Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 03:37:42 -0700
From: randerson22@home.com ("Robert Anderson")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] John Wilde's Response to "Status"
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
OK!!! I grow tired of going over this time and time
again so I'll type slow this time so you can all follow
this and this will be the last time I waste my time on
this topic because you folks either can't get it or you
just like to hear yourself type.
Chain of events
1 ALP passes a bylaw that says no person on the Govcom
can be a member of another political party. This was
done because of the problems we had with ALP Inc. as
well as it sounded like a good idea in general no point
in having a bunch of Republicans or Democrats as party
officers.
2 Jason fully aware of the above bylaw runs and wins a
seat as an ALP Inc. Officer
3 A complainant is made as to Jason's status.
4 Jason is asked and he freely admits that he is an
officer in Inc.
5 Govcom meets and since there is NOdispute of the
facts Jason is removed from the Govcom. No fact finding
was done because no dispute of the facts " GET IT "
Now Jason wanted to argue that Inc. was not a
party. But that's not what the meeting was for. The
Courts call Inc. a party. The State calls Inc. a party.
We call Inc. a party. NO amount of pissing and whining
is going to change the Courts or the States opinion of
the status of Inc. So far we have not decided to change
our opinion of Inc.s status but even if we did the
Courts and the State haven't. And we the ALP must use
the same definition because we have been FORCED to live
by their definition.
So if Jason wants to prove that Inc. is not a party
then he needs to go to the State and the Courts and
make them see his point. Because even if he could
convince us that still doesn't change the FACTS that
Inc. is a political party and the bylaws state you
can't be in two parties at once. And Jason never
contested that he was an Office in Inc. So....... Now
watch closely so you dont miss it........
Ready........ NO DISPUTE IN THE FACTS........... NO
FACT FINDING NEEDED.......see how that works.
He was in essence asked if he was guilty and he
said he was. How is that a kangaroo court.
> What would have been the harm to at least let him be
heard?
>
> - Steve
He was Steve. Over and Over and Over again. For a
good week or so before the meeting we talked a length
on the Govcom list on this topic. Not being on the
Govcom you were not part of this exchange but it went
on and on and on. And Jason knows this I'm beginning
to think either Jason is a poor loser or he is
purposely trying to mislead people, he had plenty of
time to speak to his argument it just didn't hold water
with the Govcom.
Bob
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/