Ian Kelly wrote: >If the CotC never explicitly linked the index 1684 to any particular >CFJ, can the assignment be considered successful?
I think it can. CFJ numbers are unregulated, but we all agree on a single numbering authority. In context, there is no ambiguity in the meaning of "CFJ 1684". The fact that the assignment was not made by the CotC is insignificant. The only question is whether the phrase "CFJ 1684" was sufficiently clear as an identification of the CFJ, when the number had not been linked to the phrase in the public forum. Rule 1868 isn't explicit about what elements are required in the announcement to assign a trial judge. I think this one's probably in the "legal but bad form" category. If dereferencing the CFJ number were any more difficult then it'd probably be invalid for lack of clarity. -zefram
