Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, comex wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Sgeo wrote: >>> [stuff] > Whether or not someone confessing to breaking the rules should be > considered guilty prima facie, this isn't that case. Goethe, if you > don't want the judge to have to look the case up, why did your

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-27 Thread comex
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Sgeo wrote: >> [stuff] > > As far as I remember, my confession was not that I violated a rule, > just that I failed to throughly consider the consequences of not > reading the ruleset during read the ruleset week. This-- and e contested the NoV (as far as I can s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 21:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] >>> And what's wrong with addressing this in a sentencing appeal, anyway >>> (e.g. "yes e technically could have known, but it's because e took the >>> advice of others, so DISCHARGE is just fine").  I'm leery of setting >>> culpability deci

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Sgeo
> [stuff] As far as I remember, my confession was not that I violated a rule, just that I failed to throughly consider the consequences of not reading the ruleset during read the ruleset week.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: > I disagree. The judge has an affirmative duty to check each possible > defense emselves regardless of what the defendant says in order to > avoid making an inappropriate judgment on culpability. Ideally, > figures related to the case (not necessarily the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 18:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: >> I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers >> whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could >> have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps do

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Taral
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Which, as noted, is exactly how I intended #7 to operate.  (We have > other rules with even less significant effect.)  If the courts decide > otherwise, then so be it, but until then I'm not conceding the issue. The problem is that SHOULD is use

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Ed Murphy
Taral wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules >> don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a >> violation. > > I noticed this too: > > 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: > I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers > whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could > have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps does not > excuse them for violations after research, but o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Taral
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules > don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a > violation. I noticed this too: 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 16:26, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: (d) deliberately does not care about what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually >>> thinks, only what e could have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually >> thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason >> to c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Ed Murphy
ais523 wrote: > If SHOULD as defined leads to an infinite regress, this does not mean > it's impossible to breach. To be legal, Sgeo would have had to read the > ruleset, or thought about reading the ruleset and decided not to, or > thought about thinking about reading the ruleset and deciding not

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: > (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually > thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason > to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: >> And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the >> ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy >> R1504's condition (d) "the Accused could have reasonably bel

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: > And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the > ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy > R1504's condition (d) "the Accused could have reasonably believed that > the alleged act did not violate the specifie

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, comex wrote: > I move to AFFIRM. I have not carefully weighed the full implications > of my failure to include arguments. I think that counts as an included argument.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > >> [Note: (not part of judgement) I assume we are judging on the >> culpability rather than the sentencing here?] > > Correct, I explicitly appealed culpability. Ok I certainly stand by Affirm then; the place to take into account Sgeo bein

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe

2009-02-26 Thread Ed Murphy
Goethe wrote: > [Note: (not part of judgement) I assume we are judging on the > culpability rather than the sentencing here?] Correct, I explicitly appealed culpability.