<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Man, are you looking for stupid excuses.<br><br><div>> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:57:26 +0200<br>> From: zzbbyy@gmail.com<br>> To: pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Antonio - do you want to work with us in organizing this movement?<br>> <br>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> >> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:36:18 +0200<br>> >> From: zzbbyy@gmail.com<br>> >> To: pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Antonio - do you want to work with us in<br>> >> organizing this movement?<br>> >><br>> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro@hotmail.com><br>> >> wrote:<br>> >> > Jesus, can I talk to someone competent?<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Do I really have to spell everything out not to waste six months<br>> >> > explaining<br>> >> > the obvious?<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Can I take obvious things for obvious, or am I still talking in<br>> >> > KinderGarten?<br>> >><br>> >> I can see you are very frustrated - but I don't quite understand what<br>> >> you are referring to - sorry.<br>> >><br>> >> Are you disagreeing with me - or with someone else in this thread?<br>> >><br>> >> ><br>> >> > I meant the FIRST ruling of the CoA ABOUT Pirates de Catalunya full<br>> >> > membership, which is the subject WE were talking about. Not the first<br>> >> > ever<br>> >> > ruling of that particular class of Court of Arbitration.<br>> >> ><br>> >><br>> >> OK - I was also talking about this case - so I guess that burst of<br>> >> frustration was about something else.<br>> ><br>> > No, you weren't, damnit...<br>> <br>> Yes I were.<br>> <br>> If CoA rules that Catalonia admittance was invalid - then the whole GA<br>> that they took part in was invalid and also the CoA election was<br>> invalid.<br><br>Let's NOT skip any step, because you are already LOST trying.<br><br>The situation RIGHT NOW... is that we HAVE a Court of Arbitration.<br>The situation RIGHT NOW... is that we have an issue with the validity of the<br><br><a href="http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-3" target="_blank">http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-3</a><br><br>On the basis of, accidentally, their fantasy opinion about the interpretation<br>of the meaning of the word "country" to try to circumvent the fact that the<br>PPI GA of 2012 had failed to adopt any amendment to allow for more than<br>one member for any country. But that detail is peanuts.<br><br>The REAL failure of that ruling is in:<br><br>1) Not aknowledging the real facts, in that the Statutes provide for ONLY ONE<br>clear path to membership: submitting all the necessary data in due time and<br>form to the board, AND the member parties getting the information also in due<br>time to be able to decide on what to vote on each candidature.<br><br>Pirates de Catalunya had experienced problems in becoming full member in<br>2011, and now knew it had to have the statutes modified BEFORE they could <br>dream about submitting a candidature. That is why, for the 2012 PPI GA in <br>Prague they submitted STATUTES AMENDMENTS aiming at clearing the way...<br>and NO CANDIDATURE, as a candidature would be useless then anyway.<br><br>When the amendments were not treated, neither adopted... it was ALREADY too<br>late to try anything else... because there was NO FIT in the statutes for anything<br>else.<br><br>But they tried BLACKMAIL anyway, saying a simple motion asking for a vote on the<br>matter would suffice. Well, that may have been their desperate opinion... but NO <br>exception to the regular candidating procedure has ever been described anywhere.<br><br>So, no, you can't ask for someone to submit a motion to have a vote improvised on<br>such matters.<br><br>But some on the board of the PPI GA in Prague CHOOSE FRAUDULENTLY to interpret<br>something thad had been said by the australian remote delegate as if it were that<br>motion, and use it in a way to deescalate pressure.<br><br>I let it happen because we really needed to deescalate pressure, so it was easier to <br>play their game then, end the GA without troubles in front of the numerous German <br>press present because two regional elections were scheduled in Germany...<br><br>... and simply have the outcome NULLIFIED one or two weeks later by the CoA.<br><br>Any DECENT one would have done so, instead of growing incredible fantasy and fucking<br>with the wording of STATUTES articles to cater for childish desires to serve buddy<br>catalan kiddies.<br><br><br>The PRESENT Court of Arbitration needs only 20 MINUTES to check where things went <br>wrong in that 2012-3 ruling, AND NULLIFY it.<br><br>That is PERFECTLY within their competences.<br><br>Oh, yeah, there is a stupid incident about adopted changes in the Rules of Procedure of <br>said Court of Arbitration, and the IDIOT CLAIM that they can apply these NEW rules to the<br>OLD situations AND their OLD context... but anybody with brains would call such a pretence<br>BULLSHIT.<br><br>A legit reclamation was presented, scrupulously following applicable rules at it's own time...<br><br>... and it is about TIME that it STPOS BEING DODGED.<br><br>SERIOUSLY.<br><br>Whatever OTHER consequences have to follow from all what has developed into a kafkaesque<br>situation from then...<br><br>... shall be the result of other procedures the CoA will have to decide upon when asked about it,<br>AND NOT BEFORE.<br><br>Even if surely, at due time... I will be asking for EACH infraction to be punished according to <br>their merits.<br><br> <br>> Andrew says that this would not result in a loop - but I am not sure -<br>> I'd like to hear what a lawyer says about this.<br><br>There is NO loop. The Court of Arbitration was elected at the 2014 Paris PPI GA...<br><br>... it will not get into problems until the validity of that 2014 GA is contested.<br><br>Then it might choose to resign if it feels it can not invalidate the GA in which it was elected.<br><br>We will have then to organize an PPI GA for the mere purpose of having a VALID CoA elected<br>to immediately deal with the last pending bits and restore everything to normal conditions.<br><br><br>> You have also take into account that most people here feel that it is<br>> now so ancient that it is not important any more. In all kinds of law<br>> you have expiration clauses - because it does not make sense to dig up<br>> history in courts.<br><br>TRUTH and JUSTICE do not give a damn about how people feel. They operate on LOGIC<br>and ETHIC.<br><br>And IF people ARE Pirates... yjen they do EXACTLY THAT TOO.<br><br><br>If they are NO Pirates... yhen what regrets are there to be had in burning rogue ships?<br><br><br></div> </div></body>
</html>