On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 was referring to the assignment of the judge, not of the number, so
the latter was basically my question. In any case, I would argue that
without an explicit public linkage, there is some ambiguity. I don't
know what the numbering protocols are of the current or past CotCs,
but I would assume that the CotC numbers the CFJs in the order e
records them, which may or may not be the same order in which e
receives them. Moreover, the order in which the CotC receives them is
not necessarily the same order in which they are published.
At the very least, the CotC appears to have violated the first
paragraph of R897 by not publishing the text of the CFJ.
-root
