http://nucleartest.ytmnd.com/
 

It Begins...

This all seems more likely to just destroy the ASUC than get Student Action in power. I mean, they have to know that there's no way a court is gonna come in and declare them the winners of a school election. Their best hope is that it works as blackmail.
 

My concern is that the action seems directed against the Judicial Council members. While this would be ridiculous, it also means that they may not have the support of the ASUC's legal counsel, and they may have no choice but to give in to the blackmail.

That said, I wouldn't cry over the destruction of the ASUC if I got my money back. But somehow, I don't see it.
 

Ben tells me that I'm wrong. Apparently in the early 80's a county court ruling reinstated an ASUC president.

This is the problem with not having enough money or caring enough to fight SA's lawsuit. If they can pull off a small lower court victory, no one has the money to appeal. I honestly believe with my super limited legal knowledge that none of this crap could hold up under appeal but no one's gonna be filing briefs with appeals courts over nonsense like this.

If SA is suing individual Judicial Council members then that's lower than low. It's basically saying "I'll bankrupt you if you don't give me my toys back!" I hope the ASUC does the right thing and uses their lawyer for this. Leaving the JCouncil out to dry to save themselves money would give every future lawsuit a magical path around the ASUC.

Just sue the individual president, senator, or whoever pisses you off, and the ASUC will let them take the hit.
 

In all likelihood, members of the J-Council will be able to hold on to their beer money regardless of whether ASUC picks up the defense. SA's suit likely seeks an injunction, not money damages. If that is the case, then the only thing the court can do is order the ASUC (or the JC members individually) to let SA back in.

There is nothing that prevents the ASUC from using its counsel to defend its officers who were individually sued for doing something in an official capacity. Corporations and governments do it all the time. (Government officials being individually named for their official actions is not new, either, but is the common practice; all Guantanamo detainees' cases personally name Rumsfeld, for example -- of course his defense is picked up by the official counsel, not by his private lawyer.)

The bigger issue is this: who has the authority, on behalf of the ASUC, to order the ASUC attorney to defend (or not to defend) the case? Who is to give Mark Himelstein his marching orders?
 

I think that was Simon's/my point. They don't have to pay up, but they do have to let SA back in. They don't have any way of fighting the idiocy.
 

Beetle, or anyone else in Berkeley:

What is currently preventing the 2005-06 senators from meeting in special session to appoint interim execs? Are there enough senators for a quorum? Has there been a call for such a meeting? In all the coverage of this, I have seen no mention of any action by the Senate.
 

Nothing is preventing them, but it takes two weeks for the session to get going. I don't know of any action that has been taken.
 

Here's the logic I find confusing:
It's horrible damage to the student body to not have executives ... so these executives in particular must be appointed.

What? Why the SA slate? Why not another slate?

I wish I had more faith in our local courts but my gut says they'll just side with the side that actually brought an attorney.