On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (3) the AFO, in becoming, of its own mechanisms, a party to the Bank > contract, has made actions and adjustments required of its whole self > (e.g. its constituent agreement) subject to the equity court.
Even if this statement had any legal basis whatsoever (it doesn't), it would violate the R101 (iv) and (v) rights of the AFO's basis. > In much > the same way as a natural person can be ordered to perform actions, a > partnership which is a member of another contract may be ordered to > amend itself as part of an equation for a contract of which it is a > member, and this amendment would take effect with the taking effect of > the equity judgement; What? You can order the AFO to amend itself, sure, but it doesn't have to comply, any more than I have to comply with an order to do something-- in fact, something impossible: the AFO is not authorized to amend itself. Only its parties are authorized to amend it. > (4) In allowing the violation of its own clause 5 by a member, without > taking internal corrective action, the AFO has shown that it does not > satisfactorily "devolve its legal obligations onto a subset of its > parties". While this persists, it does not meet the legal definition of > "partnership" in R2145, and therefore cannot be considered a person. > The judge notes that the AFO has been an egregious offender in this > regard, in that it has been used as a "staging ground" or "shell" for > scams which may have violated equity in the past. Nonsense. I am being punished for causing the AFO to violate a contract, am I not? Then it certainly devolves its obligations. If you say it doesn't, then why are you asking it to cause me to give back what I robbed? Surely, with your interpretation, it would not satisfactorily devolve its legal obligations. > Therefore, it is within the rights and duties of this Court to cause > the AFO to CEASE TO EXIST as a PARTNERSHIP or indeed as a contract (e.g. > become a null contract). No, it is within the right of this Court to gratuitously declare the AFO invalid. An inquiry court might even have the duty to do so. But neither judgement would actually cause any effect on the gamestate or the AFO's personhood, by Rule 591, especially when the judgement is (in this case) not based on any actual interpretation of the Rules, but on whether the game proceeds as envisioned by the judge, and it is therefore unlikely to be accepted as precedent. Of course, it is possible that this judgement might be accepted as a precedent to the effect that when, in a Judge's best opinion, a partnership does not devolve its obligations onto its basis, that Judge can rule it an ex-partnership. However, this is a fairly far-fetched precedent: certainly not one that I will accept, and a spurious euphemism besides for the judge wanting to deregister the partnership in question (see above). > If said transfers have not been completed in full one week from this > equation taking effect, the AFO will immediately CEASE being a > partnership, as, in showing its lack of devolved responsibilities and > inability to enforce its own provisions in reasonable time, have CEASED > being a person as defined by R2145. This is patently invalid. Even if the AFO does not exercise its right to refuse to accept to an agreement, which is clearly a proper action with respect to this judgement, the AFO is just agreeing to a contract (equation) that says it's not a person. This does not make the statement true. c.f. "the contestmaster is root". > If the AFO attempts to transfer currency from itself in any other manner > prior to the above transfers being made, or attempts to take any actions > serving to divest itself of property or benefits accrued from being a > person, it will instantly CEASE to be a partnership and person as described > above. This cessation will be triggered immediately prior to evaluating > the effects of said attempted activities. See above. > I request that future judges note the AFO (and other shell partnerships') > continued use in scams to the extent that this CFJ may serve as a final > warning; future cases may be grounds for immediate partnership termination. Why don't you submit a proposal about it? After all, that is the normal way by which the gamestate is changed. > Be It So Ordered. Although this is indeed a beautiful judgement, it appears you have taken the flexibility offered by equity cases and misinterpreted it as the ability to impose Lindrum World on the parties to a contract involved in one. However, Lindrum World is quite well safeguarded against, *especially* in the equity court, for equations are quite limited. They can only create SHALLs, not CANs, and it's unclear whether they can even modify the original contract. Certainly they can't broadly change the interpretation of the rules and state of the game as this one attempts to. If this judgement is ruled valid, I will deregister in protest. Of course, I do not mean to insult you, Goethe. It's certainly possible that you realize that this is invalid, but are just testing the waters, so to speak. But, then, don't make me hit you with Rule 2149.
