On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of >> "agreement" >> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as >> there is no qualifying text to the contrary). >> > > R101 (v) is patently irrelevant and obviously refers to agreements as > legal entities, not the state of agreeing.
What I agree to is NOT to hold opinion (which I may or may not agree with at any particular time), but I agree TO THE ACT OF SENDING THE MESSAGE. I agree that someone else can deliver a specific and particular legal statement on behalf of myself as a panelist. Such an agreement is a legal entity. The message I agree to is the WHOLE message, not just the judgement part of it... if someone agrees to post a message on my behalf, then deletes part of the message, you'd better believe it's breaking the agreement! And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal). The text in R2157 is pretty clear that it's message-sending that is being agreed to, and this message sending has a clear legal status. > If, in an appeal panel in which I was a member, > a) one of the members consented > b) I privately consented to the CotC to the same judgement > c) the CotC announced that e was judging with majority consent > (without saying who had agreed) > > then the announcement would be perfectly valid. The CotC does not post the action. A member of the panel does on behalf of the panel. The CotC might tell the panel that e has evidence of majority consent via a private message, and then a member might indeed believe the CotC and make the post... but if there were questions, the evidence would certainly have to be produced. -Goethe
