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

Nap Time!!!

Thursday, November 16, 2006
Impeachment: The LOOOOONG Version

So, a blog post covering 7.5 hours of Senate antics. Strap yourselves in.

We begin by thanking Vishal Gupta for letting Anil Daryani chair the hearing and subsequent deliberations (which were kept open). I think Daryani did a good job.

The Sonya Banerjee approach was not the one I would have taken. I would have avoided the technical issues and just punched the major points. Banerjee used what turned out to be a far funnier strategy. She ripped the case to pieces on JRPs. Essentially, she would quote JRP after JRP as the plaintiffs, Donald Rizzo and Brandon Chen, stood around going "durrr durrrrrr." I should note that the Student Action folks admitted afterwards that the plaintiffs stood around going "durrr durrrrrr," arguing that since Senators are incompetent, the hearing was unfair because the defense was far more effective. Apparently, a fair hearing would have given Sonya a handicap of some sort so she wouldn't defend herself as effectively.

I'll note, by the way, that at no time did Student Action approach folks who did know what the fuck they were doing to run their case for them. For instance, I would've been cool with it, just as I would've been happy to mount an effective appeal in the Ratto v. Vakil appeal. (You can be damn sure my brief would've mentioned double jeopardy, and I wouldn't have charged 22,000 fucking dollars for it)

In pre-trial arguments, it turns out that the evidence that the plaintiffs were supposed to submit four days before the hearing was actually submitted four hours before the hearing. Good job, guys! The evidence was suppressed.

The stuff about the recording was dismissed, since Sonya wasn't chair at the time.

It was about this time that Rizzo and Chen realized they were in way over their head, and had no idea what they were doing. How DARE Sonya mount a defense. So they tried to get the entire case rescheduled so they could actually prepare. This was so blatantly unconstitutional that it got shot down, but it really showed how pathetic these charges were.

Rizzo argued that the appeal reversal served as an "admission of guilt," which was funny, because none of the "admissions" in the appeal reversal actually lined up with the charges against Sonya.

Blah blah stuff stuff. I won't get into the detail of the arguments. They aren't that funny. For instance, the plaintiffs say the Judicial Council denied Bret Manley the opportunity to nominate another spokesperson in Ratto v. Vakil, but actually he never made the motion when nominating speakers, and just tried to do it when it came up. Blah.

Suken Vakil was allowed to speak, since he was only found to be a liar in front of the Judicial Council, not the Senate. He then lied. Shocking!

He lied that he was asked about chalk as a campaign tool. He lied that he said he couldn't answer the question clearly. In fact, he was given the opportunity to explain himself when he said chalk lasts for one day. He was asked why it was still out there at the time, and he said "I don't know."

He claimed to remember word for word what was said in that >2 hour meeting. He identified by name the justices who asked him the question about chalk. But then, when asked to name the justices in the room (and most of them were there), he said he didn't know their names. He also forgot Bobby Gregg was there. He then said that he didn't really remember it word-for-word, only "pretty much" word-for-word. Great.

When Sonya was giving her case, nobody was really listening. The senators weren't paying much attention, which makes sense, since votes were probably predetermined, though Sonya certainly gave Ali the opportunity to vote against it.

Vivienne Nguyen asked Emilie Saleh if Sonya's questions for her in Ratto v. Vakil made her cry. This was where a bunch of discussion about whether Sonya badgered witnesses began. That discussion ended when Taylor Allbright pointed out in deliberations the minor detail that badgering was never charged.

Sonya asked DAAP Senator and charger Dimitri Garcia questions which had little to do with the case, really. Sonya convinced Anil to allow her to ask those questions based on her sixth amendment rights to face her accuser. I disagree, but whatever. It allowed some fun.

Dimitri was asked about some details. Here are the things he didn't know:

When the deadlines for witness/evidence lists and briefs were.

When Banerjee was appointed chair.

Who the other people who filed the charge sheet with him were.

Rizzo later asked him if he felt Sonya was engaging in character assassination, and he said yes, but he was wrong. Dimitri assassinated his own character by admitting he had no fucking clue what he was talking about when he filed these charges. It was a cheap shot, but it was a funny one.

As the trial winded down, Student Action folks started pointing out that they weren't lawyers, and they weren't all that familiar with the JRPs, and that the hearing wasn't really fair because Sonya knew her stuff, and Student Action didn't know jack. The "defense from incompetence" is one we've come to expect from Student Action.

"Mr. Chen, I would ask that you please articulate yourself better so we can understand what you're saying." -Anil Daryani.

"Regardless of our inarticulateness..." -Donald Rizzo

Impressive, though, was the suggestion that, despite the Senate's incompetence in reading the JRPs, their interpretation should be valued over the Judicial Council's. Those are tough arguments to make together.

Ali said he was convinced to oppose the removal because, regardless of SA's incompetence, in order to give a fair trial, the Senate couldn't compensate for Rizzo and Chen's impotence.

Vivienne Nguyen said that Kris Cuaresma-Primm was removed from office because he was arrested. I certainly don't recall this, and neither did Taylor or David Wasserman.

She ended with some boasting about how the Senate was doing "double duty" by paying attention to the JRPs as well. She went further to say that the Senate was doing far more than the Judicial Council in this regard, as if the Judicial Council never has to familiarize itself with the ASUC bylaws. Of course, in reality, the Judicial Council often gets stuck with the task of digging through poorly written bylaws to come up with decisions, while the Senate can simply vote on impeachment without giving any reasons whatsoever. And since a bunch of other speakers had just stood up to explain that Senators didn't know anything about the JRPs, the boast seemed a bit empty. But don't tell Vivienne that.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 11/16/2006 06:43:00 AM #
Comments (17)
. . .
Comments:
Anyone taking bets on how long it takes SA to try and amend Title XXI?

When I wrote Title XXI I figured some bozos in the future might try that, so I also wrote a clause in the JRPs that say if XXI is ever altered the Council is no longer obligated to release their votes.
 
Mike: Can you elaborate on that comment? What does Title XXI say, and why would they want to amend it?
 
Title XXI provides the six definitions of malfeasence or dereliction of duty in the Judicial Council. Sonya was charged under XXI.2.1.5 "Failing to adhere to the established rules and procedures of the Council."

Article 4 makes the title unsuspendable, though it may be amended, and Article 3 protects the votes and official opinions of a justice from being used as evidence except in cases regarding bribery (XXI.2.1.3) or extortion (XXI.2.1.4).

If the Article 3 protections were removed, then the Council would protect itself by simply giving its opinions per curium and refuse to reveal how justices voted.
 
That wouldn't change anything -- the Senate doesn't need evidence or rationale to impeach someone. One of the main flaws of the Constitution, in my opinion, is giving the Senate sole interpretational rights to the section on removal of Justices. If Council decisions were released by secret ballot, the Senate would still blame the Chairperson for "illegal rulings" without foundation.

By the way, there is no way that Chris Primm was removed from office. He certainly wasn't convicted of a felony so he couldn't have been removed, he certainly wasn't recalled, and I can assure you that he did serve his entire term.

Whether it's reckless incompetence or intentional lying, Student Action has proved themselves to be a bunch of bumbling fools.
 
The only ASUC official who I can remember being removed after the 90s is Annalyn Terre, who as a CalSERVE Senator failed to meet some attendance requirements, and even that had some shadiness involved.

No JCouncil or ASUC Exec has been impeached in a number of years.

KCP was arrested for public drunkenness and resisting arrest, but was never even brought up on charges by the Senate. He was, however, rewarded for his hard work with an Anheiser-Busch Internship in Congress (too funny for me to make up).
 
I didn't think this before, but it is clear now. The Senate is trash. They spent hours on something completely useless which they probably felt was greatly important. They don't do shit for students and their air of pretension is insanely misguided and useless.
 
For SA to amend Title XXI they'll need 14 votes...not sure they can get that.

Annalyn Terre actually chose to resign, I believe, at the time she was facing removal charges. I even think then-EVP Christine Lee sued herself to try and stop the removal charges. She missed a number of Senate meetings due to a personal tragedy, and missed even more when some shady folks tried to occupy her past the 7:20 roll call.

As for the Senate being trash, I wouldn't speak so soon. I would definitely say that a handful of Senators wasted the Senate's time over stupid petty political bullshit. I doubt the non-SA Senators thought this was important. Some of those folks actually do want to serve the student body...though it's looking more and more like the ASUC is not the best vehicle for serving students.
 
Last night's proceedings just verify that things are working the way they should. The trial was fair and Banerjee was not impeached because the Senate did not find enough reason to impeach her.
 
fair? the senate blatantly ignored the "automatic suppression" of a witness who had been convicted of perjury in the ASUC legal system. it's real easy to ignore the rules when your political party gets to determine what is just.
 
So, the way things should work is that the Senate should spend 7.5 hours dealing with a case brought by people who didn't even understand the rules they were accusing Sonya of violating?

It isn't my assertion that they didn't know what they were talking about. Senators Rizzo, Avelino, and Averbach all explained that the Senate didn't understand the JRPs, and that that was why their case was so pathetic.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to be under the impression that Banerjee is still Chair today. That means that she didn't get removed from office because she won her case.

That seems fair to me. If the Senate decided to bring up charges frequently against J-Council members to try to impede their abilities, then the system wouldn't be working. If Banerjee had been removed without cause, the system wouldn't be working. If Banerjee had committed wrongdoing and wasn't removed, the system wouldn't be working.

The length of the meeting and timing doesn't indicate whether the system is working. Perhaps the system isn't very efficient, but it seems to be working. Namely, a faction of Senators that have no real working knowledge of the JRPs attempted a suit against an individual. She wasn't found guilty because there was no proof of guilt.

The system works.
 
The system works only because the people worked.
 
californiagrown,

you make a good point there, but that still doesn't mean the trial itself was fair (such as the rulings regarding witness testimony). maybe the system was fair, but not the trial.
 
Ben, that the system works because the people worked is how it is SUPPOSED to happen. Democracies, Republics, Democratic Republics, and other forms of constitutional government are only good when the people work to make it good.

As in the case with the Banerjee impeachment proceedings, it would have required at least 14 members of the Senate to vote against her. Given a presumption of innocence, only 7 of the 20 senators must act in a morally upright way for the system to work. That 8 Senators acted for the good of the Association is more than necessary!
 
presumption of innocence! hahah! yeah right, like Student Action did any such thing.
 
Remember that time when the plaintiffs and defendants and chair all agreed that a charge should be dismissed? And some senators still voted against the dismissal? Yeah, that presumption of innocence.
 
But I think the greater point is that even if the correct result is achieved, that doesn't mean that the system worked. Did the American democratic system work in terms of slavery? "Let's see. Slavery. Ignorance of the contradiction of slavery with the American founding documents. Bloody war. Use of military power to force unwilling governments to give up slavery... Hey, the system works!"
 
Post a Comment


. . .