[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Thomas Gaul]

Am 22.03.2011 22:56, schrieb Andrew Norton:
> On 3/22/2011 3:56 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
> >> So, all meetings of the GA, be they the annual one, OR the
> extraordinary
> >> one JUST for voting on the board has at least 5 weeks notice, PLUS get
> >> emailed to all members, AND on the website. That means we ALWAYS have
> >> *AT LEAST* 5 weeks notice of an election.
> >>
> > Where do you read: /announcing of elections/? The statutes explicitly
> > state out: /Meetings of the General Assembly will be announced at least
> > five weeks prior to the meeting/. It is about the meeting. Not the
> > elections.
>
> I read it the same place as evidently someone read that they must be
> elected immediately. The only difference is I used common sense, and
> pirate principles. I didn't use the same sort of scummy procedural
> tricks we all are opposed to.
>
Official procedures are tricks? Do I understand that correctly? You are
a democrat, aren't you?

> > Any criticism you offer at the moment is criticising the GA as a whole.
>
> Oh no, I hope I don't make it cry! If you, and the body as a whole,
> can't do some HONEST, CRITICAL self analysis, then you've certainly got
> no business being on the Board.
>
self analysis.. :) What about? Sorry for *you *not haven't been elected
by the GA.

So you do ignore the highest organ within PPI. Sorry about that, but
that as being a true democrat, you do not respect it. No go! and *plonk*
on this.

> > Please get it straight - as you are being a democrat - that the GA as
> > the highest organ within PPI is free in its decisions.
>
> Ah, not quite. That's kinda the point of the statutes. The Ga can't just
> 'do whatever', and in fact the court is supposed to help ensure that.
>
> If it were any other thing, there wouldn't be an issue. However, the
> issue is the makeup of this body.
>
You will have to explain your point here more clearly, sorry I am just a
German guy who does not understand what you are heading at atm.

>
> > If the PP-US is opposing this decision it has to formally call for a
> > decision by the Court of Arbitration.
>
> You've not really thought that through. In order to call for a decision
> by the court, first that would mean recognising the court. Since the
> problem is the improper recognition of the court, it doesn't work.
>

So you do not recognise the elected court. In case this is so, ask the
jurisdiction in Belgium to get rid of the elected court of arbitration.
You are free to do so!
> It means saying the election was valid, then asking the court to decide
> if the election of itself (in some cases the votes to elect are the same
> people as 'somehow' wound up on the court) and then rule. Either you
> really don't understand the issues, or you're being deliberately obtuse
> and ignorant.
>
I believe, you do not understand how an independent CoA does work. If
they find out, that your point is valid they will decide that way. So
what? You don't believe in anything - that's the way you are waving
around for friends and favorites. Nothing is done correctly, nobody has
got a clue. You are one of the few among many who does know what is
right or wrong. Am I correct or am I German, meaning, just being stupid?
> This is part of the so called "rule of law". Not the one who shouts
> > aloud may be right, it might be the mice whispering somewhere in the
> > corner. CoA will take care of it. That's the way the General Assembly
> > did decide upon.
>
> Well, This is the problem when things are rushed through. There's no
> thought, or no time to think. Someone says 'we have to elect this now'
> and someone else says 'why' and they go 'because the statutes say so'
> and then 'ok' and the issue is spread like that, and the issue is
> brought up and passed before any real investigation, discussion, debate,
> can be done.
>
Where had been your objectiv in the GA? Have you in any way attended?
Other PPs were able to talk to the assembly up front though being
remote. Did you honestly try to do so? We haven't seen you at your
presentation for going to be a member of the board.

> I think we've all seen the kinds of laws that get passed when this sort
> of tactic is used. Usually ones that don't stand up to scrutiny, so
> therefore have to be passed 'quickly' or without time for debate.
>
> In the UK, there was the Digital Economy Act. The Patriot ACt in the US.
> In France in April with the HADOPI law.
>

Is there any connection with PPI? PPI is not a country. Nor can PPI
decide upon laws. So why this distraction? Is that your way for getting
down to the point?

> Here's the point.
> No-one's arguing that it was 'the actions of the GA'.
> No-one's arguing 'the court needs to be elected'
> What *IS* at issue is that the court was filled by an unpublicised vote,
> created at incredibly short notice, where many members were unable to
> participate (some because the remote participation wasn't working,
> others because they just didn't know)
Repetitive... Now news, no argument. You are not going into other
arguments but just stating out, you are right. Other arguments are not
valid. The decisions by the General Assembly are not valid. Are you more
important than the General Assembly? If so, tell us why!

I haven't read an argument by you, that is opposed to the decisions of
the GA in Ludwigshafen and backed up with any real arguments. If you
find those arguments, go ahead and go for a court decision. You are
welcome to do so.

>
> Since that is contrary to one of the core principles of the pirate
> movement, that you keep arguing 'it's ok' or 'the GA did it, and they
> can do anything' boggles the mind. Do you actually understand democracy?
> Do you understand that for an election to be free and fair, all parties
> must have equal chance to participate (especially as has been pointed
> out already, the court is binding on all members), even if by proxy.
>
Why did you have not taken your right to be a part of the General
Assembly? If you did yourself apart deliberatly, bad luck for you. You
have lost the right to criticise at that very moment. And again you
claim that the GA wasn't free and equal in their vote. Go ahead and tell
that all participants! Either in person or remote.

Do so! Tell those "bold" people that they will have be enlightened by
you. That they have done all wrong. Just do so!

> Why are you so afraid to have a free and open election on this? What
> exactly is so bad about it that we had to ignore one of our core
> principles for some expediency? Just how important are your principles
> to you?
>
??? Could you explain your question? Is it again a confrontation with
the General Assembly and all the people who did attend? If so, explain
to them.

And on the other hand, you are mingling subjects. But I believe, you do
know.

>
> > If you want to change the way it is, PP-US as any other PP within PPI is
> > allowed to go for a change of the statutes.
>
> What's it matter what the statutes say? "the GA as the highest organ
> within PPI is free in its decisions." so it can just ignore them and do
> what it wants.
>
So it is. (in a way)

> This is my point. the PPI *must* act in accordance with the goals and
> interests of it's members.
>
So it will hopefully do.

> This is an issue that could only come up once, and thanks to the actions
> of some, pushing this through like this, it happened. But here's another
> thought. Just imagine what this is going to do to the credibility of the
> PPI when (if?) the press pick up on this. 
On what exactly?

> Or what it'll do to a Pirate
> Party that tries to critisise a law that was passed int he same manner
> as this election. You'll make parties a laughing stock.
>
??? Sorry,  rhetorics, got nothing to do with the main subject.

> But hey, as long as it's not Germany, you don't care, right?
>
Ahh, there we are. I am a German. That's why. Now I seem to get it. If
you think so, do as you like.You are a free to think whatever suits best
for you. :)

Dream on!

With very best regards,

Thomas Gaul

P.S.: If there are items on the GA in Friedrichshafen, either positive
or negative, please post them: board at pp-international.net, the 2nd
review will take place next monday.




>
> > Best regards
>
> > Thomas
>
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
____________________________________________________
Pirate Parties International - General Talk
pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general