name anyone. There is no "tradition" whatsoever in cases > where one CFJ has two judges with conflicting authority > (e.g. without a REASSIGN). The final paragraph of my decision is not central to my argument. I'm merely pointing out that people have generally been permitted to be "vague". This suggests to me that they should equally be able to appeal the judgement of the CFJ, even if the judgement is in a limbo-like undetermined state due to our paradox. > Let's say, in this case, the decision is "OVERTURN AND REVERSE". > Did that "OVERTURN AND REVERSE" apply to Goethe's FALSE or > Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court can > make to distinguish them. I don't imagine the Appeals Court will make that decision then. I suspect instead they'll suggest that the case be re-assigned. If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game: do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for evermore? (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.) Michael.
