Case 34 Conclusion
The Opinion for Case 34 has been published.
Case revolved around dispute as to whether if a closed session was called on Controller Savaree-Ruess, and Savaree-Ruess motions for it to be open, can then-senate-candidate Peake who was involved in an altercation with Savaree-Ruess, require that it be closed (based on ¶3 of the relevant section, which says all parties to a closed session must ask that it be open).
We came up with several different ways of coming to the same conclusion on the matter. I will only recite my favourite here:
¶1 of that section states that closed sessions can only be called on ASUCD appointees or employees (Savaree-Ruess was an appointee, Peake was neither). ¶2 of that section states that the session can only be made open by the appointee or employee being discussed (again, Peake is neither). It follows, that if Peake did not have a right to ask that it be open, he certainly cannot by NOT asserting a right he DOESN'T have, override the right that someone else DOES have.
Case 35 appears to have been dropped. Plaintiff Laabs has made several ambiguous statements that he considers the matter settled, and today the court, operating on the principal that People Don't Know What They're Doing, voted unanimously to consider his statement that "the matter is settled" and he "intends to issue a written agreement" to constitute dropping of the case. (Though he can still tell us that oh noes thats not what he meant).
Decisions on acceptance of Cases 36-39 are due out in the coming days. Tomorrow at Senate Justice Wheat will present the Case 34 findings, and Justice Harney may announce acceptance of other cases.
Also the rotating Vice Chiefship now goes to Justice Harney.
In other news, you should all add the Head of State Update to your daily blogreading.