On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > >> As it wasn't clear from the context, the following is/was my justice's >> opinion >> on Appeal 2402b: >> >>> Taral became Guilty in a "standard" manner for lateness at the end of >>> March 7, at which time AAA was unarguably a contest. The fact that Taral >>> tried (in a standard manner) to make the scorekeepor awards "a little bit >>> late" and then got caught in the odd situation as a result might be a >>> mitigating factor in sentencing, but not guilt. AFFIRM. > > You already moved to OVERTURN to NOT GUILTY early on (and Rule 911 > prevents you from superseding it), which then became guaranteed to > carry the panel when OscarMeyr agreed with it. I'll catch up again > later today and send out the official announcement.
Ah. I'd forgotten, and until ais523's opinion I has thought that the AAA's termination-as-contest predated the end of Taral's time limit (they happened within a short period of time of each other). My fault, then. -G.
