The triumvirate has re-convened and deliberated on the appeal filed by defendant Jameson Stelly. First of all, the triumvirate agrees that there should be more definition to the constitution as the clarity of the roster requirements in Article VI is translucent at best.

The triumvirate disagrees that the “intent of the rule” was to punish “absentee” owners and instead re-affirms that it was primarily written in the constitution as a matter of fairness to the every week’s matchup and therefore fairness to all owners in all games.

Furthermore, the triumvirate finds it interesting to reference “absenteeism” in light of this year’s draft in which the defendant was not present.

Per his second point about the penalization of not filling a roster, the basis for Mr. Stelly’s argument is that deducting 10 points from the week in question’s score provides another team an unfair advantage. This is simply not the case as a penalty is about penalizing an individual for lack of following a particular rule regardless of what the consequential outcome may be.

As an example, had Mr. Stelly’s team scored 1.6 more points in week 14, the 10 point deduction would not have made any difference in the playoff seedings. But, this is purely conjecture and does nothing to provide any reasoning for NOT penalizing an owner when a violation of a rule exists.

Therefore to reiterate. A penalty should always be applied when any owner violates a rule in which the constitution requires a penalty regardless of the impact of further consequences.

The triumvirate remains in their original decision to deduct 10 points from Jameson Stelly’s week 14 score.

Filed by defendant Jameson Stelly.

The intent of the rule is to safe guard the leagues integrity for an absentee owner and if an owner is absentee, they be punished. While I agree with a safeguard for integrity purposes, this rule does not provide the security as it intends.

Firstly, the rule is there to penalize and an absent owner. If an owner is absent, not only do they lose out on the points of the player that would be in that spot, an additional 10 points is an added negative impact. I would argue I am not an absentee owner as I have only done this a couple times over the 12 years I’ve been in this league. Some circumstantial grace should be permitted.

Secondly, another intent is to ensure that the opposing manager does not receive any unfair advantage by gaining a win due to a team having “empty” slots. I agree with the intent; however, what if that manager in fact wins and the opposing team doesn’t receive any advantage from the manager having an empty slot or nonactive player? In my case, I still won and no benefit was given to Scott. But, now Scott and other players are benefiting and receiving an unfair advantage as a result of the -10 impact. This results in multiple players receiving an unfair advantage when the rule was created to protect against that very thing.

Lastly, the negative 10 point impact does not provide sufficient protection against a manager playing a nonactive player. If a manager is absentee and they lose, giving the opposing manager a win, the -10 points means absolutely nothing, no impact on the result to the record of the teams.

I understand the decision given the rules as they stand so I am not necessarily arguing the decision but I am arguing the structure and intent behind the rule. I don’t consider myself an absentee owner and shouldn’t be treated as such. Not only should the rule be reviewed but the determination should also consider my commentary above and reconsider the ruling.

No. 02–0001. Presented December 12, 2022 — Argued & decided December 13, 2022

I

Petitioner Justin Dreyer AKA “Sheets” informed the triumvirate (Justices Mehta, Bingham, and Lancaster) on December 12, 2022 of a potential Article VI roster infraction performed during week 14 by Jameson Stelly. Below is the language in Article VI for reference:

An owner’s starting roster must be filled every week. Failure to do so will result in disciplinary action ( -10 pt adjustment on their team’s week score ) for the first offense after which additional failures will result in a vote for potential league expulsion.

There is no counter-argument to the evidence presented: Mr. Stelly started a player (New Orleans Defense / Special Teams) during that team’s bye week.

What is at issue is whether the literal interpretation of the constitution or the spirit of the constitution be predominant.

II

In truly legal doctrine, the “spirit of the law” is the the “aim or purpose of a law when it was written”. This legal guideline should also be considered in final determination of this opinion.

During the ninth week of the 2010 season, now former 4th & Forties member Mario Carreras set his lineup without a player rostered in the starting position of wide receiver. This failure to roster a full team contributed directly to James Crawford’s victory and therefore further contributing to a birth in the playoff tournament. This confluence of events was the catalyst for not only Article VI, but the formalization of the entire 4th & Forties Constitution.

III

The constitution is a living document and will always require clarification and amending as it was architected and written by a non-lawyer. Therefore, the constitution should be given a minutiae of latitude when matters such as these arise. However in most cases, it should be interpreted literally and without ambiguity during a fantasy season in progress for fairness and consistency.

Referentially, per the constitution as it stands this December 13, 2022, Mr. Stelly had indeed fulfilled his Article VI requirements.

IV

Given that the constitution was written by a non-lawyer and is indeed imperfect, it should be said that the spirit of the law outweighs the literality of it.

The 4th & Forties league has never and will never allow any player to gain an unfair advantage in any matchup; failure of compliance shall always be enforced and punished consequently.

Justices Mehta and Lancaster both recused themselves from the final opinion as their teams’ scheduling in the playoff tournament could have been directly affected.

Triumvirate’s Decision: Justice Bingham holds that the defendant shall be penalized 10 points on his week 14 matchup.

Notes: The triumvirate suggest further debate and an additional amendment to the constitution to allow for such cases as when a player may want to intentionally start a player on bye week (e.g. during the rare 8 man “bye-maggedon”).