> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Judge Murphy's Arguments: > > Per my judgement of CFJ 3843, Bazinga isn't an asset, thus the statement > is overly hypothetical. > > DISMISS. > > For completeness, even if Bazinga was an asset, the statement would > depend on how it was being destroyed. In particular, Rule 2577's 'An > asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner' would also be overridden > by Rule 105 (both are Power 3) which only allows rules to be destroyed > (repealed) by a statute (entity with positive Power), which does not > include either HAMT or Cuddle Beam; Rule 2577 would have to attempt to > act directly (e.g. 'An asset is destroyed when its owner announces it') > in order to overcome that layer of protection. > > > Short version: this clearly doesn't work, but the judge gets to explain > exactly why it doesn't work. Have fun, your honor.
This portion of the judge's arguments is very interesting. It sounds almost more like the sort of thing one would expect to hear in the caller's arguments. But that can't be right, now can it? ;) -Aris
