On 7/10/09 10:39 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Charles Reiss wrote: >> On 7/9/09 10:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2628 >>> >>> ============================== CFJ 2628 ============================== >>> >>> My judicial rank is 4. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2629 >>> >>> ============================== CFJ 2629 ============================== >>> >>> My judicial rank is 42. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> I judge both of these FALSE. Though we may decide to make exceptions to >> the II range when ordinary tracked IIs would come to have an >> "impossible" II value, judicial rank is defined as a switch for which no >> such discretion exists; the rules define the procedure for us: >> >> Rule 2162/1 (Power=2) >> Switches >> [...] >> b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch, >> exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other >> values are possible for instances of that switch. >> [...] >> If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a >> possible value, it comes to have its default value. >> [...] >> >> R2226's "with the same range and default as interest indices" is clearly >> a reference to R2153's definition, meaning that the possible values for >> the judicial rank switch are 0, 1, 2, and 3 and the default value is 1. >> >> Thus, plainly if coppro's judicial rank would have become 4 or 42 by the >> mechanism of R2226, it instead became 1 per R2162. >> >> - woggle >> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment. The judge's logic is > flawed - if it were POSSIBLE to give me a judicial rank of 4 or 42, they > would have to be possible values of a switch, so my rank would not be > reset to default. Were it not POSSIBLE, the flip would simply fail and I > would remain at 3. Either way, my rank could not have become 1. I > recommend REMAND so that the judge may fix the errors in eir argument.
Gratuitous arguments: I note that I deliberately did not rule whether coppro's attempts to switch eir judicial rank did anything. (That is, I did not determine whether eir rank is 1 or 3.) R2153 takes precedence over R2226, so it is plainly able to modify what it means to flip the switch to a value. "would otherwise fail to have a possible value, ..." can easily and reasonably be read as defining a mandated switch to a non-possible value as a switch to a possible value instead. Indeed, this is presumably the intention of the switch rule when such flipping occurs as part of a more complicated transaction. To determine whether coppro's rank is 1 or 3, we need to know whether R2153's use of a lower-case possible not referring to an action (for which it is not reasonable to apply the MMI definition of "POSSIBLE") nevertheless made the flip IMPOSSIBLE.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
