Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Elizabeth A. Brandenburg-Andreasen

Liz (Elizabeth A. Brandenburg-Andreasen) Liz Andreasen Elizabeth Andreasen Jason Auvenshine Elizabeth A. Brandenburg Elizabeth Brandenburg Liz A. Brandenburg Liz Brandenburg
29904 =============================================================


 Message 29904 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  John Buttrick - SUPCRTX <buttrick@s...> 
Date:  Mon Oct 25, 2004  8:48 am 
Subject:  RE: [lpaz-discuss] re: ed kahn

 
So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any advice to the
effect that it was permissible to remove anyone from any position in the ALP
because it was an "emergency." This is the first I've ever heard of this
accusation.

-----Original Message-----
From: mike ross [mailto:Mike Ross]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:57 AM
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] re: ed kahn


>You missed the point Mike. The point is that no one in Phoenix took
>the time to debate Ed Kahn on the issues. I've spoken with Ed about
>his perspective on the civil war, and it's very clear that the
>Phoenix folks just dismissed him as a Peter ally and never once
>bothered to try to find out what made him tick.
>
>And the same was done with regard to Jason.


one of the things i was trying to say is that
i wasnt writting ed kahn off just because he was
from tucson. i was writting him off because
he wasnt a "real" libertarian.

yes i am still pissed off about the jason
mess.

i mostly know people thru their emails. with
me if after i look at the facts and i
think something is bullshit i will
just call it bullshit. but jason does a
real good job of analyzing stuff and then
instead of saying its bullshit like i would
he give a hundred good reasons why it is
bullshit, and then he doesnt say its bullshit
but says the evidence tends to say its
caca toro or some other polite word for
bullshit. so from that i had a high opinion
of jason when he got on the old ALP XCOM
listserver.

then a little later most but not all of
the phoenix ALP folks decide to run jason
out of town not because he did anything
wrong but because he wanted to associate
with the libertiarns in tucson (ie the
smorg's ALP INK).

as i said before when i went to tucson
in 1999 i attended the ALP INC meetings
and i didnt see any problem with jason
attending the ALP INC meeting in his
home town. but the other people in phoenix
did.

but to kick jason out of the ALP XCOM
committee they needed either a two thirds
or three fourths super majority. and
they probably didnt have it. jason couldnt
vote against himself, jasons wife probably
would have not voted agaist him, and ted
glenn would probably have not voted against
jason.

i didnt tell anybody but i was not going
to vote against jason. and at that point
all jason needed to do was get one more
person to vote for him and he would remain
on the alp ruling board.

but the vote never came. liz doing something
bush or hitler would have done kicked
jason off the board and gave some lame
excuse that john buttrick gave her legal
advice that it was ok because it was
an emergency.

i have always disliked what the smorg did
and still am unhappy with some of his stuff.

but after listing to some of the stuff
john buttrick has said i think if i hear
his full story i their is a chance he was
railroaded out of the ALP just like jason.
i dont know. i havent heard ALL the evidence.

and then of course you have kat gallant.
she is from phoenix (mesa). i dont really
know her but i did hear stories about her
and read in the media on her horse back
ride for freedom across american. and
when she got to west virgina the local
crooks there stole here horses. she may
have been railroaded out of the phoenix
ALP group too. i dont know i have not
heard her story.

there were some fights about her and tom
rawles. from what i have read kat gallant
is a "real" libertarian. when tom rawles
first started ran for governor his positions
were not true libertarn positions. and
although he is the maricopa county supervisor
who voted against the baseball statium i lived
in his district and he said a number of times
that he was FOR A BASEBALL STADIUM IF IT WAS
BUILT IN TEMPE. but despite that it seemed
like the ALP rulers endoresed tom rawles over
kat gallant when rawles was not a "true"
libertarian and kat was a "true libertarain'

the so called "No compromise" people who say
they refuse to compomise but seem to have sold
out to tom rawles because he was a well know
maricopa county supervisor.


and last i tried just because i am picking
on ed kahn, tom rawles because they aint
true libertarians i dont think they are bad.

since they share a lot our views we probably
want them on our side for many issues.

mike


--- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike ross" <Mike Ross>
wrote:
> >Part of the problem is that Phoenicians missed a golden
> >opportunity to chat with a guy who was open to shifting
> >his positions on certain issues if only they took the
> >time to talk with him.
>
> i wasnt picking on ed kahn because he was from tucson
> i was picking on him because of his positions on the
> issues.

You missed the point Mike. The point is that no one in Phoenix took
the time to debate Ed Kahn on the issues. I've spoken with Ed about
his perspective on the civil war, and it's very clear that the
Phoenix folks just dismissed him as a Peter ally and never once
bothered to try to find out what made him tick.

And the same was done with regard to Jason.

I'm just suggesting that folks who are unhappy with Ed's stances on
certain issues, but did nothing at all to try to persuade him,
should blame not only Ed but themselves as well.


> another phoenix libertarian who is clueless on the
> libertarian issues is sean nottingham who is running
> for secretary of state. powell pointed out a few days
> ago that sean is a goof ball libertarian.

Recently I spoke with Sean Nottingham. I tried to get through to him
on the issue of matching funds and he is not ready to understand.
Maybe this means he'll never be ready, or maybe it means he needs
another couple of years ... but at least I tried a little bit.

Then again, I don't live near Sean. I live near Kimberly Swanson,
and I assure you that I worked much harder to help her learn about
the principles. When it was obvious she was incapable of learning,
now or at any time in the future, I simply asked her to not say
anything unlibertarian to the point where the party has to step in,
because no one wanted that to happen. She sort of understood what I
was talking about, which is why I don't feel so bad about
embarrassing her in public regarding her position on government
swimming pools.


> last while i may pick on ed kahn and barry hess at least
> they are closer to libertarian then the main stream
> socialists who want to run our lifes and take our
> money.

You can pick on them all you like for their positions you consider
to be wrong. But at least make a minimal effort to try to persuade
them to your point of view.

David Euchner



29906 ===============================================================


Message 29906 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  "maywood2008" <gonzolawyer@c...> 
Date:  Mon Oct 25, 2004  9:00 am 
Subject:  Re: ed kahn

 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 

--- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, John Buttrick - SUPCRTX
<buttrick@s...> wrote:
> So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any advice to the
> effect that it was permissible to remove anyone from any position
> in the ALP because it was an "emergency." This is the first I've
> ever heard of this accusation.

Mike is just remembering things wrong. My only point was that Ed was
dismissed as a Peter ally without anyone really looking much deeper
below the surface, as was Jason. Unlike Jason, however, Ed returned
the favor and did not look much deeper below the surface with regard
to the Phoenicians. I had that conversation with Ed very early in
our working relationship, and found that he knew virtually nothing
about any of the Phoenix folks. He basically relied on information
Peter gave him (which is faulty of course, but not as bad as
harboring personal malice).

Civil wars like what happened here are usually two-way streets. Only
in the rarest of cases is there only one "side" at fault.

David Euchner



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike ross [mailto:Mike Ross]
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:57 AM
> To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpaz-discuss] re: ed kahn
>
>
> >You missed the point Mike. The point is that no one in Phoenix
took
> >the time to debate Ed Kahn on the issues. I've spoken with Ed
about
> >his perspective on the civil war, and it's very clear that the
> >Phoenix folks just dismissed him as a Peter ally and never once
> >bothered to try to find out what made him tick.
> >
> >And the same was done with regard to Jason.
>
>
> one of the things i was trying to say is that
> i wasnt writting ed kahn off just because he was
> from tucson. i was writting him off because
> he wasnt a "real" libertarian.
>
> yes i am still pissed off about the jason
> mess.
>
> i mostly know people thru their emails. with
> me if after i look at the facts and i
> think something is bullshit i will
> just call it bullshit. but jason does a
> real good job of analyzing stuff and then
> instead of saying its bullshit like i would
> he give a hundred good reasons why it is
> bullshit, and then he doesnt say its bullshit
> but says the evidence tends to say its
> caca toro or some other polite word for
> bullshit. so from that i had a high opinion
> of jason when he got on the old ALP XCOM
> listserver.
>
> then a little later most but not all of
> the phoenix ALP folks decide to run jason
> out of town not because he did anything
> wrong but because he wanted to associate
> with the libertiarns in tucson (ie the
> smorg's ALP INK).
>
> as i said before when i went to tucson
> in 1999 i attended the ALP INC meetings
> and i didnt see any problem with jason
> attending the ALP INC meeting in his
> home town. but the other people in phoenix
> did.
>
> but to kick jason out of the ALP XCOM
> committee they needed either a two thirds
> or three fourths super majority. and
> they probably didnt have it. jason couldnt
> vote against himself, jasons wife probably
> would have not voted agaist him, and ted
> glenn would probably have not voted against
> jason.
>
> i didnt tell anybody but i was not going
> to vote against jason. and at that point
> all jason needed to do was get one more
> person to vote for him and he would remain
> on the alp ruling board.
>
> but the vote never came. liz doing something
> bush or hitler would have done kicked
> jason off the board and gave some lame
> excuse that john buttrick gave her legal
> advice that it was ok because it was
> an emergency.
>
> i have always disliked what the smorg did
> and still am unhappy with some of his stuff.
>
> but after listing to some of the stuff
> john buttrick has said i think if i hear
> his full story i their is a chance he was
> railroaded out of the ALP just like jason.
> i dont know. i havent heard ALL the evidence.
>
> and then of course you have kat gallant.
> she is from phoenix (mesa). i dont really
> know her but i did hear stories about her
> and read in the media on her horse back
> ride for freedom across american. and
> when she got to west virgina the local
> crooks there stole here horses. she may
> have been railroaded out of the phoenix
> ALP group too. i dont know i have not
> heard her story.
>
> there were some fights about her and tom
> rawles. from what i have read kat gallant
> is a "real" libertarian. when tom rawles
> first started ran for governor his positions
> were not true libertarn positions. and
> although he is the maricopa county supervisor
> who voted against the baseball statium i lived
> in his district and he said a number of times
> that he was FOR A BASEBALL STADIUM IF IT WAS
> BUILT IN TEMPE. but despite that it seemed
> like the ALP rulers endoresed tom rawles over
> kat gallant when rawles was not a "true"
> libertarian and kat was a "true libertarain'
>
> the so called "No compromise" people who say
> they refuse to compomise but seem to have sold
> out to tom rawles because he was a well know
> maricopa county supervisor.
>
>
> and last i tried just because i am picking
> on ed kahn, tom rawles because they aint
> true libertarians i dont think they are bad.
>
> since they share a lot our views we probably
> want them on our side for many issues.
>
> mike
>
>
> --- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike ross" <Mike Ross>
> wrote:
> > >Part of the problem is that Phoenicians missed a golden
> > >opportunity to chat with a guy who was open to shifting
> > >his positions on certain issues if only they took the
> > >time to talk with him.
> >
> > i wasnt picking on ed kahn because he was from tucson
> > i was picking on him because of his positions on the
> > issues.
>
> You missed the point Mike. The point is that no one in Phoenix
took
> the time to debate Ed Kahn on the issues. I've spoken with Ed
about
> his perspective on the civil war, and it's very clear that the
> Phoenix folks just dismissed him as a Peter ally and never once
> bothered to try to find out what made him tick.
>
> And the same was done with regard to Jason.
>
> I'm just suggesting that folks who are unhappy with Ed's stances
on
> certain issues, but did nothing at all to try to persuade him,
> should blame not only Ed but themselves as well.
>
>
> > another phoenix libertarian who is clueless on the
> > libertarian issues is sean nottingham who is running
> > for secretary of state. powell pointed out a few days
> > ago that sean is a goof ball libertarian.
>
> Recently I spoke with Sean Nottingham. I tried to get through to
him
> on the issue of matching funds and he is not ready to understand.
> Maybe this means he'll never be ready, or maybe it means he needs
> another couple of years ... but at least I tried a little bit.
>
> Then again, I don't live near Sean. I live near Kimberly Swanson,
> and I assure you that I worked much harder to help her learn about
> the principles. When it was obvious she was incapable of learning,
> now or at any time in the future, I simply asked her to not say
> anything unlibertarian to the point where the party has to step
in,
> because no one wanted that to happen. She sort of understood what
I
> was talking about, which is why I don't feel so bad about
> embarrassing her in public regarding her position on government
> swimming pools.
>
>
> > last while i may pick on ed kahn and barry hess at least
> > they are closer to libertarian then the main stream
> > socialists who want to run our lifes and take our
> > money.
>
> You can pick on them all you like for their positions you consider
> to be wrong. But at least make a minimal effort to try to persuade
> them to your point of view.
>
> David Euchner
>
>
>


 



29908 ==============================================================

Message 29908 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  "mike ross" <Mike Ross> 
Date:  Mon Oct 25, 2004  10:04 am 
Subject:  re: ed kahn

 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
John Buttrick said:
>So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any
>advice to the effect that it was permissible to
>remove anyone from any position in the ALP
>because it was an "emergency." This is the first
>I've ever heard of this accusation.

the ALP had a meeting at liz and erics house in
tempe were we were going to put jason on trail
for being a officer in the ALP INC or charges
something to that effect. i dont remember the
exact wording but it was along those lines.

at the meeting which was intended to put jason
on trial liz said that at the advice of her
legal counsel which was john buttrick she didnt
need to have a trial to kick jason off the XCOM
board. and she did kick jason off the XCOM board.

i dont know what if anything john buttrick said
to liz. and i am not accusing john buttrick of saying
any thing. i am just saying that is the reason
liz gave to kick jason off the xcom board with
out putting jason on trail.

in my last e-mail i paraphrased it and said it
was an "emergency". it been a long time since
it happened and maybe that was wrong and liz
gave some other reason.

i suspect that jason remembers this a lot better
then me because he was the one on trail and the
one who got kicked off the XCOM board. a also
beleive powell was there.

as i said before i though it was a pretty dirty
trick to kick jason off the XCOM board with out
voting on it. and i think if we did vote on it
there would have not been the super three fourths
majority need to kick jason off the board.

mike


Sent by 1stcounsel.com Mail
Premium Accounts for Legal Professionals
http://1stcounsel.com/ 



29933 ==============================================================


Message 29933 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:    "auvenj" <lpaz-info@c...> 
Date:  Mon Oct 25, 2004  10:02 pm 
Subject:  Re: ed kahn

 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 

OK, go ahead and make me dredge up this dreck. :-)

Here's what went down: I was an elected officer of ALP. I was then
subsequently elected as an officer of ALP, Inc. Some folks suggested
that a trial was needed to kick me off of the ALP board because they
considered ALP, Inc. to be a separate political party according to
ALP's bylaws, which prohibited board members from also being board
members of other separate political parties. My contention was that
ALP, Inc. was not rightly a political party under the court rulings
then in effect, regardless of its claims to be, because it had no
members and was impossible to register into as distinct from ALP
(Sharon specifically tried to register for ALP, Inc. and was unable to
do so).

In the end, perhaps fearing there wasn't the votes to kick me off ALP
in a "trial", or for some other reason, Liz decided to make a ruling
from the chair that I had ceased to be a board member of ALP the
moment I was elected to ALP, Inc. She claimed this ruling was made on
the advice of John Buttrick. At that point a vote was held on whether
to overrule the ruling of the chair and that vote failed to garner a
majority.

Of course, subsequent rulings reversed the situation at the time, and
ALP ceased to be a political party, declared having been merged into
ALP, Inc. in 1999 before any of this happened. Kind of like a Star
Trek time warp...there were no ALP officers in 2001 when I was "kicked
off". :-) Hey, makes about as much sense as most court rulings.

I chalk that whole situation up to the "bunker mentality" of the
conflict. Of course it was ludicrous...the whole situation was
ludicrous...but I hold no grudges about it against anyone. I was just
trying to do what I could to bring the conflict to an end.

--Jason Auvenshine


--- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike ross" <Mike Ross> wrote:
> John Buttrick said:
> >So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any
> >advice to the effect that it was permissible to
> >remove anyone from any position in the ALP
> >because it was an "emergency." This is the first
> >I've ever heard of this accusation.
>
> the ALP had a meeting at liz and erics house in
> tempe were we were going to put jason on trail
> for being a officer in the ALP INC or charges
> something to that effect. i dont remember the
> exact wording but it was along those lines.
>
> at the meeting which was intended to put jason
> on trial liz said that at the advice of her
> legal counsel which was john buttrick she didnt
> need to have a trial to kick jason off the XCOM
> board. and she did kick jason off the XCOM board.
>
> i dont know what if anything john buttrick said
> to liz. and i am not accusing john buttrick of saying
> any thing. i am just saying that is the reason
> liz gave to kick jason off the xcom board with
> out putting jason on trail.
>
> in my last e-mail i paraphrased it and said it
> was an "emergency". it been a long time since
> it happened and maybe that was wrong and liz
> gave some other reason.
>
> i suspect that jason remembers this a lot better
> then me because he was the one on trail and the
> one who got kicked off the XCOM board. a also
> beleive powell was there.
>
> as i said before i though it was a pretty dirty
> trick to kick jason off the XCOM board with out
> voting on it. and i think if we did vote on it
> there would have not been the super three fourths
> majority need to kick jason off the board.
>
> mike
>
>
> Sent by 1stcounsel.com Mail
> Premium Accounts for Legal Professionals
> http://1stcounsel.com/


 



29945 ============================================================

Message 29945 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  "mike ross" <Mike Ross> 
Date:  Tue Oct 26, 2004  8:19 am 
Subject:  Re: ed kahn

 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
>In the end, perhaps fearing there wasn't the votes to kick
>me off ALP in a "trial", or for some other reason, Liz
>decided to make a ruling from the chair that I had ceased
>to be a board member of ALP the moment I was elected to
>ALP, Inc. She claimed this ruling was made on the advice
>of John Buttrick. At that point a vote was held on whether
>to overrule the ruling of the chair and that vote failed
>to garner a majority.

thank you jason. thats pretty much how i remember it
although i have forgotten some of the nitty gritty
detains.


Sent by 1stcounsel.com Mail
Premium Accounts for Legal Professionals
http://1stcounsel.com/

 



29957 ================================================================


Message 29957 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  John Buttrick - SUPCRTX <buttrick@s...> 
Date:  Tue Oct 26, 2004  1:51 pm 
Subject:  RE: [lpaz-discuss] Re: ed kahn

 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
I was not at the meeting in question and certainly don't
remember giving anything like the advice set forth below. In addition, I'm a
little confused by the reasoning about the bylaws. I have in front of me the
ALP bylaws adopted on March 14, 1998. I assume these are the same bylaws in
effect when the events referred to below transpired. I don't see any term
"which prohibited board members from also being board members of other
separate political parties." I'm also assuming that Jason was an at-large
member of the Executive Committee. If so, his only ongoing condition to
remain on the Committee was that he remain a Member of Record throughout his
term. To remain so he only had to attend the previous regular State
Convention or subscribe to the newsletter or register for the next state
convention. Aside from failure to meet that criteria, the only way to remove
him would be by a 3/4 vote of the Committee if he missed two consecutive
meetings (and even that interpretation is not clear).

By the way, I was never general counsel to the party or
any individual office holder in the party. I volunteered to provide pro bono
representation on specific cases only. So it would have been extremely odd
for me to provide the kind of legal advice referenced here.
.




-----Original Message-----
From: auvenj [mailto:lpaz-info@c...]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:03 PM
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: ed kahn

OK, go ahead and make me dredge up this dreck. :-)

Here's what went down: I was an elected officer of ALP. I was then
subsequently elected as an officer of ALP, Inc. Some folks suggested
that a trial was needed to kick me off of the ALP board because they
considered ALP, Inc. to be a separate political party according to
ALP's bylaws, which prohibited board members from also being board
members of other separate political parties. My contention was that
ALP, Inc. was not rightly a political party under the court rulings
then in effect, regardless of its claims to be, because it had no
members and was impossible to register into as distinct from ALP
(Sharon specifically tried to register for ALP, Inc. and was unable to
do so).

In the end, perhaps fearing there wasn't the votes to kick me off ALP
in a "trial", or for some other reason, Liz decided to make a ruling
from the chair that I had ceased to be a board member of ALP the
moment I was elected to ALP, Inc. She claimed this ruling was made on
the advice of John Buttrick. At that point a vote was held on whether
to overrule the ruling of the chair and that vote failed to garner a
majority.

Of course, subsequent rulings reversed the situation at the time, and
ALP ceased to be a political party, declared having been merged into
ALP, Inc. in 1999 before any of this happened. Kind of like a Star
Trek time warp...there were no ALP officers in 2001 when I was "kicked
off". :-) Hey, makes about as much sense as most court rulings.

I chalk that whole situation up to the "bunker mentality" of the
conflict. Of course it was ludicrous...the whole situation was
ludicrous...but I hold no grudges about it against anyone. I was just
trying to do what I could to bring the conflict to an end.

--Jason Auvenshine


--- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike ross" <Mike Ross> wrote:
> John Buttrick said:
> >So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any
> >advice to the effect that it was permissible to
> >remove anyone from any position in the ALP
> >because it was an "emergency." This is the first
> >I've ever heard of this accusation.
>
> the ALP had a meeting at liz and erics house in
> tempe were we were going to put jason on trail
> for being a officer in the ALP INC or charges
> something to that effect. i dont remember the
> exact wording but it was along those lines.
>
> at the meeting which was intended to put jason
> on trial liz said that at the advice of her
> legal counsel which was john buttrick she didnt
> need to have a trial to kick jason off the XCOM
> board. and she did kick jason off the XCOM board.
>
> i dont know what if anything john buttrick said
> to liz. and i am not accusing john buttrick of saying
> any thing. i am just saying that is the reason
> liz gave to kick jason off the xcom board with
> out putting jason on trail.
>
> in my last e-mail i paraphrased it and said it
> was an "emergency". it been a long time since
> it happened and maybe that was wrong and liz
> gave some other reason.
>
> i suspect that jason remembers this a lot better
> then me because he was the one on trail and the
> one who got kicked off the XCOM board. a also
> beleive powell was there.
>
> as i said before i though it was a pretty dirty
> trick to kick jason off the XCOM board with out
> voting on it. and i think if we did vote on it
> there would have not been the super three fourths
> majority need to kick jason off the board.
>
> mike



 



29958 ============================================================

Message 29958 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  "mike ross" <Mike Ross> 
Date:  Tue Oct 26, 2004  2:52 pm 
Subject:  Re: ed kahn - ie: jason was kicked off the xcom

 
 
>the only way to remove him would be by
>a 3/4 vote of the Committee

and thats why i was pissed off when liz
kicked jason off the xcom committe with
out having a vote.

i dont think the votes existed. i think
there were 20 members on the committe.

jason could not vote to impeach himself.
nor did i think jasons wife would vote
to impeach jason. and i dont think
ted glen would have voted to boot jason
either. that leaves 17 people who could
boot to impeach jason.

i was not going to boot jason. my view
was if he lives in tucson and wants to
hang out with the only libertarian
crowd in tucson which was the smorgs
group that was ok with me. which
means there were only 16 people who
were left who could have voted to
kick jason off.

if only two of those remaining 16 people
would have sided with jason then jason
would not have been booted off the board.

i know there were a lot of angry unhappy
phoenix people who wanted to boot jason
but i suspect there may have been two or
more people who would vote with their
brains on the issue instead of using
their emotions.

mike

 



29970 ==============================================================

Message  of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:    "auvenj" <lpaz-info@c...> 
Date:  Tue Oct 26, 2004  7:45 pm 
Subject:  Re: ed kahn

John,

There was a bylaw, probably passed at one of the conventions held
between 1999 and 2001. I do remember it being an actual bylaw at
the time.

As to the rest of it, like I said I attribute it all to bunker
mentality, hold no grudges and I'd rather not speculate beyond my
immediate knowledge as to who said what to whom.

--Jason Auvenshine

--- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, John Buttrick - SUPCRTX
<buttrick@s...> wrote:
> I was not at the meeting in question and
certainly don't
> remember giving anything like the advice set forth below. In
addition, I'm a
> little confused by the reasoning about the bylaws. I have in front
of me the
> ALP bylaws adopted on March 14, 1998. I assume these are the same
bylaws in
> effect when the events referred to below transpired. I don't see
any term
> "which prohibited board members from also being board members of
other
> separate political parties." I'm also assuming that Jason was an
at-large
> member of the Executive Committee. If so, his only ongoing
condition to
> remain on the Committee was that he remain a Member of Record
throughout his
> term. To remain so he only had to attend the previous regular State
> Convention or subscribe to the newsletter or register for the next
state
> convention. Aside from failure to meet that criteria, the only way
to remove
> him would be by a 3/4 vote of the Committee if he missed two
consecutive
> meetings (and even that interpretation is not clear).
>
> By the way, I was never general counsel to the
party or
> any individual office holder in the party. I volunteered to
provide pro bono
> representation on specific cases only. So it would have been
extremely odd
> for me to provide the kind of legal advice referenced here.
> .
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: auvenj [mailto:lpaz-info@c...]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:03 PM
> To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: ed kahn
>
>
>
>
> OK, go ahead and make me dredge up this dreck. :-)
>
> Here's what went down: I was an elected officer of ALP. I was
then
> subsequently elected as an officer of ALP, Inc. Some folks
suggested
> that a trial was needed to kick me off of the ALP board because
they
> considered ALP, Inc. to be a separate political party according to
> ALP's bylaws, which prohibited board members from also being board
> members of other separate political parties. My contention was
that
> ALP, Inc. was not rightly a political party under the court rulings
> then in effect, regardless of its claims to be, because it had no
> members and was impossible to register into as distinct from ALP
> (Sharon specifically tried to register for ALP, Inc. and was
unable to
> do so).
>
> In the end, perhaps fearing there wasn't the votes to kick me off
ALP
> in a "trial", or for some other reason, Liz decided to make a
ruling
> from the chair that I had ceased to be a board member of ALP the
> moment I was elected to ALP, Inc. She claimed this ruling was
made on
> the advice of John Buttrick. At that point a vote was held on
whether
> to overrule the ruling of the chair and that vote failed to garner
a
> majority.
>
> Of course, subsequent rulings reversed the situation at the time,
and
> ALP ceased to be a political party, declared having been merged
into
> ALP, Inc. in 1999 before any of this happened. Kind of like a Star
> Trek time warp...there were no ALP officers in 2001 when I
was "kicked
> off". :-) Hey, makes about as much sense as most court rulings.
>
> I chalk that whole situation up to the "bunker mentality" of the
> conflict. Of course it was ludicrous...the whole situation was
> ludicrous...but I hold no grudges about it against anyone. I was
just
> trying to do what I could to bring the conflict to an end.
>
> --Jason Auvenshine
>
>
> --- In lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike ross" <Mike Ross>
wrote:
> > John Buttrick said:
> > >So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any
> > >advice to the effect that it was permissible to
> > >remove anyone from any position in the ALP
> > >because it was an "emergency." This is the first
> > >I've ever heard of this accusation.
> >
> > the ALP had a meeting at liz and erics house in
> > tempe were we were going to put jason on trail
> > for being a officer in the ALP INC or charges
> > something to that effect. i dont remember the
> > exact wording but it was along those lines.
> >
> > at the meeting which was intended to put jason
> > on trial liz said that at the advice of her
> > legal counsel which was john buttrick she didnt
> > need to have a trial to kick jason off the XCOM
> > board. and she did kick jason off the XCOM board.
> >
> > i dont know what if anything john buttrick said
> > to liz. and i am not accusing john buttrick of saying
> > any thing. i am just saying that is the reason
> > liz gave to kick jason off the xcom board with
> > out putting jason on trail.
> >
> > in my last e-mail i paraphrased it and said it
> > was an "emergency". it been a long time since
> > it happened and maybe that was wrong and liz
> > gave some other reason.
> >
> > i suspect that jason remembers this a lot better
> > then me because he was the one on trail and the
> > one who got kicked off the XCOM board. a also
> > beleive powell was there.
> >
> > as i said before i though it was a pretty dirty
> > trick to kick jason off the XCOM board with out
> > voting on it. and i think if we did vote on it
> > there would have not been the super three fourths
> > majority need to kick jason off the board.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > Sent by 1stcounsel.com Mail
> > Premium Accounts for Legal Professionals
> > http://1stcounsel.com/ <http://1stcounsel.com/>
>
>
>
>
>



29971 ==========================================================

Message 29971 of 33226  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index     Msg #    
 
 
From:  "mike ross" <Mike Ross> 
Date:  Tue Oct 26, 2004  7:58 pm 
Subject:  Re: ed kahn

>There was a bylaw, probably passed at one of the
>conventions held between 1999 and 2001. I do
>remember it being an actual bylaw at the time

jason is right. i remember something about
not being allowed to be officers in other
parties. im sure it was intended to apply
to the ALP INC group and perhaps specificicly
to jason.

my self i think it was rather petty. because
the bottom line it effectively ment that
even though jason lived in tucson he could
not be an officer in the tucson group which
of course was run by the smorg.

kind of like if the smorg group passed a
by law not allowing kat gallant to associate
with phoenix area libertarian.

and last even though jason is from tucson
from all the emails he put on the xcom list
i though he was working for the bigger
libertarian picture.

mike 



20 =======================================================================

To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: re: ed kahn 
From: "mike ross" <Mike Ross>  Add to Contacts  
Date: Mon, Oct 25 2004 10:04:21 AM -0700 
Cc: Mike Ross 
 View Message Source  

John Buttrick said:
>So the record is clear: I never gave anyone any 
>advice to the effect that it was permissible to 
>remove anyone from any position in the ALP
>because it was an "emergency." This is the first 
>I've ever heard of this accusation.

the ALP had a meeting at liz and erics house in
tempe were we were going to put jason on trail
for being a officer in the ALP INC or charges 
something to that effect. i dont remember the
exact wording but it was along those lines.

at the meeting which was intended to put jason 
on trial liz said that at the advice of her 
legal counsel which was john buttrick she didnt 
need to have a trial to kick jason off the XCOM 
board. and she did kick jason off the XCOM board.

i dont know what if anything john buttrick said
to liz. and i am not accusing john buttrick of saying 
any thing. i am just saying that is the reason
liz gave to kick jason off the xcom board with
out putting jason on trail.

in my last e-mail i paraphrased it and said it
was an "emergency". it been a long time since
it happened and maybe that was wrong and liz
gave some other reason. 

i suspect that jason remembers this a lot better
then me because he was the one on trail and the
one who got kicked off the XCOM board. a also 
beleive powell was there. 

as i said before i though it was a pretty dirty
trick to kick jason off the XCOM board with out
voting on it. and i think if we did vote on it
there would have not been the super three fourths
majority need to kick jason off the board.

mike


18 =======================================================================


To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: ed kahn 
From: "mike ross" <Mike Ross>  Add to Contacts  
Date: Tue, Oct 26 2004 8:19:56 AM -0700 
Cc: Mike Ross 
 View Message Source  

>In the end, perhaps fearing there wasn't the votes to kick 
>me off ALP in a "trial", or for some other reason, Liz 
>decided to make a ruling from the chair that I had ceased 
>to be a board member of ALP the moment I was elected to 
>ALP, Inc.  She claimed this ruling was made on the advice 
>of John Buttrick.  At that point a vote was held on whether
>to overrule the ruling of the chair and that vote failed 
>to garner a majority.

thank you jason. thats pretty much how i remember it
although i have forgotten some of the nitty gritty
detains.


Western Libertarian Alliance