William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> 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.
Who's talking about ICANN suing? Can't you read English any more?
Geez, you're really falling into limbo, Billy. Try to pull yourself
together, will ya?
> 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/
