Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tl00365)

ramadoss@eden.com wrote:
>       If you have followed all the developments surrounding the changes to
> the bylaws which were made some time ago, you should have noticed that more
> than one attorney member of TS has come to the conclusion that bylaw changes
> were null and void because TSA itself did not follow its own bylaws when
> changes were made.

	Other than Sy, who else was there? I had read Sy's letters when he sent
it out, and showed it to several attorneys, as well as the by-laws, and
they disagreed with his conclusions (they did, however, point out to me
the major flaw in the National by-laws, which I have been campaigning to
have changed: it only requires a simple majority of the Board of
Directors to dissolve a Lodge (it requires 2/3 to throw out an
individual member). 

>       If there comes a time when a litigation becomes necessary because TSA
> tries to seize the property of a lodge, then we will see these issues and
> other related ones brought up.

	It depends. There are very few Lodges with an amount of property
sufficient to be worth a lawsuit. New York already has language in its
by-laws allowing National to take over the property (but NOT to remove
it from the city) should the New York Lodge be dissolved, so I don't
think it would stand up in court very well. I don't know about the other
Lodges with considerable property (Seattle, the camps, etc.).

	Bart Lidofsky