[statecom] short defense Re: From the Co-Chairs Re: Legal Opinion

Fri May 30 22:48:23 EDT 2008

Grace,
I must remind me that you were the person who in speaking to me  
directly stated that _in 2004_ were the person who insisted that  
pledged delegates were required to continue voting for the candidate  
to whom pledged for as many rounds as the candidate wished them to,  
and could only be released by the candidate to whom they were  
pledged.  You also said that you did this, to make the pledge "more  
meaningful."  It may be that you expressed this reason for the  
presence of that item only in conversation with me.  It also came up  
when we spoke of the fact that indeed at the 2004 convention some of  
the pledged delegates might have changed their vote after the first  
round of voting.  I asserted it, and you denied it, allowing as how  
somebody may have done this but that it was against our rules.  My  
memory of the conversation(s) may be at fault.  But I do have some of  
the e-mails in which you argued the ontological issue, and one in  
which you asserted that I was using an 'operational' definition of  
candidacy.  I did not have Bridgeman in mind, but rather Reichenbach,  
who introduce me to Pierce.

I did not say that you maintained that the I have not maintained that  
the Delegate Selection Plan was fixed at the April Statecom meeting.   
I suggested that by insisting on a change on one detail:  the  
redistribution of 'write-in' candidates among the six candidates on  
the ballot, you spoke as though this would be a proper resolution of  
that problem.  But how could this be a resolution of the problem if  
three of the candidacies were invalid?  Either you could not notice  
the possible implication, or you were simply acting in bad faith.   
(The last term is used as a technical term in discourse analysis, not  
as a pejorative.
Elie Yarden
CDLC

On May 30, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:

> Elie - I am gong to correct only two of the possible errors in this
> representation of myrole:
>
> First, I may work hard but I certainly did not somehow come up with  
> even more
> hours to draft the Delegate Slection Plan _ I did not even have time  
> to
> participate in its re-passage this past fall.
>
> I have not maintained that the Delegate Selection Plan was fixed at  
> the April
> Statecom meeting.
>
> More clarifications perhaps by others - Grace
> In a message dated 5/30/08 9:43:44 PM, yen.yarden at verizon.net writes:
>
>
>> Jim,
>> Thank you,
>> Finally I am able to discuss the references with some one who  
>> actually
>> read them, and can understand what I am saying, and even get some  
>> idea
>> of why I question what was said.
>>
>> Firstly, allow me to be clear that I never expressed the belief that
>> an unoccupied candidacy was owed delegates, had to receive delegates,
>> or that the delegates that were due a withdrawn candidacy for office
>> could be freely distributed at the whim of the AdCom, the CDLC, or  
>> the
>> State Committee.  This completely contradicts my notion of reality.
>> It was rather the drafters of our Delegate Selection Plan, among  
>> them,
>> Grace Ross, Jamie O'Keefe, and others who insisted that this was the
>> chief problem.  And that this problem had been repaired by the last
>> State Committee meeting, while we were out of the room.
>>
>> Secondly, it has always been very clear to me that the choices of
>> voters in our primary, were reflective of the desires of our most
>> important source of growth, those people who chose to vote in our
>> primary.  To dismiss the desires of those who voted for Ball, who
>> remains a Green party member and asked that any delegates due him  
>> vote
>> for McKinney; for Brown, who was the favored candidate of several
>> active party party members -- some, members of my local; and the  
>> large
>> turnout for Nader, is not a direction of party building.
>>
>> Third, I refuse to blind myself to the statements made by members  
>> of A
>> Minority Opinion, that suggest a redistribution of delegates that
>> ignores the delegate selection process agreed to by the party on the
>> ground that the list of candidates was improper in any way, did not
>> meet the requirements of law, etc.   All of these are attempts to
>> nullify the results of the primary.
>>
>> Finally, it has always been obvious that the simplest way of solving
>> the problem of disappeared candidacies is to use the opportunity to
>> strengthen the party by increasing the number of uncommitted
>> delegates.  I yielded to Grace's desire that the number of delegates
>> that might have been assigned to 'write-in' candidates be
>> redistributed among the other options instead of being assigned to
>> 'uncommitted' in good faith, and they were redistributed accordingly.
>>
>> As for the passages cited, you nowhere read that anything is about
>> candidates for a nomination decided by a party convention, and were
>> able to read that it is about candidates for public office decided by
>> voters voting for that office.  I am sure that the lawyer had some
>> reason for citing this, but no one asked him why.  I would have  
>> done so.
>> Elie Yarden
>> MRGRA
>>
>>
>> May 30, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Jim Hammerman wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Elie,
>>> I'm not sure what you mean that the lawyer "must have had much more
>>> to go
>>> on than all the relevant documents". My understanding is that, as he
>>> says,
>>> he read our plan and bylaws, the correspondence between Michelle
>>> Tassinari
>>> and the co-chairs, the withdrawal statements of Brown and Ball and  
>>> the
>>> Independent Candidacy announcement of Nader and, based on his deep
>>> knowledge of and experience with Massachusetts election law,
>>> responded to
>>> the questions he was asked about who is considered a "candidate" for
>>> the
>>> purpose of being allocated delegates, and whether a public
>>> announcement of
>>> withdrawal or independent candidacy can be considered a release of
>>> delegates.
>>>
>>> And he was very clear on both counts--that someone who's withdrawn  
>>> or
>>> announced an independent run is _not_ a candidate who can  
>>> legitimately
>>> receive delegates within our delegate selection plan, and that
>>> withdrawal
>>> also effectively releases any delegates who may have been assigned
>>> from
>>> any obligations to those now "ex-candidates". It seems that the  
>>> voters
>>> should reasonably expect their votes to count towards "legitimate
>>> candidates...standing before the voters as candidates for a  
>>> political
>>> party" and that those who have withdrawn or declared an independent
>>> candidacy don't count as legitimate candidates within the party.  
>>> Given
>>> that, he says a party that assigns delegates to such "ex-candidates"
>>> is at
>>> risk for legal action from party members, other candidates who would
>>> see
>>> such an assignment as unfairly disadvantaging them in their run for
>>> office, and possibly the Commonwealth for fraud. If this is as clear
>>> as
>>> Mr. Rom implies, I don't want us walking down that road.
>>>
>>> By the way, I did read the sections of Massachusetts law he refers  
>>> to.
>>> While they don't speak directly to our situation--and we shouldn't
>>> expect
>>> them to-- they do seem to indicate that parties are quite free to
>>> replace
>>> candidates who have withdrawn or are ineligible or are otherwise
>>> unavailable to serve in the roles for which they were nominated,  
>>> again
>>> suggesting that only legitimate candidates deserve to benefit from  
>>> the
>>> electoral process.
>>>
>>> Best, Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
>>> Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>>> 05/30/08 06:30 PM
>>> Please respond to
>>> State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>> State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
>>> cc
>>>
>>> Subject
>>> Re: [statecom] short defense Re: From the Co-Chairs Re: Legal
>>> Opinion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To have issued the opinion that I read the lawyer must have had much
>>> more to go on than "all of the relevant documents."
>>> I am still waiting to find out from someone who can read better  
>>> than I
>>> am able what the relevance of "Massachusetts
>>> election law, G. L. c. 53, Sections 13, 14 and 15" is to any  
>>> questions
>>> asked of the lawyer in question.  Have any members of the A Minority
>>> Opinion faction read the sections cited?  To what might have the
>>> lawyer been referring.  If I were seeking legal advice in the course
>>> of seeking consensus, I certainly would invite someone of opposing
>>> views to the consultation.  Seeking consensus according to some
>>> proponents includes having access to the same information.  'Seeking
>>> consensus' should never be a cover for intrigues in hegemonic
>>> quarrels.
>>> Elie Yarden
>>> MRGRA
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Merelice wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/26/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The lawyer who issued this opinion had all of the relevant
>>>>> documents (unlike
>>>>> merelice implies- .....
>>>>>
>>>>> The questions sent to the Head of the Elections Divission were
>>>>> *not* in fact
>>>>> agreed to by adcom.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grace has a courteous way of calling me a liar. I stand by my
>>>> comments.
>>>>
>>>> Merelice
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> StateCom mailing list
>>>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> StateCom mailing list
>>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> StateCom mailing list
>>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> StateCom mailing list
>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
> Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
>      (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&amp;
> ?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom