Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:22:04 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: [lpaz-Pima] The ALP 2001 Convention: The good, the bad, and the ugly To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Bob,
My convention summary was not designed to reopen the debate on whether Inc. is a party. That question is now moot anyway because of the bylaw I myself introduced. I think the _process_ by which ALP, as an organization, arrived at the decision to boot me off the GovCom is fundamentally flawed. It was very clear that no one else shared that concern at the convention. It is very clear that the only people on this list who share the concern live outside the state. I find that disturbing for reasons totally unrelated to whether or not Inc. is a party.
Anyway, the above was all I was reporting and stating an opinion about in my convention summary. You think the process was fine. I think it sucked and it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the party. You're in the majority; I'm in the minority. Let's just agree to disagree, because I don't see how either one of us is going to provide any new information that will convince anyone to change their mind.
--Jason Auvenshine
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., "Robert Anderson" <randerson22@h...> wrote: > You know Jason you make it sound as if this
> decision was done in a vacuum. You know that to be
> untrue. While there was no formal findings of your case
> there was plenty leading up to the meeting. I happened
> to agree with John that Liz was within her right as
> Chair to decide that you were in violation of the Bylaw
> by being a member of Inc. and to this there was no
> claim or dispute of fact. The case you want to make is
> if Inc. is a party or not. And that was not what we
> were meeting about.
> Even so, those that reaffirmed Liz's decision had
> been debating the facts of that claim for over a week
> and I'm sorry but you lost. You and you alone held the
> key to solve the problem and were given more than ample
> time to fix the problem.
> You can debate the question of party or no party
> all you want but the ALP has been attacked in court
> personally and as the party for better part of a decade
> now and those people are Inc. And they have used Inc.
> as part of the case in those cases. They claim to be a
> party, they tell others they are a party. The very rule
> you are complaining about was put in place to stop the
> duel holding of office by Inc. people and ou knew
> this. So at this time Inc. meets OUR definition of
> another party. And as you point out we are a private
> organization and we have that right. We didn't make
> that decision lightly, only after years of being
> attacked by those that claim to be Inc. The melding of
> the parties was an argument we knew Peter would try to
> make and he did when he claimed wrongly that there was
> a merger. So that is why we can't allow this duel
> membership. If you don't like it I suggest you talk to
> Peter and have him solve the problem at that end. Until
> than I regret and I mean that in all honesty that you
> are not able to influence the direction of the ballot
> accessed party that represents the libertarian voters
> of this State. We welcome you back as soon as this
> conflict of interest is solved.
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <auvenj@m...>
> To: <lpaz-discuss@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:51 PM
> Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: [lpaz-Pima] The ALP 2001
> Convention: The good, the bad, and the ugly
>
>
> > --- In lpaz-discuss@y..., John Wilde <rsrchsoc@i...>
> wrote:
> > > You weren't entitled to a decision on the
> merits of your claim.
> > <BIG SNIP>
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> > (1) Does the defendant in a criminal trial have to
> "state a claim" in
> > order to be entitled to present evidence in his/her
> defense? Can the
> > judge simply rule, "you violated ARS xxxxxx, penalty
> is 3 years in
> > jail" without hearing any evidence or conducting a
> trial?
> >
> > (2) Doesn't the process of booting me off the GovCom
> more closely
> > resemble a criminal trial than any other legal
> proceeding? I was
> > accused of violating a bylaw (becoming an officer of
> another party),
> > and a punishment was meted out (I was removed from
> the GovCom).
> >
> > My impression is that you're likening me to a
> plaintiff, "asking" for
> > something from Liz but failing to state a claim. I
> wasn't "asking"
> > for ANYTHING. I was the defendant, dfending myself
> from charges of
> > violating a bylaw.
> >
> > One more thing, please don't misinterpret anything
> I'm saying as a
> > whine, "It's not fair..." ALP is a private
> organization. If they
> > want to boot me off the GovCom because I have blue
> eyes, by any
> > process they choose, that's their right and is as
> "fair" as needs to
> > be. In my opinion it is simply a bad way to run an
> organization.
> >
> > --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/
> >
> >
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/