I must admit that I am perplexed by Jose Izquierdo and his request for "facts not innuendo". There are many times when legal cases are tried based on "circumstantial evidence" because no one saw A kill B or no one witnessed A embezzle money, etc. Had I been present during the deliberations of the Nominating Committee, I could present facts. Since I was not, I can only present circumstantial evidence.
Every lawyer will recognize Lord Hewart's statement from Rex v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, ". it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." There is a logical reason for this. When things are done in secret and there is no justification or explanation given, as in the present case of the Nominating Committee, everything MUST be done in a proper and correct manner. Not only that, according to the maxim, but it should APPEAR that it was done in a proper and correct manner. The Nominating Committee is like Caesar's wife. "Julius Caesar divorced his wife on mere suspicion of adultery. He said that he did not believe her to be guilty, but that "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." This statement has become a proverb to the effect that it is just as important to "seem" innocent of wrongdoing as to "be" innocent, and that sometimes the "appearance" of being involved in wrongdoing can be as damaging - or more damaging - than actually "being" so involved." (quoted from the Internet) Who knows what went on with the Nominating Committee? After all, it was done in secret. That is why it not only has to be above reproach, it also has to appear to be above reproach. And, according to me, it sure doesn't pass the smell test. Now, Jose, can you prove that what they did is all above reproach? Remember, please, we want FACTS, JOSE, NOT INNUENDO! As for the slate, I find the Trustees (some of whom I know, some I have never heard of) to be well chosen. As for the officers, I know several of these people. And I believe that some are well chosen but that others are very sadly lacking. I have no intention of getting into a mud-slinging battle. But these are my opinions. If you want to get into a mud-slinging battle, it will not be with me as I do not believe that this is the proper forum. However, I do believe that Howard Bronstein will not only be a truly good president but it is in large because of him and Ursula Hoffman that the AOS has moved into the 21st Century with regard to the judging program, the awards CD and the registration of awards. Howard S. Ginsberg [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
