![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienautDear ASUCD Senators & Officers,
Since I know a great many of you will read this entry I will take the opportunity to address you while I have your attention. I feel a really didn't testify very well this time so I thought I'd say some things I didn't get a chance to.
At the request of a Senator I have removed a number of recent entries from the public sphere. You have probably seen them already as circulated during my hearing, but if you have not yet seen them and would like to, ask me and I will show you a physical copy regardless of whether I have reason to expect you aspire to incriminate me. By now even those of you most opposed to me must be realizing that I have an absolute dedication to the truth.
It occured to me that I should have clarified what livejournal is, since in testimony against me it was said that I "run a website...," implying I operate some unique news source named incriminatingthings.com or something. I think by any legitimate definition of "run," I do not "run" livejournal.com nor this particular journal. This is one of millions of journals on livejournal.com, one of 1,464,791 in fact. There are 291 such journals registered in the UC Davis community, of which 14 can be expected to read my livejournal (ie mine will appear on their "friends" page). Eighty people altogether have this livejournal listed as a friend, of which 66 do not live in Davis and have no impact on your lives whatsoever. My point is that no, there is not reasonable cause to suspect the public will be reading this, nor until recently anyone from ASUCD.
More importantly, by thoroughly reviewing the entries here and the recent removed ones when you get a chance, I think you will be (disappointed?) to find that I have not expressed any personal opinion regarding anyone in ASUCD, nor discussed any cases. I stated that someone was pissed at me, and I think I could emperically prove that they WERE, but I didn't even state my opinion on THAT. Quite awhile ago I mentioned the details of a he-said she-said incident between a certain senator and the entertainment council, and this was brought up at Senate yesterday, please note: there is no jurisdiction whatsoever for a Court case in this incident, SPAC is beyond our control as far as I am aware; I in face did not favor either side in my description of the incident. I expressly state "...what I heard" not "...what happened," "...what I believe," or anything that could be construed as impartial (other than the fact that I am an ent.con. volunteer, which seperately would prevent me from sitting on the case) even if there WAS a potential case there. I apologize that entities other than myself apparently had a misunderstanding and it has resulted in bitterness between those parties, I had no part in it other than the deliverence of already-public information; resolve the problem yourselves and realize you have no objection to me in this case. Bring me minutes from the meeting proving someone else made that statement and I will apologize and explain to everyone involved, but unless you do so I am apt to believe what I remember being extremely sure of at the time.
Also I challenge you to find evidence (other than circumstantial "it says this here and that happened to this person in real life") evidence of who this livejournal represents. The fact is that a clear seperation has ALWAYS been maintained between this journal and definite ownership by any single person (this is not a new thing, check the printed copies one or more of you made before this incident). Furthermore, I encourage you to click "user info" and read the bio information there. Now with these things in mind, could the author not perhaps be truly writing a fictional journal & be paralleling adventures a good friend of his(/hers) is having because they highlight important student issues? I think you'll find that you cannot prove otherwise.
Okay that was a long speil on that, but there's one other important issue. The charge that I released confidential information that, coincidentally, I was not supposed to have in the first place. I have the unfortunate position of having a different view of this because of what I know of the law. By coincidence I really had just gone over the concept with my legel theories professor the day before as regards a different situation. The legal precedent on the issue is quite clearly that if classified information is mistakenly passed to the wrong recipient, and they recieve it under the impression it is public information, they are not at fault; the entity which missfiled it is. I have a document, which I have shown to the media, which clearly state that it is public information, and has the allegedly confidential information on it. I have never, even at this point, seen written documentation proving that deliberations are confidential, but what I have seen is written documentation stating under authority of SGAO that all material I was provided with is public. Regardless of any oral rumours I may have heard to the contrary, if I were looking at this material as an ASUCD judicial officer (note: I was processing that information as a private student, and all persuant speculation does not relate to my conduct in any other position I may sometimes fill), I would be duty-bound to go with the written evidence I had seen.
Anyway, I'll spare you any more arguments, only a third of the senate voted for my removal this time anyway. I'm sorry the rest of you must suffer the same discredit this fiasco no doubt will reap from the public. But there are actually benefits from this we must not forget: many of you (well if you are reading this it probably includes you) have now read sizeable parts of my personal journal and that I'd imagine will give you a picture of my personality and life more accurate than you ever would have gotten otherwise, altogether it has increased the legitimacy, power, and public-awareness of the Student Court and their recent decisions, it gave me a lot of material to write about on my 6 page legel-theories paper, and for (I hope!!) the first time, livejournal was formally discussed at Senate (I call this a Good Thing just because I can't get over how funny that is).
Sincerely,
The Emosnail Editorial Staff
We here at the Emosnail have also been encouraged to point all persons involved in ASUCD to THIS ENTRY, written by another individual I think you'll find you all know and cherish.
IMPORTANT: please be aware that even without a livejournal account you can leave an "anonymous" comment to this entry, or any other entry of my livejournal, or most other people's livejournals. I would appreciate it if any ASUCD visitors would leave some kind of comment. Thanks, I love you all. But not in a way that violates my impartiality.
And finally, you recall hearing read a comment by one "shid" who said "I suggest death." He has an official response for you:
"Miss Henry, that quote refers to [my] inability to get laid, and has nothing to do with court proceedings. If any cute girls want to visit [me] at LMU in Los Angeles, see [Kris] after this trial."
I must say, I never thought Sean's sex life would be discussed in ASUCD Senate.
TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT:
In case you haven't caught on yet: Kris Fricke was considered for the second consequetive time in about a week for removal from his position as Chairman of the ASUCD Court. The evidence brought against him entirely consisted of this livejournal, and comments others had made to it. I think the main lines of argument are evident in this entry already.
This entry and others may refer to actual events experienced by one or more individuals in first person. This is entirely for stylistic reasons and does not imply any particular identity to belong to this journal. Incidentally you will find that nothing in this entry or any other constitutes a judicial impartiality on any matter that may face a court. Thank you.
