Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight? (page 15)

Chaserious

Wow, you really don't get it, fizzywidget.

HintOfLime

Perhaps a simplified illustration would be "They may have filed for the marriage certificate, but they aren't married yet."

They've declared their intention to become a non-profit - but they are not yet legally recognized as one. Therefore, legally (which is what counts here), when it comes to paperwork - they are incorporated. They are not legally a non-profit yet.

- Lime

Paralipomenon

I was not a fan of the name but liked the concept and message.

I went to check it out and found a couple updates that really turned me off on the site.

1) " If you view Watchtower as being a positive organization, then of course you will view our name negatively."

Really? That is my only option? Seriously?

2) Looking at Cedar's blog post, signing it off :

John Cedars, President of AAWA

That bothers me. Maybe more than it should.

I am not familiar with all the founding members, but of those that I know draw next to no attention to themselves. They focus their effort on the message. Why is being "president of AAWA" worth noting?

I think I am going to reserve judgement for now, but I am not impressed with it so far.

okage

I've said my part on the subject earlier, but this thread is getting tense. Cedars did what he did and it looks like his trust or credibility are being called to question. He knows JWN doesn't buy into PR propaganda, so if he wants to clear it up, he knows where to go for it. Until then, we need to stop acting like an angry mob ready to lynch him.

Barbara Anderson has done more for exJWs than most of us combined. She is a respectable woman and has no debt so big that she needs to tell us why she does anything. If some day she feels the compulsion to tell us, we ought to be grateful she shared a part of her life with us.

Usually, I'm a pretty amped up about getting things done and getting answers. But say what you want about AAWA, leave the explanations be.

Chaserious

They may have filed for the marriage certificate, but they aren't married yet.

Not exactly. State law governs the incorporation of an organization as a "non profit." 501(c) status is federal law that allows for tax exempt status. While most nonprofits are tax exempt and thus there is a lot of overlap between the two, nonprofit and tax exempt are not the same thing.

I don't know where fizzywidget is getting this thing about needing 501(c) status to be a non profit. It's incorrect.

HintOfLime

You're correct in that point - I was simplying, but there is a difference between non-profit and tax exempt. I imagine it is moot anyway, as I'd assume 501c is in the works anyway (or they haven't filed for it because they don't anticpate more than $5000 per year in donations or whatever their local law allows).

The tax-exempt status was more of an observation, and noted - it may take a while for the paperwork to appear online. The issue AAWA should be concerened with is that you can't create a non-profit corporation and list the president as "Mc Fuzzypants" and provide a fake address for him. The rules when it comes to legal responsibility are the same.

- Lime

fizzywiglet

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/non-profit-corporation/

"Forming a nonprofit corporation is much like creating a regular corporation, except that nonprofits have to take the extra steps of applying for tax-exempt status with the IRS and their state tax division."

You might be somewhat correct, in that you can have a "nonprofit" corporation without 501(c)3 status if you don't expect any income, and it's all based only on volunteer time, no money involved. But AAWA has already solicited and accepted donations (nice prominently-placed donate button on their website).

So, I will grant you that there may be a fuzzy distinction, and you may have something of a point there.

But again, I will repeat...it's moot.

The nonprofit stuff is an interesting tangent to discuss on top of everything else, but not the point. You yourself pointed out, the requirements for nonprofits in regards to the Articles of Incorporation are the same as the requirements for corporations. It's required in A2 to list full names/addresses for all officers. Links have been posted to both sections of Arizona law in total, for both nonprofits and corporations. No provision is made for aliases/pseudonyms to be substituted . Then it's required in D1 to declare in good faith a bunch of information about all of the people listed in A2.

Again, don't take my word for it. Go ahead, take 5 minutes to call the ACC and ask them if it would be illegal to use an alias or pseudonym on the Articles of Incorporation - corporation OR nonprofit.

They lied and perjured themselves on a notarized legal document. It's not "conjecture or speculation". They lied. Get over it. Maybe they didn't think it was a big deal, or weren't acting maliciously because they genuinely never thought it would be brought up or come into play, maybe they figured it was a white lie that wouldn't hurt anybody and would just expedite things, maybe they just didn't think it through beforehand...but the fact remains, they lied. They have been called out and now have an opportunity to fix it.

And now I am taking a break to get food and fun stuff, because I'm out of posts for a while, anyway.

Chaserious

Chaserious said

"In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not."

fizzywidget said:

"Certain", are you? NOW who's full of conjecture and speculation? How, pray tell, might you be "certain" of that? (As it happens, you would be dead wrong.)"

Well, when you finish your meal and eventually happen back here, maybe you can explain what your research into Arizona law showed about the ability to use a pseudonym. For example, should I assume that in your research you came across State v. Carroll, where the Arizona Appeals Court said:

"The common law gives a person the right to assume a name not given him by his parents and allows him to make valid contracts using the assumed name . . . The Arizona Supreme Court has long recognized that an assumed name is not ‘fictitious' in the sense of being a false pretense . We cannot, therefore, agree with the State's position that signing the check with the assumed name is sufficient to establish a false pretense . . . ."

So, did you find out in your legal research whether Cedars might qualify as an "assumed name" under Arizona law?

You might be right that they were not allowed to incorporate in this manner. I am not inclined to spend a lot of time researching whether that is the case or not. But I don't think anyone in this thread has the expertise to make the conclusive legal opinions that have been expressed about whether an illegal act was committed or not.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“They lied and perjured themselves on a notarized legal document. It's not "conjecture or speculation". They lied.”

fizzywiglet,

It’s neither illegal nor dishonest to use a pseudonym as you keep complaining.

Why are you acting like such a child? What’s your point? If you have one please make it so readers can make of it what they will. If your point is what’s quoted above then you have placed yourself under a heavy burden of proof. You hurled serious accusations. When you find out how ludicrous is your accusation will you take it upon yourself to be equally frank in assessing your stupidity?

Was Marion Morrison lying and perjuring himself by signing his name as John Wayne and using an agent’s address in order to keep people like you away from him and his family?

If you want to know what is or is not legal on these documents I suggest you take your money and put it where your mouth is by hiring some legal expertise as did the founders of AAWA. Do you really think David A. McEvory, Esq. would place his career in jeopardy for the few measly dollars it takes to file a charter like AAWA’s?

You’re a joke!

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Any person who executed or contributed information for a certificate of disclosure and who intentionally makes any untrue statement of material fact or withholds any material fact with regard to the information required in subsection D, paragraph 1 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony”

Las Malvinas son Argentinas,

It’s nice to see you know how to cut-and-paste words. Too bad you don’t understand what they mean.

Please tell everyone what precisely is untrue about putting the name John Cedars on AAWA’s charter. Can you do that?

Marvin Shilmer

Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

Share this