Phi Alpha Delta Fall 2006 Formal

   This past weekend Kristy came up to visit.

   On Friday we attended the Phi Alpha Delta formal, which was held in the Veteren's Memorial.
   Those of us who intended to drink each donated $10 with which officers acquired alcohol which they made available at the event to those who had paid. Though Kristy & I had each donated $10, we brought our own higher quality alcohols in flasks to be assured a certain quality. But then Social Chair Tessie Cross told us that we were not allowed bring our own alcohol. However, I don't see how the alcohol we brought was any different from the alcohol THEY brought. Such a rule makes sense when a catering service is providing food/beverages and expects to be held liable for any results of consumption/embibement at a given event, but in this case everything was provided by members. On any account, as we had just finished our own alcohol supply the situation was moot.
   Anyway, Kristy & I had a pleasant banquet experience and I was pleased to introduce her to the numberous new pledglings whom had not met her yet. Kirill, whom I've rather adopted in lieu of the early disappearance of the pledglinig I was assigned as a little sib, got me a flask as a present, saying I seemed like a flask kind of guy. (=
   Towards the very end of banquet I was holding an empty alcohol container that was shaped like a globus cruciger, which I thought was rather novel, and its donator, Alvin, had said I could have. Social Chair Tessie Cross approached me and took it from me, explaining presumably "you cannot have that because _____" but none of the people I was standing with could understand what she said due to ambient noise. We just shrugged and let her make off with it. Shortly thereafter Tessie departed the event leaving the globus on a table with some other discarded trash, so I reacquired it.
   The traditional Pledge Party took place after the banquet starting at midnight -- as scheduling it the following day would have conflicted with the CoHo Formal, apparently. It consisted primarily of people standing around awkwardly for a little while and then dispersing. Many went to IHOP, where they had more fun.

   The next evening (Saturday), after various fun Davis-related adventures (such as Farmer's Market) we ended up at the Foyerhouse. What had begun as simply a plan for some of Kristy's close friends to all hang out with her on Saturday had escalated first to a facebook-event titled "Worship the Greatness of Kristy" (title not approved by Kristy) and then a semi-formal event when Kristy decided she wanted to wear her dress again. I wore my polka-dot tie, and Olivia also wore a dress. Britta & Julie came dressed as a devil & gangster, respectively, which I thought was awesomely random.
   I made some Glögg I had decided to randomly pick up at Cost Plus earlier and everyone loved it.

   Otherwise.. we just had a lot of pleasant adventures and it was quite fun.


Pictures
   Camera hasn't been working for some time now so no pictures )=


Graduation Party
   I'll be having a graduation party on the evening of the 16th, at the Foyerhouse. You are probably invited.

Case 34 Hearing - Case 35 Accepted

The ASUCD Supreme Court

CASE # 35

Laabs v. Holloway

12/06/06, accepted

WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Before: Chief Justice Fricke; Justices Harney, Aguilera, Sraboyants, & Wheat
Fricke, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court:

I. The Prima Facie Merits of the Case
   The ASUCD Constitution, Article III § 4 ¶ 4 states in part:

The President shall exclusively appoint all Directors of ASUCD Units (with the exceptions of The California Aggie and KDVS Radio) and representatives to all committees requiring student membership subject to approval by a majority vote of the Senate.

   Plaintiff alleges that in October 2006, ASUCD President Darnell Holloway appointed Steven Ostrowski to the Academic Senate Committee on Academic Freedom & Responsibility. Plaintiff alleges that Ostrowski has not since been confirmed by Senate, & that this is a committee requiring student membership pursuant to Article III § 4 ¶ 4 of the ASUCD Constitution.
   The ASUCD Supreme Court shall seek to investigate and reconcile this apparent discrepancy.

Wherefore, the ASUCD Supreme Court having taken all of the facts into consideration, writ of certiorari is hereby

GRANTED, this case is ACCEPTED
###

   We deliberated the acceptance of the above Case 35 directly prior to the Case 34 Hearing, and had the above writ (here as a word document) ready to be read to those present directly prior to commencing the Hearing.
   So the Hearing took place in the Moot Court room at UC Davis Law School, which is of course a fancy mock up of an actual court room, so that was very neat. I don't want to make any attempt to characterize the dynamic between the plaintiffs, defendants, & court or anything, but I'd be interested in any thoughts anyone from the audience had.
   I don't believe there was an Aggie reporter there. Jonathon Leathers makes an LJ post and gets a call from the Campus Editor five minutes later and a front page article in the next day's paper, but I bombard them for two weeks about what I regard as an important Court hearing and nothing. ::sigh:: And my camera is broken so I didn't get any pictures of us in action in the courtroom, which would have been nice. Someone else did though I think (Dan?)
   Once the Case 34 hearing was adjourned we had some more Case 35 points & motions.

   Anyway, as to the inevitable question of when we'll have an opinion out, the Judicial Codes say we have three academic days, which means ...... in a few weeks when next quarter starts ;)
   But really, I'm writing a paper about the stratego-economic consequences of the sanctions on Libya / motivations and consequences for lifting them; Justice Wheat is writing a paper arguing that Morganna Le Fey is actually a better person than Merlin in Le Mort d'Arthur; and I forget what everyone else is writing about but the point is we all are working on papers. So I've asked everyone to write down all their thoughts regarding the case as soon as they can just in a simple stream of consciousness manner or something, and then we'll look into making a coherent opinion about it when we get a chance.

   Anyway, this was presumably the last ASUCD Court case I'll ever preside over. As I haven't been replaced yet, I'll presumably still be Chief Justice come the beginning of next quarter (as I'm not termed out until I hit four years on the Court at the end of next quarter, and I'm not formally filing for graduation yet), though I don't intend to actually be around.


Related: PICTURES! (by Dan Xie) of: us Justices presiding; the Plaintiff's team; and the Defence team.


Completely Unrelated: Family Feud Causes Large Brawl Involving Axes, Spears, Swords, in Australia. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.


In Other News: I completely forgot that the Discovery Channel Programme I was in was scheduled to air today!!! )=