Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2728a

=================  Appeal 2728a (Interest Index = 0)  ==================

Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               OVERRULE/TRUE

Panelist:                               Warrigal
Decision:                               REMAND

========================================================================

History:

Appeal initiated:                       06 Nov 2009 12:42:03 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           07 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          07 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT
Assigned to Warrigal (panelist):        07 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT
Yally moves to AFFIRM:                  07 Nov 2009 19:22:56 GMT
Murphy moves to OVERRULE/TRUE:          07 Nov 2009 19:34:13 GMT
Warrigal moves to REMAND:               28 Nov 2009 23:37:57 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                28 Nov 2009 23:37:57 GMT

========================================================================

Appellant Pavitra's Arguments:

Only a moron in a hurry could interpret G.'s message as meaning anything
other than entering a judicial opinion; this should be sufficient to
fulfill "clear and unambiguous" by any reasonable standard.

Judge coppro's standard of extreme literal-mindedness would, for
example, refuse to acknowledge eir "FALSE." in the message quoted above
as meaning "I hereby assign the judgement FALSE to the question on
veracity in CFJ 2728."

The oft-invoked R754(1) standard is relevant here: G.'s wording "does
not create an ambiguity in meaning", and as such should be accepted as
fully equivalent to the formal, explicit form.

========================================================================

Panelist Yally's Arguments:

I opine AFFIRM. When I first read G.'s statement, I legitimately thought he
meant it as a threat. Even if he did not intend it that way, the fact
that it could have been reasonably interpreted that way does not make
it clear and unambiguous, as Judge coppro has indicated.

========================================================================

Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

I opine OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of TRUE.  Yally's
argument would hold more water if G. wasn't (a) replying directly to
the panel assignment and (b) actively redirecting said reply to a-b.

========================================================================

Panelist Warrigal's Arguments:

[no opinion given, appeal closed by CotC]

========================================================================