DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/5/20 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494 I judge TRUE by my own arguments. I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding here was an awful tiebreakre. The AFFIRM was actually quite interesting there, given that it was a TRUE/FALSE reversal between the arguments and the judgement... REMAND or OVERRULE are the usual judgements there. (Unless I'm thinking of the wrong CfJ...) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/5/20 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494 I judge TRUE by my own arguments. I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding here was an awful tiebreakre. The AFFIRM was actually quite interesting there, given that it was a TRUE/FALSE reversal between the arguments and the judgement... REMAND or OVERRULE are the usual judgements there. (Unless I'm thinking of the wrong CfJ...) You mean affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe where both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy (that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of Goethe that the actual judgement agreed with Murphy? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/5/20 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494 I judge TRUE by my own arguments. I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding here was an awful tiebreakre. The AFFIRM was actually quite interesting there, given that it was a TRUE/FALSE reversal between the arguments and the judgement... REMAND or OVERRULE are the usual judgements there. (Unless I'm thinking of the wrong CfJ...) You mean affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe where both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy (that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of Goethe that the actual judgement agreed with Murphy? It's an unusual situation, at least. Maybe AFFIRM with error rating 90 or something like that would have made it clear, but that's not what Pavitra said, and as a result I'm not sure what e meant at all... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding here was an awful tiebreakre. I submit the following proposal, Two tiered tiebreaker, AI 2.0: - Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by deleting: If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by inserting the following new paragraph immediately after the paragraph in which the above deletion occurred: If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then: - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as one given by at least panel member (other than the Justiciar), then the panel delivers that judgement; - otherwise, the CotC CAN and SHALL act for the panel by announcement to deliver a judgement of either REMAND or REASSIGN, whichever e feels is most appropriate. [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it, and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed]. Can you remove the hot-or-cold thing at the same time? This serves a similar purpose, has a similar spirit, and will create less undue delay on court cases. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:52, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by inserting the following new paragraph immediately after the paragraph in which the above deletion occurred: If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then: - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as one given by at least panel member (other than the I think you missed one in the last line quoted above. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it, and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed]. Can you remove the hot-or-cold thing at the same time? This serves a similar purpose, has a similar spirit, and will create less undue delay on court cases. Ok. I also considered giving the justiciar an extra 4 days after the judgement period closed; that way e could wait to give a judgement until e knew there was a tie. Do you think that would delay things too much? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 14:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it, and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed]. Can you remove the hot-or-cold thing at the same time? This serves a similar purpose, has a similar spirit, and will create less undue delay on court cases. Ok. I also considered giving the justiciar an extra 4 days after the judgement period closed; that way e could wait to give a judgement until e knew there was a tie. Do you think that would delay things too much? -G. Not necessarily; a tie means that more consideration is required. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I withdraw my previous proposal, Two tiered tiebreaker. I submit the following proposal, Two tiered tiebreaker, AI 2.0, ais523 coauthor: - Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by deleting: If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by inserting the following new paragraphs immediately after the paragraph in which the above deletion occurred: If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then: - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as one given by at least one panel member (other than the Justiciar), then the panel delivers that judgement; - otherwise, the case enters an overtime period, which lasts for four days. The CotC SHOULD publicly remind the Justiciar when an overtime period begins. During this period, if the Justiciar publishes a Justiciar's Opinion that is the same as one panel member's as described above, then the panel delivers that judgement; - otherwise, the CotC CAN and SHALL, asap after the overtime period ends, act for the panel by announcement to deliver a judgement of either REMAND or REASSIGN, whichever e feels is most appropriate. Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing the paragraph that begins with b) Justiciar with the following paragraph: b) Justiciar. The Justiciar may be granted particular abilities or privileges associated with the judicial process as described elsewhere in the Rules. [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it, and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed]. - The overtime period probably should end as soon as the Justicar submits his opinion.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: - otherwise, the case enters an overtime period, which lasts for four days. The CotC SHOULD publicly remind the Justiciar when an overtime period begins. During this period, if the Justiciar publishes a Justiciar's Opinion that is the same as one panel member's as described above, then the panel delivers that judgement; The overtime period probably should end as soon as the Justicar submits his opinion. I think it more or less does; as soon as the bit quoted above is triggered by the Justiciar publishing an opinion, the panel delivers the judgement (and the CotC can right away remand, reassign, or whatever), the fact that the OT period might still be going on doesn't mean anything after that. I think? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
Kerim Aydin wrote: If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then: - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as one given by at least one panel member (other than the Justiciar), then the panel delivers that judgement; 7-man panel: REMAND REMAND REMAND REASSIGN REASSIGN OVERRULE -no judgment- the Justiciar picks OVERRULE, and that's the judgment. I think the following would be a better system: - If less than half the panel provided judgments, reassign it to a new panel containing all the panelists who did provide judgments, and have them reopine their previous opinions (in effect, reassign the previous panel) - If more than half the panel has provided judgments, and more than half the judging panelists provided the same judgment, that judgment is chosen. - Otherwise, the Justiciar (or, failing that, the CotC) shall choose a judgment such that if every undecided panelist chose that judgment, no other judgment would have been chosen more often (so in the above instance, e could pick REMAND or REASSIGN) I think the Hot-or-Cold thing should still exist under this system, but the case doesn't need to wait up for the Justiciar. Also, the CotC should get the first bid at the final say when the Justiciar is running the case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: 7-man panel: REMAND REMAND REMAND REASSIGN REASSIGN OVERRULE -no judgment- the Justiciar picks OVERRULE, and that's the judgment. *shrug* I thought about making the Justiciar pick only from among the ones with most votes, but frankly, panels bigger than 3 are new, I'm not convinced the larger panels are value-added: in the past a majority of 2 was always sufficient so I'm not too concerned. That makes it a prerogative worth competing for, as prerogatives should be. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
coppro wrote: - Otherwise, the Justiciar (or, failing that, the CotC) shall choose a judgment such that if every undecided panelist chose that judgment, no other judgment would have been chosen more often (so in the above instance, e could pick REMAND or REASSIGN) Consider the actual recent example of (AFFIRM, AFFIRM, REASSIGN, REASSIGN, no opinion). IMO, REMAND and REASSIGN should always be available as tiebreaking options, along with any other decision meeting your criterion above (e.g. in the recent example, the Justiciar could have picked AFFIRM, REMAND or REASSIGN).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2494 remanded to Quazie by Arnold Bros (est. 1905) (REASSIGN), Pavitra (AFFIRM)
Kerim Aydin wrote: You mean affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe where both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy (that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of Goethe that the actual judgement agreed with Murphy? The latter. An error rating requires a concurring opinion, which I didn't feel was justified, since there was so little analysis of my own involved -- the relevant thought and discussion was pretty much covered by Murphy and Goethe's arguments. I guess I should have been a little more explicit in tying them together. Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
