Pretty funny stuff in the CoA section. At the end of Jon Farbman's is the following:
Quote Originally Posted by CoA
Appellants are reminded that the Court of Appeals normally requires new evidence that was not available to the First Court as a basis for a well-founded appeal. Procedural errors by the First Court may also form a well-founded appeal. Simply asking for a second opinion without basis is not well-founded.
This was after finding Jon's appeal not well founded. But in the very next listing (Matt Green's), they state the following:
Quote Originally Posted by CoA
Mr. Green offered no new evidence or information that was germane to the body contact portion of his case.
Yet the deemed Matt's appeal to be well founded. The only additional documents or evidence that was rec'd in Matt's case vs. Jon's case was an email from the SOM Chairman, Dan Hodge. I know if I was Jon, I'd be pissed for this apparent lack of consistency in determining what is and is not a well founded appeal.