NOTE: We reserve the right to say thing blatantly offensive and opinionated against those who make a fool of themselves. We are the final arbiters of who is a fool. This post is in no way balanced, nor does it present an unbiased view on anything. With that said, read on!

For a briefer synopsis, read the executive summaries of the closing statements at the end.

Some quotes of the night:

8:00: Taylor Shiells, representing Andrew Brooks: “My client should have run un-opposed, but a series of events eventually caused him to lose.” You mean, the series of events called Democracy?

2:47: Brian: “Objection: why?” The best kind of objection.

5:00: Court: “Would you like to call a witness?”
Taylor (lawyer for brooks):”no!”
Brooks: “yes!”

7:23: Noam, on being sworn in to give testimony: “Finally I get sweared into something!” Oh snap.

7:28: Q: Noam, did you put up any flyers or anything supporting your campaign?
A: No, I don’t like wasting paper.

++++++++LIVEBLOG START++++++++++++
1:35: The trial is about to begin! All you readers avidly checking our site (read: verrrrry few, hopefully), stay tuned for frequent updates.

1:40: It appears that the attorney for Brooks is Taylor Shiells, who wrote a ridiculous, scathing, op-ed against Students Against the Judge Rotenberg.

1:42: Shiells’ opening statement

oh noes he attackin’ us! We are “an internet-powered blog that can say whatever it wanted to,” according to Shiells. Insidious.

1:50: Rutrick’s opening statement, made by Brian Paternostro.

He’s saying that the elections commission took action, and yes that may be subjective. But like all decisions, it was one made by a commission according to standard procedure.

He has made the distinction between negative campaigning and libel, arguing that what occurred was the first.

“The elections commission did exactly what it was supposed to do – allow the students to choose the candidate they want.”

1:54: Noam’s opening statement, made by Ryan Mchalwhatever…

Their argument seems to rest on the fact that what was written was not libel at all, but merely opinion.
He’s pretty articulate in our defense, I must say.

1:56: Ryan is addressing the argument that Noam did not meet with an elections commissioner: the rule that one must meet with an elections official was not stated in writing and was thus not applicable.

1:58: Everyone is scurrying around looking for elections rules. What a prepared court… Brooks’ defense appears very over-pompously flustered.

2:00: 1ST WITNESS: Zach Pyle, former elections commissioner

Q: Have there even been complaints against Rutrick during his campaign?
A: Yes, Rutrick emailed clubs telling them that his opponents were all partisans in the Senate.
So-on-and-so-forth. He received a marking against him on the ballot.

1:47: According to this guy, Nelson is an evil overlord who wants to “impose his subjective will upon the elections process.” Double insidious.

He states that Rutrick was penalized during his own elections for libel charges.

Pyle has stated that the fact that we used cross-through as opposed to deletion should be used against us, when we did so only to make readers aware of our own mistakes! This man knows nothing about transparency.

2:07: Internal emails of the elections commission have been introduced.

Oooh apparently we have a read-aloud now. What fun. Shiells doesn’t even trust his own witnesses to read!

2:09: I never knew anyone could make reading emails so hilariously pompous. “DO you recognize these documents? Would you classify them as emails?”…x6.

2:12: An email shows that the issue of whether write-in candidates can campaign was addressed by the elections commission during the election.
Rutrick then wrote that candidates could address the UJ if they wanted (whaddya know?) but he did not see why write-in candidates could not campaign.

2:15: The defense cross-examines. The prosecution keeps making objections against questions being asked, which keep being overruled. Taylor Shiells also keeps making faces which remind me distinctly of a constipated walrus.

2:16: Pyle is being asked about the difference between libel and negative campaigning. He defines libel as “knowing that its false and/or a reckless disregard for the truth.” I find it hard to believe anything we said on IP was a reckless disregard for the truth.

2:21: Brian Paternostro asks about the campaign of another former Senator who won his election in a write-in campaign (and campaigned). Pyle dodges.

2:24: Ryan Mcwhatever tries to submit the election rules that are posted online (NOT the rules Rutrick used this election). Break for recess to figure out the rules… occasionally important for making rules judgements, they are.

2:34: No rules yet, there is a printer jam. Classic.

2:36: New band name: “Email evidence Number 6.”

2:38: We now have some telelapthy attempts: Q: What was Amanda Hecker thinking when she wrote her email evidence numbah 4? Possible idea for late talk show, perhaps?

2:40: Zach – “I ran an illegal write-in campaign in my freshman year. I printed my own fliers, etc. It was very illegal.”

2:44: Zach – The commission has the discretion on how to punish a candidate if a rule is broken. No mandatory punishments.

2:47: Brian: “Objection: why?” The best kind of objection, and the one I give to the prospect of waking up daily.

2:48: Pyle and is ideologically opposed to the concept of the strike-out, in general, apparently. War on internet standard syntax has been declared by the prosecution!

2:50: Shiell’s constipated walrus face makes another appearance.

NEW WITNESS: Michelle Minkoff, previous member of elections commission.

2:55: She seems to be saying that Nelso was baised because he did not appoint her to the elections commission. Presumptous, eh?

(a personal note – I am typing this while chomping on a bagel and lox. Thank you, Senator Sulsky!) ~Sahar

2:57: Michelle: “From what I’ve heard, the elections commissioner appoints members of his commission.” Hearsay! Hearsay!

Shorter Taylor: Nelson is a meanie who didn’t take Michelle on!
Shorter Hughes/Paternoso: Nelson believes that Michelle has a stupid idea of what libel is. Anways, Nelson took on Amanda Hecker, who even ruled against him in a previous campaign. What a gentleman.

WITNESS 3: Yuki Hasegawa.

Yuki ruled with Nelson on the libel issue, but disagreed with him on the issue of write-in campaigns. Fascinating.

3:01:
Q: What was Rutrick’s response to Yuki’s objection to Noam’s campaigning?
A: Nelson asked the opinion of the rest of the commission and then made a judgement.

3:05: Shiell cannot pronounce his own witness’ name.

Cross-ex:

3:08: Brian: Would it be fair to say that a discussion occurred and then Mr. Rutrick made a decision?
A: Yes.

**Battery in critical condition! Reverting to liveblogging web -2.0 style: with le papier.

3:15 Restarting ze liveblog: featuring special guest contributing laptop. Thank you, audience.

3:15 After this trial there must be a fight to the death – Ryan’s cowboy boot-style-shoes vrs Julia’s patent-leather boots. Sorry, suede boots. I made a mistake and used a strikethrough. Quick, let’s have another trial! ~Sahar

NEW WITNESS – Justin Sulsky

3:18: UJ just smacked down the Eboard… and us. For talking. Oops. We apologize. You cannot silence the voice of the proletariat! (which we obviously are =P)

3:22: “No libelous statements have actually been submitted.” Soooo what are we all talking about again?

WITNESS 289: Asher Tanenbaum, former chair of the Ways & Means committee. He submitted an amicus brief to the court.

3:26: Q: “Was it within Nelson’s power to define libel and slander for the election?”

A: Not really in terms of libel and slander… but he can define negative campaigning.

Cross examine: (As far as I could understand):

Q: Are you an expert on the Union bylaws and constitution?
A: Yes
Q: Is the rule saying that a candidate must meet with the comission before campaigning in the byulaws or constitution?
A: No
Q: Does that elections comissioner have authority over all election rules not in the bylaws or constitution?
A: Yes.

Open and shut. Case over! (we wish…)

Ryan Mcwhatever just smacked down Asher Tanenbaum. Asher says that rules can be changed if they aren’t written in the constitution or bylaws. The rule about meeting with candidates is not in the constitution or bylaws. Furthermore, the elections comissioner’s word supercedes the written rules. Threfore Nelson was allowed to let Noam and Kaamilla run.

Question that Ryan isn’t asking: isn’t adding that libel is against the rules after all the sheets with the ‘outrageously offensive’ rule written on them was distributed the same thing? I think so.

3:50: They seem to be trying to adjust their argument in light of the quickly strengthening point that nothing we ever sadi was libelous. Duh. They are trying to say that even if he acted appropriately, his appropriateness indicates bias. I must ask – to what? The troof?

3:52: They apparently want to drop the libel part of their case.

Exclusive executive IP summary by Loki of the discussion following this:

Brooks’ side: There were libelous statements. We refuse to let you see them. but in any case, when Nelson decided that they were in fact not libelous, he was biased. Even if they weren’t libelous. Which we admit they weren’t. So we’re dropping that part of the case. Cause we’re wrong.

Court: WTF you talkin’ bout? You crazy. We only heard your case cause you wanted to prove libel! Were you trying to trick us so we’d hear you blow some hot air out your ass?!?!?

Shiells: But wait you don’t get it! wah wah wah. (makes walrus face)

Court: slams gavel. Taylor. Taylor. stop throwing a tantrum. bad boy.

Taylor: Due to time constraints, our strategy was random. Therefore, its not a suit about law or the right thing. Its a suit about trying to get Brooks the seat illegitimately. Wait, was I supposed to say that?

Court: Uh, do you guys want to take a 5 minute break and sober up before you fuck yourselves over even more?

Brian: Uh, can we make our 5 minute breaks closer to 10 minutes than 15?

Break for recess.

Sheills: Ok everything we said just now was a jk. Get it? A joke! Hahaha, right? Right? Anyways, so they were committing libel. We just had a crisis of faith, but we’re past it. But it was fun, eh?

The trial continues.

_________________________________________________

4:19: Finally, they are submitting the “libelous” post as evidence.

4:22: I must say, Adam’s post was pretty harsh. His opinion, true, and not one I agree with – I think Sulsky at least and to some extent Brooks have been adequate Senators. But his judgement of their senatorship is opinion, not mistruth.

So what’s going on here? Brooks is acting as his own lawyer. He’s bringing up Adam’s post, random rumors that may or may not exist, a facebook message by lisa hanania, and trying to lump them all together.

4:47: Q: “On innermostparts.org, a comment appeared under the name of Justin Sulsky. THe author claimed to be Justin Sulsky. The first line said “hi, it’s justin sulsky” Did you in fact write this comment?”
A: “yes” Laughter.

4:56: The defense is spending a whole lot of time trying to prove something that has already been proven Arghgh! This trial has a lot of ridiculous beating of dead horses.

4:57: Justice Jordan Rothman is sputtering mad as to why there is more case for libel here than in any other election. His statement is quickly struck from the record. Oh Jordan.

5:00: Court: “Would you like to call a witness?”
Taylor (lawyer for brooks):”no!”
Brooks: “yes!”

Whoops.

WITNESS: ANDREW BROOKS

5:16: Nelson asks Brooks to read the entire sentence of the “absolutely nothing claim.” Including the key part that says ‘based on their project reports.’

5:18: Jon Kane (representing Brooks) objects on the basis that the claim was in “parentheses” (Jon Kane isn’t smart). See, it doesn’t count because its in parentheses!

5:20: Brooks can’t prove that his project reports say that he did anything for endowment transparency and gender neutral housing.

5:21: “Objection, we’re not here to debate Brooks’ idea that this is libel”
Paternoso: “Objection, we’re totally here to debate Brooks’ idea that this constitutes libel.”
Court: You can’t object to an objection!

5:26: Andrew Brooks doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a yes-or-no question. He just testified that he gave a two-minute speech in favor of the flag resolution. And he seems to want to give two-minute speech in response to over question. And now he’s questioning Brian Paternoso from the witness stand. Yikes.

5:30: Brooks: “Power to the people!” Right on brother.

5:38: We are having some room issues. Apparently a banquet is going to be coming to the room soon… and a performance. The court has admitted that this trial is going on way longer than anyone expected. For the record, we aren’t even half-way through the trial. The respondents haven’t presented their case yet.

5:44: Shorter Andrew Brooks: Saying that “there is no doubt that they would not be friendly toward Israel” may seem to be a statement that may be objectively true or false, but you have to put it in context of the full email, where its justifiable hyperbole.

My response: And saying that you did “absolutely nothing about almost every key progressive issue” can’t be? ~Sahar

Q: Andrew, do you think statements like “Ms. Shuster is a yes-woman, an insider, not an independent thinker” are libel?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: “Because it’s only a matter of opinion.”
Everyone in the room: Laughter

End of the argument of the Prosecution

The court has denied a motion to dismiss the libel charges without hearing evidence against them. Surprising, especially considering that Brooks admitted even he thought the libel claims were bogus before reconsidering.

WITNESS: Tia Chaterjee

6:01: Tia: Rutrick never made any decisions against the will of the majority of election commissioners, and in fact bowed to the will of the majority when he was in the minority.

6:04: Tia says there aren’t many explicit rules for write-in candidates, and because of that the elections commission was entitled to make its own interpretations. Since facebook is such a new campaigning tool, there were even fewer clear-cut guidelines.

6:09: Judges: “You have to let her answer your question. Even if you don’t like the way she answers it, you have to let her answer it.” Bitchslap to the prosecution.

WITNESS: Nelson Rutrick

Nelson invited Zach, who had penalized him in the previous election, to give input to the discussion.Zach agreed with Nelson that a warning should be sent out, but that he was not strict enough in his examination.

6:18: Nelson: there is precedent in which write-in candidates have been allowed to campaign before their primaries, as often their campaigns are formed day-of. Zach Pyle was on the commission then and had no objections… Is it not curious that he did so in testimony?

6:25: Q: What about the flag resolution?

A: We voted and decided that this did not constitute libel because it lacked malicious intent.

Recess. We were kicked out of the room and have now moved to the multi-purpose room.

7:00: Interesting. The conversation has turned into a small debate over the term ‘union-members’ and whether or not that applies to all students, or just union officials. I’ve always assumed it meant all students. The court feels the same way.

7:03: The court just provided an official definition of the term “Dirty Jew.”

WITNESS: Adam Hughes (the one and only!)

Adam: Yes I knew that the ‘flag statement’ wasn’t true, I just worded it really badly. Innocent Mistake.

So our readers know, ever since moving to the multi-purpose room, we are having some serious ‘volume’ issues. There is a rock band playing loud music downstairs which makes it very difficult to hear the procedings. Especially when the door opens. Taylor’s facial expressions when he can’t hear are quite priceless (read: walrus and bowel-problem related).

7:12: Nelson has to go! His comedic presence will be sorely missed in this courtroom.

An update on the noise situation. The court has ruled that people may not enter and exit the courtroom unless its an emergency. Noam, our future Senator at Large has volunteered to man the door and prevent violators of the court’s rules.

7:16: Adam: “I never called anyone a dinosaur!” To me this is proof that this court case has dissolved into a name-calling battle. For the record, Adam is a dinosaur (velociraptor) and his calling someone a dinosaur would be the utmost compliment.

WITNESS: Lisa

Exclusive IP executive summary:

7:20: Andrew: why did you not use the words “I feel” when lambasting my grievous offense against your people?

Lisa: English is my third language. I’m sorry if I don’t take into account sociopolitical connotations when I write facebook messages, beeatch!

Sooo schooled.

Andrew: “Uh…. I’m done.”

WITNESS: Noam Shuster, future Senator-at-large

7:23: Noam, on being sworn in to give testimony: “Finally I get sweared into something!” Oh snap.

7:24: I am Israeli. I love the country.

7:27: Noam: “Immediately after winning, I recieived an email telling me I could not do anything – I could not campaign, until I meet Nelson. I called him immediately. I think he was probably in his pajamas or somethyiong, so he needed 10 minutes to get himself together. He came to the campus center and I imediately met with him.”

7:28: Q: Did you put up any flyers or anything supporting your campaign?

A: No, I don’t like wasting paper.

Court: direct quote: “Taylor, please stop talking.” Precisely.

_____________________________________________

Closing remarks of the Prosecution, Taylor Shiells (disclaimer: our interpretations of the remarks are VERY offensive, and entirely factually accurate):

Nelson never made clear that write-in candidates don’t have to meet with the elections commissioner before campaigning. Simply because it makes obvious sense and the established process of review led to a majority decision that agreed with him means nothing. It is all layers and layers of subtlety! And if there’s one thing I hate, its subtlety. Asher told us campaigning isn’t allowed. He is a better source than multiple elections commissioners, whose job it is to decide stuff like that. Why, you ask? Because he agrees with us, duh. Innermost Parts sucks. They called me a constipated walrus. (Now that’s libel!) On further introspection… I have to take a shit real bad. Who dares call my client a dinosaur? I HATE DINOSAURS! Rargghhhh! If only Adam had threatened to beat my client and used racial slurs on his blog, that would have made my case soooo much easier. That and a good laxative. But where was I? The cross-out is bad as an editing tool. DELETE POWER!!!! Jamie Ansorge once used the motherfuckin’ wrong staples! Therefore, Andrew wins. Those of you who disagree hate Israel. And America. And its flags. I need to shave the chunk of old crab grass on my chin. Layers and layers of subtlety. Did I say that already? You can’t have double standards. Write-in candidates aren’t different. I wish my mother had recognized that I was different. Maybe then I wouldn’t be up here right now, making a fool of myself. Nelson has authority, but only when it makes Andrew Brooks win. If he loses, TAKE IT TO THE COURTS!

~Loki

End of our unbiased interpretation.

Shiells: “How can you say that the statements against Noam were injurious to her, and the statements made against Andrew were harmless to him?”

By the same logic, how can you say that the statements that were against Brooks were slanderous, but statements made for him, were not? Which is in fact the defense’s case. Thanks Taylor, for arguing our point.

8:00: “My client should have run un-opposed, but a series of events eventually caused him to lose.” You mean, the series of events called Democracy?

Closing remarks of the Defense, by Brian (with embellishment by Loki).

Campaigning is like football. If you’re holding the bal, someone is going to hit you (especially if its one of their balls). Opinions are opinions, not facts. Democracy. This election was held in the way elections should be handled – open, with dialogue. You can vote for me because I am the best, or because I am better than these bad candidates. Orrrr because I’m the only candidate. Oh wait – enter Noam. Shit, now you sue. So here I come in. Advocating community standards for our community to engage in discourse. You can make the argument – 500 people did – that Mr. Brooks is not the best candidate. Brooksy, ya lost, get over it. Therefore, I get to talk for 6 hours. At least I have pink nails. What action was taken that made it so much easier for Mr. Sulsky to win than Mr. Brooks? I know! He’s not as big an asshole. Empowerment. Female empowerment. Excretory system empowerment – thats addressed to you, Taylor. If commissioners were not appointed but elected, they might have bias. They did not – they remained unbiased. Noam followed the rules – immediately, after the election, Mr. Rutrick got out of his bed, changed from his pajamas, and came down to meet wth her. (What they did after the elections discussion is anyone’s guess, but it sure wasn’t g-rated.) Write-in candidates are important. Just like writing. Students don’t understand the Student Union. Just because you spend your free time reading bylaws doesn’t mean you can disqualify a motivated candidate. Rutrick is fair. He would also make a good juggler at a fair. That’s double fair! Yeah… my opponent says “we lost. Now we’re angry. Let’s sue!” (Hey, its not like there are better things to do on a Saturday). Yeah… you get the picture. We good. They are a mockery of democracy. Cool?

Closing remarks by Ryan Mcwhatever:

Too lazy to tease him. He’s pretty silly looking as is. Makes good arguments though.Altough has never managed to pronounce Nelson’s last name. Rut. Trick. Aha! Trick is in name! How could he be fair?

THE END.

30 comments on “ze livebloggin’: Brooks v. Shuster & Rutrick”

  1. Sahar Says:

    I’m trying to update the liveblog at the same time and it’s not working. I’ll leave my own version in the comments:

    The trial is about to begin! All you readers avidly checking our site (read: verrrrry few, hopefully), stay tuned for frequent updates.

    1:40 – Andrew Brook’s attorney compares us to swiftboat veterans for truth. Also, in 2004 the internet barely existed back then?

    1:45 – “Nelson does not find the rules satisfactory.” –claims that Nelson Rutrick does not abide by Constitutional bylaws. “Nelson threw out the bylaws.” “…Wanted to impose subjective will.” “Standards do not keep with responsibilities and rights as …. ”

    They really want to establish a standard where write-in candidates have to meet with election commissioners before running. I don’t know about you, but that seems to invalidate the point of write in candidates.

    1:50 – Brian Paternoso’s response statement (for Nelson): Commissioners receive tons of complaints. If we dealt with them the way Brooks wants, it’d be impossible to do any work.
    “What we are dealing with here is Negative Campaigning. Not Libel/Slander.”

    “What happened was very simple. The elections comission made a choice. The commission weighed on the side of democracy and gave the students their right to choose what they wanted.”

    1:53 – Ryan Macklehenie – Brooks’ side may argue that they aren’t suing for libel. Yet no libel / slander happened and once you figure that out, his whole case is undercut. Talks about some complains of libel in specifity.

    Since Noam made no libelous statements (or alleged libelous statements), she can’t be responsible. In fact, she sent emails asking for those statements to be took down.

    The word of the elections commissioner is binding only through email. Therefore, Brooks’ idea that she needed to meet with Rutrick before campaigning is based on Rutrick’s verbal statements. Yet those statements are clearly not binding.

  2. Sahar Says:

    2:02- Zachary Pyle- Became involved in issue when complaints arose against Rutrick’s actions regarding Senator-at-Large campaign.

    Zach claims that the comission sent us an email with a warning and understanding that if we didn’t remove the “offending text” further action would be taken.

    Not true. Here’s a copy of the email the commission sent us:

    I am writing to you on behalf of the elections commission in regards to elections violations which have occurred on the website ‘innermostparts.org.’

    On this website there is a post by Sahar Massachi and another Adam Hughes which encourage voters to support Noam and Kaamila in the race for Senator-at-Large. There have been a large number of requests for these two write-in candidates to be disqualified for these two posts. As Chief of Elections, I have decided that the commission will neither mark Noam and Kaamila as ‘violators of a rule’ nor will I disqualify them from the race. Instead, I will give a warning to both candidates and their supporters that the elections commission is looking extremely closely at this election and will not hold back from disqualify or marking a candidate who does not abide by elections rules.

    If you wish to continue using this website to comment on the election, make sure that you _double check the veracity of your claims_. Further false claims, considered ‘libelous’ by the elections commission, will be punished.

    (emphasis mine).

    So what we see here is a warning not to have further “false claims”, not to take down what we already wrote.

    Zack Pyle misspoke here.

  3. Sahar Says:

    Compare and contrast:
    Taylor Shields – constantly poised to jump up and object.
    Brian Paternoso – pink fingernail polish

  4. Sahar Says:

    It appears Ryan Mcwhatever’s nails are painted white.

  5. Sahar Says:

    Sahar, next time you plan to liveblog…

    …bring your own computer.

    And Ryan’s nails are white on his right hand and a pink-ish magenta (maybe even brown) on the left. FYI.

  6. Sahar Says:

    Yo, stranger who purports to be me: I brought my own computer. I just donated it to someone else.

  7. symphonyofdissent Says:

    Your comments are keeping me entertained through this trial.

    Thanks Guys

    Daniel Ortner

  8. symphonyofdissent Says:

    So basically their only argument is really low impact and meaningless. I don’t understand the point anymore.

    Daniel Ortner

  9. Nelson Rutrick Says:

    I wish I had my own computer with me to liveblog this myself.

  10. Jimmy Sands Says:

    This is what progressive politics is- making fun of people’s physical appearances and telling lies about what actually happened in the courtroom? You’re all pussies who probably got beaten up in high school on a semi-regular basis- am I being as petty as you? Probably, but at least I don’t hide behind the illusion of social justice.

  11. symphonyofdissent Says:

    Your characterizations are pretty spot on gotta say

  12. Lev Says:

    The live-blog should reflect that the trial ended at about 8:15 and started at 1:30.

    Woohoo.

  13. Susan and Sarah Says:

    Precious.

  14. Loki Says:

    Jimmy Sands –
    How’d you guess? Petty insults revolving around constipation are precisely what social justice means! Thanks for putting it so clearly. Would you like to be a writer for us? Then you too could “hide behind the illusion of social justice”!

    Cheerfully yours,
    Loki

  15. Taylor Shiells Says:

    I’d like to set the record straight on something.
    I am not a politician, I am a volunteer from Mock Trial who had less than a day to prepare for this case.
    There were extreme difficulties in coordinating case strategy and I had almost no time to prep witnesses.
    I was used to an entirely different method of adjudicating issues of hearsay and relevance, and I worked with what I can.

    Regardless of the frustrating circumstances, I thought that both myself and opposing council did well considering the constraints on us.

    Then I came here…

    I could defend my actions, my case strategy, and my objections, but frankly I really don’t care.

    I’m done, this doesn’t involve me anymore. I gave Brooks a fair shake given his case, and I tried to do the same for the opposing council and witnesses. I wish them all well, and I’d like to note that I no longer represent either in any official capacity.

    You people are obnoxious, you’re a bunch of bitchy little girls who whine to each other about every minor issue of a dumbass student government like the motherfucking world is at stake and they’re saving democracy through fair senator at large elections. I expected some respect, but frankly you’re all a bunch of petty, obnoxious douches who are so self-important about how great and hip and important their stupid meaningless opinions are.

    As far as I’m concerned you can pull your heads out of your asses and replace it with this dumbass blog of yours.

  16. Robbie Schwartz Says:

    Wow, incredible! If this was submitted to a creative writing contest, it would win HANDS DOWN!

  17. Loki Says:

    Taylor –
    We couldn’t agree more. Thanks for all your hard work.

  18. symphonyofdissent Says:

    Taylor

    I feel you did a great job as consul. I have no relationship with Innermostparts and mostly found their updates entertaining during a long trial. As someone who had volunteered to be part of either consul if wanted, I certainly know what you mean when you say that preparation in a single day is exhaustive and difficult. Moreover, you were defending a more unpopular side which adds an extra layer of difficulty. Just wanted to put my thoughts out there

    Daniel Ortner

  19. Nelson Rutrick Says:

    Someone told me that the best thing I could do is get counsel that had nothing to do with the student union. I told them that was an extremely stupid idea.

    You have no idea how the student union works unless you have worked closely with the student union – the place is an absolute shitshow. Thrusting somebody into that environment with only a day of preparation means that they aren’t going to see the punches coming.

  20. Adam Hughes Says:

    Did anyone actually read Taylor Shiells’s op-ed? Exactly what parts are ridiculous and scathing? He offered a well-articulated criticism of the tactics SAJR employed (NOT their actual goals), and even if you disagree with it, you have to admit it offers a valid point in a respectful way.

    Taylor — I obviously disagree with some of your more extreme characterizations, but I understand where you’re coming from to some extent. This was a seven hour trial, and to keep things interesting, Lev, Loki, and Sahar added a little humor to their report. They went after everyone, but obviously their main focus was the opposing case (we are an opinion site and we did face a fair amount of criticism in the trial itself). Please don’t think that anything they said was meant to be taken personally (as Lev explains in his post). Personally, I think you did a really great job as counsel, and I really respect your efforts. I ask that you take a look at some of our other posts; I think you’ll realize that we’re not the libelous monsters that we’re made out to be, and that we are serious in fighting for a lot of issues I think you’ll find important as well.

  21. Adam Hughes Says:

    Nelson — I was an extremely stupid idea?!?!? That’s it, I’m endorsing Brooks.

  22. wadodaw Says:

    I think Innermost Parts owes Taylor Shiells a formal apology, for comparing his face to a constipated walrus. Though it may be an opinion, it is without doubt malicious, and has no place in a blog that attempts to maintain some level of self-dignity.

  23. Loki Says:

    wadodaw –

    You’re right. Our apology is below:

    Dear Mr Shiells,

    We apologize for comparing your face to that of a constipated walrus. As merely amateur observers of walrii, we were by no means qualified to make that judgement. Merely because your face may have prima facie resembled a walrus in need of immediate relief did not mean that we should have made that judgement ourselves. The proper course of action would have been to recommend that evaluation to a Special Executive committee of the Student Union. We hereby recommend such action be taken.

    Sincerely,
    Loki, Lev, and Sahar

  24. Jonathan Says:

    Wow, I just found the whole blog ridiculously immature and offensive. Being bored isn’t a defense for publicly ridiculing someone online, just because he represented a side you didn’t like. Honestly, this whole blog disgusted me.

  25. Nelson Rutrick Says:

    Why does one need a defense for publicly ridiculing someone online? Thank god the internets aren’t monitored by Jonathan’s.

  26. Marissa Linzi Says:

    I came by to see what all the fuss was about. Here are my conclusions:
    The live blog was funny, but I agree with whoever wadodaw is. That was unnecessarily mean. It’s one thing to pin childish insults on remote public figures, but come on, guys. We’re all classmates here. I applaud Lev and Adam and Sahar for maintaining a level of professionalism. But Alex Melman, I think I’ve lost a little bit of respect for you. I think Taylor’s post was completely justified, despite the profanity. If I’d been called a constipated walrus, I’d have cussed you guys out too.

    Anyway, we can all agree that this entire thing was indeed very silly. There’s just no need to be mean.

  27. Jonathan Says:

    Thanks Nelson for your comment. I think everyone, even the writers of the blog, know that there is a difference between ridiculing someone for there beliefs and ridiculing a person on how they “looked” in the trial. One is an expression of disagreement, and the other is an expression of being a jerk. Brandeis is a small community, how about being a little sensitive? I’m not saying that the website is not allowed to put up offensive material, (I’m a firm believer in freedom of speech) , what I’m saying is that they should be considerate. Oh, why does someone need a defense? I meant a defense to there character. After reading this blog, the writers of it just seemed like jerks. I’m not saying that they are, what I’m saying is that everything you do is a little revealing of your character. That is why I they, the writers of this blog, originally, tried to “defend” themselves. The quote you were questioning was my comment on their defense. That being bored is not an excuse to insulting someone’s looks.

  28. Jonathan Says:

    *beliefs above in the second sentence, was a mistake. I meant opinions.

  29. Innermost Parts » Blog Archive » Our Broken Senate(s) Says:

    […] senate has drama, yes, but perhaps because it is the most democratic of union institutions. Barring high-profile Student Judiciary Trials, it is the one institutions where “common students” can come and confront the […]

  30. reader Says:

    This was one of the weaker days in IMP’s history. Humor at the expense of readership? Bad idea. Controversy for the sake of controversy is never controversial.