On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
============================ Appeal 2273a
============================
I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY
TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this
appeal,
AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to persuade
the
Dons to choose a particular option in it.
I intend, with support from two of {BobTHJ, Warrigal, the CotC},
to send
the following message on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2273a:
Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the
appeals
court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements,
we're no
longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of
rules, and
we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant
that.
Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A
body of
law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so
bankrupt
as this?
It's an interesting test. I'm not asking the appeals court to choose a
blatantly illegal judgement, I'm asking them to pick a particular
legal
judgement rather than a particular different legal judgement. Really,
the Protection Racket hasn't got much use so far; I want to see what
happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law
allows an
appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and
it is.
Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.)
--
ais523
But the appeal panel is not supposed to pick any old legal judgment
-- they rule on the appropriateness of the appealed case's judgment.
[R911/22]
An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of
a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and
make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen.
If the PR attempt to overturn CFJ 2273 succeeds, ais523 might have
violated that rule.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
