I call for judgement on the following statement, barring Zefram:
comex initiated two criminal cases in
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Caller's arguments:
The message in question mentions Rule 2149 (Truthiness) in the
arguments. The only other rule it mentions is 2145 (Partnerships)
quoted in the evidence, and it is clear from context that e is
alleging a violation of the former and not the latter.
Caller's evidence:
Exhibit 1 of 1: Body of the message referenced in the statement
I create a criminal case accusing BobTHJ of, as a knight, publishing a=20
statement that e believed to be false in eir message with Message-ID=20
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I create a criminal case accusing BobTHJ of, as a knight, publishing a=20
statement that e believed to be false in eir message with Message-ID=20
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Arguments:
At the time of the alleged action, R2149 was truthiness.
Evidence:
The messages he is being accused about:
[[
On Oct 29, 2007 2:42 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have created an undisclosed R2145 agreement. The parties to this
> agreement are undisclosed. The nature of this agreement allows me to
> act fully on its behalf. The name of this agreement is Fookiemyartug.
>=20
> On behalf of Fookiemyartug: Fookiemyartug registers.
>=20
> BobTHJ
On Nov 4, 2007 5:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby claim Fookiemyartug to be a person per the rules of Agora.
>=20
> BobTHJ
]]
And...
[[
On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Here's an interesting one:
>
> At the time Fookiemyartug registered I was the only partner. comex
> retroactively became a partner during my nkep scam, but prior to that
> point Fookiemyartug has a basis of only me. I have been meaning to
> expose this for some time to test its legality but never got around to
> it. I had hoped someone would call me on it so I could retroactively
> add a second partner to the agreement and legalize it before a CFJ
> could be resolved.
>
> BobTHJ
]]
