Letter to the Editor: Sirven and Shaw wrongfully disqualified

AccessFIU Political Party Leadership


The SGC-MMC Supreme Court was assembled for the first time in two years, since FIYOU has been in power, following a week and a half before FIYOU Political Party President, Juan Gilces, filed the appeal that disqualified Jose Sirven. Chief Justice Molina was appointed by Alexis Calatayud last semester. The Associate Justices, however, were appointed recently which conflicts with the SGA Constitution. Article V., Section 6, (F.), of the SGA Constitution reads:

“In the case of a vacancy in the Court, the Chief Justice shall immediately appoint a new justice to be confirmed by the Senate.”

Article VII, Section 5 of the SGA Constitution applies to both BBC and MMC Courts and states:

“Each Justice shall maintain, during Fall and Spring semesters, a minimum of nine (9) undergraduate or six (6) graduate credit hours for each semester in office; in their semester of graduation Justices are exempt from these requirements, but shall maintain a minimum of (3) credit hours.“

However, the MMC Court must abide by, Article V, Section 5.02, Subsection (a), Subsection (i) of the SGC-MMC Statutes which explicitly states:

“All newly appointed Supreme Court Justice seats shall be reserved for students

enrolled and in good academic standing at the FIU College of Law.”

The Associate Justices that were appointed by Chief Justice Molina and confirmed by the FIYOU-controlled Senate are all undergraduate students.

Ironically, Justices who clearly do not qualify for their positions were to make a ruling on whether or not Jose Sirven qualifies to run for President.

All Justices have the “power and duty” to recuse themselves (remove themselves from making a decision) when a bias exists. However, when Jose Sirven asked for the recusal of Chief Justice Molina, it was denied. Chief Justice Molina is the President of Theta Chi which is the same fraternity that Alian Collazo, FIYOU Presidential Candidate, belongs to.

Because of the Supreme Court’s biased ruling, Collazo will win by default if the decision is not appealed. This would be a momentous feat for their fraternity.

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is further called into question when it was discovered that the court may have provided false information on legal documents. The Court’s opinion states 25 February 2016 as the date Mr. Gilces filed an appeal to the Supreme, but the writ was actually filed on Feb. 23, 2016, according to a copy of the writ of certiorari. This was done to ensure that Jose Sirven would not be able to switch positions with the Vice Presidential Candidate of AccessFIU, Devondra Shaw.

The Statutes allow the Presidential Candidate to switch with the Vice Presidential Candidate if the Presidential Candidate is disqualified more than 2 weeks from the first day of voting. Because of the Court’s deliberate lack of timeliness, Jose Sirven disqualification fits these conditions.

Pursuant to Article V., Section 5.03, (a), the Supreme Court needed to validate the writ within ten business days. The writ was validated on the 11th day, which makes the court in violation of the Statutes and renders the decision reached by the court invalid. Indicating Sirven’s eligibility to participate in the 2016 SGA Elections.

It is a shame, but Jose Sirven, Devondra Shaw and AccessFIU are a victim of the very political manipulation that encouraged the creation of AccessFIU.



Letters to the Editor are not written by FIUSM Staff. They are submitted by readers of The Beacon.


Image courtesy of Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tulanesally/6144594639/in/photolist-amYDUT-bsq63j-dmQeE5-bFjXjF-8QF6um-6RvC13-dcbWHK-a6s7Bi-bFkcve-hZyM7W-bFjZyV-bFjYLR-dmQeFo-hZDt7g-eXV6Pt-pYuH7-hZFATn-bsq6dQ-8znjUw-bFkehr-hZEJ5F-bsqeRb-bsq7PN-6qa2oE-4UFPbN-bsqgBW-hZwEyM-4Q5eRa-bFjZgg-bFjZTa-h9Tsa-dmQbJ6-dmQeHS-bsqfpN-hZCtEx-pYuAh-DoYdm-4Qp6jr-hZytwz-bsqf2w-dmQePG-hZvAte-bFjZq8-4Qp4Yg-bsq6DA-hZtMoW-8zjaRt-bsqgfy-hZvVHZ-bFkbQB


6 Comments on "Letter to the Editor: Sirven and Shaw wrongfully disqualified"

  1. Rocio Taveras | March 30, 2016 at 6:21 PM | Reply

    Good afternoon,
    With all due and respect, now that this has been brought to light, with perspective of the errors done and the short time it took to deliberate his disqualification; How long will it take before the Supreme Court humbly admits their error, and make it known to the student body?

    Rocio Taveras

  2. This is unbelievable. That the so-called "Chief Justice" did not step down in the face of such a blatant conflict of interest. This is fundamentally undemocratic. How can a judge claim be neutral under such circumstances?

    I also saw that Gilces was represented by legal counsel while Sirven had… some papers? The whole thing was quite the debacle, especially with this news. That the FIYOU party does not disavow the gross miscarriage of justice that occurred in this instance leads me to believe they are complicit in this.

    This is nothing less than a conspiracy by those in power within SGA to assure the way THEY run things continues.

  3. Ahh looks like somebody is a lil butt hurt. You should seek FIU’s Victim Empowerment Center. Maybe they can help.

  4. People should really do some research on this. I was present at the hearing and Mr. Sirven was not prepared at all to defend his case, Mr. Molina did put his recusal into vote and all other justices voted no, and the decision of the court was unanimous. Plus, SGA has professional advisors that were even present at this hearing. If Sirven’s allegation are true, it is very unlikely that SGA pro-staff let this happen. I find this article to be deceiving as he does not address the fact that his not eligible to run for SGA President because he never held an SGA position before. If the student court would’ve not disqualified him, then the SGA pro-staff would’ve done so in my opinion.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.