Don't mess this up!
Disclaimer: Calstuff and/or the opinions expressed are not
affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley.
Tenants' Rights Week
by Jason Overman
Site Feed (ATOM)
Add to LJ Friends
Cal Patriot Blog
UC Berkeley Livejournal
California Patriot Watch
The Bird House
Cal Prof on everything
Rants & Raves
Full Time Whiner
Cal "Frat" Boy
Jewish Students Blog
Soft Boiled Life
I Fought the Law
Ne Quid Nimis
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Judicial Council Declares a Moratorium on BU Presidential Candidate Zach Liberman
The two big stories here at Berkeley lately have been the Greek Alcohol Moratorium and the election stuff. And in a cosmic comic convergence, those stories have magically fused into one giant amalgmation combining deliciously hilarious elements of each. This is all so funny, that I'm including the entire document I just recieved, banning Liberman from appearing before the Judicial Council. All this is missing is some type of sex element and MTV would buy this up in a second. Be sure to read to the bottom for the details of all the harrassing phone calls. Oh, the horror! [Zach: maybe a real lawsuit aint such a bad idea after all...] Enjoy:
Contempt of Court
On this Date the Tenth of May, Two-Thousand and Five
By Chair Robert D Gregg, with whom
Associate Justices Aidan Ali-Sullivan, Marisa Cuevas, Amaris White, and Sonya Banerjee join
Due to the petulant, hostile, and disruptive behavior of Zachary Liberman during the hearing AG v. Liberman (1,2,3) and during personal contact with the Judicial Council, we have found that Mr. Liberman has violated both JRP 188.8.131.52.2 and 184.108.40.206.4 concerning the behavior of litigants.
According to the first rule, the Council may find a litigant in contempt of court if he/she shows “disrespectful behavior or disregard for the formality due the Council.” We believe Mr. Liberman did just this at the hearing, during which he made several outbursts out of order, interrupted Justices during questions, ignored orders to halt irrelevant argumentation, and acted in an aggressive and confrontational manner towards the Council. At this hearing, Mr. Liberman acknowledged that Chair Gregg had warned him several times regarding his behavior and acknowledged that he understood that he would be held in contempt if he continued such actions.
The second concerned clause states that litigants may not disparage a Justice. During a recess at the aforementioned hearing, Mr. Liberman asked witness Angel Brewer a series of questions in a manner that Associate Justice Sonya Banerjee felt was inappropriate. Justice Banerjee suggested that Ms. Brewer not answer, to which Mr. Liberman asked Justice Banerjee, “are you nuts?” We believe this behavior to be entirely inappropriate. However, we are most concerned with his recent series of phone calls with Chair Gregg. According to the transcripts attached below, Mr. Liberman acted in an unacceptable manner through these harassing phone conversations. Justices are only “available for consultation on procedural matters,” and Mr. Liberman repeatedly ignored Chair Gregg’s request that he confine the conversations to procedural matters. Therefore, this Council has found that Mr. Liberman in fact disparaged multiple Justices.
The Judicial Council has been very patient with Mr. Liberman throughout the past month, but that patience has been abused and now exhausted. We will not tolerate such behavior and therefore hold Mr. Zachary Liberman in contempt of court. In accordance with JRP 220.127.116.11, Mr. Liberman will not be allowed to appear before the Judicial Council at the appeal hearing of AG v. Liberman. We will not permit further exchanges with Mr. Liberman. His co-counsel, Mr. Jarod Sacks, may argue on behalf of Mr. Liberman, and if Mr. Liberman’s testimony is needed, a written affidavit will be accepted.
Documented conversations by Chair Gregg with Mr. Liberman over the past week (many more conversations occurred beforehand, but these are most of the post-decision ones):
12:19am: Call Z.L. to inform him of appeal acceptance
- Z.L. is happy to hear this, and asks for clarification to which I describe the accepted grounds
- End call
3:40 pm: Receive e-mail from Z.L. with appeal supplement but without charge sheet
3:42 pm: Call Z.L. to inform of improper charge filing
- Z.L. claims to have filed hard copy of charge sheet through Jan Crowder
- Z.L. yells about lack of appeal checkbox on charge sheet template
o I claim that’s rather unimportant as long as he wrote “appeal” on the charge
o He yells again about it being “very important”
o Upon unsuccessfully stopping his rant, I tell him to “shut up”
o I tell him I will not argue about this, and since he filed the charge my reason for calling is over.
- End call
9:53 pm: Receive voicemail from Z.L.
- He erroneously claims that I personally released his medical records to the press. In fact, no medical records were attached to the appeal charge sheet and he himself sent it to the Daily Cal
- He threatens to sue me personally for releasing those records. This is the second or third time in the past month he has threatened to sue me personally for doing my job.
~11:30 pm: Receive call from Z.L.
- Z.L. informs me that he has evidence/witnesses to prove Councilmembers “bought out” by Student Action for previous case
- Upon my questioning, he admits not ‘bought out” but simply met with S.A. to discuss his disqualification
- I ask him for details, he refuses and lectures me on how corrupt our decision was
- He requests to keep his medical records private. I agree to help, but tell him we must show the records to the Council and the plaintiff
- He asks about appeal procedure & deadlines, I give him necessary information
- End call
Receive call from Z.L.
- Z.L. claims everyone but Senate thinks Council corrupt and messed up
- Claims working with Dean Kenney and Chancellor to take away ASUC autonomy because we “are not responsible enough” to be autonomous
- Threatens lawsuit in federal court
- Threatens to bring in Jon Pennington, Yvette Felarca, and Student Legal Clinic, all who he claims have grudges with the Judicial Council, to stop our decision
- I tell him that threatening us cannot possibly help him. He responds that he has no choice
- I tell him I cannot talk to him about this, can only offer procedural advice
- End call