[App_rpt-users] Announcement: Statement regarding the changes to AllStarLink

[Dan Tana]

I saw a question.

Let me rephrase the question for him.
Under what legal authority did Stacy, Bryan and Jeremy have that gave them
the right to vote themselves into office and then subsequently create new
bylaws?"


On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:05 AM PeteM via App_rpt-users <
app_rpt-users at lists.keekles.org> wrote:

> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Monday, March 1, 2021 1:03 AM, Steve Jason <sj38200d at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I asked a simple question.  Under what authority did Stacy, Bryan and
> Jeremy have that gave them the authority to vote themselves in and then
> subsequently create new bylaws.  You can't just do this because you want to.
> There has to be some legal authority.  If there is some legal authority to
> allow this, they should show it.  Otherwise, all we see is their actions
> after.
>
>
> Let's review then shall we?
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2021 9:52 PM, Steve Jason <sj38200d at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I see Stacy frantically trying to set up a web page that shows new
> Bylaws.  None of this shows that you even had authority to change the
> Bylaws.    Why are you trying to trick everyone?
>
>
> This is no question. This is an accusation steeped in conjecture meant to
> evoke a negative emotional response.
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2021 10:21 PM, Steve Jason <sj38200d at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You mean someone committed fraud on the FCC?   Just because you send a
> letter to the FCC saying you have authority to do something doesn't
> actually give you the authority to do it.  If you notice, Stacy didn't post
> the original Bylaws.  He only posted his new bylaws.  Anyone can write up
> new bylaws.   It would be like me creating new bylaws for Apple Inc and
> putting them on a web page.   Just because I type up new bylaws doesn't
> mean I ever  had the authority to change the original bylaws.
>
> I am still waiting to see the original bylaws they claim gave them
> authority to do this.
>
>
>
> I again see no valid question yet I do see more conjecture in an attempt
> to evoke a negative emotional response. I do believe the answer you are
> looking for is contained within the statement that started this non
> technical diarrhea storm. May I suggest you revisit it and put aside your
> preconceived notions and biases and make a good faith attempt to understand
> it? I most emphatically recommend that you post any questions without any
> conjecture or potentially inflammatory statements. I have found people are
> more amicable towards such and likely to answer.
>
> Personally I do not wholeheartedly agree with what has happened. I am
> hopeful that this is resolved quickly
>
> _______________________________________________
> App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at lists.keekles.org
> http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users
>
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit
> http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users
> Unsubscribe posts to the list will result in public shaming.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.keekles.org/pipermail/app_rpt-users/attachments/20210301/91e7073c/attachment.html>