On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, comex wrote > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Now I'm missing something. I don't see anything in CFJ 2406 that says >> we assume a deputy "is" the officer for the purpose of fulfilling the >> obligation. I would have appealed something that says that, because, well, >> it's not in the rules. > > Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but I think > > Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a > particular office > > is pretty clear. E performs the action as if e holds the office, so > we pretend e holds the office at that moment.
"Action as if e holds the office" is not the same as holding the office. In particular, in R1006, each office is either vacant or held by exactly one officer. If we assume the "pretending" you talk about, then if you deputize for someone who's in office but late with a duty, then we also must "pretend" the original officer does not hold the office at that moment. And then what mechanism puts em back in? I think the most consistent interpretation is that the rule is very specific; the action in isolation happens "as if office", but no other aspects (holding the office, or fulfilling a duty previously accrued) come into play. Looking now, I will quite agree with you that, unless someone turns up a CFJ we both missed, we were both erroneously assuming that a "firm precedent" was set, it looks like various judge's arguments approach but don't firmly state a direction, the proposed answers all came from discussion threads. -Goethe
