[candidate-development] event! 5/17
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Sun May 11 13:03:01 EDT 2008
John,
I address this note to you very specifically and publicly. (But only
in the sense that all human utterance is public)
I say this because, though I am not altogether prepared to to present
my thinking on the subject, or competent to express whatever remaining
feelings I have concerning the particular incident -- and I do not
wish to risk embarrassing Kat Swift with my presence -- i nevertheless
do believe that depriving others addressed by you of information in my
purview would be highly improper.
The first thing that I found out as the result of the incident that
you describe was, simply, that whatever knowledge i had of the person,
Kat Swift, was woefully inadequate. I have very good ground for
believing that she was not alone in her action. Further, I have been
told by other people (rumor, confirming, and denying) that as part of
the work of getting the Arizona party on the ballot, Kat Swift, Kent
Mesplay, Jesse Johnson, and Cynthia McKinney did volunteer, came to
Phoenix, and met with each other, (over dinner?) one evening and
discussed the presence of Nader's name on the GRP primary ballot, (and
presumably the absence of Johnson's name on the same ballot). They
decided to meet again the following morning, (again, presumably,
without others who might have been present at the first meeting) and
Cynthia McKinney was absent from that meeting. Two of the people
present did send letters to the office of Secretary Galvin, asking his
intervention, Kat Swift, and Jesse Johnson.
We do not know how this came about, and we are ill-equipped to
investigate it.
(Refer to attachments below.)
I had arranged, through his aides, to meet Jesse Johnson at our
Middlesex-Essex convention earlier this year. I met alone with him
alone for about 20 minutes, and since I was there to assist him, I
confined myself to correcting his misapprehensions concerning the
sources of the GRP's failure to place him on the ballot, while he also
confirmed what his situation had been vis-a-vis West Virginia legal
restrictions on his GPUS candidacy (matters of timing). Most of the
time was involved in trying to get him into a less suspicious frame of
mind concerning the possibility of gaining unattached delegates in
Massachusetts. At no time did I attempt to extract information from
him on how his decision to address Secretary Galvin, without getting
in touch with us first, came about. I did review the information that
I had already provided him concerning my telephone conversations with
Pat LaMarche in Maine.
Kat Swift is able to provide us with much information of how the
decision to send these letters came about. There is very little in
the present situation of the GRP, in dealing with the subject of
Delegate apportionment in the decision before the AdCom that is not
influenced by and consequential to the creation of an organized
faction around this question. This will have to be faced sooner or
later, and resolved in a principled manner. At that time, Kat Swift
may choose to be of help. I doubt whether this has much to do with
her intentions in visiting.
The communications appended below may help to understand why I see the
matter as a much larger one than the simple matter of delegate
apportionment that has already been resolved with the assistance of
Dave England, yourself, and Jamie O'Keefe, and awaits final action by
the AdCom. At this moment, I believe, and I say this on behalf of
supporters of Kat Swift as well, that the large numbers of unpledged
delegates that will result, is to the benefit of all voters in our
primary, all remaining and putative candidates, the GRP, and also the
GPUS and its agenda.
Elie Yarden
MRGRA
On May 11, 2008, at 10:13 AM, John Andrews wrote:
> As you may know, Kat Swift filed a document with the Secretary of
> State
> William Galvin asking him to intervene in our Party affairs and
> overturn
> decisions made by the Green-Rainbow Party. She took this hostile
> action
> without discussing her intentions with us. Thereafter she refused
> to talk
> to the GRP officers who had to respond to her filing. I understand
> she said
> she was too busy to talk to us. Now she seems to have time to visit
> Massachusetts to ask us to support her campaign. Would anyone have
> time to
> go to this appearance and express to her our unhappiness with her
> behavior?
> Certainly she needs to explain to us why we should consider her fit
> for
> leadership in our Party.
>
> - John
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
**************************************************************************************************************************
From: JamBoi at Greens.org
Subject: [usgp-nc] No Intentional Dispute Res Process = 'Lord of the
Flies' Naked Political Struggle
Date: May 11, 2008 10:00:18 AM EDT
To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org
My analysis of how the GP-US handles disputes from my point of view as a
political scientist -- the study of how humans organize their governance
activities:
The Utah dispute along with some other key disputes (such as the Black
Caucus, the Women's Caucus disputes, and the Brown v staff & SC) are
crying out for the party to process and resolve peacefully. In the
absence of such processing we will continue to have people from one
faction or another make claims and counterclaims and a naked political
struggle will continue with very negative unintended consequences for
our
party. This is why I bring up the possibility of establishing a
formal
process for factional dispute resolution -- possibly using the model of
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.
I don't agree with Gregg Gerrit and others that assert the answer is
just
to ignore the disputes and take what I'll call 'Action Only" approach.
Comparing each of the disputes this attitude has created a readily
identifiable pattern and dynamic in our Green Parties. We simply
don't **
intentionally / formally ** process disputes at all, and instead
engage in
an informal unintentional ' pattern / process ' that consists of a
primitive political struggle of Insiders vs. Outsiders where the
Insiders
win pretty much every time. Sister and Brothers, this is no way to
run a
Green Party. A Grey Party, maybe, but not a Green Party. It may be
minimally functional but it certainly doesn't represent our Green Values
or build up the Green Parties here in America.
GP-US pattern -- Primitive Political Struggle -- No holds barred mud
wrestling - 'Lord of the Flies'
Morgen D'arc mentioned the role that presentation skills play in this
struggle. Yes, and in parallel the less strategically oriented
Outsiders
attempt to make their grievances heard by e-mail and verbal discussion.
Long, drawn out ugly, acrimonious and disturbing recriminations in the
NC
floow which are treated as sort of a 'distraction' by the 'Action Only'
crowd . The Action Only crowd consists of a number of delegates,
committee members, committee CoChairs and SC CoChairs of the GP-US that
end up being the 'Insiders'.
This dynamic rewards whichever faction that has the closer connections
and
persistence, no matter the virtue or vice of their position and
disrespects the claims, virtues and vices of the more 'outsider' of the
factions. Thus Insider 'winners' with Insider Privilege are created vs.
the forsaken Outsider 'dissenters'. This is why we have some that think
of there being a controlling cabal of 'white males' manipulating the
GP-US. What is really being identified I think are the folks that have
the Action Only attitude who are not necessarily white or male (although
many are and in full disclosure, so am I). Stemming from the truth
that
"The world is run by those that 'Show Up'" these Insiders with the
Action
Only attitude de facto have huge influence over the direction of the
party
. This lends reinforcement to the impression of a cabal of white males
running the GP-US.
My contention is that its not so much an organized cabal, as a
confluence
of Insider Privilege factors and the lack of any formal alternative
dispute resolution process. This is a natural outcome of not
emphasizing
a Rule of Law approach. We end up with a 'Lord of the Flies' mud
wrestling match on one level and the Insiders continuing to control the
commanding heights of the party on another level. Observers from
within
and from without the Green Parties are quite understandably horrified
to
watch the savage viciousness and 'civilized' folks just write us off
as a
viable alternative.
To mature and evolve as Green Parties I believe we need to create an
intentional formal process of dispute resolution for these factional
disputes. Groups with a grievance need a Rule of Law, intentionally
designed way to get it handled. After all if we can not govern
ourselves
in a Green way then why would anyone trust our Green values and our
party
to lead our communities, counties, states and nation?
Green is Intentional!
Drew Johnson
GPCA delegate
On Fri, May 9, 2008 13:35, les evenchick wrote:
>
> --- "Hart, Holly J" <holly-hart at uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>> Les's account is highly erroneous.
>
> I based much of my comments on information provided by
> the Desert Greens themselves.
>
> The basic point is that a dispute arose between two
> factions of the Utah Green party and the SC , if not
> by formal vote, by actions of its then members
> accepted the version of one faction (the desert
> greens) without any review of the conflicting points
> of view.
>
> The Accreditation committee did issue an opinion that
> was never responded to by anyone(According to the
> accreditation committee of the time) - quite possibly
> because very few were even aware that such an opinion
> even existed.
>
> If my comments are erroneous, then it should be shown
> how they are not simply asserted.
>
> Les Evenchick
> Delegate
> Green Party of Louisiana
>
> Les Evenchick
> New Orleans
> piratefish at yahoo.com
********************************************************************************************************************************
From: JamBoi at Greens.org
Subject: Re: [usgp-nc] Fwd: Comments on proposal345 -
LouisianavotingNO/UtahBylaws in force in 2004
Date: May 11, 2008 8:59:23 AM EDT
To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org
Les, small point: I notice within your presentation below you're
assuming
that the GPUT was governed under Robert's Rules of Order. Is that a
valid
assumption? Not all organizations are after all.
Green is Aware!
Drew Johnson
GPCA delegate
On Fri, May 9, 2008 11:41, les evenchick wrote:
>
> Audrey, Below is the full set of documents and links
> from the point of view of the "Desert Greens".
>
> What it all boiled down to is what exactly happened at
> the Council meeting in question.
>
> My contention is that the majority, if not all, the
> participants thought they needed consensus to place a
> candidate on the ballot regardless of how we or they
> might have interpreted the bylaws after the meeting
> took place. I do not have the original correspondence
> i received on this matter due to a computer failure
> some time ago.
>
> The contention that a quorum did not exist by the time
> the meeting made its decisions is irrelevant. once a
> meeting is in progress by Roberts Rules, it acts as if
> a quorum is at hand unless someone asks for a quorum
> count. Apparently noone asked for such a quorum call.
> (this is a key point in whether the council meeting
> decisions were valid).
>
> What is needed is a copy of the original minutes sent
> out. I am sure the Desert greens have a copy of it.
>
> The Desert greens claimed that the minutes of that
> meeting which supported that consensus requirement
> were put out by a 'manipulated person' who later
> retracted what was in the minutes.
>
> That means if we reject the minutes we don't know
> officially what actually happened at the meeting. But
> there is no published corroboration that the minutes
> were incorrect.
>
> In any case, the SC should not have assumed that those
> rejecting the minutes of the Council meeting were
> automaticly correct and the Acreditation committee
> should have investigated the competing claims at the
> time.
>
>> From the Desert greens website:
>
> "Summaries and links to documents are provided below
> each item. For a more extensive online timeline report
> with further detailed supporting documentation, please
> contact Deanna Taylor.
>
> The name "Green Party of Utah" is used extensively
> throughout this document and refers to the now
> registered political party, "Desert Greens". The issue
> of the name change is addressed below. The Desert
> Greens registered political party is the former
> registered political party "Green Party of Utah".
>
> I. Introduction
> The Utah Split - A Summary
> This was written during the time that the GPUT (now
> registered as the "Desert Greens" political party)
> lost ballot access. In late summer of 2005, the
> suspended members of the GPUT completed a ballot
> access petition drive (which they began in April,
> 2005) and submitted their registered name as "Green
> Party of Utah", even though the GPUT had incorporated
> and trademarked. (see itemXXVIII) The Director of
> Elections maintains that the Utah Elections Code
> "remains silent" on the name issue. In February of
> 2006 the GPUT completed its ballot access petiton
> drive (which it began in November of 2004) and was
> forced to choose a new name, therefore. Thus, the name
> "Desert Greens" as our Utah state registered political
> party name.
>
> II. Complaint
> Preface to the Complaint
> Read how the information contained in the complaint
> filed with the GPUS is erroneous and contains
> inconsistencies and contradictions within itself in a
> variety of ways. Refutations are supported by
> documentation contained within this report.
> Read the entire Complaint submitted to the GPUS at the
> Tucson Convention in July, 2006.
> Read the entire Second version of Complaint submitted
> to the NC via email, with added highlights by the
> other group, submitted on August 13, 2006.
> Please refer to the rest of the information in this
> report for refutation to allegations in the complaint.
> NOTE: Read the Desert Greens refutation to the second
> submission.
>
> III. Affiliation with the GPUS
> Affiliation Agreement between the Green Party of Utah
> (now registered as the "Desert Greens" political
> party) and the Green Party of the United States
> Here you will see that Linda Parsons, as
> representative of the Green Party of Utah, signed the
> agreement. Note paragraph 5, highlighted, which states
> what a state's responsibilities are to uphold the
> national presidential nominee. Please reference this
> later in this document.
>
> IV. Green Party of Utah Bylaws
> GPUT Bylaws, July 2002
> These are relevant sections of the bylaws under which
> the party was operating in 2004. Note the highlighted
> sections on decision making and exceptions to
> consensus (including the election of candidates), and
> recall of officers. Please reference this later in
> this document.
>
> V. Green Party of Utah 2003 Convention
> 2003 Convention
> This is the convention which Jo Chamberlain, from
> California, attended. Note which persons were elected
> to office.
>
> VI. Green Party's Policy of Endorsing Green Party
> Member Candidates Only
> June, 2003 Green Party of Utah Council Meeting
> The decision was made at this meeting for the Green
> Party of Utah (now registered as the "Desert Greens"
> political party) to only endorse candidates who are
> members of the Green Party. That item is highlighted.
> Note that in order for the party to deviate from that
> decision, according to the rules of consensus
> decision-making(see bylaws, item IV) under which the
> party was operating, a proposal would have had to been
> made and consented to overturn that decision. No such
> proposal was ever made. (see documents of minutes
> below).
>
> VII. Green Party of Utah's (now registered as the
> "Desert Greens" political party) Practice of Accepting
> Officer Resignations
> December 2003 Council Meeting Minutes
> This is an example of how resignations were (and still
> are) always handled. Please reference this later in
> the document when resignations are addressed.
>
> VIII. Green Party of Utah's (now registered as the
> "Desert Greens" political party) Grassroots
> Instructions to Delegates for Voting in the GPUS 2004
> Presidential Nominating Convention
> May 23, 2004 Council Meeting Minutes
> Based on the survey of all the Green Party of Utah
> (now registered as the "Desert Greens" political
> party) Locals, delegates to the GPUS were given
> instructions on how to vote at the GPUS Presidential
> Nominating Convention in 2004. This item is
> highlighted. It is also important to note that our
> delegates told the council and all locals that the
> voting would take place by IRV. It was later learned
> that the floor rules and procedures had been voted on
> in April 2004 where it was voted to conduct the
> presidential nominee vote in rounds, not IRV.
>
> IX. Green Party of Utah's (now registered as the
> "Desert Greens" political party) Delegation's Voting
> Record
> Voting Record of the three Green Party of Utah's (now
> registered as the "Desert Greens" political party)
> Delegates at the 2004 GPUS Presidential Nominating
> Convention
> Note that the Green Party of Utah (now registered as
> the "Desert Greens" political party) delegates did not
> vote as instructed.
>
> X. Unauthorized Expenditures
> Expenses made by the male Co-Coordinator of the GPUT
> in 2004
> The Green Party of Utah (now registered as the "Desert
> Greens" political party) Male Co-Coordinator wrote
> checks for expenses that were not authorized by the
> council, nor did he report the expenses to our
> treasurer. This is one example of the series of
> negligent acts carried out by this individual.
>
> XI. First Unauthorized Certification of Presidential
> Candidate
> A member of the GPUT suspected that the male
> co-coordinator might certify Ralph Nader as the GPUT's
> presidential candidate, based on behaviors and
> comments from previous meetings. The council had not
> even completed the poll of all the locals and had not
> voted on this issue. This member called the Utah State
> Elections office to see if this had been done and it
> had, even though the council had not consented to
> this. Images of letter:
> Male Co-Coordinator certifies Nader as Utah's
> Presidential Candidate in a unilateral decision.
> Male Co-Coordinator withdraws the unilateral
> certification after much dissent from the GPUT members
>
> XII. Deanna Taylor's Resignation
> Deanna Taylor's letter of resignation was followed by
> a letter rescinding that action.
> The resignation was submitted by Deanna Taylor to
> Jerry Parsons, male co-coordinator. Even though he had
> been negligent in his duties since being elected in
> 2003 (with regards to updating the Elections office
> with newly appointed officers and bylaws updates) he
> submitted Ms. Taylor's resignation to the Elections
> office the day following his receipt of it. This was
> an unprecedented move since the Council always had
> considered resignations and approved and accepted them
> in the past before taking any action. (Please refer to
> item number VII.)
> Deanna Taylor's resignation letter was dated August 3,
> 2005. She submitted a letter rescinding that action on
> August 15, 2005 and later filed that letter with the
> elections office. She was affirmed as party
> co-coordinator in the Emergency Statewide Convention,
> item XVI.
>
> XIII. August 22, 2004 Council Meeting
> This meeting was filled with controversy and
> manipulation of the decision-making process (as
> outlined in the bylaws of the party - see item IV). By
> the time the meeting had ended enough members had left
> out of frustration, leaving a group that did not
> represent a quorum, again as outlined by the bylaws
> under which the party was operating. Item XIV outlines
> why the claim that a "decision" was made at this
> meeting was not legitimate. Additionally, the person
> who later submitted what is claimed as the "notes" for
> this meeting later admitted that she was manipulated
> into submitting those notes. She continued to
> participate with the Green Party of Utah (now
> registered as the Desert Greens Green Party), was
> appointed as female delegate (see item XX) and
> participated in the unanimous affirmation of declaring
> the August 22, 2004 meeting as illegitimate(see item
> XXI).
>
> XIV. Proof of Illegitimacy of August 22, 2004 Council
> Meeting
> Violations
> How the process was manipulated
> Jon Roesler on the August 22, 2004 Council Meeting
> Letter to GPUT attorney on the August 22, 2004 Meeting
>
> XV. Second Unauthorized Certification of Pesidential
> Candidate
> Male Co-Coordinator Certifies "No One" on Utah's Green
> Party of Utah Ballot Line
> This action was taken despite the fact that there was
> no decision by the GPUT council to do this. This was a
> direct violation of the GPUT Bylaws (see item IV) and
> a direct violation of the Affiliation Agreement
> between the GPUT and the GPUS (see item III). As a
> result of this unauthorized action, the voters of
> Utah, as well as our party and the GPUS, were harmed.
>
> XVI. Emergency Statewide Convention
> In accordance with the GPUT Bylaws (see item IV), and
> Emergency Statewide Convention was held to recall the
> male co-coordinator, affirm the female co-coordinator
> and treasurer as GPUT officers, and to affirm David
> Cobb as the GPUT Presidential Candidate. All items
> were voted on and passed by a majority of GPUT
> members. Results are linked below.
> Basis for the Dispute
> Call for Emergency Convention
> Emergency Convention Results
> More documentation available upon request.
>
> XVII. Recognition of GPUT officers by Utah State
> Elections Office
> Since the Director of Elections only corresponds with
> one person, the designated liaison of the party, and
> since Jerry Parsons continued to maintain that he was
> still the designated liaison, the Director of
> Elections refused to comply with the party's request
> to file the list of new officers. The only person,
> therefore, that she would accept communication from
> was Jerry Parsons, the male co-cooridnator who had
> taken unilateral and unauthorized actions (see items
> X, XI, XII, and XV).
> Director of Election's response to recognition of
> emergency convention results
>
> In an effort to have the State Elections Office
> recognize the recall and replacement of our State
> Liaison (so that we could uphold the GPUS Affiliation
> Agreement by placing Cobb on the ballot) the GPUT
> filed suit against the Utah Elections Office. See item
> XXIV for more details about the outcome of that
> lawsuit.
>
> XVIII. State Liaison Resigns
> Jerry Parsons, the only person the Utah State
> Elections Office would correspond with on GPUT
> matters, resigned his status as GPUT State Liaison on
> September 10, 2004, strategically after the dealine
> for certification of presidential candidate for the
> GPUT.
> Image of letter here
>
> XIX. GPUT Secretary Complaint to Elections Office
> GPUT Secretary submits letter of complaint to Utah
> Attorney General's Office
>
> XX. Recall of Delegates
> The GPUT Council held an email meeting whereby a vote
> was taken, in accordance with the GPUT Bylaws (see
> item IV) on the recall of the GPUT Delegates to the
> GPUS. The female delegate was recalled and replaced.
> The male delegate was not recalled and not replaced
> until February, 2005 (see item XXIX).
> Results of recall
> NOTE: The GPUT Bylaws require a 2/3 vote of the
> council to recall an officer. Refer to item IV,
> Bylaws.
>
> XXI. September, 2004 Council
> Highlighted items of minutes meeting minutes..
> This documents decisions made and procedures. Also
> note that the person who had been manipulated into
> sending "minutes" of the August 22, 2004 meeting (who
> later confessed that she had been manipulated into
> doing that) was present at this meeting in her role as
> GPUS Delegate and was part of the unanimous vote to
> declare that meeting of August 22, 2004 invalid.
>
> XXII. GPUT Grievances and Disciplinary Action
> The document linked below is the official grievances
> against five individuals. These grievnaces were issued
> in compliance with the GPUT Bylaws (see item IV).
> Three GPUT members, Jerry Parsons, Linda Parsons, and
> Diana Lee Hirschi, were suspended for the period
> ending January 2006. All individuals were provided the
> chance to respond to the greivances via email and in
> person.
> Please note that Linda Parsons and Diana Lee Hirschi,
> who had been nominated to run for elected office at
> our 2004 Nominating Convention, withdrew from their
> candidacies. This can be verified at the gp.org
> election archives and through Utah State and Salt Lake
> County Elections Results Archives.
> Official Grievance Document sent to every GPUT member
>
> XXIII. Peter Camejo's Assertions
> Peter Camejo of California took it upon himself to
> publish an essay filled with false allegations and
> assertions of GPUT members. Three members responded to
> his assertions:
> Secretary Response
> Treasurer's Response
> A Local Contact's Response
>
> XXIV. Green Party of Utah's Lawsuit Against the Utah
> State Elections Office and Jerry Parsons
> Although a majority of both the Membership and the
> Coordinating Council of the GPUT were comfortable with
> the outcome of the 2004 September Statewide
> Convention/Ballot, the State of Utah’s Elections
> Office was unable to distinguish whether or not this
> was the case. This even though the Secretary is easily
> able to demonstrate the validity of the actions taken
> by the party, eventually the GPUT lost its appeal in
> court to have our candidate on the ballot for
> President. Below are links to the entire set of court
> documents and a text of the Court Decision from Judge
> Henriod, September 17, 2004, upheld by the Utah
> Supreme Court .This Decision was made as a result of
> false evidence being presented. Additionally, this
> Decision does not dictate what the party can or cannot
> recognize within its own operation. The Decision no
> longer applies to the Green Party of Utah since it
> lost ballot access November 22, 2004 and was no longer
> recognized by the Utah Lt. Governor after November
> 2004.
> Entire set of court documents
> Summary of Court Action, written after the party lost
> ballot access
> Cover to Lawsuit Petition: Note the petitioners (Green
> Party of Utah, and others) vs. Gayle McKeachnie, Amy
> Naccarato and Jerry Parsons - not a set of individuals
> vs. the Green Party of Utah as is alleged in the
> complaint against the GPUS.
>
> XXV. 2004 GPUT Candidates
> Despite claims in the Complaint Against the GPUS (see
> item II) that certain individuals had resigned on
> August 22, 2004 (refuted in item II), they continued
> to participate and run for office.
> Please note that out of the original eight candidates
> for public office nominated at our 2004 Nominating
> Convention, two of the individuals who are now
> claiming that others "left the party" themselves
> withdrew their candidacies and refuesed to participate
> in ongoing orgnizational activities.
> The five candidates who completed the election cycle
> were all participants in the Emergency Statewide
> Convention (see item XVI) continued to participate in
> organizational activities.
> See the 2004 list of candidates and election results
> at these links: GPUT Slate of Candidates
> US House State House (singlehouse) results
> State House (multihouse) results
>
> XXVI. Reconciliation
> Reconiliation/Mediation has been attempted on several
> occasions. Each time attempted our party has come
> forth with the results of discussions on the matter.
> And each time the other group has stopped the process
> at that point. It was agreed in Tulsa, 2005 (see item
> XXX) that both parties would begin mediation with the
> GPUS Dispute Resolution Committee. While we followed
> through on our part of that agreement, the other group
> stopped the process and refused to continue.
>
> XXVII. Thefts of GPUT (now registered as the "Desert
> Greens" political party) Website and P.O. Box
> In December of 2004, the GPUT website was stolen by
> Jeff Beardall, who, up until that time, had never been
> seen or heard of. item XXXI).
> In March of 2005, Bob Brister was able to deceive the
> person in whose name the GPUT p.o. box was registered
> (a prior co-coordinator who had left the party in
> 2003) into submitting a letter to put the mailbox in
> his name. See supporting documentation here
>
> XXVIII. Incorporation and Trademark
> The incorporated Green Party of Utah is a Utah state
> domestic non-profit, is not IRS recognized, is not
> tax-exempt and is organized specifically to support
> its registered political party. The GPUT decided to
> incorporate after the theft of the website (see item
> XXVII) when it was learned that the website domain had
> been transferred to the name of Jeff Beardall for the
> "Green Party of Utah, Inc."
> The day that our attorney filed for the GPUT
> Incorporation, he learned that Bob Brister and Jerry
> Parsons had attempted to incorporate the GPUT, but
> were unable to since we had reserved the name.
> Incorporation and Trademark Certificates; Articles of
> Incorporation
> Letter from Attorney with Report of Others Attempting
> to Incorporate
>
> XXIX. Continuing GPUT Council Meetings
> January, 2005
> Includes the replacement of the male delegate to the
> GPUS.
> Other minutes can be furnished upon request.
>
> XXX. GPUS Conventions
> NC Meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma - July 21-24, 2005
> At the start of the Morning Plenary Session on
> Saturday, July 23, Jeff Beardall created a disruption
> and demanded to be seated as the Green Party of Utah
> Delegate. His disturbance ended up wasting about 2
> hours of NC time, resulting in a serious
> reorganization of the business of the NC.
> An account of this can be viewed at Utah Report on
> Tulsa: Day 3 - by Deanna Taylor.
>
> NC Meeting in Tucson, Arizona - July 27-30, 2006
> A year went by without any pursual on the part of Mr.
> Beardall et al to pursue any complaints they may have
> had with the GPUS. It was not until the NC Meeting in
> Tucson this year, 2006, that he and the California
> delegation decided to conduct another surprise
> appearance during the session.
> See the Utah Report on Tucson: Day 3 - by Deanna
> Taylor.
>
> XXXI. Jeff Beardall
> Jeff Beardall has never been involved in the Green
> Party of Utah (now registered as the "Desert Greens"
> political party), confirmed by the party secretary's
> records (the same secretary who was elected at the
> 2003 convention - see item V). Please review all the
> above documents reflecting meetings. Note that Mr.
> Beardall was never in attendance. Please also note the
> membership list in the Emergency Statewide Convention
> Documents in item XVI. In fact, internet documents
> indicate that Mr. Beardall was actively engaged in
> other political endeavors at the time. Additionally,
> in Tucson in 2005 at the NC Committee meeting, Mr.
> Beardall stated that he was "descended from the
> original Green Party of Utah.....since it's inception
> eight years ago." (This statement can be verified by
> referring to the videotape of the Tulsa convention and
> can be obtained from Deanna Taylor or from the office
> in DC). Again, refer to documents contained in this
> report to confirm that Mr. Beardall was never a member
> or participant in any way with the Green Party of Utah
> (now registered as the "Desert Greens" political
> party). Finally, the Green Party of Utah (now
> registered as the "Desert Greens" political party), as
> of 2006, is five years old, refuting the claim of it
> being eight years old.
>
> See supporting documentation: Voter Registration
> Record, 2006. Mr. Beardall registered as a Green on
> July 21, 2005, just prior to coming to the NC meeting
> in Tulsa (July 21-24).
>
> This website is supported by Green Party of UtahTM
> Copyright©2004-2006 Green Party of UtahTM All rights
> reserved. Terms of Use
> Unauthorized use of any material on this website, in
> any form, unless noted otherwise, is prohibited.
> For permission to use material contact Permission
> Request
> P.O. Box 58802, Salt Lake City, UT 84158| 801.502.8556
> | Contact: GPUT
>
>
> Les Evenchick
> New Orleans
> piratefish at yahoo.com
*********************************************************************************************************************
More information about the candidate-development
mailing list