- Case Number: a20090313.1
- Status: closed
- Claimants: Evaldo Gardenali
- Respondents: Philipp Gühring
Case Manager: Walter Güldenberg, AlexanderPrinsier
- former Case Manager: Alejandro Mery
- Arbitrator: Lambert Hofstra
- former Arbitrator: Sebastian Küppers
- Date of arbitration start: 2009-12-26
- Date of ruling: 2011-02-23
- Case closed: 2011-02-23
- Complaint: member has publicly claimed he was assured with a false document
Philipp Gühring publicly said "Everyone who assures me nowadays is making a false assurance, since my new ID documents are false." Evaldo Gardenali asks to get the last assurances of Mr. Gühring reviewed and get a ruling from an Arbitrator about this kind of issues.
- Relief:
Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: Philipp Gühring (R), Claimant: Evaldo Gardenali (C), Case: a20090313.1
History Log
2009-12-25 (UlrichSchroeter): arbitrator released this case as of a20091118.4
- 2009-12-26 (A): I'm interested in this one as arbitrator. looking for a CM, Lambert
- 2010-01-07 (CM-AP): Sending reminder to (A) to start with case.
- 2010-01-10 (CM-AP): (A) requests the CM's to send the init mails
- 2010-01-11 (CM-AP): sending some guidelines to CM-WG, asking him to prepare the init mails
- 2010-01-19 (CM-AP): send reminder to CM-WG to prepare init mails
- 2010-02-22 (CM-AP): Sent init mail to PG, requesting case docs from previous arbitrator, asking A about email address of EG
- 2010-06-10 (CM-AP): Resent init mail to PG, asking A again about email address of EG
Discovery
When R received his new passport, he discovered that an error was made: his passport does not include his middle name, although that should be included according to the local rules. It is however an officially government issued ID. Now R admits he has claimed he has a false passport, and that he uses it for assurances. However, R also claims he's using it as a testing document for new assurers, and always informs the assurers later on.
As a summary, we can conclude that the following statements are made:
- R states that he has a false passport
- R states that he used this passport, until he discovered the error in it
- R states that from that point on he only used it to test and train assurers, and that he informed the people afterwards
- R states that the assurers found it valuable to see such a "real false document"
- C wants to have these assurances reviewed
Ruling
The big question in this case is whether the passport in question is false or not. For this we need a definition of "false ID". Although this seems a simple question, it is not. Definitions of "false" in common dictionaries range between "designed to deceive ("A suitcase with a false bottom")" on one end, and "arising from error ("A false assumption")" on the other. We can assume that the Government Officer that created the passport made an error, and that it was not "designed to deceive", so these definitions do not really help out.
However, because the government both issues the ID's, and defines the rules for those ID's, we as CAcert cannot make statements about these documents being "False" or not. We can only define if such a document with an error can be used for assuring people
Ruling regarding assurance with false ID:
Official Government issued photo ID's can be used for assurances. However, if the member is aware of errors in that official document, he MUST
- inform the assurer of the error
- use another ID as supporting evidence during an assurance
Such a document may be used during training and instruction, but the assurer MUST always be informed of the error within 24 hours
Ruling regarding the request from C:
Since CAcert cannot mark a official government issued photo ID as "False", there is no need to review the assurances.
Execution
Based on the statements of R there is no further execution required
Similiar Cases