With apologies for using boards other than the general, the following is a response to the statements made by Thomas on the Adrian general board. This board is still censored to prevent opposing points of view from being expressed. I understand that some do not wish to be involved in this discussion and they can ignore this post. Given the extensive misinformation and active attempts to hide information I believe it is important to share this response as the continued deceit, coupled with the use of the organization to cause mundane harm to individuals is a grave issue that needs to be addressed.
The following is slightly out of order because I realize I began to rant on #2.
If anybody does not understand the following please feel free to contact me.
Due to threats I need to make it clear that I am *not* a licensed attorney. I am a legal professional with over a decade of experience and I am sharing information. This is not intended as advice but rather to open people's eyes to a opposing option/understanding. I encourage anybody who is concerned to seek legal counsel if you want actual advice.
Several items are left alone as they tend towards unsupported statements and are a waste of time to argue.
3. This is a straw man argument. Thomas recasts any opposing position as "ignoring violations" which could create liability. A sound business decision not to pursue costly legal action is not ignoring a violation but rather acting in the best interests of the organization. It is up to the individual voting members to determine what a sound business decision is but we are hamstrung by a few individuals who limit information and attempt to silence opposing points of view.
4. Simply because $735 was paid for an item does not mean it is worth $735. Without a qualified valuation of the goods in their current state the claim that more has been recovered than expended is not accurate. Moreover, the organization apparently spent $735 for the items. You have caused the organization to spend another $500 to recover the items. Therefore our total cost to maintain possession of these items was $1235. Per the IRS filing these were items being disposed of because they were not being used. Thus we have expended $1,235 to obtain and retain chattel goods we are not using. This is not fiscally sound practice.
5. Once again, what was spent on an item does not determine its value. Especially with raw materials it is entirely possible that, in the context where the end result is not intended for retail, the finished product is less valuable than the component parts. The question is not whether the cost of recovery exceeds the cost of the items. It is whether the cost of recovery is fiscally reasonable to the organization.
The actual cost to the organization to obtain and potentially regain these goods is over $3,000 where the IRS filing states that these items were being disposed of due to lack of use. It is not fiscally sound to continue to expend funds in order to regain unused goods.
The likely response here is that the IRS requires it to maintain our status. This is absolutely false. Ellis Carter explicitly stated that it is not a requirement to engage in legal action to regain the goods. Further IRS Instructions 990 provides that directors/officers are protected if they are acting in the best interests of the organization. It can easily be said that the best interests of the organization is to no longer expend funds to regain unwanted chattel.
9. (Subsection 1) I am unaware of any evidence of a higher offer for any of these goods. If such exists it should be produced. Because the complaining party bears the burden of proof if no such evidence exists this is an illusory claim.
(Subsection 2) What is "proper notice"? Permission was asked and granted to hold this garage sale. I have seen a copy of an email letting people know about the sale shortly before it occurred. A garage sale is rarely noticed in any proper sense. Instead one tapes cardboard signs up a day or two before the event. Or merely sits in the front of a house with a pile of goods. We need to remember that we are talking about a garage sale. There are very few less formal proceedings I can think of.
2. This is a misleading statement intended to create sufficient fear to prevent people from acting.
Important is a distinction being made of "legal professional." Given that this is likely directed at myself I will treat it as such. I have over a decade of experience as a legal professional including extensive legal education. This means that your baby attorney in Florida has less than half of my experience. Certainly he has a bar card, good for him, but that does not change the fact that I am, in point of fact, a legal professional with significantly more experience and almost equivalent education.
In point of fact there is caselaw which states that simply taking advice without making reasonable investigation can lead to liability on the part of an officer or board member. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Van_Gorkom
I can provide the actual opinion for those who wish to wade through it. This is a more accessible, if slightly suspect being from Wikipedia, version.
This claim of personal liability is sorely misleading. It is not "ignoring advice" to make a reasoned decision based on the information provided. A true attorney would explain that legal advice, we're talking true legal advice, is not a yes or no answer but rather a representation of the most likely outcome based on facts and existing statute and caselaw. Every single day attorneys disagree.
What we have here is a concerted effort to allow only one voice to speak in order to create the fiction of required action.