comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1666-8 to The Hanging Judge. E is still turned.
Text at:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006418.html
I encourage Zefram and Murphy to submit psuedojudgements.
I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set of its
members, but as the agreement defining that set.
I pseudo-judge CFJs 1666 and 1667 false, as direct consequences of the
above interpretation.
I interpret the status of a partnership in the face of changes to the
agreement's membership (and/or text, for that matter) as covered by
Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities), and thus pseudo-judge
CFJ 1668 false.
I have maintained these interpretations since before Quazie and I came
up with the HPn scam, and continue to maintain them in the face of Yin
and Yang's attempted proof of concept.
I would support the adoption of legislation explicitly supporting these
interpretations, but removing legal personhood to partnerships with less
than two natural persons underlying them (after recursing through as
many levels as necessary).
