Thought the appeal document was pretty well written and argued. Thought the tone of the language was appropriately measured but pointed too.
I would have to re-read the document, but was somewhat both pleased and disappointed in that I believe we buried in a footnote (on page nine) a very effective and compelling counter and pre-emptive strike against the CoI. I fully expect the CoI to argue that 'enhanced' penalties were considered but taken off the table due to the four factors we listed in the footnote and that consideration means they in fact did give substantial thought and weight to our cooperation and other factors. Good that we pre-empted such a sham argument, but disappointing in that we did not highlight this a little stronger in the main body of the document. But, as a whole, this was a positive mark for our side.
And, the graph/chart comprising Page 19 of the document is brutally effective. If we fail to use that as a centerpiece in our oral presentation I will doubt the quality of our representation. I would blow that thing up to over six feet tall and have it in plain view at all times for the appeals committee to see and ponder. I would make EVERY person who testifies on behalf of the CoI to explain in MINUTE detail the relationships between the disparate penalties.
The REAL test will be when we file our rebuttal to the CoI response. If you read the CoI response to the FSU original appeal document, you will see a pattern of insolence and pettiness by the CoI - sort of a "how dare they question our dictives from on-high?" I fully expect even greater insolence and pettiness from the CoI to our appeal given the aggressive and necessary tone of our document. And I will be very, very disappointed if we do not stomp on such atttudes, if they are in fact present, with targeted and direct and adult and HARD language. We very clearly consider the CoI to have acted in a haste and hostile manner and if they add petty to the mix we should have no reservations for engaging in this in a confrontational manner.
