Goethe wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
My argument hinges on timing. I read "at the time the CFJ is called"
to limit the scope of relevance to the state that exists on that
boundary. I believe it is within the authority of this panel and the
judge to exclude the CFJ itself from that state and therefore deem the
CFJ IRRELEVANT.
On deeper inspection, I don't think precedent agrees with you. Recently,
CFJ 1677 supports judging based on the "far side" of the boundary, not the
near side.
Even more precisely, CFJ 1392's dismissal of " This CFJ is TRUE" was on
the grounds of R1565(ii):
ii) After a reasonable effort to obtain all relevant
information, the Judge can neither determine the Statement
to be true nor determine it to be false.
and not R1565(iii):
iii) The Statement does not relate to a matter relevant to the
Rules.
That doesn't mean that (iii) wasn't applicable, only that (ii) was
more obviously applicable. I feel that I have a good insight into
the thought processes of the judge, too.
