Over at the future ex-blog of Churchill's dog, Benjie, Churchill's future ex-wife, Natsu "Truthforce" Saito laments:

July 7, 2009

On April 2, 2009, after hearing evidence for a month, a Denver jury unanimously found that Ward Churchill had been fired from the University of Colorado not because of research misconduct but in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.

After more than four years of political attacks on Ward Churchill, a clear statement had been made:  the University of Colorado had violated the U.S. Constitution when it fired Churchill, a tenured full professor of American Indian Studies.

The normal remedy in such cases?  Reinstatement.

Today, July 7, 2009, Judge Larry Naves of the Denver District Court threw out the jury’s verdict, adopting the University’s argument that the Regents have “quasi-judicial” immunity from such lawsuits.  In essence, this means that the Regents and University administrators are free to continue to violate the Constitution.

In a 42-page opinion lifted wholesale from the University’s pleadings, Judge Naves went on to explain why Ward Churchill should not be given front pay, back pay, or be reinstated.

All of these are irrelevant, of course, if the jury’s verdict is not upheld. But the fact that the judge went to such pains to adopt the University’s arguments — which often directly contravened the factual record in this case — speaks volumes.

This ruling simply confirms what we have observed so often.  When given access to the facts, regular people on the street can make clear, reasoned decisions that uphold constitutional values.  It is rare, however, to find persons in positions of power who will not bow to political pressure.

Attorney David Lane will, of course, appeal this decision.  Ward Churchill’s reaction?  “I can’t think of any way to improve upon Steve Earle’s line from The Hard Way:  ‘There are some who break and bend.  I’m the other kind.’”

...and in an earlier post, Benjie achieves bathetic perfection by accusing Naves of, yes, plagiarism (all emphasis in the original):

Y’know an interesting exercise might be to compare portions of Judge Naves’ ruling to, say, some of CU’s motions.

For instance, I stumbled on this line in Naves’ ruling:

Professor Churchill argues that the University is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the University waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.

Something about it struck me as oddly familiar. So, having way too much free time, I flipped over to CU’s Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Quasi-Judicial Immunity, did a quick search, and found this:

The University concedes that it has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.

I’m no kind of lawyer, but it doesn’t seem entirely on the up-and-up for a judge to simply copy portions of his ruling verbatim from motions filed by one side or the other. If nothing else, it’s plagiarism, right? Which is pretty ironic, given the case and Naves’ ruling for CU.