Dear friends,Oh, yes we can, Ratsu.
Having inflicted Judge Naves' opinion on you, I thought you might enjoy the Motion for Reconsideration filed by attorney David Lane, which says:"Essentially, this Court has ruled that regardless of how egregious any Constitutional violations are by the Regents of the University of Colorado, as long as they provide a sham, kangaroo court for individuals targeted for termination and/or persecution because of their political beliefs, the courts of the State of Colorado will never interfere with any such wholesale violations of the Constitution. . . . "
From there, he ably disputes each of the points in the opinion. He adds 2 exhibits:
1. A side-by-side comparison illustrating the extent to which J. Naves' opinion lifts directly from CU's pleadings.
2. An affidavit from juror Bethany Newill disputing the judge's interpretation of the jury verdict.
As we say, you can never have too much fun.
With appreciation for your support, and in solidarity,Nothing new, of course, but fun to get (from the cutest little mole you ever saw). JWP has all the background. In solidarity.
Update: I know this has been asked before, probably at JWP's, but why have none of the other jurors said a word?
Update II: Some blog called "Forsco" has a very long post rallying the Wartenstaffel to the colors (black--the color of Wart's teeth, and red, the color of his piggy little eyes). After rehearsing all the reasons Judge Naves' ruling is a crime against humanity, the piece asks, in the original way such pieces have, "What is to be done":
We should work with Ward and Natsu to continue the battle within the courts to reverse the ruling. One idea that should definitely be pursued is to draft and submit a compelling amicus brief signed by scholars throughout the country.Hell, why not? It's worked so well before.
In addition, it is important to contribute Op Ed pieces to Colorado newspapers, as Richard Delgado (in the Boulder’s Daily Camera) and others have done; but even more, to influential national newspapers – The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, U.S.A. Today, etc. This should start right away, and with a special push in late August, as the fall terms begin. Work could begin now on a formal statement that would be circulated for signatures of faculty nationwide in time to have it published in key campus newspapers, as well as in journals, major on-line news sites, in addition to regular newspapers, to coincide with the start of school in the fall. If this were accompanied by a call for faculty (and student!) meetings and conferences, even rallies in some cases, the public challenge from within the academy to the legitimacy of this ruling could spill over into the major media.
It may also be time to consider a second major piece, like the one that appeared as an ad in the NYRB in April, 2007, initiated and signed by prominent public intellectuals. That piece had first been submitted as a letter to the New York Times, the NYRB, and to Harper’s. This time we may be more successful in getting one of them to publish it. But if necessary, we should be prepared to raise the funds for its publication. These are just some initial ideas and suggestions to “get the juices flowing.” Let’s correspond and share ideas, and ways in which you’re willing to contribute to this vitally important effort.The signatories won't surprise you:
And, of course:
Best, Matthew Abraham Richard Falk Irene Gendzier Henry Giroux Margaret LeCompte Peter McLaren Mahmood Mamdani Immanuel Wallerstein Reggie Dylan, for the Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia Network firstname.lastname@example.org (626) 319-1730
Posted by Emma Ya Basta! at 10:22