So here's a series of messages I exchanged with Brandon on this topic in hopes of a little enlightenment. The first post will simply be the text itself, and I will follow up with my actual opinions on the matter.

Just so you know, this post is going to be VERY LONG. In fact, I'll split it up by message.

//////////// Brandon Chen ///////////

Hey Charles, I see you’re in the facebook group “Oren Gabriel Should Pay For His Own Legal Fees”. I am one of the co-sponsors of this bill and I would like to explain to you some many misunderstandings regarding this bill.

The ASUC Judicial Council spent a lot of money trying to disqualify Oren Gabriel and the other Executive candidates. When the official lawyers of the ASUC advised the Judicial Council to NOT PURSUE the case because the case would not hold within the California state court, the Judicial Council decided to CONTINUE to pursue. It was around this point that Oren Gabriel had to hire a lawyer to fight against the Judicial Council to rightfully win the ASUC election. In the end, the Judicial Council LOST because they were wrong in the first place and Oren Gabriel and the Execs are now democratically, and rightfully elected. Please realize that Oren Gabriel and the Execs needed to do this to right the wrong decisions made by the Judicial Council.

Secondly, the money is coming out of the ASUC Legal Defense Fund, which has money ALLOCATED just for cases like this. There is around $80K stored for legal cases like this. This is not the same money that we give to student groups. I am on the Financial Committee of the ASUC so if you have any other questions please ask me! This group is misleading because it doesn’t explain the entire story! I’m pretty sure that the creators of this group are biased and personally dislike Oren Gabriel. There is a reason why 14 senators AND the ASUC lawyers support this bill. If you understand what I’m saying, I would appreciate it if you removed yourself from the facebook group and explain any misunderstandings to others who might be concerned. Thanks!

//////////////////

------------ me -----------

Before I continue, I must say that I, like most other people in this matter, am very uninformed. All I have had to work with was the published papers (which are rather vague) on the Judicial Council's rulings, and the accusations against Oren Gabriel themselves.

It is my understanding that the charges placed against the ASUC were indeed valid according to the requirements of the ASUC constitution regarding executve orders.

To my limited knowledge, the ASUC Judicial Council did not, in fact, spend 'a lot of money' trying to disqualify Oren Gabriel. Rather, they performed their duties to prevent Executive Orders commanded by a then-Senator (pre-oath and pre-election completion, and thus pre-president) to be carried out. These Executive Orders were purposefully to make unnecessary staff changes and were given to circumvent what would otherwise be a natural process.

The recommendations by ASUC lawyers for the Judicial Council to not pursue the case was not due to the illegitimacy of the case itself, but rather that any real California state court would not take any sort of 'student government' proceedings seriously except in a case of broken federal or state law.

As the constitution created for the ASUC bears no relation to official state law, violations of the constitution cannot and will not be taken seriously by a 'real court.'

In essence, Oren Gabriel and his co-sponsors (yourself included) chose to use student funds, regardless of their allocated use, to combat a situation in which they were clearly in the wrong simply because they knew that, with a professional attorney on their side, the Judicial Council would drop the case entirely.

As a result, although Oren Gabriel did eventually move on to win the ASUC election, that does not legitimize the acts he committed prior to his election which, according to the ASUC constitution, should have disqualified him from the runnings in the first place.

To make a long story short, although there is indeed money allocated for necessary ASUC legal fees, the money is certainly not allocated for unnecessary legal fees incurred with the interest of an individual (or small group of individuals, such a specific 'political party'), and not that of the general public, in mind.

----------------

/////////////////// Brandon ///////////////

Hey Charles, I'm glad you've got questions and concerns.
A few things I want to clarify is 1) individual rights are always protected by the federal and state constitutions, and it was perfectly fair for Oren and the Execs to seek outside legal help outside the ASUC with ASUC matters. 7 state lawyers were prepared to support the Execs when the J Council overturned their decision.
2) The initial decision by the Judicial Council was unconstitutional (hence all the law suits to overturn their decision). I have pages and pages of documents that support this and would gladly elaborate them with you. The only way to overturn this decision was to hire a lawyer.

Please let me know what you think. I would suggest you come to my office hours or talk to some other senators in support of this bill to clarify anything.

////////////////////

--------------- me -----------

That does clarify a few matters in my mind, as much of it is left up to speculation (Not out of choice, but due to the simple fact that many of these documents are not publicly available. If they are, then I couldn't find it in my cursory 2 minute search.)

I do understand that individual rights are protected by the state. I never contested that. Hence, of course it is perfectly fair for Oren et al to pursue third-party legal aid.

Just as it is legal for a murderer to request a defense attorney.

I appreciate the repeated mention of the fact that '7 state lawyers' were available to support the execs. For $22,000 I would be available to support you as well.

Now the second point of interest that I have relates to part 2 of your response. You claim that the initial decision by the Judicial Council was unconstitutional, yet the ASUC Judicial Council is our analogous version of the Supreme Court. Not unlike Plessy Vs. Ferguson, they are allowed to interpret the ASUC Constitution however they please. That is what we entrusted them to do when they were appointed. Hence the Supreme Court (as I will now refer to the Judicial Council) more or less 'is' the Constitution for all intents and purposes.

So what does this mean for the ASUC Supreme Court to overturn their own decision and declare their own decision unconstitutional (since you, even the Execs, have no power over determining what is and what isn't constitutional)? Well clearly it means they were coerced into doing so. By who you ask? I don't know, but my first guess would be '7 state lawyers.' There is no other reason for the Supreme Court to overturn their own decision, which they likely made very careful and very thoughtfully.

On the other hand, we can banter back and forth on the 'legitimacy' of what went on. In the end it comes down to two interesting points.

1. Why would the ASUC Judicial Council interfere with the Executive 'branch' for an illegitimate reason? What motivation could they have other than earnestly believing Oren had violated the constitution?

2. Treating the ASUC government as a closed system, although by state law, the executive branch indeed can call in a third-party to put down the ASUC Judicial Council, in truth all you did was spend $22,000 to circumvent the delicate system of 'checks and balances' established by the constitution writers to self-balance the student body government.

Something something wire-tapping, something something homeland security. Something something no such thing as ASUC 'national security' so no excuse.

----------------

There are already discrepancies with this message. I'll wait until you're done to finish addressing them all.

For the record, I didn't dislike Oren Gabriel until he tried pulling this extortion off.

/////////// Brandon /////////////

Hey Charles, I love the debate. I didn't realize that you're also 07 BioE and I forgot you're also in TBP! I have a LOT of stuff to reply, but perhaps it doesn't belong on a facebook message. I still believe that a lot of miscommunication is going on. The entire election lawsuit is very complicated and there has been many comments and rumors that become "fact".

In addition, we all have to realize that there is an inherent problem with the ASUC in that the Judicial Council has too much power. Until I became a senator, I did not realize that there is no "checks and balances" for the Judicial Council. This is perhaps beyond the scope of this issue, but I understand that the reason why this is happening in the first place is because the J Council made some bad decisions and the only way the Execs could counter them was to get outside legal help.

If you would like, I will gladly send you documents in support of the Execs which concur with the other senators' decision to support this bill. Chears

/////////////////

------------- me --------------

I noticed very early on that you were '07 BioE, TBP, and pre-med (which I am also, good luck on apps if you're doing them right now, btw!).

Commonalities (is that even a word?) aside, rest assured that although this debate currently resides quietly in private messages, I'll eventually post it verbatim on the discussion board, so if you make headway with me, you will do so with everyone. The information will get where it needs to go.

I firmly agree with you that some form of miscommunication is going on. Otherwise this wouldn't be such a problem. Additionally, I have purposefully made it clear in each of my messages that I am not assuming anything to be fact or fiction yet. I am giving you all the benefit of the doubt because that's the least I can do with all this anti-oren stuff going on. On the other hand, while you have that benefit, I hope you give me something more concrete than the promise of 'pages and pages' of supporting evidence.

Now, with respect to the idea that there are no 'checks and balances' for the Judicial Council, the fact that the Judicial Council is appointed (not elected mind you!) BY the Executive Branch every two years IS the 'checks and balances' instituted upon the Judicial Council. This is even more significant than the actual Supreme Court as Justices are appointed far less often.

On the other hand, I do understand your point of them having 'too much power' because of the relative shortness of their term. A bad decision is easily forgotten once a Justice graduates from Berkeley and is making 150k at Goldman Sachs.

But don't let that small caveat translate into the idea that there are 'no' checks and balances. The system is setup more or less identically to the US gov, and it's tried and true. Certainly (like in Plessy Vs. Ferguson) there will be times that the Judicial Branch will make some bad calls, but that's not for the Executive Branch to decide until they appoint new Justices who will eventually overturn a previous decision. Calling in third-party lawyers is too much like calling 'mommy' to settle an argument by force than through elegant debate and discussion.

I am somewhat interested in what documents you may have that support the Execs, but the very fact that the documents are long and 'very complicated' indicates some degree of 'sneakiness.'

I'm aware that 'sneakiness' is not the most formal legal term, but it's been a while since I was in Teen Court. On a purely logical basis, the ASUC constitution is a relatively short document. I would thus assume that any disagreement with the constitution should, in fact, be shorter than the constitution itself.

If that is not the case, I would suspect it is only due to legal mumbo jumbo attempting to work a way around the set rules. Otherwise it would simply be 'the judicial council violated section ---- of the constitution' (which is exactly what the juducial council was able to claim about Oren).

As to the invitation to visit your office hours, I must decline for a couple reasons that I think are sufficient.

1. It's hard to remember 'verbatim' a conversation conducted in person, so it would be difficult to take the result of any such discussion to a friend and say 'here's why I think you should or should not support the bill.'

2. I don't have time. If I did I would probably have long since been involved with the ASUC and never let something like this occur (don't get defensive, that statement swings both ways, as I never specified what 'this' is).

3. I don't care. As you said, whether you pass this bill or not will make no difference in my life, or the lives of anybody else here at Berkeley, since the funds that are being used will otherwise sit in waiting for another legal battle. The only motivation for my interest in this discussion is the pursuit of justice, the clarification of rumors, and the possible prevention of future problems.

------------------

//////////// Brandon /////////////

Rest assured, the holes and problems with the Constitution are being addressed. I think there even is a facebook group to impeach the Judicial Council Chair. Keep in mind, there are 24 Titles in the Bylaws, and the Judicial Rules of Procedure. So the Constitution is more complicated than we may think.

In addition, I do not intend to make anything "complicated or sneaky". I merely stated the nature of the issue. I'll send you evidence if you care. I'll try to post some related stuff online so everyone can learn more than the basic description of the facebook group.

I totally understand that you're busy. I have a midterm tomorrow morning =/ But hey, thanks for the study break! Maybe I'll see ya around at TBP or something.

////////////////

------------- me ---------------

Nice talking to you. I guess my personal conclusion is that, if I had any power over this bill, I would pass it.

Not because I believe it to be necessarily correct or just in any way, but rather because:

1. The funds are coming from a source that will otherwise never reach the student body.

2. If these essentially 'useless' funds would help another student (Oren) avoid having to pay $22k out of his pocket, I'm all for it.

3. I believe college is a time where people will and should make mistakes. We haven't yet entered the 'real world' and thus should be given some leeway in the consequences of our bad decisions. On the other hand, if what the execs did was truly a mistake, I would hope that they would at least own up to it, and perhaps take a few pointers from this fiasco so they won't commit them again in future years, when 22 thousand dollars may be 22 million dollars, and instead of affecting nobody, they will be affecting everybody. Run-on compliments of my inability to properly use a semicolon.

Good luck on your midterm!

-----------------

okay, I'm done, that's all of it. There's actually a number of problems I have with the messages myself on both sides (that's right, including my own:P)

'I think there even is a facebook group to impeach the Judicial Council Chair.'

That's true, but it has 13 members and was started by a member of Student Action.

Hardly an unbiased group.

thanks for engaging in this discussion and posting it here, but removing college from the "real world" is a joke. there is no "real world" to move onto. you're in it right now and oren is trying to get out of his responsibility to pay $22K. he'll probably get away with it and continue getting away with it in the future. is that the kind of "real world" you want to live in?

The group was started at 7:37pm today as well, that is, Sunday the 15th of October.

"thanks for engaging in this discussion and posting it here, but removing college from the "real world" is a joke. there is no "real world" to move onto."

You're right, removing college from the real world IS a joke, but that's exactly what we do.

For the same reason that when I make a mistake on my CE130 midterm in a bridge design that would kill thousands, I don't get 'fired' from the class as I might from lockheed, is the same reason I think college is different from the real world.

"you're in it right now and oren is trying to get out of his responsibility to pay $22K."

Better now and $22k, than 10 years from now and $22M.

"he'll probably get away with it and continue getting away with it in the future."

Maybe. Or he'll learn a valuable lesson and not make the same mistake in the future to avoid all the trouble and bad press he's learned follows such actions.

"that the kind of "real world" you want to live in?"

Whoever said we get to choose what world we live in based on what we want? Life isn't fair.

Okay, I'll start with the first thing that comes to mind.

The ASUC Constitution mandates that 1% of annual revenues goes towards the building up of the ASUC Legal Defense Fund until the fund reaches 10% of annual revenues. Paying out $22,000 delays funds down the road.

Second thing that comes to mind:
You make an excellent point to Brandon that people are free to hire lawyers to defend themselves, and they are expected to pay for the services those people provide. The fundamental question you have to ask over whether or not to pay out the money is, if the ASUC Senate were to deny the funding, would Oren have the right to sue the ASUC for the money? There existing no legal agreement between Oren and the ASUC for this payout, and the case having been resolved in Oren's favor (technically) without the involvement of Superior Court, the answer is no.

You also make an excellent point when you consider why the Judicial Council reversed itself. We can only speculate, but if the 4-2 reversal of a 4-0 unanimous decision was due only to the threat of a lawsuit, that is known as extortion. We should not pay Oren Gabriel $22,679 for extorting the ASUC Judicial Council.

"The fundamental question you have to ask over whether or not to pay out the money is, if the ASUC Senate were to deny the funding, would Oren have the right to sue the ASUC for the money? There existing no legal agreement between Oren and the ASUC for this payout, and the case having been resolved in Oren's favor (technically) without the involvement of Superior Court, the answer is no."

The problem with this statement is that the determination of the outcome (at this very moment, no) is purely temporal. What I mean by that is, come Wednesday, it is highly likely that there will become a legal agreement beween Oren and the ASUC for this payout and the answer to this question will soon become 'yes.'

Although I see your point, a more convincing argument would be one that doesn't simply rely on whether or not the bill has been passed, because the question at hand is IF we should attempt to stop them from passing the bill.

I'm not posting this to knock down your argument, but rather in hopes that you will refine your argument to something more absolute.

I don't really have time to express my detailed opinions on this right now (or perhaps ever, as I have many detailed opinions), but overall the main problem I had with this conversation was that after spending quite a bit of time in discussion, he never really gave me any evidence to the contrary of my proposed belief.

All of his statements were essentially true only in he case that he has evidence to the contrary, as opposed to basic facts that actually refute the argument.

I understand, there's a misinterpretation of what I'm trying to say.

Let's just take person X.

X sues organization Y to achieve result Z, this will cost A dollars.
Organization Y gives result Z notwithstanding X suing Y.
As a result, X stops suing Y, but initially suing still cost A dollars.

This is the situation at hand. Why should Y now reimburse X A dollars?

Welll:

Allies beat Axis.

Axis pays reparations.

What about the Marshall plan?

Yeah, that's called 'Oren graduates and gets a fat ibanking job, then donates money back to Berkeley as an alumni.'

What about it?

To prevent Berkeley from going communist?
or... Oren from going communist? wow i'm confused, anyhow it's funny but this group makes my blood boil.

Yeah, except the Axis powers signed the Treaty of Versailles, which required the reparations. Here, the Student Action Executive Slate (the Axis powers) signed no such agreement and the Judicial Council (the Allies) surrendered the executive suites (France) to SAES without any hostilities except for a tiny, tiny ex parte hearing in Alameda County Superior Court in which the Judicial Council won.

'Here, the Student Action Executive Slate (the Axis powers) signed no such agreement'

They will by Wednesday:P

It can be stopped, and we can HELP!

They already won! The war is over! And at relatively little cost (more than what they would have spent without getting an unneccessary lawyer, but less than taking the ASUC to big people court for months of litigation). There's no further agreement to be made! SAES has nothing to offer!

If that's true then arriving Wednesday may be a little bit too much like the battle of 1812 than Normandy.

I think it's laughable that anyone joining this group is suspected of being anti-Oren rather than anti-extortion. I don't even operate on a like-dislike gradation; I have stages of respect for individuals. I have lost my respect for Oren when he attempted an ASUC coup over the summer and tried to put us through an unnecessary lawsuit in Alameda County. We still make small talk, and it's still far off from my stage of lowest respect, when I cease to be on speaking terms with someone. Still, I think if I'm paying for this extortion, he should pay me back a portion of the $700+ the ASUC still owes me for UCSA Congress fees; it's only fair.

Exactly, the Battle of 1812 should never have been fought, just as we should not be giving money to Oren, Vishal, Jason, and Joyce, because the entire series is over.