We’re liveblogging the trial now – snark edition.
Livebloggers – Alex Norris, Matt Kupfer, Jon Muchin, and myself. We’ll be blogging in the comments.
This is a project unaffiliated with the petitioners, defense, judges, or whatever. We’re just providing an alternative, hopefully more hilarious liveblog here.
Check out Emily Dunning’s liveblog below for the “official Innermost Parts take”.
—
OK, so the petitioners (UJ-speak for prosecution) keep bringing up this claim that Lev and Alex didn’t recuse themselves when they brought up the SMR, and that its wrong, since they happen to be members of DFA. This line of reasoning is wrong. Lev and Alex are the Senators of the class of 2011 and represent the entire class. They were elected on a platform of, in part, supporting such events, and their votes are public. The Ayers event is open to the entire campus, and it’s entirely appropriate for the Senators representing Twenty Five Percent of the student body to have a say in that event.
Asking Lev or Alex to recuse themselves in these sorts of votes is like asking Ted Kennedy to recuse himself on Universal Healthcare votes because he has cancer.
Out comes the gavel.
Boom goes the dynamite.
woah. Ryan just cut off Rachel. and the gavel really hurt my ear.
That’s Rachel Graham Kagan, queen of the court.
How do you know that’s the only way to spell his name? I object to your closeminded ways regarding spelling.
one “p” Nipun. You know, just for the sake of not encouraging any objections.
I meant veracity. I don’t think we’re talking about hunger.
Overunder on the use of the word voracity: 47.
I’m taking the over.
That’s Rachel. The names are available on the Union website.
I think Nippun’s only job is to stand up and object to things.
Andy points out that on a 2/23 meeting (one day after the submission of the SMR) the only mention of the Union during a jumpstart meeting was that DFA was planning to request funds from the Senate. Again, this makes sense to me because DFA can’t call the Union a co-sponsor until they vote.
Also Rachel silences Ryan. I guess he’s speaking too fast?
The justice in the turquoise shirt is getting agressive…
So precedent does not matter at all?
So many acronyms, so little time to understand what they all mean.
Jamie Ansorge wishes to explain that “there is a lot of writing on this document” to forestall people asking if Andy needs help.
It must be a document; it has “a lot of writing on it.”
I wonder…everyone keeps saying “the Bill Ayers event” are they no longer trying to keep DFA from brining a former Black Panther to Brandeis?
I think he’s sick.
So if it’s in the title, why do you ask him who writes the notes?
Andrew Hogan, the current Director of Community Advocacy, cannot read.
He actually looks disinterested
Andy Hogan is invited to the witness stand. He introduces himself “yo” (i appreciate our level of casualness)
I think the DFA minutes talk about how sexy Liza Behrent is at some point…
No one knocks for her? I thought she did a wonderful job.
Jamie Ansorge, after introducing himself with a grin that could knock something off of someone else, introduces Facebook as his first piece of evidence. Apparently Lev and Alex are officers. Shauna then is subjected to reading things not about the Student Union. Also, DFA minutes suck. Hearsay is apparently a big deal, you can’t talk about a meeting if other people were at it.
Ryan asks “right off the bat, are these minutes reliable?” everyone laughs.
I think that Facebook is the most official way to see if officers are actually officers in a group. I’m pretty sure it’s not written down anywhere else.
Shanna is reading from DFA’s minutes. Jamie points out that Student Union was not mentioned in the minutes. Of course we should expect this because it was only later that the union was sought as a co-sponsor.
For those of you not here – Jamie is using facebook as evidence that Alex and Lev are officers on DFA.
I’m finding it rather hard to keep from smiling and laughing myself. I think it’s all the official jargon.
I love how facebook has now reached the levels of official court room evidence.
Shanna is taking the stand. Seems to be hard for her to keep from smiling. Looks like someone is having a good day.
This is very well organized.
I think Jamie should apply to lawschool. Also, Shanna is brought up to the stand. Wow, they make them give the oath and everything. I like how she answered “yeah”
Ooh. Shaft is a nice choice.
I”m thinking Great Escape.
B/c I think that Alterman’s counsel just did.
Can’t you object to something that the court just said?
Jon – I suggest theme from Shaft.
i think we could use a bigger room. seems the officers of the court keep bumping into people and desks as they leave and enter the room. every desk is occupied.
I like these breaks where people huddle. It adds a nice layer of intrigue. I just wish we had some theme music playing to build suspense – it could be like a good courtroom drama.
“You can’t handle the truth!”
So, we are listening to the opening statements trying to decide whether this is the case of Lev Hirschorn and Alex Melman trying to use the Big Bad Clubs and a complex system of graft to take away money from the poor little senators who only want to help Brandeis increase its supply of cute puppies and fun, or is the obstructionist, Sarah Palin funded, weather-hating Eric Alterman going to try and take away everything the Senate ever meant and everything Nathan Robinson ever loved. There are some early fireworks about knocking on wood, perhaps due to its obvious supply luck. If the respondents continue to knock on wood, then hopefully none of their ironic statements will come back to haunt them.
Are we gonna allow that? It could be unconstitutional. Knocking is a dangerous affront to etiquette in Shiffman.
apparently…knocking is in.
Nathan argues, as Eric did that this SMR could set a dangerous precedent. Nathan points out if a rule of unconstitutional comes back today, it could severally limit future SMRs and projects of the Senate– “look back and see that none of these SMRs could have happened” he adds about past projects.
It’s all about the American flag tie. It frames this debate nicely, that of a fight for fundamental American issues, like listening to people.
Kay – there’s a reserve pink scarf sitting on the computer cluster too, just in case.
Nathan makes his list of witnesses. Aaron Finegold’s statement will be admitted.
I’d like to add, that all the lawyers and participants look rather sharp. I particularly like the salmon pink that seems popular among the defendants’ lawyers.
Nathan Robinson is up for the defense. Who can resist a lawyer with a sexy British accent?
Nathan Robinson without a podium? Now that’s a bold move.
Eric Alterman is up for his opening statement. Eric is the official petitioner. Looks like he’s also acting as his own lawyer. A bold move.