Zefram wrote:
My intent with the motions was to force assignment of judges regardless
of what state the CFJs were in. I'm not at all clear on whether they've
been legally judged.
I understood that intent, and it should work and force a judicial
assignment even after the CotC dismissed the case (see CFJ 1575 for
a more far-fetched forcing that worked).
My question is whether the CotC would have to assign a judge
after dismissal, even without the motions (in this case, you made
a motion for 1610 and 1612 but not 1611, so it would apply to 1611).
It's not clear to me that DISMISSED as a judgement is not the same
as dismiss by CotC, even if the Stare Decisis does not distinguish.
One is clearly a permitted judgement by R591; it is delivered
if the CFJ statement itself has issues leading to dismissal, and
the reasons for dismissal become part of precedent. The CotC
dismissal is situational; the same statement, a week later, would
not lead to dismissal, and such a dismissal makes no precedent for
the statement itself. As another example of the difference, by
R1564, CotC dismissals can't be appealed.
Furthermore, the delivery of a trial judgement triggers mechanisms
which specifically lead to closing a case; nowhere is that specified
for non-trial dismissal, hence those cases are still open and
require assignment.
It is interesting to note that (I think) earlier versions of the
ruleset did not explicitly list DISMISS as a judgement, and in
fact there was a question on whether a DISMISSED case had been judged.
(See CFJ 1273; perhaps you have a copy of R591/16 to see how it read?
I don't.) Now it is clear that a judgement of DISMISSED is a
judgement, but it is not written into the rules on whether a
dismissal by CotC is in fact a judgement for the purposes of closing
a case. I would say that it isn't, and plan on assigning judges
accordingly.
So I haven't even seen a proto-proto for judicial reform yet :)
-Goethe
