|
Post by vconsults on Jul 24, 2012 9:26:01 GMT -5
Mike, My thoughts (as a non-attorney):
YOU ASKED: Do we want to maintain the current listing of grievances exactly the way they are or do we want to split them into two categories - one that will be legally actionable in Federal Court and one that we can take to Congress, etc. as a roadmap for positive change? RESPONSE: Per the New York Code § 202 Article 2 provisions below, any type of non-profit corporation (Types A-D) may sue and be sued. Maintain one single grievance document (i.e., Petition for Redress of Grievances).
2010 New York Code NPC - Not-For-Profit Corporation Article 2 - (201 - 205) CORPORATE PURPOSES AND POWERS 201 - Purposes.
§ 201. Purposes. (a) A corporation, as defined in subparagraph (5), paragraph (a) of § 102 (Definitions), may be formed under this chapter as provided in paragraph (b) unless it may be formed under any other corporate law of this state in which event it may not be formed under this chapter unless such other corporate law expressly so provides. (b) A corporation, of a type and for a purpose or purposes as follows, may be formed under this chapter, provided consents required under any other statute of this state have been obtained:
Type A - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed for any lawful non-business purpose or purposes including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following non-pecuniary purposes: civic, patriotic, political, social, fraternal, athletic, agricultural, horticultural, animal husbandry, and for a professional, commercial, industrial, trade or service association.
Type B - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed for any one or more of the following non-business purposes: charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, cultural or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
Type C - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed for any lawful business purpose to achieve a lawful public or quasi-public objective.
Type D - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed under this chapter when such formation is authorized by any other corporate law of this state for any business or non-business, or pecuniary or non-pecuniary, purpose or purposes specified by such other law, whether such purpose or purposes are also within types A, B, C above or otherwise. § 202. General and special powers. (a) Each corporation, subject to any limitations provided in this chapter or any other statute of this state or its certificate of incorporation, shall have power in furtherance of its corporate purposes:
(1) To have perpetual duration.
(2) To sue and be sued in all courts and to participate in actions and proceedings, whether judicial, administrative, arbitrative or otherwise, in like cases as natural persons.
(3) To have a corporate seal, and to alter such seal at pleasure, and to use it by causing it or a facsimile to be affixed or impressed or reproduced in any other manner.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 24, 2012 10:39:45 GMT -5
I don't believe any of us truly believe that each and every grievance should be given equal emphasis and be pursued equally. We didn't travel to Philadelphia to form our group around immigration, prison, or education reform. We formed our group because of the loss of the people's voice in our democracy due to greed of the elites and the influence of their enormous sums of money on our government and institutions. We formed our group because we want to return our democracy to one that is of, by, and for ALL of the PEOPLE...not just the mega-rich elites! Why can't we agree to pursue our issues in a more logical manner according to the importance to the future of our movement and the changes that need to be done before any of the rest can even be considered? ?
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 24, 2012 12:24:32 GMT -5
Mike, I've said this before and others have as well.
Legally actionable is a dead-end, especially without popular support. Popular support is the ONLY thing that matters.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jul 25, 2012 5:55:04 GMT -5
The 99D leadership seriously compromised its credibility and did a great dis-service to the movement. MP's claims of 100% fault-free leadership are not credible, even if many of the forces of sabotage he blamed were to blame for the debacle. The 99D & CC2 presented a great vision, which inspired people like myself to sacrifice a great deal of time/effort, with hope of achieving the publicized ideals and objectives, which were unnnecesarily betrayed by the SC/leadership. It's possible the 99D could salvage their credibility, honesty, integrity, but their actions & words (& inactions & silences) have made this an improbable, uphill, struggle. I think what Mike Gentilucci (Frank Lee Speaking) is referring to is a diverse coterie of former/current 99D supporters. I attempt to elucidate a strategy salvaging the 99D wreckage & Occupy potential, + much more, in my (7/62012) The Global 99% Movement blog post (& 4-5 posts elaborating posts), "Sketching a Strategy to Build a 99% Movement Identity & Network" (http://theglobal99movement.blogspot.com/2012/07/sketching-strategy-to-build-99-movement.html). The movement I've sketched would ideally include a reinvigorated Phoenix from the ashes of the 99D/CC2 agenda. -Chris Tucker (my real name) Read more: 99declaration.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=qfordel&thread=279&page=1#ixzz21dA3M9S5
|
|
|
Post by trippjenkins on Jul 25, 2012 11:42:18 GMT -5
this seems to be the cart before the horse, if we vote to change to a 2 parts will we be stuck there if we do not like the outcome? It would be more appropriate to me to have a split document to view that I can vote on, so my vote to split here is really only to see if the outcome of the split is more favorable than the current document. Plus there is very little input in the voting so far and I don't see there being a quorum present to make that change. Not to mention the this forum is not necessarily the most secure and Delegates may be falsely represented here or members IDs questioned. The current document that we have was produced in haste and on a swiftly moving railroad, but we were all present and we accomplished the primary purpose as best we could, I'm sure that lots of delegates would like to see a change but without the secure input of the delegates present I don't think it would be appropriate to make that change without near unanimity.
|
|
|
Post by dtrisml on Jul 25, 2012 15:34:00 GMT -5
Why on earth are we STILL discussing re-structuring the entire document? Having subsets and subsets of subsets only makes it *more* complicated. Instead of focusing on what we could do to change what we *already* agreed upon, could we please just get to the work of finalizing and promoting it?
|
|
|
Post by dtrisml on Jul 25, 2012 17:41:41 GMT -5
And also, to clarify, putting a poll up on a website legitimizes *nothing*. The only *legitimate* vote concerning the 99D document is that which was undertaken by the attending congress July 2-4, 2012. It is the style committee's obligation to lay aside their personal preferences as far as actual content and structure go. The only area the Style Committee has any legitimate authority is in *phrasing* and formulation. Anything beyond constitutes a breach of trust with the body of attending delegates who signed off on the document as ratified.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 25, 2012 18:05:26 GMT -5
This poll was not put on here from the Style committee. It was posted before we knew if we were even part of the committee. Could you please not attack us for imagined "breaches of trust"? We will present our work by the end of next week and you can start attacking then if you choose to do so. I see nothing to be gained from such premature assumptions as to what we will or will not produce.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Fahrenholz on Jul 25, 2012 20:27:07 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree with KJ. Let us be patient eanough to see what issues from the Style Committee. Then we can see what, if anything, needs further attention. Anything else would surely be putting the cart before the horse. We were all at the convention and we did good work with the issues before us with the time we had. Let us not second guess ourselvs too early and start restructuring some body of work that has yet to be finalized. Besides, I need some document from the CC 2.0 that I can take to my senator and representatives. It may not be perfect and ready to put before SCOTUS, but I am sure they will get the idea we are putting forth, and the consequences of ignoring it. So let's at least wait for the final draft of our work before we start re-inventing the wheel. Ed Fahrenholz NJ 1 ENDEVOUR TO PERSEVERE
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jul 26, 2012 1:38:38 GMT -5
poll closed
|
|
|
Post by dtrisml on Jul 26, 2012 6:56:18 GMT -5
How is a clarification an attack?
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jul 26, 2012 7:45:41 GMT -5
To delegates:
Listed below are some initial and possible questions that we collectively may be thinking of and that could or should be asked. Thoughts?
1) Will the delegates be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document completed by the Style Committee prior to its submittal of the document to the Steering Committee? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
2) Will the Steering Committee formally or informally review, comment upon and edit the final grievance document it receives from the Style Committee prior to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development"? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
3) Will the delegates be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document completed by the Style Committee and received by the Steering Committee prior to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development"? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
4) Will the delegates be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document subsequent to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development" but prior to having the delegation vote on the final document? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
5) Will the final document be reviewed and amended by an attorney or attorneys for legal standing and sufficiency prior or subsequent to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development" and prior to having the delegation vote on the final document? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
6) Will the final document be reviewed and amended by an attorney or attorneys for legal standing and sufficiency subsequent to internet web site voting on the final document by the delegation and prior to submittal of the final document to the three branches of the federal government? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
7) Will the general public/citizens/constituents be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document subsequent to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development" but prior to having the delegation vote on the final document? Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
8) The 22 July 2012 letter by the Steering Committee addressed to delegates states that:
The final document will include grievance that are “in principle” and “actionable".
This statement could be interpreted to mean that some grievances or parts thereof that do not meet the test of "in principle" and "actionable" will be excluded from the final document that is intended for "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development". Please explain and respond in a narrative format.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 26, 2012 9:56:51 GMT -5
Great questions. I predict the sound of crickets, in response. I'd love to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 26, 2012 23:11:32 GMT -5
I am only going to offer answers where i feel qualified here. Remember I can only speak from my own point of reference as a delegate and "styler"! To delegates: Listed below are some initial and possible questions that we collectively may be thinking of and that could or should be asked. Thoughts? 1) Will the delegates be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document completed by the Style Committee prior to its submittal of the document to the Steering Committee? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. KJ: No one has given the style committee ANY instruction beyond that they sent to everyone! So I am thinking once we finish we can probably send it to everyone at the same time unless we get more instruction in the meantime OR I missed something? 2) Will the Steering Committee formally or informally review, comment upon and edit the final grievance document it receives from the Style Committee prior to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development"? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. 3) Will the delegates be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document completed by the Style Committee and received by the Steering Committee prior to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development"? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. 4) Will the delegates be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document subsequent to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development" but prior to having the delegation vote on the final document? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. 5) Will the final document be reviewed and amended by an attorney or attorneys for legal standing and sufficiency prior or subsequent to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development" and prior to having the delegation vote on the final document? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. 6) Will the final document be reviewed and amended by an attorney or attorneys for legal standing and sufficiency subsequent to internet web site voting on the final document by the delegation and prior to submittal of the final document to the three branches of the federal government? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. 7) Will the general public/citizens/constituents be afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the final grievance document subsequent to its "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development" but prior to having the delegation vote on the final document? Please explain and respond in a narrative format. 8) The 22 July 2012 letter by the Steering Committee addressed to delegates states that: The final document will include grievance that are “in principle” and “actionable". This statement could be interpreted to mean that some grievances or parts thereof that do not meet the test of "in principle" and "actionable" will be excluded from the final document that is intended for "distribution and posting to the web site that is currently under development". Please explain and respond in a narrative format. KJ: The intent of the style committee is to include all the grievances that were voted to be included according to their percentage of support.
|
|