On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The appeals court has rejected BobTHJ's arguments given for CFJ 1860,
> so there are two choices; EXCUSED (following the precedent in CFJ 1804)
> or GUILTY.
Not quite. We determined that BobTHJ's arguments concerning
irrelevance were incorrect, but we did not rule out the
appropriateness of an IRRELEVANT judgement altogether. That is (one
reason) we chose to REASSIGN rather than OVERRULE.
> I argue that the primary focus of the prosecution and the appeals court
> was the issue of bribery for the judge (which is often an issue, if not
> always so blatantly visible). Sniffed Justice Murphy, "Judges should not
> get away with accepting bribes." Whether or not this is true, is such
> bribery actually forbidden?
This may be an accurate assertion.
> The precedent in CFJ 1804 requires finding good faith in the judge's
> conduct when e makes an erroneous judgement, in order to be EXCUSED.
> Is there good faith here? On one hand, it is a clear matter of public
> record that BobTHJ soliticed a bribe for said judgement. However, there
> is (perhaps unfortunately) *nothing* in the rules to the effect that a
> judgement is inappropriate solely due to material gains that the judgement
> would yield to the judge, to infer a direct punishment would be Legislation
> from the Bench.
It was clear from the context in which BobTHJ posted the Sell Ticket
that BobTHJ was willing to rule either TRUE or FALSE based upon
whichever outcome the purchaser wanted. These are mutually exclusive
judgements; how can that possibly be in good faith?
> As BobTHJ states, if a claim is made to something which is not a nomic, it
> is fairly reasonable to call the truth of the claim IRRELEVANT to R2159
> ("false" might also be reasonable). He goes out of eir way to contrast a
> personage (Steve Wallace) to a nomic. Therefore, on the face of it (ignoring
> the bribery), BobTHJ made a more-or-less reasonable judgement.[*]
That's not how e judged. While eir arguments appeared to lead toward
Steve Wallace not being a nomic, e declined to set any official
precedent on the matter, and eir IRRELEVANT judgement was based upon
Steve Wallace not being a protectorate. R2159 does not limit its
requirement only to protectorates, so this is not reasonable grounds
for a judgement of IRRELEVANT.
> [*]I note that the appeals court itself performed a bait and switch in
> rejecting BobTHJ's arguments, noting the relevance of "to any nomic"
> in the clause while ignoring BobTHJ's clear statement that Steve Wallace is
> not a nomic. This in itself makes the Appeals court arguments suspect,
> as if a misunderstanding were purposely pursued in order to punish BobTHJ
> for the bribe.
As I noted before, e made no such statement.
-root
