Nice of Ted Koppel to be in the news a lot for a principled stand immediately before he speaks at Commencement.Email This Post!

Comments are broken. I'll work on it later.Email This Post!

The Pubsies wrapped up in about 20 minutes, and the awards (that matter and that I remember; necessarily related) were as follows:

The Honorable Mention for Best Publication and the Best Publication for a Newsmagazine awards went to Berkeley Political Review;

Best Literary Magazine went to Exit, a queer community mag;

Best Design went to the yearbook, Blue & Gold;

Best Graduate Publication was awarded to Berkeley Scientific Review;

The award for Best Contributing Graduating Senior, or something of that nature (essentially highest award for an individual), went to David J. Duman of the Heuristic Squelch;

And in the biggest upset in the resurrected three-year history of the awards, Best Undergraduate Publication overall went to the Heuristic Squelch after two years of Blue & Gold winnage!

Congratulations to Dave Duman, the Squelch, and everybody else I don't know.Email This Post!

If you're into a good time, come to the prestigious Publication Awards tonight at 7:30 in the Tilden Room of MLK. (Fifth Floor.) If they're anything like previous years, the Berkeley Science Review and Blue and Gold will sweep everything, leaving the Squelch and other publications to weep salty tears.

I have nothing against BSR winning; it's a great publication. But the Blue and Gold is not a student publication. It's a yearbook. They don't even do all their own layout. Apples and oranges.

Is it just me or have publications taken a step backwards this year? The only new bright spot is Bezerk. Satellite finally breathed its last, leaving Cal with no general literary magazine.

Maybe I'm just teed because some of the publications have decided that the best way to get ASUC money is to take it out of the Squelch. Lets leave aside issues of 'fairness' and 'size of audience' and go straight to tactics. Publications will be far better off by increasing the pathetic percentage of the budget that goes towards them. Right now, they're at 2.69% of the ASUC Budget, far smaller then their reach to students and level of service. Rather then pick on the biggest fish in the small pond, we'd be much better off banding together and making it into a lake.

Squelch is a big juicy budget target partly because of those color covers we have. Nobody else is in color. But we have color covers because we work our ass off selling ads. Many ads. The ASUC money just covers the fact that we have a far larger print run then the other pubs, owing to our reach. If other publications want to be trained how to sell ads effectively in Berkeley, we'd certainly be more then happy to help.

If we don't hang together....

BTW: The Daily Cal has apparently gotten upset at what I posted below over Calstuff having three reporters to their one at the Judicial Council hearing, 'Booyah.' I was kidding! Of course it's kind of silly in newspaper terms to have three reporters at one fairly minor event. Lisa is a good reporter. Email This Post!

Here's a bit on the new University Medalist.

I wonder when they announce what project won the Senior Gift Campaign. I'm still holding out hope for D) None of the Above.Email This Post!

Here's an article on the Co-ops that I'll bet most people never saw. And there's an article today in the DC about the ongoing Chateau stuff.

The University has always shown little interest in how the Co-ops are run, to my surprise. They regulate Fraternities and Sororities intensely, requiring risk management and big restrictions on partying. Yet Co-ops, which are really well known as a focal point for drug dealing + drug creation, face almost no regulation. One Co-op had a drug lab in their basement one year, and Chateau had two deaths in one year a few years back. Their parties are also laissez-faire. The University has clout; they own much of the land the co-ops are situated on. Why such a double-standard? Email This Post!

The second case was just unsealed. AG Lafata has sued DAAP for badgering witnesses and interefering with the J-Council, which could lead to an election disqualification.

The J-Council has issued a gag order on both sides of the case. It could be heard as early as Sunday.Email This Post!

Some Clarification

There are two suits before the J-Council that are under seal. The one I was referring to in my previous post was filed before the statue of limitations ran out on filing elections suit. Presumably that means it was about elections but that is only a guess.

I have another possible speculative answer to add for this one. It could be a suit filed by a "lone-ranger" who doesn't want the publicity associated with filing an elections suit. Former ASUC personages come to mind as possibilities.

I would still guess that it's SA v. CalSERVE

The other sealed suit was filed yesterday. No clue what it could be about, but probably not elections violations since the statue of limitations ran out.
It could be about the DAAP incident but that remains to be seen.

Some Possibilities for this one:

1. DAAP v. J-Council

2. Paul v. DAAP: Interfering with the J-Council

3. Someone suing Paul/SA for filing Frivolous suits. This would hinge on connecting Paul to Student Action... since the J-council couldn't really do much to Paul alone. Email This Post!

Suit Under Seal, What Could It Be?

Apart from the public suits we have all heard and read about, thanks to the coverage of my fellow CalStuff correspondents, there still remains one elections related suit that is under seal.

Going on just a hunch, I suspect it to be about CalSERVE’s alleged campaigning within a hundred feet of the Boalt Hall polling station. From what I hear, there is plenty of evidence against CalSERVE to convict them on this charge. The Attorney General tried to file this suit last week, but as we all know he was late in filing his charges.

The J-Council Rules of Procedure have very little to say about Sealed suits:

Charge sheets are not accessible to anyone other than the Justices if the plaintiff files the sheet under seal. The Council may unseal the charge at anytime.

I also think that Student Action is the likeliest party to have filed a sealed suit against CalSERVE.

So why would SA file under seal?

One Reason I can think of:

1. To avoid being counter-sued by CalSERVE. If they had something this juicy on CalSERVE, which would result in a DQ if proven, then why would they want to put themselves at risk of having CalSERVE throw the book at them? This seems like an easy way to avoid a “nuclear suit exchange”.

Of course this is just all speculation but I think this particular charge is the likeliest bet. Email This Post!

And now for my $.02 regarding the SJP trial.

Cliff’s Notes for those of you who don’t want to read the essay: The trial became highly politicalized, and unnecessarily so. Neither side presented its case very strongly; however, LaFata’s suit was stronger overall. The advantage, however, is not going to be strong enough for the JC to expel Cal-SERVE from the election. This is not to say it couldn’t have been.

To begin, let’s once again break down the charges that LaFata leveled against Cal-SERVE in this suit.

1) Violation of 4.13.2.7 of the ASUC Constitution. “Using ASUC authority, facilities, funds, or resources, including Eshleman Hall, for campaign purposes, including for long term or bulk storage of campaign materials.” The case is that Cal-SERVE’s participation in the SJP rally violated this rule.
2) Violation of 4.13.3.3 of the ASUC Constitution. “Persistently blocking any entrance or tight space, or otherwise significantly restricting the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on campus.” This charge refers to the wall that was incorporated into the SJP in protest against the barrier Israel is constructing along its border with Palestine.

To begin with, the charges should have been handled in separate hearings. All that happened is that the arguments bled into each other, making the wall charge a mere afterthought, and one that, interjected randomly, could easily confuse spectators and JC members. Not to mention that several of the arguments for both charges intersect, and the second and more minor violation inevitably is made obsolete by the other case. I’ll explain why later.

In order for LaFata to make part one of this charge work, two key facts had to be established without a doubt:

1) That the rally was conducted under the authority of the ASUC
2) That Cal-SERVE actively used the rally as a campaign tool

The authority issue was made more complicated than it seems in the hearing. In SB 68, the text of the bill clearly states that “…Students for Justice in Palestine be granted ASUC sponsorship for the 2003-2004 academic year as a first-year Student Activity Group.” So, there is specific record of ASUC granting sponsorship to the SJP. The passage of this act granted SJP the ability to act with the authority of a group acknowledged and protected by the ASUC. This links the ASUC to SJP until a mutual agreement is made to end the sponsorship. Anything SJP does or doesn’t do is done partially in the name of the ASUC, whether it chooses to associate with it or not. According to this definition, SJP acted with the sponsorship and authority of the ASUC to put on its rally. If those with authority plan and actively participate in the rally, than the rally itself uses such authority. Therefore, the April 9th SJP rally was conducted under the authority of the ASUC.

This interpretation was challenged by Cal-SERVE counsel, who argued that the action was not specifically endorsed by the ASUC, and therefore was not an ASUC-sponsored event. No ASUC money went to the event, and no SJP endorsement flyers had “ASUC Sponsored” on them. This argument has some legitimacy, but it limits authority and sponsorship solely to the context of funding, an incorrect and dangerous precedent to set. In my opinion, this interpretation is weak at best. However, during the trial, Paul LaFata did not exactly drive this point home for his case, leaving some gray area and room for personal interpretation on the part of the JC.

On to the second key fact. Did Cal-SERVE actively campaign at the rally? From my personal account, yes. Cal-SERVE candidates had choreographed flag and sign activity with speakers on stage. Cal-SERVE workers handed out flyers in the crowd while speakers from the party spoke. There were several supporters with t-shirts and pins as well. It seemed to be a coordinated effort to campaign, using the rally as a springboard to do so.

LaFata’s case had evidence of Cal-SERVE campaigning at the rally; however, it lacked enough definitive proof to prove that candidates used the SJP rally for campaigning. The video evidence LaFata had showed only the three speakers from Cal-SERVE, and only Renita Cheney mentioned her party, or wore a party t-shirt. (Note: she also carried a stack of her own flyers to the podium when she spoke: proof that she was actively campaigning. No mention of this was mentioned during the hearing.) No simultaneous activity was shown, and this alone is not enough to demonstrate a party campaign effort. Some pictures were submitted as evidence that showed campaigning, but once again, not in conjunction with the rally. All of LaFata’s eyewitnesses were from IAC and were linked to miscellaneous SA campaigns, and the Cal-SERVE counsels did a sufficient job destroying most of their credibility. Therefore, the links LaFata could draw between the rally and Cal-SERVE were vague at best. The best thing he did was mention that Cal-SERVE and DAAP were the only parties that actively associated with the rally. BU and SA actively disassociated themselves with the rally, drawing a distinction between them and Cal-SERVE. But it still doesn’t completely tie Cal-SERVE to the rally, an association that must be made for the case to work.

Despite his shortcomings in taking the offense, the defensive aspects of LaFata’s case were structured so well enough that by this point, it seemed CalSERVE counsel was making up things to argue against. It challenged the definitions of the words “authority”, “sponsorship”, “campaigning”, etc. None of this bickering did much to draw reasonable doubt, but it did help contribute to the gray area that LaFata allowed to be created.

So far, it seems cut-and-dry in some respects. Cal-SERVE used the rally as a campaign tool, the rally can be considered an extension of ASUC authority because it was performed by an ASUC-sponsored group; therefore, Cal-SERVE used ASUC authority as a campaign tool. But there are, as there always are, complicating factors that were alluded to during the trial, but brought up specifically by observers of the trial.

First, it is possible that a ruling against Cal-SERVE would violate the First Amendment, in that in violated its right to peacefully assemble. Yvette Falarca dwelled on this issue in a conversation with me after the trial. While this point has some merit, I don’t believe that the violation would be relevant, solely because of the hybridized public/private status of the ASUC. As a private non-profit group (definition of union), the ASUC is free to exercise certain restrictions on election speech. I do not necessarily support this, especially since the ASUC by-laws also promote freedom of speech. However, the laws in place are set up to prevent corruption and graft, with student groups throwing support to political parties for the purposes of garnering more budgets in the next financial committee meeting. The free speech argument could have been utilized by the defense to bolster its case, yet it was hardly mentioned.

The other complicating factor would be the consciences of the justices. The defense has proved its case, but not overwhelmingly so. Is the evidence present enough to justify the removal of the party from the election? Taking into account all that I saw at the rally, yes. But using only the evidence presented by LaFata… probably not. Ultimately, that is how I see the case concluding. Cal-SERVE gets off because the evidence is substantive enough for conviction, but not enough to meet the penalty of the crime.

Now, the wall case. In order to win, LaFata needed to prove the wall completely blocked traffic in an area, and that this wall was tied to Cal-SERVE. The issue of Cal-SERVE/rally linkage has been discussed already, and is provable to at least a limited extent. As far as traffic goes, I witnessed traffic walking around the wall and staying on the same path… it served about as much practical purpose as the Great Wall of China: a hindrance, but not a complete block. But, the JC won’t let LaFata walk away from this trial without something. JC will find in favor of LaFata, Cal-SERVE will get its three censures (a slap on the wrist), LaFata will get his moral victory and ego trip, and the elections will move on with the regularity expected of an ASUC election. That is to say, none.

Next JC hearings will be Wednesday, 530, in the Senate Chambers.
Email This Post!

Last night's hearings were delayed for about half an hour because of some schoolyard antics by--ironically--a non-student.

Luke Massie, a balding, bearded man ostensibly representing Yvette Fellarca of the Defend Affirmative Action Party, was making allegedly threatening faces at the witnesses for the prosecution during their testimony. Judicial Council Chair Mike Davis abruptly called a five-minute recess during defense's cross-examinations, and upon returning, Senior Associate Justice Bobby Gregg asked Massie if he would kindly refrain from making faces and trying to intimidate the witnesses. Massie responded by sticking out his tongue. Davis slammed his gavel, cancelled the hearing, and retreated to the second floor of Eshleman, Council in tow.

After about ten minutes, a representative was sent down to negotiate. The Council made available two possibilities:
1) Luke Massie, now held in contempt of court, could leave and allow the proceedings to resume; or
2) He could stay and the Council would continue its deliberations entirely behind closed doors.

After a bit of obligatory First-Amendment protesting and threats to appeal, Massie agreed to leave, paving the way for the return of the Council and the resumption of what would be more than three more hours of testimony.

During the interim confusion, immediately after the J-Council left and before the deal was announced, CalSERVE and DAAP party members mingled and talked. When they noticed me taking notes, "Brent" came over to intercept me. He offered to tell me "whatever [I] need," so long as we walked conveniently out of earshot of the main CalSERVE/DAAP throng.

When Brent was unsuccessful, shushing motions were made and everybody shut up. The only interesting thing I could pick out, though, was a CalSERVE official assuring Luke Massie that "we all know this is fuckin' bullshit," but that it would be easier if he left. Still, I get the impression that at least some of their conversation was potentially incriminating if they were so eager to keep even a doofy freshman writing for a weblog from writing down their words.

Some other items of note:

> Paul LaFata's got a nice lawyer-voice. It's loud and booming, but not unnecessarily so; very good at commanding attention. Drawback: when he momentarily loses his train of thought or pauses, it's that much more jarring.

> Paul LaFata really likes saying "that is to say" a lot. I suppose it would be awkward to say "i.e." in conversation.

> The proceedings reminded me, in general, of the briefly-aired fourth "Law & Order" spin-off, "Crime & Punishment," which disastrously featured real-life courtrooms instead of those populated by actors.

> LaFata misidentified Jenn Chon as a man. She is, in fact, a woman.

> Mike Davis has a world-class ability to slouch in his chair and look surly. That said, he does simultaneously manage to look very important and professional. Additionally, once Council took a much-needed break to get snacks and drinks, Davis was in a much better mood.

> After about 10 minutes of back-and-forth, trying to figure out where some of the witnesses actually were during the SJP demonstration with fruitless verbal descriptions of spatial relationships, Paul LaFata suggested someone draw an actual map of the demonstration What proceeded was a nine-minute attempt to chicken-scratch a rough map on the whiteboards behind the Council.

> Mike Davis, Boy Scout for nine years that he was, came prepared with dry-erase markers. He made sure whoever was drawing had a different color when they needed one so that their map wasn't too confusing.

> Paul LaFata has big shoes, and, presumably, feet.

> There also seemed to be an Associate Justice who looked remarkably out of place. He was sitting at the far right side of the J-Council table, wearing jeans, a T-shirt, tennis shoes, and a black baseball cap. Not quite professional attire. It turned out he was Attorney General last year.

> A video was played that showed Renita Chaney, CalSERVE presidential candidate, wearing a CalSERVE shirt and mentioning that she was part of CalSERVE. It also showed a student reading a truly awful poem about the US-Mexico border. Because Council's (and the Senate's) chambers lacks a projection screen of any sort, the tape was played on a tiny television around which huddled all 30 or 40 people in attendance. Council was mildly amused.

> Perception vs. Reality was a big theme, as in the difference between the questions, "What were they saying?" and "What did you perceive them to be saying?" More than one objection was sustained on those grounds, let me tell you.

> One of CalSERVE's gallery members wore a T-shirt that had the word "Cronic" written on it in the font Corona beer uses. To be fair, it may not have been a tacky reference to marijuana at all, but rather a tragically truncated allusion to Gabriel García Marquez's novella, "Crónica de una Muerte Anunciada," or "Chronicle of a Death Foretold."

All in all, as I posted this morning, while the hearing was very enlightening at (very few) times, I'm no longer so certain Paul LaFata and his wide, disarming grin will come out on top. He puposely didn't focus on SJP's funding, instead basing his case on the fact that such funding invariably gives student groups the ASUC's sponsorship and allows them to act under its umbrella of authority. It by no stretch of the imagination is easy to predict in this instance, especially as I found the defense counsel to be nearly wholly incompetent. Nevertheless, the outcome of this case may not be what seemed the inevitable conclusion to many of us when Renita Chaney got up and spoke all those weeks ago.Email This Post!

I'd like to point out that I had THREE Correspondants at the SJP Hearing last night. Suck it, Daily Cal!Email This Post!

Closing arguments in Paul LaFata's case against CalSERVE are just wrapping up. The case, regarding alleged campaign violations--including presidential candidate Renita Chaney's speech--at Students for Justice in Palestine's April 9 rally, is finally winding down. After more than four (4!) hours of often animated, pointless, boring, impactful, controversial, ridiculous, hilarious, and grumpy testimony, we're that much closer to finding out if CalSERVE gets disqualified.

I and my CalStuff comrades will be posting more detailed write-ups of the trial in the coming hours, but from what I've seen so far, it's by no means the slam-dunk case it once seemed.

As Matt Drudge would say, "Developing..."Email This Post!

While comments are fucked up, you can view them by clicking 'check master server..' on the bottom of the comments page.Email This Post!

Update on the below about SJP Sponsorship:

SJP, ironically, only became recognized as a first year ASUC Sponsored Student Group this fall. The relevant bill is SB 68, which passed in mid-October.

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE (SJP)

WHEREAS, SJP has been an OSL registered student group for two years; and

WHEREAS, SJP is a diverse group of students, faculty, and community members at the University of California, Berkeley, organized on democratic principles to promote justice, human rights, liberation, and self-determination for Palestinian people; and

WHEREAS, SJP welcomes individuals of all ethnic and religious backgrounds to join in solidarity and rejects all forms of hatred or discrimination; and

WHEREAS, SJP activities include educational events, nonviolent demonstrations, and events to increase awareness around the issue of justice in Palestine; and

WHEREAS, in previous years, SJP events have been attended by hundreds of students, staff, faculty, and community members;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Students for Justice in Palestine be granted ASUC sponsorship for the 2003-2004 academic year as a first-year Student Activity Group.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC Senate allocate $200 (two hundred dollars) from the Sen¬ate Contingency Fund to Students for Justice in Palestine.

It passed 15-0-2Email This Post!

Are people having trouble commenting? Let me know.

Email This Post!

Is SJP ASUC Sponsored?
Thanks to Andy J for this catch.

One of the most important issues in former Senator Lafata’s suit against CalSERVE over its participation in last week’s SJP rally is Mr. Lafata’s claim that SJP is an “ASUC sponsored” organization.

Quote from the Charge Sheet:

“Such protest was carried on by an organization [SJP] that receives both the funding and the resources of the ASUC at the moment of sponsorship and allocation of funds. When members of the defense became a central part of this political activity, the activity became an extension of their campaign.”

Further on in the Charge Sheet:

“CalSERVE, acting in their capacity as members of said party, merged their campaign with the political activity of an agent of the ASUC.”

Mr. Lafata charges that such activity is in violation of 4.13.2.7, which prohibits the use of ASUC funds, resources, authority, and facilities for campaign activities.

The case then is based on SJP’s use of ASUC sponsorship and resources and how CalSERVE, when it joined the rally, used the same sponsorship and resources to further their own campaign.

However there is no proof, at least on the ASUC’s website, that SJP is an ASUC sponsored or funded organization. It is however an OSL sponsored group, but that is a major distinction as Paul’s suit only deals with ASUC sponsorship and funds.

SJP is not listed in last year’s and this year’s ASUC budget. My understanding is that all groups which receive ASUC sponsorship appear in each years budget regardless of whether or not they receive any funding from the ASUC.

Some Analysis: If the budget document lists all the money the ASUC has spent each year, SJP’s absence from that list means that it received no ASUC funding. If that holds up it would be a blow to Mr. Lafata’s case. If SJP’s absence from the budget also means that it is not an ASUC sponsored group, then Lafata’s case could fall apart.

Several Important Questions Remain Unanswered:
1. If SJP did not receive any ASUC money for the rally, did the rally organizers themselves receive any money?
2. Was the rally itself ASUC sponsored?
3. Is SJP ASUC sponsored? Proof needs to be established that it is for Mr. Lafata's suit to have validity, but none is to be found on the ASUC's website.

Relevant Links:
I’m not sure how up to date this list is.
1. List of ASUC sponsored groups.

2. This Year’s Latest Budget Proposal.

3. Last year’s ASUC Budget.

Developing….Email This Post!

Students for Justice in Palestine Distributes Offensive Flyer
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), is a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel advocacy group at Berkeley known for its recent campaign to pressure the UC Regents to divest in Israel and its disruptive on-campus protests which led to punishment by the University.

At Cal Day, on April 17th, SJP was distributing flyers in front of the Hillel table. Hillel is the center for Jewish campus life. The flyers that SJP was handing out were meant to appear as if they were actual Hillel flyers. SJP even used the exact same logo as Hillel uses on its website and on its flyers. The cover of the flyer read,

Jewish Students!
Join Berkeley Hillel and make the Transition!
Wherever We Stand, We Stand with ISRAEL.
Hillel
because Jewish Student Life is Inseparable from Pro-Israel Activism

The inside of the flyer is even more blatant. There are descriptions of recent speakers (Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharansky) brought to campus on behalf of Hillel or one of the student groups associated with it. These people's beliefs are caricatured to seem both offensive and extremist. I would encourage you to view the flyer yourself, and it can be downloaded from SJP's website here.

This flyer steps beyond any reasonable discourse between SJP and pro-Israel groups. First of all, Hillel is a center for Jewish students, and encompasses much more than support for Israel. Jews of all political persuasions are involved with Hillel, some who probably would be supportive of SJP's advocacy on behalf of Palestinian suffering. IF SJP was going to target anyone with a flyer like this, they should have at least gone after the Israel Action Committee, which is the most prominent Israel advocacy group on campus. (Although in my opinion, I think it was a poor decision to target a specific group with something like this. If a group wants to argue in favor of some position, they print a flyer with what you believe and why others should support you and hand it out. Don't attack your opponents.)

Secondly, even if SJP wanted to make a point to visiting potential students, they should not have done so by attempting to impersonate another group. Even though people familiar with Hillel might have realized this was a parody, that would not have necessarily been clear to people unfamiliar with Hillel. Even for those who recognized this as a crude attack on Hillel, they could still come to believe that this was just how groups like Hillel and SJP acted, and be turned off of Hillel when they arrived at Berkeley.

Whether or not this is technically libel is irrelevant. The use of this flyer was dishonest and involved a group that was not even a legitimate target for this type of dispute. SJP should apologize for this stunt, and others should condemn this type of action. We should all be supportive of open and vibrant discourse on the Berkeley campus, and I fully encourage SJP or any other group to attempt to get their message out in any way possible, as long as they do not stoop to tactics such as this, which only work to debase the quality of debate on campus.

Email This Post!

The SJP case was heard last night for at least a total of three hours, amazingly enough the body of the case was not argued. While witnesses were in place and everyone was eagerly awaiting the beginning of what many see as the main case against CalSERVE, the trial got caught up in procedural issues.

Three hours were spent on preliminary proceedings. Former Senator Lafata said to me privately that preliminary hearings of that length were unprecedented.

The proceedings started with the DAAP Party attempting to get its case joined onto that of CalSERVE’s. After about 45 minutes of back and forth between Mrs. Fellarca and everyone else, the council decided not to join the cases.

Controversy then erupted over two Key issues.

1. Mr. Lafta argued that evidence submitted by CalSERVE should be suppressed because it was submitted late. The evidence was actually being submitted right then and there and Mr. Lafata had not had a chance to look at it. CalSERVE argued that there was a miscommunication on the part of the J-council as to when evidence had to be submitted. Mr. Lafata argued that the rules were clear when evidence had to be submitted and that the rules were there to insure that both sides could examine each other’s evidence ahead of the trial date. After deliberating the Judicial Council decided to make an exception to its rules and allow the CalSERVE evidence into the trial. CalSERVE then submitted its evidence to Mr. Lafata and the J-council asked him when he could conceivably present his case. Mr. Lafata asked that the preliminary portion of the trial be completely finished that evening but asked that the main body of the trial be delayed until he could examine the evidence. The J-Council agreed and decided on 10PM Sunday to hear arguments..

2. Further controversy erupted over CalSERVE’s witness list. Mr. Lafata pointed out that some of the witnesses CalSERVE submitted were organizations and not people and he asked for those “witnesses” to be suppressed. CalSERVE countered by saying that at the time they had to submit the witness list they were not sure who specifically could testify on behalf of their organizations. Thus they put down organizations instead of people. Mr. Lafata countered by saying the rules in this case were specific and he asked why CalSERVE had not just put down the membership list from each organization. The multiple witness lists that were surfacing caused further confusion; CalSERVE was trying to submit a new updated version of the list with actual names instead of organizations.

I did not stay and see how the second issue ended up but I promise an update as soon as I hear anything.

The end result of all of this was to push back the actual body of the trial to Sunday 10PM.

Sunday promises to be fun, possible videotapes could be shown and witnesses will be heard.

Hopefully Sunday’s trial will last considerably less than Thursday’s preliminary hearing.

Update: The witnesses on CalSERVE's updated witness list were let in by the Judicial Council.Email This Post!

Last Nights J-Council Hearings

The Judicial Council began to hear elections related cases last night and they managed in about six hours to get through the Anu E-mail case and the preliminary portions of the SJP case.

In his case against Anu, former Senator Lafata told the j-council that there were two issues to decide. 1. Did the e-mail constitute the use of the authority of the Vice Presidents office and thus ASUC authority? 2. Was Anu acting as an agent of CalSERVE when she sent the e-mail? If the answer is yes to both questions then the punishment merited would be disqualification of the entire CalSERVE slate.

The first question he addressed was whether the e-mail constituted a use of Authority by the External Vice President.

Lafata provided three standards that he felt in combination with each other established the use of such authority. Each standard could not prove the use of authority by itself but together he felt they added up to prove the use of ASUC authority in this case.

1. The first standard was whether the action of sending out e-mails fell within the duties of the office.
2. The second standard was whether or not such e-mails were a common practice associated with the office.
3. The third standard Lafata provided was related to the mantle or title the officer in question had used in the e-mail.

Lafata next went on to argue that Mrs. Joshi was in fact an agent of the party when she sent out the e-mail. He pointed to the bylaws referencing that delegated authority within a party could only be extended to the “general campaign area” and not to specific acts. Mr. Lafata said that sending out campaign e-mails did in fact fall under this “general campaign area”. He argued CalSERVE as a whole was responsible for the actions of Mrs. Joshi because she was an agent of the party with the delegated responsibly that allowed her to campaign in the “general campaign area.”

During cross-examination it was established that Mrs. Joshi did campaign for CalSERVE during the election.

The defense argued Mrs. Joshi’s e-mail was a personal communication to her friends and thus not in the official capacity of her office. They stated that the e-mail was sent out on her personal account from her home computer.

Mrs. Joshi testified that she sent out the e-mail to her friends with information related to the duties of her office in a private capacity. She claimed she was not acting as the External Vice President when the e-mail was sent out.

Vice President Gomez argued that as a signatory of CalSERVE she did not specifically authorize Anu to send out e-mails campaigning for the party.

Analysis: Paul’s case was fairly strong and well presented. CalSERVE's defense was not as structured as Lafata’s presentation and it was sloppy with its terms. Several times the justices had to correct the defense on the use “malicious intent”. The defense was also unfocused, for instance they brought up issues of free speech when no one was questioning Mrs. Joshi’s right to speak out in her e-mails. They also largely failed to offer another definition of ASUC authority when given the chance to by the judges.

However several factors weigh against Paul getting this case resolved in his favor.

1. While the Justices may decide that the e-mail carried the authority of Joshi’s office it is not all that clear that Joshi was acting as an agent of her party when she sent out the e-mail.

2. The penalty of disqualification is a very severe recourse mandated by a guilty verdict in this case. The severity of the penalty could easily influence the Justice’s deliberations.

3. The question of whether or not ASUC authority was in fact used, although well argued by Lafata, is still up to interpretation. The central question seems to be: When is an executive officer acting as an executive officer and when is he/she acting as a private student? Lafata argues that the e-mails content combined with the duties of the offices, the regularity of such e-mails, and the mantle assumed in the signature constitute the use of authority. The justices will have a lot of leeway on this issue because there is no clear definition of what ASUC authority is and isn’t. Lafata gave them his version, but there are other seemingly limitless definitions out there.

I think this case more likely than not will be resolved in CalSERVE’s favor.Email This Post!

My computer broke, so I wrote Suicide Dog instead, but this is the piece that would've run had I had computer access:

Superpowers I have known
By Kevin Deenihan

As genetic splicing and DNA manipulation becomes ever-simpler, it is only a matter of time before our children have Superpowers as a birthright. And not just ordinary Superpowers, like genius intelligence and high self-esteem. So it’s time to evaluate the Superpowers, in order to guide our monkey torturing towards the most productive experiments.

X-RAY VISION:

This is a really great superpower if you enjoy giving your friends cancer. Really, the only good uses for this power are to A) look into safes and B) look at boobs.

LOOKING INTO SAFES:
STEVE: Okay, I’m using my X-Ray vision on the safe…. It’s money and documents again.
DAVE: Do the next one.
STEVE: Also money and documents. They’re all money and documents. That’s what people keep in safes. Money, and documents.

LOOKING AT BOOBS:
DAVE: Wow, it’s Stacey! Check those out!
STEVE: (Sly) You know, I think I will. (Uses X-Ray vision) Oh man. I never would’ve imagined.
DAVE: That good, huh?
STEVE: She has cancer.

TELEPATHY:

Once upon a time this was one of the best powers. Stuck in space? Marooned on an alien planet? Just have the guy with telepathy contact the home base and help is on the way. Unfortunately, now that cell phones exist, being a telepath is essentially like being a large Motorola that always gets five bars, but with no alarm clock.

DAVE: Shit, we’re out of cell range! And Mom and Dad wanted to know when we made it to the cabin!
STEVE: Time for my Telepathy. (Uses Telepathy) MOM AND DAD, WE HAVE MADE IT TO TAHOE.
MOM: Okay, Steven. Tell Dave he forgot his socks.
STEVE: DAVE YOU FORGOT YO-
DAVE: Dude, I’m right here.

PREDICTING THE FUTURE:

This would be a pretty cool power if it didn’t make all your friends so nervous.

DAVE: So… here I am with a cigarette. Gonna start smoking it now.
STEVE: Go ahead.
DAVE: So it’s not cigarettes that will kill me. Hmm… Okay, now I’m going outside to play Russian Roulette.
STEVE: Before you do that, can you pay me back the money you owe me?
DAVE: Ah-HA!
STEVE: Psych! You actually die in a boating accident.

TELEPORTATION:

The strange thing about Teleportation is that everyone gets way more excited about the ability to fly. Yet no one thinks about important details like wind chill, crosswinds, and how when you fly at night mountains tend to look like friendly clouds. Teleportation gets the job done.

FRENCH TEACHER: Steve, what is the future tense of the verb ‘etre?’
STEVE: (Poof) (Poof) I understand it’s ‘avoir’

LASER BEAM EYES:

Would it be wrong to point out that the entire point of eyes is that things go into them? So why are laser beams inevitably coming out of eyes? The logical choice for making a gun out of part of the body should be the human penis: it shoots when triggered, needs to be reloaded, and is normally between 4 and 6 inches long.. Although using the urinary tract to shoot laser beams would be tough for girls, as they would have to sit down to shoot bad guys.

STEVE: Oh Suzie… oh Suzie… ohhhhh! (BLAM!) …..Shit! It happened again!

Email This Post!

Attorney General LaFata added two more to his docket, and Senator Leybovich continues to get a huge amount of fallout from his ASUC Computer Virus.

The Mo Kashmiri case is very odd. Funneling money directly to CalSERVE from the GA would be illegal, naturally. But that depends on Paul proving that:

1) Mo is not doing the job the GA hired him to do. Considering that Mo is involved with numerous lawsuits and lobbying activities, it seems self-evident that is not so. The job entails working with UCSA and other lobbying groups (ie off-campus), and is a mere and nominal 20 hours a week. What kind of proof is Paul looking for, phone records? E-mails? A picture of Mo at his desk clocking in? All the CalSERVE Execs are supposed to work far more then twenty hours a week, and no one gets teed when they campaign hard. And for ages and ages people have campaigned despite having jobs far in excess of 20 hours a week.

2) In lieu of doing his job, Mo is working for CalSERVE. Even in the event that Mo isn't doing his job, which isn't proven, isn't it far more likely that he's just slacking off? Paul would have to prove that the money was given to Mo for the express purpose of working for CalSERVE. But Mr. Kashmiri has been working for-- and getting paid by-- the GA for a long time. All of a sudden it's a sweetheart deal when elections roll around? And why would anyone need to pay Mo to work for CalSERVE? No one else had to get paid to do so.

Unless there's some smoking gun, which would have to be along the lines of 'Mo, here is lots of money so you can campaign for us,' then I don't get this case at all.

UPDATE: So Mo is working on a per-hour basis, which would hypothetically make it easier to prove that he was billing the GA for time spent campaigning. All you would have to do is subpoena Mo's time reports and somehow prove that he was holding a big sign at the same time. Of course, this depends on Mr. Kashmiri working and campaigning at the same time, which apparently there is no evidence of besides Mr. Lafata's gut feeling that no man can campaign, go to law school, and hold down a 35 Hour/Week job without overlapping considerably.

Farther down there's some antics on the part of the real Attorney General. His three suits were rejected for being 45 minutes late. He can appeal to have them admitted, but missing a deadline doesn't involve a whole lot of fact-finding. Funny thing is that one of them is the Misha E-mail case, as if half the world hadn't filed about that one already.

AG Powell should resign. He's clearly in over his head and ineffective. No one in the ASUC appears to have any respect for him.

Email This Post!

The Fall 2004 Admissions figures are out. The big news is that African-American admits took a bit hit-- from 298 in 2003 to 211 in 2004(!). The complete admission stats for minorities:

The number of black students offered admission has dropped from 298 students in fall 2003 to 211 for fall 2004. For Chicano/Latino students, the number has dropped from 1,030 in fall 2003 to 955 for fall 2004. American Indian numbers have dropped from 51 in 2003 to 40 for fall 2004.

Whites took a 3% increase, Asians were more or less the same, same with women. (Handy Table).

Interestingly, figures suggests that lower-income students also dropped out-- a figure possibly correlated with African-American students. (Although the report is too tactful to say it.)

At UC Berkeley, statistics also suggest there were fewer offers of admission to students from low-income families. This group typically attends lower performing high schools. Financial aid data show more than a 10 percent drop in admitted students who qualified for federal Pell grants. There also was a 13 percent decline in admitted students who qualified for the federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants that are reserved for students with exceptional financial need.

So the fee increases are having their effect.

In addition, 3000 fewer students were offered admission this yearEmail This Post!

Somehow, I found time to write this today...

Here is the down-low on the three new lawsuits filed to the Judicial Council.

1) LaFata v. DAAP. This is based on Yvette Falarca’s participation in the 04/09/2004 SJP rally. Same basis as one of the charges in LaFata v. CalSERVE. Here’s the exerpt from the by-laws again.

13.2.7 of Title IV – “Using ASUC authority, facilities, funds, or resources, including Eshleman Hall, for campaign purposes, including for long term or bulk storage of campaign materials.”

Break it down. Authority. SJP is a group that is recognized and supported (if not financially, in other ways) by the ASUC. Therefore, using an SJP event as a launching pad for a personal political campaign is using ASUC authority for a personal political campaign. Facilities. Where did the sound equipment come from for the rally? It was either paid for by SJP, donated to SJP (in which case it can still be counted as a campaign expenditure), or provided by the ASUC. Either way, the facility clause is violated. That’s two parts of the rule broken without even addressing the finance issue, depending on how you interpret the law, though I think this is pretty clear-cut. For this reason, I think the Judicial Council may rule in favor of LaFata in both this case and in the Cal-SERVE case. In addition, I think campaigning at a non-related political rally is in poor taste anyway, and any penalty these parties get they have coming to them.

2) LaFata v. Leybovitch. This is based on the now-infamous “spam letter” that Misha sent out to half of the campus. Yes, the rule on email use was probably broken. Yes, the “I have a computer virus” defense is pretty weak. But there are some aspects of this case that do seem suspicious. For example, why would Misha Leybovitch send out a campaign email to Hermanos Unidos, a student group that Student Action would have little to no chance of gaining the support of? And this wasn’t even the only student group hit by the campaign email. This case is not clear-cut at all, and a lot of the case will have to do with how strictly the by-laws are interpreted by the Judicial Council. The cases heard before this one will set an important precedent, and Misha's fate is very much tied to that of his opponents.

3) Kroll v. Leybovitch. This is another case of Misha’s “spamming”, I believe. Same set up as Misha’s other charge, though this email specifically involves emails sent to the Queer Resource Center (I believe that’s the name of the organization, as cited by the Daily Cal), while LaFata’s charge is one of blanket spamming. The results of this charge are directly related to those of the previous charge, and the results of one will probably mirror the results of the other.

My predicted endgame: All these lawsuits won’t mean jack. If DAAP and Cal-SERVE are nailed for the SJP rally, then any punishments will probably be overturned for the sake of the election. With the precedent of being weak on campaign by-laws now being established, Misha probably will not be DQ’ed from the election. So, after three weeks, nothing will have changed, and we’ll find out who our next ASUC government is going to be. Which, really, is probably how it should be.Email This Post!

Calmail is getting slammed by the Netsky worm, apparently. Watch out for e-mails with the subject line 'Delivery failure notice (ID-000049E5)' or something similar.Email This Post!

Look for the last Squelch of the year on Sproul this week. A fond adios to Derek Yu.

Is my last article ever in the Squelch really "Suicide Dog?" Man...Email This Post!

There's some question over the La Voz thing about what offense was committed and how it relates to the Berkeley Jewish Journal last year. As a refresher, the BJJ endorsed Daniel Frankenstein but escaped punishment for it, despite committing the #1 violation possible in an ASUC-Sponsored publication.

Their defense was, first, that the ASUC Publications Advisor had assured them that this was legal, so not really their fault. Second, that they hadn't spent ASUC funds on 'this issue' so it was okay.

That this loophole continues to exist amazes me. The question should be 'Could they have published this WITHOUT having ASUC funds?' The answer is clearly 'no.' Without ASUC Funds they wouldn't have money past October. In other words, access to ASUC money clearly made the Frankenstein endorsement possible, and that should clearly indicate misuse of funds. It was also used for the 54 spending exemption, and I can only imagine the loophole still exists because it's convenient. Also, no one ever TRIED to attack the BJJ for it, so it was never brought up before the Judicial Council.

Returning to the La Voz example...

It doesn't appear like CalSERVE did anything illegal, looking at the article. Illegallity requires that they 'solicited' the endorsement. It doesn't look from the article like they were aware of it. There's no quotes from CalSERVE people and all the photos are publicily available on their website. But it's self-evident that La Voz broke the rules. Squelch lost all ASUC Funding about eight-nine years ago for endorsing candidates. I'm not asking that for La Voz, but using student money to influence an election requires a consequence.

I'm willing to let almost anything slide in the ASUC Elections. After all, and I've talked about this with Paul, that one man can singlehandedly overturn the votes of thousands of students puts an enormous burden and responsibility on the person who files. They must not only be right in interpreting the violation, but must also prove that disqualifying the party involved and safeguarding the Consitution is worth disregarding the will of the voters. This means, at a minimum, that the perpetrator willingly broke a law, and that the law broken is so important that not enforcing it will make a mockery of the ASUC. It also means that disqualification will make the ASUC better, rather then blindly disqualifying offenders without any view to what the resultant ASUC will resemble. Will disqualifying all the major parties, even if they were all law-breakers, really lead to a better and cleaner ASUC? Also, there must be no hint of pure political manuevering attaching to the person that files. Flyering over student groups does not reach that level. One of the very few things that I believe does is knowingly using ASUC resources for partisan ends.

Email This Post!

THANKS to all the people who donated to my Relay for Live page. I walked the track from 8-11 this morning, part of Team ADPhi's night long walk



At the risk of embarassing them, thanks to all those who donated:

Brandon Mills
Edward Kim
Jim Fung
Joseph Henchman
Lia Kraemer
Michael McFarlane
Sean ByrneEmail This Post!

Kim-Mai Cutler is the new Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Californian. Congrats to her.Email This Post!

In all the Elections mess, has anyone seen the latest issue of La Voz? It contains a glowing article on 'Why you should vote for CalSERVE.' La Voz is ASUC Funded.Email This Post!

Update on illegal e-mails:

I received an e-mail from an ASUC Presidential candidate that raises the possibility a previous e-mail I received from him might have violated ASUC election rules. I won't name names, but I do not think there is an expectation of privacy that accompanies sending out mass, spam e-mails to students, and if you read the earlier post about problematic e-mails, you will probably know who I am talking about. Here is the text of the e-mail:

Dear friends,
It's come to my attention that an email I sent earlier this evening may have been forwarded to some folks beyond my immediate circle of friends that I sent it to. I'm looking into how this may have happened (I suspect a computer virus as I've been having trouble with that recently) and I apologize for any inconvenience or frustration that this may have caused.
Take care and have a wonderful last day of voting,

I'm not quite sure what he is claiming happened. Either a virus somehow sent out a campaign e-mail to people it shouldn't have (this strains credibility) or else his friends forwarded along an e-mail to people that they shouldn't have. I received a previous e-mail directly from the candidate, which I assume was the e-mail being apologized for. If he is listed as the sender on any e-mails that violate campaign rules, he can't very well claim it was others who forwarded the e-mail. I'm not sure if this is the same e-mail mentioned below, or if there have been potentially multiple e-mail violations.


Update
To clarify, here are the rules regarding sending of e-mail from the ASUC bylaws.

Using e-mail lists or posting boards to campaign, with spam, which is defined as e-mail that does not meet any of the following conditions:

a. The author has a pre-existing relationship with the recipient(s);

b. The author has permission from the leadership of the organization;

c. The author is a member of the organization.

Without more information, it isn't clear whether the e-mail above is just annoying span or actually violates any of these rules. The allegation with the physics e-mail is that it was sent without moderator permission, I believe.Email This Post!

If you're a glutton for long-range campus development plans, here's the complete LRDP Report.Email This Post!

CalSERVE, BU, and SA representatives have stated that CalSERVE has a copy of an email SA President candidate Misha Leybovitch sent to a Berkeley listserv (students in Physics department?), with the status of administrator approval in some doubt. This is the first public piece of evidence that shows CalSERVE has any sort of case against Student Action.Email This Post!

Just for everyone's information... the laptop voting stations have continued to work only intermittantly at all polling places, and during peak hours, some place shave been shut off all together. Dwinelle has been down more often than any other station.

By next year, the ASUC really needs to have all the kinks worked out of this. Maybe some sort of test run before unleashing this form of organized chaos?Email This Post!

* Developments *

The charges made in the LaFata v. Cal-SERVE suit are public. There are only four charges here, though in defense of my credibility, three counts are rolled into Charge 2. Cliff’s Notes:

(note: all quotations from the charge sheet)

Charge 1: “…the expenditure of ASUC funds through the agent of Boalt Hall Students Association…” Penalty: Party disqualification.

As Holohan mentioned in the previous message board, the BHSA did endorse CalSERVE’s slate in its entirety, despite the candidacy of other Boalt students. There is some shady area as to if an ASUC-funded group can endorse candidates. Cal Patriot and the Daily Cal can endorse candidates without fear because of their independence from the ASUC. However, the BHSA has no such luxuries.

I’m not quite sure how I feel about this charge. It seems somewhat nit-picky, and in the future, it would restrict the voice of student publications in the future, something I am not fond of. It is also to be seen if there is more to this charge than meets the eye, or if CalSERVE is more involved than it appears.

Charge 2: Three counts of “…violating 4.13.2.7, which prohibits the use of ‘ASUC authority, facilities, funds, or resources, including Eshleman Hall, for campaign purposes, including for long term or bulk storage of campaign materials.’ ” Penalty: Party disqualification.

Kudos to LaFata for mentioning Schulman vs. Yang in this section. Once again, Schulman has made his presence felt on campus. The first count of the charge involves the SJP rally, and CalSERVE’s involvement in it. The legal basis is that since SJP is an ASUC-sponsored and funded group, and since CalSERVE actively advocated their party during their participation in the rally, the ASUC was misled to endorse CalSERVE in a sponsored event.

Personally, I was quite disgusted by the participation of CalSERVE and DAAP (not cited in the lawsuit) in the rally. They dropped the integrity of the rally and of themselves down a notch. I was in attendance at this rally to report, and I have to say I think LaFata has them down on this one. Why would CalSERVE risk a party disqualification on such a low-key event? It shows poor planning.

The second count of the charge has to do with VP Joshi’s email signature… apparently she has been mincing CalSERVE slogans and her ASUC title (without declaring it for ID purposes only) on her email signature. These emails have been sent all over campus. Once again, I think this count is a little too detail-based, but LaFata mentions a history of abuse throughout the year, and it will be interesting to see how this particular count turns out.

The third count of the charge refers back to the first charge and the BHSA publication including advocacy for CalSERVE. This count requires some attention because it is accompanied by a request to subpoena the GA financial records for the last year. This is very interesting, considering GA’s historical preference to keep their records as disclosed as possible and the events of the past year.

Charge 3 goes back to SJP rally, where the claim is made that the rally severely impeded traffic, and that the wall built in the middle of the road shows malicious intent. Penalty: 2 or 3 censures, depending on if malicious intent is established.

The rally did block traffic, and CalSERVE did actively participate in the rally while campaigning, so I think this is an easily won charge for LaFata. It’s small change though, relative to the other three charges. I think this is just a fallback for him, to make sure he gets something out of this deal.

Other notes:

I’m kind of disappointed in the state of LaFata’s charge sheet. There were many typos and misdated events, including the April 9 SJP rally (cited as April 12). It seemed very rushed and not well reviewed. In addition, I know LaFata is pretty scrupulous with his lawsuits (considering his perfect record with Judicial Council), but I don’t know how some of the more detail-based charges will play. I still think the motions regarding the SJP rally are solid, though.

The SA party is still considering making more motions. There is evidence of several counts of CalSERVE violating amplified noise rules, party representatives leaving stacks of CalSERVE fliers at SM desks in dorms, and allegations of an illegal Rally Committee email are surfacing.

CalSERVE has been strangely tight-lipped regarding their dirt on SA, and I think they may have been surprised they were filed against so early. One member of the party bureaucracy mentioned to me offhand a few nights ago, “They wouldn’t file unless they were scared of us.” However, it seems like if they didn’t file, SA would be shooting themselves in the foot. There’s just too much good dirt on CalSERVE, and honestly, I don’t think they have anything half as substantial to fire back at SA. However, party leaders have been scheming, and some sort of retaliation is inevitable. More when this develops further.
Email This Post!

*** BREAKING NEWS!!! ***

SA has formally filed against CalSERVE. Details are sketchy, but here are the details as they break:

- There are six separate charges filed. Three are automatic DQs, three are censure-worthy, and all are party-wide. They range from violations at the SJP rally on 04/09/04 (covered by yours truly) to issues with a Boalt Hall Student Association publication to other charges currently being kept under wraps.

- Paul Lafata filed all charges on behalf of SA. Bad news for CalSERVE, considering Lafata's record in front of the Judicial Council.

More as the story continues to develop. Email This Post!

Reminders:

Last few days to donate to my Relay for Live page. I'm $55 short of my goal. There are approximately 150 people that read this on a regular basis. If you each give $3, I'd be pleased albeit surprised.

Also, make sure to vote Ben Narodick and Andy Ratto for Senate in the next few days. Email This Post!

The Winner of the Betting Pool was a TIE!

Both Devang Parekh and Alfred Twu had the closest pool,

President: Misha
EVP: Alfred
AAVP: Oops. They picked Mike.
External: Liz
SAO: Madan

4/5.. not bad. Almost everyone got Misha/Liz/Madan. Picking Alfred was the crucial innovation.

They split the reward of $25. Please e-mail me your Paypal accounts or mailing address for the prize!Email This Post!

UPDATE: Polls working now! There'll probably be additional voting on Friday.

****BREAKING****

Polls are not working. Email This Post!

Kudos to the Daily Cal for some fine endorsements this year. Well thought out. Also, I hear that the Misha vs. Jake choice was actually pretty close. But that's rumor.

What was Bears-United thinking, painting "Bears-United #45" all over sidewalks around campus? There's paint in front of Eshleman, around Frat Row, and on the steps of the I-House. J-Council rules aside, I'm pretty sure that defacement of public property is a city offense.. which is why candidates use chalk. (#45 is Mr. Obagi)

And if the city is unsure who did it, they can just follow the trail of paint that leads from Eshleman all the way up Bancroft to Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, where there's paintbrushes lying outside and 'Bears-United' painted inside the windows....

UPDATE: Apparently it's 'Liquid Chalk.' Still an eyesore!Email This Post!

To avoid confusion… this is written by new correspondent Ben Narodick, not lovable huggable Kevin Deenihan. So don’t harass him.

PS I’m running for senate too… #56 on the Squelch! Ticket.

-

The Daily Cal endorsements are up!

I’m up finishing a paper, and while trying to procrastinate, I was shocked to find the Daily Cal endorsements on the web page. Here are the endorsements and some thoughts.

President: Misha Leybovitch, SA
2nd choice: Jake Kloberdanz, BEARS-United

Misha’s endorsement was really of no shock value. Most people had seen his spot as a lock, clinched by his impressive experience as a senator during years of inefficiency and a decent (not good, definitely not great) appearance at the DAILY CAL forum on Saturday. Jake’s 2nd place endorsement may carry some shock value and political gain for the BEARS-United party, especially by beating out perennial powerhouse CalSERVE’s candidate, Renita Cheney. Both Cheney and Kloberdanz performed strongly at the DAILY CAL forum and stuck to their platforms, but when it came down to it, the two were both outsiders to the complex structure of the ASUC leadership, and in the battle for second, Kloberdanz’s concrete plans and ideas carried him through to the number two spot.

Exec VP: Alfred Twu, Independent
2nd choice: Rebecca C. Brown, Squelch!

This decision was chock full of surprises, though neither Christine Lee nor Karina Sarabia-Delgado have struck anyone as great candidates for the spot. I think this was a statement of rejection by the DAILY CAL staff. Many insiders are saying that the major party slates are the weakest they have been in years, and by endorsing two outside candidates, the staff is supporting that opinion. In other news, I look forward to working with Rebecca in the Senate chambers next year.

EAVP: Liz Hall, CalSERVE

No surprise. One of the only executive candidates who truly seems to have all their marbles in a row, ready to hit the ground running when elected. Rest of the field did not shine.

AAVP: No endorsement.

Quote from the DAILY CAL: “No candidate has stepped forward and clearly articulated a coherent vision of what the role of this office should be.” Very true. Rocky Gade was not exactly a clear articulator during his speech at the Daily Cal forum. Meanwhile, Mike Sheen seems to be no more than a CalSERVE party man, and his financial history in the AAVP office seems sketchy at best. As for Squelch! Candidate Matt Holohan, well, let’s just say he didn’t get very fair questions during his individual period. Though he did articulate a coherent vision of what role the office should fulfill…

Student Advocate: Dave Madan, Independent

Once again, no surprise. This guy is endorsed by everyone. Including Kevin Deenihan, if nobody noticed.

-

I think the most important part of this endorsement (other than the fact it really isn’t a barometer for student opinion) is the amount of candidates on the endorsement ballot outside of the two main parties. With the formation of BEARS-United and the surfacing of more independent candidates, it would not be surprising to see a truly parliamentary system evolve at Berkeley, fitted with coalitions and everything. I guess only time will tell.

Oh, and I got 3/5 in the Deenihan pool. Can anyone beat me?Email This Post!

Here's my speech to the Daily Cal Endorsement Forum. Don't forget that there's still time to enter your Endorsement Pool picks!

My Fellow Associationers,

Like many of you, I had no idea what the Student Advocate Office did. All I knew was what was in the Daily Cal: that the office was really terrible at winning elections and didn’t like Jews.

However, my perceptions changed when I started following around Student Advocate Dave Madan to see exactly what he did. I went to class with him. I watched him in his office. I rifled through his mail, tapped his phones, and sometimes would break into his apartment late at night, while he slept.

After three weeks of this, I still have no idea what the Student Advocate Office does. However, I am totally in love with Dave Madan. He is so fucking awesome. He makes Mother Theresa look like Cruella de Ville having her period.

Let me describe what make Dave Madan so great. Every morning he gets up at 5 AM in order to jog around Berkeley in order to raise money to fight Tourette’s Syndrome. At 6, he travels around Berkeley collecting stray dogs and cats and finds them good homes with loving children by 7. Sometimes, if the family is poor, he will take care of neutering the pet for free. After serving breakfast at three different soup kitchens, he’ll get to the Student Advocate Office at 8:30 and begin his daily 16 hour workday. He singlehandedly defended 50 students from plagiarism charges thanks to his extensive knowledge of both 16th century medieval literature and C++ coding algorithims. And it was he who talked a sobbing Chancellor Berdahl down from the Campanile, reassuring him that there were many students who liked the Upper Sproul idea.

When the campus gets dark, he dons his dark Student Advocate Man uniform and roams the dark and dangerous parts of campus fighting crime. Since 3/4s of the campus is dangerous after dark, this is no small order. Many students may be wondering who the mysterious 110 pound man is that saved them from assault in the Eucalyptus Grove. That man is Dave Madan.

I could go on and on about how much Dave Madan rocks my world, and about the secret pictures I took of him in the shower. But I’m sure that once you hear him speak, he’ll live up to everything I have just said.

So in conclusion: Vote Dave Madan for Student Advocate. Vote for me second.

I managed to horrify DAAP at the last moment by saying the word 'bitches.' I had actually meant to say 'losers,' but it slipped out wrong. Oops.Email This Post!

Live.berkeley has now stole back asuc.org and is pointing it at some Geocities site. Oh boy, they're using me as an example of the rightness of their cause.

>Hundreds of hours and private funds went into creating UCB Live. We are happy to share the information but would at least appreciate some credit. For example, CalStuff (http://calstuff.blogspot.com) feeds directly from UCBLive in an honest manner.

I just dropped my Live link. Hacking a website, esp the student government one, is not cool and I don't want anything to do with it... so please don't use me as a reference.

Email This Post!

My letter to the Daily Cal:

Question: How will you improve on the job of the Student Advocate?

I will stop wasting time on the obviously guilty students and concentrate on winners. I will also push for Student Conduct Cases to be resolved by a fast-paced, no holds barred thumb war. I will also push for the right of students to have a lawyer conduct that thumb war. I will also supplement the Student Advocate's income by selling out whatever juicy gossip students tell us. And in order to get free representation, students must pass the Trial of Worthiness, a mile long obstacle course where students become the hunted. They must also pay $50.

I have a dream that when students think 'Student Advocate,' they think 'Better then Superman times a million plus the Flash' That students will have so much power Administrators will seek free representation against vastly powerful students.

What Qualities do you have that would make you a good Student Advocate?

I like to smile… I live to love and I love to live. I've got about 50 pounds on Dave Madan and could wrestle with the administration in a way he physically can't. And if they still argue with me, I'll just give them the Patented Deenihan Puppy Eyes

Email This Post!

Biggest. Letdown. Ever.

This year’s April 9th protests were, to say the least, very subdued relative to other activities in the past. Maybe it was because April 9 fell on a Friday this year, a notoriously bad day to have protests. Maybe it was the 16 visible uniformed policemen. Maybe it was the construction on Sproul Plaza.

In any event, here are the details. 100 pro-Palestinian protesters rallied at noon today between Dwinelle Plaza and Wheeler Hall to protest the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, the war in Iraq, and the construction of the Israeli security barrier. The protestors built a mock barrier to symbolize the ugliness of the Israeli wall, and set their stage up in front of it. There were several speakers from student groups, faculty members, and outside associations over an hour’s time, and afterwards, the protesters formed a ring around California Hall (and some pro-Israel activists standing outside) before dispersing peacefully.

Sounds boring, doesn’t it? Basically, it was just your average ordinary protest. A very large departure from April 9 protests in the past. If you didn’t make it out to see it, here’s what you need to know.

- This rally generated as much, if not more, solidarity on the Israeli side than the Palestinian side. At least as many Israel supporters came out as Palestinians, and they made their presence felt.

- Several campaign censures may be filed because of certain acts during the protest. Particularly, DAAP and CalSERVE signs being waved in front of the prop wall, and ASUC President candidates Yvette Fallarca and Renita Cheney giving statements directly involving their respective parties during this speech. Student Action candidates watching the demonstration noted that, if the protest was going to be used as a campaigning tool, then the protest should be judged by the same standard as any other campaign tool. Therefore, the un-permitted amplified noise, the traffic-blocking wall, and the ASUC funds used by SJP to have this rally leave DAAP and CalSERVE open to several possible negative repercussions. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out, especially considering the enormous amount of censure evidence the Attorney General already has stored.

- Basic mood of the rally: There was lots of noise being made, but nothing was really being said. By this, I mean it was mostly chanting, a giant pep rally. Even professors from associations pledging to “reduce hostilities” were screaming “FREE PALESTINE” at the top of their lungs.

- SJP seemed very disorganized and pell-mell throughout this process. It seemed like the leadership thought the rally would run itself, and constantly they were scrambling around looking for an exit strategy from one segment of the rally to the next.

All in all, it was a fun way to spend a Friday afternoon.
Email This Post!

**BREAKING**

Live.Berkeley.Edu, the popular student group registration tool, is offline after blatantly stealing asuc.org and pointing it towards their own site. Live was retaliating for asuc.org stealing their posted events and putting them on their own ASUC Connect listing.

Live found out when they posted a fake event on their own site, only to see it on asuc.org shortly thereafter.

Here's asuc.org's statement.

"UCB Live!", an events website sponsored by the Computer Science and Business Association (CSBA), recently and maliciously redirected traffic from www.asuc.org to their website because of alleged event stealing.

The ASUC sees this claim as unfounded. Firstly, events put on by student groups on the UC Berkeley campus are not owned by any one website or association, making any copyright attempt on that information meaningless. Secondly, event information is often posted by a student group to several websites simultaneously, further emphasizing the fact that student groups want their publicity to reach as far as possible, not be restricted to one website.

Live! is advised to take up any further issues with the ASUC through the proper contact channels instead of making unprofessional attacks on asuc.org.

We apologize for any inconvenience this disruption may have caused.

asuc.org is being petty, since they stole CSBA's work without giving them any credit, which is all Live was looking for. But Live went beyond petty with their hack. Stealing a website name is criminal. It's no wonder they've been taken down.

Both CSBA, Live, and FinalDistance point to asuc.org now.Email This Post!

Student Advocate Article. I'll just pull out my bit

KEVIN DEENIHAN

Squelch!

Deenihan, a former Daily Cal columnist, said he plans to do what three of the four past student advocate-elects have done right after winning—graduate.

“I will continue the Squelch! tradition of winning and graduating and leaving the Student Advocate office in total shambles,” Deenihan said.

Aside from graduating immediately, Deenihan said conduct cases ought to be resolved through a “fast-paced, no-holds-barred thumb war” with legal representation allowed too.

Students who want his free assistance as student advocate must pass a “Trial of Worthiness,” a mile-long obstacle course where students become the hunted.

Typo! Two of four past Student Advocates have graduated... Holohan and Richard. Also, the legal representation means that you can have a Lawyer thumb war for you.

I'll post the rest of my e-mail to the Daily Cal tonight.Email This Post!

Word on the street is that Attorney General Powell has amassed enough evidence of flyering violations to disqualify all three major parties. (SA + CS + BU).

Flyering violations are especially nasty. They're almost impossible to stop for candidates, since huge volunteer corps are hard to police, and it just takes one forgetting about niggling 'not Student Group' restrictions to gather five-six violations. And each one is conceivably worth a censure.

AG Powell doesn't have to file them, of course, and I doubt he will. It's such a silly thing to disqualify candidates over. Still, the threat is now out there.Email This Post!

Don't forget to e-mail me your picks for the Daily Cal Endorsement Pool. Grand Prize is $25, no entry fee! Polls are open until the night before the Endorsements come out. No Daily Cal people allowed.

If you're curious, right now I'm voting for (my second-place choices):
PREZ: Misha
EVP: Not sure. Probably Clee.
AAVP: Rocky, unless he really messes up at the Endorsement Forum
EXTERNAL: Liz, unless she really messes up at the Endorsement Forum
SAO: Kevin

First placers are Squelchers + Madan.

Also, make sure to donate to my Run for Live page. It's really sad that I've been doing this for two years and no one can even give me five bucks when it goes to Cancer victims. Email This Post!

If you're like me, you want to go to your own Commencement. The good news is that tickets should be plentiful, as Seniors are unaware about how to get tickets due to poor publicity.

The Commencement Convocation is scheduled for May 13, 2004 from 4 p.m. at the William Randolph Hearst Greek Theatre.

You must reserve Commencement Convocation tickets on April 7 and April 8 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Alumni House (next to Haas Pavilion). Tickets will be available for pick-up on April 26 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Alumni House with a valid student ID. Tickets will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Thanks to Calstuff Correspondant KSEmail This Post!

William Hung's Album is at NUMBER THREE on Amazon tonight. (!!!!)

WOW

Thanks to Calstuff Correspondant ED for the CatchEmail This Post!

I'm doing Relay for Life on Saturday the 17th.

That means it's time for a Calstuff Pledge Drive! Make your donation today. I'm trying to raise $100.

Update: Here's the right link.Email This Post!

Both sides in Holohan vs. Simon managed to lose last night.

The Judicial Council handed down a ruling unaninimously finding for Squelch! in that Ms. Simon's actions are illegal. Indeed, everything relating to the case at hand is dealt with in the first paragraph. I'd be a lot happier if they stopped there-- it treats the case at hand, it provides a concise ruling, and applies excellent judicial logic. Lets print it in full.

In the case at hand, the Judicial Council is asked to interpret a very broad definition of free speech in permitting or censoring the vulgarities within the presented Voters’ Guide candidate statements. Simon says the vulgarities in this public document should be censored in accordance with legal precedents. It is the unanimous opinion of this Council that the Association retains the power necessary to establish similar statutes but has never done so. Therefore, the censoring actions taken by Publicity Coordinator are unconstitutional, as she lacks such delegated authority.

Unfortunately, five members of the Judicial Council decide to go beyond the case at hand-- which is essentially about obscenity clauses-- and try to establish themselves as the adjudicators of what constitutes a 'political comment' -- even if the candidate argues that it does!

The majority listed above believes that in order to express such opinions, candidates must make an explicit connection to their opinions of the Association, so as to leave no doubt about the statements’ relevance, in compliance with Title IV. Otherwise, any irrelevant statement, which appears to contribute nothing towards the election, could be arbitrarily argued to have an implicit political expression. This goes against the very spirit of the Voters’ Guide.

God forbid we go against the spirit of the Voter's Guide! This means that Matt Holohan's statement, the word 'fuck' repeated, was declared illegal-- not because it's obscene, but because they don't think it's explicit enough 'what he thinks of the Association'! (How more explicit of an opinion does 80 'fucks' get?) My statement would presumably be illegal, since all I do is recite a crappy poem from High School. The thin legal reed this is hung on is:

Title IV Art IV section 1 "The Voters' Guide shall provide an opportunity to candidates, parties, proponents and opponents of propositions to express their opinions on the Elections, and for information to be disbursed to the electorate about the ASUC, the voting procedures, and the candidates and propositions."

The first problem with this is that it prohibits statements not relating to 'the Association.' For instance, it arguably prohibits candidates from talking about National or Statewide issues. More broadly, it not only tries to make an impossible distinction between 'political' and 'non-political' but between 'acceptable political' and 'inacceptable political'. Holohan's statement can easily be read by voters as a nihilist rejection of the ASUC, as a promise of the Squelch!'s ideology of having fun with things, or many other interpretations. Who is the J-Council to say 'not good enough!'?

But the real problem is that it gives the J-Council the right to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech. As Justice Davis and Grunwald say in their dissent,

We are not convinced by the majority’s argument that the voters should be protected and spoon-fed relevant statements, and even if they were it is not our job to determine what political statement is relevant, or screen statements that may have multiple meanings. In a democratic process the communication between the choosing populace and the candidates who would represent them should be as unfettered as possible (with in the established bounds of propriety set by the legislating body) to give the voters the most information and options about their choice.

Bravo. The voters should decide what statements are relative and what they mean, not some appointed body of political speech experts who know better then the candidates themselves what is 'relevant.' If the candidate says that a statement is political and can provide any sort of reasoning behind it, who gave the J-Council the right to decide for the Voters if it's applicable or not.

While I'm on the warpath it's time to give out Free Speech Awards for the stumbling, bumbling appointees that have lost sight of what political freedom is all about.

The And Now For Something Completely Different Award goes to Justices Gregg, Cooper, Banerji, Ali-Sullivan, and Taylor for dealing with the actual case in one paragraph and moving on to dramatically draft new powers and rights for the J-Council.

The Until I Turn Blue Award goes to Publicity Coordinator Simon for threatening to quit if the rest of the Elections Council overruled her and published the Voter's Guide statements as they stood, like they wanted to. She is an example of maturity to us all.

The Charlie Brown Award goes to Attorney General Powell for determinedly not taking a stance on this issue. He agreed with Squelch! but gave in to the Publicity Coordinator threatening to resign, demonstrating a fiery passion for avoiding controversy. The Graduate Assembly will presumably join in this award, after his hemming and hawwing for months kept the GA Autonomy initiative from getting on the ballot.

And finally, the Champions of Politeness Award goes to the Squelch! Party, for being paragons of politesse and diplomacy. We met with the Elections Council frequently, tried to work out compromises, and held off on suing until we had to choose between giving up our rights or putting in a motion. And even then we met with Ms. Simon to try and handle things maturely. Kudos for AAVP Candidate Holohan and EVP Candidate Duman especially for their time and patience during this.

Boo J-Council.
Email This Post!

Forgetting the ever-important crusade for free speech...

... I'M ON THE COVER OF THE DAILY CAL WITH A VIBRATOR IN MY HAND!

For the Squelch! Party, of course. Go politics. But I'm still showing this picture to my kids. And their kids.

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=14791Email This Post!

Rally Comm is picking up the Ball dropped by the ASUC and hosting the First Annual Charter Ball!

It's on Friday, April 16, 2004 from 9pm-1am in Pauley Ballroom. Doors close at 11pm. Dress is black tie optional/formal. Tickets are $20 and are on sale on Lower Sproul from 11-2 every day. UCB Students may bring guests over 18 years of age.

Also, Chancellor Berdahl wishes this event to be his formal good-bye to the students. He will be in attendance with his wife. Totally awesome.Email This Post!

Squelch! Party Challenges Statement Alterations

In a turnaround from their typical comic antics, the Squelch! Party challenged the ASUC Elections Council’s decision to alter three of its candidates’ voter guide statements for obscenity at a Judicial Council hearing last night.

Squelch! Party candidates traded in their campaign vibrators for suits last night as they brought charges against Elections Council Publicity Coordinator Rebecca Simon for changing all uses of “fuck” to “f*ck” in candidate Matt Holohan’s statement.

“The voters need to receive full access to whatever the candidates have to say to make an informed decision,” said Squelch! external affairs vice president candidate David Duman. “This is protected by the First Amendment.”

Simon also replaced the letters “a,” “i” and “u” in “damn”, “shit” and “cunt” by asterisks, which were in two other Squelch! candidates’ statements.

However, Simon maintained that her changes are within her power.

“It’s clear that the candidate wants to be represented as using vulgarity, but the voter is not bombarded by unnecessary obscenity,” she said.

The council is expected to make its decision within the next few days.

Email This Post!

Oh well...

ASUC Elections Council Publicity Coordinator Rebecca A. Simon is in violation of Article XI, Section 2 of the ASUC Constitution and Title IV, Article IV, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the ASUC By-Laws. As an ASUC official, Simon is bound by the ASUC constitution not to restrict free expression. This provision must be followed in the distribution of the Voter’s Guide as provided for in the ASUC By-laws.

On the morning of Friday, April 2, 2004 Simon e-mailed Matt Holohan a revised version of his senate candidate statement in which all instances of the word “fuck” were replaced with the letter-and-symbol sequence “f*ck.” Holohan did not authorize this editorial change, and this change is a blatant violation of Holohan’s rights to free expression as a senate candidate.

Simon has pursued a similar course of action with respect to the statement of candidate Dan Freeman.

Because Simon has arbitrarily set a deadline of 5:00 p.m. on April 2, 2004, for Voter’s Guide issues to be resolved, Holohan respectfully requests that he Judicial Council issue an PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION preventing Simon from going to press with the Voter’s Guide until these censorship issues have been properly resolved. If Simon is permitted to go to press with the unauthorized and censored statements, irreparable harm will result in that Holohan and other Squelch! Party candidates will be denied their opportunity to have their actual statements distributed in the Voter’s Guide.

In addition, Holohan respectfully requests that the Judicial Council issue a WRITE OF MANDAMUS ordering Simon to (1) print Holohan’s statement exactly as Holohan submitted it, (2) print Freeman’s statement exactly as Freeman submitted it, and (3) correct any other censorship whatsoever of any statements by any Squelch! Party candidates.

Email This Post!

The Squelch! Party/Elections Council Brouhaha was more or less resolved last night. The forum regulations were revised pretty quickly into the conversation, and it was agreed that the only things not permitted would be 'libel, slander, and 'hate speech.'' There's supposed to be an e-mail sent out to clarify the rules.

More controversial was two of our Voter's Guide statements. Some of the EC didn't want to publish 1. Matt Holohan's statement and 2. David Duman's statement.

Matt's statement just repeated the word 'fuck' some 80 times, in order to tee off the Elections Council after they urged us not use vulgarities at the Candidate's Meeting. We agreed that it was legal fairly early.

The biggest contention was actually Dave's, since he threw in the word 'c*n*' at the end of his statement for kicks. For some reason the EC thought there was a statement something like 'All Women are Cunts.' Here's the actual one:

As your External Affairs Vice-President, I’ll continue the proud tradition of past EAVPs. I’ll continue our effective lobbying efforts in Sacramento, which prevented student fee increases. I’ll continue spending your student fee monies on relevant activities like paying for students to fly out and stand around the Supreme Court building having a circle-jerk. And I’ll continue making sure that all our affairs as a student government stay external. All of them. So you best start buying yourself some long johns with the trapdoor backside. Things’re going to get messy fast. My girl likes to party all the time (repeat). Cunt.

There was an argument that this might be 'hate speech' or whatever. I'm fairly sure the EC would need an order from the J-Council to legally not-print this, but they called late last night and said it was fine. So, our plans to file for an injunction and run an op-ed in the Daily Cal are put off.

Email This Post!