[pp.int.general] Antonio - do you want to work with us in organizing this movement?

Zbigniew Łukasiak zzbbyy at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 21:33:53 CEST 2014


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Man, are you looking for stupid excuses.

Thanks!

>
>> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:57:26 +0200
>
>> From: zzbbyy at gmail.com
>> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Antonio - do you want to work with us in
>> organizing this movement?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:36:18 +0200
>> >> From: zzbbyy at gmail.com
>> >> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Antonio - do you want to work with us in
>> >> organizing this movement?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Jesus, can I talk to someone competent?
>> >> >
>> >> > Do I really have to spell everything out not to waste six months
>> >> > explaining
>> >> > the obvious?
>> >> >
>> >> > Can I take obvious things for obvious, or am I still talking in
>> >> > KinderGarten?
>> >>
>> >> I can see you are very frustrated - but I don't quite understand what
>> >> you are referring to - sorry.
>> >>
>> >> Are you disagreeing with me - or with someone else in this thread?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I meant the FIRST ruling of the CoA ABOUT Pirates de Catalunya full
>> >> > membership, which is the subject WE were talking about. Not the first
>> >> > ever
>> >> > ruling of that particular class of Court of Arbitration.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> OK - I was also talking about this case - so I guess that burst of
>> >> frustration was about something else.
>> >
>> > No, you weren't, damnit...
>>
>> Yes I were.
>>
>> If CoA rules that Catalonia admittance was invalid - then the whole GA
>> that they took part in was invalid and also the CoA election was
>> invalid.
>
> Let's NOT skip any step, because you are already LOST trying.
>
> The situation RIGHT NOW... is that we HAVE a Court of Arbitration.
> The situation RIGHT NOW... is that we have an issue with the validity of the
>
> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-3
>
> On the basis of, accidentally, their fantasy opinion about the
> interpretation
> of the meaning of the word "country" to try to circumvent the fact that the
> PPI GA of 2012 had failed to adopt any amendment to allow for more than
> one member for any country. But that detail is peanuts.
>
> The REAL failure of that ruling is in:
>
> 1) Not aknowledging the real facts, in that the Statutes provide for ONLY
> ONE
> clear path to membership: submitting all the necessary data in due time and
> form to the board, AND the member parties getting the information also in
> due
> time to be able to decide on what to vote on each candidature.

Can you quote the statutes to support that? I've heard that in fact
they did submit all necessary data in time to the board, but the board
did not announce it. So it is is really not so clear.

>
> Pirates de Catalunya had experienced problems in becoming full member in
> 2011, and now knew it had to have the statutes modified BEFORE they could
> dream about submitting a candidature. That is why, for the 2012 PPI GA in
> Prague they submitted STATUTES AMENDMENTS aiming at clearing the way...
> and NO CANDIDATURE, as a candidature would be useless then anyway.
>
> When the amendments were not treated, neither adopted... it was ALREADY too
> late to try anything else... because there was NO FIT in the statutes for
> anything
> else.
>
> But they tried BLACKMAIL anyway, saying a simple motion asking for a vote on
> the
> matter would suffice. Well, that may have been their desperate opinion...
> but NO
> exception to the regular candidating procedure has ever been described
> anywhere.
>
> So, no, you can't ask for someone to submit a motion to have a vote
> improvised on
> such matters.
>
> But some on the board of the PPI GA in Prague CHOOSE FRAUDULENTLY to
> interpret
> something thad had been said by the australian remote delegate as if it were
> that
> motion, and use it in a way to deescalate pressure.
>
> I let it happen because we really needed to deescalate pressure, so it was
> easier to
> play their game then, end the GA without troubles in front of the numerous
> German
> press present because two regional elections were scheduled in Germany...
>
> ... and simply have the outcome NULLIFIED one or two weeks later by the CoA.
>
> Any DECENT one would have done so, instead of growing incredible fantasy and
> fucking
> with the wording of STATUTES articles to cater for childish desires to serve
> buddy
> catalan kiddies.
>
>
> The PRESENT Court of Arbitration needs only 20 MINUTES to check where things
> went
> wrong in that 2012-3 ruling, AND NULLIFY it.
>
> That is PERFECTLY within their competences.
>
> Oh, yeah, there is a stupid incident about adopted changes in the Rules of
> Procedure of
> said Court of Arbitration, and the IDIOT CLAIM that they can apply these NEW
> rules to the
> OLD situations AND their OLD context... but anybody with brains would call
> such a pretence
> BULLSHIT.
>
> A legit reclamation was presented, scrupulously following applicable rules
> at it's own time...
>
> ... and it is about TIME that it STPOS BEING DODGED.
>
> SERIOUSLY.
>
> Whatever OTHER consequences have to follow from all what has developed into
> a kafkaesque
> situation from then...
>
> ... shall be the result of other procedures the CoA will have to decide upon
> when asked about it,
> AND NOT BEFORE.
>
> Even if surely, at due time... I will be asking for EACH infraction to be
> punished according to
> their merits.
>
>
>
>> Andrew says that this would not result in a loop - but I am not sure -
>> I'd like to hear what a lawyer says about this.
>
> There is NO loop. The Court of Arbitration was elected at the 2014 Paris PPI
> GA...

And in that Paris GA Catalonia took an active part - so if they were
not a member of PPI then the whole GA was invalid.

>
> ... it will not get into problems until the validity of that 2014 GA is
> contested.
>
> Then it might choose to resign if it feels it can not invalidate the GA in
> which it was elected.
>
> We will have then to organize an PPI GA for the mere purpose of having a
> VALID CoA elected
> to  immediately deal with the last pending bits and restore everything to
> normal conditions.
>
>
>
>> You have also take into account that most people here feel that it is
>> now so ancient that it is not important any more. In all kinds of law
>> you have expiration clauses - because it does not make sense to dig up
>> history in courts.
>
> TRUTH and JUSTICE do not give a damn about how people feel. They operate on
> LOGIC
> and ETHIC.

Well - sure - it is all very important - but you know all of that is
just ancient history in internet time and it is like Italians suing
Germans for sacking of Rome. It is impossible to make justice for
everything - and this admittance of Catalonia was just a formality -
because majority of the PPI members wanted them in anyway. So - OK -
there was a formal failure - but it was long time ago and it was not
against the will of the majority of members.

The solution to this would be a resolution where we admit there was
some mistakes made - but we don't want to change the results of any
subsequent GAs. I hope that a lawyer could formulate this so that it
is formally sound and we can have this voted at the next GA. I am
pretty sure that the majority would vote for such a solution - because
we do want Catalonia as a member and all the rest is just a formality
- but there would also be a possibility that people reject this motion
and accept a motion that you'd formulate.

Would that make you happy?

Cheers,
Z.


More information about the pp.international.general mailing list