Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 17:25:05 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: John Wilde's Response to "Status" To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., "Robert Anderson" <randerson22@h...> wrote: > 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.
An informal email exchange does not equate to a fact finding. Your statement is analogous to saying the defendant in a criminal trial doesn't need a trial, because the issues of the case have already been discussed at length in the media and the judge has all the information he needs to rule on guilt or innocence. Not everyone on the GovCom is on the GovCom email list. Not all the facts were presented. Legal council was NOT available to those making the decision (ie the GovCom) other than the chair.
I'm sick of hearing accusations that I'm "whining" or "a poor loser". I've stated repeatedly that if this is really how ALP wants to run itself, it has the right. I'm not going to sue over it and I sure as hell am not whining. I do still have the right to hol the opinion that it's a poor and dangerous way to run an organization.
Consider for a moment the following scenario: The court rules against Peter and ALP, Inc. dissolves rather than fight on. Peter and company decide next year is a good year to "pack" the ALP convention again (bring in their supporters) and attempt a takeover from inside. If the last 2 conventions are any indication, we'll have the chair and approximately 1/2 of the GovCom up for election (1/3rd plus those who have resigned). Peter and company are elected to the chair and the other GovCom positions up for election. Peter (as chair) schedules GovCom meetings in Tucson which naturally his people can show up at and only some of the opposition are willing to show up at. (again, past history as a guide) What if he then decides to start eliminating his remaining opponents by making rulings from the chair that they have violated bylaws? Impossible? At least it's got one thing over the "doomsday" scenarios John keeps insinuating: I've specified exactly how it could work and individuals can decide if they think it's possible or not.
--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/