Format for e-mail
| Appeal in the matter of: |
CFJ 2728 |
| |
| Panelist: | Yally |
| Decision: | |
| |
| Panelist: | Murphy |
| Decision: | |
| |
| Panelist: | Warrigal |
| Decision: | |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | c., G., Tiger |
| |
| Pending: | Decision by Murphy (14 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT) |
| Pending: | Decision by Warrigal (14 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT) |
| Pending: | Decision by Yally (14 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT) |
History:
| Appeal initiated | 6 Nov 2009 12:42:03 GMT |
| Assigned to Yally (panelist) | 7 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT |
| Assigned to Murphy (panelist) | 7 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT |
| Assigned to Warrigal (panelist) | 7 Nov 2009 19:11:25 GMT |
Appellant Pavitra's Arguments: | | (6 Nov 2009 06:01:52 GMT) |
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.
