Under Fire
Nov. 24th, 2004 01:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienaut From Today (Tuesday)'s issue of The California Aggie, a letter-to-the-editor:
Letter-to-the-Editor in California Aggie by Miss Christine Schachter, Elections Committee Chair:
I have several objections to Kris Fricke's guest opinion article (see opinion, "Elections are a serious matter," Nov. 18). Fricke says he has nothing against the Elections Committee, when in fact it is extremely obvious that he has everything against the committee as well as others within ASUCD. Fricke blatantly accuses the Elections Committee of not being impartial, yet an individual of his position should have greater integrity than to make such an extreme statement without getting the facts straight. It was made explicitly clear to candidates that vulgarity would not be permitted at an ASUCD-funded event, and in no way did the Elections Committee ever refuse to generate a list of words that candidates could not use during the Senate Forum. Libelous content was removed because it placed not only the Elections Committee at legal risk, but others within ASUCD at risk as well. The Elections Committee does not endorse slanderous campaigns with ASUCD funding or any funding for that matter; and if that creates a problem with Fricke and others, they should rethink their definitions of fair, impartial and unbiased.
Commentary on the above by Mr. Kris Fricke, Chief Justice, ASUCD Court:
(1) I'm not going to dignify this tripe with a letter-to-the-editor response, but interested parties may find my response here and write letters-to-the-editor themselves if they feel so inspired.
(2) I think the letter's author should rethink her own definition of "libel." Actually I think she should accept the universal definition of libel. There are three irrefutable defenses against libel claims: (A) no reasonable person would believe the statement to be true, (B) there was no malicious intent, (C) the statement is in fact clearly true.
Lets review the deleted statement: "...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."
(2A) a "certain representative" of the named party did in fact plead guilty of the alleged crime last year, not only in the appropriate judicial court, but to the campus media and general public as well. The statement is clearly true and not libel.
(2B) no specific individual is named. In order for ASUCD or anyone else to be at "legal risk" there needs to be a potential legal case. In order for a legal case to proceed there needs to be a "cause of action;" a specific person must be able to prove specific damage against them. In this case no specific person has any claim to any case.
(2C) in conclusion, one does not need to be a lawyer to understand that for multiple reasons there is absolutely no threat of a libel case pursuant to the statement; one merely needs to have a basic understanding of EITHER basic legal theory or the definition of libel.
(2D) Incidently, one may notice that in making statements about me in reckless disregard for their truthfulness and with the malicious intent of implying I am unfit for my position, the author HERSELF has committed libel against me. Oh, the irony. She's lucky I don't take her seriously enough to pursue legal action.
(3) Furthermore, I think the author should "rethink [HER] definitions of fair, impartial and unbiased." Let us examine what "impartiality" and "unbiased" really mean.
(3A) I cannot comment on most members of the ASUCD government because they are all potential defendants of potential cases that could come before my Court. If I were to express an opinion about one of these individuals and they became Party to a case subsequently, there would be reason to doubt my "partiality" and suspect "bias" in the case for reasons not pertaining to the merits of the case.
(3B) As a student of UCD, I could potentially resign my position and run for office, thus I am a potential subject of the Elections Committee's jurisdiction.
(3C) It is a violation of the Election Chair's impartiality in that she names me personally four times in her letter, ascribes imagined motives to my actions, & attributes to me character traits unfit for a government official (all which I shall solidly refute here). The author has in this letter ironicly and hypocritically violated her own impartiality.
(3D) Sound unfair that I can say things about the Elections Committee and they can't say things about me? Consider this though: I was in the same position as she is when I was up for impeachment (twice, neither successful). Government officials, some of whom actully WERE defendants in cases before my Court at the time, were making wild accusations about me, and I could not and DID NOT attack them back as this author is doing. To be a public official sometimes will put one into a position where they are being detracted by persons they cannot attack back; anyone who aspires to any public office should accept this now, and hope that when it comes to them they will respond with integrity. I am proud to say that under the immense pressure I was put under almost exactly a year ago I did not violate my integrity and impartiality, and haven't come close since.
(4) Not only am I free to make statements about the Elections Committee (as they are not in my jurisdiction), but I did NOT make wild allegations of imagined motives or anything at all for that matter regarding any person of Committee. As one may recall I said more than once in my article that I had nothing against any members of the Committee and believed the problem to be institutional. Never once did I even implicate a specific person or position within the Committee.
(5) How COULD I have anything against the individual members of the Committee, as I've never HEARD of this "Christine Schachter," before, nor anyone else on the elections committee. I have never interacted with any of these individuals nor have I any knowledge of them other than the official output of the Elections Committee.
(6) The author admitted in her letter to both the "allegations" I made, I call no further witnesses to establish the veridical foundation of these statements.
(6A-i) The author claims that the Committee made it "explicitly clear to candidates that vulgarity would not be permitted at an ASUCD-funded event." Lets review the definition of "vulgar": (a) "Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement" (b) "Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish." (c) "Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious" (d) "Crudely indecent." (e) "Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular" (f) "Of or associated with the great masses of people; common."
(6A-ii) So what was "explicitly" not permitted (and I need not define THAT word to shed a little irony on her letter here)? Were they to pull the plug on all candidates who showed a lack of good breeding? Would I be violating my impartiality if I were to venture that some may have been boorish? I know some candidate's entire platform was that others were exhibiting offensively excessive expenditures. Or perhaps they banned anything associated with the great masses of the people?
And again let me remind you I wouldn't be debating the meaning of "vulgar" if the candidates hadn't made it a question beforehand, but they did and if the Committee will deny that, they cannot deny that one of the candidates publicly disputed the word that actually got him unplugged at the time and the whole room is witness to that.
(7) I "blatantly [accuse] the Elections Committee of not being impartial" even though I never once imply they favoured any candidate over any other? Clearly the author has NO IDEA what "impartial" means (see point 3 above).
(8) Though I didn't mention it at the time because I had insufficient evidence of it and didn't want to bring their impartiality into it, I'd like to note that since then major claims regarding their impartiality have been made by others, as covered in the Aggie (with witness testimony). I'd like the Committee to note that I kindly spared them derision on this the most major claim of the election & also showed my continued belief in not making statements I lack the evidence to support
(9) In conclusion I'd like to reiterate that I wrote my guest opinion not to deride the Elections Committee but to inform its members that they too can cry foul, and educate potential claimants to cases before the Committee on their rights.
I don't want to engage in a war of personal derision via the Aggie Opinion pages, but admittedly it would amuse me greatly to see any of these arguments relayed publicly. In particular I think someone ought to inform her of the true definition of impartiality before she violates herself further.
Related
Letters-to-the-Editor: November 23rd - Find Schachter's letter in its original context, as well as "ASUCD Court Should Have Power Returned," a letter by ASUCD Senator Darnell Holloway.
Guest Opinion: By Kris Fricke - (Nov 18th) to which Schachter's letter refers
California Aggie Editorial: Alleged [ASUCD] Campaign Violations Necessitates Election Reform (Nov 23rd)
Aggie News Article: "Student Focus" Potentially in Violation of Student Housing Rules - (Nov 23rd, "Student Focus" is one of the major ASUCD political parties)
Aggie News Article: Election Complaints Brought to [ASUCD] Senate - (Nov 22nd) "...ASUCD Vice President Paloma Pérez said it was not the Elections Committee's responsibility to uphold university policies, such as Student Housing-related violations..." (incidently, Election Code section 111 describes the duty of the Elections Committee to uphold universty policies, such as Student Housing-related violations...")
Aggie News Article: Evaluation of Success of Campaign Promises of Outgoing ASUCD Senators - (Nov 22nd, not original title) as you may know by now, I think accountability is an important thing. Its always good to be aware of the degree to which politicians are fulfilling their promises.
Aggie News Article: "Student Focus" Takes Three of Six Possible Senate Seats - (Nov 19th) results of our most recent election
DISCLAIMER: Echidna Media Organization associate the Honourable Mr. Chief Justice Kris Fricke takes personal responsibility for this entry. This should not be taken to imply that all other entries may also be attributed to Justice Fricke. One will find that it in no way indicates an impartiality towards any potential defendant of the ASUCD Supreme Court. Justice Fricke further requests that any individuals who wish to debate points of this entry please consult a dictionary before doing so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 02:06 am (UTC)Also, our ASUCD really needs expanding. There is practically no information available on ASUCD out there (very little history), and the only other resources seem to be your LJ and the asucd site (which has only a tiny bit of information aside from the consitution). The reason I mention this is that while people want to get involved, it takes a while to figure out exactly what is going on with ASUCD if you don't know anything about it. I remember being a Freshman/2nd year and having very little idea about how ASUCD works. ASUCD's knowledge passes on only through people and aggie articles (which are very temporial).
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 02:22 am (UTC)I'll try to elaborate on the wiki information, I completely agree that the passing on of information both currenly and to future generations of ASUCDers is vitally important to the organization's civil health.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 04:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 09:25 am (UTC)When are they going to provide ballot data for this election, anyway? I always have fun with that.
election data
Date: 2004-11-26 11:55 am (UTC)Re: election data
Date: 2004-11-26 03:59 pm (UTC)If the Elections Committee isn't doing anything wrong, what have they got to hide?
Laws are fun :)
Re: election data
Date: 2004-11-26 05:13 pm (UTC)It seems the elections committee instinctively is as unforthcoming as possible. Incidently legally speaking nearly everythign they do is be public information, including their emails between eachother about court business.
Re: election data
Date: 2004-11-26 05:13 pm (UTC)Re: election data
Date: 2004-11-28 09:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 04:12 am (UTC)