Yally wrote:
> Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
> has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
> violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single
> action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case.
Arguably you would receive the same TIME OUT sentence, depending on
whether "the judgement assigned to <question>" is interpreted as an
entity or merely the value of an attribute.
> Note this would be two punishments, because you could think of the
> TIME OUTs as FINEs, wherein I would be fined twice. Here, I would be
> TIMEd OUT for more than two weeks. Thus, the only allowable actions
> for the appeals panel are REMAND, REASSIGN, or OVERRULE. If REMANDed
> or REASSIGNed, the next judge would have to assign some non-GUILTY
> punishment.
R101(vi) goes on to say
However, this right is not violated by replacing part or
all of a penalty with a different but comparable penalty,
e.g. when the rules governing penalties are amended.
and I claim that this also generally applies to affirming criminal cases
on appeal, especially since your interpretation would arguably violate
the caller's R101(ii) right instead.
In particular, your first appeal was only about 8 minutes after the
original judgement, so AFFIRM would replace (2 weeks minus 8 minutes)
with (2 weeks); sounds "comparable" to me. If e.g. you had instead
waited 6 days to appeal, then R101(vi) would be more clearly upheld via
REMAND followed by TIME OUT 8. (Then again, since your only argument
in this appeal was to attempt to introduce a technicality and leverage
the hell out of it, the court might have decided that "comparable" could
be legitimately loosened on those grounds.)
