Dan on 16 Feb 2002 07:36:50 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations

> >How s this for a revised draft based strongly on 129/1:
> >
> >{{
> >__Legality of Actions/Statute of Limitations__
> >
> >Actions taken in a public forum are assumed to be legal when recognized by
> >the Administrator.  Otherwise they are assumed to be illegal, therefore
> >not actions.
> >
> >Judgement of a CFJ may correct the recognition of the illegal only if the
> >CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged illegal recognition.
> >
> >Judgement of a CFJ may correct the failure to reconize a legal action only
> >if the CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged legal action.
> >
> >}}
> >
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> I think this one will actually work.  It does what I think UP wanted to do, 
> and makes it easier.  People are going to make problems about the CFJ system 
> being used here, but we're going to have to fix that too.  I propose that we 
> use this opportunity to plan out how to fix the justice system as well... it 
> is a natural follow-up to the statute being set.

I'm a little concerned that ambiguity might creep in through my use of
'assumed to be legal' when I subsequently discuss legality later in the
rule, without actually giving any concrete definition of what legality is.
Some twisted judge might decide that in the first paragraph I'm defining
'legal' for use in the second and third.  Do you think this will be a

I couldn't find a better way of saying it without cluttering up the rule
with all sorts of cases and definitions.