On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 22:23, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> [Trivia: This is the 21st case in the database with two
> appeals. Only one, CFJ 1966, has had three.]
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004b
>
> ============================ Appeal 3004b ============================
>
> Panelist: G.
> Decision:
>
> Panelist: omd
> Decision:
>
> Panelist: ais523
> Decision:
>
> ========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Appeal initiated: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT
> Assigned to G. (panelist): (as of this message)
> Assigned to omd (panelist): (as of this message)
> Assigned to ais523 (panelist): (as of this message)
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Appellant Yally's Arguments:
>
> I appeal this case's question on culpability.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004
>
> ========================= Criminal Case 3004 =========================
>
> Yally violated Rule 1504, a Power-2 Rule, by becoming active
> during eir TIME OUT period.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller: Walker
> Barred: Yally
>
> Judge: Murphy
> Judgement: GUILTY/TIME OUT
>
> Appeal: 3004a
> Decision: AFFIRM
>
> Appeal: 3004b
> Decision: (pending)
>
> ========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by Walker: 20 Apr 2011 14:08:15 GMT
> Defendant Yally informed: 20 Apr 2011 14:08:15 GMT
> Assigned to Murphy: 20 Apr 2011 22:10:48 GMT
> Judged GUILTY/TIME OUT by Murphy: 21 Apr 2011 05:42:08 GMT
> Appealed by Yally: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT
> Appeal 3004a: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT
> Appealed by Yally: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT
> Appeal 3004b: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT
> AFFIRMED on Appeal: 28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:
>
> The statement being called is ambiguous.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Judge Murphy's Arguments:
>
> On the question on culpability:
>
> (a) Yally became active on or about 6 Apr 2011 19:00:28 UTC while
> subject to a TIME OUT sentence from CFJ 2985.
> (b) This breach occurred about 14 days prior to this case being
> initiated, well within the 90-day statute of limitations.
> (c) This breach has not been previously judged nor punished.
> (d) Yally admitted understanding the nature of this breach.
> (e) Yally could have reasonably avoided committing the breach by
> remaining inactive until the time limit expired. Rule 1504's
> "for the number of days specified" is messy and should be
> legislatively improved, but is nevertheless clearly intended to
> be interpreted as "within the specified number of days after the
> sentence most recently went into effect".
>
> GUILTY.
>
> On the question of sentencing:
>
> By eir own admission, Yally deliberately broke the rules multiple times
> to find out how long e could avoid effective punishment, creating more
> work for others in the process. On the other hand, e demonstrated a
> loophole by example, and tradition is to reward scammers to some extent
> for their ingenuity. TIME OUT, 14 days.
>
> ========================================================================
vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
once for any single action or inaction.
Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single
action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case.
Note this would be two punishments, because you could think of the
TIME OUTs as FINEs, wherein I would be fined twice. Here, I would be
TIMEd OUT for more than two weeks. Thus, the only allowable actions
for the appeals panel are REMAND, REASSIGN, or OVERRULE. If REMANDed
or REASSIGNed, the next judge would have to assign some non-GUILTY
punishment.
