spoon-business: Judgement: CFJ 234

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

In response to CFJ 234, I give the following decision:

<decision>
<response>

The Statement is FALSE.

</response>
<analysis>

First, it is obvious that the rule set text of Rule 22 does not
currently read as claimed by the plaintiff in this CFJ.  Therefore, the
mere letter of the rules is enough to qualify this statement as false.

Moreover, per Rule 18/1, "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the
Ruleset is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of Rule
Changes, which are permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly
or implicitly permits them. A Rule Change consists of the creation
(enactment), modification (amendment), or deletion (repeal) of a rule."

The only possible candidate for explicit or implicit permission for CFJs
to change rules under the current ruleset is the statement in Rule 128/2
that "A Judge's decision shall have the force of law."

However, it does not say that the decision shall *become* law, just that
it shall share the force of law.  Therefore, I interpret Rule 128/2 to
indicate that under current rules, a CFJ decision has the force of a
rule in the rule set, without being implicitly empowered to alter or
change the rule set itself.

Thus, by Rule 18, this CFJ lacks the power to change the rule set, and
is therefore doubly FALSE.

To sum up what we have learned: Under current rules at the time of
ruling, CFJs have no present power to enact Rule Changes, but the
decisions on them do presently have the force of law (i.e. they are
enforceable as rules).

</analysis>
</decision>

[[Note: The above decision, analysis *and* response, has the force of
law.  That opens up a whole other can of worms.  Anyone want to CFJ
whether a decision is inclusive of the analysis, or only the response?]]

--Scoff!