From: Henry P Towsner (htowsner_at_stanford.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 10:36:56 PDT
(Okay, NOW it's finished)
From: H. Towsner, Associate Counsel for Stuff
To: All FRC Legal Counsel
Re: What is truth?
I was recently speaking with our janitor (who, you will all
recall, was determined to be a member of the FRC legal counsel during that
attorney-client privilage unpleasantness), and he made an intriguing
point.
The ROs ("ten commandments," as he put it) state that "The Judge
may determine the location and nature of the official committee forum."
Now, as Storm has noted (192:6), if the Judge were the only person to vote
on a proposal to retain him as Judge, he would be guaranteed victory. It
follows that the Judge may *already* have done that, on a secret official
forum of which we are unaware, voted for it, and is merely waiting the
requisite three days before announcing his plan. Indeed, perhaps this
explains his mysterious three day disappearance.
There is a small difficulty, namely the first clause of RO10 (cf.
192:5): "All actions under these rules must be accomplished by a public
posting in the official committee forum." It could be argued that
"determining" is an action, and so an announcement would be required,
giving us the opportunity to also send messages to the forum. This
problem is easily solved: the Judge could move the forum to something
inaccessible to us (for instance by mandating that all communication be in
the form of secrets whispered to him at midnight under a full moon), and
then make the proposal, vote for it, and wait.
Given this new possibility, I propose that each future rule
complement our exquisitely fair Judge for having not done so thus far.
--
Rule Date: 2002-08-27 17:37:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST