The Agrinautica

   Not only is this the three year anniversery of this livejournal, but I happened to check how many entries had been made heretofor, and this will be the 801st. See more under Previously on Emosnail.

Yesterday's Impeachment
   Yesterday the Senate was to consider my removal for the third time. Unfortunately, they failed to call the removal hearing in the spirit of the brown act and protections given by the ASUCD bylaws for accused individuals, so the removal hearing couldn't go though.
   So it turns out the strongest charge against me was that Senator Kristen Birdsall thought it was suspicious and "against the spirit of the brown act" that when Elections Committee member Van Schoelandt pulled her into the ASUCD Conference room on the evening of the 12th the Court was there, along with the case plaintiff and defendant and Van Schoelandt, while meanwhile the Senate was meetings against the spirit of the brown act in a closed session that was not allowed by any of the provisions of the Brown Act OR any of the provisions of ASUCD standing rules.
   It is in fact a pretty farcical charge. The fact of the matter is that, "in the spirit of the brown act" we were variously having open meeting and mostly sitting around informally. Numerous people freely stopped by, including President Caliph Assagai, Senator Ari Kalfayan, Commission Chair Gregory Russel, and Commission Chair Genna Carnes (who will recall commenting on how small the keys on my phone are .. they're pretty ridiculously small in fact). And then there's the time I walked down the hall and announced "hey if anyone else wants to join us in the conference room we have more chairs in there" to the people sitting on the floor. I don't know who was witness to that since I wasn't paying attention to whom I was near at the time. The fact is the only person excluded from the room at any point was Plaintiff Joe Harney, when we discussed matters related to his case.
   And lets not forget that Kristen Birdsall and Chad Van Schoelandt burst into the room relatively unexpectedly for those of us in there. And while they were in there Caliph Assagai popped in and commented prophetically "well this looks shady." If it was a secret meeting, it was one really really badly kept secret. Fact is, it would have been "against the spirit of the brown act" for us to exclude these people, and we did not.
   And while this was ongoing the Senate was meeting behind closed doors for undisclosed purposes, CLEARLY against the Brown Act (the proverbial crickets were chirping when I asked if any of the senators could explain under which allowable circumstance the Senate had met), so I don't see how you can even begin to challenge ME while you have that hanging over your head. Word of advise, it'll help your case if you bite the bullet, admit you were wrong about at least that, and formally make those minutes available to the public. The Elections Committee admitted when they were wrong. I once notified the media 2 days rather than 3 days before a hearing, and despite the fact that the media was in fact present, I had the integrity to admit I was wrong, declare a mistrial, and schedule a new hearing which was done correctly.
   In summary: I am charged for violating the Brown Act by enforcing the Brown Act during a time when the Senate was in violation of the Brown Act.

Justice Dies In Silence - The Myth of Non-News
   But actually most alarming of all is the fact that the Aggie decided it wasn't noteworthy to report that the head of one branch of govenment, the head of an important committee, and two other important officers were up for impeachment. A representative of the Aggie said that they couldn't confirm whether or not the Senate intended to remove us. Let there be no question, you don't call removal hearings if you don't intend to remove someone. You don't impeach a chief justice just to ask him questions. They didn't impeach Clinton because they wanted the juicy details of his illicit sex life. On top of this, Van Schoelandt had offered to Senator Birdsall that she schedule the matter under presentations and thus not hold any of us liable for removal -- Birdsall obliquely rejected this. As such, she has quite clearly reserved for herself the right to remove any of the persons she attempted to remove.
   I mean, why make it needlessly contentious and hostile by notifying people that they are considering their removal if you are not in fact considering their removal. If we are not in fact being considered for removal, and Birdsall for some reason just loves impeachment hearings, I would ask that she officially waive her right to dismiss us pursuant of the upcoming removal hearing which will doubtlessly occur. I ask the media when she tells you she doesn't intend to remove us to ask if she waives her right to remove us. I believe this will cut through her equivication to the dark heart of the matter: she wishes to remove us without setting off bothersome warning flags first.
   While we're on that subject, aside from the fact that none of us were conclusively notified, the notification that some of us got didn't even include our names nor any other information that Birdsall thoguht she could get away with not divulging. I would like to state that its my firm belief that the names of the accused are critical (they were all blind-CCed -- their EMAIL address didn't even appear on the inbox -- and I didn't get an email at all), and I would like to ask that all other Senators make a pledge to not endeavour to keep people in the dark until the last minute if you plan to try to remove them -- tell them what the basic nature of your charge is at the time you notify them of it. I've had to ask the Senate to consider the removal of justices who weren't coming to meetings before, and at the time I notified them I forwarded them all documents related to Court attendance keeping, and what I intended to say -- its really not that hard and furthermore keeps people from feeling like its personal.


The Governator is Watching
   Justice Reed works in Governor Schwarzenegger's office. According to her, she was talking to him the other day, and mentioned she is on the ASUCD Supreme Court. To this he responded "ASUCD, they're the ones with the scandal right?"
   omgwtf! I can't believe I heard that right. I suppose its not so shocking to hear that they read the paper from the nearest University over there (Sacremento being just 11 miles away). But yeah so, The Governator is watching. I submit that he probably reads this livejournal.* =D


See Also: 72% of respondants to Aggie poll disagree with Senate's recent action.


*I fear some readers are dense enough to believe I'm serious. I'm not. About him reading this livejournal I mean. The interchange with Justice Reed is true.


Random Fact of the Day
   The name of the State of Idaho originated from a hoax?!?!

Picture of the Day
I saw a car in the Colleges parking lot with a boot on the wheel and a big notice on the front from TAPS. I didn't know they did that -- I'd have taken a picture for the wiki but like I said, my camera is kaput. Its in the corner by the domes if someone wants to photo it.


Previously on Emosnail
   Three Years Ago Today: E.M.O.S.N.A.I.L. CREATED - After a Glam Rock party in which my bike, peacoat, pocketwatch, and gloves were stolen, I crash with a bunch of other people at Amie Gutierrez', meet Amy Zimmerman. Come home to my freezing apartment (heater was totally broken) and create this livejournal. I'm told the poloroid picture Amy took of me for her wall o' people is still there.
   Two Years Ago Yesterday: Limp-Wristed Fist Shaking - Kristy and I make an expedition into Sacramento, arrive late for a party at the Loyola House. George Andrews, famous for "saying daffy things," gives me another funny quote. The next day Little Christie has her birthday and I get sick from eating most of a large pizza myself and then drinking. For her birthday this year we went to the bar at Sophia's, and Rob Roy and I had a much needed friendly chat. Most importantly though, this entry initiated a serious debate about the proper way to shake one's fist.
   Two Years Ago Today: One Year - After one year I'd posted 332 entries (.91 / day). Since then I've really been slacking, with .64 per day since then for a total average of .73 per day. At this moment I've received 7.0 comments per entry and 1.221 comments to every comment I've made (4,606 / 5,625). Also, I pwn Professor Siverson. But most importantly this entry included the first "year ago today."
   Year Ago Wednesday: Entertainment Council Tahoe Retreat - ASUCD Entertainment Council goes on a retreat to Tahoe. In the spirit of the Brown Act, I record our adventures in a thorough photo essay. AND
   Year Ago Wednesday: Jesus Love Me, Not Ian Watson - Jesus himself tells the Bob Jones Institute that I'm cooler than them, and Aggie columnist Ian Watson gets butthurt over my aeroflot t-shirt. I write a letter to the editor in response to Watson, he makes some vague reference to it later, then plagiarizes my idea to talk shit on the "Ban Taco Bell" protestors, then gets fired for plagiarism.
   Year Ago Today: Phone Post: Internet's Out - Despite living in a freaking freezer due to a broken heater (compare to two years previous), and lacking internet access, I make a phone post to commemorate the Emosnail livejournal birthday.


Related
Chairman Leathers' Account

   Previously, proponents of the override of the qualifications for office have strongly advocated that we all put it behind us, and maintained there'd be no public outrage. Today the Aggie pwned them in three articles (Senators-Elect Take Office Due to Retroactive Legislation, Editorial: Actions Diminish Associations Credibility and ASUCD Election Never Certified (letter to editor)). This evening Friends Urging Campus Kindness Senator Birdsall notified all officers who had dissented againt the Senate actions that they will be considered for removal this Thursday...

pseudomonas me scripsit anno 2005

   Yesterday we had the long-awaited hearing for Case # 28, to resolve the Unqualified Candidates Scandal. We should have had 6 out of five necessary justices present, but Justice Konz unexpectedly resigned the previous day, and then Justice Johnson didn't show up... I got ahold of him minutes before the Hearing was to start only to be informed that he had neglected to tell me he apparently no longer goes here. We therefore had four justices, whereas five are needed for quorum. This was the subject of yesterday's document, which most of you probably dismissed as TL;DR.
   Basically the solution I opted for is to have Senate evaluate the legitimacy of the hearing and take a vote to settle the matter BEFORE we will release the final opinion (the first draft of which is written and has been approved by three of the four justices). Two noteworthy things about this opinion (subopinion?): (1) I was very pleased to have an opportunity to take a knock at Chief Justice "the Judicial Hammer" Vest's solution; (2) interestingly we are basically giving ourselves a court order in the first of the two orders at the end of the document.
   Today ASUCD Advisor Michael Tucker thanked me for rescuing him from "Hanging Chad" van Shoelace. Then Mark Champagne congratulated me on the handling of the quorum problem.
   Prior to the hearing, we received an amicus brief from a fraternity, among other sources. I was very pleased to find entities other than ASUCD officials taking enough interest to file amicus briefs -- and will attempt to avoid finding out that its probably the fraternity of someoen involved and thus being disillusioned.
   The final opinion is of course set to be announced tomorrow during Senate. Unfortunately I am to have my wisdom teeth out tomorrow morning, so if I make it to senate at all I will likely look like a chipmunk. Vice Chief Coady may have to present our manila envelope of power.


   I was just about to trek down to Newsbeat today since its the nearest source of any beverage worth consuming (namely, Jones' Soda), when what should I see in the MU but a table where some mad scientists were having people taste test different energy drinks and give them feedback. So of course I immediately volunteerinated myself. I wonder if they were weirded out by the fact that I knew what each of the unlabelled cups contained. When they asked what my favourite energy drink was I couldn't remember what "Wired" was called, the pleasant lady mad scientist told me to drop by tomorrow if I remember. I'm thinking of bringing a copy of my own thorough review of energy drinks with me.

   I'd like to add that since then (my initial review) I've tried this "Kabbalah" energy drink which is starting to show up around here, and I give it pretty high marks.


Forgotten Minutia - Things I was going to put in LJ entries awhile ago but forgot
(1) During his farewell speech Senator Eric Fox thanked Sara Henry and I for getting him involved in ASUCD -- coverage of our epic battles in the paper apparently alerted him to ASUCD's need for some Foxiness.
(2) The day after shaving my mohawk, I was saddened to walk past some punks who were loitering in front of a coffee shop in Berkeley without so much as a glance from them -- normally they would have immediately invited me to sit and talk with them. )=
(3) Moreover, while in San Diego for New Years a Navy enlistee mistook me for another Navy enlistee!
(4) Kristy and I saw the movie The Patriot (AKA Braveheart II) when she visited, and man, it was terrible. I love the part where he kills all 22 members of a British platoon one by one (while the rest wait patiently just off screen for their turn) in close combat. Its seriously worse than those Rambo movies people make fun of.
(5) I was very panicked when I learned that for my wisdom tooth removal they would be putting me out via an IV (as I have an incredible fear of needles). Kristy took it upon herself to cure me of this fear through positive reenforcement -- by prodding me in the arm with an addi turbo steel needle and then kissing me. Eventually I'd get her attention, poke myself in the arm with the needle, and look at her expectently.


In Other News
   I just realized that I'd resized all the pictures from The Grad in bicubic mode by accident -- thats why they look kinda shitty. )=
   I went to turn in the Aggie's "Best Of Davis" survey at the MU information desk, and the person working there, having just been alerted to the existence of the survey, responded with "oh, its like Daviswiki." So yeah, now when the Aggie does something particularly clever its lucky to be compared to Daviswiki, the tides have turned!


Article of the Day: Zombies - "There is also the theoretical possibility of an entity that wanders the net but has no blog, which may be called a zombie. Nobody but n00bs actually believe in them. The only evidence is anonymous comments, but it's common knowledge that anonymous comments are made by people (with blogs) too scared to identify themselves, and not some preposterous fantasy creature from n00b folklore."

Picture of the Day

From the trip up from So. Cal.

   In keeping with the Phi Alpha Delta tradition of having more resignations annually than there are officers, and so as not to pull a Chris Goran, I have resigned from my PAD position, effective this Friday Thursday.


   For Thanksgiving Kristy and I, and her flatmate Becca, went to Kristy's place in Pleasanton. Her mom makes awesome stuffing.
   There we actually went and saw a movie in a theatre. Unfortunately all the movies we'd really wanted to see were no longer showing so we saw Jarhead.
   Speaking of movies, every time someone refers to Sin City, which happens suprisingly frequently, I think they're saying "Sim City." And I think, "Sim City?" what kind of movie is THAT? I imagine, like the game, it starts out all good and fun but after awhile the characters begin to feel a lack of purpose and grow bored.
   We hung out briefly with Kristy's ex, Randy, and their friends from HS. It was suprisingly pleasant. I think they all overcompensated in their efforts not to make me feel awkward, for example there wasn't a single reference to my mohawk. Wtf. These certainly aren't people who see mohawks every day. Furthermore, Randy is totally the lol-cow of his friends -- even after numerous years, making fun of Randy is still a favourite activity of theirs. I mean, how can you resist when he's wearing silly little Steve Madden leather shoes.


   In other news, my friend Kris is currently working for the United Nations in Niarobi, Kenya. Like a good little UN employee, she is blogging. Having perused her blog the other day I found this picture particularly amusing. Chile donated a giant statue of an index finger to Kenya?! I wonder who got the middle finger.
   My friend Marianna is currently working for the United Nations in New York. I asked her to tell me all the juicy gossip but she said "I can't -- I'm probably being bugged." Its kind of scary when someone says that in a serious manner.


Previously on Emosnail
   Year Ago Last Tuesday: Kris Fricke Publicly Condemned by Elections Committee Chairperson - via letter-to-the-editor. I respond via livejournal with nine points and ten subpoints as to why the Chairperson is a blithering idiot. That thing is some good reading. Eventually, of course, the Elections Committee would utterly lose two cases before Student Judicial Affairs, thereby validating the claims which Schachter had been so defensive against toward me AND
      AMWEST 2004 - And some retrospective of the removal hearings against me of a year previous.
   Year Ago Last Saturday: The Second Ice Age - my heater breaks again.
   Year Ago Last Sunday: Still Freezing - more about the broken heater. AND
      The Salsa King - One Przemek Pawlik is crowned the Salsa King after he manages to crack open the unopenable salsa jar. Also, some recommended reading in Daviswiki.
   Year Ago Yesterday: Researching in the Bedroom - and putting people in little boxes: I categorize my instant messenger friends list, creating more questions than answers. AND
      Still Freezing II - Did I mention it was cold? Also the internet access goes out over here and The Trees, and flatmate Chen notices someone else on the apartment network is "sinfulvirgins.com"
   Year Ago Today: Student Focus Condemned by the Aggie - The shit hits the fan, and the Campaigning in the Dorms Controversy begins. This would eventually result in the resignation of most of the elected Focite candidates.

   So yesterday I missed the Jason Webley show at the hippie cafe because I am a frat boy. (I'd link here to Alvin saying we're all big ass nerds (BANs) in Phi Alpha Delta or something along those lines but its in a comment somewhere deep in my lj). Anyway, we were having our weekly meeting yesterday and everything was going smoothly until a certain member brought up some previously resolved drama (we'll call him The Appellant) and started trying to stick it to the officers. What was really weird about this was for the first time in a very long time someone was having an organizational judicial drama debate and I wasn't involved at all! But I certainly have a lot of experience in the area so I thought I'd at least review it.

   Now I have absolutely nothing personal against The Appellant, and despite my opinions on how the drama went down, I still have no personal opinion about him.
   So basically what went down is he kept asking the officers questions he intended to implicate them in wrongdoing and wrack them with guilt. And this went on for quite some time. The incident had already been resolved through an agreement between the officers and the member who had been found liable, but The Appellant, uninvolved in the incident, felt that he should demand recourse for the member. Anyway, through his questioning he changed what his actual complaint was to varied other things such as alleged check fraud, failure of officers to adhere to their own duties, lying to the national office, and a variety of other things all of which I believe are completely unfounded. But the point is, I think the act of changing his complaint to whatever it looked like might stick at the moment is really the hallmark of someone whose concern isn't about the original issue but just has beef with The Man and wants to try to stick it to them through any manner possible.
   Also the argument went round and round and round, often returning to things already discussed and answered. It was quite tedious. Now I've been in The Appellant's approximate position before, of alleging wrongdoing of an organizations officers (ie Secretary-General Myung's reign of terror in MUN), but I'm proud to say unlike The Appellant in the instant case, I usually kept the discussion down to about two interchanges before I made a motion or stated the action that I was going to take lest they resolve it. This was just messy.

   As to our officers, they did a pretty good job considering. My only advise would be (A) try not to get flustered and defensive (they did a good job in this really, but remaining unflustered and undefensive is really the key to making a renegade naysayer look like a nutjob¹), and also (B) making a diagram of the situation on the blackboard would of made it harder for him to run around in circles with the issue and would have been delightfully patronizing.

   So thats that. Altogether our officers have handled the situation very well, and I know that they had all tried very hard to come to the best solution to the original problem. But hey we're a pre-law fraternity so you have to expect a member to get litigious every now and then.

¹_{But in the event the renegade naysayer is not a nutjob, or the likely circumstance the renegade naysayer is myself (take note, new MUN leadership), it still makes things easier for everyone involved if you try to give the individual the most thought out and serious answers possible. On any account, if the complaintant is myself, it could lessen the enthusiasm with which I make you look like a nutjob to everyone else.}

Picture of the Day

I try to be artistic while the professional photographer takes pictures of Kristy's relatives. See also.
Note there will be no

   "...I hereby resign ... I was in the freshman dorms, I never lied about that. Fact is, I was told to go there by my Focus [his party] advisors ... and you all sit around smiling smugly as if you didn't do the same. Not only that but I know many of you were drunk during budget hearings..." -(former) ASUCD Senator Nafeh Malik (paraphrased here, I don't have an exact transcript), resigning in lieu of the campaigning in the dorms controversy.
   "wow um... I think we need a ten minute break now to recollect ourselves." -Vice President Paloma Perez. "actually... I resign as well... -(former) ASUCD Senator Sean Reul.
   "The word is FUBAR" -ASUCD Senator Donald Cohen-Cutler on his cell phone immediately after a recess was subsequently called.
   "I'm... not resigning..." -ASUCD Senator Brianna Haag, the third implicated new Focus senator, as an anxious silence awaits her report.
   "I'm resigning... from all my other positions" -ASUCD Business & Finance Commission Chairman Alan Pang. "So wait, you're remaining in this one?" -President Kalen Gallagher, interjecting in the subsequent confusion. "yes." Room breaths an exasperated sigh of relief, Internal Affiars Commission Chairwoman Kahliah Laney looks like she's having a heart attack.

   Also at yesterdays senate meeting they swore in former Focus candidate Cari Ham to fill the senate seat earlier vacated by Lead senator Adam Barr. Selection of senators to fill vacated seats is the sole discretion of the ASUCD president.

Aggie photographer Matt Jojola (blueliquid13) sulks after missing both resignations, having left the room right before the excitement commenced (but he got a picture of the empty seats which I tihnk was probably more poignent anyway). Orwellian party candidates Rob Roy and Chad van Schoelandt can be seen in the back right corner.

Jurisprudence in ASUCD
   President Gallagher ostensably vetoed the bill passed by senate last quarter to allow ASUCD Court members to write legislation. He justified it by saying that US Supreme Court justices don't write legislation, among other things.
   In response, I firstly pointed out that as the ASUCD president has until the next regularly scheduled senate meeting to veto legislation, and that has already transpired, his veto is unconstitutional. So what happens now is either the relevant government body can refuse to recognize his veto in light of its manifest unconstitutionality, or it can be reversed in a case. The former more convenient method is unlikely to occur so either I will be filing a case myself, or if I don't other people have said they will certainly file one. Obviously either way I wouldn't be sitting on the case though.
   Furthermore I pointed out that in the national arena, one has the Justice Department, the Bar Association, numerous other law related lobby groups, and armies of lawyers who love to tinker with the law. In ASUCD the only semblance of any of these is the ASUCD Court. To say the court can't write legislation is to say that no judicial legislation will be written in ASUCD, and that is ridiculous.
   Also I mentioned that Marberry v Madison in 1807 established that the US Supreme Court could review issues that inherently involved the Court, thus negating the opposing argument that if Court members wrote legislation it would be a conflict of interest for them. To this Commissioner Gordon "I was president of my JC" Fung responded that he didn't think Marberry v Madison applied in this situation. In response I proceeded to give a brief history of the circumstances and significance of Marberry v Madison for the Senate.
   Chairperson Jenni Beeman then asked why we were citing US Supreme Court cases as relevant to ASUCD. This prompted me to give the Senate a brief overview of legal theory and jurisprudence.
   In summary, it was altogether good times.


ASUCD Senators Keith Shively, Janine Fiel, & Darnell Holloway during Thursdays meeting.

   Today the ASUCD Elections Committee had to answer to two complaints lodged against them before a Student Judicial Affairs board. There were two hearings, with a ten minute recess between them. The board consisted of approximately several students from the SJA board. The Plaintiffs were “the Orwellians.”
   The first hearing was regarding the disadvantage the Elections Committee caused numerous candidates by saying that it was forbidden to campaign before candidates had been verified as eligible by the Elections Committee. It turns out such a rule does not exist, and moreover only one Certain Party campaigned during the effected week, gaining an arguably significant advantage thereby. What I thought was most significant about the arguments raised during this hearing was when the Elections Committee stated that the Certain Party in question could do so because they “verify their own candidates.”
   Even if it were a rule, and this Certain Party could reliably verify its own candidates ahead of time, in the interest of fairness one would have to constrain them to the same time constraints as everyone else, even if it meant that their verified candidates had to wait for everyone else to be verified – in effect the Elections Committee admitted in this that they consciously gave a huge advantage to a specific party.

   The second hearing was regarding the Elections Committee’s deletion of certain parts of the official Orwellian statement. While the Elections Committee had claimed they had taken the action to avoid a potential libel issue, the Orwellians began with an absolutely amazing barrage of evidence. revchad, speaking for the Orwellians, defined libel using two law books (one by an expert on contracts and torts, the other by the American Bar Assn), a quote from the ASUCD attorney, and a quote from none other than Mr Igor Birman (!!); and then, as one of the principal defenses against libel is that a statement is true, they provided no less than nine newspaper articles detailing the factual nature of the claims against former senator James Ackerman. To top all this off they cited the official United States Supreme Court opinion in Times v Sullivan, that “debate on public issues should be uninhabited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
   Also quoted, as evidence of the inequal application of the Elections Committee’s policy, was the official statement of former candidate Dana Davies-Shaw, in which quotes deriding the slates had been permitted to remain. This was significant and amusing because Dana is a member of the JSA judicial board. Though Dana had sat out from this case, it was still amusing to see the judicial board served up a quote from one of their own.
   I’m hard pressed to make an analogy for the awesome devastation of this attack, but I think one might say it was like the attack on Pearl Harbour, if the Americans had had it coming, and the Japanese caught all the American aircraft carriers at dock… and maybe even the Japanese and dropped their own nuclear bomb at that time for good measure.
   In response the Elections Committee tried to be illusive and argue circularly to the point that the judicial board sounded visibly irritated at them several times. I think my nomination for the “worst argument ever” award goes to the Elections Committee for saying that because the Orwellians could have said anything they wanted in publicity produced with their own money, it didn’t matter that the Elections Committee edited the statements submitted through them.

   The Opinion of the judicial board will apparently be submitted to their SJA keepers no later than three days from now, from whence it will be submitted to the ASUCD Advisor, from whence it will probably be edited and/or missfiled. Call me crazy but I'd rather it simulteniously be released to the Parties and (maybe) the ASUCD Advisor, as the advisor step is unnecessary, and frankly I don't trust her even with so weighty a matter. It will be arriving on her very last day here, which will mean (A) less motivation for her not to "accidently" shred it, (B) on her very last day here she'll probably recieve a document detailing the grievious error of the policies she personally caused - a pleasant parting gift from the multicephalous justice organs of UC Davis.


   Anyway, other than that, I spent the whole day in the library once again. I happened to casually glance out the window I was sitting near at one point when who should I see riding his bike across a park bench directly below, but roommate Jason. Silly Jason.
   And then the laptop directly behind me was stolen when its operator ran off for two minutes to use the restroom. Worse still, it wasn’t her computer, but her friend’s, who had also been sitting nearby. As the desks in this area have little walls around them for maximum hermitage, no one, not even the computer’s unfortunate owner who had been about two feet from it at the time, noticed the theft. Upon realization of this crime the previously militantly antisocial students in the area, all of whom would have risked their very lives to avoid interaction, suddenly became a united community of mutually alarmed and concerned students – actually talking to eachother.

   During my dinner break I consulted with Miss Kristy Heidenberger over the phone as to where I should eat. She ended up reading through the list of eating establishments in the daviswiki, which I found amusing. Eventually I gave in to the call of big juicy hamburgers and ate at Ali Baba’s again.
   I ended my day in Café Roma, which was open with free refills on coffee till one or two (we left around 12:40) with Kritsy. There we had the unique priviledge of sitting next to (Dare I say sharing a power socket with even!) the creator himself of Daviswiki.org, Mr Philip Neustrom. Also present in the café at the time were ASUCD Senator Donnie Cohen-Cutler, former KDVS (90.3FM) director Miss Teresa Kenny, and recent US Congress candidate Mr Mike Dugas.


Life as a Library Refugee
   Now that the weekend is over I must contend with the persecution of Davis parking enforcement, as there is nowhere within several miles of campus where one can park for free for more than two hours. Additionally I had to be here at 9am this morning since the book I am using is on reserve and hence turns into a pumpkin if I wander away from the library for too long with it. So it looks like today I am going to spend the day as an itinerate Davis parking refugee, scurrying about to avoid the persecution of Davis Parking Enforcement.
   To make matters worse, neither food nor drink is permitted in the library and this is enforced in with truncheon and jackboot rigor. And the University hasn't even had the merciful conscience to locate an eatery or even small coffee dispensery anywhere near the library. And, the coup de grace of making the library an unpleasant place to spend your time -- the bathrooms are ill maintained, and lacking in toilet seat covers. I don't know about the ladies, but few males indeed will dare to sit upon a public toilet (particularly an ill maintained one!) without holy protection of a toilet seat cover.


Previously on EMOSNAIL
   Year Ago Yesterday: Blogological Experimentation - Curious about page hites, I'd monitered the hits (as registered by the pictures) in the entry the day before and determined it got 513 hits in 24 hours. If I wasn't so busy I'd do a similar study asap to get the data at exactly a year interval.. maybe in the next few days if I get a chance. Also I declare the theories of jurist Donald Dworkin to be crap.

(last edited, 1348hrs)

   From Today (Tuesday)'s issue of The California Aggie, a letter-to-the-editor:


Letter-to-the-Editor in California Aggie by Miss Christine Schachter, Elections Committee Chair:
   I have several objections to Kris Fricke's guest opinion article (see opinion, "Elections are a serious matter," Nov. 18). Fricke says he has nothing against the Elections Committee, when in fact it is extremely obvious that he has everything against the committee as well as others within ASUCD. Fricke blatantly accuses the Elections Committee of not being impartial, yet an individual of his position should have greater integrity than to make such an extreme statement without getting the facts straight. It was made explicitly clear to candidates that vulgarity would not be permitted at an ASUCD-funded event, and in no way did the Elections Committee ever refuse to generate a list of words that candidates could not use during the Senate Forum. Libelous content was removed because it placed not only the Elections Committee at legal risk, but others within ASUCD at risk as well. The Elections Committee does not endorse slanderous campaigns with ASUCD funding or any funding for that matter; and if that creates a problem with Fricke and others, they should rethink their definitions of fair, impartial and unbiased.


Commentary on the above by Mr. Kris Fricke, Chief Justice, ASUCD Court:
( The Annihilating Rebuttal )

   From Tomorrow (Thursday)'s issue of The California Aggie, a guest opinion:


Guest Opinion in California Aggie: (original version)
   While I have nothing personal against the individual members of the Elections Committee, it has come to my attention that a great deal of injustice has been, and continues to be, perpetuated by the Committee. In my position in the judicial system of ASUCD people often come to me with complaints about Election matters. While these are not in my jurisdiction, I point them all in the right direction and am deeply saddened to see incident after incident end in no resolution. I do not believe the members of the Elections Committee wilfully intend to commit malfeasance, but I do believe a spirit of justice is chronically lacking in their operations.
   I am writing this not because I want to upset the members of the Committee or because I think that complaining about it is going to solve the problem; I am writing this because I want both the candidates and members of the Elections Committee to know that rigorous adherence to the rules and justice in ASUCD are goals that ARE attainable. I want you to know your rights, your recourses, and that you are not alone.
   Most alarming of all, I have had former members of the Elections Committee itself come to me with accounts of their erroneous handling of elections complaints. A former committee member I talked to had been under the impression that he was sworn to secrecy about the Committee’s actions and therefore never went public with his complaints. I think its most urgently important that the members of the Elections Committee itself know that not only do they have a right to speak out against perceived injustice, they have a moral responsibility. Once a complaint is formally filed with SGAO the Elections Committee is to thoroughly investigate and post their official finding within two days – including the original complaint, all evidence considered, and the reasoning behind the finding. In short: everything about the process is then public record.
   Another category of harmful misconception is that rules regulating candidate behaviour can be made AFTER a specific candidate exhibits a specific behaviour, and applied to that candidate retroactively. This is not in conformity with western law theory. Two recent examples: (1) certain candidates asked the Elections Committee for a list of words they could not say during the candidate forum. The Committee refused to provide a list. A candidate then used language the Committee deemed inappropriate and had his microphone immediately unplugged. (2) certain candidates had their statements altered, not for length or clarity or even libellous content (the statement was undisputedly true) but because someone apparently did not agree with it being there. In both these examples the Committee is failing to act impartially.
I find that most election candidates are unsure of this system, do not know that they can appeal Elections Committee decisions to Student Judicial Affairs Campus Judicial Board (if filed within three days), and most of all regard their experience as an isolated incident. These are not isolated incidents.
   In conclusion let me again stress that I do not believe the Elections Committee is wilfully obstructing justice and I mean no offence to the individual members. This is an institutional problem that has existed since before any of the current members were on the committee, it is born from a less-than-optimal spirit of rule adherence and bad advice. My only interest is the greatest justice within ASUCD. If you have a question or concern about any matter relating to justice in ASUCD elections or ASUCD at large, please do not hesitate to contact me. As elections are not within my jurisdiction I can thoroughly guide you through the complaint & appeal processes.
   Injustice breeds in silence. The truth shall set you free.

Kris Fricke
Chief Justice, ASUCD Court
krfricke@ucdavis.edu


Guest Opinion: As published


Commentary on the Aggie's Edits
   The original version above actually has two grammatical errors fixed that were wrong in the submitted version and despite all their changes, did not get fixed. The more grievous one is "...I mean to no offense to the individual..." Not only did they leave the mistake in there, but they DID find the time to change the PROPER (Irish) spelling of "offence" to the silly American "offense." But what I'm really bothered about is that they expanded SGAO, which I thought they might, but they elaborated it WRONG - Student Gov't Administrative Office they spelled out as "...Affairs Office." Though 99% of the campus no doubt will have no idea, the people I intend the message for and those I have to deal with on a regular basis are going to think I'm an idiot for a mistake I didn't make.
   Also they cut out a large part of what was the entire reason I wrote it - that I wanted anyone with concerns over the Committee's behaviour to contact me (the last paragraph).
   There are a myriad of other unpleasant edits they made which I believe are, without exception, to the detriment of the peice, but one more thing I'd like to mention specifically even if it ranks very low in the amount of substansive damage; I neglected to title the piece so they gave it a dumb title of their own imagining ("Elections Are A Serious Matter").
   Oh and they cut off "the truth shall set you free."