GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005  (Read 5071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gunnar

  • Guest
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #10 on: Thu, Jun 02, 2005, 02:55 »

On an (additional) remark, how can the so-called "elected" officals inform the public, if the PC witheld the information? Only very few information about the matters have been given to the Assembly. Whatever.

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #9 on: Sun, May 29, 2005, 04:30 »

I read elsewhere today that a new round of "titles" was dispensed by the dear GLK? Seems that that is all some people are interested in over there, no? What good is a title with nothing to back it up with? After all, 100% of 0 is still 0, and what good is 0% of anything?
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #8 on: Wed, May 18, 2005, 06:53 »

Well, I wish the GLK the best, despite I have my doubts... However, Jon kept his word and my money was finally refunded - a first step to a transparent financial policy? We will see. :)
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #7 on: Sun, May 08, 2005, 17:58 »

Hi. Reading this entire thread makes it apparent that the GLK has descended into bickering, squabbling, power struggles and all the "high fag drama" I so bitterly oppose and see as detrimental and obstructionist in actually getting anything of true consequence done! That's where we should always strive to be above and better than... if before anything tangible has even been achieved, an entire project gets mired in all this unnecessary, ridiculous melodrama, it will just be a waste of time, effort and money. 

Go, GLR, go!

To any GLKers reading this: Stop wasting your time over there and come and join our group instead.  Aren't you all tired of this ridiculous pomposity and all the games being played over there? 

This is why the GLBT people of the world, as a group, have such a bad reputation among the rest of the world's population; we cannot (in their eyes) get anything done without sideshows, screaming matches, melodrama and silly power struggles, as well as frou-frou titles ("His Imperial Majesty" my ass!) and window dressing that does nothing but make their entire organization look like the ridiculous mess it is.

Good luck, GLK - I'd say "stick a fork in it, it's done!" Now let's begin building a true GLBT nation - the GLR!
« Last Edit: Sun, May 08, 2005, 18:00 by Vizier »
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #6 on: Mon, May 02, 2005, 20:23 »

Well,as the below communication was not intended to be read by my eyes primarily, I will not comment it widely. However, I cannot restrain one remark: it would be prudent when Jon and other members of the PC would use their energy for the purpose to make the GLK a democratic country and not only let it look like one.

Vicky


this is in response to a email I recieved from Jon Matlick, and several others as well
[...]
Based on past events, posts to the yahoo group by PC members and the reactions and the replies thereto I feel it would be prudent to adopt a policy for the PC similar to the one Dale uses and not get involved in the political discussions of the group. The Privy Council needs to portray accurately its role as advisors, not portray an image that is being perceived as policy makers. To that end I think it would be prudent to allow elected officials to reply to posts in the group, such as the sequence below. I understand the urge to offer an immediate reply, but it is reasonable for it to take 24 hours or so for a reply to be posted and that is sufficient time to allow the ELECTED OFFCIALS to reply. With replies from the ELECTED OFFICIALS people will get a better feeling that this is a democratic country and the perception of an absolute monarchy/dictortorship/totalitarian system will dissapate. Right or wrong, there are too many people who perceive the PC as the absolute power/policy makers of the Kingdom and this is not an image we want to portray.

Respectfully,

Jon
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

donClark

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 36
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #5 on: Mon, May 02, 2005, 19:17 »

this is in response to a email I recieved from Jon Matlick, and several others as well,

Just read you'll understand


Dear Don,

 

Thanks for your reply and your concern about my e-mail address, although as a PC member and LP my e-mail address has been made public on many occasions. I use that address only for GLK messages anyhow, I have a different one for personal and professional e-mail.

As Chris sent the e-mail from your address and with your name displayed – not wyn_chrs – and did not sign the message, I had no way of knowing that it did not come from you. If you took offense to my asking how you got the e-mail, I apologize. It was not meant to offend but simply to elicit an explanation. Thanks for explaining.

I’m happy to hear that you have no anger towards us and rest assured that I have none toward you or anyone else working on forming an alternative to the GLK. I wish anyone working toward the goal of making this a better world for GLTB people all the success in the world.

Although I respect the right of one and all to participate in our group and/or form alternative groups, I can’t help but wonder why, although there is certainly work being done for the future, so much of what is posted at the GLR forum is about the GLK and the past. If you (as a group, not you personally) have moved on, what does it matter? I try to live in the present, looking toward the future. It seems to me that the GLR forum rehashes the past to a great extent. The past cannot be changed, so why not leave it at that?

I hope this message finds you in the best health that can be expected given the circumstances and I also would like to wish you and Chris a happy anniversary and Bon Voyage. It sounds like a marvelous trip you have planned.

 

Warm regards,

Jon

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Clark II [mailto:Donclarkii@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:22 PM
To: Jon Matlick
Subject: Fw: Group message handling

 

Dear Jon,

 

I have included the way I got your email it was sent to me by Karress, I am not the person making the statement though it was Chris, my partner, he wanted to only send his request to the gaykingdom group only, I asked him to send it to you as well, to be kind, and to let you know what he was asking, exspecially since the e-mail he was quoting was sent to me.  The group and you were the only people that the email was sent to, I had him do it that way so YOUR PERSONAL E-MAIL WOULD BE PROTECTED, I have no anger towards you guys, I just disagree with the form of government, so I moved on  I think of you guys as friends. I have nothing to hide.  Please respond.

 

DOn 

 

Dear Don,

 

Since you were kind enough to send this to my personal e-mail address I will return the favor and reply in like manner to your personal e-mail address. Since you also posted this in the public forum I feel free to Cc my reply to other people, in addition to yourself.

 

While I would never deny you the right to be here, I have to wonder why you care whether the GLK is this or that form of government. You say you have left the kingdom and the group and you want nothing to do with us and yet here you are again. I also do not care that you have seen my e-mail message. I have nothing to hide. It is interesting that you have this message, though. I am certain that neither I, nor any of the people it was addressed to, forwarded it to you so it begs the question as to what methods you used to obtain it, doesn’t it now? Additionally, you make arguments for democracy and transparency yet you block the people you send this e-mail to and display “Undisclosed-Recipient:” . What is it that YOU are hiding?

 

Respectfully,

Jon

Donald W Clark II

 

DonClarkII@yahoo.com


 

Based on past events, posts to the yahoo group by PC members and the reactions and the replies thereto I feel it would be prudent to adopt a policy for the PC similar to the one Dale uses and not get involved in the political discussions of the group. The Privy Council needs to portray accurately its role as advisors, not portray an image that is being perceived as policy makers. To that end I think it would be prudent to allow elected officials to reply to posts in the group, such as the sequence below. I understand the urge to offer an immediate reply, but it is reasonable for it to take 24 hours or so for a reply to be posted and that is sufficient time to allow the ELECTED OFFCIALS to reply. With replies from the ELECTED OFFICIALS people will get a better feeling that this is a democratic country and the perception of an absolute monarchy/dictortorship/totalitarian system will dissapate. Right or wrong, there are too many people who perceive the PC as the absolute power/policy makers of the Kingdom and this is not an image we want to portray.

 

Respectfully,

Jon

 

 

Yet the thing that Bill, has neglegted to tell you is that our Monarcarch is really one in name only, and that Bill is really the leader and what he says goes. 

and one point Bill, England is more of a republic tehn you think, Tony Blair is the leader and he signs in laws, etc, yes they have a monarch, but really I have doubts about this not bieng a dictatorship with Bill as its Leader 

 

 

Chris

« Last Edit: Mon, May 02, 2005, 21:31 by donClark »

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #4 on: Mon, May 02, 2005, 19:06 »

Well, it is a bit confusing to quote from a letter of a different person which I posted by myselfe, but I would like not let some passages without comment.

There is a bank account existing? Nobody told us this before... Thogh I have no idea what the form "SS-4" is, an information about the name and the seat of the bank would be really interesting. What is the IBAN-account number so I can look for it? And, please, what is the official status of the "Gay Kingdom of the Coral Sea" in the United States? A recognized state, a commercial firm, a NGO or a private association? All these important informations stay nebulous and "privy". Why? Also this is not correct, that nobody ever has asked the PC for more transparency. I remember having asked Bill in the GLK Yahoo-group to tell us how much money and for what purpose was spent. The answer was rather less informative, as kept in very generall terms. Any balances or documents were not presented.

Jon has written:
Also, the fact of the matter is, that there is a proper bank account in the name of the High Court of the Gay Kingdom in the state of Alabama, Form SS-4 has been properly filed with the United States Internal Revenue Service and the bank statements showing what has been deposited and what has been withdrawn and to whom such checks were made out to exists and had anyone ever asked they could have been cheerfully provided.

Indeed, I would like to get my money back. I sent 50 USD, from this sum 9 were spent by Bill for postage, so there are 41 USD left. As at the website of the "High court of the GLK" is stated, that once the money is paid, it would be not refunded, I considered the money as lost. If you, however, as acting Lord Protector have any power to make regulations on this matter, I would appreciate to get my money back. Whoever will take care of this matter, is within the competency of the GLK. I paid my money to Bill, and this would be rather fair that he personally, and not the assembly or somebody else, would refund my money. With 41 USD on our account we can maintain our web presence for about a half a year!

Jon has written:
Although, in my opinion, whatever fees you paid should be refunded. Perhaps, if you requested this refund of the elected officials they would vote to do so.
« Last Edit: Mon, May 02, 2005, 19:20 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #3 on: Mon, May 02, 2005, 18:42 »

Jon responded to my reply and sent me a PDF-File with his additionals comments. Below you will find his comments as plain text and the passages of my letter in the citation box. Citations from other people are represented in blue color.

                                                                                  * * *

Dear friend,
this your statement is highly appreciated and is suitable to make the picture complete. If you have
read my posts in the GLR forum, you certainly have noticed, that I do not spare with critics on Jaix and other legislators as well. Aspecially I critisezed their being reluctant to try and change the system by following the formal proceedures. I advised them to be smart, they were not, by reacting on certain provocations.
But you will have to admit, that Privy Council strongly hindered the work of the parliament because
it disagreed with its policy. Yes, due to the GLK Act 2004 there exists a passage about making meetings on the first Monday of each month, that's true. But there also exists a passage that the Emperor (or you as Lord Protector in his place), HAVE TO call for a meeting, if a certain number of the assembly demands this from him.
The exact wording is:
***************************************************
Division 2-Procedure of Legislative Assembly
(1) The Legislative Assembly shall meet on the first Monday of each month.
(2) The Emperor shall convene the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly after a general election of that Assembly and thereafter shall convene a meeting of that Assembly whenever requested
to do so by such number of members of that Assembly as is prescribed by enactment.
(3) The Emperor may convene a meeting of the Legislative Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it is necessary to do so. by notice published in the Fairytales Government Gayzette.
***************************************************
Though I didn't find an exact statement about the number of legislators required to enforce HIM to call for a meeting, on a similiar passage about the Executive Commitee there was a talk of 3 people. As you can see, the GLK Act 2004 gives you (as you are acting legally instesd of Dale) the freedom to call for a meeting when the Assembly members ask you to do so, you just had to show a little bit more good will. Even more, you ARE in duty to call for the said meeting, if they demand this from you.
I am indeed familiar with this section of the ACT and IF Jaix had ever sent me an e-mail or asked me even in an IM message to call a meeting because x-number of legislators requested it I would have been happy to do so. I, however, NEVER received such a request. This is again an example of Jaix disagreeing with the requirement to do so and therefore he chose NOT to do so but instead complain when he could not accomplish what he said he wanted to.
You cannot tell me that the PC was NOT seeking the confrontation, as the said statement from Dale (written by whom?) was issued just a couple of days BEFORE the said meeting for the Assembly. This was a clear Coup'd Etat, not in the wording of the law, but in its intents and sense. There was no reason not to wait the said 2 or 3 days and ask the Assembly what it thinks about Dale's plans. No, the Assembly was ignored on purpose.

Generally, I have not received A SINGLE statement for many of my concrete allegations and critics. OK, you are a friendly quy and at least are trying to present your view of the happenings, but the usual answer to every critic from the GLK's officials is an icy silence or open hostility. Enrique, for example, answered all critics on Bill with a remark, that Bill is his friend and if I ever regarded him (Enrique) as a friend, I should stop critisise him. Is this a way to deal with serious critics? Yes, I called Bill and Dale to be liars in a private letter to Bill because of some reasons, and Dale's statement proved I was right. But no one sems to care, indeed from BILL no excuses were published, just absolutely NO COMMENTS. No statements that he and others PC members knew about the matter but preferred to keep this knowledge for themselves.
I was not a member of the PC when the discovery of the false pictures, etc was made and I cannot say what their thought process was in not disclosing the information. Ron (Feral) was on the PC at that time, perhaps he could say why he and his partner Kyle who was LP at the time
along with Kai and Joe and Bill chose not to disclose.
Once I was on the PC our decision was to present the facts as we knew them to the President and Deputy President, once elected, and let them and their assembly decide if, what and/or how to disclose. However as I previously said, Jaix refused to receive the information. Do you think
it was wrong to defer this decision to the elected officials? As Jaix not only refused to receive the documents but also did not tell his legislators that the offer had even been made, it was Dale's decision, with the advice of the PC, to publish what he did in the Gayzette. Had Jaix been co-operative this never would have been necessary.
All this shows how less sensitiv the PC members are handling the matters of law and truth.
As to make you an example, I demonstrate this on the simple examples of resignations. Kai Seay was fired and declared that she resigned. Joe Grande's resignation was accepted and officially published (100% sure), he was NEVER re-appointed again, instead a wrong statement was published that his resignation was not accepted.
Again, I was not a member of the PC that made these decisions and therefore all I can officially say is "No Comment".
Beatrice tried to resign several times but this was not accepted because she seemed to be usefull.
Beatrice did ask to resign, and after communicating with a number of people, she decided to withdraw her resignation. Jaix was one of the people in favor of keeping her on board.
Gunnar didn't send you a FORMAL written resignation, and still you accepted it without further questioning, despite the GLK Act 2004 is pretty explicit on that topic. I do not blame you really, as he WANTED to resigne, but the proceedings were not fulfilled in accordiance withe the law. You see what I mean? Everytime whe the law is serving the interests of Bill or the PC, you guys are quick to cite it. But in cases the law is contrary to your interests, you gently oversee it. Please understand me right: psychologically it can be understood, but as person in charge you shall protect the law even if it does serve your opponent rather than you.
While Gunnar had not yet sent in a "formal" resignation when I accepted it, he did, and I quote, say "Finally, and for the official records of the gay kingdom: I resign from my post as a member of the legislative Assembly."
This he said in a PUBLIC forum and "for the official records of the gay kingdom" so I do not think that there was anything wrong in accepting the resignation at that time.
I regard you as a man of principles and aknowledge the simple fact, that from your point of view things are looking a bit different. This is NATURAL and this is the reason why this things have to be DISCUSSED, that's the reason for democracy being a better choice than absolute monarchy or a one-party system. The Privy Council tries to regulate things "privately", without letting the public know what is going on and about what topics different opinions are existing. This is foolish and extremely contra-productive.
The system is what it is, until it is changed. The fact of the matter is that the word "privy" by definition means "1 a : PRIVATE, WITHDRAWN b : SECRET" and the term "Privy Council" by definition means "1 : a secret or private council" It is the job of the elected officials to inform the public, the
internal workings of the Privy Council are just those, internal and privy. I am not making a judgment as to whether this is as it should be or not, but this is the way the system is currently set up.
As to my critics, pease take into consideration that I am not a neutral journalist but a person involved into the process and I have my opinions about acters involved and how things could be done better (in my view, of course). If you think certain statements are incorrect, especially those about what happened when and who was violating the law at what occasion, it is your right and duty to take position and report your point of view. This has nothing to do with being a "pissing match", this is a normal process of a democratic discussion. People WANT to know, what is
going on and they WANT to decide by THEMESELVES, what opinion is right or wrong. The broad mass can not read the thougts of those in power, and if you fail to communicate you must not wonder that people get suspicious. Especially if the government makes decisions contrary to the will of the people, the government is well-advised to explain its behavior extensely and should let the people decide, whether they prefer to keep the government or to elect a new one. But at THIS point many from the PC, and parts of the new assembly too, will probably strongly disagree with me. Because these guys consider themselves as especially well-informed and educated, whereas the rest of the people are dumb "mob", though with university degrees and certain experience in politics, economy and science. 
What I mean by "pissing contest" is simply that this can and would drag out forever in a he said / he said "discussion". For example, Don states in the GLR forum
"The investigation commitiee was more then just looking into the fake pictures we wanted answers about where the money people were sending in was going, who had access to it, and what it was spent on, we wanted answers about wheter there was a "dale" because some of us had a phone number for him that was sent to us by him "supposedly" but the phone number did not work and the country code was not even a real country code, so you see I think this was the real reason for Bill and other members of the privy to get uncomfortable"
Actually, the investigation committee, as the assembly tried to configure it, was to investigate the historical aspects of the kingdom. Later, there was mention of an intended motion to look into financials but that was never voted on and was NOT part of the HIC. Also, the fact
of the matter is, that there is a proper bank account in the name of the High Court of the Gay Kingdom in the state of Alabama, Form SS-4 has been properly filed with the United States Internal Revenue Service and the bank statements showing what has been deposited and what has been withdrawn and to whom such checks were made out to exists and had anyone ever asked they could have been cheerfully provided. Instead, they simply made assumptions and accusations about financial impropriety.
Although, in my opinion, whatever fees you paid should be refunded. Perhaps, if you requested this refund of the elected officials they would vote to do so. This is the first I have ever heard that Dale supposedly provided an incorrect phone number and/or country code. I find this difficult to believe as we have called him with the phone number he gave and successfully reached him. Also, a simple internet search will turn up with his phone number and it matches the one he gave us.
If you wish your point of view to be published in our forum, there are 2 ways: a) You allow me to publish your communication or b) you register for the forum and post whatever you think required by yourselfe. The registering for the forum is free from any obligations to join our organization, as we also made clear in the FAQ section (new). If you wish, you can join the special group for externals, but with a limited access, though. Please let us know, under which nick-name you will register, as out of "conflict of interest" ;) we appreciate to know who is who in the forum.  However, you are completely free to publish your opinion. 
I do not intend to become a member of the GLR forum. My posting there will simply draw out a discussion in which the two sides are never going to agree and now that I have said my piece, I intend to be silent on this matter. If you feel like sharing what I have said with members
of your group, however, I have no objections.
And, once again, our differences are mostly based upon the matter as such, and less on personal hostilities towards any specific people. OK, Donald would rather have problems to go drink a beer with Mr. Freeman, but my objections against Bill are rather of political nature.
The cake and coffee are waiting for you, feel free to visit us at our "Cafe to the Coral Sea" ;)
Warm hugs,
Vicky
                                                                                  * * *
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #2 on: Mon, May 02, 2005, 17:43 »

I replied to Jon, and explained some of my views more detailed. The whole text is published below with minor corrections of wrong spelling.

                                                                                  * * *

Dear friend,

this your statement is highly appreciated and is suitable to make the picture complete. If you have
read my posts in the GLR forum, you certainly have noticed, that I do not spare with critics on Jaix and other legislators as well. Aspecially I critisezed their being reluctant to try and change the system by following the formal proceedures. I advised them to be smart, they were not, by reacting on certain provocations.

But you will have to admit, that Privy Council strongly hindered the work of the parliament because
it disagreed with its policy. Yes, due to the GLK Act 2004 there exists a passage about making meetings on the first Monday of each month, that's true. But there also exists a passage that the Emperor (or you as Lord Protector in his place), HAVE TO call for a meeting, if a certain number of the assembly demands this from him.

The exact wording is:
***************************************************
Division 2-Procedure of Legislative Assembly
(1) The Legislative Assembly shall meet on the first Monday of each month.
(2) The Emperor shall convene the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly after a general election of that Assembly and thereafter shall convene a meeting of that Assembly whenever requested
to do so by such number of members of that Assembly as is prescribed by enactment.
(3) The Emperor may convene a meeting of the Legislative Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it is necessary to do so. by notice published in the Fairytales Government Gayzette.
***************************************************
Though I didn't find an exact statement about the number of legislators required to enforce HIM to call for a meeting, on a similiar passage about the Executive Commitee there was a talk of 3 people. As you can see, the GLK Act 2004 gives you (as you are acting legally instesd of Dale) the freedom to call for a meeting when the Assembly members ask you to do so, you just had to show a little bit more good will. Even more, you ARE in duty to call for the said meeting, if they demand this from you. You cannot tell me that the PC was NOT seeking the confrontation, as the said statement from Dale (written by whom?) was issued just a couple of days BEFORE the said meeting for the Assembly. This was a clear Coup'd Etat, not in the wording of the law, but in its intents and sense. There was no reason not to wait the said 2 or 3 days and ask the Assembly what it thinks about Dale's plans. No, the Assembly was ignored on purpose.

Generally, I have not received A SINGLE statement for many of my concrete allegations and critics. OK, you are a friendly quy and at least are trying to present your view of the happenings, but the usual answer to every critic from the GLK's officials is an icy silence or open hostility. Enrique, for example, answered all critics on Bill with a remark, that Bill is his friend and if I ever regarded him (Enrique) as a friend, I should stop critisise him. Is this a way to deal with serious critics? Yes, I called Bill and Dale to be liars in a private letter to Bill because of some reasons, and Dale's statement proved I was right. But no one sems to care, indeed from BILL no excuses were published, just absolutely NO COMMENTS. No statements that he and others PC members knew about the matter but preferred to keep this knowledge for themselves.

All this shows how less sensitiv the PC members are handling the matters of law and truth.

As to make you an example, I demonstrate this on the simple examples of resignations. Kai Seay was fired and declared that she resigned. Joe Grande's resignation was accepted and officially published (100% sure), he was NEVER re-appointed again, instead a wrong statement was published that his resignation was not accepted. Beatrice tried to resign several times but this was not accepted because she seemed to be usefull. Gunnar didn't send you a FORMAL written
resignation, and still you accepted it without further questioning, despite the GLK Act 2004 is pretty explicit on that topic. I do not blame you really, as he WANTED to resigne, but the proceedings were not fulfilled in accordiance withe the law. You see what I mean? Everytime whe the law is serving the interests of Bill or the PC, you guys are quick to cite it. But in cases the law is contrary to your interests, you gently oversee it. Please understand me right: psychologically it can be understood, but as person in charge you shall protect the law even if it does serve your opponent rather than you.

I regard you as a man of principles and aknowledge the simple fact, that from your point of view things are looking a bit different. This is NATURAL and this is the reason why this things have to be DISCUSSED, that's the reason for democracy being a better choice than absolute monarchy or a one-party system. The Privy Council tries to regulate things "privately", without letting the public know what is going on and about what topics different opinions are existing. This is foolish and extremely contra-productive.

As to my critics, pease take into consideration that I am not a neutral journalist but a person involved into the process and I have my opinions about acters involved and how things could be done better (in my view, of course). If you think certain statements are incorrect, especially those about what happened when and who was violating the law at what occasion, it is your right and duty to take position and report your point of view. This has nothing to do with being a "pissing match", this is a normal process of a democratic discussion. People WANT to know, what is
going on and they WANT to decide by THEMESELVES, what opinion is right or wrong. The broad mass can not read the thougts of those in power, and if you fail to communicate you must not wonder that people get suspicious. Especially if the government makes decisions contrary to the will of the people, the government is well-advised to explain its behavior extensely and should let the people decide, whether they prefer to keep the government or to elect a new one. But at THIS point many from the PC, and parts of the new assembly too, will probably strongly disagree with me. Because these guys consider themselves as especially well-informed and educated, whereas the rest of the people are dumb "mob", though with university degrees and certain experience in politics, economy and science. 

If you wish your point of view to be published in our forum, there are 2 ways: a) You allow me to publish your communication or b) you register for the forum and post whatever you think required by yourselfe. The registering for the forum is free from any obligations to join our organization, as we also made clear in the FAQ section (new). If you wish, you can join the special group for externals, but with a limited access, though. Please let us know, under which nick-name you will register, as out of "conflict of interest" ;) we appreciate to know who is who in the forum.  However, you are completely free to publish your opinion. 

And, once again, our differences are mostly based upon the matter as such, and less on personal hostilities towards any specific people. OK, Donald would rather have problems to go drink a beer with Mr. Freeman, but my objections against Bill are rather of political nature.

The cake and coffee are waiting for you, feel free to visit us at our "Cafe to the Coral Sea" ;)

Warm hugs,

Vicky

                                                                                  * * *
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
A letter from Jon Matlick I received on 1. May 2005
« Reply #1 on: Mon, May 02, 2005, 17:21 »

Below is a letter from Jon Matlick, the acting Lord Protector of the GLK, which I publish here with his consent and upon his polite refusal to join our "Café 'To the Coral Sea'" as an "External voice" and post by himselfe.

                                                                                  * * *

My dear Vicky,

I hope this message finds you well. I have followed with interest some of the posts on the GLR forum and since I cannot post to the board, I thought I would share this with you here.

It is always interesting to see how people who have this perspective or that interpret events differently. As I said in an earlier e-mail, you have relied on information received by one side of the equation. There are always two sides. Let me present some of that for your information and education

The Gay kingdom Act specified at that time that legislative meetings take place on the first Monday of each month. The assembly had voted to also allow "Committee of the Whole" meetings in-between. Jaix stated publicly that he understood that "Committee of the Whole" meeting were 'workshop' sessions for discussing topics of interest and that such administrative meetings did not have the authority to pass or enable legislation. At a "Committee of the Whole" meeting, the assembly voted to establish a "Historical Investigation Committee" and empowered this committee to subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath. There are a few of things you should realize at this point.

1) After the election, the Privy Council offered to share all information it had at its disposal (the same information you were no doubt given when you withdrew from the election) with Jaix and Enrique. The Privy Council also stated that if after reviewing the information they felt an official investigation was needed that they could certainly vote on that. Jaix refused to review or indeed even receive the documentation. Enrique was willing to review it before deciding on how best to proceed.

2) After the "Committee of the Whole" meeting the Privy Council issued a document stating that while the Committee of the Whole could certainly create such an investigation committee it had overstepped the scope of its authority in voting to issue subpoenas and take testimony under oath as this would require enabling legislation since there was no law, rules, or procedure in place in the Kingdom to give them that authority or on the methods to be used to ensure that such action would be done fairly and impartially. This document also said, that while assent is withheld as it currently stands, if the assembly would properly vote on these matters in a full legislative session, define how this is to take place, the rules to be followed, etc that assent would be re-considered.

3) The Gay Kingdom Act might be an imperfect document, but it does specify how legislative meetings can take place. As it was written at the time, it was not possible for the assembly to have a valid meeting whenever it chooses to do so as. Since no changes to these methods had yet been published in the Gayzette, which must occur before any legislation is valid, I, as Lord Protector, announced the April meeting in the Gayzette so there would be no doubt that it was empowered to vote on and enable legislation. This was done to assist the assembly, not to hinder it.

4)Had they ever successfully met with a quorum during a legitimate legislative session and not a "committee of the whole" then they could have proceeded as they wished. I had advised Jaix several times that if he wished to accomplish change the best way would be to work within the existing system to affect that change. I also advised him that "Bucking the system" would not be successful in anything but increasing his level of frustration. Yet he chose to ignore that advice and proceed in the manner that he did.

I could go on and on as to how events can be interpreted in different ways. The short of it, however, that Jaix  never attempted to work within the system to affect change. Instead, he declared the system not to his liking, flawed, and therefore not worthy of being obeyed

There are many other points I could contest, and some statements made  on your forum that are just not true (for example, the statement that some people were moderated and others were not. Screens shots of who was and was not on moderate can prove this, as actually, the entire group was on moderate) but I do not want to get into a "pissing match". I simply wanted to remind you that there is always another side of the coin, and that your forum is only presenting the side of the coin that it wants to see.

Respectfully,

Jon

P.S. Keep the beer cold, the red wine safe and the chocolate cake at the ready. I am looking forward to our meeting :-)

                                                                                  * * *
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin
Pages: [1]   Go Up