============================  Appeal 2544a  ============================


Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               scshunt
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               Pavitra
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               REASSIGN

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       06 Jun 2009 18:09:53 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              11 Jun 2009 04:29:04 GMT
Assigned to scshunt (panelist):         11 Jun 2009 04:29:04 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra (panelist):         11 Jun 2009 04:29:04 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           11 Jun 2009 04:29:04 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          11 Jun 2009 04:29:04 GMT
scshunt moves to REASSIGN:              11 Jun 2009 07:21:42 GMT
Wooble moves to REASSIGN:               11 Jun 2009 12:31:52 GMT
Yally moves to REASSIGN:                11 Jun 2009 15:09:14 GMT
G. moves to REASSIGN:                   11 Jun 2009 15:15:06 GMT
Pavitra moves to REASSIGN:              11 Jun 2009 22:02:23 GMT
Final decision (REASSIGN):              11 Jun 2009 22:02:23 GMT

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

Panelist scshunt's Arguments:

I opine REASSIGN. REMAND would normally be appropriate in this
situation, however, the case now has an interest index higher than the
former judge's judicial rank; a reassignment does not seem logical.

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

Panelist Pavitra's Arguments:

REASSIGN, because of; clearly, so it follows that and therefore.

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