On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
> 2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
> {{{
> This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
> there were two plausible interpretations of what the vote meant, and if
> so, whether this made the vote sufficiently ambiguous as to be entirely
> ineffective, and also to consider the appelant's arguments.
> }}}I would prefer to just overrule to FALSE based on appellant's arguments. Too many cases dragging on too long... I'm moving towards an activist stance on appeals when the case seems straightforward to me. -g.
