============================  Appeal 1419a  ============================


Panelist:                               Taral
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Sir Toby
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       29 Dec 2002 22:07:39 GMT
Assigned to Taral (panelist):           31 Dec 2002 04:10:20 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby (panelist):        31 Dec 2002 04:10:20 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              31 Dec 2002 04:10:20 GMT
G. moves to REMAND:                     31 Dec 2002 17:44:55 GMT
Sir Toby moves to REMAND:               31 Dec 2002 19:02:07 GMT
Taral moves to REMAND:                  31 Dec 2002 19:02:07 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                31 Dec 2002 19:02:07 GMT

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

Panelist G.'s Arguments:

There are two potential errors indicated by the
Appellants.

First of all, the Judge's arguments call for a judgement
of TRUE, while the judgement returned was FALSE.  This
was an admitted trivial error on the part of the Judge.

However, as evidenced by Appellant Murphy's arguments,
the Judge's arguments may have been in error, and the
judgement of FALSE may be appropriate.  In support of
this, I note that the Judge's interpretation of 1887(n),
(adding extra days to align "a week from" with the nomic
week), leaves a conflict within 1887 itself for many
past auctions, as the same argument would change the
ending date defined by "a week passing" in 1887(j)(1).

In general I believe in the reasonable primacy of initial
Judges and Appeals Board restraint, and ironically the
two errors cancel each other out.  However, moving to
sustain may condone the original argument in the record
(even with the addition of concurring or appellate
opinions).  Reassigning is inappropriate as the original
Judge is cognizant of the issues.  Therefore this Appeals
Judge REMANDS the judgement to the original Judge.

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

Panelist Sir Toby's Arguments:

There are some arguments favoring reversing the original judgement to
match the Trial Judge's arguments. There are also arguments favoring
sustaining the judgement as some people feel that the Trial Judge's
arguments are inaccurate.

The issue of matching the Trial Judge's arguments with eir judgement
does not warrant directly reversing the judgement at the appeals level,
as there are reasons to appeal a reversed judgement as well, and a
reversal can not be appealed. The Trial Judge is aware of the fact that
the judgement does not match the arguments, and e should be given a
chance to correct the oversight. Therefore, this Appeals Judge REMANDS
the judgement to the original Judge.

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