i think powell is mixing up zajak and schmerl david hardy was certainly the lawyer for ALP INC ill agree to that (although he put on a good show with his week case at the last hearing, this time he appeared to be just slinging bs)but schmerl was not there (at least i did not see him).
i think powell was refering to zajak. i think there is an older and a younger zajak. it was the zajak with who had some medical problem and has a cane with wheels or some type of gizmo to help him walk.
(at the ALP INC convention he said he slipped a disk or something and had to have the walker)
powells letter follows 1st then jason's letter. i suspect that my internet service provider (ASU) is on drugs because last time i checked it was friday but both jason and powells letters are time stamped with dates of tommorrow sat march 10 which has not yet happened (unless of course im on some really good drugs and dont know about it)also mike is PISSED. the jack booted goverment thug judge NOYES told me to take my hat off. while in general im an atheist but when im in government court rooms the hat protects me from evil government spirts and im angered that the judge violated my relious freedoms and forced me to remove my spirtual hat.
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:40:07 -0000 From: pgammill@home.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] The Appeal To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Well, I attended the oral arguments made in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Dist. 1, on Wed. 3-7-01 at 2:15pm. Mr. John Buttrick and Mr. Tom Rawls represented the ALP (and the Democrat and Republican Party's) position that the internal workings of a political party (as a private institution) were none of the state's business. Mr. David Hardy represented ALP, Inc. in its position that the state has compelling reasons to mandatorily establish the precinct committee system that ultimately elects the Party's positions of State Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary. [Never mind that this whole PC system was set up nationwide to hamper the gains being made in the 30's by the American Communist Party (in its various apparitions).] 19 people were in the audience, two on Mr. Hardy's side (Mr. Schmerl and Mr. Kahn (I think?)), the rest backed the various parties above (Good to see Liz, Mike Ross, Paul Schable, and Tim I apologize if I left anyone out).
It is truly amazing to watch "libertarians" argue FOR mandatory state control of a private organization's organizational structure! What is even more amazing is when they are the ONLY party arguing for this control. Yes, had the Inc. not been involved, the ALP, Republican and Democratic Party's would have been in Judge Meyer's court unopposed, and the mandatary precinct ommittee system would be history. Sad, but just one example of how much destruction to freedom this fissure has created the last 6 years. And how badly set back or set upon the ALP is.
It is virtually impossible to glean anything from the questions asked by the judges (tribuneral). I will say this, they scheduled 90 minutes for the arguments, which is extraordinarily generous. All three payed very close attention throughout, and asked good questions of both sides. And they made sure both sides were finished before adjourning we both got a fair hearing. I believe they are serious about considering the matters raised, but I also suspect in the end they will choose not to open a can of worms and instead let Judge Myer's ruling stand (who did his homework, before he ruled).
While I agree with Judge Myer's that the State is not unreasonable to demand all recognized political party's create a position called the State Chairman, et cetera, that will be the person to exclusively iteract with the Secretary of State and the County Recorder's offices. I disagree that the mechanism of HAVING to elect precinct committeemen to do it doesn't impose an undue burden (It is an anathema to libertarian philosophy, and it was intended at its formation to hinder the Communist Party.). We have always let our membership come to an open convention and openly elect our leadership. This multilayer precinct committeeman system, where only they get to vote, smacks of elitism ("if your not PC baby, you're not anything").
The justices did take an interest that neither the Sec. of State, nor the Attorney General, wanted to participate in this appellate process. That the state appeared to not consider IT had a compelling interest in the outcome. But I don't know how much that will influence their reasoning.
Mr. Rawls was certainly exciting. He got the judges attention (and perhaps ire) by telling them they and the state had NO business telling the ALP how they determined their internal oranizing structure. An interesting tactic. A very libertarian tactic. They were definitely not use to that in front of them. But at least it was made unambiguously and passionately clear in both the beginning and summation of Mr. Rawls' presentations how we felt. The arguments only lasted about 45 minutes.
After the hearing, while we were outside discussing our impressions and thanking John and Tom for their work on our behalf, Mr. Peter Schmerl
<mike thinks it was Zajak not schmerl>
walked up to ask Liz if she still had not set a firm date for the convention. :-) I look forward to seeing him at the convention. Hope he brings his friends. He won't be having such a good time with Robert's Rules this time. We will be prepared. Liz will have a good time.
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:57:30 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: The Appeal To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Powell,
Are you absolutely certain that it was Peter Schmerl that attended the oral arguments and spoke to Liz afterwards? Peter had told me that he wasn't going to go. Which is not to say that it would surprise me in the least if he did...just that I'd like to know if you are certain that you recognized him.
Also, can you confirm that they ONLY asked questions about the constitutionality of the party statutes and NOT about the question of merger at the '99 ALP convention?
Regardless, the spectacle of the R's, the D's, and the ALP arguing on the side of freedom and the ALP, Inc. arguing on the side of state intervention absolutely turns my stomach, ESPECIALLY now that I'm a member of its board. If there was any way I could have stopped it, I would have.
Let's hope the ruling comes quickly and is AT WORST an upholding of Meyers'.
--Jason Auvenshine
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., pgammill@h... wrote: > Well, I attended the oral arguments made in the Arizona Court of
> Appeals, Dist. 1, on Wed. 3-7-01 at 2:15pm. Mr. John Buttrick and
Mr. > Tom Rawls represented the ALP (and the Democrat and Republican
> Party's) position that the internal workings of a political party
(as > a private institution) were none of the state's business. Mr.
David > Hardy represented ALP, Inc. in its position that th state has
> compelling reasons to mandatorily establish the precinct committee
> system that ultimately elects the Party's positions of State
Chairman, > Treasurer and Secretary. [Never mind that this whole PC system was
> set up nationwide to hamper the gains being made in the 30's by the
> American Communist Party (in its various apparitions).] 19 people
> were in the audience, two on Mr. Hardy's side (Mr. Schmerl and Mr.
> Kahn (I think?)), the rest backed the various parties above (Good
to > see Liz, Mike Ross, Paul Schable, and Tim I apologize if I left
> anyone out).
>
> It is truly amazing to watch "libertarians" argue FOR mandatory
state > control of a private organization's organizational structure! What
is > even more amazing is when they are the ONLY party arguing for this
> control. Yes, had the Inc. not been involved, the ALP, Republican
and > Democratic Party's would have been in Judge Meyer's court
unopposed, > and the mandatary precinct committee system would be hisory. Sad,
> but just one example of how much destruction to freedom this
fissure > has created the last 6 years. And how badly set back or set upon
the > ALP is.
>
> It is virtually impossible to glean anything from the questions
asked > by the judges (tribuneral). I will say this, they scheduled 90
minutes > for the arguments, which is extraordinarily generous. All three
payed > very close attention throughout, and asked good questions of both
> sides. And they made sure both sides were finished before
adjourning > we both got a fair hearing. I believe they are serious about
> considering the matters raised, but I also suspect in the end they
> will choose not to open a can of worms and instead let Judge Myer's
> ruling stand (who did his homework, before he ruled).
>
> While I agree with Judge Myer's that the State is not unreasonable
to > demand all recognized political party's create a position called
the > State Chairman, et cetera, that will be the person to exclusively
> interact with the Secretary of State and the County Recorder's
> offices. I disagree that the mechanism of HAVING to elect precinct
> committeemen to do it doesn't impose an undue burden (It is an
> anathema to libertarian philosophy, and it was intended at its
> formation to hinder the Communist Party.). We have always let our
> membership come to an open convention and openly elect our
leadership. > This multilayer precinct committeeman system, where only they get
to > vote, smacks of elitism ("if your not PC baby, you're not
anything"). >
> The justices did take an interest that neither the Sec. of State,
nor > the Attorney General, wanted to participate in this appellate
process. > That the state appeared to not consider IT had a compelling
interest > in the outcome. But I don't know how much that will influence
their > reasoning.
>
> Mr. Rawls was certainly exciting. He got the judges attention (and
> perhaps ire) by telling them they and the state had NO business
> telling the ALP how they determined their internal organizing
> structure. An interesting tactic. A very libertarian tactic.
They > were definitely not use to that in front of them. But at least it
was > made unambiguously and passionately clear in both the beginning and
> summation of Mr. Rawls' presentations how we felt. The arguments
> only lasted about 45 minutes.
>
> After the hearing, while we were outside discussing our impressions
> and thanking John and Tom for their work on our behalf, M. Peter
> Schmerl walked up to ask Liz if she still had not set a firm date
for > the convention. :-) I look forward to seeing him at the
convention. > Hope he brings his friends. He won't be having such a good time
with > Robert's Rules this time. We will be prepared. Liz will have a
good > time.