On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proto-Proposal: Indirect partnership rights >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text: >> >> The ability of a partnership's members to exercise rights in eir >> own names shall, prima facie, be considered protective of those >> rights as applied to the partnership. >> >> [Legislates the precedent of "no, partnerships do not have the right to >> call CFJs, because their members do and that's good enough". As usual, >> "prima facie" allows for common-sense exceptions, e.g. R101(iv).] > > I don't like this at all. Even partnerships should have the right of > participation in the fora, for example: a rule that forbade > partnerships from telling the truth would seem to be legalized by this > amendment, which might be employed as a "cheap" (power=1) way to > destroy partnerships. The place of Rule 101 *is* to protect > partnerships' rights in this case; repealing partnerships should > require a supermajority if a Power=2 rule defines them. In fact, I'd > say that most R101 rights should apply to partnerships. Can you name > a single one besides the first part of Rule 101 (iii) that need not > apply to them? > > But I'm not sure this would even be effective, since Rule 101 takes > precedence over Rule 2145. As you say, this legislates what is > already a precedent, so at best it will do nothing until some judge > tries to override the precedent. At worst, if a judge rules that Rule > 101 does give rights to partnerships, it will then take precedence > over the clause, so the precedent might be overridden anyway. > > Really, why don't we just modify Rule 2175? Just change "its > initiator" to "its initiation's executor"... > What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
BobTHJ
