BREAKING: Noam Shuster Not Allowed to Swear In!

I’m sitting in the Senate meeting right now and the new Vice-President Mike Kerns has just announced that Noam Shuster will not be allowed to swear in as Senator-at-Large

Andrew Brooks has filed an injunction against Noam Shuster asking that she be not sworn in. The former UJ has accepted the injunction and has left the final decision up to the next UJ and Noam cannot be sworn in for at least five days. Brooks is accusing Shuster and her campaign of slandering Brooks on this website and possibly elsewhere. For the record, we would like to state that nothing published on Innermost Parts was written, approved or influenced by anyone but its stated authors.

More information to follow in the coming days.


15 thoughts on “BREAKING: Noam Shuster Not Allowed to Swear In!”

  1. The issue itself is controversial among your elected representatives, if that is what you are asking.

  2. It’s partisan to live in the US, go to school in the US, and want to see more than one US flag on campus?

  3. In a response to a previous comment, UJ hearings are generally open to the public.I went to the Goldman trial earlier in the year.

  4. Just a quick correction. It was Sahar who referenced the Justice misquote, not me.

    As for my comment, what I originally wrote was, “Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky’s horrible records… [include] authoring and being the only two senators to vote for the ridiculously partisan American flag resolution”. Everything from “authoring” onward was part of a bulleted list discussing the records of the two. I had researched the flag resolution, and I knew what each had done for it; the point I was trying to make was that the two had been responsible for the resolution and the debate that followed. I accept that the way it was worded makes it seem like I was stating that both of them wrote it; I therefore went back and had it corrected. However, all I was trying to say was that the culpability for the resolution lied between the two of them; remember, at the time, we were supporting two separate write-in candidates.

    Needless to say, had I known that Brooks would blow this non-issue up into an attempt to defy the will of Brandeis voters, I would have been far more careful with the wording used, and I apologize for the trouble that has been caused because of it.

  5. Oh yeah. Whoops.

    Wrong resolution. I’m tired.

    I hope my comments aren’t taken as slanderous.
    (Not that it really changes anything. Its to my understanding that Brooks voted for the American flag resolution).

  6. Oh, the final issue is that this election the rules were changed (I don’t know if the rules on the website were updated to reflect this change). But the new rules state that slander claims have to be due to “outrageously offensive” statements. Claiming that a resolution that Brooks argued heavily for and voted for is “outrageously offensive” is pretty damn silly.

    I don’t think anyone (or I hope no one) really cares about reprinting the Justice misquote. That isn’t Adam or Noam’s fault.

  7. In the candidates meeting, Nelson said of that rule (I’m paraphrasing), that it didn’t apply if it could be proven the candidate was completely not connected. So that’s one issue.

    The other issue is whether or not the statements were actually slanderous. One of the statements Brooks took issue with had to do with Adam quoting the Justice (who misquoted Brooks). And the other had to do with the claim that he sponsored the resolution wishing Israel happy birthday, when in fact that was just Justin Sulsky (though Brooks voted for the resolution and argued for it in the meeting). Both statements were corrected upon notification that they weren’t true. Was that really slanderous? No, not really.

    Furthermore, the case could be made that people campaigning for Brooks/Sulsky also made slanderous statements. Students United for Israel repeatedly claimed that Noam was anti-Israel and not friendly to Israel (silly, she’s FROM Israel). Slanderous? Maybe. No less slanderous than anything Adam wrote here.

  8. Yeah, I knew it was something like that because I read it during the first round of elections but I wanted to be able to quote it. So that you, Ollie.

  9. The campaign rules clearly state that “There shall be a contestable presumption that a candidate supports all actions committed in the furtherance of their campaign”. A candidate can be held accountable for the actions of someone working towards their campaign whether or not they green lighted them to do so.

    Also of note is that “It is the responsibility of each candidate to ensure that the actions of any and all person assisting in their campaign comply with all election rules.”

  10. Hm, I’d check against the rules but the union site seems to be down. Any idea, O New Senators?

Comments are closed.