I agree with Ørjan. This CFJ is _not_ about this particular instance, it's about the adoption of the rule. The judgement should only consider whether the rule facially impermissably interferes with the right to judicial processes, not whether the rule interferes with that right as applied to me.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> >>> I AP-CFJ, on behalf of VJ Rada, "Rule 2507 does not exist." This is >>> because its enactment was INEFFECTIVE, per paragraph 3 clause 1 of Rule >>> 217. >> >> >> This is CFJ 3611, I assign it to Aris. > > >> Gratuitous Arguments >> >> H. Judge, I request you examine all the reasons that Slamming the Door >> may have failed (i.e. if it's interpreted that Slamming the Door didn't >> work for other reasons, it's possible for the rule to exist if it >> didn't stop V.J. Rada from calling a CFJ for other reasons). > > > More gratuitious arguments: > > I would suggest that although _general_ such reasons might apply, the > question of whether rule 217 prevented rule 2507 should not depend on any > concrete events happening after the taking effect of the relevant proposal. > Otherwise there would be a serious retroactive effect problem. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J. Rada
