This court does not accept the initiator's arguments, especially the claim that there was no serious doubt to the judgement in question. By merit of an appeal taking place (which requires 3 people to agree for the appeal to take place, for an inquiry case such as CFJ 1860), there was some doubt about the call for judgement as a whole.
As can be seen in the arguments for CFJ 1860a, the judicial panel had serious doubts as to the appropriateness of Judge BobTHJ's judgement in CFJ 1860. As can be seen in CFJ 1863, at least one person other than the judicial panel for CFJ 1860a doubted the appropriateness of the judgement. This court accepts the arguments of H. Zefram in CFJ 1863 as it regards the inappropriateness of the judgement in CFJ 1860 (this court refuses to comment on the rest of eir arguments, as they have no bearing on this case). Even if H. Zefram's arguments are thrown out in CFJ 1863, the existence of his arguments proves that he doubted the appropriateness of the judgement in question. This court itself doubts the appropriateness of the original judgement of CFJ 1860. This series of events leaves 5 people on record as doubting the appropriateness (the judicial panel and the appellants overlapped) of CFJ 1860's judgement, and 1 person at least implying something was amiss. With 5 people in doubt, and possibly 6, there can be no doubt that there was serious doubt about the appropriateness of CFJ 1860. Thus, REASSIGN was, in fact, an appropriate judgement by the appeal panel. Therefore, I do hereby judge INNOCENT in CFJs 1866, 1867, and 1868. # End proto-judgement
