Stand by for lawsuits

The ASUC Attorney General has agreed to drop the charges against DAAP (settle for no censures) since there was insufficient evidence:

The charge sheet pursues three (3) censures against DAAP for a campaigning phone call and voice message that was received by a University of California, Berkeley residence hall dorm room phone at 6PM on Wednesday April 11, 2007. The charge rests upon the answering machine recording. The answering machine states the day and time of the message (Wednesday, 6PM) however, the answering machine does not provide proof of the exact date (April 11, 2007) of the message. Therefore the case must be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

...

Okay, so anyone can point out that it just doesn't matter which day the recording was on, unless Dimitri Garcia was calling folks to tell them to vote for him after the election.

This is a cave. And the worst part about the cave is that the ASUC may still be sued.

This is short-sighted, but obvious in an institution with so little memory. The ASUC shows weakness again and again, and folks constantly take advantage of it.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/09/2007 06:41:00 PM #
Comments (9)

. . .

Comments:

ok, so was that the last case? what a lame ending?

# posted by  Anonymous : 8:04 PM, May 09, 2007

 

If she reported it within the good faith period, doesn't that imply that it happened?

Also, since campaigning is, uh, illegal in the dorms, and a phone call counts as such, would it really matter when the phone message was left, unless it was after the elections were over (and why would anyone do that?).

Unless DAAP pulls Suken's magic chalk out and says they were just predicting they would run for office before they were officially running, so since it happened before they were held liable to the election bylaws they're ineligible for punishment. That would just be silly.

# posted by  kfed : 12:57 AM, May 10, 2007

 

This isn't about DAAP, it's about the ASUC trying to avoid trouble by coming up with something as ridiculous as this. DAAP didn't defend themselves to get this result.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 12:59 AM, May 10, 2007

 

it's an open question whether the evidence could have stood up. you would have to have the person testify that they received the message at that time before the election.

otherwise it could easily be a message from a previous election or something.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:03 AM, May 10, 2007

 

the case should have just been dropped anyway because there was no standing--none of the parties stand to lose or again since DAAP didn't have enough censures to get any kind of DQ (besides the fact that they lost outright).

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:03 AM, May 10, 2007

 

That's not an issue of standing, that's an issue of mootness.

My understanding was that the AG herself was going to be the witness.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 1:08 AM, May 10, 2007

 

And I don't know whether the evidence would have stood up, but it seems there is enough to actually bring the case. The reasoning given in the settlement reeks of an escape.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 1:17 AM, May 10, 2007

 

It wouldn't have mattered what happened in this case except for if DAAP decides to sue. Otherwise, they dropped out anyways... and it's not like the council rules on precedent anyways.

# posted by  Anonymous : 6:12 PM, May 10, 2007

 

If it's about ASUCk trying to avoid more lawsuits, they need to suck it up and deal with it. If they keep fearing people will take advantage of them instead of fighting-- with rules and a Constitution on their side, no less-- what incentive is there to behave properly?

Surely, countless transgendered hookers have died in Florida as a result of the ASUC's negligence in enforcing its own rules.

# posted by  kfed : 6:27 PM, May 10, 2007

 

Post a Comment