On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> 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 considered whether a reassigned judgement that was also "irrelevant"
would lead to INNOCENT, but since the arguments were rejected, I felt
that would still be "EXCUSED", so the excused vs. guilty are appropriate
choices.
> 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?
That's not for me to consider, I didn't see those arguments. I saw the
arguments that e posted for IRRELEVANT as part of eir judgement, and
considered them reasonable enough to constitute a good faith attempt.
Remember, in such a small community, we can very often find or infer self-
interest behind judgements, since we can't recuse everyone, and there's
no rule against self-interest (make one! I'd vote for it!), I only
considered the arguments for IRRELEVANT that appeared in the court documents.
>> 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...
> As I noted before, e made no such statement.
I really should have added the issue of burden of proof to the judgement.
Reading eir arguments that led that way, I would assign the arguments an
"error rating" of 20-40% (as e made the arguments for "non-nomicness" but
didn't finalize the conclusion). Enough for a concurring opinion perhaps,
or even a remand or Reassign. I have no problem with choosing REASSIGN
over REMAND based on the bribery. But NOT enough for a criminal finding
of bad faith in the arguments themselves beyond a reasonable doubt.
-Goethe
