I publish a NoV accusing BobTHJ of violating Rule 2143, a Power 1
Rule, by publishing an Anarchist's report on the 10th of September,
2009 claiming that C-walker does not own any cards from the Deck of
Change. I contest this NoV and initiate a criminal case from it.

Arguments:

For this case to be judged GUILTY, the following must be true:

       (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified
           act;
       (b) the breach occurred within 90 days prior to the case being
           initiated;
       (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal
           case, or punishment already applied through another
           uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the
           same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;
       (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the
           alleged act did not violate the specified rule;
       (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the
           breach without committing a different breach of equal or
           greater severity.

(a) is true:

It is clear that BobTHJ violated R2143. The relevant paragraph reads:

      While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
      or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
      is inaccurate or misleading.

Eir Anarchist report claims that I have no Change cards, when it is
clear that I most likely do. Additionally, my Card holdings are
currently in dispute (subject to a CFJ) and contrary to common
practice, BobTHJ's report makes no mention of this. (Claiming I had no
cards was inaccurate, and making no comment about the ambiguity was
misleading. Both violate the quoted paragraph from R2143.)

(b) is true.
(c) is true; there has been no other NoV relating to this report.
(d) is true. BobTHJ is an officer for multiple offices and must know
about the paragraph in the rule e violated, and e could not have
reasonably believed that claiming I had no cards and making no comment
in eir report about the ambiguity over my card holdings did not
violate the rule.
(e) is true.

Therefore I recommend a judgement of GUILTY.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)
_______________________________________________
Agora mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

Reply via email to