Re: 192:8 INVALID +1.0

From: Joshua (j3b4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 21:09:59 PDT


--- Henry P Towsner <htowsner_at_stanford.edu> wrote:
> (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

INVALID
Style +1.0

In my wisdom and "exquisite fairness" I have interpretted 192:4's "
Each future rule shall explicitly refer to at least two Regular
Ordinances, and at least two previous rules."  to dictate that in order
to EXPLICITLY refer to a Regular Ordinance one must cite the
ordinance's number.   Towsner fails to do this twice despite managing
to quote two different passages from the R.O.s (with the help of the
Janitor).

As far as style, well I like the fact that we got the janitor involved.
He's always been a favorite of mine, but the restriction is far too
'nice' and has little potential for screwing  fellow council members.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

--
Rule Date: 2002-08-29 04:10:18 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST