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

Nap Time!!!

Thursday, March 12, 2009

As I sort of expected but think is mistaken, the Judicial Council has accepted the case. But the charge sheet has some interesting aspects.

In it, Sinanian admits that the By-Laws permit a maximum of three censures for falsifying information in the Voters Guide, short of the five needed for disqualification. And then he comes up with an astonishing paragraph:
Therefore, to abide by the tedium of the censure system outlined in the "Punishment" section would be to award the aforementioned violations with a maximum of only three censures, which is not enough to disqualify the proposition. At this point, it must go without saying that disqualifying the proposition would be the most effective way that the Judicial Council may serve the greatest justice by addressing the serious ethical breaches, validating the ASUC's commitment to fairness, and providing an equitable remedy for such transgressions.
Tedium? We'd better not have the Judicial Council abide by the tedium of the By-Laws.

Essentially, his argument boils down to "This was so serious that the By-Laws that say you can't throw out the election should be ignored." The rhetoric is flowery to the point of inducing vomit, but lacks any real basis besides "this is big, dudes!" Here's the next paragraph, but keep one of those motion sickness bags nearby:
If that alone does not comfort the Judicial Council, then perhaps they may consider the following from Clause 5 of Title IV, Article XII, Section 10, which states, "In addition to the authority granted the Judicial Council herein, it shall have equitable power to assure that the punishment levied fits the violation found to occur so as to assure a fair and just result." While this may alone give the Judicial Council unequivocal discretion to disqualify the entire proposition, it is followed by another line which may seek to moderate said discretion that reads, "Such a punishment shall be limited to the issuance of censures to the offending party to a minimum of one to the maximum amount specified in Title IV, Article XII of the ASUC By-Laws for the respective act or acts committed." To this end, let the Judicial Council consider that the case of this petition is unique in that it does not feature the same sort of transgressions that these by-laws seek to punish. It does not feature candidates making minor breaches here and there. Rather, it features an entire campaign, an entire recall election, predicated on completely falsified information, on lies. A few censures would be the equivalent of a metaphorical band-aid over a wound too great to be covered and healed by such dainty stitchery. If the Judicial Council wishes to be a true surgeon of justice, they are best inclined to employ a much more effective procedure: one that disqualifies the entirety of the proposition by either one stroke of the pen or the issuance of the maximum number of censures needed to achieve the same effect (5).
A few other interesting aspects. The charge sheet claims that Moghtader is actually trying to bring student conduct charges against the SJP members.
The videotaped evidence is available upon request from Senator Moghtader for the viewing of the Judicial Council justices only. Senator Moghtader wishes the evidence to be suppressed so that no one outside the Judicial Council may see it without authorization.
I'm not sure that's what "suppressed" means. I would also be quite impressed if the Judicial Council actually agrees to prevent even the defendants from seeing the video used to make the case against them.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 3/12/2009 01:07:00 AM #
Comments (3)
. . .
"Suppressed" in the JRPs essentially means to throw out evidence, so it's not really what the AG is asking for here. The AG's request is pretty outrageous since fundamental American jurisprudence allows the accused to confront the evidence against them. If he does insist on withholding it from the defense and only showing the j council, it will get suppressed, ie tossed out of the case as "objectionable" according to JRP "A party has not had sufficient time to examine submitted evidence, or evidence submitted at a hearing."

Will this be an open hearing like the specifity hearing was? If so, where can I look to find out its location and time? I am curious to see how the Judicial Council handles it since last time they thought the number of people outweighed a problem of specifity.
A hearing hasn't been set yet, though I'll try to post when it is. As for whether it's open, it may not be, because Moghtader wants to keep the video under wraps. Either the whole hearing will be closed, or that part will be closed, though the defendants have to see it at some point.
Post a Comment

. . .