. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Thursday, October 12, 2006
Yay, coverage!

It looks like my fears were unfounded. I was concerned that the Daily Cal was going to wait until everything was resolved and it was impossible for anyone to do anything about it before reporting on ASUC affairs, as it often does.

The Constitutional requirement that the ASUC Legal Defense Fund be used for "emergency legal action" isn't addressed. I'm really curious about the justification these folks can come up with.
If approved, the amount set by the senators will be taken from the ASUC Legal Defense Fund, which totaled $14,836 as of last semester according to the 2006-2007 ASUC budget.
The Legal Defense Fund is a fund, which means that while $15k was budgeted last year, there should have been money sitting around in the fund, as well, which is how they're going to pull $22.5k from it.
[Poor financial decision-maker Oren Gabriel] said he needed his own legal counsel because he was not an ASUC official at the time of the suit and thus could not be represented by an ASUC lawyer. He said the legal action was essential to safeguard the function of the ASUC.

"The Judicial Council was violating the ASUC bylaws and their own rules of procedure so in order to make sure that the will of the students was followed, it was necessary to hire legal counsel," Gabriel said.
So why didn't your lawyer win, if it was so necessary?
Alameda County judge Winifred Smith dismissed the case three days later, stating that all avenues to solve the disagreement within the association had not been pursued.
While this line has been repeated by a lot of folks, possibly including me, I don't believe it's technically accurate. The judge did not state a reason for the dismissal, as far as I know, and everyone just assumed that was the reason.

More from the Patriot.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 10/12/2006 09:28:00 AM #
Comments (1)
. . .
It was mentioned at the ex parte hearing, at which Ben, Chris Page, myself, and one of the Daily Cal ASUC beat writers were present. The lawyer speaking for the Court stated that that was the reason. It is a common reason for denying the motions considered in cases involving the bylaws of private organizations.
Post a Comment

. . .