4) While we're all entitled to hold opinions, and to broadcast them --
sometimes ad hominem, sometimes ad nauseum -- via this list and other
fora, no organization is beholden by law to care about them, let alone
actually follow or respond to them.
Don't you see how this stuff gets going? No one who I saw criticizing UCD
ever claimed this legal requirement. Not even a remote suggestion of this!
All the UCD blow hards jump up and down as if they just caught a murder
after the nonsense gets started. I'm sorry you wasted time with this red
herring.
We had a similar strategy emerge recently over my own rather insightful
usage of the word prisoner. Even if some lawyer had shown my usage to not
be used properly and without insight, which didn't occur; it had nothing to
do with the real and intended discussion. It was just an attempt to
distract and confuse the actual points.
Serendipitously, the work of engaging that list distraction helped me
process my understanding of the violations to the 13th amendment since the
courts can not order illegal work yet the probationers had the threat of
incarceration when they worked for UCD.
Once one understands the adversarial pattern that lured you in to this
exchange, it is easy to see. The listserv is not a court of law and
confusing witness strategies are probably not the best way to lead to a
civil community discussion. Maybe, I'm wrong?
Now, we have West calling citizens, "wankers," in his assesment of
"Anglo-Norman jurisprudence." Congratulations to all involved for
impressing Tony.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Axler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Common knowledge, was: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party
information
I've just reviewed this discussion from the point where Al made the
statement quoted below. I don't see any posts in which he provided the
requested citation. If that was done off-list, I hope that it will be
reposted for the benefit of all.
Meanwhile, I'll take the liberty of driving the clue bus into the
neighborhood and unloading some of its passengers:
1) An organization's By-Laws are not the same as its policies and modus
operandi. The latter two are internal and not necessarily documented, let
alone available as a part of the public record.
2) Talking about what is and isn't legally required to be a part of the
public record is relevant. Talking about what is "morally" part of the
public record is a matter of personal opinion, and is really only relevant
if one is making a stand for changes in the legal requirements.
3) As for what is and isn't a matter of public concern, that's also a
purely personal and individual opinion.
4) While we're all entitled to hold opinions, and to broadcast them --
sometimes ad hominem, sometimes ad nauseum -- via this list and other
fora, no organization is beholden by law to care about them, let alone
actually follow or respond to them.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 10:55 pm
Subject: Common knowledge, was: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party
information
What Al said: "1) As a tax-exempt organization, the organization's
policies and modus
operandi are legally and morally a matter of public record and public
concern."
What I said: "Can you share the citation to the law that
makes non profit policies and MO's matters of public record?"
Al then provided the citation of law. Thanks Al. I'll try to look
it up later.
What you said: "I thought it
was common knowledge that non-profit organizations have
to have written by laws with a written purpose filed with the
IRS in order to be recognized and approved." Followed by the lay
person's gem: "Why on earth would you be asking for this
requirement if you are a lawyer?"
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.7/829 - Release Date: 6/2/2007 5:26 PM
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
