From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
Mike,
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:28:56 Mike Dugger wrote:
>Currently only the party bylaws can use the result to bind the
>delegates; and those of our governing body don't do so. It seems
>Peter is misleading Pima Libertarians again. Can you cite an
>instance where he has done otherwise?
I'm still waiting to hear from Peter exactly where the binding authority comes from. I don't know if he's back from California yet. Based on the responses I'm hearing it sounds like the primary is binding only because of something ALP, Inc. is doing. However, a scanning of the ALP, Inc. constitution and bylaws doesn't reveal anything of that nature.
I have been present and witnessed numerous true, non-misleading statements. That's not really the point, is it? The fact that you have to ask the question speaks volumes.
However if you must have one, a good example most people here should recall concerns his confidence of winning the national affiliation vote. When he told me he was confident, many people on lpaz-affiliate said he knew ALP, Inc.'s chances of winning were slim to none, and he was just lieing to justify wreaking more havoc on the party ("poisoning the well" regarding the tax form contributions, spending all the money he took from ALP, etc.). To date all evidence is that he was not misleading anyone about that.
Again: Is one, two, or 100 true, straightforward statements really the point? I'm interested in uncovering ALL the truths.
--Jason Auvenshine