Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Blogs - Cynthetiq's Ramblings by Cynthetiq

YES!!!!

Cynthetiq — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:11:20 GMT

I didn't win!!!!

I'm so happy that I didn't get re-elected because well, I can do more damage to them outside than I can inside. I know that the accomplishments I have had over the years is a nice feather in the cap.

We balanced the budget. Held financial meetings to explain where we were and how we got there. We renovated the playgrounds, the children's indoor playroom. We renovated the laundry room. We made a feeble attempt at communications. Made regular maintenance increases as our budget increased. We called for reductions in the budget across all accounts. We demanded that all vendors take a adjusted price, or we called out for open bids. We adjusted our budget so that we could have a positive $1M cash position.

As it currently stands, we're tracking a $1.2M annual deficit. We'll see just how well the new board figures out how to get out of that bind.

This also means that they took in 2 people that they really didn't want to, people who are thinkers and doer's like me and the other guy who supported me.

We shall see how the rest of this unfolds.

Probably one of the most boring things to ask...

Cynthetiq — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:35:47 GMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Fiduciary duty.

if you are a fiduciary for a company or an individual when does it end?

To give you some background as to why I'm concerned about my fiduciary responsibility. I put this website up to campaign for re-election and recorded candidates night. I put it up on a password protected entry and you had to contact me to get the password. Anyways the incumbent board members were pissed off that I made them look bad since well, they didn't bother to campaign or try to communicate with people. Anyways, the other candidates and the shareholders were quite happy to know that there was someone trying to communicate in a more modern way than the one off emails we get to take lawn chairs off the balcony when nor'easters come, or the piece of paper telling us it's hot and that the community room is being a cooldown center during heat waves. We get papers taped to the elevator banks 24 hours before Jewish holiday because the office is going to be closed.

I've been trying to get them to communicate better but well, I'm 1 of 11.

And really, we should just be telling management to communicate better, but that's a different issue where management when they don't want to do something they pass it to the board, and when the board doesn't want to do something they pass it to management.

Basically I declared war on one of the other board members. I probably lost my seat since the elections were last night. I don't really care because I'd rather be on the outside to do some demonstrations as to some of the ideas that should be discussed by more progressive board members.

Seriously, their communication is so stifled that they think that it's a badge of honor to withhold the date of board meetings from shareholders.

anyways... :)

Just going home

Cynthetiq — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:49:33 GMT

I was going to go to the ballot counting, but you know what. I really don't give a shit. In fact the more I think about it the more I prefer not to be encumbered by "fiduciary duty."

I'm trying to find out when that ends so that I can blab blab blab blab blab blab.

Shareholder's meeting

Cynthetiq — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:14:00 GMT

It's really just hysterical.

Okay the shareholder's have voted. I believe that we have a quorum.

I was not greeted by any of the board members that took personal offense to my podcast. The only civil people were the ones that made sense of what was going on.

The word on the street was that the other incumbents were spreading the rumor that I was interested in increasing the maintenance by 10%. Now, I'm a communicator, why would I just do it without wanting to communicate WHY we would have to do an increase of maintenance. Here's another thing, so I want to increase maintenance 10%, if the OTHER board members don't wish to approve the increase, then how can *I* increase maintenance 10%? See the shareholders don't seem to understand this, because well we don't want to teach them to understand.

Really? That's the best they can do? They won't say something like, "We didn't like the fact that he recorded us in plain sight and then posted it on a website for all to listen to!!!!"

So the president spoke about how he's looked over the budget for the next fiscal year. We've never approved the budget, and we were expecting a $1M projected deficit. We are already tracking a $350k deficit in the first quarter. Also, the general manager spoke about how the real estate taxes are going up yet again, as many cities and states are trying to cover their coffers because the other revenue streams aren't able to, like businesses and sales tax. So you've got a great disconnect. So while we currently have $2M in cash, next year, we'll not have any money and we'll have to raise maintenance again and by a large amount.

Since the previous 2 elections we didn't get quorum, we never approved the minutes from the 2007 meeting. Now it's just a formality, but I leaned over and told the only guy who supported me and told him. He then said that I had to tell the lawyer since I knew about it. If not, he'd have to tell the lawyer, fiduciary duty and all. So I walked over to the Lawyer. This is the same lawyer that sent me a letter trying to bully me into taking down my podcast. I whispered it in his ear. He didn't acknowledge what I said, so I hovered beside him. He finally tersely said to me, "I heard you."

A few minutes later, there was commotion on the stage with the president and a couple other people. The lawyer came up to the podium made the announcement to ask if anyone would make the motion to accept the minutes. Well, you can't accept minutes that you don't see. Well you shouldn't just like you should read the fine print. It's just a formality, but if they didn't distribute the minutes, then how could or why would you ask something of someone that isn't there.

It was funny that the lawyer didn't even notice. This isn't the first time he was there.
Here's what I imagine is going to happen, I'm not going to get re-elected. That's just fine by me. Because as an ex-board member, I can then target very specifically things that are important for communication. I can challenge the board in ways that they aren't forward thinking of.

As I listened to the drivel and the drone, I started to wonder why we didn't approve the agenda. That made me think, wait a second. Where is the agenda?

I then imagined in my head what would be on the agenda as we were already knee deep in the meeting.

We'll see what happens, 8 seats 11 members. There will be 3 that don't get on. We'll see just how they manipulate it.

I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow night

Cynthetiq — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:27:04 GMT

And I don't care.

But here's what I do know:

If I'm still on the board, I'm not the on who is going to write up the minutes. The last time I did it as they claimed last night it was horrible. What's stupid is THEY approved it before it went out. So THEY approved HORRIBLE notes to go out.

They really don't get how a board is supposed to work.

I will be organizing shareholders under a shareholders association. This makes sense because it will be the method to unseat these other old timer fucktards that just don't get it. People who pay big money for their apartments want some services. They expect them. They demand them. In return for creating them, we have to improve the ones that we have, and invent new ones.

The simplest service is respectful communication. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard some board member scream and shout at a shareholder. Good job communicating!

Some places think of it as a shadow board or an insurgent group. That's fine, they can think that. What I know this will be will be something that demands nothing but the best from the board members in a respectful and patient tone. If they don't respond, we vote a slate to remove them. The following year, we run a slate to remove the next set. Rinse and repeat until the change is complete.

8 Against 1 or First Rule of Fight Club.

Cynthetiq — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:38:58 GMT

Well, this didn't turn out well for me at all.

I was asked if I was recording the meeting which I said no to. Seriously, some real paranoia here. :paranoid:

I asked the president if he'd like to hold a special meeting on another date, but he declined.

The rules were said, simply no yelling and no expletives. They excused all the management but I stated that it should be part of board minutes. Someone said executive session still had a recording so she was called back in. I felt bad for her, but still I don't know how she felt about what I've done.

So I walked into the board room full of hostile individuals. Each took their turn at me and eventually I got to speak. I defended myself, slightly. But it was next to impossible after taking so many lumps without me getting the chance to rebut each individual.

By the time the third individual had made any statements I was already resigned to defeat amongst the circle. The 5th person speaking took the time to say things like, "You recording this surreptitiously is like being a snake in the grass." I almost expected her to do the Daphne "Shame Shame Double Shame everyone knows your name!" (you're old if you know that reference from Alice.)

They took turns trying to character assassinate me. They were mad that shareholders actually wrote in to support me. Afraid they were. I had posted on my blog, if you don't like the fact that this information is unavailable then send a letter to the president. And I announced the next board meeting... which was tonight. Well apparently the first rule about fight club is that you don't talk about fight club. "We don't tell people who's lives on on the line [new buyers] as to when our board meetings are." Well duh, they aren't fucking shareholders you idiot. What is wrong with telling people that the meeting is happening. Realtors know it. Why can't shareholders?

Well here's the thing. If I followed the only sane person on the board who had any reasonable understanding of what I'm trying to do which is communicate with the shareholders, then I would have totally missed the complete gem they told me.

The legal committee is 2 people, those same 2 people, plus another makes 3 for the election committee. 3 other incumbent candidates complained to the election committee, which makes a 6 person majority vote, which is what they said authorized their ability to take this to legal counsel. According to how a board of directors is supposed to operate, even if you have a majority, it still goes to the ENTIRE board for a vote. They believed, seriously this is fucking retarded, that the 6 of them had the right to make the decision because they had a majority. Well, as far as I understand the board did not meet to make that decision. Even if they have 6 people, they still have to call for a meeting, have an agenda and create minutes for that meeting. In other words it has to be INSPECTABLE by any other board member. This is to make sure that there are no impropriety nor the ability for secret society or individuals making decisions without the full board.

Now, if what they are saying is true, then every month when we approve packages for sellers/buyers, then the 3 person committee that vets the buyers should be able to approve the buyers without the rest of the board.

Here it is... .THEY DO NOT SEE THAT AS THE SAME THING!

Seriously, they believe that the board can act as they want so long as they have the 6. I don't doubt they cannot do what they want. They still have to have to announce a meeting, have the meeting, call motions and have meeting minutes.

So their action, that the 6 people are now admitting to doing unilaterally on their own without the FULL board meeting to vote on the agenda, the motion and the meeting. These 6 people are now complicit in the behavior that I'm decrying. They don't see it. It's amazing.

Over the weekend I wrote this:

Quote:

On Candidates Night 2009, Question #5 was �Each prospective candidate state his/her position on making board meeting minutes available to cooperators.� Of the six incumbents present, five individuals stated their support for improving such communication directly and the last suggested we use the House Committee Newsletter to be the mouthpiece. The remaining candidates also support meeting minutes of some kind and improved communication.

The question is, with six board members, a voting majority, including the president and vice president, all speaking towards improved communication, why has this not been accomplished this past year? As a sitting board member, I can say we had no concerns of litigation, or such pressing business that required our undivided attention. I ask you to consider who has actually put forth open communications versus those who pay lip service.

If this is truly the case, then we can easily believe that within the first few months of the new board taking office, that this level of communication is finally achieved.

So one of them in taking their turn said, "You're calling us hypocrites!" Umm, if that's the word you use, fine. I'm not calling you anything. I'm calling it like I see it.

Because apparently two things happened in that statement I made. I stated a FACTUAL truth. FACT, if there are 6 sitting board members, and they hold a FULL board meeting. Someone can make the motion, and there should be 6 votes for it and we should have some sort of meeting notes published in the next few months. I give it until February if they are competent, if they aren't, April. If they never do it, totally hypocrites? Priceless... oh wait wrong commercial. If they don't do it. They will be for sure hypocrites.

I don't mind sacrificing myself and my "reputation" because I know the truth. Those that really know this know the truth. Those that want to believe that lie they keep telling themselves, keep humming that Lennon song, Whatever gets you through the night... it's alright. it's alright.

Bold results demand bold action, which I'm not afraid of taking.

So the board voted that the next meeting they have, they will censure me. Seriously. Great, censure me. If you don't know censure means pretty much nothing. It means the board voted to condemn or admonish. Big Fucking Deal. I couldn't care fucking less. You don't want to talk to the shareholders, yet when asked you say with a smile that you're for talking to shareholders. Yeah, I'm the snake in the grass.

The president urged me to take my website down. I will not. Like my uncle in Manila who was told by Ferdinand Marcos to print pro-Marcos articles and he said, "No, I will not." He was incarcerated for 9 years. I will not be told what I can do for my freedom of speech.

As part of my only defense, I asked them one simple question. What rule did I break? I was told, the first rule of Fight Club, that was a biggy. And that I broke the rule about not recording the Candidates Night event. I asked where that rule was written down and was told, "It doesn't need to be written down." O rly? It has to be written down because you need to be able to not only express the rules of the game, but also have something to point to in order to show that a foul has been made. If people don't have a list of the rules, then you are free to change it when you see fit and it doesn't fit your agenda. So again, I asked, Where is the rule? And they had no answer.

When I ran for the board, it was so that I could get board meeting minutes out. If I am no longer on the board and it still happens. I still win.

So here's a conundrum for them. If I am not re-elected, I can and am no longer bound by confidentiality rules. This means, I can talk about fight club. I can't talk specifically about situations, but I can speak in parable, examples, and other coded speak. I can easily criticize their actions because I know the workings of the inner circle. I can speak about how the inner circle works. I can cast light on what I believe their actions are, just like a commentator since he may be an ex ball player.

But if I'm re-elected, I'm able to continue to do the work. I'm able to continue to do the "I'm watching you bit..." I may not be sitting with people who are happy to see me, but I don't give a shit. I'm not there to make friends. I'm not there to be their friends. I'm there to protect the interests of the corporation and make sure that the rules are followed.

They are already trying to call the fight.

Cynthetiq — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:46:08 GMT

Really seriously.

I've been called by the general manager who is trying to broker peace between all the individual board members.

Now this is a problem. This man is a nice man. He really means well and has a very good heart. The problem is there are lots of mixed dealings and lines crossed that should not be. This isn't a matter of me wanting to do this, but there are rules for checks and balances because you want to make sure that things are able to be audited and investigated without issue and without conflict of interest.

The general manager is talking to individual board members and asking that they keep the peace until after the election. The challenge here is to make sure that I still have to opportunity to discuss this without prejudice. According the by laws of the corporation

He�s trying to broker peace so that there is no shouting match. He is asking individual board members to not discuss this tonight, specifically president, The Bastard, a female board member and me to not discuss this. Apparently one board member is upset over this. I�m not sure what or how he�s upset, meaning at me or at The Bastard.

I have not decided what I would like to do. I stated that I don�t know at this exact moment. I�m troubled that he�s butting in, but at the same time understand his reasoning and as a person who also tries to broker peace with warring individuals. Since he has nothing to gain from making the request, it�s just a request, but still it is slightly troubling. The GM believes that since it�s not public knowledge it�s okay to not discuss it at this time but to discuss it after the election. I have gotten 5 phone calls from him today alone.

I believe I would like to call a special meeting or do not adjourn this meeting and for us to reconvene at a later date after the election but prior to the installation of the new board of directors.

Further, GM has told me that he has suggested that Lawyer B will be present on ballot counting night to make sure that there is nothing wrong with Lawyer A. He�ll be a neutral third party observing. I guess this means that my statement of potential impropriety has some basis and not just summarily dismissed. Obviously, this is an additional cost to the coop.

I spoke with all the additional candidates that were not incumbents and provided them with my letter as the office manager was told to not forward it. I have collected a number of people who wrote letters to President stating their support for my actions and initiative, and also decrying the expense of the legal fees. I have 3 letters in my hand that were faxed or dropped off this morning. I probably have at least 3 more that were sent but I was not carbon copied.

Looking for the inspiration.

Cynthetiq — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:59:43 GMT

It's very important that I prepare for tomorrow's fight. I need the eye of the tiger. I need the spirit to seize the moment and the opportunity.

YouTube - 40 Inspirational Speeches in 2 Minutes

Quote:

Shame on you. This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're going to let it be the worst. And I guarantee a week won't go by in your life you won't regret walking out, letting them get the best of you. Well, I'm not going home. We've come too far! And I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause. A day may come when the courage of men fails... but it is not THIS day. The line must be drawn HERE. This far, no further! I'm not saying it's going to be easy. You're going to work harder than you ever worked before. But that's fine, we'll just get tougher with it! If a person grits his teeth and shows real determination, failure is not an option. That's how winning is done! Believe me when I say we can break this army here, and win just one for the Gipper. But I say to you what every warrior has known since the beginning of time: you've got to get mad. I mean plum mad dog mean. If you would be free men, then you must fight to fulfill that promise! Let us cut out their living guts one inch at a time, and they will know what we can do! Let no man forget how menacing we are. We are lions! You're like a big bear, man! This is YOUR time! Seize the day, never surrender, victory or death... that's the Chicago Way! Who's with me? Clap! Clap! Don't let Tink die! Clap! Alright! Let's fly! And gentlemen in England now abed shall know my name is the Lord when I tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our Independence Day!

I don't think that it is going to be a fair one, nor do I think that it is going to be something that I'm going to be able to walk away from straight headed.

There's going to be a winner and a loser in my mind. After having a really good weekend talking to many people about this issue and getting positive results, I met with someone a bit ago who believes I should keep the house clean until after the election. Show solidatiry now, there's no reason to beat each other up over this stupid matter until after the election.

I don't know if that's the right approach, since if I'm not re-elected, I won't have the ability to directly investigate this individual. Now, I'm on the board until the FIRST meeting that the new board meets which will be sometime in December. Up until that point I can continue to investigate his wrong doings and document them and continue to bring them the president of the board.

The questions is, when are you doing something that is right? or when are you being a tattle-tale? (insert Michael Brady montage here) If I'm supposed to uphold my fiduciary duty, then I must and am required to investigate this individual's behavior.

So here I am. I'm sitting here making notes about what I'm going to say. How I'm going to say it. I need to be able to quick draw and keep hammering at them. When they ask me a question. I do not demure. I do not back down. I do not address their question. I fire back another question instead of answer.

How much time did you spend with the lawyer to bill?

Who authorized this?

How much money was spent?

What is the billing rate?

What budget is this coming out of?

What other projects aren't we going to do because we wasted money on this event?

rinse and repeat.

If they do not acquiesce or give quarter, then I just walk out. I will not be their punching bag for doing nothing wrong. I'm not the one that called a lawyer and had them send a letter.

Keep your eye on the prize, not the price. Eye of the tiger. Sand the floor and all that jazz.

Lawyer Epic Fail Part 2

Cynthetiq — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:38:29 GMT

Still because I still do not want to incur more costs to the corporation, I believe that it was in the best interest of the corporation to just take it down even without the phone call. This I'm trying to accept as "having more class" or "being the better man." I'm not admitting any wrongdoing but I've created a potential question for people to ask, "Why did it get taken down?" This serves me much better than having left it up and express nothing about legal issues. No, I can garner much more sympathy from individual shareholders just by the same kind of tactics they use, keep information hidden.

So you get down to the cc. The carbon copy should not have made it to the general manager. He's management, not the board. But notice there are only two board members on the carbon copy list. Two. Out of 10 (we're short one that resigned because he moved.) If you don't know, the board of directors makes decisions together as a group. An individual board member is not supposed to make unilateral decisions or actions without the express directive of the corporation. This is done to protect the corporation from harm. So why was this not brought in front of the rest of the board to make a decision as to what direction to take? How did it go directly to legal counsel without stopping in front of the board? You see that the president of the board was carbon copied. You may think, "Oh, look! The president can make that decision because he's the president." No. No, he cannot.

Quote:

Directors, like officers, have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, meaning that they must act in the best interests of the corporation and cannot put their own interests ahead of the corporation's. Directors must also act prudently in managing the affairs of the corporation. Finally, the directors must properly exercise their authority in managing the corporation and may not abrogate their responsibilities to others.

This means that the board must be very careful to document that each action was reasonable, lawful, and in the best interests of the corporation. This is particularly true with matters involving compensation, dividends and dealings involving officers, directors and shareholders. The record or corporate minutes of meetings � or actions taken without a meeting � must include the reasons or statements to support the board action and must include sufficient detail indicating that the action was proper.

So following these guidelines, there's been no normal due process. None. Since I did not file the lawsuit, there was no reason to get an immediate response. Even with that the requirement is that the board must convene and address the matter. This may require the board to meet at a special meeting to just be able to take an action like respond to the lawsuit. Since that's not the case here, I'm not sure how or why this happened in the manner that it did. Well, I do have my suspicions and that is that this individual is abusing his position.

Now, here's the pi�ce de r�sistance, the person who sent me the letter, the lawyer is the same lawyer that handles our election. Really. Does it not seem that maybe, just maybe, someone else out there, may think that this law firm intimidating a candidate, I've established that this letter is just a threat, there is no legal basis whatsoever for this letter to have been drafted. Is it not a conflict of interest?

Other lawyer friends have read this and dismissed it out of hand. It's hysterical.

Now this information is just the tip of the iceberg, the 6 page missive, whew, that one is a doozie because I basically am pointing out all the irregularities this one individual is doing.

Lawyer Epic Fail Part 1

Cynthetiq — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:33:25 GMT

The simplest thing about what I'm being challenged with at the moment is really stupid. The stupidity does not stop just at the point wherein the chairperson of the election could have just called me to request clarification or kindly ask that I remove the material. Instead it went directly to legal counsel. Not only did it go directly to legal counsel, but it did not stop at the board of directors first to vote on it. Even if the president felt that the matter was grave enough to be sent to legal, he cannot do it unilaterally. This the whole reason to have a board of directors so that the corporation isn't directed by one single individual but by a group.

I have attached some redacted attachments.

The letter is in my opinion nothing but legal puffering and bullying at the behest of the Chairperson of the Election Committee. There's a ton of things wrong with this document.

The first and most incredible thing is that under what authority are they making the request to take down the material? The letter cites no case law, no corporation by law, no election rules that give them the authority to make the request. So how can they even make the request? Why would legal counsel actually advise them to move forward with such a process when it is epic legal fail? On what legal grounds could the chairperson insist on legal counsel to pursue this? Here's a kicker, the chairperson is also a lawyer. So you've got two lawyers that helped craft this document and not a single one of them could come up with a law that gives them the authority to make such a claim.

The simple assumption based on the wording is that they are more than likely that I had "no right to record the Candidates Night." In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Since there are no corporation by laws, no election rules, prohibiting anyone from making a recording anyone can. Now, that's not the basis for my recording, mine is simply that as a participant in the event, I gave consent to the recording. NY state is a single party state. This means that only one party needs to give consent to any recording. But, letter states that the chairperson permitted the recording to continue. None of the other participants in this case objected to the recording in any shape or form.
Check.

Since I recorded the event, as the recorder I own the copyright to the recording. This means that I can distribute this event as I see fit as the copyright holder.
Check.

Since I'm the author of my own words both spoken and written, and my transcription includes only my own words, I'm not violating any other individual copyright. This is why some professors can say specifically you cannot record their lectures or if you record their lectures, you aren't free to transcribe them and post them online without their permission.
Check.

Now if they are actually posting copyright infringement, the conditions afterward are somewhat dubious at best. Starting with the first one, deleting it means I still have a copy of it. Why am I not being asked to destroy the copy? That's the whole point of copyright enforcement. If you are infringing on someone's copyright you are told to destroy the existing copies. Absolutely you shouldn't be allowed to post it ever again, that's just simply stupid if you don't get the idea that you don't own the copyright and you've already been served legal documents that you would not post it again. Really a stupid request.

Posting an apology? Really? That is not in line with any other copyright infringement I have ever seen. "I'm sorry I uploaded GnR's Chinese Democracy." I don't think I ever saw such a thing.

Finally, provide the attorneys the names and email addresses of all that I sent the password to. My privacy policy clearly states, "We do not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer to outside parties your personally identifiable information. This does not include trusted third parties who assist us in operating our website, conducting our business, or servicing you, so long as those parties agree to keep this information confidential. We may also release your information when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law, enforce our site policies, or protect ours or others rights, property, or safety. However, non-personally identifiable visitor information may be provided to other parties for marketing, advertising, or other uses." Since they have not proven that there is a law that requires me to to release the information, they can have a big middle finger to that request. Note, by law or election rule is not enough of a legal test to be the same as law.

In part 2, the lawyer basically is trying to infringe on my rights to free speech and my rights to electioneering. I do not have to get into the free speech since that alone is just a dumb position. I mean really, is this lawyer really dumb enough and willing to infringe on my US Constitutional rights?

As far as electioneering is concerned, in the 2007 election, we changed our election rules to allow electioneering. Prior to that any information of your election platform was only allowed via the election candidate package sent out by the company 30 days before the election. It was a good thing that we decided that since that same year a few months later, a group of shareholders took the corporation to court to compel the board to make some changes to the election and shareholders meeting. It was determined free and legal in 2007 by Hon. Judith Gishe in Cheary, John et. al. vs. East River Housing Corp:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hon. Judith Gishe

"The Board previously adopted written election procedures which prohibit all candidates for office from electioneering in the form of written communications. The only permitted written information submitted by candidates was a �biography� and a �photograph.� Plaintiffs argue that this rule prevents them from providing election materials to persuade shareholders to vote for an insurgent slate of candidates. Defendants claim that on October 10 , 2007 the Board changed the rule to permit written electioneering materials and to hold a candidates night at which all candidates for office can address the shareholders. While the details remain to be worked out, defendants have indicated that all candidates, whether incumbent or insurgent, will have the same rights to distribute campaign materials."

So really, you're going to go against a sitting judge's ruling stating that electioneering is fair and legal? We spent about $200k in defending against John Cheary, et. al. and you're going to try to undo it with the wave of a letter?

Now, again, since I'm again going with copyright infringement, since I cannot fathom any other reasonable law that fits in any way for a request like this. I thought maybe libel, but clearly a lawyer would have used libel instead of "grossly distorted", "misrepresented" or "presented a false picture." Really? Those are the best legal words our corporation can buy from it's counsel?

Now my response speaks for itself. I did not contest the letter writing at all, since it's really just crap. One of the first drafts I had asked the very question, "Under what law are you making this request?" But I decided to play this card slightly differently.

Since it is my responsibility at as sitting board member to not incur frivolous costs, and it is in our best interest to decrease so I positioned it as simply as, "Why didn't the chairperson call me and ask me to do so before contacting cousel?" Surely we could have achieved the same result without costing the corporation however much this has cost so far. I pursued that same path in stating that the resolution to this problem is to reset the table. He can call me and I will be willing to take it down just by him calling me. I put it squarely on his shoulders stating that if he did not call and continued further legal action that it clearly indicated his agenda. But because this asshole is a passive aggressive emo mofo... no phone call.

Attached Images

making bold accusations

Cynthetiq — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:17:41 GMT

I am embroiled in an issue at the moment. I have posted something online from an open meeting called Candidates Night. I am a candidate, and as NYS is a single party state, I recorded it. The moderator didn't like it, but when he asked me why I was recording it, I stated one of the other candidate's names that wasn't available.

I posted the item under a password protected WP entry and offered that people could contact me and I would give them my password. This is part of my campaigning and electioneering. As part of that it was transcribed and I only transcribed my statements. I posted summarizations of yes/no answers that I believed to be my understanding of my opponents answers to the questions.

I was sent a request to take the material down and issue and apology. They also wanted to have all the email addresses and names of everyone who requested a password which I emphatically denied. I stated that I would do no such thing not without the moderator contacting me directly. Since he's a passive aggressive emo mofo, he has not contacted me.

So in the spirit of my fiduciary responsibility to the corporation so that it incur no more legal fees, I took the podcast down. My transcript is still standing and I will fight them on it as part of fair free speech and electioneering.

So instead of skulking away, I wrote a 6 page missive to an alternate counsel of our corporation accusing him of malfeasance.

Just an FYI, the total amount of potential requesters >1500, total actual requestors, ONE. How does that make him feel? Priceless!

if i was doing the right thing why do i feel shitty about it?

The Rock of the 80's

Cynthetiq — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:36:10 GMT

KROQ - Rock of the 80's station ID

If you didn't grow up in LA in the 80's, you may have only heard of this radio station as the starting point for many people like Adam Carolla, Jimmy Kimmel, Kennedy, Carson Daly, or a show called Loveline, with Dr. Drew.

KROQ was the most eclectic radio play I have ever heard. The closest thing to it today is finding a decent college radio station, but even then, unless the DJ is really interesting, it's boring.

KROQ was just a nothing station at the time and it started breaking bands. Different djs brought different music forward from New Wave to Reggae to Ska to just deep cuts of known rock artists like Rolling Stones and Iggy Pop.

Now, I'd say that maybe it would be like today's JACK-FM, but that would be offensive since JACK-FM is just total shit and there's no thread to make the music come to life or have cohesion.

Recently I found a bunch of MP3s that someone digitized of old 90 minute cassette tapes someone had kept of the radio. Now I used to do this for myself since at one point I moved from LA and there was no such thing as streaming internet radio. I had a number of these tapes. I also would do things like tape the top 100 songs for the year. These MP3s are a wonderful thing to listen to. Some great nostalgia and some great music. Now you hear 80's music since it's in fashion, but really, you don't hear some of the real 80's music that was being played. You're only hearing the 80's music that hit the Billboard charts.

So take a listen, you'll hear things from goth to new wave, reggae to rock. It's where I heard bands like Depeche Mode, Animotion, Madness, and Human League before I heard them on top 40 stations. Check out the KROQ top 100 by year.

play.it Radio Player - KROQ 106.7 FM

Do you feel it?

Cynthetiq — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:50:10 GMT

ayap... I don't.

really busy still.

Cynthetiq — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:57:16 GMT

just don't have the time that I used to have.

shame really.

I miss Spain

Cynthetiq — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:14:58 GMT

YouTube - Spain... on the road Again: Series Introduction

http://spainontheroadagain.com

This is such an interesting series. It looks like it was a fun production to make and participate.

I really am missing it right about now. Good thing we're going back in several weeks.