Monday, July 10th 2006
SA Court Action Against J-Council Denied
This afternoon a judge denied the request of Oren Gabriel to stop actions of the Judicial Council in the ASUC elections fiasco. While reasoning was not explained at the time, I got the impression the Judge wanted to let the appeal of Ratto v. Vakil be heard on Saturday by the J-Council.
Ben has great commentary with more details. Jeremy Koo was also in attendance.
The strongest argument I heard for the writ was the executives were punished for something done by another person and were thus unjustly affected. Since it was determined the appeal would give a second look at the punishment of the executive candidates even though not named as defendants they still have recourse inside the ASUC.
The counter to this is the bylaw stating candidates will be held responsible for the actions of their representatives.
Title 04 Elections 13.8.2
A candidate, but not his/her party, shall be considered guilty of a violation of the Campaign Rules by an agent of that candidate acting within the scope of his/her delegated authority.
The question is should the SA candidates be punished for the crime (lying to J-Council) of their selected spokesman? Are statements made in a case about elections held to the same standard as campaign actions themselves?
Prior to today’s decision, the SA candidates had refused to participate in the appeal on Saturday. I think there is a strong chance they will reconsider.
Perjury is acting out of delegated authority as a legal witness. That is why in real jurisprudence it is always a personal crime that never affects the weight of the trial question.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/10/2006 @ 6:11 pm