Michael, your lack of understanding how the law operates never ceases
to amaze me.
Anyone suing will sue in the court that has the best jurisdiction for
them, and ICANN is most certainly subject to California Law. If the
likelyhood of winning is in State court, they most certainly would
file there.
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:22:06 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jonathan Weinberg a écrit:
>
>> The relationship between a California nonprofit corporation and its
>> members is governed in the first instance by the California Nonprofit
>> Corporation Law. Whether you (or I) think the law is well-written doesn't
>> much matter, and the notion that it would not "stand up to a test in
>> federal court" is fanciful.
>
>Look, Mr. Weinberg, you're just wasting your time and my own. If
>someone, me for instance, was going to sue ICANN, we wouldn't do it
>in a California state court, we'd go to a federal court on the
>grounds of diversity jurisdiction, which the federal court would
>grant because we aren't in California and because ICANN doesn't
>operate in California and because ICANN is an international
>organization by definition. So forget about California state
>interpretations of California corporation law, okay?
>
>As to the actual complaint, once you see that it can be filed in
>federal court then you don't have to narrow it down to a question
>merely of an interpretation of the wording of the bylaws, but more
>largely, whether those bylaws are applicable, whether they make
>sense, whether they conflict with other laws, even federal laws,
>constitutional laws, etc.
>
>> Under that law, near as I can tell, the
>> proposition that a nonprofit corporation's failure to charge dues somehow
>> divests its members of rights is incorrect. In particular, section 5710,
>> which covers suits against nonprofit corporations by their members, doesn't
>> draw any distinctions between entities that do and don't require members to
>> pay dues.
>
>That's one of the things wrong with the statute. The judges in
>district court will see that right away. And if they don't, I'd have
>the cases to remind them. There are tons of cases that have come up
>in federal court between members and their organizations over these
>questions, and plenty of decisions favoring my interpretation of the
>law, all the law, which is that people who don't pay dues, aren't
>specifically included as a class by a definition in the bylaws, and
>vote for directors either indirectly or by some undetermined
>mechanism, simply aren't members of it legally, or else haven't the
>standing to sue it, or not sue it over certain things, like bylaws
>changes they haven't voted on. See what I'm getting at? There are
>all sorts of federal cases about union members, members of
>non-profits, of corporations of this sort and that, and what they
>can or can't do, and it doesn't just depend on what the bylaws say,
>especially if you've never had a chance to ratify the bylaws, or if
>they've been amended without your approval.
>
>Do I really have to go on with this?
>
>> If you have authority to the contrary, I'd be delighted to see it.
>
>Take a walk.
>
>> That's how legal argument works; if you want to convince me that your
>> statement is an accurate description of the law, you tell me the legal
>> authority supporting it.
>
>I want to convince you of nothing. You're the one who started this
>argument, not me.
>
>> I can then assess whether your cases are from the
>> right jurisdiction, whether they mean what you think they do, whether
>> they're distinguishable, and so on. If you don't want to engage in that
>> process, no one can force you. But you should understand that you're not
>> going to convince people of the legal correctness of your views by arguing
>> "I have legal authority but I won't tell you what it is."
>
>You think I'm going to spell out my case for you here on this list?
>Do I seem to you to be a stupid person, Mr. Weinberg? If I do, then
>I'd say it was you who were a little...shall we say "insensitive"?
>
>As to peop-le believing me, I suggest to you that people will
>believe me if they think my arguments are convincing, whether you
>say they are or not.
--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
NSI & Internic news http://www.dso.net/internic/
Intermail.Net and Majik.Net arrived at a settlement.
Details pending at http://www.intermail.net/
