September 26, 2011
Senate called to order
Vice President Byrd – I am Vice
President of the Student Government Association Jessica Byrd. To my right is
Treasurer Nick Lawkis, to my left is President Al-Greene, [stand-in] Chief
Justice Sydney Jackson and the Senate Clerk Jennifer Black.
Roll Call
Senators Absent: Sells, Fishel, Nesbit,
Scarborough
Witnesses Present: Coleman Wolf, Dr.
Mitchell
Prosecuting Attorney: Troy Shephard
Defense Attorneys: Martha Collins, Ginny
Roman
Vice President Byrd – The purpose of
this has been summoned to the impeachment trial of Attorney General Jean-Pierre
Arditi. The charges that were brought forth are as follows:
1. Improper Conduct – used powers not
given to him to try to appeal parking tickets for people that he personally
knows. This goes against the oath of office that every officer must take.
2. Improper Conduct – tried to override
the Chief Justice’s decision on a parking ticket appeal. The Attorney General
does not have this power. This oversteps his powers and makes it hard for the
officers to work together.
We will now have opening statements from
the prosecution.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy Shephard – Today
there is a simple question to be answered: did the Attorney General Jean-Pierre
Arditi overstep his bounds and abuse his power given to him by the student
body. I believe that with my evidence which I will present today and the
testimonies from witnesses you’ll see, I think I can prove that he did indeed
overstep his bounds and abuse his power. That’s all.
Vice President Byrd – Okay. We can now
have opening statement from the defense.
Attorney General Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Good evening members of the Senate. Today’s case is about misunderstandings.
Tonight you will see, while I did admittedly made a mistake in the way about this
um, changing – disrupting – Chief Justice’s Wolf’s ruling about a parking
appeal ticket, it was not my intention, nor was it an attempt to overstep my
powers. It was merely voicing an opinion that I disagreed with his decision,
and I hope that today - in today’s trial - you will see that. Thank you.
Vice President Byrd – Would the
prosecution like to present the first piece of evidence?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy Shephard –
Have [the copies] been passed out?
Vice President Byrd – No, just pass them
around.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy Shephard –
Alright, the first piece of evidence that you are about to receive is the
actual appeal that is in question. The personal information of the student who
appealed has been blacked out for confidentiality purposes. Aside from that,
take a look; first of all you will see the Chief Justice’s signature (Coleman
Wolf) and his original ruling which was “Guilty”. As you further examine it you
will see that the Attorney General, from his own edition, crossed out the
original ruling – squiggled it out – and wrote “Not Guilty” and then initialed
again to confirm that he did indeed overrule the original ruling. This is in
direct conflict with the Lowdown’s policy of how appeals are done. In fact, if
you look at Code of Laws Chapter 402.2 it reads “All
appeals will first be ruled upon by the Chief Justice or Attorney General.”
Then it goes on to say that “If for any reason the Chief Justice and Attorney
General are unable to agree on a decision the UDC
Officer will have the tie breaking vote.” Indeed the UDC officer was not
contacted, therefore the Attorney General went against the Lowdown and used his
power to just cross out the original ruling and pass it off as a new ruling.
Had the Lowdown been followed and the UDC officer had been contacted, the
meeting would have been held and a ruling established. But from the evidence
you clearly see that the Chief Justice’s decision was simply crossed out and
passed off as a new ruling.
Vice President Byrd – Okay,
would you like to say anything? Cross-examine the evidence?
Attorney General Jean-Pierre
Arditi – No, your honor.
Vice President Byrd – The
prosecution may call the first witness.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – The first witness I would like to call is Chief Justice Coleman
Wolf.
Vice President Byrd –
Alright. Coleman Wolf, do you swear to tell the truth?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes I
do.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy Shephard
– First of all Coleman, could you please explain to the Senate how you came
about hearing about your ruling being overruled.
Witness Coleman Wolf – After
I turned in this parking appeal I went back the next day for more parking
appeals that needed to be decided on. Ms. Judy – Dean Mitchell’s assistant at
the Dean of Students Office – told me that the Attorney General Jean-Pierre
came in, asked to see the appeals I already made a decision on. He looked
through them, pulled this one out and then proceeded to overrule it finding the
student “Not Guilty”. I then asked Dean Mitchell to come outside of his office,
we talked about it and we looked in The Lowdown. He does not have the power to
overrule me once I have issued a decision.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay thank you. Just for clarification, the way the basic procedure
works is either the Attorney General or Chief Justice will give a ruling, sign
it, stamp it with the date, then turn it in to Ms. Judy - who is Dean
Mitchell’s secretary for the office – who then files the appeals so that they
can be put on people’s transcripts or fines or that sort of thing. As we were
told earlier by the defense, it was simply a disagreement. At any point did the
defense call you, try to discuss the matter, anything like that?
Witness Coleman Wolf – I was
never contacted before I heard about this. After I learned about the overruling
I went to the Attorney General and asked him about it and he told me “I meant
to get in contact with you about it last night”.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay so just to clarify, he didn’t call you at all about this?
Witness Coleman Wolf – No.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay. Has anything like this ever happened in your term in office?
Witness Coleman Wolf – No,
this is a first for this. This incidence is very unusual; in the past usually
the Chief Justice is the sole judgment on parking appeals and then if the Chief
Justice is not able to do it for bias reasons or out of town for any reason
then he would turn it over to the Attorney General.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright thank you.
Vice President Byrd – Would
the defense like to cross-examine?
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Yes. Okay so Coleman how long have you been in office?
Witness Coleman Wolf – I
took office in late May.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– In late May. Okay so throughout your tenure as Chief Justice you’ve never had
to deal with this type of situation?
Witness Coleman Wolf –
Explain “this type of situation”.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Earlier you said that as long as you’ve been Chief Justice you’ve never had
to deal with this type of situation where someone overruled you.
Witness Coleman Wolf – No,
not during y tenure as Chief Justice or in my tenure in the Student Government.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay. And earlier you said usually the Chief Justice takes all parking
appeals.
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– That’s how it usually goes.
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Well in chapter 402 – you are familiar with chapter 402 Student Traffic
Ticket Appeals?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– It does say - at 402.2 “All appeals
will first be ruled upon by the Chief Justice or Attorney General”.
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So to you does that mean that both parties can look at traffic appeals?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes,
both parties can look at the appeals but the thing was I already looked at it
and made a decision and returned the decision into the office to be filed away.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay. Um, and you are familiar with 402.3, as Troy said earlier, “If
for any reason the Chief Justice and Attorney General are unable to agree on a decision the UDC Officer will have the tie breaking
vote”. So, if there’s a disagreement, how…before I ask that – you were given a
parking ticket appeal orientation, correct? In June?
Witness Coleman Wolf - Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay. At the orientation, uh, did that come up? Did that particular
stipulation in the Lowdown – 402.3, the disagreement – did that come up in the
orientation?
Witness Coleman Wolf – That
came up as an issue if I personally know the person or if I have a leave of
absence either one of us. That’s when that came up.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay, so read me the language if you don’t mind. 402.3.
Witness Coleman Wolf – 402.3?
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Yes, if I may: “If for any reason the Chief Justice and
Attorney General are unable to agree on a decision
the UDC Officer will have the tie breaking vote”. In the parking orientation,
that only ever came up if it was with somebody that you knew.
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Like if I felt like I could not make a decision then I would turn it over to
the Attorney General, and if we could not agree on a decision then it would be
turned over to the UDC officer which is Robin Jones.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay, but when you read that particular stipulation it can’t be construed in
any other way? You can’t understand it to mean something…like if, as far as I
know, is the Attorney General allowed to look at your stack of appeals that you
turned in to Ms. Judy?
Witness Coleman Wolf –
That’s up for interpretation.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Is that particular stipulation up for interpretation as well?
Witness Coleman Wolf – It
would be, in my opinion yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay. Thank you so much. Okay um, you remember August 1st, we were
supposed to have our evidentiary hearing – the original evidentiary hearing –
that day, correct?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay, um, we didn’t have it that day, is that right?
Witness Coleman Wolf –
That’s right.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Uh the reason being, if I’m saying this correctly, the Associate Justices
that were present weren’t confirmed by a two-thirds vote by the Senate. Is that
correct?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Also there was not a full quorum of five people of Associate Justices at that
meeting. Is that correct?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay. And we moved the hearing because of that, and it was a mistake, are you
comfortable saying that?
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes I
made a mistake not having the Associates confirmed.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– It was a good faith error; you didn’t mean to do that.
Witness Coleman Wolf –
Right.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay, so…you didn’t mean to do that, so did you ever…did anyone contact you
after that situation about a possible impeachment? After the Associate
Justices, on your account, failed to be confirmed and it was not a full quorum,
did you receive notification of impeachment? Did anyone ever come up to you and
say hey, this is -
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Objection. This is irrelevant and she’s badgering the witness.
Vice President Byrd – Yes.
Um , you need to make a point.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– I’m sorry I am making a point, can I explain?
Vice President Byrd – Yes.
Do it quickly.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Yea sure. I’m asking this question because the error that was made by Chief
Justice Wolf in this particular situation on August 1st at that
preliminary hearing - it could be
construed as a major error because in the Lowdown it says that you have to have
a full quorum for this type of hearing.
Vice President – They had
the hearing – the hearing went on? It wasn’t cancelled?
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– It was cancelled that day so they moved it to another day because there was
not a full quorum, none of the Associate Justices present that day were by
two-thirds vote by the Senate, so that goes against what’s in the Lowdown.
Vice President Byrd – But no
meeting was held so…there was no quorum so no meeting was held. So nothing was
done.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– the point is that that was – there was an error made on Justice Wolf’s part
but it was a good faith error it wasn’t a huge…it was a big deal because it
goes against what’s in the Lowdown, but he didn’t mean to do it. If he didn’t
receive notification of impeachment after that, no one tried to impeach him for
that error. Which technically could be something to bring up for an impeachment
because it went against what’s in the Lowdown.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – I’m going to object because Coleman Wolf is not on trial here.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– He’s not on trial but I’m making a point that –
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – I just think it’s irrelevant because it’s attacking the witness
rather than -
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– I’m not attacking the witness I think that’s a legitimate question.
Vice President Byrd – Okay
point of order I believe the point’s been made that Coleman made a mistake,
realized his mistake and stopped it before it became an issue. So if you would
like to continue with a question on a different path.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So, you feel comfortable saying that that error was, as I said before, a good
faith error.
Witness Coleman Wolf – Yes I
do.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Thank you. No further questions.
Vice President Byrd – Do you
have any other further questions?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – No.
Vice President Byrd – Okay.
Would the prosecution like to call the next witness?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Yes if I could have Dr. Mitchell. Thank you for coming.
Vice President Byrd – Dr.
Mitchell do you swear to tell the truth?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – I do.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright uh Dean Mitchell if you could just run us through how you
became aware of this situation.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – I became aware of
the situation after Judy and Coleman talked about the appeal. Ms. Judy actually
called Coleman to look at the appeal because she was unsure what was going on
with the appeal. It was a very unusual situation in that she had never had an
Attorney General and a Chief Justice change the other’s decision. So in the
actual appeal she asked for Jean-Pierre to initial those things that he was
changing. At that point Coleman was not there I was not there, uh, Ms. Judy
takes those appeals from the Chief Justice or Attorney General, she puts those
into a file for our student worker to put the decisions on, and all the
decisions are in a logbook for students who appeal to come by and review those
decisions. So she doesn’t keep up with the rules and regulations; she has a
particular process that she does. She gets the appeals from parking, she gives
them to the Attorney General or Chief Justice, she takes them back, she gives
them to the student and the student logs them into the system so that I have a
decision record. So, what happened between Coleman and Jean-Pierre was out of
that order – it was different than what had happened in the past. So the next
day she asked Coleman about it, and it was different for Coleman as well, so
they brought me out to look at the appeal. I looked at the appeal, it was
obvious that the decision had been changed from the prior decision. I made the
decision to change it back to the original decision and we used the first
decision that was made by Coleman.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – At any point were you contacted by Jean-Pierre about the original
decision to discuss a possible discrepancy or a conflict in judgment?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – No. I first
became aware of the appeal and the decisions that were made with the appeal
when Coleman and Ms. Judy were in the office discussing the appropriateness of
the change in decision.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – In your experience with SGA, how are appeals usually handled? Is it
the Chief Justice or Attorney General – how is it usually done?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – The Chief
Justice, during the three years I’ve been here, has taken the majority of the
responsibilities for ticket appeals. In that he or she can decide if the
Attorney General would ask to be a part of that process. Often times the Chief
Justice and the Attorney General get together and develop their process or
procedure and work it out, and it’s often a case that if we’re at the beginning
of school and there’s tons and tons of appeals that come in the Chief Justice
may split the stack with the Attorney General; give him or her half, they’ll
take half, and they’ll get them in. Goal being to get those tickets processed
as quickly as they can so that students aren’t waiting on the appeal decisions
because only one person is doing them and can only do so many. There are other
times, for example, when the Chief Justice may be away, out of town, the
Attorney General would then – at the direction of the Chief Justice – take
those appeals. But those two folks have typically in the past worked out their
system; it’s all worked out well, there hadn’t been any real conflict. This is
really the first time that there’s ever been any discrepancy in the
relationship between those two officers in the appeal process.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Going off what you just said, we’ve already discussed that both the
Chief Justice and Attorney General can do appeals.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – yes both can.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Right, but would you agree that no one can overrule the other? Based
on the Lowdown.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – Based on my
interpretation of what’s written – which, it’s not my job to interpret and
that’s what I think these folks are here for – based on my interpretation, I
don’t read that to say that.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay final question: after looking at the actual appeal, do you feel
that the proper route was taken to voice the concern that he did not agree with
the original decision? Or did this look like somewhat of an overruling? Based
on the crossing out and the signature next to the “Not Guilty”.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – Well I think that
my action in reviewing the change of decision speaks to that; I changed it back
to the original decision because it did appear that it was an overriding of the
original decision, and that’s not what I read the Lowdown to say.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay thank you.
Vice President Byrd – Okay.
Would the defense like to question?
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Yes. Okay so, how long have you been Dean of Students and advisor for SGA?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – A
little over three years now.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay, so in those four years have you ever seen a situation like this?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – This
is the first time during those three years.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So you would say this is a unique situation?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – This
is different.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Would you feel comfortable saying this summer after all the SGA and the
Executive Officers are elected, during the summer would you say…how would you
characterize the summer as a period for the SGA?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – Well
for the entire SGA the summer is typically learning season. It’s an opportunity
for those who have not had a position before to learn that position for those
that are new to SGA and the Senate as an Executive Officer to kind of learn the
ropes. It’s a lot slower during the summer in just about every aspect of campus
so it’s really a time for you to learn your job and to figure out what you’re
going to be doing as we head into Fall and then into Spring.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So in the past three years I’m sure you’ve witnessed your fair share of
mistakes.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – Yes.
My own included.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So when you saw the ticket appeal, after JP had marked on it, you thought
that it was an overruling.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – I
viewed it to be an overruling of the original decision.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Right, and to your knowledge the only person that JP had contacted about the
way to deal with the ticket appeal was Ms. Judy.
Witness Dr. Mitchell –
That’s my understanding.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Do you think that it would have been better if JP had come to you first? To
ask about this particular appeal and what should be done in this process.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – I
think it would have been better because I probably would have had the same
reaction that I had when I saw the decision changed. One of the things that I
try to do with these particular positions is, because they work with a process
that’s connected to the University that’s connected with students’ parking
records, is to provide an orientation with the Chief Justice and Attorney General
to talk about ticket appeals and to talk about that process. To talk with them
about conflict of interest and to give Parking Services an opportunity to give
them an insight of what it means for Parking Services to issue tickets and why
this whole process exists, what their role is in the process so that we don’t
have situations like this one where there is a little bit of confusion. So,
we’ve done that orientation and so far that orientation has worked well. We
have given the students who will be working with parking ticket appeals the
opportunity to, during the summer, learn about the process and learn where they
fit.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So during that orientation, how are disputes handled? How do you talk about
those during orientation?
Witness Dr. Mitchell – Well
part of that orientation really hasn’t been focused on dispute; most of that
orientation is really focused on the process and the second part of it for the
students is focused on the ethical part of managing the appeals of people who
you many know. Because it is really difficult and really easy for someone to
place themselves in a situation where they’re reviewing an appeal for a friend
or someone they have class with so we talk about that so if there are any
questions about whether or not I should do a ticket the safest thing to do for
the students involved would be to pass it on to the next person. If I’m the
Attorney General reviewing that ticket and I’m a little bit unclear about my
relationship with that person or if my decision has been clouded by that
relationship I should always pass it to the next person. So that’s mainly what
we talk about and we have not in the past because we haven’t had conflict in
the past between the Chief Justice and Attorney General. We’ve not really
discussed conflict in the review of tickets because those two folks have always
gotten together and worked out their process and the processes were fine. So,
to answer your question, we’ve not discussed dispute in that training.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Okay. Would it be safe to say that usually the Chief Justice looks at
appeals?
Witness Dr. Mitchell –
Usually, yes.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– But it’s not in the Lowdown, as you said before, it wouldn’t not be kosher
for the Attorney General and the Chief Justice to separately look at appeals.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – It
wouldn’t be uncommon and it wouldn’t be unconstitutional, in this case. They
could both review the decisions.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– So once, let’s say hypothetically, the Chief Justice looks at a stack of
appeals and turns it into Ms. Judy. At that point would it be okay for the
Attorney General to come back and look at those appeals.
Witness Dr. Mitchell – He or
she could.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– No further questions.
Vice President Byrd – Are
there any other witnesses to call?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Can we please call Attorney General Jean-Pierre Arditi to the stand?
Vice President Byrd –
Jean-Pierre to you swear to tell the truth?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
I do.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright, could you please explain how you came about acquiring the
appeal after the Chief Justice ruled “Guilty”.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Sure. So that day I walked into the office and I went to Ms. Judy to see if she
had any parking appeals to do and she said Coleman had just done a stack but
you’re more than welcome to look at them and she handed me the stack. I looked
through them and I looked to see what decisions he made and I was like okay I
agree with this, I agree with this, um, I agree with this and then I read that
particular appeal, I read it and said “Actually I don’t agree with this”. So I
asked, you know, Ms. Judy if what I could do I don’t really agree with this can
I voice my opinion about this? She was like well, I’m not sure what proper
protocol is but if you want to voice your opinion go ahead and mark what you
want, initial it, and um mark out Coleman’s decision over there and we’ll see
what happens. And just, when you can be sure to tell Coleman and discuss it
with Coleman.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – So just for clarification, you’re saying that Ms. Judy told you to
mark out and then initial beside your new ruling.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Objection. The witness clearly stated that he registered a dispute,
not an overruling.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – I didn’t say overruling.
Defense Attorney Martha Collins
– You said overruling.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – I’ll repeat, just to clarify. Could you please just repeat how you
went about, um voicing your concern with the appeal? You consulted with Ms.
Judy is that correct?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes that is correct.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay thank you. Sorry about that. From your best judgment, would it
have been better if you had consulted with the Lowdown rather than the Dean of
Students secretary on how to handle a dispute over an appeal?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
At this time I would say yes. At that time since I knew Ms. Judy does the
parking appeals, I thought being new to this office and never having done
anything like this, that she was one of the best people to go about asking. Now
I realize that was an error on judgment.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright, is it common – or was it common at the time – for you to
double-check the Chief Justice’s rulings on appeals.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Not always. Sometimes Coleman and I, in the main office before we moved, we
were doing parking appeals and I would sit down in my office and Coleman would
do some then he would come to me and be like “Hey read this what do you think
about this?” Sometimes we had at one point switched and looked at the other
appeals; he has come into my office once before we moved and said “Hey can I
see which appeals you’ve done?” and I would say “Sure” and hand him the stacks
and he looked and was like oh okay.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – At any point did you try to contact Coleman within a short time
frame of you receiving this appeal?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
I thought I had seen Coleman in the office that day and I went to go talk to
him that day but he had left and I was going to do it at a later point but I
did not get the opportunity.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright, so you’re saying you intended to.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – At any point would a phone call have sufficed to clear up the
dispute?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Why wasn’t that phone call made?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
At that time, to be completely honest I cannot recall at this time. My intent
personally though was to talk to him in person in case anything had to be done
if there was any procedure that had to be done to go ahead and talk to him in
person and take care of the understanding. To be honest, a phone call is
impersonal and, you know, not everything can be done over a phone call.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Right, I’m just trying to clarify, why didn’t you at some point ask
Ms. Judy to set it aside maybe?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
She said that she would also talk to Coleman about it and to my understanding
she did set it to the side to ask Coleman about it as well, and I hadn’t heard
anything about it so I figured it was okay.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright I just have two final questions for you. The first is why
did you mark out his ruling rather than voicing maybe a note at the bottom?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
I was told to.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – You were told to mark it out.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – From?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Ms. Judy.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Ok, I guess lastly, now looking back would you have handled things
differently by maybe contacting the UDC officer?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Oh most definitely. It’s not my intention to, you know, usurp someone else’s
power. I’ve got things to do too; it’s not my place to say “Hey I want to take
your job too. Give me your job.” It’s not may place, that’s not my job.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay, going off of that, by not contacting the UDC officer do you
feel like looking back that it was going against the Lowdown by not following
the proper protocol?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Can you re-word the statement?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Do you feel that – now that you have knowledge of how things
probably should have gone – do you feel that by not contacting the UDC officer
to voice an opinion or a conflict for the appeal, do you feel like it went
against the Lowdown by not contacting the UDC officer?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes and no. Yes, looking back I feel that I should have handled the situation
differently. First off probably talking to Coleman about it and saying “Hey, I
don’t with your decision. What can we do?” But second of all during the summer
there is no UDC officer there was no UDC council to voice an opinion to, in
general. So I don’t know who I would have gone to, to be honest with you. But I
think, looking back, I should have first have gone to Coleman rather than anyone
else.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright. Thank you.
Vice President Byrd – Does
the defense have any questions?
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins– Yes. Jean-Pierre, how long have you been Attorney General?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Um since the last part of May; I think we were confirmed before school ended.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Okay so roughly about four, six…
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Could you repeat the question please?
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – How long have you been Attorney General?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Um since about May.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Okay. Have you ever had a dispute like this before, of misconduct?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
No.
Vice President Byrd – I’m
sorry this question has been asked and answered.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Has it?
Vice President Byrd – Has
this dispute ever happened before? And I believe this has been asked before.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – No, in the SGA. I’m asking of Jean Pierre. Has this happened with
Jean Pierre. His misconduct.
Vice President Byrd – Any
misconduct?
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Yes.
Vice President Byrd – Okay.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – As Attorney General, I’m going to ask a few more questions about –
he’s in other organizations.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Can you repeat the question please?
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Has your misconduct ever been discussed before?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
No.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – In SGA, okay. How many other clubs would you say you’re in?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Altogether I believe I’m in about five.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Have you ever had issues or misconduct in any of those other clubs?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
No.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Okay. When did you initiate your dispute?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Um it would be the same day that Coleman did the appeal so I believe it was
July 12th.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Okay, we’ve heard that from other witnesses. And when were you
notified of the error?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
I was notified the Friday before our last Senate meeting, so I believe that was
the 20th, July 20th. That was between a meeting between
Jessica – Vice President Jessica Byrd – Chief Justice Coleman Wolf and Dean
Mitchell.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Okay. Between that time – the 12th and the 20th
– did anyone contact you about this dispute?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
No.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – You admit that you did not contact anyone about the dispute.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Okay. But you admit this was a mistake.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
It was.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – You don’t believe that the secretary was the best person to talk to about
making a dispute.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
I do now.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Do you know Rule 402.3 in the Lowdown?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes I do.
Defense Attorney Martha Collins
– Does it say that you must contact the UDC officer?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
No it does not.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – It does not. It says the officer must be contacted after your dispute
has been brought forward?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
I would assume; the rule is rather vague so I would assume you know probably
Ms. Judy would have done it seeing how she [inaudible] appeals back. But I
don’t know how that process works.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – And you admit what we heard before with Dean Mitchell – that in
orientation you didn’t really cover disputes.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
We did not cover disputes at all.
Defense Attorney Martha
Collins – Thank you. No further questions.
Vice President Byrd – Are
there any more questions?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright so the issue was brought in as who would contact the UDC
officer. I think we both agree, from the testimony from the witnesses, who do
ticket appeals fall upon; who’s responsible for those?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Could you state who that would be?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
It would be either myself or Chief Justice Wolf.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright. So since this was an issue pertaining to traffic appeals it
seems like the implicit course of action would have been to contact the UDC
officer, would you agree?
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
Yes.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay so we’ve cleared that up. Last of all, did you have any knowledge
or any type of relationship with the person who appealed this ticket?
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Objection. It was made clear to me in the preliminary hearing that you were
only going to the second charge of improper conduct [inaudible] parking ticket
appeal. I know earlier the Vice President Jessica Byrd said that…is it both
charges?
Vice President Byrd – I read
both; they’re both on there I read them both.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– You read them both but in your opening you said that you didn’t make it clear
that you were going after the first charge. Is that correct?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – In the opening I didn’t say anything because I didn’t know –
Vice President Byrd – He
didn’t say it and I was no privy to that meeting that was a closed meeting. I
was not part of that so the charges that were brought so…
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– From my understanding the only charge that I’m aware that we’re doing - or the prosecution is doing - is the second
charge.
Witness Jean-Pierre Arditi –
And it was made clear in the notes from the hearing that there is only the one
charge.
Vice President Byrd – Okay
just…we’re gonna…it’s not very kosher for JP to talk right now since you’re
still a witness right now. Alright, these were the charges that were brought. I
believe that you knew what the charges were, so I don’t think that that should
be a surprise.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– It’s not a surprise but it was my understanding that the second charge that
the prosecution was going after.
Chief Justice – There were
three charges and there was a count of bias that was dropped so I think that
was what you were referring to.
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– I’m referring to the August 1st I remember explicitly it should be
in-
Chief Justice – Well the
charges are here that we’re going for as was stated. You’re right though we are
not charging him with knowing the witness as bias. But these two charges are
what is standing. But the bias, which was dropped in August and then again at the-
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– But the question itself is implying that the bias is still there.
Vice President Byrd – That
charge was dropped I was not aware of that so just disregard that and don’t ask
any questions about the first charge.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Okay I guess I’ll just ask about whose duty do you think it would be
to contact the UDC officer?
Witness Jean Pierre Arditi –
I would not know; it’s very vague.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Alright no further questions.
Vice President Byrd – Are
there any other witnesses to call?
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – No ma’am.
Vice President Byrd – Okay.
We’re going to move into closing statements. Prosecution if you would like to
give closing statement.
Prosecuting Attorney Troy
Shephard – Today we’ve presented physical evidence of the appeal itself, two
testimonies, and from what you’ve heard today I think it’s clear that the
Attorney General did indeed try to overrule a decision. A decision that was put
forth by Chief Justice Coleman Wolf. In the Lowdown it clearly states that he
does not have that power to make that decision. The question at hand is not
could the Attorney General also make that decision, the question here is can he
overrule. From anything you’ve seen for that matter, it doesn’t say that he has
the power to overrule. From what I’ve seen, from the evidence you’ve been given
today [inaudible] the duties of the officer is to uphold the Lowdown and it was
not upheld. An overruling was attempted and it failed. Lastly, it is clear to
me that the Attorney General did indeed overstep his bounds.
Vice President Byrd – Would
the defense like to give a closing argument?
Defense Attorney Ginny Roman
– Members of the Senate, this case is ultimately based on misunderstanding and
miscommunication. Jean Pierre understands that this situation came about
because of his mistake and he admits that. However, the mistake he made is
being misrepresented as Jean Pierre intentionally overriding a decision Chief
Justice Wolf made on a parking ticket appeal. Jean Pierre’s real intention was
to voice a disagreement with the decision Chief Justice Wolf had made, which he
is allowed to do in accordance with 402.3 in the Lowdown. Now you’ve heard Jean
Pierre’s testimony, that he asked the secretary what to do in the situation to
voice a dispute and his understanding from that conversation was that he could
simply scratch out the ruling that Chief Justice Wolf had made and put down
“Not Guilty” with his initials next to it. That was his understanding from that
conversation. Now he understands full well that that is not the way to go about
it and he admits that. Now, Ms. Freehof is not the ultimate authority on
traffic ticket appeals, and Jean Pierre should have made the appeal to Chief
Justice Wolf before he had the dispute and you’ve heard that from Jean Pierre
himself. So Jean Pierre should also talk to Dean Mitchell prior to acting on
the appeal; he did not know – but he knows full well now – that a simple error,
which is such a minor mistake, [inaudible] this situation. Jean Pierre failed
to talk to Coleman beforehand to figure the situation out, was an error made in
good faith. He heard from Coleman earlier that at the preliminary hearing – the
first one we were supposed to have on August 1st – there wasn’t a
full quorum of five justices and none of the justices were confirmed. That was
a good faith error. He did not read the Lowdown which stipulates that he’s
supposed to have quorum and the justices are supposed to be confirmed. And we know
that JP’s mistake, he didn’t consult the Lowdown either. He asked Ms. Judy what
he’s supposed to do, which he understands that is not the best way to go about
it now. The simple fact is that Jean Pierre went about doing what was perfectly
in his rights the wrong way. What was the result of his misguided intent?
Nothing. Jean Pierre’s error was caught earlier and no harm was done. Harmless
as it may have been, Jean Pierre is fully aware of the seriousness of his
mistake. He’s deeply sorry and has learned from his mistake, and he doesn’t
deserve a severe punishment.
Vice President Byrd – Okay.
Now that closing arguments are done we are going to go into Executive Recess to
deliberate. That means that everyone who is not Senate or Executive Board will
have to leave until we have come to a conclusion.
Executive Deliberation
In the matter of impeachment of Attorney
General Jean-Pierre Arditi the ruling is: Guilty