Case 34 Hearing - Case 35 Accepted

[aggienaut]

The ASUCD Supreme Court

CASE # 35

Laabs v. Holloway

12/06/06, accepted

WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Before: Chief Justice Fricke; Justices Harney, Aguilera, Sraboyants, & Wheat
Fricke, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court:

I. The Prima Facie Merits of the Case
   The ASUCD Constitution, Article III § 4 ¶ 4 states in part:

The President shall exclusively appoint all Directors of ASUCD Units (with the exceptions of The California Aggie and KDVS Radio) and representatives to all committees requiring student membership subject to approval by a majority vote of the Senate.

   Plaintiff alleges that in October 2006, ASUCD President Darnell Holloway appointed Steven Ostrowski to the Academic Senate Committee on Academic Freedom & Responsibility. Plaintiff alleges that Ostrowski has not since been confirmed by Senate, & that this is a committee requiring student membership pursuant to Article III § 4 ¶ 4 of the ASUCD Constitution.
   The ASUCD Supreme Court shall seek to investigate and reconcile this apparent discrepancy.

Wherefore, the ASUCD Supreme Court having taken all of the facts into consideration, writ of certiorari is hereby

GRANTED, this case is ACCEPTED
###

   We deliberated the acceptance of the above Case 35 directly prior to the Case 34 Hearing, and had the above writ (here as a word document) ready to be read to those present directly prior to commencing the Hearing.
   So the Hearing took place in the Moot Court room at UC Davis Law School, which is of course a fancy mock up of an actual court room, so that was very neat. I don't want to make any attempt to characterize the dynamic between the plaintiffs, defendants, & court or anything, but I'd be interested in any thoughts anyone from the audience had.
   I don't believe there was an Aggie reporter there. Jonathon Leathers makes an LJ post and gets a call from the Campus Editor five minutes later and a front page article in the next day's paper, but I bombard them for two weeks about what I regard as an important Court hearing and nothing. ::sigh:: And my camera is broken so I didn't get any pictures of us in action in the courtroom, which would have been nice. Someone else did though I think (Dan?)
   Once the Case 34 hearing was adjourned we had some more Case 35 points & motions.

   Anyway, as to the inevitable question of when we'll have an opinion out, the Judicial Codes say we have three academic days, which means ...... in a few weeks when next quarter starts ;)
   But really, I'm writing a paper about the stratego-economic consequences of the sanctions on Libya / motivations and consequences for lifting them; Justice Wheat is writing a paper arguing that Morganna Le Fey is actually a better person than Merlin in Le Mort d'Arthur; and I forget what everyone else is writing about but the point is we all are working on papers. So I've asked everyone to write down all their thoughts regarding the case as soon as they can just in a simple stream of consciousness manner or something, and then we'll look into making a coherent opinion about it when we get a chance.

   Anyway, this was presumably the last ASUCD Court case I'll ever preside over. As I haven't been replaced yet, I'll presumably still be Chief Justice come the beginning of next quarter (as I'm not termed out until I hit four years on the Court at the end of next quarter, and I'm not formally filing for graduation yet), though I don't intend to actually be around.


Related: PICTURES! (by Dan Xie) of: us Justices presiding; the Plaintiff's team; and the Defence team.


Completely Unrelated: Family Feud Causes Large Brawl Involving Axes, Spears, Swords, in Australia. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.


In Other News: I completely forgot that the Discovery Channel Programme I was in was scheduled to air today!!! )=

Comments

[sostrowski.livejournal.com]

You should have thrown this case out, because I haven't has a schedule meeting as of yet. I still could be confirmed before my first meeting. I also feel that I am being targeted when more powerful people on the Academic Senate haven't been confirmed either. I also feel that the the wording of the Constitution implies ASUCD committees, and that all Academic Senate representatives are desginees of the ASUCD President. In conclusion this is another Discordian effort by Laabs. I feel that in this case I should act responsible in opposing this court case.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't been confirmed, I think. Considering what I was told when I applied, I should probably be a witness in that case.

Espescially if we get to go back to the Moot Court room, which had a very awesome ambieance.

This quarter my class schedule has conflicted with court meetings, so I was excited to finally see them in action. I was so enthralled by the proceedings that I missed the beginning of class. Good stuff.

[angelicheroism.livejournal.com]

that was me, btw.

Motions

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I Re: "I feel that in this case I should act responsible in opposing this court case."

You can motion to be joindered as a Defendant, in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedures (FRCP)(which we use as a suppliment for the many things the Judicial Codes don't cover), Rule 19a. Send an email to myself & Vice Chief Coady (or just myself if you can't find his email address.. I don't want to post it out in the public here for the savage spambots) formally motioning to be joindered to the case as a defendant.

II Re: "You should have thrown this case out, because I haven't has a schedule meeting as of yet. I still could be confirmed before my first meeting."

You can motion for a summary dismissal of the case under FRCP Rule 56. As above, send an email to myself & VCJ Coady stating the motion.

Re: Motions

[sostrowski.livejournal.com]

I shall send a dismissal motion upon being confirmed today or next week.