From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:27:33 Kent Van Cleave wrote:
>This is prima facie fraudulent misrepresentation to the recipients of this
>message.
<snip>
>Indeed, his
>claim now rests on the notion that even though ALP officers have had no
>opportunity since the decision to violate any of those laws, they will
>eventually,
>so his group is the party NOW! What a crock.
I agree. I'm in a self-mandated 24-hour waiting period before sending my response to Peter, so it doesn't turn out to be a serious flame. I've read the judge's ruling, and so has my wife, and neither one of us can see any way Peter's statement squares with the ruling. Talk about "over the top". The ruling is remarkably clear and easy to read. What really needs to be done is to get people to read the ruling for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
>He needs to be slapped with a lawsuit for damaging the reputation of the
>ALP by
>holding himself up fraudulently as its leader. He needs to be disbarred for
>blatant contempt of court. He needs to be sued by party officers, who he
>has
>just falsely implied are in violation of a court order and the election
>laws at this
>moment. He needs a lot of other stuff I won't go into....
I'm convinced that more litigation can only harm the situation. Peter will use it as a wedge (see, they're suing me again!) to further solidify his remaining support. FWIW this is also why I don't support disaffiliating Pima County LP right away. Peter will just use it as a wedge. Anyway, let's consider some other strategies.
ALP, Inc. is the representative of national LP members in Arizona. OK, but ALP is the representative of every registered Libertarian in Arizona. I accept two facts a priori (correct me if these are wrong):
1 - a small percentage (single digits) of registered Libertarians are national members. 2 - a large percentage (>90%) of national members are registered Libertarians.
This means that ALP doesn't need ALP, Inc.'s constituency, but ALP, Inc. needs ALP's constituency desperately. I love email, but the number of people on it Peter can send his B.S. to is probably also in the single digit percentages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Peter lost his right to use the voter database when count 1 of the ruling went to ALP.
If ALP ratifies following the judge's ruling in the convention, I suggest sending out a printed mailing using the voter database. Announce the judge's ruling and ALP's decision to follow it. Announce ALP's state and county contact persons and meeting times and locations. Announce this online discussion forum, and provide a URL to an online copy of the entire ruling. Annonce ALP's plans to be effective. Maybe include a return envelope for donations or suggestions (but none of that "crisis" language that ticks some people off). Perhaps make it an "open letter" offering to end the feud and merge under ALP's bylaws, following the state law. Peter's a good communicator. The best way to counteract that is with information. That's what helped me to change my mind. I'd be willing to help with wording a letter and signing it as a precinct committeeman in Pima county.
Until a reconciliation is worked out, every Libertarian ALP, Inc. registers just adds to ALP's constituency. If ALP, Inc. can't raise money because its mailing list is just national members and even some of those no longer see ALP, Inc. as legitimate, Peter WILL come to the bargaining table. That's a lot better than litigation, banning, etc. no matter how satisfying or deserved such actions may be. ALP, on the other hand, can wait as long as it takes because it doesn't need ALP, Inc.'s constituency in order to raise money.
The only monkey-wrench I see is the fact that national LP owns the "Libertarian Party" designation. Peter has mentioned this to me prominantly in more than one conversation. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to get national to force ALP to change its name. My guess is national would be rather loath to take that kind of action given the state's recognition of ALP, but it is a threat that should be considered in any strategy.
I'd still much prefer to see this feud end soon via a merger of the two organizations under ALP's bylaws. Unfortunately based on Peter's email I don't see that happening right away.
Maybe I'll feel better about things in the morning...
--Jason Auvenshine