Sunday, November 12, 2006
Indisputable factual commentary about who was present where... can't lie about that, can you?
I was skimming over the impeachment charge sheet and took a look at the witness list:
1) Suken Vakil, was present and directly involved with the proceedings mentioned(e-mail addresses removed)
2) Bret Manley, was present and involved with all trials mentioned.
3) Emilie Saleh, was a witness in the original ASUC v. SAES trial and will account for misconduct by Chairperson Banerjee.
Well, let's see. There were three hearings. ASUC v. SAES where Attorney General Nathan Royer brought and won charges for Student Action chalking, resulting in 3 censures, Ratto v. Vakil, where Andy Ratto convinced the Judicial Council to find Suken Vakil in contempt, and the Ratto v. Vakil appeal, where the Judicial Council overturned its decision.
Suken was present only at the first of those hearings. He was "directly involved" in the appeal hearing to the extent he submitted a "statement" (which Vishal Gupta and Oren Gabriel edited after receiving) and refused to be cross-examined, and that statement was suppressed. Which isn't all that direct, now that I think about it.
I don't recall seeing Bret Manley at the appeal hearing, and I don't recall any involvement in either the appeal hearing or the original ASUC v. SAES case.
Finally, Emilie Saleh as definitely not a witness in ASUC v. SAES. And if she's accounting for misconduct on the part of "Chairperson Banerjee," her presence at ASUC v. SAES wouldn't make much difference since Bobby Gregg was the chair for that hearing.
So I guess Student Action can't even write a witness list without lying. I wish I could say I was surprised. If I were Student Action, I wouldn't want to give Sonya Banerjee a fair chance to defend herself by providing a factually accurate charge sheet, either.
. . .
. . .