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

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, March 31, 2009
WTF, part 1

The first in today's WTF series: Nathan Shaffer accuses Michael Sinanian of perjury. Oh noes! You see, Sinanian has been whining about that libel lawsuit that John Moghtader was totally going to file against Dina Omar... eventually. He used that as his explanation for why he couldn't release the video. I'll admit being a bit mystified by this explanation, when he could have just said "I don't have control of it, so I can only release it on terms Moghtader approves," not to mention that such a lawsuit wouldn't prevent release of the video, but whatever. Let's talk about this charge sheet.

The remedy for perjury is a finding of contempt of court in the Judicial Council. I suppose he could argue he deserves a default judgment on account of it, but since Sinanian is a representative of the ASUC as a whole, it's not clear that the Judicial Council can really do so. What are they going to do? Bar him from Judicial Council proceedings? That would probably be unconstitutional, since that's essentially barring him from doing the job the Constitution assigns him to.
The charge sheet asks the Judicial Council to issue a restraining order against Sinanian preventing him from pursuing "further abusive litigation" against recall proponents.
Okay. Can he pursue nonabusive litigation? Is Shaffer expecting a ruling on whether a particular case is abusive?

More broadly, Shaffer is accusing Sinanian of providing false information to manipulate the ASUC's processes to achieve some goal. For those of you keeping score, Sinanian has accused Shaffer of the same thing. I hope the defenses are exactly the same, and Shaffer is forced to come up with some proof that Sinanian knew what he was saying was false.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 3/31/2009 05:16:00 PM #
Comments (2)
. . .

This is a great summary of the charge sheet, but it misses important distinctions between the AG's charge sheet and mine. Sinanian can be proven to have violated my due process and equal protection rights as well as Kiira Johal's order. It's actually a different standard on those points than the 'intentional' standard in Sinanian's charge. We're also only asking for a restoration of the status quo, not to overturn a properly conducted election. And we have evidence.
Sinanian doesn't have the power to violate your due process rights, because he doesn't control the process. I don't even recall an equal protection argument from you. The person preventing compliance with Johal's order is Moghtader, not Sinanian, and all he has to say is "I believed Moghtader" on the perjury claim.

If you want a more nuanced distinction between charge sheets, you're going to have to send me yours. But broad impressions are what establish narratives, and the perjury accusation makes you look like a hypocrite.
Post a Comment

. . .