Ratto v. Vakil Appeal Hearing Adjourns at 3AM
The Ratto v. Vakil appeal hearing took place at 730 Saturday night (scheduled for 645) and proceeded for eight hours. Given, about 120 minutes of that took place during Council recesses for deliberations on motions, but it was still another marathon meeting. It encompassed argumentation from both sides as well as a failed attempt by SA to recuse four of the JCouncil members, the contested recusal of a justice (Kate Feng), an introduction to Oren Gabriel’s parents, gratuitious alcohol use, commando sperm, and necrophilia. Needless to say, I want my eight hours back.
I really don’t want to editorialize about the hearing too much - basically, Oren Gabriel and Vishal Gupta (who represented Suken Vakil in the hearing) failed to present any new information not present in their briefs, and their briefs present no new information lacking in the original Ratto v. Vakil decision. It’s important to remember that, according to ASUC procedure, the burden of proof in an appeal rests on the appellant, and the appellant must prove that either a reversible error in law occurred or that an individual’s rights were quantifiably violated.
Doesn’t a reversible error in law fall under that catagory of things that doesn’t require new evidence, but rather a critique of a pervious ruling. Example being, the jcouncil violated their own JRPs and the ASUC constitution? That is according to the brief.
Comment by Anonymous — July 16, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
I forgot about the necrophilia, but the tang center did tell me I was pregnant today
Oh and you were out of the room when the council started talking about men or something, that was awkward being the only guy in the room.
I really hope all jcouncil hearings are as… entertaining… as this one.
Comment by jlmay — July 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Violation of due process is specifically referenced in the JRPs under appeal, and the requirement is that the violation had to affect the judgment.
Reversible error of law would be that the judgment itself used the law erroneously, I think.
Comment by Beetle — July 16, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
i think that’s true, in how the JRPs were used to punish suken as a litigant when he was convicted as a witness (i think it was 4.15 being used to punish him when he was convicted under 4.12 in the jrp). it seems to be a blatant misapplication of the jrps, but i just thought that was interesting and i wonder why no one thought of this before.
Comment by Anonymous — July 16, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Who votes for these assclowns, anyway?
Comment by ed — July 16, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Folks did think about that before, and it was discussed at length at the hearing.
Comment by Beetle — July 16, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Ben,
Lets not forget that you have a strong bias here. You could never become an executive through the elections. Too many people think you are arrogant. And this is honestly your last ditch effort to be placed in such a position.
I suggest that you think about your comments because you have a strong personal interest here.
Comment by anonymous — July 16, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Never comment about ANYTHING you have an interest in, Ben. That should make Calstuff a lot more exciting.
Comment by Beetle — July 16, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
help! another attack of the SA anony-bots! somebody fumigate this place, quick!
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 16, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
I was at the appeal until about 11pm, and nothing important had happened. How’d I miss the necrophilia?
BTW, does anyone know who ed from #5 is?
Comment by Ed Martinez — July 16, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
That’s Ed “Representin’ Co-ops” Martinez!
Comment by Bret Womanley — July 16, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
Yeah, Ben, isn’t the International Golden Cardinal Rule of Blogging On Teh Internets that you can only post your opinion on something if it doesn’t affect you or your daily life at all!?! (That would certainly explain American bloggers interest in Darfur).
Comment by Not John At All — July 16, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
I’m just someone else named Ed. Not Ed Martinez.
Comment by ed — July 16, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
And the original question was serious.
Who votes for Student Action? Why? Why can they count on victory year after year? All I’ve ever seen them do is act really pompous when campaigning on Sproul.
Comment by ed — July 16, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
as opposed to the random SA hating-bots that post here on a regular basis? I don’t see how ‘chet’ is less anonymous than ‘anonymous.’ I admit, unless your name is actually Chet. In that case I apologize.
Comment by another anonymous poster — July 16, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
Because Chet probably is nobody important, besides being a CEO of a major company. He has been posting under “Chet” for a long time, and that’s his identity.
Comment by Beetle — July 16, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
As for ed’s question, it’s important to realize that, for the most part, nobody gives a crap about student government. At least, not enough to actually learn about what goes on in it. Which means that getting mobbed by some SA flunky is, in fact, effective in getting folks to vote for SA, just because the voter won’t know better.
Sadly, the fact that the ASUC offers bribes to voters doesn’t help matters much.
Comment by Beetle — July 16, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
#1: I am honestly sick of you and SA supporters claiming that the J-Council can “violate their own JRPs and ASUC Constitution.” No, the Judicial Council does not make violations in the sense that they can be charged and punished for them. The Judicial Council holds the ASUC’s judicial powers, and thus it is legally authorized to make rulings however it pleases (obviously great thought is put into ASUC law and the cases at hand). I think what you are trying to say is the Council can *misapply* the JRPs and Constitution, which is why the appeals process exists. Just say it right, please.
The only way in which a *violation* can occur is if any individual Justice violates one of the statutes of Title XXI, aka: grounds for impeachment. But this does not apply to the Council en banc.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 17, 2006 @ 5:34 am
to follow up, a violation of one’s due process rights would be a sort of unfair deviation from the JRPs, which dictate the process that is due.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 17, 2006 @ 5:42 am
Ben: either post or e-mail me to explain what all of this means
P.S. I’m safely back in America, although about a third of the group I was with (inlcuding other Berkeley students) are still in Israel, so hopefully, things remain safe for them as well.
Comment by Andy R. Back in America — July 17, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
So Andy,
SA says you acted in bad faith- what’s their explanation of that?
Comment by McMike — July 17, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
#18 The problem is that the JRPs as written (or applied) might violate the ASUC Constitution. Therefore, the Judicial Council could apply the JRPs exactly as they are written and still violate someone’s rights under the ASUC Constitution. It seems pretty clear that convicting someone of perjury without a written record would violate their due process rights. The Judicial Council cannot violate someone’s constitutional rights regardless of what the JRPs allow them to do.
Also glad to hear that Andy is back safely.
Comment by Anonymous — July 17, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
stfu, SA anony-bots !
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 17, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
#21: “It seems pretty clear that convicting someone of perjury without a written record would violate their due process rights.”
I disagree. Had the Council just taken Andy’s word for it without any evidence for proof, then yes that would be a problem. However, given notes from a DailyCal reporter and witness testimony to confirm the statement, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, I think the conviction was completely fair.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 17, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
However, you are right that hypothetically the JRPs could be contrary to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and I would hope the Council would fix them if this conclusion was met.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 17, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
what is the procedure for impeaching j-council members?
Comment by another anonymous poster — July 17, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
what is the procedure for anally probing SA bots ???
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 17, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Step 1: Learn how to read rules that are easily accessible.
Comment by Beetle — July 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
Private organizations like the ASUC cannot infringe upon the bill of rights because it is not a legitimate government organization.
Comment by Anonymity — July 17, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
Anonymity, I guess you missed the discussion about FIRE’s Guide in the last thread on this topic. The ASUC is a semi-autonomous part of the UC, which is a state school. As such, various Supreme Court rulings (the basis for the Guide) hold that quasi-judicial agencies, like the Judicial Council, are bound by the due process requirements in the state and federal constitutions.
Comment by sideliner — July 17, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
OOOOOH the scary impeachment threat dund dund duhhhh…
Few things:
1) While numerous members have been impeached, none have ever been removed. Ever. Ok, last 6 years/as long as anyone can remember/ever.
2) SA may practically have a super majority in the senate, but SA can’t agree for 10 minutes together that Wurster is an ugly building. Good luck getting the numbers for removal.
3) Members of the Council look at impeachment proceedings as a badge of honor. To stand up against partisan fools for what you know is right is a coveted battle scar and never a threat. I’m disappointed no one had the stones to come after me.
Conclusion: you’re not going to get the votes for removal and even if you could the Council simply won’t care. The threat of impeachment is not a deterrent. I am quite publicly telling you (SA) to put it back in your pants, impeaching the Council is not how you’re going to win this pissing contest.
Comment by Mike Davis — July 17, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
semi autonomous =/= state action
Comment by Anonymity — July 17, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
I have a feeling that all of these anonymous posters are really the same douche bag.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 1:16 am
This has nothing to do with whether or not the ASUC is or is not a state actor. When DAAP was making THE SAME ARGUMENT Oren is making now, SA paid DAAP 15 grand to shut up and go away, because they understood the argument was dangerous for the ASUC. Now that SA is on the line they could care less what’s dangerous for the ASUC.
Comment by captain duh — July 18, 2006 @ 7:13 am
I should also point out that the Senate cannot impeach Justices for votes (aka: if they just don’t like this decision). They need deriliction/malfeasance charges against individual Justices… but the Council has acted unanimously on everything this summer.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 18, 2006 @ 8:54 am
1) I don’t think that the impeachment threats are coming from anyone who is actually part of SA or has any power in the party. If SA wanted to make impeachment an issue they would have done so a long time ago.
2) Almost everyone who has posted about the state actor/ASUC autonomy issue is totally misinformed. The ASUC has an incredibly complex and longstanding relationship with the University and it is almost impossible to speak with any confidence about ASUC autonomy unless you know the full history.
3) The real issue right now is whether the Judicial Council is going to have the courage to recognize that their previous actions violated the ASUC Constitution. Hopefully, they will realize the importance of enforcing the Bill of Rights even when they have nothing but contempt for those whose rights they are protecting.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 9:17 am
#7:
Just a couple quick corrections -
1) None of what has happened to the SAES has been “my effort”. AG Royer, Justin Azadivar, Andy Ratto and, to a greater extent, Suken Vakil are the people you need to be mad at. I didn’t get involved in this until Andy went to Israel, and asked me to complete the last bit of the case for him.
2) I would consider your claims of arrogance but I already know that I have to be twice as modest as you are.
*note the sarcasm*
Comment by Ben N. — July 18, 2006 @ 9:30 am
#34 = another SA anony-bot !
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 18, 2006 @ 9:32 am
#34 is one of the most smartest posts EVER on calstuff
Comment by chet sucks — July 18, 2006 @ 9:38 am
Chet, please grow up. You’re like the ignorant republican (calm down just an example) who doesn’t want to watch anything except Fox News because you don’t like what the other channels are broadcasting. Simply realize that these threads would suck without such lively discourse.
Comment by another anonymous poster — July 18, 2006 @ 9:48 am
Repeatedly making baseless assertions that the Judicial Council violated the constitution does not qualify as intelligent discourse. (But I’m glad I’m gaining such a fan section.) Why don’t you SA anony-bots at least use unique screen names so I can tell you apart? Well, peace out, I have to direct a multi-billion dollar international hostile takeover this afternoon, so I’ll talk to you again tomorrow.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 18, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Impeachment would be sure to be well received in the Berkeley campus if issued by a party that received an adverse ruling against the justices that contributed to that ruling.
That would also really help with 2007’s election season.
Comment by Paul — July 18, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Bobby is only half right about impeaching folks for their votes: While the rules prevent the Senate from doing so, the Senate has never felt particularly bound by the rules.
Comment by Beetle — July 18, 2006 @ 10:21 am
I’m so sick of hearing about this damn ASUC crap. Do you guys REALLY care about it? I mean REALLY?
Please, post more stuff for your alumni audience!
Comment by J — July 18, 2006 @ 11:48 am
Ben, I think you think you need to post a cupcake analogy here. Sprinkles are preferable!
Comment by Calaholic — July 18, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
#36, I was with ya until that last sentence. The Judicial Council has not displayed contempt for anyone. In fact, they have bent over backwards to accomodate Student Action despite their petulant behavior and disregard for the formality due to the Council, its procedures, and ASUC law in general (although I understand Vishal and Oren have been nice since the judge rejected their TRO request). Come on, how can you say the Council has contempt for the SA Exec Candidates and not vice versa, considering who released EO#7 and its ridiculous cover sheet and who tried to withdraw from the appeal and yet was still allowed to follow through with it.
I don’t have to argue very hard to prove my point, you ingrate.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 18, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
I think she meant it in the same way one shows contempt for God by not obeying His commands.
Comment by Beetle — July 18, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
#46, you misunderstood my last sentence. I was speculating that the Council does not like Suken very much. I believe that the Judicial Council could show a lot of moral strength and gain a lot of credibility by being willing to enforce the protections of the ASUC Constitution even through they dislike Suken and probably think that he was not truthful with them.
I also think Oren and Vishal deserve a lot of credit if they’ve been nice recently (as you suggested, I have no idea about this). They know that they have a slam-dunk case if this thing goes to court and a lot of people in their position would probably not trust the Judicial Council at this point. I won’t argue that they’ve acted perfectly, but I would encourage you to try thinking about this issue from their perspective (they weren’t even named in the lawsuit) and maybe you can understand some of their frustration.
I’m also willing to bet that ANY lawyer you talk to will tell you that the Judicial Council made some very serious (although probably unintentional) mistakes. Have you talked to Mark Himelstein? My guess is that he would also agree that the current decision cannot stand. I really hope, for the sake of the ASUC, that the Judicial Council is getting advice from someone with a law degree and that this thing can be resolved outside of Superior Court.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
they deserve credit? after EO#7 and the appeal withdrawal letter? sorry, i don’t follow. i will never give someone credit who takes a shit on the ASUC and then puts a newspaper over it to cover the smell.
and yes, they weren’t explicitly named as defendant in the charge sheet, but the charges against them were very clear in the rest of the document.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 18, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
I’m going to love watching the jcouncil get impeached. I’ll bring popcorn! Who’s got the soda!?
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
#49 – You’re unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing on the part of the Judicial Council totally undermines your credibility.
The issue in this appeal is NOT Student Action’s behavior; it’s the actions of the Judicial Council. Do you really think that the Judicial Council made NO mistakes? Do you really think that their actions were consistent with due process of law and did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy? I’ll bet you can’t find a single person with a law degree who would agree that the Judicial Council did not make some serious mistakes.
Maybe Suken deserves to be punished. I have no idea. But the point is that the punishment handed down by the Judicial Council violates the ASUC Constitution. I think everyone will have a lot of respect for the Council if they have the courage to admit they made some mistakes and to issue a new judgment that conforms to the Constitution. There are some very smart people on the Judicial Council and I am sure they can think of an appropriately harsh punishment for Suken if they really believe that he deserves to be punished.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
51–I’ve found more than a couple people with a law degree who agree with the JCouncil’s decision…I’m psyched to work with them should it be necessary to preserving the functioning of the ASUC in the near future…
More importantly, I don’t think that overturning the decision would lead to more respect for the JCouncil. As is my general policy, I leave it to them to interpret the Constitution, By-laws, and JRPs, but if overturning the decision is the wrong thing to do (and I thoroughly believe that it is) the effect will be something more along the lines of making all campaign violations meaningless and encouraging rampant cheating during elections.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 18, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
So far, we haven’t been able to find a single person who thinks the decision was wrong. At least, not one willing to identify herself. Go figure.
Yes, the Judicial Council would show great strength by doing what I say. Frankly, though, I’d rather see Student Action show that strength. In fact, I want to see everyone in the world show that strength.
Comment by Beetle — July 18, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
#52 – I highly doubt that anyone with a law degree would honestly believe that sanctioning individuals who were not party to a case comports with due process of law.
I also couldn’t disagree more that the Judicial Council’s interpretations of the law should never be questioned. Every year thousands of judicial decisions (authored by very smart and accomplished judges) are overturned in appellate courts. Nobody looks down on these judges or assumes they willfully misinterpreted the law. The Judicial Council is in the extremely unique position of having to hear an appeal of their own decision but I believe in the end that the will make the right decision and acknowledge that their punishment was improper.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Sure the Council can find a way to punish Suken, it’s not like he’s graduated or anything. And it’s not like he had someone else’s authorization to lie to the ASUC.
(dramatic pause)
People with law degrees have studied US law, not ASUC law. Saying the Judicial Council made a bad decision simply because a Big People lawyer says so is like saying the French Supreme Court made a bad decision because Judge John Doe of the Fifth Circuit says so. The Council may well have made a bad decision, people get things wrong even in Big People Court, but you have to criticize them within the context of the rules they’re applying. The double jeopardy question is a problem I grant you, and one worthy of appeal, and I’m curious to see how they deal with it.
If ASUC rules violate real law there is really no way for the Judicial Council to know, they haven’t studied real law. They have studied ASUC rules and should apply them as faithfully as they can. If doing so violates real law then the ASUC rules should be changed, which is a legislative responsibility, not judicial. Impeaching members of the Council isn’t going to change the rules. If you want their rulings to change, change the rules, not the people. New people will issue the same rulings if the rules don’t change. Believe me, Council decisions would not be 95% unanimous if the rules were ambiguous.
Comment by Mike Davis — July 18, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
The double jeopardy question was handled as follows:
Appellants quote the section which mentions it in the charge sheet while discussing “witness against himselfness” for Suken. No mention of double jeopardy is made besides presence in the same sentence of the constitution.
Same for the brief.
When the hearing comes along, they bring up a double jeopardy argument. Judicial Council overrules an objection from the respondents, who come up with a defense during three minutes of recess. We’ll see how convincing it was.
Comment by Beetle — July 18, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
#51: Nobody asked me what I thought of the Judicial Council’s decision. I am commenting on their behavior through this whole process, which has been respectful, mature, and commendable especially given the inflammatory circumstances.
Anyway, I think my four years of service to the ASUC reflects more on my credibility than my remarks on CalStuff or ignorant accusations made by anonymous commentors.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 18, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
#56: Interesting, what objection was raised?
Comment by bobby gregg — July 18, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
#53, I believe the decision was wrong
How bout them apples
Comment by hey dude — July 18, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
#55. I am impressed that you’re willing to admit that the Council may have made a mistake.
However, your point about “real” law is flawed on multiple levels because the ASUC does not operate in a vacuum. The ASUC exists in California and therefore must follow relevant US and California law. Under California law the ASUC has an obligation to follow its own rules and procedures and the Judicial Council cannot violate the ASUC Constitution under any circumstances (the fact that they help interpret this document does NOT give them complete immunity). The ASUC is also bound to follow additional requirements as a result of its relationship to the UC and the State of California. Therefore, the opinion of “Big People” lawyers is extremely important in resolving the current issue.
I also agree that members of the Judicial Council shouldn’t be expected to know American law. However, they do have an obligation to seek the assistance of competent counsel when such issues arise. The ASUC Constitution requires the Judicial Council to have a legal advisor familiar with American law because otherwise the Judicial Council could open the ASUC to serious legal liability. This is why the advice of people like you and Bobby, while given in good faith, could ultimately be extremely damaging to the ASUC. I would suggest that you talk to Mark Himelstein and see what he has to say about the current matter.
Finally, I agree with you that impeaching members of the Judicial Council won’t solve anything as long as they are acting in good faith.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Mark Himelstein’s advice was “don’t follow the rules of the ASUC.” Not impressive.
Bobby, the objection was on relevance, as well as propriety of deviation from the JRPs (which describe the charge sheet as listing the specific complaints)
Comment by Beetle — July 18, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
#60: Where does the ASUC Constitution require the legal adviser be “familiar with American law”? I don’t believe the Constitution mentions anything about a Judicial Council adviser. That said, advice on U.S. law is very useful in these situations, and the Council has sought such advice in the past and I am sure they are seeking it now. Mark Himelstein is the person who deals with this stuff.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 18, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
#62 - Article XIII, Section 2 of the Constitution points to the importance of the Judicial Council advisor being familiar with American law. This is not an accident.
Comment by Anonymous — July 18, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
#60, you misrepresent me. I’m not going to comment on whether or not the ASUC is a state actor, that is immaterial to my point.
The ASUC is clearly bound by external laws, but it is not the Judicial Council’s responsibility to determine to what extent it is bound, or to adhere to those external laws. If the Council is acting in good faith and applying the rules as they should be applied and that is damaging to the ASUC, then the ASUC should be damaged because the organization is a fault for setting up the system under which the Council is operating. And then it should be fixed, but done so according to the will of the students because such fixing requires political determinations that are left to the legislative arm of the ASUC.
Comment by Mike Davis — July 18, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
#63 -
Why do you say so? This is the text of your citation:
“All questions of interpretation of this Constitution, except for Section 6 of Article IV, shall be decided by the Judicial Council, which may be advised by a member of the faculty of the School of Law, or of the Political Science Department or a closely related department, or a practicing attorney. Any advisor shall be designated by a majority of the members of the Judicial Council.”
It is important to note two things:
1) The sole utility of the advisor is to aid in the interpretation of the ASUC Constitution. The need for actual legal advice is in no way explicit, and your assertion is not supported by any fact.
2) The position delineates a need for someone with an understanding of rule of law, not the US Rule of Law.
In fact, the ASUC Judicial Council is not obligated by any standard to follow any law other than its own. From Article IV of the ASUC Constitution:
“SECTION 4: FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
A. To exercise the primary judicial powers of the Association, granting such judicial relief as defined by this Constitution and the By-Laws of the Association.
…
C. To review charges of violation of this Constitution, the By-Laws of the Association, and all other regulations of the Association.”
City, state, county, and federal law are not mentioned. If the Judicial Council were obligated to follow external laws, the SAES would be punished for defacing city property, since chalking city sidewalks is considered graffiti and is illegal within city limits.
In fact, your assertion brings up “real” double jeopardy issues. Should the ASUC enforce external laws, candidates could be charged twice, in two different arenas (public and private), for the same offense.
The ASUC has no business interpreting or applying real laws.
Comment by Ben N. — July 18, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
I’m not so sure how on earth student action would ever be surprised at the way many people feel about them. Do they really think people think they care about them? Actions speak louder than words. Let’s just say that this whole debacle would never have happened if years ago, certain executive officers treated those who truly helped them get to where they were with respect.
Yes, I’m serious. When you choose to reward people other than those who truly helped you get to where you are, your empire will crumble. When you have an opening for an important executive position and you decline to give it to the person who helped you the most, expect that person to be upset and withdraw support at the darkest hour. No amount of emails, lies and smiles can eliminate the betrayal.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 18, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
Ben, you really need to read FIRE’s Guide.
Comment by sideliner — July 18, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
FIRE’s “guide” is a joke. I’ve read it.
If the best response you have for me is the guidebook for a special interest group, don’t waste my time.
Comment by Ben N. — July 18, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
#61–
Do you know the specifics of how Himelstein recommended that the Council break its own rules?
Comment by Boalt Student — July 18, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Nope. But it certainly seemed implied by Sonya’s mass e-mail in response to Manny’s mass e-mail about how he wasn’t going to deal with the Judicial Council anymore.
“While Mr. Himelstein’s advice and opinions regarding the external litigation initiated by your associates are valued by the Council, we are not obligated to implement his advice to better our position against their legal action. We are obligated to uphold the ASUC Constitution, the By-laws, and the Judicial Rules of Procedure, which specifically obligate us to review the actions of ASUC officials and determine their legality.”
Comment by Beetle — July 18, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Ben, exactly what special interest do you think FIRE represents? I would have thought that any organization interested in protecting and educating about civil liberties (as indicated by the subjects and contents of their guides, and the presence on their Board of people as diverse as Alan Dershowitz, Edwin Meese, Nadine Strossen, and Paul McMasters) would have your wholehearted support.
Comment by sideliner — July 18, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
#63, thanks for pointing that out. Still, it says *may be advised*, and one of the suggested options, a political science faculty member, would probably not have expertise in the U.S. legal system.
While we are on the subject of U.S. law in ASUC J-Council decisions, hasn’t anyone noticed that all this double jeopardy stuff being tossed around only applies to the criminal legal system? The ASUC certainly does not have criminal courts.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 19, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Let me see if I can take care of this all at once:
#64. You are totally incorrect in your assertion that the Judicial Council is free to ignore external laws. As appointed officers in the Association, the members of the Judicial Council have a fiduciary duty not put the ASUC in a position where it can be harmed. This is especially true in the present case where members of the Council have the DISCRETION to impose punishments that would not create legal liability for the ASUC. You know that I am against impeachment, but I do think that ignoring the advice of counsel to the detriment of the ASUC (when the Council could accomplish their ends without harming the ASUC) is definitely irresponsible to say the least.
#65 Your statement about “real” double jeopardy demonstrates that you totally misunderstand this issue (and law in general). It is totally acceptable and fairly common for the same offense to litigated in multiple arenas. Think about OJ: he faced a criminal prosecution brought by the State of CA and a civil wrongful death suit brought by the families of the people he murdered. These two cases were based on the exact same event. In fact, an individual can be tried for different state and federal criminal violations for the same offense (for example, the perpetrators of a racially motivated attack could be charged with civil rights violations under federal law and assault and battery charges under state law). It really scares me that you are willing to argue so forcefully about something that you so clearly misunderstand.
The point about the advisor is that the ASUC Constitution uses the language of the US Constitution with respect to many important rights. Terms like “due process” are not self-evident and the role of the advisor is to help the Judicial Council understand what these terms generally mean. The fact that you totally misunderstood the meaning of “double jeopardy” (and you seem like a pretty bright guy) is exactly the reason that an advisor is necessary.
More importantly, why do you think the ASUC should be free to ignore the most fundamental protections of individual rights? You whole argument is that the ASUC is free to violate rights (that students would otherwise have) so therefore they should do it. I think that the ASUC should take an expansive view and protect the individual rights of all dues-paying members of the Association.
#72 Double jeopardy applies because it is specifically mentioned in the ASUC Constitution. It is also directly relevant in the present case in the sense that the government is seeking to impose sanctions on an individual (just like criminal law). Therefore, any punishment that sanctions the Student Action executives violates the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (even if such a punishment is allowed under the JRPs).
Do any of the members of the Council actually read this blog? Its probably important for them to know all of this stuff.
Comment by Anonymous — July 19, 2006 @ 9:28 am
I know it’s in the Constitution. The reason I bring it up is this: how can double jeopardy in the sense of the U.S. legal system (which only applies to criminal offenses) be used to compel the Council to reverse it’s default judgment? If brought to Superior Court, this would be a relevant argument — California protections from double jeopardy would probably not extend to the ASUC’s actions, since the ASUC (even if a state actor) does not have criminal courts.
As I’ve said many times before, the Judicial Council has always had a good relationship with the ASUC attorney, so the Justices are well-advised on U.S. legal matters. However, the ASUC attorney does not have any Constitutional authority to make decisions for the Council — they have to weigh his advice with their knowledge of ASUC law to make sound rulings. If the ASUC attorney advises the Council to deny the rights of a petitioner in order to better their stance in Superior Court, then I am proud that the Council would prioritize the rights of the ASUC member. And you know what, considering the decision on EO8 and the judge’s rejection of the TRO, I would say the Council’s recent actions were quite successful.
Before you start, the Council has not yet had a chance to weigh in on any advice regarding double jeopardy. Any public recommendations made by the ASUC attorney about the double jeopardy issue in Ratto v. Vakil, after the ruling was issued, have yet to be affirmed or denied by the Council since we haven’t yet seen the appeal ruling. Should be interesting.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 19, 2006 @ 9:53 am
#72 - that was brought up in the hearing. it’s argued that double jeopardy is a violation of due process, which is guaranteed
Comment by jlmay — July 19, 2006 @ 10:22 am
As much as I’ve stayed out of this whole debate, I do have to call bullshit when it is just unavoidable. Let me filter through the rhetoric and summarize the meaning behind all of the murky pontification.
IN RESPONSE TO ANONYMOUS #73
Your response to #64 is essentially saying that the JC should be making their rulings based on what will keep the ASUC from being sued, rather than ruling on their interpretation of the Constitution (which is their sole job responsibility and obligation) regardless of external peripheral factors such as people not liking the ruling and suing. While that makes practical sense, it goes against everything that the JC and any other judicial body stands for. A judiciary cannot be swayed and held hostage out of fear of litigation or other retaliation by someone they might rule against. That would keep most judges in the world from handing down punishment to people who really deserve it.
Your response to #65 is your way of trying to unilaterally assert that you are an expert at all this, and that you know more than everyone here. You claim you understand how double jeopardy works in US law and that it works exactly the same in ASUC law.
It also glosses over the case at hand and assumes it is obvious that double jeopardy occurred. (It’s a validly debateable assertion indeed, trust me, but is not to be taken as granted at this moment).
Your response to #72 contains a “therefore” assertion without any previous argumentation that brings the flow of logic towards that conclusion. You said that double jeopardy is mentioned in the ASUC constitution, THEREFORE the judgement DQing SA was double jeopardy. A freshman on his first day of Rhetoric 1A would laugh at that kind of logic.
Your final statement, “Do any of the members of the Council actually read this blog? Its probably important for them to know all of this stuff.” is your pompous way of saying that the JC is not informed of the rule of law and of the ASUC constitution, and that they should listen to some anonymous flunky on a blog for direction on how to make their rulings.
I, therefore, call BULLSHIT!
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — July 19, 2006 @ 10:27 am
To Anonymous #73,
Just FYI, I’d be careful about correcting Mike Davis about what the JC can and should do. If you didn’t know, he was on the JC for 4 years, and the chair for 2 years. He knows his stuff.
’tis all.
Comment by Morbo — July 19, 2006 @ 11:23 am
#74. Let me see if I can clarify my points:
1) My primary argument is that the decision (as it currently stands) violates the ASUC Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy. I think everyone agrees that this is a serious argument that the Council will need to consider.
2) Double jeopardy could become an issue in Superior Court because the court has the power to find that the Judicial Council violated the ASUC Constitution (including its prohibition against double jeopardy). This would be a violation of CA law since the ASUC is bound to follow its own internal rules. Additionally, the Superior Court does NOT have to accept the Judicial Council’s ruling (even though the Council has the responsibility to help interpret the Constitution) and will likely make its own determination about this issue.
I also want to clarify something: I am NOT suggesting that the Judicial Council should ignore or violate ASUC rules in order to improve the ASUC’s case in Superior court. I am simply pointing out the fact that the Judicial Council should consider: 1) that the disqualification of the Student Action executives is unconstitutional (according to my reading of the ASUC Constitution, which certainly isn’t foolproof) and 2) that if the disqualification is not reversed then the ASUC will almost certainly lose in Superior Court. This is important to consider because the disqualification was NOT mandated anywhere in the Constitution, By-Laws, or JRPs. The Council imposed this sanction by arguing that they have BROAD DISCRETION to impose punishment. If you accept their argument, then they are free to impose a different punishment that would be constitutional and free the ASUC from the threat of legal liability. In this way, they can achieve their purpose of punishing Suken, respect the constitutional rights of members of the Association, and ensure that the ASUC does not have to go to Superior Court. To me this seems like a much preferred outcome.
Finally, my purpose here is simply to point out that there is some important background information that the Council should consider when making its decision. I think that when you consider this information it becomes much clearer that the Judicial Council needs to amend its decision. I was suggesting that someone pass this along to them because I think that there are some good arguments on both sides.
Comment by Anonymous — July 19, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
That’s why you file a brief with them. Of course, to do so, you’d have to put your name to it, which I guess you don’t want to do.
I don’t see how you think a different punishment could be given. There is only one punishment the Judicial Council can issue.
Comment by Beetle — July 19, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
There is only one punishment the Judicial Council can issue..
Wrong, Beetle. The By-Laws provide (18.4.3) that in case the Judicial Council finds (after the tabulation) “mismanagement, or that there was an unpunished violation, the ASUC Judicial Council may void the election on the grounds that the mismanagement or the unpunished violation substantially affected the outcome of the election.” As I read the By-Laws, this is the only option the Council has after the tabulation, and it can impose it only if it finds “that the mismanagement or the unpunished violation substantially affected the outcome of the election.”
Comment by sideliner — July 19, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
We all know how you read the by-laws. That doesn’t punish Suken or Student Action, it just wastes a lot of money.
Comment by Beetle — July 19, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
Well, then, your option is to push for an amendment of the By-Laws so that the Council can act within them should this situation arise again. Calling for action outside the By-Laws is unwise.
Comment by sideliner — July 19, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
Tell it to Himelstein, then. Those of us who actually worked to deal with the issue were careful to remain within in the bylaws.
Comment by Beetle — July 19, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Those of us who actually worked to deal with the issue were careful to remain within the bylaws.
We’ll see about that, won’t we?
Comment by sideliner — July 19, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Given Beetle’s prolific career as an anti-SA litigant…I don’t think he cares for any sensible alternatives within the scope of the by-laws. They must be disqualified, goddamnit!
Shucks, Beetle, it sure upsets you that people are posting anonymously. You never stop griping about it.
Comment by also anonymous — July 19, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
“Shucks, Beetle, it sure upsets you that people are posting anonymously. You never stop griping about it.”
I’m with Beetle on this one - cowardice is rather annoying.
Comment by Morbo — July 19, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Cowardice is not the issue whatsoever. My personal preference is to be known as “also anonymous” and that’s simply the way it will be. I think that suits our purposes of discussion. Morbo? That’s just another name for “anonymous” as far as I’m concerned since I have no idea who you might be. But I’m okay with that, because whatever name anybody chooses to be is the least important part of what we’re doing here.
Comment by also anonymous — July 19, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Beetle’s prolific career as an anti-SA litigant?
Some of you must not have long-term memories that go past three months.
Comment by Ben N. — July 19, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
“Morbo? That’s just another name for “anonymous” as far as I’m concerned since I have no idea who you might be. But I’m okay with that, because whatever name anybody chooses to be is the least important part of what we’re doing here.”
I used to have my email and website linked…no longer for some reason. Some people know who I am, and if anyone asks I’m glad to say. My name is Ethan Lutske, and I’ve never done anything for the ASUC besides vote.
And you are?
Comment by Morbo — July 19, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
I’m the unholy incarnation of Suken, Manny, Oren, Vishal, and Bret in a single form, if you must know.
Comment by also anonymous — July 19, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
“I’m the unholy incarnation of Suken, Manny, Oren, Vishal, and Bret in a single form, if you must know.”
I don’t really understand why people are afraid/unwilling to say who they are. Shame? Fear? Self-satisfaction of anonymity? I really don’t understand. It’s like a 4th grader’s fascination with hiding in his locker and looking at people without them knowing. Pretty immature.
Comment by Morbo — July 19, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
probably Suken told them to post anonymously, so their lies can’t be used as evidence. f*ck SA.
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 19, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
#89, im not the same anonymous person you were asking, but here’s my reason:
there, im no longer another anonymous poster. I’m jack ‘f*ng’ bauer from now on. ethan lutske? that’s pretty much the same as anonymous as far as everyone’s concerned. no offense meant at all, but it doesn’t matter if your name is revealed because as you pointed out yourself, you’re not important (asuc concerned, that is).
Jack Bauer has been to Mars. Thats why theres no life on Mars.
Comment by jack bauer — July 20, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
“ethan lutske? that’s pretty much the same as anonymous as far as everyone’s concerned. no offense meant at all, but it doesn’t matter if your name is revealed because as you pointed out yourself, you’re not important (asuc concerned, that is).”
Exactly. I’m not important - I have no biases. I actually have a slightly pro-SA bias, you’d imagine. I was a Cal Patriot editor and voted to endorse Oren for President. I admit my name to reveal any biases people might percieve.
Can you say the same?
Comment by Morbo — July 20, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Oh, and quite a few people on this board know me and would know my name, and in a community this small, it’s helpful to put a face and personality with people. I know where Ben is coming from, I know where Beetle and John Waste come from - I’ve met them all and know each of them, albeit in the most cursory way.
Just so happens that YOU don’t know me.
Comment by Morbo — July 20, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Oh Ethan, how cleverly you try to disguise your affection for me…just admit it, nothing screams “Presidential” quite like black out drunkeness
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 20, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Oh, and I know Lauren too - in that I met her once. But never was one man so smitten with lust so much in time so little…
Comment by Morbo — July 20, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
see now, there’s the love I was lookin for.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 20, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Oh, and I know Lauren too - in that I met her once. But never was one man so smitten with lust so much in time so little…
Ben N. has a theory as to why this occurs when Lauren comes in contact with people. Morbo, you should ask him to explain it to you sometime
Comment by Calaholic — July 20, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
just so we’re all clear, I find said theory very offensive…and for anyone who’s ever heard it, not for the reason you would think…
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 20, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
At least we know it was Morbo who posted on the Berkeley LJ “secrets” thread a while back….
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — July 20, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
ya know, Eddy, it might, in some world, be possible for me to have more than one admirer…maybe…
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 20, 2006 @ 11:21 pm