I thought that reason was included in "serious consequences".
> Questions, though. With this organizing meeting the statutory
> state committee becomes part of ALP and subject to the ALP bylaws.
> 1. Under those bylaws the statutory committee lacks the authority
> to bring suits in the name of the organization. What does this
> do to your resolution?
My resolution is to be proposed at ALP, Inc.'s meeting, not ALP's. As I've stated there is no need to "bind" ALP's state committee because it isn't the source of litigation.
> 2. With this "merger" what happens to the appeal, which we want to
> complete?
Nothing happens to the appeal, and there is no merger. There will be two meetings and my goal is to get the same officers elected at both, thereby making a future merger an easier sell to the ALP, Inc. folks.
> 3. What does the statutory state committee do when Peter files
suit
> in his own name?
Who knows. If he is an officer, and if my resolution passes, such action may be cause for removal from office as a flaunt of the "spirit" of the resolution. Or maybe not. The truth is that there is very little the party, or any subset thereof, can (or should) do about actions individual members/officers take in their own names.
However, most of Peter's potential legal avenues require the state committee and the ALP, Inc. organization for standing. If I can effectively take those options away, my guess is that Peter will give up and stop litigating. No kidding. I'm sure you are all very dubious, and I don't blame you for being so nor advise you to be otherwise. But this is my considered opinion after observing Peter and watching his reaction to my efforts. Peter is going to try and sell this to everyone as "This appeal was going to be my last one anyway...really...I mean it". His primary argument for opposition to my resolution is that it is moot because he isn't planning to pursue anything after the current appeal. But I think the truth of the matter is he's sensed a change in the wind from his own supporters and knows he's not going to have much of a choice in the matter if the resolution passes. If Peter can derail my resolution on grounds that it isn't necessary, or via some procedural manuever, he will do so and can always change his mind about ending the litigation because of some circumstance or other later on.