aggienaut: (fiah)

   Daviswiki officially has the Aggie's pictures of the upcoming ASUCD presidential candidates up before the Aggie does, such sauce!


   Today user "SenateScandal" started commenting again on the contentious "Budget Hearing Scandal" (which I believe had been deleted previously). This time the situation became even more apocalyptic than before, with user "DPSforLife" eventually posting serious incriminations against most of the members of Senate (note, anonymous names such as these are extremely rare). Just a FEW of these allegations (quoted verbatim) are (and keep in mind I make no claims whatsoever on the veracity of any of these):

  • Former Senator Sean Ruel is a former drug dealer, has used steroids, beat his former girlfriend, and snorted cocaine on regular occasions.
[other reports indicate he sold people patently bad drugs]
  • Adam Barr had an intimate relationship with former Aggie reporter Aimee Theron
  • Donald Cohen-Cutler had an intimate relationship with former Aggie Reporter Aimee Theron, hmm media bias maybe.
  • Paloma Perez is heavily involved in Swords and Sandals, and smoked marijuana during the student funded ASUCD retreat. She also has a clitoral peircing.
  • Former president Sarah Henry frequently used the executive office on the 3rd floor of the MU to have sexual intercourse with several ASUCD members including former senators. She is also a member of Swords and Sandals.

  •    The entry has since been deleted. If it has been resurrected, it would be here.

       This posting caused such a stir that not long after the editing began I received a frantic call from the senate office on campus from a Senator who wanted to know what I knew about the situation and the legality of it all. Apparently over on the third floor the entry had caused mass panic.
       Incidently at this moment Senate has just begun for the day. For once I have no business there and can actually make use of my Thursday evening. I'd like to see the current state of everyone though (keep in mind nearly all of them were named in a devastating way in the entry).

       A major continuing topic of discussion on that page is why the Aggie never picked up on the Budget Hearing Scandal (that certain Senators smoked the cannabis during budget hearings). One source associated with the aggie points out this timeline:
    1. While Aimee
    [Theron] was at The Aggie, she covered senate stuff, including the meetings
  • We did try to gather enough evidence to do a solid story on this, and Nafeh came in for a one-on-one with a manager
  • The story died
  • [see allegations 2 and 3, above]
  • Aimee no longer works at The Aggie


  •    Also this whole thing caused me to make a nerdy entry on the Wiki Ethics page (currently last entry - look for US v Spinelli in bold).


       Also Dyanna Quizon is back on the list of people allegedly involved in the Budget Hearing Scandal.

    aggienaut: (asucd)

       "...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 ([livejournal.com profile] 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.

    June 2025

    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    29 30     

    Syndicate

    RSS Atom

    Most Popular Tags

    Style Credit

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags
    Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 08:03 pm
    Powered by Dreamwidth Studios