root wrote:
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zefram wrote:
> * of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
> * of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Brilliant!
You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original
(self-interested) judgements that said partnerships could be players
in the first place.
What judgements? As far as I can tell, the statements "The Pineapple
Partnership is a person." and "The Pineapple Partnership is not a
person." are both consistent with existing judgment, since the latter
implies that CFJ 1622 never existed and CFJ 1623 is still waiting to
be assigned. And therein lies the problem with appealing the
judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed,
and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments.
Unfortunately, the only way I can see to actually settle the matter
(apart from legislating it out of existence, which is unsatisfactory)
is with a new CFJ. I CFJ on the statement "The Pineapple Partnership
is a person." There are two many potential non-person judges to bar,
so I humbly request that this CFJ be assigned to a natural person.
I interpret the lack of appeal as indicating general acceptance of
the judge's interpretation. This is no different for a purported
judgement whose outcome affects its own validity; players may
(conceptually) effectively express non-acceptance of a judgement by
purporting to appeal it, even if the outcome implies that that the
appeal was not (legally) effective.
