The CSUN Judicial Council heard a case regarding Bylaw 210 (2014) on October 13, 2014. After the petitioner presented their opening statement and dismissed themselves from the hearing, the Council proceeded with the hearing. The Council determined that the Attorney General does not have the power to interpret the CSUN Constitution or Bylaws. However, the Attorney General can issue opinions on legislative matters. The Council encouraged all CSUN officials to conduct themselves professionally and ethically in all interactions. In conclusion, the Council urged the legislature to clarify the vague powers and restrictions of the Attorney General's Office in the CSUN Bylaws.

1. CSUN Judicial Council
Murdock V. CSUN Bylaw 210 (2014)
Argued: 10/13/2014
Decided: 10/13/2014
Vote of the Council: 7­0­0
JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the council.
I. Background
On Monday, October 13, 2014, a Judicial hearing was held in the CSUN
Conference room on the third floor of the Student Union. Upon the opening statements of
the initiation of said hearing, the Petitioner presented his opening statements and
expressed his disapproval of the manner in which the Respondent's brief was written,
stating that it was received as a "personal attack" on the Respondent. Upon finishing his
opening statement, the Petitioner dismissed himself from the Judicial hearing and did not
return.
II. Discussion and Application
According to the Judicial Council Operating Policy, Article IV, Section B,
Subsection 2 states that "If either party to a hearing fails to meet any of the requirements
set forth in this document, or fails to appear at the hearing, the Council may declare a
Default Judgment against the delinquent party if a majority of the Council determines
that the violation prevented the opposing party from receiving a fair hearing. In applying
this rule, the Council shall first consider all other judicial remedies." Given this
provision, the Council proceeded in the execution of the Judicial hearing which resulted
in the issuing of this opinion.

2. However, it is important to note that under no circumstances is the Attorney General
empowered to interpret the CSUN Bylaws or Constitution. Chapter 210 of the CSUN
bylaws does not grant the Attorney General any power to execute any interpretation
powers of the Constitution of Bylaws. Nevertheless, the Council has acknowledged the
constitutionality of the power to issue opinions as an expressed power of the Attorney
General's Office. It is well within the powers outlined within the CSUN Bylaws,
provisions that empower the Attorney General's office to issue opinions regarding
legislative matters.
In response to the NRS and NAC provisions provided by both the Respondent and
Petitioner, the Council has determined that these provisions are beyond the threshold of
scope in which we may operate, interpret and enforce. Therefore, the Council has
disregarded these provisions and has based our following responses within the scope of
our powers as expressed by the CSUN Constitution and CSUN Bylaws. It is for these
reasons that the issues regarding the alleged "dating relationship" between CSUN Vice
President Espinoza and Attorney General Velto and the request to remove Alex Velto
from the Attorney General's office has been disregarded and remained unaddressed
throughout this opinion.
In response to the Respondent's brief presented to both the court and the Petitioner,
the Council would like to encourage CSUN officials to express the uttermost polish and
professionalism in all interactions with other CSUN officials. The court embraces a high
standard of ethics and morals, and expects those interacting with Judicial members and
other CSUN officials to operate under those identical standards. Any behavior that is not
determined as an element of said set of standards is considered egregious behavior and

3. will not be tolerated by the high court. This includes, but is not limited to, Petitioner and
Respondent briefs, Amicus curiae, Judicial hearings and other forms of communication
and interaction that involve the High Court of CSUN. Future standards of conduct and
expected behavior when interacting with the Council will be codified in future provisions
in the Judicial Council Operating Policy, outlawing any behavior determined as hostile,
unprofessional, and/or unethical.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, there appears to be a large lack of clarity within the provisions that
outline the powers, limitation, and restrictions of the Attorney General's office. As a
remedy, the Council highly suggests the Legislative take the necessary steps to alleviate
the vagueness and ambiguity surrounding the Attorney General's office that spell out
specific powers, limitations, and restrictions to the Attorney General's Office. A
redefinition of this position in the CSUN Bylaws is hereby urged of the high Court of
UNLV CSUN, to avoid future confusion with the actions of the Attorney General's
office. The attorney General's office does not have the power to issue interpretations of
the CSUN Constitution and Bylaws, but reserves the right to issue opinions on legislative
matters. The CSUN Bylaws are clear that the power of the Attorney General are, but are
not limited to, serving as a liaison between the Judicial Council and CSUN officials and
to serve the public council of members of CSUN. Again, we encourage amendments and
redefinitions to the Attorney General's Office the via the Legislative Branch.
It is so ruled by the Judicial Council of UNLV CSUN.

4. ____________________________
Chief Justice Taylor Cunningham
____________________________
Justice Jordyn Best
____________________________
Associate Chief Justice Nathaniel Saxe
____________________________
Justice Matt Jallits
____________________________
Justice Paloma Guerrero
____________________________
Justice Kiersten Madrid
____________________________
Justice Caleb Green