Be proud!

I just looked over the plaintiff brief for the chalking case against SA. Some interesting things:

A quote from the candidate's guide includes [sic]. The official document explaining the rules under which candidates can campaign contains petty grammatical errors, not to mention the detail that it does not agree with the by-laws, in general.

Andy's case is cited. If the Judicial Council was bound by precedent, the summary judgement in that case could've been used to undermine any defense by Student Action.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/07/2006 04:31:00 PM #
Comments (2)

. . .

Comments:

The summary judgment would not necessarily establish precedent. Ratto pleaded guilty to violating the by-law... it was the confession that sealed the deal, not any interpretation of whether chalking before polling stations are marked constitutes a violation.

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:52 PM, May 07, 2006

 

I guess it depends on exactly what he confessed to, but since the Judicial Council isn't bound by precedent anyway, it makes no difference.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 12:04 AM, May 08, 2006

 

Post a Comment