On 12/29/2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
of the sort that's blocked from taking effect, the bit of obfuscation
over "That One Rule" notwithstanding.
-G.
So, perhaps something like this would work?
{
This Rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
notwithstanding. That One Rule defaults to Rule 101, but CAN be changed by
Gaelan by announcement.
If That One Rule is Rule 1030, this rule takes precedence over all rules.
Gaelan CAN award emself the patent title "The Powerless" by announcement.
}
This way, when enacted, it doesn't claim precedence over Rule 1030, so R1030
won't prevent it from being enacted.
I agree that this case is more interesting and open to interpretation.
My guess is the Rule would take effect, but R1030 couldn't become "That One
Rule" (the announcement to that effect would fail), due to: "This applies to
changes by the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form" and
that one of the "other forms" includes causing a reference defined in the
rule to start pointing to R1030.
The reference would be less "direct", the question is would it be indirect
enough? "Direct" isn't a term that's been interpreted very much in CFJs,
at least as far as I can remember.
Another thing to think about is that R1030 blocks "changes in the ruleset"
which is broader than blocking "rule changes" (which are limited to R105
definitions of rule changes). It would be interesting to know if "changes
in the ruleset" includes "changes in interpretation of the ruleset".
-G.
