Thank you for this article informing the student body about the proceedings of the late impeachment of Ralph Thomas, but I would like to clarify a few things.
While it was often referred to as a “special prosecutor,” because such a designation is likely more familiar to those who speak of it, I was technically appointed to be an “impeachment manager.” A special prosecutor is, in fact, something far different. An impeachment manager is a person selected by the members of an impeaching House, from among its members, to exhibit the case before the trial body.
Furthermore, I would like to correct a misstatement made in your article. The USG Constitution does not say that the District Advocate’s role is prosecuting impeachments; in fact, the District Advocate is not in the Constitution. We, as a Senate, established the position by law in a law known as the Ensurance (sic) of Justice and Rights Act. In it, it does not say that the District Advocate prosecutes impeachment, and I think the power of the Senate to appoint its own managers of impeachment trials is securely intact.
However, I will admit there was disagreement over whether the Senate should appoint impeachment managers, or whether the District Advocate should prosecute. To that end, District Advocate Ovtcharenko sued in USG Supreme Court for an injunction against me presenting the impeachment charges, and responded with my own brief requesting the court to dismiss the injunction as being without merit. Unfortunately, this issue was never adjudicated because all the suits were dropped upon the resignation of Ralph Thomas.
If “The Statesman” would wish to see my 7-page legal reasoning in support of the Senate’s choice to appoint myself as an impeachment manager, and against District Advocate Ovtcharenko’s assertion that he was the proper officer to exhibit the Articles of Impeachment, I will gladly make it available to you at the earliest possible convenience.
Respectfully, Senator Nathan Shapiro