Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:45:39 -0700 From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde) Subject: Re: [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.comJason,
You weren't entitled to a decision on the merits of your claim. Liz made the determination, as is her right as the chairman, that you were no longer entitled to the office. That was her legal interpretation of the by-laws. It was an issue of the law of the by-laws, not one of fact. A vote of the board was then taken, and they affirmed her interpretation of the by-laws. Had they voted the other way that her interpretation was wrong, then and only then would you have been entitled to further presentation of facts and evidence.
Her decision was the same as that of a trial judge who dismisses a complaint for "failure to tate a claim upon which relief can be granted." The judge looks at absolutely no evidence. By the rules he is specifically prohibited from doing so when decided whether a complaint states a claim. Once a judge dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim, the case is then appealed to the court of appeals, where the court either affirms the judge or reverses the judge. If the court of appeals affirms the judge, the case is essentially over unless the supreme court of the state or of te United States, depending on which jurisdiction you are in, takes the appeal and reverses. If the court of appeals rules that the complaint states a claim, then it is sent back down to the trial court for trial on the merits, where evidence is then considered.
The same applies with what happened in your case. Liz determined, in like manner as a trial judge, that you did not state a claim. The GovCom, in like manner as an appeals court, concluded Liz was right. That is the process and has always been the process under the circumstances (it dates back more than 300 years), whether done in an actual court or in a meeting before a board that exercises quasi-adjudicative authority. That is what happened here "short, sweet, and hard to beat."
I can't help it if you and others may not understand the process. At first when this type of process was used against me, I complained that "it wasn't fair." But then I was "informed" by a retired judge, who I am glad to now call a friend, that I was wrong and showed me how to amend what I said so that it would avoid this "unfair" process. In nine out of ten cases in the last 12 years, I no longer get cases dismissed for "failure to state a claim." So instead of complaining about whether the process is unfair or whether what happened is "dangerously misguided" you need to learn how the process works, so that the next time you avoid the ability of Liz or the next chairman to make what you believe is an arbitrary decision at least in 9 out of 10 circumstances.
g'day John Wilde
auvenj@mailcity.com wrote:
> --- In lpaz-discuss@y..., Paul Schauble <pls@t...> wrote:
> > We all know that the issue you want fact finding on is your claim
> that
> > ALP, Inc. is not a political party. To be blunt, Jason, no one else
> in
> > the ALP buys that, and it has been argued and voted on twice now.
> >
> > like your report, this note is going to lpaz-Pima also. I'm curious
> how
> > many of the Pima people will agree that (whatever the name), the
> entity
> > that Peter is chair if is not a political party. Anyone?
>
> Paul, you continue to miss the point.
>
> Let me try to make it clearer.
>
> NO BODY, not the convention, and not the GovCom, has EVER sat down,
> been presented with the evidence by both sides, and voted on the
> matter of whether or not I should be expelled from the GovCom. If it
> has, tell me when and where and why I wasn't there. I only remember
> ONE case where the matter was voted on at all and that did not
> involve a presentation of the evidence. At the GovCom meeting the
> chair made a ruling, it was challenged (which is NOT debatable) and
> upheld. End of story. As Ernie said, "short, sweet, and hard to
> beat".
>
> I tried to make it clear that my concern was not for my own ability
> to be on the ALP GovCom...if you'll remember, I introduced and
> supported a bylaw which now unambiguously makes that impossible.
>
> My concern is that we have a group of people who think it's perfectly
> fine for one person to make a ruling that results in booting someone
> off the GovCom, without a formal presentation and argument of
> evidence. That's dangerously misguided, regardless of whether you
> think I'm full of sh*t on the specific merits of my case.
>
> --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/