I put equal weight on TRUE and DISMISS. (Sorry, this email is more of an argument than a vote.)
It may be TRUE by R. Lee's argument about limits. (Sorry if I got TRUE/FALSE mixed up there.) If not, it should be DISMISS. First of all, I think this business of judges not legally being able to judge it is beside the point. If it's an issue, we should filibuster the CFJ with recusals, moots and/or motions of reconsideration until we're able to fix the rules so that the judge can do eir job properly. At that point, what are we to make of the SHALL NOT that used to be in R2125? Having been deleted, it will no longer put the judge at risk of breaking the rules. But I think it will still mean something: after all, a case should be judged "based on the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated". I think common sense tells us that this clause exists to stop such interpretations from being made. (Especially in the context of the proposal that added it; see my recent email 'History of "The rules SHALL NOT be interpreted..."'.) It is only appropriate, then, that we avoid making such an interpretation. So, if the "correct" answer would otherwise be FALSE, I think this falls under "otherwise not able to be answered with another valid judgement", which is one of the reasons to judge something DISMISS. (Not "not able" in the sense of CANNOT; it's just that we're not able (in the ordinary sense of the words) to judge it that way while respecting the rules at the time the CFJ was called.)
