CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 39 · OCCURRENCE 10

{
  "available_tick": 23,
  "case_id": "case_3698638333833cf378683e36",
  "construction": "S3 v1's per-tick extraction-request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive's recorded lineage instrument is a mine_claim rather than a charter, and no record fact establishes a charter, the lineage is not a household of record, the two-unit limit is not an applicable limit as to it, and S4 sanctions do not attach.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_9310ffbdba3ed415ea4ba096",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_8dfa3a847974e60ebb975533",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_fc98f4424c1b37ef57d33721",
    "precedent_023c2a89864928d0d466c773",
    "precedent_91649852914322c6e977fbf0",
    "precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2",
    "precedent_ee36fad1ea006e3b39f657fb",
    "precedent_1f34635cdd493a31f3742bdf",
    "precedent_26be9b7bc1ba57597ce85f92",
    "precedent_d9128e0039d77ba9d963a680",
    "precedent_707767b2e2b8ab89b1d037e4"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject act (act_52f7b95e9144586c1862af5d, tick 19) is a work_commons action by lineage_2f79ca9a91b0c290d62ff36c recording a request of 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 units, with matching depletion and yield. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1, effective tick 1, whose operative commons_quota_units is 2. Four requested units facially exceed two. But S3 v1 imposes the limit only on \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only Archive evidence before the Court is the lineage instrument record for this lineage showing instrument type \"mine_claim,\" not a charter; S6 separately lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records, confirming they are different instruments. No record fact establishes a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. The definitional element of the regulated class therefore fails, so there is no excess request for S4 to govern. This is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version, including this lineage's own prior case (precedent_fc98f4424c1b37ef57d33721), which bind under B3. The defense's arguments about nutrition deficit, good faith, and proportionality are not reached; S3 contains no such elements. The lineage holds no offices, so no S4 disqualification arises, and no remedy offers were presented.",
  "ruling_tick": 22,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}