David Dorn
Elizabeth A. Brandenburg-AndreasenDid Liz Andreasen use fraud to kick Jason out? I'm not saying this is all true but if John Buttrick is correct in that Liz never asked him for legal advice then Liz Andreasen probably lied to us at the meeting where she booted Jason off the XCOM committee. Is Liz Brandenburg-Andreasen an unethical, dishonest Libertarian hypocrite who used fraud to force Jason Auvenshine off the Arizona Libertarian Party Governing Board when Liz Andreasen was the Chairman of the Arizona Libertarian Party? I don't know? Maybe? Maybe not?Also mention many time I have heard both Mike Dugger and Liz A say We have principles.E yea what PRINCIPLES? I should weave that into this text. Also talk to Ed Carlson, Kat, and the Smorg and get their sides of the story. From Ernies side of the story the ALP has never done anything wrong but listening to Buttrick and others there seems to be that ALP probably did a lot of stuff wrong too. At the 2000 Arizona Libertarian Party Convention in Prescott Arizona Jason Auvenshine got elected to be a member of the Arizona Libertarian Party Governing Board along with me. Some time after that Jason Auvenshine also got elected as an officer of the ALP INC in Tucson which is a 2nd Libertarian Party in Arizona. Because of Jason Auvenshines involvement with ALP INC some members of ALP demanded that we have a trial and kick Jason Auvenshine off of the ALP XCOM board. On the day of Jason Auvenshine's trial which was held at Liz and Eric Andreasen house in Tempe Liz Andreasen said that we didnt need to have a trial to boot Jason Auvenshine off the ALP XCOM committee and that she talked with the ALP lawyer John Buttrick and that John Buttrick said Liz Andreasen could boot Jason Auvenshine out because she was the Chairman. Liz Andreasen then booted Jason Auvenshine and we didnt have a trial. Or it was something sort of like that. But the key was Liz said she based her actions on talking with the Libertarian lawyer John Buttrick. Now why would Liz want to boot Jason instead of letting him get impeached in a trial? Probably because she knew that there was a good probability that their might not have been enough votes to impeach Jason if we voted on it. The ALP Bylaws required a three-fourths vote to kick someone out. That is 15 of the 20 votes on the governing board. Jason and his wife Sharon would certainly not vote to impeach Jason. Ted Glen from Tucson would probably have not voted to impeach Jason. That meant that there were only 17 people who could vote to impeach Jason. And if three people didnft vote to impeach Jason there would only be 14 votes to impeach which was not enough. I didnft tell anybody at the time but I was NOT going to vote to impeach Jason. I didnft think he did anything wrong and I though he was a good person to have in the Arizona Libertarian Party. That made the vote even closer. If two people besides me decided not to impeach Jason there would be only 14 votes, not enough to kick Jason out. Now maybe 4 or 5 years latter it is discovered that John Buttrick says he never talked to Liz Andreasen about this matter and didnt give her any legal advice. This amazing discovery was made when Mike Ross posted a message on the LPAZ-Discuss list server at yahoogroups.com stating that Liz Andreasen booted Jason from the XCOM committe on John Buttricks legal advice. Then John Buttick came back and denied doing the deed. Then we had some discussion where Mike, Jason, and John discussed what happened and John Buttrick said didnt remember and didnt think he gave Liz any of the legal advice she claimed he gave him. It all started when Mike Ross made this statement in a post on a thread about Ed Kahn. Mike Ross: "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."John Buttrick came back and 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.Then Mike Ross came back and said: The ALP had a meeting at Liz and Ericfs 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 donft remember the exact wording but it was along those lines.And then Jason came back and pretty much verified what Mike Ross said with: OK, go ahead and make me dredge up this dreck. :-)And John Buttrick said: I was not at the meeting in question and certainly don't remember giving anything like the advice set forth below. CONTUNUE THE DIALOG HERE AND PUT THE REST OF THE MESSAGES IN (put each item here and put a link to the message number, and a link back to the text.) also create an ernie hancock page with the letters he sent me |
29904 ============================================================= Message 29904 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 From: "maywood2008" <gonzolawyer@c...> Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:00 am Subject: Re: ed kahn --- 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 From: "mike ross" <Mike Ross> Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:04 am Subject: re: ed kahn 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
29933 ============================================================== Message 29933 From: "auvenj" <lpaz-info@c...> Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:02 pm Subject: 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/
29945 ============================================================ Message 29945 From: "mike ross" <Mike Ross> Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:19 am Subject: Re: ed kahn >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.
29957 ================================================================ Message 29957 From: John Buttrick - SUPCRTX <buttrick@s...> Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:51 pm Subject: RE: [lpaz-discuss] Re: ed kahn 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 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 29970 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 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
29908 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 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
29945 18 ======================================================================= To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: ed kahn From: "mike ross" <Mike Ross> Date: Tue, Oct 26 2004 8:19:56 AM -0700 Cc: Mike Ross >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.