On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2451a > > ============================ Appeal 2451a ============================ > > Panelist: BobTHJ > Decision: > > Panelist: Rodlen > Decision: > > Panelist: root > Decision: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 26 Apr 2009 19:46:26 GMT > Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Rodlen (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to root (panelist): (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant comex's Arguments: > > I already gained a Rest for the same action, the false > contestmaster award claims, due to the NoV accusing me of violating > truthfulness; this punishment may therefore be invalid due to R101. > Note, however, that I did close the NoV myself, and see CFJ 1981 (but > I think the situation is quite different here). > > ======================================================================== > I'm not sure about this yet. R101 does prevent punishing multiple times for the same action, unless the first penalty is at least partially replaced with a comparable penalty. However, I see no replacement here...but CFJ 1981 doesn't support people "punishing" themselves. I'm thinking REMAND, or possibly OVERRULE, but I'm not opining anything yet. -- --Rodlen
