On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 05:18, Aris Merchant via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:14 PM James Cook via agora-business > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 08:34, omd via agora-business > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Note that I long assumed that the past was not part of the "gamestate" > > > at all, and could not be altered by ratification. Instead, I assumed > > > that ratification merely altered the present gamestate to 'what it > > > would be' under a hypothetical timeline where the ratified document > > > was true. Under that interpretation, ratification wouldn't affect the > > > outcome of any pending CFJs, because it wouldn't change "the facts and > > > legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated" (R591). > > > It also wouldn't affect CFJs that explicitly refer to the past. > > > However, these days we have a precedent that ratification does create > > > legal fictions about the past. Presumably these should be used > > > wherever the Rules inquire about the past; I see no exception for > > > CFJs. > > > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider. > > > > R591 prescribes that the judgment should be based on "the facts and > > legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated". I thought > > the "legal situation" part of that probably means that CFJs called > > before a document is ratified still refer to the pre-ratification > > history of events. I'm not sure, though. > > > > I could be persuaded to just let it be, but it seems a pity to > > establish this new precedent based just on "Presumably", without > > specifically considering that R591 text. > > > > I support. Our existing precedent agrees with this decision, but I > think it inadvisable on public policy grounds.
Do you have precedent handy where the CFJ was called before the document in question was ratified? I'm curious. - Falsifian
