Former Off-Campus Senator Bryan Lober '06, who was removed from the Union Senate last year for failing to attend diversity committee meetings, dropped his case to be reinstated after an appeals hearing Wednesday. Lober filed the case at the beginning of the semester, alleging that false testimony about his attendance led to his removal from office. But he said he grew tired of a lengthy Union Judiciary process and wanted immediate closure rather than waiting for a verdict, which could have taken five days to be announced .

Lober and Union President Mark Schlangel '05 had reached a settlement five days before the appeals hearing. The settlement stated Lober could be reinstated for the remainder of his term - approximately two weeks - if he did not run again or ask to serve for the time he was removed from office.

"Given that elections were already occurring, we thought that defending the case would not be the best allocation of the Union's time and resources," Schlangel said.

The Union also sent a motion for summary judgment to the Union Judiciary, explaining they would no longer contest the case and suggesting that a hearing need not be held.

Justice Samuel Dewey '06 said the primary reason for calling the hearing stemmed from the court's confusion regarding the terms of the settlement. During the appeals hearing, Dewey said that the court had heard two different versions of the settlement.

Dewey said he was confused as to whether the Union was consenting to an entry of judgment for Lober, or if they intended not to go to the hearing but let the court decide whether he should be reinstated.

"First and foremost, it should be noted that we called this hearing not to thwart the party's settlement, but to ensure it was executed as the parties understood it, and to aid the speedy execution thereof," Dewey later said.

According to Dewey, the hearing made clear that the Union wanted the court to consider new testimony on behalf of Lober and rule accordingly.

Lober said during his impeachment trial, only then Senator for Racial Minority Students Kassian Polin '05 offered testimony against his presence at committee meetings. He said Polin was not placed on any witness lists and as a result, his defense was not prepared to call others on his behalf.

Lober also said he did not know he was allowed to introduce new evidence up to 24 hours after the trial.

"I am not a lawyer, " Lober said. "I was unsure of many technicalities as well as what I could and could not do during trial. I had much to prepare for and realizing that Polin was not placed on any witness list, I didn't feel any compelling need to defend against bogus allegations which never should have arisen."

Nicole Amartefio'05, who served as the committee's secretary, gave a deposition last spring before she graduated. She said that she "definitely took note of Lober" after the first three meetings.

Lober said he thought this testimony was no longer needed, since a settlement had been reached with the Union.

Justices Rachel Kohn '08 and Bryan Kurtzberg '05 also heard the case. Chief Justice Igor Pedan '06, who is also an associate editor of the Justice, and Justice Mark Samburg '07, recused themselves from hearing the case.

Lober's advocate Andrei Khots '05 said he commends Schlangel for settling. He also said he supports the Union for saying they intend to formulate a more clear process for appeals in the future.

"There is no reason why the appeal was brought before the Union Judiciary," Khots said.

"The UJ exists to solve disputes within the Union, but there was no longer a dispute. A settlement had been made and everybody was ready to move forward.