... I hear whispers that something of interest will be happening soon.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
A few thoughts
I'm tired of talking about this, and I'm sure you have all been keeping up on the other blogs and La Rotonde with regards to the SAC decision. So, I'm going to talk about a few other things.
Regardless of what side I was on, or the ruling by the SAC, what really upset me during the past few weeks was the actions taken by the SFUO, the SFUO-elect, and the supporters of either side of the appeal.
First, the original SAC "hearing", where the incoming executive walked out on their students, our president failed to take action to maintain any semblance of order, and members of the BOA (representatives of the student body) sunk so low as to make signs accusing the appellants of being racists & chanting insults. The response by some students was to throw paper at the chanters and make insulting signs in response, effectively reducing the hearing to something out of a 3rd grade classroom. The culmination of this mockery of a meeting was when Protection was finally called and the hearing was adjourned.
Second, the BOA where the Chair decided that, despite the fact that more than 1/3 of the Directors abstained from voting, a motion presented by Dean Haldenby regarding the procedures of the appeal was passed based on "advice" from the SFUO's lawyer. This was followed by a burning of the constitution and the start of a petition to impeach the executive.
Third, the clusterfuck of blogs, letters, facebook statuses, videos, and emails that ripped through our campus over the past month and a half, personally attacking certain individuals and ruining a multitude of relationships/friendships.
Fourth, the hearing on Saturday, where members of the incoming executive badgered, attacked the character of, and outright demanded to know why the appellants and their witnesses felt they could question them & their alleged participation in a slate. This hearing where, our incoming VP Social (a bilingual position, might I add), refused a request by one of the appellants to speak English. A hearing where it was made incredibly difficult for interested students to watch/listen, since it was closed to the public, the "viewing room" was the lobby of a busy building with bad speakers, and there was no place to sit or even attempt to watch the 8-hour appeal comfortably.
In sum, I'm disappointed and tired. This year, I saw the campus divide and come together in ways I never would have dreamt possible. I truly hope that next year's SFUO executive puts their egos aside and "gets back to working for students". This appeal has shown that students can question the elections results, that they can get their voices heard if they have something to say.
Congratulations to the brave who stepped up and lasted throughout this lengthy process.
Congratulations to the executive-elect. I hope you learn from this, recognize that it did matter, and remember that you were once the students who were unhappy with the system. Despite our harsh criticisms, I truly hope that you will work next year to " regroup all undergraduate students of the University of Ottawa" and help all students (including those with differing political views) to "speak with one voice".
Finally, thank you to our readers who have followed us through this entire process.
Regardless of what side I was on, or the ruling by the SAC, what really upset me during the past few weeks was the actions taken by the SFUO, the SFUO-elect, and the supporters of either side of the appeal.
First, the original SAC "hearing", where the incoming executive walked out on their students, our president failed to take action to maintain any semblance of order, and members of the BOA (representatives of the student body) sunk so low as to make signs accusing the appellants of being racists & chanting insults. The response by some students was to throw paper at the chanters and make insulting signs in response, effectively reducing the hearing to something out of a 3rd grade classroom. The culmination of this mockery of a meeting was when Protection was finally called and the hearing was adjourned.
Second, the BOA where the Chair decided that, despite the fact that more than 1/3 of the Directors abstained from voting, a motion presented by Dean Haldenby regarding the procedures of the appeal was passed based on "advice" from the SFUO's lawyer. This was followed by a burning of the constitution and the start of a petition to impeach the executive.
Third, the clusterfuck of blogs, letters, facebook statuses, videos, and emails that ripped through our campus over the past month and a half, personally attacking certain individuals and ruining a multitude of relationships/friendships.
Fourth, the hearing on Saturday, where members of the incoming executive badgered, attacked the character of, and outright demanded to know why the appellants and their witnesses felt they could question them & their alleged participation in a slate. This hearing where, our incoming VP Social (a bilingual position, might I add), refused a request by one of the appellants to speak English. A hearing where it was made incredibly difficult for interested students to watch/listen, since it was closed to the public, the "viewing room" was the lobby of a busy building with bad speakers, and there was no place to sit or even attempt to watch the 8-hour appeal comfortably.
In sum, I'm disappointed and tired. This year, I saw the campus divide and come together in ways I never would have dreamt possible. I truly hope that next year's SFUO executive puts their egos aside and "gets back to working for students". This appeal has shown that students can question the elections results, that they can get their voices heard if they have something to say.
Congratulations to the brave who stepped up and lasted throughout this lengthy process.
Congratulations to the executive-elect. I hope you learn from this, recognize that it did matter, and remember that you were once the students who were unhappy with the system. Despite our harsh criticisms, I truly hope that you will work next year to " regroup all undergraduate students of the University of Ottawa" and help all students (including those with differing political views) to "speak with one voice".
Finally, thank you to our readers who have followed us through this entire process.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Julie Séguin
Julien goes through the same questions for each candidate... so planned.
Julie talks about her conversation with Aminka. Admits she showed Aminka a picture on her laptop...apparently she has a lot of photos on her computer of Seamus. Claims she was trying to connect to the internet and taking a break, and was fucking around with a picture of Seamus (giving him earrings, pretty hair, etc)...wtf??
Claims that the picture she was editing couldn't have been used on his posters...and that Seamus' posters were printed the day before this convo with Aminka.
Tries to confuse everyone with photoshop terms. bahah.
Email to her volunteers:
IF someone else recommended people join a campaign, would you think that was wrong?
No.
(aka, claiming that soliciting people to work on a specific person's campaign is not against the rules)
Julie talks about her conversation with Aminka. Admits she showed Aminka a picture on her laptop...apparently she has a lot of photos on her computer of Seamus. Claims she was trying to connect to the internet and taking a break, and was fucking around with a picture of Seamus (giving him earrings, pretty hair, etc)...wtf??
Claims that the picture she was editing couldn't have been used on his posters...and that Seamus' posters were printed the day before this convo with Aminka.
Tries to confuse everyone with photoshop terms. bahah.
Email to her volunteers:
IF someone else recommended people join a campaign, would you think that was wrong?
No.
(aka, claiming that soliciting people to work on a specific person's campaign is not against the rules)
Sydney Loko
Was a candidate for VP University Affairs.
JdB - did Rox or Seamus contact you to work with them?
Sydney - No. Not at all.
JdB - why do the appelants have that email?
Sydney - I asked them not to use it. It was confidential, but they decided that it was pertinent.
JdB - why do they have the emails between you and Rox?
Sydney - I gave the emails to them, but I didn't think it proved a slate. I told them I didn't want them to use the emails.
JdB - did Rox or Seamus contact you to work with them?
Sydney - No. Not at all.
JdB - why do the appelants have that email?
Sydney - I asked them not to use it. It was confidential, but they decided that it was pertinent.
JdB - why do they have the emails between you and Rox?
Sydney - I gave the emails to them, but I didn't think it proved a slate. I told them I didn't want them to use the emails.
Rox - people often come to see us with questions, since campaigns can be complicated (Wasn't Wassim helping the candidates with all of that?)
JdB- did you make Sydney's poster?
Rox - no.
JdB - why did he send you an email with his poster attached?
Rox - Yes, but I just told him that his poster wasn't up to par, and I put him in contact with someone who does graphic design to fix it up.
JdB - And buttons,...did you have buttons? Where did you get them?
Rox - My volunteers did them. I wasn't around when they made them.
JdB - Did you tell any of your volunteers to support another cnadidate?
Rox - No
Julien mentions the voter turnout, AGAIN. Mentions the margin by which the candidate won, AGAIN. We get it.
JdB- did you make Sydney's poster?
Rox - no.
JdB - why did he send you an email with his poster attached?
Rox - Yes, but I just told him that his poster wasn't up to par, and I put him in contact with someone who does graphic design to fix it up.
JdB - And buttons,...did you have buttons? Where did you get them?
Rox - My volunteers did them. I wasn't around when they made them.
JdB - Did you tell any of your volunteers to support another cnadidate?
Rox - No
Julien mentions the voter turnout, AGAIN. Mentions the margin by which the candidate won, AGAIN. We get it.
back for a bit
but i have work to do! bah!
Roxanne examination
Vp Finance this year, elected for next.
JdB - Were you accused of working with other last year? Were you accused of breaking rules?
Rox - No.
JdB - This year, did you work with others?
Rox - No
JdB - What did you do in your campaign?
Rox - Banner, flyers, buttons, facebook groups, posters, videos, etc.
JdB - Did you do anything for any other candidates this year?
Rox - No, but there was a penalty against me because one of my volunteers sent a message to a friend instructing them to vote for me and Jean Guillaume
Rox discussing her meeting with Sydney Loko: it's normal for students to meet with exec members if they are thinking of running for a position.
Roxanne examination
Vp Finance this year, elected for next.
JdB - Were you accused of working with other last year? Were you accused of breaking rules?
Rox - No.
JdB - This year, did you work with others?
Rox - No
JdB - What did you do in your campaign?
Rox - Banner, flyers, buttons, facebook groups, posters, videos, etc.
JdB - Did you do anything for any other candidates this year?
Rox - No, but there was a penalty against me because one of my volunteers sent a message to a friend instructing them to vote for me and Jean Guillaume
Rox discussing her meeting with Sydney Loko: it's normal for students to meet with exec members if they are thinking of running for a position.
Iain Brannigan
candidate for the BOA and offiicial rep for Seamus.
started recruiting volunteers for his campaign before the campaign period, and had meetings at the Royal Oak.
talking about his relationship with Lauren McPhee, their relationship ended pretty much when she recorded the testimony.
RPG: What do you mean, you were "in charge" of the volunteers?
ok, bloggers OUT for now!! Café Alt is booked.
started recruiting volunteers for his campaign before the campaign period, and had meetings at the Royal Oak.
talking about his relationship with Lauren McPhee, their relationship ended pretty much when she recorded the testimony.
RPG: What do you mean, you were "in charge" of the volunteers?
ok, bloggers OUT for now!! Café Alt is booked.
Seamus!
JdB: Did you have organizational meetings before the election campaign?
Seamus: Absolutely. Meeting with other students to see what they want to see in the SFUO.
JdB: have you ever been accused of being a slate before this?
Seamus: No.
Mention of "BLOGGERS ROW".
Says that Iain took charge of making his buttons, using OPIRG's button maker
Julien probes Seamus into talking about a survey he wrote for Seamus' campaign.
JdB: Did you ever campaign when other candidates were around?
Seamus: Yes, and EVERYONE else who ran did so. someone wanted to use my class list (you mean, the one Wassim sent to everyone?) but I said no.
Seamus admits he met with Sydney Loko and mentioned that he should probably have a banner.
Seamus starts rattling on about the many trying things that one has to do in a campaign. boo hoo.
Seamus: Absolutely. Meeting with other students to see what they want to see in the SFUO.
JdB: have you ever been accused of being a slate before this?
Seamus: No.
Mention of "BLOGGERS ROW".
Says that Iain took charge of making his buttons, using OPIRG's button maker
Julien probes Seamus into talking about a survey he wrote for Seamus' campaign.
JdB: Did you ever campaign when other candidates were around?
Seamus: Yes, and EVERYONE else who ran did so. someone wanted to use my class list (you mean, the one Wassim sent to everyone?) but I said no.
Seamus admits he met with Sydney Loko and mentioned that he should probably have a banner.
Seamus starts rattling on about the many trying things that one has to do in a campaign. boo hoo.
Amy Kishek
Can you explain your role in the campaign?
I was a candidate for the BOG. I was close friends and part of a group of students who would work together on various issues, specifically on the BoA. We collectively organized candidates for the next executive. The current exec, excluding Joël Larose, was involved. François actively organized a meeting for peopel interested in running for the exec. We were going to decide who should run for president to represent our group. Meeting at Cheevers' residence, i don't have evidence of it because I felt shady about it and covered my tracks. We kept it quiet.
When we went to his residence, Roxanne mentioned that they were uncomfortable discussing these things in front of Ted.
I had a conversation with Dean and Seamus at the CFS AGM after-party, I mentioned I was upset Seamus was running. Dean asked if he should run for a 3rd term.
Was told by Seamus, Roxanne, and Francois that they were not supporting Ted Horton for University Affairs (was deemed "not radical enough").
Mentions that the following were there: Francois, Cheevers, Julie, Rox, Iain, Seamus, Danika, not sure if Dean was there.
Feb 11 - Seamus told her he spent the day with JG in the UCU campaigning together. Saw JG after 7pm, and he mentioned the same thing.
Seamus interupts - this wasn't mentioned in the report. No new evidence is allowed to be presented
Maureen says that the report was a summary. Amy is elaborating.
Amy - I was wearing one of Ted's buttons in the UCU couch lounge. Julie mentioned she made it. She had asked Francois where she can make buttons, he said he had no idea where to get a button maker, yet 4 days later they all had buttons made. OPIRG button maker was broken, and Francois had mentioned
JdB cross examination:
JdB: You seem to have a lot of details for someone who claims not to have any evidence
Amy: Yea, I have a good memory. Someone was taking notes at the meeting.
JdB: I'm flabbergasted! You identify these things were going on in November. Why didn't you do anything? You obviously
Amy: To me, these meetings show intent.
JdB: Why didn't you report them during the campaign?
Amy: I didnt find out until late in the campaign. I was running a campaign by myself... I didn't sit around and chat about this. I was busy.
Seamus cross examination -
Seamus: So, you remember people at the meeting, but you forgot to mention Julien de Bellefeuille. Are you sure that those individuals you pointed out were there?
Amy: Yes. It was five months ago.
Seamus: Are intent and motive in the constitution?
Amy: No.
Seamus: You said that these conversations proved intent and motive. There is nothing against that in the constitution.
I was a candidate for the BOG. I was close friends and part of a group of students who would work together on various issues, specifically on the BoA. We collectively organized candidates for the next executive. The current exec, excluding Joël Larose, was involved. François actively organized a meeting for peopel interested in running for the exec. We were going to decide who should run for president to represent our group. Meeting at Cheevers' residence, i don't have evidence of it because I felt shady about it and covered my tracks. We kept it quiet.
When we went to his residence, Roxanne mentioned that they were uncomfortable discussing these things in front of Ted.
I had a conversation with Dean and Seamus at the CFS AGM after-party, I mentioned I was upset Seamus was running. Dean asked if he should run for a 3rd term.
Was told by Seamus, Roxanne, and Francois that they were not supporting Ted Horton for University Affairs (was deemed "not radical enough").
Mentions that the following were there: Francois, Cheevers, Julie, Rox, Iain, Seamus, Danika, not sure if Dean was there.
Feb 11 - Seamus told her he spent the day with JG in the UCU campaigning together. Saw JG after 7pm, and he mentioned the same thing.
Seamus interupts - this wasn't mentioned in the report. No new evidence is allowed to be presented
Maureen says that the report was a summary. Amy is elaborating.
Amy - I was wearing one of Ted's buttons in the UCU couch lounge. Julie mentioned she made it. She had asked Francois where she can make buttons, he said he had no idea where to get a button maker, yet 4 days later they all had buttons made. OPIRG button maker was broken, and Francois had mentioned
JdB cross examination:
JdB: You seem to have a lot of details for someone who claims not to have any evidence
Amy: Yea, I have a good memory. Someone was taking notes at the meeting.
JdB: I'm flabbergasted! You identify these things were going on in November. Why didn't you do anything? You obviously
Amy: To me, these meetings show intent.
JdB: Why didn't you report them during the campaign?
Amy: I didnt find out until late in the campaign. I was running a campaign by myself... I didn't sit around and chat about this. I was busy.
Seamus cross examination -
Seamus: So, you remember people at the meeting, but you forgot to mention Julien de Bellefeuille. Are you sure that those individuals you pointed out were there?
Amy: Yes. It was five months ago.
Seamus: Are intent and motive in the constitution?
Amy: No.
Seamus: You said that these conversations proved intent and motive. There is nothing against that in the constitution.
er....Seamus gets back up?
You yourself have no proof, you never witnessed any breaking of the rules.
RPG: Yes, I have proof. We gathered it after the campaign and it has been submitted to the SAC.
Seamus: I didn't ask after. I asked DURING.
RPG: During the campaign, no.
It doesn't matter if it came to light before OR after the campaign!!! Jeeeez.
You yourself have no proof, you never witnessed any breaking of the rules.
RPG: Yes, I have proof. We gathered it after the campaign and it has been submitted to the SAC.
Seamus: I didn't ask after. I asked DURING.
RPG: During the campaign, no.
It doesn't matter if it came to light before OR after the campaign!!! Jeeeez.
more RPG
cross examination
JdB: First, I'd like to confirm - did you write some of the statement for the witnesses?
RPG: They told me what to write, my fingers were on the keyboard
JdB: In the first document, you are basically asking for the election results to be reversed...
Seamus is saying something...
Arbitrators are talking....
RPG; it was a recommendation, it's obviously up to the arbitrators.
JdB: You thought it was fair for oyu to take the position straight up. Why the change of heart?
Arbitrator: It was an option that was brought up.
HERE IS COMES!!! SEAMUS IS CROSS-EXAMINING HIM!
Seamus: Where did you get your buttons made?
RPG: Merriam
Seamus: it's been alleged that you and maureen made your buttons together
RPG: no, not at all.
Seamus: It would be my word against yours
RPG: no, that would be a fabrication. (YES RPG!!!)
...Seamus sits back down
JdB: First, I'd like to confirm - did you write some of the statement for the witnesses?
RPG: They told me what to write, my fingers were on the keyboard
JdB: In the first document, you are basically asking for the election results to be reversed...
Seamus is saying something...
Arbitrators are talking....
RPG; it was a recommendation, it's obviously up to the arbitrators.
JdB: You thought it was fair for oyu to take the position straight up. Why the change of heart?
Arbitrator: It was an option that was brought up.
HERE IS COMES!!! SEAMUS IS CROSS-EXAMINING HIM!
Seamus: Where did you get your buttons made?
RPG: Merriam
Seamus: it's been alleged that you and maureen made your buttons together
RPG: no, not at all.
Seamus: It would be my word against yours
RPG: no, that would be a fabrication. (YES RPG!!!)
...Seamus sits back down
RPG testimony!
RPG: I was a candidate for presidency in the election, I used to be super close to Sydney Loko. We had meetings once we decided we had enough evidence for the case that was at hand. Sydney mentioned that Roxanne had orginally approached him, she sent him emails offering him help. He brought chips to the meeting. hahah.
He asked for his testimony to be withdawn, but the arbitrators would not allow it.
Maureen: How do you respond to people saying that you or we coerced people into giving us this testimony?
RPG: I couldn't coerce a little girl to do anything....
Maureen: DO you have any other evidence about the candidates participating in a slate?
RPG: mentions Ted Horton
Seamus interupts: There was no evidence submitted by Ted Horton
Arbitrator: No, but he was mentionned in the evidence regarding the button maker...(arbitrators are chatting now)
He asked for his testimony to be withdawn, but the arbitrators would not allow it.
Maureen: How do you respond to people saying that you or we coerced people into giving us this testimony?
RPG: I couldn't coerce a little girl to do anything....
Maureen: DO you have any other evidence about the candidates participating in a slate?
RPG: mentions Ted Horton
Seamus interupts: There was no evidence submitted by Ted Horton
Arbitrator: No, but he was mentionned in the evidence regarding the button maker...(arbitrators are chatting now)
Aminka Belvitt
Being examined by Maureen
Aminka was first a candidate for the BoA, Social Sciences...was successful.
Telehpone conversation, Guillaume told her he met with Francois Picard and they told him that they would like to work with him and that he should run for the executive.
Originally was supposed to run for University Affairs, then Seamus said he should run for Social.
Jean trusted her, she trusted him. Was an employee for Seamus and trusted him, also was in his Presidential video. Had a pleasant relationship with Julie.
Saw Jean Guillaume tell voters to vote for two of the candidates
Saw Julie's computer open, with photoshop running and
JdB: did you write your own statement?
Aminka: yes.
JdB: You were a volunteer for seamus?
AAminkaL no, i was just in his video. i didn't sign a volunteer form, he never asked me to.
JdB: But, you stated that yu were in the video
Aminka: Yes.
JdB: You calim that before and during the campaign ,you noticed that he didn't follow rules.
Aminka: I saw an image from his posters on Julie's laptop.
JdB: Why did you remain one of his volunteers for his video instead of reporting him?
Aminka: It was filmed on Super Sunday, was told OPIRG button maker was broken
Julie is cross examining
Julie: Can you describe exactly what you saw?
Aminka: Looked like Photoshop or Illustrator or something, open with a poster with Seamus, you explained how you altered his eyes and his skin. You said -
Julie: Was there ever text around the image?
Aminka: No, but it was the image used on his poster.
Julie: Did you know the poster was printed the day before you saw that screen?
Jean Guillaume cross examining
Aminka: You told me you were going to go for Social. You told me they approached you to run for University Affairs, you told me they offered you their help
JG: YES or NO QUESTIONS. When we spoke, what language were we speaking?
Aminka: English
JG During the phone convo, yousaid i gave you my credit card number...was it a 3 way or a 2 way convo?
Aminka: the 3rd time i called you, there was a third person on the phone.
...what does that have to do with anything???
Seamus: When you said you saw Jean and I in the caf, was there anyone else?
Aminka: When I was there, there were no other canidates
Arbitrator asks Seamus to stop yelling. bahaha
Aminka was first a candidate for the BoA, Social Sciences...was successful.
Telehpone conversation, Guillaume told her he met with Francois Picard and they told him that they would like to work with him and that he should run for the executive.
Originally was supposed to run for University Affairs, then Seamus said he should run for Social.
Jean trusted her, she trusted him. Was an employee for Seamus and trusted him, also was in his Presidential video. Had a pleasant relationship with Julie.
Saw Jean Guillaume tell voters to vote for two of the candidates
Saw Julie's computer open, with photoshop running and
JdB: did you write your own statement?
Aminka: yes.
JdB: You were a volunteer for seamus?
AAminkaL no, i was just in his video. i didn't sign a volunteer form, he never asked me to.
JdB: But, you stated that yu were in the video
Aminka: Yes.
JdB: You calim that before and during the campaign ,you noticed that he didn't follow rules.
Aminka: I saw an image from his posters on Julie's laptop.
JdB: Why did you remain one of his volunteers for his video instead of reporting him?
Aminka: It was filmed on Super Sunday, was told OPIRG button maker was broken
Julie is cross examining
Julie: Can you describe exactly what you saw?
Aminka: Looked like Photoshop or Illustrator or something, open with a poster with Seamus, you explained how you altered his eyes and his skin. You said -
Julie: Was there ever text around the image?
Aminka: No, but it was the image used on his poster.
Julie: Did you know the poster was printed the day before you saw that screen?
Jean Guillaume cross examining
Aminka: You told me you were going to go for Social. You told me they approached you to run for University Affairs, you told me they offered you their help
JG: YES or NO QUESTIONS. When we spoke, what language were we speaking?
Aminka: English
JG During the phone convo, yousaid i gave you my credit card number...was it a 3 way or a 2 way convo?
Aminka: the 3rd time i called you, there was a third person on the phone.
...what does that have to do with anything???
Seamus: When you said you saw Jean and I in the caf, was there anyone else?
Aminka: When I was there, there were no other canidates
Arbitrator asks Seamus to stop yelling. bahaha
JdB cross examination
JdB: Did you participate in any volunteer meetings or banner parties for Wolfe's campaign
Lauren: Recognized faces, don't know all the names
JdB: What was your relationship with Iain?
Maureen interupts: what is the relevance??
JdB: It's a character witness!!!
Arbitrator: be careful
JdB: Do you find it suspicious that the only allegations is in direct reference a person you recently broke up with?
Sham-y is up!
Seamus: You mentioned you helped me...you mentioned they were all registered volunteers. Did I ever say anything to you about helping another candidate. I never asked you to help out Jean Guillaume...I never asked you to help Roxanne
Lauren: There was no need. You're all in the same clique
Seamus: I personally never spoke to you or asked you to help any other candidate
This isn't examining....this is arguing.
THE PIZZA IS HERE!
JdB: Did you participate in any volunteer meetings or banner parties for Wolfe's campaign
Lauren: Recognized faces, don't know all the names
JdB: What was your relationship with Iain?
Maureen interupts: what is the relevance??
JdB: It's a character witness!!!
Arbitrator: be careful
JdB: Do you find it suspicious that the only allegations is in direct reference a person you recently broke up with?
Sham-y is up!
Seamus: You mentioned you helped me...you mentioned they were all registered volunteers. Did I ever say anything to you about helping another candidate. I never asked you to help out Jean Guillaume...I never asked you to help Roxanne
Lauren: There was no need. You're all in the same clique
Seamus: I personally never spoke to you or asked you to help any other candidate
This isn't examining....this is arguing.
THE PIZZA IS HERE!
Lauren McPhee is up next!
Arbitrators asking people to keep things civil, in the case that past relationships come up.
Lauren - was a volunteer for Seamus Wolfe, made buttons for Roxanne, Julie, and Seamus.
they are basically going over what Lauren talked about in her video
Lauren - the button maker came from CUSA! It was not wonky or hard to use...doesn't believe it was the same button maker described by Miatta, Wassim, Sylvia, or by the OPIRG committee. Was present in the house, and helped make buttons for all of these candidates.
Bloggers note: focusing too much on the buttons!
Lauren - was a volunteer for Seamus Wolfe, made buttons for Roxanne, Julie, and Seamus.
they are basically going over what Lauren talked about in her video
Lauren - the button maker came from CUSA! It was not wonky or hard to use...doesn't believe it was the same button maker described by Miatta, Wassim, Sylvia, or by the OPIRG committee. Was present in the house, and helped make buttons for all of these candidates.
Bloggers note: focusing too much on the buttons!
Testimony from Peter Harrin
Feb 12, 2009: Witnessed Jean Guillaume advising a student how to vote, pointing out their platforms on the e-vote on the voter's laptop
btw, loving DickNN right now
Arbitratror - stop refering to the "First Appeal", since this is technically the first one.
Jean Guillaume leaned over the student's laptop and pointed out names and said "This is who you should vote for".
JdB cross-examination:
JdB - This didn't strike you as strange?
Peter - I didn't know
JdB - Coudln't Jean Guillaume simply have been informing the student?
Peter - Uhm, i don't think so
JdB - Now, you must have an idea of what's right and what's wrong...Even if you didn't know the you must have know that this was wrong...
Peter - I found it strange...
JdB - uhm....er.....do you have any other proof??
Seamus cross-examination
Seamus - why didn't you mention this in your first testimony? Did that slip your mind? Do a lot of things slip your mind? Interesting...
btw, loving DickNN right now
Arbitratror - stop refering to the "First Appeal", since this is technically the first one.
Jean Guillaume leaned over the student's laptop and pointed out names and said "This is who you should vote for".
JdB cross-examination:
JdB - This didn't strike you as strange?
Peter - I didn't know
JdB - Coudln't Jean Guillaume simply have been informing the student?
Peter - Uhm, i don't think so
JdB - Now, you must have an idea of what's right and what's wrong...Even if you didn't know the you must have know that this was wrong...
Peter - I found it strange...
JdB - uhm....er.....do you have any other proof??
Seamus cross-examination
Seamus - why didn't you mention this in your first testimony? Did that slip your mind? Do a lot of things slip your mind? Interesting...
Seamus is cross examining Chaput!!!! Two cross examinations?! wtf?
Seamus - did you see any other rules during the campaign... Were you in a team with Cameron Montgomery?
Chaput - there was one classroom presentation that we ended up doing at the same time, but we were not in a team
Seamus - Do you have any sort of PROOF? Tape recorder?
Chaout - er....no (seriously....who walks around with a tape recorder....)
I'm pretty sure Seamus thinks he just destroyed Chaput...
Seamus - did you see any other rules during the campaign... Were you in a team with Cameron Montgomery?
Chaput - there was one classroom presentation that we ended up doing at the same time, but we were not in a team
Seamus - Do you have any sort of PROOF? Tape recorder?
Chaout - er....no (seriously....who walks around with a tape recorder....)
I'm pretty sure Seamus thinks he just destroyed Chaput...
Alex is being examined by RPG right now. He is talking about the conversation he, Cameron Montgomery, and Seamus had in the UCU, where Seamus allegedly said that JG was working with him and that they were both going to win.
Cross-examination
I think Julien has been watching Law & Order all week to prepare for this.
Julien asks if he was surround by the "gang of bloggers"....says it would be arrogant for seamus to talk like that in front of ALL THE BLOGGERS.
seriously...do they think we are superheroes? we cannot be everywhere at once. eff.
Cross-examination
I think Julien has been watching Law & Order all week to prepare for this.
Julien asks if he was surround by the "gang of bloggers"....says it would be arrogant for seamus to talk like that in front of ALL THE BLOGGERS.
seriously...do they think we are superheroes? we cannot be everywhere at once. eff.
Another relocation
Dean heard we were having a hard time hearing in the lobby, and proceeded to come out and snap at one of the bloggers, saying that they couldn't stop the appeal now just because we can't follow.
So...we've moved to Café Alt. We have it streaming on the TV here. There will be pizza soon.
So...we've moved to Café Alt. We have it streaming on the TV here. There will be pizza soon.
Examination of the Appellants witnesses
Miatta Gorvie is the first witness
- was a candidate in the 2009 elections
- was a member of STAND, made buttons earlier this year using the OPIRG button maker - apparently very hard to use ("wonky" was the word).
- took about 2 minutes to make a button...
- saw a candidate's (Iain Brannigan) nice button....it was common knowledge that the OPIRG button maker was broken
Julien: the company says that it takes 1 minute to make buttons...you say two
Miatta: well...obviously the company isn't going to say that their product is a piece of shit.
bahahah
- was a candidate in the 2009 elections
- was a member of STAND, made buttons earlier this year using the OPIRG button maker - apparently very hard to use ("wonky" was the word).
- took about 2 minutes to make a button...
- saw a candidate's (Iain Brannigan) nice button....it was common knowledge that the OPIRG button maker was broken
Julien: the company says that it takes 1 minute to make buttons...you say two
Miatta: well...obviously the company isn't going to say that their product is a piece of shit.
bahahah
SAC asks if Julien de Bellefeuille is representing the defendants - they weren't informed that he would be representing them
JdB is noted as a representative of the defendants.
Roxanne:
-Starts by saying that she won by a large margin, with the help of her volunteers....submitted all of her receipts
-Reversing the results of the elections is not an effective solution
-Maureen has no witnesses, which makes her think that her motivations are only political
-Her emails with Sydney were from before the campaign, and says that there is nothing wrong with helping others and giving them council before the campaign
-Appelants evidence is weak! bah!
Julie:
- Was only registered candidate for VP Comm this year
- Says that her probabilities of winning were very high, and so it doesn't make sense for her to have worked within a slate
- Evidence does not prove that Julie participated in a slate
- Understands and respects that every student has the right to appeal the results of an election
Jean Guillaume
- talks about people wanting change....
- "it is with honour and respect that he accepted the decision of the students in the elections"
- Actions called for
- Certain individuals who are "
Seamus
- "although politics can sometimes be dirty, i did my best to run a clean campaign"
- claims that throughout the campaign, none of the defendants were penalized
- calls their claims "at best false, and at worse, SLANDER!" omg!
- says that Cameron Montgomery and Alex Chaput's claims about his conversation in the UCU is ridiculous, since bloggers are EVERYWHERE! They would have blogged about it!
- OPIRG has a button maker that's open for use for everyone! My volunteers made my buttons at Iain's house with it! (....er....)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your future president!
JdB is noted as a representative of the defendants.
Roxanne:
-Starts by saying that she won by a large margin, with the help of her volunteers....submitted all of her receipts
-Reversing the results of the elections is not an effective solution
-Maureen has no witnesses, which makes her think that her motivations are only political
-Her emails with Sydney were from before the campaign, and says that there is nothing wrong with helping others and giving them council before the campaign
-Appelants evidence is weak! bah!
Julie:
- Was only registered candidate for VP Comm this year
- Says that her probabilities of winning were very high, and so it doesn't make sense for her to have worked within a slate
- Evidence does not prove that Julie participated in a slate
- Understands and respects that every student has the right to appeal the results of an election
Jean Guillaume
- talks about people wanting change....
- "it is with honour and respect that he accepted the decision of the students in the elections"
- Actions called for
- Certain individuals who are "
Seamus
- "although politics can sometimes be dirty, i did my best to run a clean campaign"
- claims that throughout the campaign, none of the defendants were penalized
- calls their claims "at best false, and at worse, SLANDER!" omg!
- says that Cameron Montgomery and Alex Chaput's claims about his conversation in the UCU is ridiculous, since bloggers are EVERYWHERE! They would have blogged about it!
- OPIRG has a button maker that's open for use for everyone! My volunteers made my buttons at Iain's house with it! (....er....)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your future president!
Another relocation
This is incredibly frustrating. We can't hear anything.
Why the hell would they decide to stream this in the LOBBY of a building? The mics are horrible and there is way too much background noise for us to understand what is going on.
Not impressed.
Why the hell would they decide to stream this in the LOBBY of a building? The mics are horrible and there is way too much background noise for us to understand what is going on.
Not impressed.
Hearing is starting!
Apparently the room is divided:
julien, iain brannigan, myriam, francois, cheevers, a few others i don't really know, federico (until guillaume chirped him), and danika are on one side, with people for the appellants on the other.
The schedule:
Opening remarks (3 minutes from each the appellants, then 3 minutes from each of the defendants)
Examination of the appelant's witnesses
Cross examination by the defendants (10 min per witness)
Examination of defendants witnesses
Cross examination of by the appelants
Closing remarks (5 minutes per appellant, 5 min per defendant)
Closing remarks from SAC
Apparently the room is divided:
julien, iain brannigan, myriam, francois, cheevers, a few others i don't really know, federico (until guillaume chirped him), and danika are on one side, with people for the appellants on the other.
The schedule:
Opening remarks (3 minutes from each the appellants, then 3 minutes from each of the defendants)
Examination of the appelant's witnesses
Cross examination by the defendants (10 min per witness)
Examination of defendants witnesses
Cross examination of by the appelants
Closing remarks (5 minutes per appellant, 5 min per defendant)
Closing remarks from SAC
Getting ready
We are in the lobby of Fauteux. There are no power outlets for our laptops, and we are unsure if there will be sound on the video stream. AH!
Friday, April 3, 2009
SAC Hearing
We came across a memo from the SFUO, regarding the SAC hearing that is happening tomorrow.
The details!
1) Happening at 1pm
2) Taking place in FTX 146
3) Being transmitted in the lobby of the building (we suspect this is part of a plot to make bloggers as uncomfortable as possible).
The people who are allowed in the room for the hearing:
1. All directors of the Federation, including the executive of the Federation (so...any members of the BOA)
2. The executive-elect of the Federation (...Michèle & Ted)
3. The chairperson of the Board of Administration of the Federation (Federico)
4. All parties involved in the contest of the elections (RPG, Maureen, Alex, Seamus, Julie, Rox, and Jean Guillaume)
5. Counsel of all parties involved, pursuant to section 8.7.1 of the constitution of the Federation;
6. Any witnesses called to the hearing by the parties involved in the contest of the elections (Aminka, Amy Kishek, any other withness)
7. Two staff members from “The Fulcrum”;
8. Two staff members from “La Rotonde”.
Note the fact that bloggers AREN'T allowed in. Not fair.
Whatever. We'll just order pizza and waft it in the room's general direction.
Suckaz.
The details!
1) Happening at 1pm
2) Taking place in FTX 146
3) Being transmitted in the lobby of the building (we suspect this is part of a plot to make bloggers as uncomfortable as possible).
The people who are allowed in the room for the hearing:
1. All directors of the Federation, including the executive of the Federation (so...any members of the BOA)
2. The executive-elect of the Federation (...Michèle & Ted)
3. The chairperson of the Board of Administration of the Federation (Federico)
4. All parties involved in the contest of the elections (RPG, Maureen, Alex, Seamus, Julie, Rox, and Jean Guillaume)
5. Counsel of all parties involved, pursuant to section 8.7.1 of the constitution of the Federation;
6. Any witnesses called to the hearing by the parties involved in the contest of the elections (Aminka, Amy Kishek, any other withness)
7. Two staff members from “The Fulcrum”;
8. Two staff members from “La Rotonde”.
Note the fact that bloggers AREN'T allowed in. Not fair.
Whatever. We'll just order pizza and waft it in the room's general direction.
Suckaz.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
