============================  Appeal 1631a  ============================


Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               AFFIRM


Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               AFFIRM


Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               AFFIRM

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       24 Sep 2010 03:46:08 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          24 Oct 2010 07:03:50 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           24 Oct 2010 07:03:50 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          24 Oct 2010 07:03:50 GMT
ais523 moves to AFFIRM:                 24 Oct 2010 07:18:42 GMT
Wooble moves to AFFIRM:                 24 Oct 2010 14:10:00 GMT
Yally moves to AFFIRM:                  24 Oct 2010 17:22:43 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM):                24 Oct 2010 17:22:43 GMT

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

Panelist ais523's Arguments:

The caller has provided no argument why the verdict in question is
necessarily incorrect, so AFFIRM seems appropriate here. Thinking about
it, I'm going to violate a SHOULD and opine AFFIRM WITH PREJUDICE, and
hope that other judges do likewise; after all, if an inquiry CFJ can be
a punishment, why can't an appeals case be? Then we can argue about
whether R101 implies a right to appeal appeals even when the rest of the
rules don't.

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