> On Oct 29, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, why Moots are the wrong approach here.
>
> So on a first look, there's nothing in the Rules to forbid an open CFJ
> from having two judges simultaneously. R991 only allows the Arbitor
> to assign judges to cases with no judge, so that prevents multiple
> judges in most situations. But the Certiorari mechanism in R2451
> allows the PM to assign emself whether or not the case already has
> a judge. And that doesn't remove the original judge.
>
> So what happens when a case has two judges?
>
> 1. By R591, when the case has no judgement (is open), either judge
> can assign a judgement. Once one judge assigns a judgement, the
> other judge CANNOT.
>
> 2. By R991, each judge CAN self-file a motion to reconsider.
> That filing doesn't have to be for their own judgement, they can
> self-file to reconsider the other judge's judgement. But each
> judge can only do so once.
>
> Neither of the above procedural steps results in a rules conflict.
> The only procedural place that "two judges" leads to uncertainty
> is in Moot results, specifically:
>> - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
>> recused.
>
> It's not clear if "current judge is recused" would apply to both
> judges, or just the judge whose judgement was subject to Moot.
> So taking this to Moot adds a layer of complexity, especially when
> there's still (weird, but serviceable) ways that the original
> judge could try to override things.
>
>
>>
Arguably, I think it is implicit in the rules that there can be only one judge
assigned to a CFJ at a time. That implication is clear in the Moot rule you
cite. But it is also implied by the self-filed reconsideration rule you cite,
which says that “*The* judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider
the case by announcement” (not “*A* judge”). In addition, a group-filed motion
can be made only if it is the first such motion “while it has been assigned to
its current judge” (singular, not “judge(s)”).
In any event, assuming certiorari worked and I validly assigned a judgement,
then I think Trigon cannot self-file a motion to reconsider because he is not
“*the* judge of that CFJ” (in the sense of the judge who assigned the current
judgement), even if e was “*[a]* judge of that CFJ” in some other sense.
