Re: IJA Passions

On Jun 25, 1:17 am, j2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (dave ) wrote:
I haven't listened to that recording in a long time. I'd guess what they
were talking about was my expulsion hearing. I asked that they schedule
that at a time that I could attend, they declined. (I was on holiday doing
this:http://www.ridethelobster.com/)

Which was in their right. If it was that important you could have
attended. The expulsion seems to have been via conference call, If
that's true you really have no excuse for not attending other than you
chose not to. You can't play the victim on that..


I think the IJA must allow me to attend the festival because of the
members vote, but ignoring the membership's vote isn't the only
invalid/inappropriate action I believe the IJA board made in this
"expulsion". I think the IJA bylaws, Roberts Rules, and common decency
convey some rights and protections to members which the board ignored. For
example:

As shown previously, they followed the bylaws/Robert's rules..
Nothing was improper.


* The IJA is required to give me a list of my specific offenses 15 days
prior to my "expulsion hearing" so that I can prepare a defense. Since the
board still hasn't done that (the "charges" were/are too vague) no valid
hearing can have occurred.

Your charges in your lawsuit were equally as vague, if not more. The
specifics would have been presented in the hearing. Just like you
claimed with your court case.

* The IJA declared that I would be limited to only 1 hour to make all my
defenses, call all my witnesses, and ask questions of my accusers. This
was an unrealistic time limitation given the complexity/history of this
case.

It is well within Robert's Rules to limit debate to a certain time
(and a VERY common practice). You could have made a motion to extend
debate.


I think it was obvious that I was being setup for a kangaroo court;
like Phillip DePalo got from the IJA Bosses.

Pure conjecture

* The IJA has a reasonable responsibility to allow me to attend my own
hearing. Scheduling the hearing during a vacation/race that I had been
preparing for months for was not reasonable.

You were not prevented from attending. If it was that important you
could have attended. The expulsion seems to have been via conference
call, If that's true you really have no excuse for not attending other
than you chose not to. Again.. You can't play the victim on that..

* I am allowed an appeal. The IJA sending a notice of when that appeal
would be held to my house when they knew I was in a different country was
in bad faith. The IJA holding the appeal while I was still on my race, was
in bad faith. To effectively stop me from attending/making my appeal was
inappropriate.

Incorrect, Per Robert's rule hearing and "trial" can take place
without the accused in attendance. It is up to the accused to take
the necessary steps to attend if it is important to you.

* I had requested copies and the recording of my hearing (if they did hold
it without me) so I could prepare a defense at the appeal. This request
was ignored.

* I had secured an IJA member to act in my stead if needed (they said I
could do this). The IJA Bosses then took back that offer and said they
didn't have to tell him anything or work with him.

It is usual to allow counsel but not required: (RROO Art XIII Sect
75)

75. Trial of Members of Societies. Every deliberative assembly, having
the right to purify its own body, must therefore have the right to
investigate the character of its members. It can require any of them
to testify in the case, under pain of expulsion if they refuse.

When the charge is against the member's character, it is usually
referred to a committee of investigation or discipline, or to some
standing committee, to report upon. Some societies have standing
committees whose duty it is to report cases for discipline whenever
any are known to them.

In either case, the committee investigates the matter and reports to
the society. This report need not go into details, but should contain
its recommendations as to what action the society should take, and
should usually close with resolutions covering the case, so that there
is no need for any one to offer any additional resolutions upon it.
The ordinary resolutions, where the member is recommended to be
expelled, are (1) to fix the time to which the society shall adjourn;
and (2) to instruct the clerk to cite the member to appear before the
society at this adjourned meeting to show cause why he should not be
expelled, upon the following charges which should then be given.

After charges are preferred against a member, and the assembly has
ordered that he be cited to appear for trial, he is theoretically
under arrest, and is deprived of all the rights of membership until
his case is disposed of. Without his consent no member should be tried
at the same meeting at which the charges are preferred, excepting when
the charges relate to something done at that meeting.

The clerk should send the accused a written notice to appear before
the society at the time appointed, and should at the same time furnish
him with a copy of the charges. A failure to obey the summons is
generally cause enough for summary expulsion.

At the appointed meeting what may be called the trial takes place.
Frequently the only evidence required against the member is the report
of the committee. After it has been read and any additional evidence
offered that the committee may see fit to introduce, the accused
should be allowed to make an explanation and introduce witnesses, if
he so desires. Either party should be allowed to cross-examine the
other's witnesses and introduce rebutting testimony. When the evidence
is all in, the accused should retire from the room, and the society
deliberate upon the question, and finally act by a vote upon the
question of expulsion, or other punishment proposed. No member should
be expelled by less than a two-thirds1 vote, a quorum voting. The vote
should be by ballot, except by general consent. The members of the
committee preferring the charges vote the same as other members.

In acting upon the case, it must be borne in mind that there is a vast
distinction between the evidence necessary to convict in a civil court
and that required to convict in an ordinary society or ecclesiastical
body. A notorious pickpocket could not even be arrested, much less
convicted by a civil court, simply on the ground of being commonly
known as a pickpocket; while such evidence would convict and expel him
from any ordinary society.

The moral conviction of the truth of the charge is all that is
necessary in an ecclesiastical or other deliberative body to find the
accused guilty of the charges.

If the trial is liable to be long and troublesome, or of a very
delicate nature, the member is frequently cited to appear before a
committee, instead of the society, for trial. In this case the
committee reports to the society the result of its trial of the case,
with resolutions covering the punishment which it recommends the
society to adopt. When the committee's report is read, the accused
should be permitted to make his statement of the case, the committee
being allowed to reply. The accused then retires from the room, and
the society acts upon the resolutions submitted by the committee. The
members of the committee should vote upon the case the same as other
members.

If the accused wishes counsel at his trial, it is usual to allow it,
provided the counsel is a member of the society in good standing.
Should the counsel be guilty of improper conduct during the trial, the
society can refuse to hear him, and can also punish him.


--
In summary there are many reasons to question whether my "expulsion" was
valid. Lack of cause and lack of due process both probably invalidate it.

As noted above, the fact that you did not appear (call in) for your
hearing was actually reason enough for your summary expulsion. Due
process per the bylaws and Robert's Rules were followed. You really
have no complaint.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MAJOR JUGGLING CONSPIRACY EXPOSED!!!
    ... If the procedures were followewd correctly it really is up to JUST the BOD ... to determine if there was cause for your expulsion (at least as I ... "Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the ... "If a member is expelled, the society has the right to ...
    (rec.juggling)
  • Re: Royal Asiatic Society
    ... Nonresident Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, ... Article XXI.—The Council may propose for election as a Corresponding ... election, whether a Resident, Non-resident, Foreign, or Corresponding ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Why do IEEE and ACM act against the interests of scholars?
    ... A member has access to the journals of the societies for which they've ... the society you think most relevant may not give you access to key ... them if you have a membership in the Signal Processing society. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: When is a Quaker a Quaker?
    ... If a member of the Society of Clowns claims that only ... members of its organization are clowns, am I a fraud if I ... > off as Quaker when you are not such a member, ... Setting aside dictionaries as the arbiter of truth, ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: IJA Passions
    ... The IJA is required to give me a list of my specific offenses 15 days ... prior to my "expulsion hearing" so that I can prepare a defense. ... where the member is recommended to be ... upon the following charges which should then be given. ...
    (rec.juggling)