Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3073a

============================  Appeal 3073a  ============================

Panelist:                               woggle
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Tanner L. Swett
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       08 Aug 2011 19:55:57 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist):          14 Aug 2011 17:56:18 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           14 Aug 2011 17:56:18 GMT
Assigned to Tanner L. Swett (panelist): 14 Aug 2011 17:56:18 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND:                 17 Aug 2011 16:22:28 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND:                 17 Aug 2011 16:22:28 GMT
Yally moves to REMAND:                  11 Sep 2011 16:20:34 GMT
Tanner L. Swett moves to REMAND:        11 Sep 2011 16:20:34 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                11 Sep 2011 16:20:34 GMT

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

Appellant scshunt's Arguments:

I did my best to fulfill the requirements.
The fact that there was a bug in the rules at the time that allowed me
to pay them concurrently is orthogonal to the issue that I missed the
deadline, for which another judge already gave me DISCHARGE. I believe
that the true balance probably lies somewhere in a one- or two-point
fine for each.

Moreover, COMMUNITY SERVICE should not be used as a workaround for
other broken punishments, otherwise we might well replace every other
non-DISCHARGE policy with COMMUNITY SERVICE.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

scshunt was not the defendant in CFJ 3054.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:

[CotC: ineffective because prejudice not specified, see CFJ 3098]

I agree with scshunt's arguments. Destroying the points all at once is
permitted
by the rules, even if it is a mistake in the rules. Trying to catch him on
some
other issue that the courts already DISMISSED in order to make-up for him
cleverly circumventing the rules does not seem appropriate. I opine
OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Tanner L. Swett:

[CotC: opinion OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY ineffective because prejudice not
specified, see CFJ 3098]

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

Panelist woggle's Arguments:

The subject of CFJ 3054 (and the subsequent case I judged GUILTY -
DISCHARGE) was omd, not scshunt. I opine REMAND with prejudice.

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

Panelist Yally's Arguments:

[no effective opinion given]

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

Panelist Tanner L. Swett's Arguments:

[no effective opinion given]

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