Someone get this girl an award. Emily Schiola, former Commentator and professional skeleton-in-the-closet investigative journalist does it again, in her FRONT PAGE Ol’ Dirty Emerald article today.

Mapped out above in the screen shot, Emily demonstrates the fishy money laundering carried out by some of the COMMENTATOR’S MOST WANTED: Charles Denson, Sophie Luthin, and the Eckstein/Taylor Executive.

And Former ASUO Prez Sam Dotters-Katz files a grievance accordingly. Here are the specs he layed out for us:

1. On March 9, 2011, Charles Denson wrote a $100 check to Sophie Luthin, Ben & Katie’s campaign director.
2. On March 10, 2011, Sophie re-directed that $100 to Ben Eckstein, the top of the Ben & Katie ticket
3. On March 13, 2011, Charles Denson wrote a $573 check to Sophie Luthin
4. On March 13, 2011, Sophie Luthin re-directed that $573 to Ben Eckstein
5. The contributions from Charles Denson were hidden from the campaign financial disclosure form
6. Sophie Luthin confessed that the reason for the re-direction is Charles Denson didn’t want his name on the contributions form.

So it turns out that the noble Sophie Luthin took this to Emily out of her own volition. She told the ODE, “I am bringing this to the attention of the student body because the same people who orchestrated this last year are involved in elections again. I want students to know the truth.”

In response to the allegations, Denson claimed that he made a “personal contribution to Sophie as a private citizen.” And VP Taylor told the ODE: “I did my own fundraising and this is news to me.”

WHAT THE FUCK IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ANYWAY

Let’s not get our hopes up, but a grievance has indeed been filed. If the Con Court acts– which it won’t– current ASUO Senate Prez Lamar Wise will assume the presidency! In a Facebook message (that’s right folks) Sam Dotters-Katz gave us this quote, copied and pasted from the ODE article posted tonight online.

“I filed this petition because the student body deserves more than a president who believes he is above the rules and whose year in office has been bankrupt of integrity or honesty,” Dotters-Katz said. “We cannot send the message that you can get away with blatant corruption simply if you are good enough at hiding it.”

Dotters-Katz reiterates this sentiment to sum up his grievance:

In conclusion, I would like to address the timing of this petition. The respondents, Ben and Katie, have two months left in office, and the alleged actions took place over a year ago. I understand why some might have the initial inclination to simply let these two finish our their term and move beyond the issue. I believe that it would be a great miscarriage of justice to set a precedent that no matter how egregious your misconduct may be, if you are good enough at hiding it you won’t be punished. There is no statute of limitations on this claim, and the rules clearly state that the Court has the power to remove elected officers post-elections.

If nothing is done about this “egregious misconduct,” it will be a “great miscarriage of justice” you say?

No no no no. Ben & Katie themselves are the great miscarriage of justice.