This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Einstein on 31 October 2010 - 00:10
CMass,
"Hey" is not a saluation. But I will bypass it. And my last name is Einstein; attention to details matters. Something that the organization and particular members and officers need to work on.
""Hey Einstien......it was investigated and a decision was made"
The investigation was not complete nor thorough. Take time to peruse the link. The BOI refused to make a decision. They could not, as it would identify that USCA has been not following the bylaws, per law. Just because someone ignores the law for years does not condone the behaviour. Since the fox was in charge of the henhouse investigation, do you really think they would fine themselves guilty or in error? That is very naive of you.
Per Missouri law, the organization is legally bound to follow the posted bypaws. USCA did not, in this identified situation. If your statement is true, where are the subsequent bylaws that could identify where the entire sentence was deleted? Since the officers were constantly reviewing the bylaws, they should have caught the omission. Why do you think the reaction to the BOI charge was to create a bylaw amendment for the Directors at large to vote?
You approve of your organizations' officers illegal actions. Based on your above statement, that is clear.
I would think that your focus would be on the organization following the same bylaws that they are demanding and forcing the members to do.
"Hey" is not a saluation. But I will bypass it. And my last name is Einstein; attention to details matters. Something that the organization and particular members and officers need to work on.
""Hey Einstien......it was investigated and a decision was made"
The investigation was not complete nor thorough. Take time to peruse the link. The BOI refused to make a decision. They could not, as it would identify that USCA has been not following the bylaws, per law. Just because someone ignores the law for years does not condone the behaviour. Since the fox was in charge of the henhouse investigation, do you really think they would fine themselves guilty or in error? That is very naive of you.
Per Missouri law, the organization is legally bound to follow the posted bypaws. USCA did not, in this identified situation. If your statement is true, where are the subsequent bylaws that could identify where the entire sentence was deleted? Since the officers were constantly reviewing the bylaws, they should have caught the omission. Why do you think the reaction to the BOI charge was to create a bylaw amendment for the Directors at large to vote?
You approve of your organizations' officers illegal actions. Based on your above statement, that is clear.
I would think that your focus would be on the organization following the same bylaws that they are demanding and forcing the members to do.
by CMassGSD on 31 October 2010 - 01:10
Because YOU didn't agree with the outcome does not mean it neither complete or thorough!And I do AGREE with the Organization's legal team as well as an Independent Parliamentarian! The bylaws that were written in 1987 and posted in the magazine says Directors at Large CAN vote!! And all the minutes of every meeting after NEVER shows were the bylaws were changed by 2/3 of the GBM that Directors at Large could NOT vote!! If you are so opposed to the Club.......why do you stay?? If you are so unhappy..........WDA is your other option! You and Matt can help fix all their problems!
by Einstein on 31 October 2010 - 01:10
CMass,
I am not sure what you are whining about and flailing about to attempt to distract. Answer the question.
Are you stating that that USCA, their legal team and supposed Parliamentarian (excellent cut and paste, by the way) are in opposing views to Missouri state law? That they approve of the illegal actions, per state law?
I will attempt to use one syllable words and give the sentence space.
IT IS ILL E GAL. I had to divide that last one for you.
It is the bylaws that drive the legality. Please have the people that are emailing, texting, telephoning, sending signals fires to you to read the law that USCA is legally bound to follow.
The posted bylaws are what counts. If the deletion of the ability to vote was identified by the crack legal team and officers of USCA, it had to be re-introduced into the bylaws through a proposed amendment.
Reaction = that is what Cottrell is attempting to do.
Read before you speak. Although you are miminally entertaining, you are verging on the edge of insipidity. Look it up.
I am not sure what you are whining about and flailing about to attempt to distract. Answer the question.
Are you stating that that USCA, their legal team and supposed Parliamentarian (excellent cut and paste, by the way) are in opposing views to Missouri state law? That they approve of the illegal actions, per state law?
I will attempt to use one syllable words and give the sentence space.
IT IS ILL E GAL. I had to divide that last one for you.
It is the bylaws that drive the legality. Please have the people that are emailing, texting, telephoning, sending signals fires to you to read the law that USCA is legally bound to follow.
The posted bylaws are what counts. If the deletion of the ability to vote was identified by the crack legal team and officers of USCA, it had to be re-introduced into the bylaws through a proposed amendment.
Reaction = that is what Cottrell is attempting to do.
Read before you speak. Although you are miminally entertaining, you are verging on the edge of insipidity. Look it up.
by RatPackKing on 31 October 2010 - 01:10
The more I read your posts, the more I like you. Oh ya, I agree 100%
RPK
RPK
by CMassGSD on 31 October 2010 - 01:10
Einstien.....It is YOU and all of you GrassHOLES who are doing the whining!! Now cut and paste this........ You all fought the law and the law won!! Good luck getting a 2/3 majority to change the bylaw! It WILL NOT happen! So as of next week all of you whiners will go away!! Keep training via the internet!!
by RatPackKing on 31 October 2010 - 01:10
Thanks again CMass. I now know why I left USA
Not sure why this offends the Mods..........oh well
Not sure why this offends the Mods..........oh well
by Einstein on 31 October 2010 - 01:10
CMass,
The law was broken by USCA; it did not win. You apparently have difficulty following a docucumented trail of legal statements, as do a few other people in USCA. Did you even read the Missouri law? If you read it, did you comprehend it?
I will again to bring it down to a simplified level. Let me know if I am too high up for you.
The posted bylaws did not include Directors at large to vote
The Directors at large voted.
USCA broke the law.
Member caught the act.
Member filed BOI.
BOI and EB did not find themselves guilty.
You agree with the illegal act.
Simplistic enough?
The law was broken by USCA; it did not win. You apparently have difficulty following a docucumented trail of legal statements, as do a few other people in USCA. Did you even read the Missouri law? If you read it, did you comprehend it?
I will again to bring it down to a simplified level. Let me know if I am too high up for you.
The posted bylaws did not include Directors at large to vote
The Directors at large voted.
USCA broke the law.
Member caught the act.
Member filed BOI.
BOI and EB did not find themselves guilty.
You agree with the illegal act.
Simplistic enough?
by Bob McKown on 01 November 2010 - 11:11
Einstein:
If your so sure Missouri law was broken then I,d think the simplest thing and most direct to the point action would be for you and the opposition to file charges in Missouri court of law there you would not have to deal with any "good ole boys" and you would be vindicated.
But instead you keep drilling your knowledge of law on a web site and not taking advantage of your obvious talent of litigation?. If I were so sure that it was a slam dunk as you do I,d be there in a heart beat.
by judron55 on 01 November 2010 - 14:11
they are talking loud and saying nothing Bob....
by Einstein on 02 November 2010 - 00:11
"they are talking loud and saying nothing Bob...."
judron55.
Blather is what you are expelling. Trivial nonsense. Based on a high level review of your posts on this board, that is the norm for you.
"If your so sure Missouri law was broken then I,d think the simplest thing and most direct to the point action would be for you and the opposition to file charges in Missouri court of law there you would not have to deal with any "good ole boys" and you would be vindicated.
But instead you keep drilling your knowledge of law on a web site and not taking advantage of your obvious talent of litigation?. If I were so sure that it was a slam dunk as you do I,d be there in a heart beat."
Bob Mckown,
This is a case study. What opposition are you referring to? What member? As stated prior, I am not a member. Based on your recommendation, you are stating that a USCA dues paying member (s) that has identified an illegal act, followed due process within the organization needs to file a lawsuit? The organization would then respond with their lawyers, paid by dues paying members.
No, Bob McKown, you would not be there in a heart beat. You and the others that have not read the Missouri law, did not read prior documenation, condone the illegal actions by the organizations officers.
I will repeat the very basic facts.
The posted bylaws did not include Directors at large to vote
The Directors at large voted.
USCA broke the law.
Member caught the act.
Member filed BOI.
BOI and EB did not find themselves guilty.
You agree with the illegal act.
Simplistic enough?
judron55.
Blather is what you are expelling. Trivial nonsense. Based on a high level review of your posts on this board, that is the norm for you.
"If your so sure Missouri law was broken then I,d think the simplest thing and most direct to the point action would be for you and the opposition to file charges in Missouri court of law there you would not have to deal with any "good ole boys" and you would be vindicated.
But instead you keep drilling your knowledge of law on a web site and not taking advantage of your obvious talent of litigation?. If I were so sure that it was a slam dunk as you do I,d be there in a heart beat."
Bob Mckown,
This is a case study. What opposition are you referring to? What member? As stated prior, I am not a member. Based on your recommendation, you are stating that a USCA dues paying member (s) that has identified an illegal act, followed due process within the organization needs to file a lawsuit? The organization would then respond with their lawyers, paid by dues paying members.
No, Bob McKown, you would not be there in a heart beat. You and the others that have not read the Missouri law, did not read prior documenation, condone the illegal actions by the organizations officers.
I will repeat the very basic facts.
The posted bylaws did not include Directors at large to vote
The Directors at large voted.
USCA broke the law.
Member caught the act.
Member filed BOI.
BOI and EB did not find themselves guilty.
You agree with the illegal act.
Simplistic enough?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top