@cowtwonmark:
Please don’t assume that there is no other way of doing business besides what you have been told is “the legal way.” The “legal way” means operating within the bylaws of the non-profit…which we have not yet seen.
A LOT of great information about “how to be a good board member” is here:
www.ag.ny.gov/publications/Right%20from%20the%20Start%20booklet%2009.pdfHere’s some law:
law.onecle.com/new-york/not-for-profit-corporation/article7.htmlPertinent:
§ 706. Removal of directors.
(a) Except as limited in paragraph (c), any or all of the directors may be removed for cause by vote of the members, or by vote of the directors provided there is a quorum of not less than a majority present at the meeting of directors at which such action is taken.
(b) Except as limited in paragraph (c), if the certificate of
incorporation or the by-laws so provide, any or all of the directors may be removed without cause by vote of the members.
(c) The removal of directors, with or without cause, as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) is subject to the following:
(1) In the case of a corporation having cumulative voting, no director may be removed when the votes cast against his removal would be sufficient to elect him if voted cumulatively at an election at which the same total number of votes were cast and the entire board, or the entire class of directors of which he is a member, were then being elected; and
(2) When by the provisions of the certificate of incorporation or the by-laws the members of any class or group, or the holders of bonds, voting as a class, are entitled to elect one or more directors, any director so elected may be removed only by the applicable vote of the members of that class or group, or the holders of such bonds, voting as a class.
(d) An action to procure a judgment removing a director for cause may be brought by the attorney-general or by ten percent of the members whether or not entitled to vote. The court may bar from re-election any director so removed for a period fixed by the court.
Seeing as how we have no bylaws presented… how about the laws of the state of New York instead?
I’m really glad to hear the donor isn’t a board member. Not because I have a problem with board members donating, I have a problem with board memberships being given on condition of that donation.
amadeus: Yep. Fired up. I think this is as an important issue as the corruption in our sitting government, because I think that if we are as corrupt as they are in the eyes of the general public, they’ll never trust us to lead them. If we can’t trust OUR leaders, how can they, another rung down in the hierarchy of voices, trust those leaders, or trust US?
@nanette:
1. Great! Independent auditing is wise. Can we see the results of the audit?
2. Let’s get some bylaws in place. Total democracy isn’t needed, but a system of rules governing the actions of the board, and provisions for their removal if they are not meeting our needs ARE.
3. “on the fly” gets you put “in jail.” Unless of course you’re an attorney specializing in evading the penalties for “multiple criminal tax matters and federal investigations related to the securities industry, banking, private placement memoranda, and other white-collar investigations by state and federal authorities,” that is…
www.lawyers.com/v4/New-York/Rhinebeck/Michael-S-Pollok-157504837-a.htmlThen you might be able to get away with “on the fly.” We can no longer afford to allow that behavior. A CPA is a wonderful idea.
4. I’m glad bylaws are being written, and I would hope they would take the members’ wishes into consideration given the serious breach of trust the initial board created through their free reign of MP for so long.
5. Again, I’m glad the donor is NOT a board member. The only reason I feel that way is because from what I was told (again, no transparency) board membership was a CONDITION of the large donation. “Typical” is what got us into this mess. I have no desire to do things “typically” by letting those with the largest chunk of cash run things. A higher standard is needed, and bylaws to reflect that standard. The donor would be welcome onto a board that has bylaws to ensure that there is no power grab based on finances, in my opinion.
As for the donor being a representative etc… um… we’ll have to take your word for that. Which, while I happen to LIKE you very much, Nannette, is extremely difficult given the level of ridiculousness and outright lies that the board has in the past allowed its members to achieve, without, as I can see, a public rebuke or denunciation of their actions. It’s nothing personal. It IS important, and continued attempts to just “faggedaboutit!” are insulting to our integrity as a group. We are the American People, but we’ve wised up a bit. I’d like to think we don’t ignore corruption anymore. And YES, intimidating people for your own goals is corrupt. Lying is corrupt. Threatening to withhold work done for the group if you are demoted and then sabotaging the group when you feel it isn’t meeting your needs is corrupt. Anyone who can be proven to have done these things should NOT be allowed simply to be forgotten. A replacement will surely arise.
I would much prefer a board who’s members had an honest discussion than one who’s members issued a prepared statement and then fell silent.
I personally have been waiting for the “dust” to settle for months. It has not settled.
We shall see if it does now.
The removal of the Facebook page was in all likelihood NOT done by Facebook. I’ve addressed this above. I’ve addressed the simple way to find out, as well. But that would require access to the 99%Declaration Gmail account… which… according to Michael, MP took with him when he “resigned.” With honor.
As for my concerns being addressed on the new Facebook page… I fear they would be incendiary and get me banned, as before. If you will notice, my link to THIS Forum to express THESE concerns was deleted. No desire to show ANY response to the issue beyond “let’s just move on and not address it since MP elected to “resign.”
dawn,
Michael Pollok (and evidence attests to this, and you admit it yourself, Dawn) IS guilty of bad judgment AND lack of self-control.
In my opinion that’s an impeachable set of offenses.
What is Reprehensible to me is the fact that in addition to being guilty of bad judgment and lack of self-control (on numerous occasions, demonstrably and publicly, and in the name of our group) he ALSO refuses to take responsibility for being unfit to lead the group and consign it to what it needs to be- leadership by a board of directors with a keen ear to the will of their membership, and instead cling to power for himself and a handpicked select few. THAT is why he needs to be banned. Because he will continue to make power grabs (such as the one we saw just a few hours ago concerning the NGA Facebook page), drawing attention from the main mission.
I never said he did anything illegal at all. Not once.
I said that he displayed the actions of a person who was was power hungry, disrespectful of the people working hard to achieve a dream he inspired and then ground under in pursuit of fame and possibly political ambition, although he kept us in the dark as much as possible, so I’m not sure, and pure power over others.
I meant those things. They are true, and documented. It’s no more personal than stating that our president signed into law (again, without asking the American people at large how we felt) a provision to allow him to keep Bradley Manning in Jail for the rest of his natural life, on no charges. He needs to be banned to. Corruption like that is exactly what we are fighting against.
I’ll document them again if you have forgotten the arbitrary announcements, rules and bans made without consulting anyone but perhaps Karlie, and imposed on everyone with the threat of lawsuits if they didn’t go along, as well as solicitations for donations to fund his way of doing things, which he didn’t stop to make sure was OUR way of doing things too. I have subsequently had a post deleted TODAY that was not in violation of ANY rules, simply a link to this forum, because moderators didn’t want the word getting out. It “doesn’t display the 99%Declaration in its best (false though it may be) light. Sunny side up!
As to his law practice. I never said that all people were not entitled to an attorney.
But Dawn, would you have a person who is a professional handler of deadly viruses babysit your children in his off hours?
I wouldn’t.
Michael is a proud, self-proclaimed professional expert at helping free people who are accused of committing such acts as not just petty larceny, but:
“Successfully defending multiple criminal tax matters and federal investigations related to the securities industry, banking, private placement memoranda, and other white-collar investigations by state and federal authorities.”
(Helping his clients evade prosecution for criminal tax matters)
www.abv.com/michael_pollok.htm “On a post-conviction motion, life sentence reduced to slightly more than time served after 25 years in prison.”
(Helping release a convicted heroin distributor from prison with time served plus a bit more instead of life, and on a technicality.)
www.avvo.com/attorneys/12572-ny-michael-pollok-925954/legal_cases/8338www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=199950373FSupp2d430_1448.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006Helping defendants pleading guilty of tax evasion be sentenced to below guidelines probation as the sole “emotional support” for their families.
www.avvo.com/attorneys/12572-ny-michael-pollok-925954/legal_cases/8337www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=2&xmldoc=2002273184FSupp2d89_1268.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7...
And perhaps most disturbingly:
U.S. v. Gotti, 771 F.Supp. 552, 1991 WL 145842, 60 USLW 2174, E.D.N.Y., August 01, 1991(No. CR-90-1051.)...87 CR 247 (S.D.N.Y.) (James Coonan represented by Shargel); U.S. v. Gravano, 88 CR 271.
bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/6/6.F3d.924.92-1384.92-1671.92-1382.93-1181.817.htmlscholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15805187655971575991&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammy_Gravanoen.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_GottiJohn L. Pollok is listed as counsel of record, but MP lists this case as one of his, and why not… it’s GOTTI and GRAVANO.
“We noted that Gravano had acknowledged participating in 19 murders, that "at least two of those murders [were committed] in order to prevent the victims from testifying before a grand jury," and that he had "admitted other acts of obstructing justice, including bribing jurors."
openjurist.org/136/f3d/249/united-states-v-avellinoMP’s firm was removed from the case because “Without us, he (referring to co-counsel Bruce Cutler, representing Pollok’s firm) wouldn’t be on the map”
www.nytimes.com/1991/08/02/nyregion/gotti-discusses-representation-in-secret-tapes.htmlWithout Mob bosses paying up to $300,000 in a single month, Hoffman & Pollok LLP wouldn’t be on the map.
The lawyers were removed because they KNEW TOO MUCH and had been referenced during the wiretapped conversations of RICO convicted criminals. MULTIPLE MURDERERS.
The firm also represented other members of the crime organization (not ALLEGED, but convicted on MANY counts) including Angelo RUGGIERO, Gene Gotti and John Carneglia.
bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/928/928.F2d.1289.89-1355.89-1354.629.630.htmlMP is proud of working on cases on behalf of multiple murderers, drug smugglers and tax evaders. RICO cases. Why?
Do all of those people deserve legal representation?
Of course they do. And they pay great money for it, to help them circumvent the legal system.
Does
Michelangelo Pinzon (aka Michael Star) who jumped bail on drug charges, fled the country, and when caught was charged with 74 counts of child pornography deserve the best legal counsel possible? Sure. It’s the American Way, and we are innocent until proven guilty (and sentenced to 20+ years in prison for raping kids.)
queenscourier.com/2008/photographer-pleads-guilty-15279/Even THEN, MP will fight though… there’s always the lengthy, expensive APPEAL! (totally separate case)
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1059720.htmlCommendable in his dedication to seek out work mitigating the sentences of people that the average American wouldn’t want to be in the same ROOM with because they have admitted they rape children.
Nope, nothing illegal here.
Never said there was.
But Again, I’m asking… is that legal counsel, who CHOSE a career in law not to make justice or help clear innocents and victims, but to make money defending high profile, highly repugnant clients, who you want as the face of the 99% Declaration, an organization designed to get the corruption gone?
Because until he voluntarily withdrew his services, that’s who we had. And we choose not to renounce him for not only his criminal associations (undisclosed to members and donors to the 99%, and while not illegal, certainly unscrupulous, or am I wrong?) but also his potentially explosive career choice which if made public knowledge could make the 99%Declaration the laughingstock of a revolution (if it’s not already simply due to his antics.)
Those antics THEMSELVES are enough to renounce him.
But... we say "sunny side up, move on!"
MP’s toleration by this group is shameful, in my opinion. Not because he is a bad PERSON, although I personally believe that it is impossible to make an honest living defending multiple murderers and child abusers, but because he will, put simply, MAKE US LOOK VERY, VERY STUPID if we don't beat this information to the press.
I don’t know how much clearer more logical I can be.
This movement is on tender feet.
The face of the movement is, and has been since its inception… Michael Pollok.
He continues to strive to keep it that way.
“Fageddabouit?”
Do you really think that’s wise?