============================ Appeal 1332a ============================
Appeal initiated: 13 Dec 2001 09:31:54 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist): 21 Dec 2001 08:27:28 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 21 Dec 2001 08:27:28 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 21 Dec 2001 08:27:28 GMT
root moves to REVERSE: 04 Jan 2002 22:15:29 GMT
G. moves to REVERSE: 04 Jan 2002 23:27:59 GMT
Murphy recused (panelist): 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 GMT
Assigned to neil (panelist): 14 Jan 2002 00:36:53 GMT
neil moves to REVERSE: 15 Jan 2002 11:04:14 GMT
Final decision (REVERSE): 15 Jan 2002 11:04:14 GMT
Panelist root's Arguments:
The only error in Crito's Judgement appears to be in Part 3, where e
misdetermined that Michael had not declined the Office of Speaker-Elect by
November 15. Since Michael and Murphy both did in fact decline the Office
in time, it follows that Steve held the Office of Speaker-Elect after the
Notice of Transition was posted, and not Michael as Crito argued.
Crito concluded that Michael was Speaker-Elect immediately following the S-E
nomination period, so it stands to reason that, had e had eir facts straight,
Crito *would* have concluded that Steve was Speaker-Elect in that time frame
and would have delivered a Judgement of TRUE.
Therefore, I move to Overturn and Reverse.
Panelist root's Evidence:
>3. On 15 Nov 2001, a Notice of Transition was posted, causing neil to become
>Speaker. He was not Electee to Speaker-Elect at this time, so he is a
>Tainted Speaker. Since there is no S-E Electee at this time, the office is
>filled based on the Order of Succession in R786. At this point, neil held
>both the Offices of Promotor and Registrar and so the S-E position fell to
>Rulekeepor Michael. At this point, he had not yet declined and was the
>holder of that Office.
>Therefore, in the period immediately following the S-E nomination period,
>Michael was temporary Speaker-Elect, not Steve. This would be true even
>if Michael's declination of that Office had been effective. Therefore,
>I think the judgement of FALSE is warranted.
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
I concur with Justice root's arguments. Therefore, I move to Overturn
Panelist neil's Arguments:
I concur with Justice root. I thus find the original Judgement to be
incorrect, and move to reverse the judgement to TRUE.