[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] Re: : [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C.RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Jonathan Weinberg a écrit:
> The relationship between a California nonprofit corporation and its
> members is governed in the first instance by the California Nonprofit
> Corporation Law. Whether you (or I) think the law is well-written doesn't
> much matter, and the notion that it would not "stand up to a test in
> federal court" is fanciful.
Look, Mr. Weinberg, you're just wasting your time and my own. If
someone, me for instance, was going to sue ICANN, we wouldn't do it
in a California state court, we'd go to a federal court on the
grounds of diversity jurisdiction, which the federal court would
grant because we aren't in California and because ICANN doesn't
operate in California and because ICANN is an international
organization by definition. So forget about California state
interpretations of California corporation law, okay?
As to the actual complaint, once you see that it can be filed in
federal court then you don't have to narrow it down to a question
merely of an interpretation of the wording of the bylaws, but more
largely, whether those bylaws are applicable, whether they make
sense, whether they conflict with other laws, even federal laws,
constitutional laws, etc.
> Under that law, near as I can tell, the
> proposition that a nonprofit corporation's failure to charge dues somehow
> divests its members of rights is incorrect. In particular, section 5710,
> which covers suits against nonprofit corporations by their members, doesn't
> draw any distinctions between entities that do and don't require members to
> pay dues.
That's one of the things wrong with the statute. The judges in
district court will see that right away. And if they don't, I'd have
the cases to remind them. There are tons of cases that have come up
in federal court between members and their organizations over these
questions, and plenty of decisions favoring my interpretation of the
law, all the law, which is that people who don't pay dues, aren't
specifically included as a class by a definition in the bylaws, and
vote for directors either indirectly or by some undetermined
mechanism, simply aren't members of it legally, or else haven't the
standing to sue it, or not sue it over certain things, like bylaws
changes they haven't voted on. See what I'm getting at? There are
all sorts of federal cases about union members, members of
non-profits, of corporations of this sort and that, and what they
can or can't do, and it doesn't just depend on what the bylaws say,
especially if you've never had a chance to ratify the bylaws, or if
they've been amended without your approval.
Do I really have to go on with this?
> If you have authority to the contrary, I'd be delighted to see it.
Take a walk.
> That's how legal argument works; if you want to convince me that your
> statement is an accurate description of the law, you tell me the legal
> authority supporting it.
I want to convince you of nothing. You're the one who started this
argument, not me.
> I can then assess whether your cases are from the
> right jurisdiction, whether they mean what you think they do, whether
> they're distinguishable, and so on. If you don't want to engage in that
> process, no one can force you. But you should understand that you're not
> going to convince people of the legal correctness of your views by arguing
> "I have legal authority but I won't tell you what it is."
You think I'm going to spell out my case for you here on this list?
Do I seem to you to be a stupid person, Mr. Weinberg? If I do, then
I'd say it was you who were a little...shall we say "insensitive"?
As to peop-le believing me, I suggest to you that people will
believe me if they think my arguments are convincing, whether you
say they are or not.