Goethe wrote: > Appeals Results of 2282a and 2322a were in error. By the new appeals court > Rule 911 adopted 12-Dec-08, the result of a failed consensus or time clock > runout is a platonic REMAND: > If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel > acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. > > However, CotC Murphy "reassigned" these cases. > > For 2282a, the end result of the "new" panel was a REMAND anyway, the > only difference is that the appeals justices are/were not violating rules > when they failed to judge, and timing. > > For 2322a, the result was REMAND (Platonically), but the CotC (attempted to) > reassign the case and the new (pseudo?) panel acted to REASSIGN, not remand. > I'm not sure what has or has not self-ratified here. Thoughts? CFJ needed?
I don't think any of this self-ratifies. 2321 (not 2322) was remanded to Wooble, who - having judged the same way as pseudo-judge woggle before - will presumably do so again. I'll get the database updated later.
