Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2728a

=================  Appeal 2728a (Interest Index = 1)  ==================

Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               

Panelist:                               Warrigal
Decision:                               

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       06 Nov 2009 12:42:03 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           07 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          07 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT
Assigned to Warrigal (panelist):        07 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT

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

Appellant Pavitra's Arguments:

Only a moron in a hurry could interpret G.'s message as meaning anything
other than entering a judicial opinion; this should be sufficient to
fulfill "clear and unambiguous" by any reasonable standard.

Judge coppro's standard of extreme literal-mindedness would, for
example, refuse to acknowledge eir "FALSE." in the message quoted above
as meaning "I hereby assign the judgement FALSE to the question on
veracity in CFJ 2728."

The oft-invoked R754(1) standard is relevant here: G.'s wording "does
not create an ambiguity in meaning", and as such should be accepted as
fully equivalent to the formal, explicit form.

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