On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldf...@gmail.com> 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.
Grat: I'm confused. Right now the sentence of TIME OUT is not in effect because the question on sentencing is inapplicable (R1504). Judging this AFFIRM would cause the sentence to be in effect (R1504), but it wouldn't create a second simultaneous TIME OUT sentence. As for R101 vi., eight minutes is certainly too trivial a "penalization" to count for anything; and it would not apply in any case because you clearly appealed the questions in the order you did in order to ensure that TIME OUT 14 would be the only available sentence; the difference between TIME OUT 14 and TIME OUT 13.994 (which you could almost certainly have requested had you appealed in the ordinary way) is self-imposed, and R101 does not concern itself with it any more than with ais523's punishment of me in CFJ 1981. I'm impressed at how thoroughly you've scammed the system, though.
