Well known, high contributors were removed

Hi Eyal,

I guess you should go through the material that has been published up to now to see it your opinion remain the same.

From a procedural point of view things are complex as we have to consider the German Stock Corporation Act, the closest applicable set of laws, for matters that are not clearly stated in the statutes.

IANAL but I put a lot of effort into trying to make sense of a complex and troubling situation and read lots of legal documents, laws and regulations to form my opinion.

I do not see any issue with the decision taken by the MC when considering the statutes in combination with the Stock Corporation Act.

Section 84(4) also states: The supervisory board may revoke the appointment as member of the management board and the designation as chairperson of the management board for grave cause.

It is very likely that the supervisory board (MC) could have revoked the appointment of the then chairperson and other members of the board due to acts that looked like they were going pretty much against TDF’s best interests, I guess they were hoping for positive changes that were promised but unfortunately never materialised.

So in my opinion, with the above together with the what is written in the statutes leaving full freedom to the MC in relation to membership renewals, the process was correct especially in light of the fact that we received written confirmation of the acts in question, through the audit, only during this board term.

Let’s anyway evaluate the situation as if it were an expulsion, which is not, and hear what the person has to say. The MC still has an audit confirming the acts that justify the expulsion so what would be the point of a hearing?

I would agree that in case of an expulsion the exact process stated in the statutes would have been followed but the result would have been the same as an independent auditor has already collected the information confirming the acts for which the member should be expelled.

In other cases where the situation is unclear then I would agree that a hearing would be necessary before proceeding with an expulsion.

Ciao

Paolo

You know, @paolo, I just spent the last five hours in police lockup, and your level of argumentation here is not much more convincing than theirs.

If you’re telling me, that Gabriel, Thorsten and Cor were expelled based on secret material, that - in your continuing violation of the statutes - kept from us trustees, that would be rather outrageous in itself.

(Un)fortunately, that is not the case, and retroactive causes for expulsion are not a thing. Plus, that all does not matter, because expelling a trustee has a procedure; and when that is not followed, it is just a savage head-chopping. If you - the BoD and or that joke-of-an-MC - actually want to level an argument against any of the three being a trustee - you can only start by apologizing for the expulsion, restoring their trusteeships retroactive, and then and only then - would anyone consider your accusations as any more than the excuses of an authoritarian (organizational) government.

No, they are not complex; the matter is stated clearly enough; and even if it had not been, a foundation is not a Stock Corporation, and certainly the trustees did not accept nor want our formal relations w.r.t. the project to be governed like a commercial/for-profit corporation.

I grant you that, but you’ve also put quite a bit of effort in making it more complex and troubling.

and made sure to hide these important documents from us, preventing us from forming our own opinion. Well, whatever you’re not disclosing - must, and is, held as being in the disfavor of your claims and arguments.

And that is why you must be taken out of the BoD as soon as possible.

Oh really? You want to hear what Gabriel has to say? Well, what he has to say is probably “WTF?”

But really, you’re just like those policemen earlier this evening. “Why did you participate in an unlawful demonstration and resist dispersion?” - they also wanted to listen to what I had to say, but only after breaking up the demonstration and holding me in handcuffs at the police station for hours. Before that time, they could really care less about what I had to say.

Hi Eyal,

Very sorry about that.

The material is not secret.

You can read it in the audit and in the motivation provided by the MC for not renewing the memberships. One of these individuals even made the email from the MC public on this forum so you can read it.

The additional material released gives you a glimpse of how badly things were run by the majority of the previous board and that goes on top of what the 2 audits revealed.

You are confusing things a bit here. TDF has to respect many laws including commercial laws but that doesn’t make TDF a commercial company nor can be run as a commercial organisation as naturally it has also to respect German laws for charitable organisations.

For the crime of having formed an opinion after having read and evaluated statutes, legal documents, legal advice, audits and laws and regulations TDF is bound to respect?

Well in that case I’m guilty as charged.

Do you want me to resign now or shall I finish helping TDF in fixing the ongoing issues?

It would have been great if he said that at least once during his time in the board when it was clear that more damages for TDF were being created.

Rest assure that I do respect you and the fact that you are in the front line of pacific protests with all the risks involved.

In this forum you have a chance of expressing your opinion and protest without fear of major consequences and, if you don’t mind, I’d like to have the same opportunity without being compared to situations that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

In a few months time you will have a chance to run for the board, please do it so that you’ll take the responsibility and liability of your decisions.

In the meantime here’s a reminder of what this board is still battling with so it can’t yet release the rest of the information:

Ciao

Paolo