Arguments
in refund case come to a close
By
Allison Baldwin
Online Forty-Niner
Editorial Assistant
Associated Students Judiciary heard rebuttals and closing statements for former
ASI Sen. Uduak-Joe Ntuk’s suit against ASI.
The hearing resumed at 12:40 p.m. Wednesday in the Senate Chambers with Attorney
General Kevin Rhodes’ rebuttal of senior chemical engineering major Ntuk’s
evidence. Ntuk filed a complaint against ASI March 13, saying he wanted a refund
of his $88 mandatory ASI fee for the 2005-2006 term. On Monday, Ntuk presented
several pieces of evidence that were thrown out and called senior marketing
and psychology major David Kirsten to the stand.
During Wednesday’s trial Rhodes attempted to rebut Kirsten’s testimony
against ASI and current ASI President Jamie Pollock. Rhodes said Kirsten’s
testimony was not valid as evidence because his testimony was biased and he
was working as part of Ntuk’s “campaign of vengeance against [his]
client.” Chief Justice Nicholas Mokhlessin told Rhodes he could rebut
Kirsten’s arguments but could not rebut him as a witness.
Rhodes cited a letter to the editor in the April 5 edition of the Daily Forty-Niner
written by Kirsten during his closing statement. He said the letter showed
Kirsten’s bias against Pollock. Ntuk objected to the mention of Kirsten’s
letter because it had not been previously designated as evidence in the case.
Mokhlessin sustained the objection and the article was stricken as evidence.
During his rebuttal, Ntuk defended his witness, saying he did not prepare Kirsten
before he testified and he was called to show how other students felt about
the student government.
“
Any student should be able to have their voice heard,” Ntuk said.
Ntuk refuted the article, “Petition to Refund $88 Student Fees Spawned
From Political Agenda,” written by Amanda Parsons in the April edition
of the Union Weekly, which Rhodes had entered as evidence.
In the article, David Kirsten is quoted as saying that he and Ntuk “ want
to make [Pollock] look bad . . . [Ntuk] has a vendetta against her because
of last year’s elections.”
Ntuk said the article was irrelevant and he had no idea it was even coming
out. He said the issue lacked validity because it was an April fools issue,
citing another article from the edition that called Jamie Pollock’s Chief
of Staff, Bobby Godina, a woman.
“
I don’t think it’s a credible source,” said Ntuk
During his closing arguments Rhodes said Ntuk had no evidence he has personally
been affected by Pollock’s actions or that ASI was responsible for the
misappropriation of funds to Godina.
“
Ntuk has failed to provide any evidence that he is entitled to his money,” Rhodes
said.
Ntuk closed his case, saying he filed the suit because he had lost his faith
in the student government and he wanted the judiciary to uphold the integrity
of the ASI.
“
That was part of my money that I put toward the institution,” Ntuk said. “I
lost the privilege of using my own money.”
AS Judiciary has five days to make a decision in closed deliberation.
Pollock, who did not attend the trial, was campaigning for the ASI run-off
election outside the University Student Union.
“
I think it’s a personal attack taking place during my re-election campaign,” she
said. “It was meant as a distraction.”
|
