[blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal?

[Nigel]

Quotes from BLMLers about screening directors...

[Eric Landau]
They were supposed to briefly review the case and issue dire warnings 
about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to 
those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants with 
obviously meritless appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to 
go forward.

In practice, what they seem to do is briefly review the case and issue 
dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that 
can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective 
appelants regardless of the merits of their appeals, doing their utmost 
to convince them not to go forward.


[Richard Hills]
Given that Screening Directors are now "most competent directors" has
ACBL management now explicitly authorised Screening Directors to be, in
effect, de facto Chief Directors empowered to overrule table Directors?

Or is there a credulous Easter Bunny belief that Screening Directors
act within the limit of their mandate to merely offer an opinion?

 :-) 


[Linda Trent]

Go back to the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny version

In my 10+ years in the appeals business I would say around 20% of the floor
rulings were changed. The "withdrawn appeal" file folder was usually quite
fat and contained tons of adjustments to what the appealing side was asking
for and since the other side didn't show up . . .  well, you get the rest. A
lot of these came from the dinner time screening session. It also contained
several of the "just in case I don't win my match or make the cut" appeals.
During a particular few years (no, I will never name names) the Screening
Director just gave both sides what they wanted so appeals would go away. My
complaints on that happening with a fair amount of regularity went nowhere.
Unfortunately, the "Withdrawn" folder always went to Memphis never to be
seen again. I tried to snag one once, but was unsuccessful.


[nige1]
Linda quotes approximate statistics (over a decade or so) and mentions bulky files of "withdrawn appeals" -- sources of factual evidence for Kojak to show that the role of the screening director is neutral and advisory. 

I would be happy if the Memphis files bear out Kojak's contention.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070501/328795b6/attachment.htm