A well-reasoned legal analysis it definitely is not.

= Would you care to cite the Cali. Election Codes on how Ed Noonan is 100% Justfied in his actions and arguments?

I echo Tim’s observation that Mr. Quirk finally started quoting bylaws (actually, Elections Code citations to be more precise), but thus far Mr. Quirk, and others, continue to fail to establish any basis for many of the accusations that have been leveled at Mr. Noonan.

= The bylaws & the Election Codes are the same. In California, the rules and regulations for ballot-qualified political parties is dictated by the State Government. Its been like that for a long, long time. BTW, you can say that the king has a robe on when he is actually naked.

For the record, I am not “rooting” or “pulling for” any particular faction, as I am no longer a member of the party, and have no personal or political interest in the outcome.

= Of course, your concern is the AHP. So how is the organizing coming for your California affiliate.

As a note of observation, I must admit that it is quite comical (and even frustrating to a certain extent) to decipher much of Mr. Quirk’s poorly-written “commentaries,” much of which constantly contains myriads of misspelled words and improper grammar.

=So? People can read it. In fact Mr. Winger took the liberty of mentioning it.

As a casual observer and a not-so-often participant on this forum, I naturally expect more from one who is bestowed the honorable title of “Senior Editor.”

= Then again, you said nothing when TPW posted that nice little piece on John Lofton and Libertarianism last month.

= A Religion was, and a political party.

Therefore, there was neither character assassination nor libel against any particular individual.

= It was libel against the CP and the LDS Church, you claimed that Mormons worship a “different” Jesus when there is only one Jesus Christ and one messiah. Your article was nothing but defamation and bigotry.
But hey, I don’t have a problem with you posting it for everyone to see, in fact I oppose censoring your rhetoric; after all, it shows people that the Nevada issue wasn’t only about ‘abortion’, and exposes the motivation for kicking out the IAP.

One may disagree wholeheartedly with my perception of certain false religions, which was expressed in the article with the term, “demonic Mormonism,” but to say that these words are akin to personal character assassination or the smearing of a person with unfounded charges against one’s ethics and whatnot, is hyperbole and wishful thinking.

= Mormonism isn’t demonic, in fact I went through the Endowment Ceremony in the San Diego Temple and there wasn’t a single thing satanic about it. You smeared the LDS faith with false charges of being demonic and controlling the party, And you claim we worship a different Jesus, when Jesus didn’t even have a twin brother named after him.

Criticizing false religion is not the same thing as character assassination, libel or slander. One is an apple, the other is an orange.

= Both are fruit and both can be rotten & taste rotten at the same time.

I don’t expect Mr. Quirk to be open to persuasion by my explanation, but people are totally free to make up their own minds by reading the article themselves.

=Agreed. However when people like you claim the Nevada matter was all about abortion, I point to your writings, and the writings of John Lofton, Scott Whiteman and others for people to see.

However, this thread is not about my articles though, so if anybody wishes to contact me personally about this, then please feel free to do so. My email address is listed on the site.

= Better yet, would you be interested in smearing Mormonism on a LDS Discussion Forum?
You are allowed to do so, as long as you follow the rules and are able to back up your claims.

Is that what passes for reasoned debate on this site? “Somehow got the password” is not necessarily hacking, my friend.

= They didn’t ‘accidently get it’ they bypassed it.

You have yet to prove that anyone did anything illegal with the website, and saying “BS” a hundred times will not change that, but will only demonstrate to the TPW community how far your unsubstantiated hopes have exceeded your vocabulary.

= The website was changed, against the majority of the officers and the state committee, who endorsed Baldwin and supported staying with the CP. That’s proof right there.

The FACT is, at the time of this posting, you quoted nothing but opinion and hearsay. After much coaxing by Reed Heustis and myself, you finally started quoting bylaws (which Noonan’s faction has done all along), but you have failed to establish the basis for many of the accusations that have been leveled at Noonan since this issue arose.

= If that article was no good. Richard winger wouldn’t have mentioned it. One example of the idiocy of the Ed Noonan side was the claim that the Convention had to be in Sacramento. It did not! It only said that the Committee meets in Sacramento in the Chapter that addresses the meetings of the State Central Committee, not the Convention.

If I were you, I’d be a bit worried that a libel suit could be leveled over some of the writings on this site.

= I dare them to do it.

Ironically, it turns out that I am more sympathetic to the Baldwin faction in this mess, but the behavior and incompetence of you and some of your cohorts has been such that I’m almost persuaded to root for Noonan and the Keyesters, the insignificance of my support notwithstanding.

= I don’t believe you, you can say you were going for Baldwin when even Ed Noonan can say something like that. Nice try.

Once again I opine that people who vie to change government are so often in need of the nanny state to straighten out their petty messes. How are people supposed to trust the AIP to run their government when they can’t even run their own party?

= Alan Keyes can’t even run a ballot access campaign, and you’re going for him.

Enjoy ruling over the ruins.

= People said that at Tampa. The CP has pretty much been viable since 2006.

To which Mr. Quirk provided the following URL:

thirdpartywatch.com/2008/07/04/why-ed-noonan-is-just-plain-wrong-about-the-aip/

Frustratingly, the “research” showcased at the above URL is actually little more than mere cut-and-pastes of the California Elections Code accompanied by more juvenile innuendo and exclamations. (The “BS!” and “Wrong!” interjections are particularly noteworthy.)

A well-reasoned legal analysis it definitely is not.

I echo Tim’s observation that Mr. Quirk finally started quoting bylaws (actually, Elections Code citations to be more precise), but thus far Mr. Quirk, and others, continue to fail to establish any basis for many of the accusations that have been leveled at Mr. Noonan.

For the record, I am not “rooting” or “pulling for” any particular faction, as I am no longer a member of the party, and have no personal or political interest in the outcome.

As a note of observation, I must admit that it is quite comical (and even frustrating to a certain extent) to decipher much of Mr. Quirk’s poorly-written “commentaries,” much of which constantly contains myriads of misspelled words and improper grammar. As a casual observer and a not-so-often participant on this forum, I naturally expect more from one who is bestowed the honorable title of “Senior Editor.”

Then again, I am simply an observer who has “no say” over what goes on here.

Is that what passes for reasoned debate on this site? “Somehow got the password” is not necessarily hacking, my friend. You have yet to prove that anyone did anything illegal with the website, and saying “BS” a hundred times will not change that, but will only demonstrate to the TPW community how far your unsubstantiated hopes have exceeded your vocabulary.

The FACT is, at the time of this posting, you quoted nothing but opinion and hearsay. After much coaxing by Reed Heustis and myself, you finally started quoting bylaws (which Noonan’s faction has done all along), but you have failed to establish the basis for many of the accusations that have been leveled at Noonan since this issue arose. If I were you, I’d be a bit worried that a libel suit could be leveled over some of the writings on this site.

Ironically, it turns out that I am more sympathetic to the Baldwin faction in this mess, but the behavior and incompetence of you and some of your cohorts has been such that I’m almost persuaded to root for Noonan and the Keyesters, the insignificance of my support notwithstanding.

Once again I opine that people who vie to change government are so often in need of the nanny state to straighten out their petty messes. How are people supposed to trust the AIP to run their government when they can’t even run their own party?

Enjoy ruling over the ruins.

Not one person was named in that article. Therefore, there was neither character assassination nor libel against any particular individual.

One may disagree wholeheartedly with my perception of certain false religions, which was expressed in the article with the term, “demonic Mormonism,” but to say that these words are akin to personal character assassination or the smearing of a person with unfounded charges against one’s ethics and whatnot, is hyperbole and wishful thinking.

Criticizing false religion is not the same thing as character assassination, libel or slander. One is an apple, the other is an orange.

I don’t expect Mr. Quirk to be open to persuasion by my explanation, but people are totally free to make up their own minds by reading the article themselves.

However, this thread is not about my articles though, so if anybody wishes to contact me personally about this, then please feel free to do so. My email address is listed on the site.

= Yet Mr. Noonan was already doing that to Nancy Shearer and Gary Odom in statements in previous TPW articles here.

Nowhere has anybody provided a legal analysis regarding the situation.

= http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/07/04/why-ed-noonan-is-just-plain-wrong-about-the-aip/

A well-reasoned legal analysis would (1) set forth the issue; (2) cite the law; (3) state the facts; (4) analyze the facts in light of the law; and (5) provide a conclusion.

Nowhere on this forum has such an analysis been provided.

= http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/07/04/why-ed-noonan-is-just-plain-wrong-about-the-aip/

However, there has been a statement by an interested national CP officer that such argumentation should not be made on this forum.

= Too bad, you don’t run TPW, you have no say, neither does that ‘officer’.

However, this same officer goes on to assassinate Noonan’s character and engage in innuendo to demonize the opposition and make heroes of “party veterans.”

= Funny how you engaged in character assasination and demonization of CP members, the CP, and the LDS Church in your article “Have Christ, Will Travel”.

= Remember Matthew Chapter 7, Reed.

If one is unwilling to provide a reasoned legal analysis here, then he should resist the temptation to engage in smears and innuendos.

= http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/07/04/why-ed-noonan-is-just-plain-wrong-about-the-aip/

Looks like I don’t have to resist! Yay:P

BTW, you never resisted yourself either, Mr. Heustis, especially in the comment section of the few of the archived articles on TPW.

= Yet they were not authorized to do anything to it, they altered it without authorization. In fact the security passwords were changed to stop them from going in and they still got around it.

and they consider themselves to be the real AIP.

= They are not, and the article that came after this shows why.

They are NOT running it because they hacked into it, as several of your articles have claimed.

= BS!

In fact, I imagine that the new-and-improved AIP people never had access to the website to begin with, so now they’re making a “new” website.

= BS! Are we jumping to conclusions now?

You are engaging in propaganda for your faction.

= Nope. Ed is acting AGAINST the California Election Codes. for one,

“7639. The state central committee or its executive committee shall designate by resolution or bylaw the national committee or party organization with which the American Independent Party is affiliated and shall file a copy of the resolution or bylaw with the Secretary of State. In the event of controversy over the national affiliation of the party, the most recent resolution or bylaw filed shall be determinative.”

= That means the resolutions made at the Friday meeting Ed and company had are invalid to the State Convention that was held in LA that weekend. And for one, the majority of the Executive Committe of the AIP did not vote for disaffiliation. What Ed is doing is illegal.

BTW the Officers elected at the LA Convention already filed their paper with the Secretary of State long before the bogus convention this weekend.

Fine, but readers should be aware that terms like “legally” and “illegally” are used subjectively here, and terms like “hacking” and “hijacking” are hyperbole meant to turn support from one AIP-CA faction to the other.

= And I presented my case in that one article after this.

It appears the courts are going to have to tell us who has best conformed to the election laws of the state of California.

= Not Ed Noonan, for one, he claims he can appoint and remove people at will. NOWHERE in the State Elections Code does it say he can do that!
Read it!

One important thing..

“Sec. 7600: The state central committee shall consist of all of the following persons:
(a) All delegates to the state convention.
(b) The chairperson of each county central committee of the party.
(c) Members appointed pursuant to this part.
(d) Any person nominated to fill a vacancy in a partisan office in a special election.”

Ed claimed that only a select few were members of the state commitee because they didn’t run for office. BS!

Sigh How sad that groups formed to change government so often require government to come in and change their diapers.

= Sad how you jump to conclusion and don’t know jack about the law and how illegal it is what Ed’s doing.

Try again, simpleton.

[Cody is] engaging in propaganda for [his] faction. Fine, but readers should be aware that terms like “legally” and “illegally” are used subjectively here, and terms like “hacking” and “hijacking” are hyperbole meant to turn support from one AIP-CA faction to the other.

Precisely. I could not have said it better myself.

The “argumentation” that has been broadcast on this forum against Mr. Ed Noonan is nothing but character assassination, ad hominem innuendo, and subjective fluff. Nowhere has anybody provided a legal analysis regarding the situation.

A well-reasoned legal analysis would (1) set forth the issue; (2) cite the law; (3) state the facts; (4) analyze the facts in light of the law; and (5) provide a conclusion.

Nowhere on this forum has such an analysis been provided.

However, there has been a statement by an interested national CP officer that such argumentation should not be made on this forum. However, this same officer goes on to assassinate Noonan’s character and engage in innuendo to demonize the opposition and make heroes of “party veterans.”

If one is unwilling to provide a reasoned legal analysis here, then he should resist the temptation to engage in smears and innuendos.