On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Rodlen <rodlenj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Am I missing something here? According to R1504,
When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number
of rests have been created in the Accused's possession due to
the associated notice, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such
rests by announcement as soon as possible.
So Judge Taral is required to destroy the rest that was created when
comex closed the NoV, and this penalty should be allowed to stand.
-root
