Thread by @AylingLindsay

Weird name for this case considering UNC and the white supremacists are on the same side. Nonetheless, I'm here to live tweet the latest hearing in the #SilentSham scandal.

Recall that the judge in this case, Allen Baddour, is personally involved in some shady shit. Baddour was in frequent contact with UNC BOG lawyers *before* the case was filed. wbtv.com/2020/01/29/jud…

SCV lawyer mentions "ill-advised" email from Kevin Stone of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Claims this was "bragging and puffing" and shouldn't be taken seriously. "He did not state the issues very clearly." Those issues being SCV using UNC's payout to build a racist clubhouse

SCV lawyer says BOG could have moved the statue for 100 years b4 monument law and didn't. This seems to indicate that Silent Sam was UNC's property, which contradicts their argument that Silent Sam was SCV's property.

What SCV actually wants is the statue to go up, which he claims will happen if the $2.5 million payout is rejected.

Counterpoint:

Now SCV's lawyer is rambling about "honoring the dead from that era." As @sams_reckoning has extensively documented, the UNC students/alums who fought for the Confederacy were from elite, slaveholding families. Their legacy is white supremacy and inequality. Not worth honoring.

@sams_reckoning "No one understands how the law is practiced. I've been practicing law for 25 years." OK boomer.

@sams_reckoning SCV lawyer claims that if UNC can't pay $2.5 million to white supremacists, no one will ever be able to negotiate anything with UNC ever again.

@sams_reckoning UNC's lawyer is now speaking. Again, despite name of the case, UNC is on the same side. UNC argues that UDC put up the statue and UNC was "working as UDC's agents." Which I guess they still are today.

@sams_reckoning President Venable accepted the "gracious gift." UDC said it would "stand for all time" but then a bunch of students [who took the radical position that they weren't cool with honoring racism for all time], tore it down in fall 2018.

@sams_reckoning UNC argues UDC made a "conditional gift" depending on the monument staying up in perpetuity. He doesn't seem to make an argument that UDC mandated UNC pay them $2.5 million if it ever got torn down.

@sams_reckoning Creating a $2.5 million trust for white supremacy was apparently a "goal" of UNC's Board of Governors, according to UNC's lawyer.

@sams_reckoning "there have been a lot of accusations thrown around" says the lawyer arguing 'against' someone on the same side, to a judge who was involved in these shady dealings before the case was filed.

@sams_reckoning Now UNC's lawyer says there were "riots" in Charlottesville due to a confederate monument. So I guess UNC had no choice but to give $2.5 million to the same white supremacist groups that rallied under swastikas and murdered Heather Heyer.

@sams_reckoning Now we get to the actual opposition in this case. Elizabeth Haddix is arguing on behalf of UNC students against the payout to white supremacy.

@sams_reckoning The plaintiff (SCV) had no standing in the first place. Parties cannot create jurisdiction through a consent agreement. The fact is, the 1897 UDC could not own property as a matter of law or make contracts [because they were women].

@sams_reckoning Furthermore, there was no evidence that the 1897 UDC transferred its interests or succeeded to the 1992 iteration of the UDC.

@sams_reckoning The fact is UDC never owned the monument. UNC always owned it. The words "may it stand forever" and "I hope" don't create any sort of legal obligation. UNC and SCV are basically telling the court "you should just trust us."

@sams_reckoning Haddix contests idea that no other solution was possible. Both parties admitted safety risk -- an explicit exception in the Monuments Law. Therefore, the BOG could have removed it at any point [a point UNC students made for a year b4 they were forced to tear it down themselves]

@sams_reckoning Now a lawyer representing UNC alumni speaks against the $2.5 million payout to white supremacy. Clients include three members of the UNC Black pioneers. Read more about the Black pioneers here: wunc.org/post/meet-unc-…

@sams_reckoning UNC entered into an agreement with the sculptor. UNC paid the sculptor. UNC installed the monument. UDC never owned it.

@sams_reckoning SCV and UNC lawyers never addressed the central point of the alumni brief - that UDC never owned Silent Sam in the first place and couldn't have gifted it to the SCV.

@sams_reckoning Suppose Black Pioneers proposed that UNC Honor Julius Chambers w/portrait & raised donations, which UNC used to buy the portrait. UNC would still own the portrait.

@sams_reckoning Judge asks UNC and SCV for response. No takers.

@sams_reckoning Qs from Judge: 1) if UNC had removed the statue & declared safety exception, who would have standing to challenge?

@sams_reckoning UNC points to "building inspector or similar official" language of the Monuments Law. As always, UNC argues that exception didn't apply to Silent Sam. "Anyone with ownership interest would have had standing to bring a lawsuit."

@sams_reckoning Judge Baddour clarifies he's not asking who could make the decision about public safety. Asking who could challenge. Haddix (for the students) argues there is no private right of action under that particular statute [Legislature would have had to specify that in the statute].

@sams_reckoning Haddix says UNC is overly narrowly construing "similar officials." FBI inspector would certainly count as someone qualified to make a safety determination.

@sams_reckoning Judge. 2) Is it correct that a statue can be removed with permission from the NC Historical Commission? [recall: shortly before students toppled the Silent Sam, the BOG refused to petition the commission for permission to remove it]

@sams_reckoning Judge Baddour: "it's not the clearest statute I've ever read, which is why I'm asking the question." UNC and SCV argue other conditions must apply.

@sams_reckoning Haddix: there is another reading. Conditions must be met *unless* the Historical Commission approves the removal. She adds that the Monuments Law was removed after a neo-confederate white supremacist murdered Black churchgoers.

@sams_reckoning sorry, typo: Monuments Law was *approved* after the shooting

@sams_reckoning Qs from Judge. 3) independent of this lawsuit, could these two parties enter into a contract? In other words, could the contract be legal, but the consent judgement not?

UNC: that would be a contract, but not an appropriate thing for a court to approve.

@sams_reckoning I guess if that were the case, UNC would have to admit that it just wanted to pay $2.5 million to white supremacists. Lawyers mumbling around me indicate that this line of questioning is bullshit anyway.

@sams_reckoning Haddix: parties can enter into a contract, but can't get orders from a court if it didn't have jurisdiction. UNC couldn't have given $2.5 million to an organization without a lawsuit and a consent judgement.

@sams_reckoning Further, it would violate the NC state constitution to give $2.5 million in public funds to a private org that isn't providing a public service.

@sams_reckoning RULING: Judge Baddour finds consent judgement is void. Plaintiff did not have standing. Court will vacate consent order and dismiss the lawsuit.

@sams_reckoning SCV: but can we still have our $2.5 million white supremacy trust fund though?

Judge: well I just vacated the consent order, so probably not. You didn't spend it, did you?

SCV: kinda...

@sams_reckoning Judge directs that an accounting be provided to the court that will indicate any expenditures by the trust, and return of the assets to UNC.

@sams_reckoning Haddix: SCV just said they spent $52,000. But we got an order that trust would be frozen and not spent.

UNC claims SCV spent money before the freeze order (why does UNC know that, btw?)

Judge: okay, let's see the accounting

@sams_reckoning Haddix says if trust wasn't supposed to exist in the first place, those expenditures shouldn't be covered by public funds. They should be paid back.

Judge: well I've already gone to the edge of my comfort zone.

@sams_reckoning By Monday at 5PM, UNC should file something if they wish for court to provide further direction. But if they don't that's fine. After that point, there may be another hearing. For now, looks like the racists are slightly fucked.