Format for e-mail

Appeal in the matter of:	CFJ 2696
Panelist:	Tiger
Decision:	REMAND
Panelist:	G.
Decision:	REASSIGN
Panelist:	Yally
Decision:	REASSIGN
Currently Eligible:	Wooble

---

History:

Appeal initiated	20 Oct 2009 17:18:17 GMT
Assigned to Tiger (panelist)	3 Nov 2009 01:14:21 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist)	3 Nov 2009 01:14:21 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist)	3 Nov 2009 01:14:21 GMT
G. moves to REASSIGN	3 Nov 2009 01:25:50 GMT
Tiger moves to REMAND	3 Nov 2009 14:07:59 GMT
Yally moves to REASSIGN	3 Nov 2009 21:10:23 GMT
Final decision (REASSIGN)	3 Nov 2009 21:10:23 GMT

---

Appellant ais523's Arguments:

(20 Oct 2009 11:53:29 GMT)

I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. Without being able to see coppro's
reasoning, I have no idea whether eir judgement is correct or not, and
therefore no basis upon which to decide whether to appeal or not. The same
applies to everyone else here. As a result, the judgement needs to be appealed
in case it's setting an undesirable precedent. (In addition, this verdict could
conflict with other verdicts that have not yet been made; the reasoning would
be needed to determine that, too.)

---

Panelist G.'s Arguments:

(3 Nov 2009 01:25:50 GMT)

What will happen is I'll consider it an annoying way to waste the Court's
time and opine REASSIGN.

---

Panelist Tiger's Arguments:

(3 Nov 2009 14:07:59 GMT)

I opine REMAND, to give the Judge a chance to explain eir reasoning.

---

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

(3 Nov 2009 16:01:46 GMT)

[if previous attempt ineffective]

I consider the behavior of a judge purposely withholding critical 
arguments from a case to be pointlessly annoying and not at all 
deserving of a remand.  I opine REASSIGN in CFJ2696a.