Roger Hicks wrote: >It seems like linked CFJs could be replaced by a single CFJ with extra >Judicial Questions under this new system. This would simplify the >process considerably for related judgments.
Yes, that's what I originally planned for this system. But actually my current thinking is that it's cleaner to keep them as separate cases and assign them to the same judge. Basically, a CFJ is an indivisible unit, but we might want to separate linked CFJs from each other. I also pondered having another level of entity, so that we get indivisible cases (each with typically one or two questions) grouped in a portfolio. But I don't think we win much from the formal grouping. My current plan is to include in the (so far unwritten) rewrite of R1871 the option *but not obligation* for the CotC to assign a judge to several CFJs at once for eir turn. Linkage would then be weaker than under the current system: the CotC can effectively link and unlink CFJs at eir discretion for the purposes of assigning a judge. Where one currently calls for judgement on a group of linked statements, this would instead constitute separate CFJs with a request that the CotC assign them all to the same judge. We'd benefit from the CotC's ability to link related CFJs from different callers. And it takes next to no rule text to do it. Anyway, the multiple-question capability is intended to allow the invention of more complex kinds of judicial case. Particularly with criminal cases, we've had a legal mess due to the limitations of CFJs being based around a single true/false question. -zefram
