While we’re all waiting for the ASUC Election results to be released (and CalJunket has word that we may have to wait a little while longer…), let’s enjoy this recent ruling from the Judicial Council. It concerns Presidential candidate Rebecca C. Brown (of CalJunket), an unsolicited email, and, well… click “more” to read on.

ASUC Judicial Council

Direct Judgment

Davis v. Brown

In this case, plaintiff Michael J. Davis claims defendant Rebecca C. Brown sent a “malicious, horrendous, and heinous” campaign spam e-mail on April 7, 2005, in violation of 4.13.5.2. Submitted as evidence by the plaintiff, Exhibit A shows that without a doubt, Ms. Brown sent an e-mail endorsing her “Slander and Libel” campaign for the Presidency, making such promises as “having sex in the Office of the President” and “blah dee blah.” Because this evidence was not contested, the burden of the plaintiff’s case fell on proving that the defendant did not have a pre-existing relationship with Ms. Carissa Ritner, who was included in the e-mail recipient list. Conditions b and c of 4.13.5.2 are irrelevant since the e-mail recipient list was not that of an organization.

Blah dee blah… let’s get to the good part:

During his case-in-chief, Mr. Davis asked Ms. Ritner several questions about her relationship with Ms. Brown, all to which she responded, “No.” At this point, the Council can consider three possibilities: the witness had no relationship with the defendant, the witness was very confused, or the witness had sufficient incentive to respond in the negative. In her defense, Ms. Brown claims that she in fact did have a pre-existing relationship with Ms. Ritner. The only evidence offered by Ms. Brown is her personal testimony that she and Ms. Ritner had random intimate relations at a social gathering. Upon cross-examination, Ms. Brown asked if Ms. Ritner could describe the defendant’s breasts, to which the witness responded that they are “round” and have “nipples.” Further examination by the Judicial Council brought out the fact that Ms. Ritner could not testify to the color of Ms. Brown’s nipples, which the defendant later claimed to be a “pinkish-brown.” Additionally, Ms. Ritner admitted that she did not have sexual relations with Ms. Brown.

Incidently, I was also a “victim” of the defendant… Here is a copy of the email in question so it may be viewed by future generations:

Hello people with whom I may or may not have a pre-existing relationship,

Today is the last day to vote in the ASUC elections, and I’d like to encourage you to vote for me, Rebecca “Slander and Libel” Brown for president.

What Rebecca C. Brown stands for:

- Keeping senators in their place
- Earning letters of recommendation from Chancellor Birgeneau
- Having sex in the Office of the President (on couches purchased with student money)
- Strong leadership, fiscal responsibility, wisdom, freedom, blah dee blah
- More Segways for campus police

If that’s not worth your vote, then maybe you just don’t have your priorities straight. Loser.

See you at the polls, suckas.

What would we ever do without the ASUC? Release the results already.