Forwarded Message
Subject: |
hearing |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:09:00 +0100 |
From: |
reinhard <reinhard@cacert.org> |
Reply-To: |
|
To: |
Ian G <iang@cacert.org> |
CC: |
Board Private <cacert-board-private@lists.cacert.org> |
Dear Ian,
I have to inform you that the board made a motion <https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20160228.3>
Move to enter the procedure following rule 12 of the statutes of CAcert Inc. to expell Ian G from CAcert Inc
The motion is carried.
Please find attached a letter from board which lists the reasons in more detail.
Board expects that you will give an answer to secretary@cacert.org until
2016-03-20 23:59 UTC.
Kind regards
Reinhard Mutz President of CAcert Inc. in the name of board
Dear Ian Grigg,
in your capacity as a member of CAcert Incorporated, you have been writing a lot of emails up to the conclusion that it is time to do a fork. Board sees this as a persistently and willfully actions in a manner prejudicial to interests of the association as described in our statutes [1] rule 12. Because of this clear breach of our statutes and policies board will expell you from the association. Before this resolution may be confirmed we have to give you an opportunity to lay out in detail your motivation and reasons. Please read the key findings carefully and respond by signed email to secretary@cacrt.org latest until 2016-03-20 23:59 UTC. If you prefer not to answer board will expell you.
Kind regards
Reinhard Mutz, president of Cacert Inc. In the name of board
Key findings and comments
CAcert Incorporated is a partnership of convenience as laid out by its statutes.
Furthermore the relations between members in their capacity of members should follow the principles [2] and policies [3] which have been accepted by all of the membership.
The AGM on 2011-05-08 discussed these matters in regards to a named person, herein named as XYZ, and resolved that
„Publicly making these types of statements without verifying the facts is unacceptable and prejudicial to the association, and cannot be justified by a right of free speech or democratic discussion. By the number of them it cannot be said that they are not willful, especially [] that proves his willfulness to harm the association. Given these facts, the committee can no longer tolerate these types of unsubstantiated statements made by XYZ and sees no alternative than to remove his right of unmoderated access to the mailing lists, and ask him to publicly correct his statements. Should XYZ continue to make unsubstantiated and slanderous statements, either on CAcert mailing lists, or in public mailinglists, we see no alternative other than expelling him from the association.“
The current board confirms that this statement is a guide which is to follow in any discussion between any members of the association. It is not tolerable to accept the making of false and defamatory statements.
In a long lasting discussion about policies and internal affairs of the association Ian Grigg made statements which cannot be proven true. Such statements are found to be false statements and are likely to be seen as defamatory statements.
The board motion <https://community.CAcert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20160228.3> is carried. The motion says, that board is going to expell Ian Grigg from CAcert Inc.
Key Findings:
(The key findings, labelled starting with letter A and ending with letter P, are your own words and displayed in bold letter for better reading.)
A) The Board, and CAcert Inc, has no power to lock out Arbitrators, as obviously if it did, it would. Arbitration would be powerless. The time has come for members to choose. The board? Or the policies and Arbitration? You can't have it both ways.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2015-12/msg00004.html Original email send to: <eva.stoewe@cacert.org>, CAcert Board <cacert-board@lists.cacert.org>, Reinhard Mutz <reinhard@cacert.org>, "Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org" <jbruckner@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Marcus_M=c3=a4ngel?= <inopiae@cacert.org>, Stefan Thode <stefan.thode@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Felix_D=c3=b6rre?= <felix@dogcraft.de>, Ben Ball <bball@cacert.org>, Robert Cruikshank CAcert <robert@cacert.org>, Peter Yuill CAcert <peter@cacert.org>, Martin Gummi <martin.gummi@cacert.org>, CAcert List Members <cacert-members@lists.cacert.org>, cacert-policy@lists.cacert.org, cacert@lists.cacert.org, CAcert Support <support@cacert.org>, Jan Dittberner <jandd@cacert.org>, Mario Lipinski <mario@cacert.org>, cacert-arbitration@lists.cacert.org, Joost Steijlen CAcert <joost.steijlen@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_T=c3=a4nzer?= <michael.taenzer@cacert.org> References: <5667EBAD.40104@cacert.org> <5667EBF4.4060109@cacert.org> <5667F1E3.8010506@cacert.org> <56683CA9.20104@cacert.org> Cc: Alex Robertson <alex-uk@cacert.org>, arbitration archives <arbitration-archives@cacert.org>, cacert-teams@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: These statements negates our statutes and the Association Act of 2009 and might be seen as defamatory statements. The powers of board are described in rule 14 of our statutes. These provisions are in line with the act [4] rule 28(4) and act [5] rule 13. It is true that board suspended 2 arbitrators from their roles as arbitrators temporarily to clarify severe accusations against these arbitrators. Board has the power to appoint arbitrators as written in our wiki-pages. Because of that power board is empowered to suspend arbitrators and to revoke any delegations if required. Ian Grigg send this email to a broader auditorium to split Cacert into at least 2 parts which cannot be seen as a solution in the interests of CAcert Inc or the broader community.
B) There is no permission for the board to conduct a star chamber. This is anathema to our culture.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00013.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Board has never conducted a star chamber. It is true that board setup a committee of investigation to find out and clarify if the interpretations of the matters in question are correctly seen by board. Further more the committee should find out if the behaviour of the 2 arbitrators must be tolerated or not. Such a measurement is another form of an audit procedure.
C) In one filing, Juergen M. Bruckner has destroyed CAcert's arbitration.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00025.html Email send to: Send To: Philipp Dunkel <p.dunkel@cacert.org>, "Juergen M. Bruckner" <jbruckner@cacert.org>, Reinhard Mutz <rmutz@cacert.org>, Werner Dworak <werner.dworak@cacert.org>, Stefan Thode <stefan.thode@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Felix_D=c3=b6rre?= <felix@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Marcus_M=c3=a4ngel?= <inopiae@cacert.org>, CAcert Board <cacert-board@lists.cacert.org> Cc: dirk astrath <dirk@cacert.org>, cacert-arbitration@lists.cacert.org, cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: This statement might be seen as defamatory statement. This statement is wrong and you know this. It is proof true that one of the 2 arbitrators made several claims to threaten members of the board and extends some rulings in favour of herself. This behaviour is a clear breach of our arbitration.
D) By putting Arbitrators into criminal court, CAcert Inc and its board have now breached DRP 2.1 and 3.5 as well.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00029.html Email send to: Philipp Dunkel <p.dunkel@cacert.org>, Werner Dworak <werner.dworak@cacert.org> References: <F7209B68-75CF-4EF8-8CF1-62F6741874F8@cacert.org> <567750CB.5060701@cacert.org> <5677B71B.8000107@gmx.de> <5677BCD8.9070509@cacert.org> <82F55FCA-5573-43D8-848B-0B3BBF25AA26@cacert.org> Cc: Wolfgang Kasulke <wkasulke@gmx.de>, "Juergen M. Bruckner" <jbruckner@cacert.org>, Reinhard Mutz <rmutz@cacert.org>, Stefan Thode <stefan.thode@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Felix_D=c3=b6rre?= <felix@cacert.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Marcus_M=c3=a4ngel?= <inopiae@cacert.org>, CAcert Board <cacert-board@lists.cacert.org>, dirk astrath <dirk@cacert.org>, cacert-arbitration@lists.cacert.org, cacert-members@lists.cacert.or
Comment of board: This statement is wrong and you know this. No arbitrator was put into any criminal court of this world. It is proof true that all members of board gave an answer to email of one arbitrator and appointed some lawyers which would defend us if this arbitrators continues running wild. Please give us the reference of the court file (of a criminal case) that was opened against any arbitrator as board does not have the knowledge about such a case.
E) what is now apparent is that the board of CAcert is in fatal conflict of interest with our Arbitration Forum and our community. We have: attempts to change Arbitration ex-jurisdiction; purported "suspensions" of Arbitrators who are active in cases; unspecified filings in criminal court for unspecified motives; the inclusion of opponents in attacks; running of "star chamber" investigations; shutdown of open disclosure; a belief that Board cannot be controlled by Arbitration; re-interpretations of rulings, etc etc.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00033.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: All statements are false.
F) As the board and CAcert Inc are now creating liabilities and risks for all users by acting against the Arbitration on a concerted, united front, they are acting against the community's interests. It is therefore time for an SGM to replace the board, not only to protect the community, but to protect the members of the committee. We have done this before, once in around 2009, from memory. And in 2007, the board collapsed because of similar conflicts between board and community. We will need: * a demand for an SGM * resolutions * a timetable * a board. If you are happy to help support a call for SGM, please say AYE. We can get to work on a demand for SGM and a set of resolutions.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00035.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Just repeating your false and defamatory statements makes it clear that you persistently and willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to interests of the association. You negate continously the fact that 2 arbitrators are running wild. And you negate our DRP 4.2 „The Disadvantages of this Forum".
G) In other news - the process to call for an SGM to change the board has been started.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2015-12/msg00109.html Email send to: cacert-board@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Although the membership has a statutional right to remove any member from the committee your call is to be seen as a call for splitting up Cacert in parts. This is not in the interests of Cacert.
H) I wouldn't say that "complete disregard" is entirely accurate - they have accepted some things. I wonder if "persistent disrespect" is a better term?
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00056.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: That statement clearly is libel.
I) The board has lost legitimacy since its first meeting, but here is the latest ridiculous thing going on.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-01/msg00010.html Email send to: cacert-board@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Once again, a wrong defamatory statement. You negate completely our statutes and the Association Act of 2009 which both outline the proceedings of an election of the board. This board did nothing else but to follow these procedures.
K) If the members of the secret court are reading these mails - please contact me and I will brief you on the dangerous situation that the board has entered you into.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-01/msg00016.html
Email send to: cacert-board@lists.cacert.org, CC: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: There is no secret court! And there is no dangerous situation that board has entered someone into. Just a warning: Your words may be seen as threatening people.
L) In my recent email to members list, I outlined the 4 elephants I saw in the room. #3 below is that there is no longer any arbitration in effect: So, it seems that people haven't really understood this. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people need to understand. Let me draw it out for you. Sorry, it's long and utterly utterly painful.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-02/msg00000.html Email send to: cacert-board@lists.cacert.org, cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Again you repeat your false statements. Your assumption that "that there is no longer any arbitration in effect" is wrong and leads you to wrong conclusions.
M) The problem is much more difficult than that. There is a herd of elephants crowded into one small room. CAcert is now in deadly embrace. Arbitration is no longer in effect, and cannot stop Board, and CAcert Inc is no longer legitimate, and can no longer act.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00010.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Again same as before. You repeat your false statements.
N) If you doubt arbitration, you doubt CAcert. It doesn't get any simpler.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2016-02/msg00000.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org, cacert@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Not a real substantial statement. If you really want a working arbitration process you should discard all your false statements and help board to correct the current situation which raised based on 2 running wild arbitrators.
O) iang, please note this is not a definitive recording. Nor reliable. I welcome criticism and correction. I especially welcome facts more than I welcome complaints, wailings and grumblings.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2016-02/msg00006.html Email send to: cacert@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: Not a seriously statement. You are liable and accountable for all of your wrong and defamatory statements. You cannot apologize to the effect that your dishonorable writings are null and void.
P) So we're setting up a fork. Either we declare CAcert Inc culpable, in which case it also is terminated before CCA and we have to resolve the corporation and distribute the assets, *or* we declare it innocent, in which case we can carry on. Either way, we have spoken, and the liabilities are therefore solidified one way or another. Without resolving on this point, we may set ourselves up for law suits in the future - the point here is to close off damaging options whichever way we go. Note also that these resolutions aren't binding on arbitration. But they are highly informative. As I say, these are just ideas. Please hack in.
Source: Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-02/msg00009.html Email send to: cacert-members@lists.cacert.org
Comment of board: That is what your writings are all about: Setting up a fork. You may do it without fearing any penalties but you have to leave CAcert before. Immediately and now. Your best choice today is: Leave CAcert voluntarily.
About Defamation:
Defamation
- For a statement to be actionable in defamation that statement must be likely to cause the ordinary, reasonable member of the community to think the less of the Plaintiff or to shun or avoid the Plaintiff or injure that person in his trade, credit or reputation.
- The defamatory statement must be published to a person other than the target of the statement and that person must understand what is being stated.
- The most common instances of defamation are oral or written. If a defamatory matter is communicated orally it is a slander with the exception of television and radio broadcasts which are deemed to be publication in a permanent form. A libel is a defamatory matter communicated in writing and also includes television and radio broadcasts.
[1] http://svn.CAcert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/By-Laws/CAcert-Rules%20of%20Association.pdf [2] http://svn.CAcert.org/CAcert/principles.html [3] https://www.CAcert.org/policy/ [4] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/air2010398 [5] http://portsea.austlii.edu.au/cgi-pit/maketoc.py?skel=/home/www/pit/xml/nsw/act/nswA2009-7_skel.xml&date=