Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:09:22 -0700
From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net ("John Wilde")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] John Wilde's Response to "Status"
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--------------6124023ED74EF0C81F13053F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
When you dealt with the process for nearly 20 years, then and
only then will you understand. Had we followed what you guys are
advocating, then I can just about guarantee that Peter and Co.
will win in any forth coming lawsuit. They are just looking for
one reason to show that there is a "relationship" between ALP and
ALP Inc. Jason became that link.
Had Liz decided this in a vaccum, then you might all have
something to bitch about. But you don't. This all turns on what
Jason thinks (not what he knows) was unfair. Once Liz made her
decision, then it was up to the board to decide whether she was
right or wrong. The concluded she was right and upheld hr
decision 4-3. I have had judges through out my cases without
looking at one shred of evidence and then in like manner I have
lost cases at the court of appeals 2-1. Did I think it was
fair? No. Was it probably right? More often than not it was.
I learned from those cases and went on to learn how to make sure
I don't loose that way again.
So instead of wondering whether what happened was unfair,
each of you should learn from this and learn to do it right.
Everyone wants to look at this from Jason's point of view and
make Liz the bad guy. There were four others that decided she
was right. None of you can phathom in the deepest recesses of
your thoughts that Jason's position was wrong. He took his
position and his position was rejected.
Quite frankly that was some of what Marc Victor was trying to
get across at dinner on Saturday. If you participate in the
process and the process comes out against you, you have no right
to complain, except in accordance with the rules. Jason used the
process and a decision was made against him. Instead of trying
to determine whether there was a way to challenge that decision,
he complains about the apparent lack of fairness, which by the
way was not lacking.
You either use the process to its completion. That was the
objection I had with Jason and his "registration" with ALP Inc.
He was again unwilling to complete the process in that situation
as well, but at the same time assert that what he had proven was
that it was "impossible" to register with ALP Inc. He proved
nothing in that situation, and he has provided nothing that shows
that the process that removed him from the GovCom was unfair or
unjust. That failure to follow through on the process can only
have one effect, leaving the door open to ALP Inc. and the LNC to
walk in and shut ALP down.
If that is what you want, fine. I'll sit back and shut my
mouth. However, if you want ALP to continue on, then be glad
that Liz accepted the advice of counsel and made the decisions
she did. The choice is yours.
g'day
John Wilde
Steve Trinward wrote:
> Thank you, John K., for expressing (apparently better than I
> did) a REAL concern about all of this. John W.'s contention
> that this has to be about following the standard legal
> "process" seems absurd to me; true, I haven't spent the last 5+
> years fighting frivolous lawsuits from a usurping invader, but
> I still have some idea of "justice as fairness" (excuse me for
> quoting Rawls, but it's the only point he made that had
> validity ...), and this wasn't it!
>
> I think that even though Liz had, as you say, explored the
> parameters and potential downsides of letting Jason have his
> say before the Committee, and decided the risk was too great to
> rule in his favor ... shutting down the process without him
> having a chance to present his case face-to-face smacks too
> much of kangaroo courts and show trials ...
>
> What would have been the harm to at least let him be heard?
>
> - Steve
>
> fractor@swlink.net wrote:
>
>> John, I disagree 100%
>>
>> In my mind, there is never a dichotomy or divergence betwen
>> what's
>> fair and what's just.
>>
>> You claim that the ALP can not compromise, even if to do so
>> would
>> be "fair". I don't agree that doing the fair thing - the
>> just thing -
>> is a compromise at all. Or maybe what I heard was that if
>> the ALP
>> is threatened by potential law suits, then it's okay to be
>> "unfair".
>>
>> But isn't that the argument of those in ALP, Inc. or LPUS -
>> that if
>> we're threatened (by not being able to be more successful),
>> it's okay
>> to compromise?
>>
>> Well, of course, your way out of it is to merely proclaim
>> that
>> whatever course of action you choose is the only way that
>> doesn't
>> involve compromise of our principles - regardless of the
>> fairness of
>> the results.
>>
>> But then, your argument is that you have to be unfair to be
>> just. If
>> the rule of law requires that, why should we hold the rule of
>> law
>> sacred? And which law - Title 16? (You obviously don't
> believe in
>> following that law!)
>>
>> Sometimes, doing the right thing involves taking risks. But
>> of
>> course in your mind it's better to do the wrong thing - the
>> safe
>> thing - and dress it up as principle.
>>
>> In fact, I don't think it would have involved any risk at all
>> to hear
>> Jason out - give him his day in court, if you will. Or even,
>> as
>> someone suggested a while back, to explain in detail to the
>> rest of
>> us unenlightened ones exactly how Jason's membership in the
>> ALP
>> (recognized political party) and the ALP, Inc. (whatever it
>> is) could
>> be used against - whom?
>>
>> And, finally, I again raise the question of openness - or
>> would that
>> involve a compromise of principles, too?
>>
>> John Kannarr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.AriznaLibertarian.org
>>
>> Shortcut URL to this page:
>> http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>> Service.
>
> --
> Steve Trinward, Soul [sic] Proprietor, trinWORDS
> If your to bussy buliding you're buisness too wory abbout
> "spelling"... < http://www.trinwords.com >
>
> FREE JoAnn McGuckin ... and give her back her children!
>
> New MP3 file: "I Am" (along with "Living Liberty") both at: <
> http://www.trinwords.com >
>
> Where am I surfing? None of your business? <
> http://www.anonymizer.com/affiliate/door.cgi?CMid=18072 >
>
> "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
> eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at
> once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his
> guilt." - John P. Curran, 1790
>
> That's my two cents worth; like what I'm saying? <
> ">http://two-cents-worth.com/?http://two-cents-worth.com/?303678">steve@trinwords.com
">http://two-cents-worth.com/?http://two-cents-worth.com/?303678&steve@trinwords.com
> >
>