On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > The phase "whether CotC Zefram violated
> >Rule 1871" can only be read to mean that what is to be determined is
> >CotC Zefram's culpability for an alleged breach of the rules,
>
> I strongly disagree with this assertion. The factual question of whether
> I violated rule 1871 is quite distinct from the legal matter of whether
> I am criminally culpable for doing so. How do you propose an inquiry
> case on the former question could have been initiated?
>
> -zefram
>
I'm not sure why anyone would want to initiate a non-criminal case to
inquire whether or not someone else violated the rules, but I suppose
if someone had a reason to want to do this e could phrase it as: "I
call for judgment on the veracity of the following statement:
{{{Zefram violated Rule 1871 when e...}}}".
I'd go so far as to argue that by not providing a specific statement
of fact the veracity of which was to be determined, Murphy's actions
in initiating CFJ 1712, if intended to initiate an Inquiry case, would
be insufficient to do so under 591; the rule requires "the statement"
to be inquired into to be included and I don't think it's sufficient
that someone could take the
initiator's announcement and formulate a statement that maybe e wanted
evaluated from it.
Let the appeals fall where they may.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
