Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:51:34 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Political parties, bylaws, epiphanies, and governing bodies To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., Mickey <Mickey@A...> wrote: > At 5:42 AM +0000 3/8/01, auvenj@m... wrote:
> >
> >I remain 100% convinced that ALP, Inc. does NOT qualify as a
> >political party, by either a common sense definition or a legal
> >definition.
>
> If ALP, Inc. is not a political party, then what is it? And why are
you in it?ALP, Inc. is a non-profit corporation, formed for the purpose of usurping control of ALP and thereby BECOME a political party. They have constantly attempted to do so by means of both lawsuits and convention takeover manuevers. Concurrently, they have done almost nothing that you would expect from a "separate political party", ie register their OWN members, field and promote their OWN candidates, etc. They have continued to register voters for ALP ("LBT") and field "Libertarian" (ALP) candidates. Because they have failed in their attempts to take over ALP they have also failed in their attempt to become a political party.
I sought election to ALP, Inc. because I believe their tactics (lawsuits and takeover attempts) are harmful to the party and I think the best way to put a stop to such tactics _may_ be "from the inside."
> More importantly, why do you want (as previously stated, if I
recall correctly) their governing board and ALP's to be one and the same? (or something like that)What I attempted to accomplish was a set of _State Committee_ officers that were the same between ALP and ALP, Inc. The State Committee officers are those officers defined by statute. You may or may not be aware that under the ALP bylaws the State Committee officers have an extremely limited role, and control only ONE seat (out of 20+) on the ALP GovCom.
The reason I wanted the State Committee officers to be the same was to remove the question of who the State Committee officers are from litigation. If both sides were to agree that the SAME officers had been elected, each by their own internal processes, neither could argue about who was really "it" in court.
I'll get to Barry's & Alan's notes a little later...they are much more involved.
--Jason Auvenshine
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/