AN ANSWER FOR GEORGE

     George,
                  Here is a response to several issues you raised in your posting on the other blogs. I will try to respond on several points but not all - too long otherwise. Please note that as much of what you wrote was about me or actions that resulted from what I said, that the posting should have been here as well, on this blog. Be that as it may, let me respond to several points that I believe you made or tried to make.
     First, towards the end of the posting you reference the threats made to me via emails sent to my blog. I find it a tad disturbing that so many now seem to find the time appropriate to address this issue for when it was first brought into the open many in UCO and the DA basically told me to  leave it alone or laughed. Not funny, and I believe if one thinks it is, then try getting hate filled filth spewed at you several times a day and what is worse, there is no point behind it all other than hate and to try to impose a quietness based on fear. Well, it did not and will never work and as far as the PBSO, it was not that it was deemed not credible for further investigation; it was that the deputy sent to my home was ignorant of the Computer Crimes division and their role in a case like this. I have since been advised that they could and should do the tracing necessary for proof of the names of those sending the threats- and that is something I could not do unless I illegally hacked. Others may do that; I do not. After the holidays I will proceed further as and if I wish and that is my decision, not anyone else. There is no magic button to push, only more hurt and hate and I already know basically who sent what and if I wanted, I could take a page from their book and sic PBSO on them a la the Baker Act, turning the tables on them. Certainly if anyone is mentally unstable and making threats, well.....look in the right places. Anyway, the decision is mine.
      As an added note, just read that a person who had made a threat to kill someone, and wrote it on YikYak, a social media, was arrested. Hmmm....wouldn't that be a sight to see just exactly who in the Village would be taken out in handcuffs in their own little perp walk for making kill threats on line?
     Now for the rest. You oppose term limits and said an unsuitable person can be voted out. Uh huh, if there were a level playing field, but when the incumbent turns dictatorial and threatening, unbalanced and fascistic in behavior, controlling all thru the limited amount of people he allows into UCO, then there is no level field and the unsuitable one remains in office along with his minions. In fact, where is the response to the committee requests I made, for as a member of the Executive Board I am to be on two committees as a voting member. NO RESPONSE AND FRANKLY, I EXPECT NONE. George, I agree and disagree with you at times, but we have never fought since you speak in a balanced manner and do not oppose democracy. They do and obviously so.
     Term limits has been with UCO since its inception and there was no need to change for if an incumbent wished to remain close to the center of things he/she could run for another office and in two years run again for the prior office. There was no exile. All were welcomed into UCO and volunteerism at UCO. NOT NOW!
     Now for the crux of the matter and one which I believe you misunderstood as to why and purpose. I spoke very quietly but firmly about the actions taken by David Israel in blocking passing of votes on the amendments and indeed on all matters of importance to the delegates if the Exec. Bd. did not approve. This essentially removed the purpose of the delegates and they became as the Duma, or parliament of Russia - useless as the third armpit, playing no real role in UCO. This has never been the practice in UCO. This violated precedent, a legal issue, and nowhere does it say that if the Board votes no it does not go on. This was suddenly the "new" inspiration of the attorney on a leash, Rod Tennyson, who barks when David Israel says so and always with permission. There is no if-then clause in the amendments. However, David Israel is running scared and suddenly is combing thru everything in desperation to stem the tide and importance and power of the opposition. Every day we are getting more and more people emailing us telling us that once they supported David but can do so no longer.
     The purpose of the walkout was not to stymie any vote. There was no vote scheduled. Listen to what I said. I said that any and all who felt the same disgust, disrespect, contempt for the actions and behavior of David Israel to show this by standing up, turning a back to him and quietly walking out. I did not recommend riot or yelling or violence, verbal or physical, no shouting - just a quiet walkout. This, to show him and his camp that there is a powerful upsurge against him and I believe we made a good showing and knew that there was a goodly number of others supporting us who remained there for various reasons, some arranged and some not and there are more supporters in the delegates not yet returned.
     That was the purpose of the walkout. That is the purpose of the opposition, of the resistance to Israel and his manipulations, to his erratic and nasty behavior, to his belief in himself as the Ruler for Life of CVWPB.
     We want freedom of speech and assembly back again. We want free and equal access to all facilities. We want the rights of the delegates back again. We want to be treated as thinking adults, not as drooling facsimiles of adults who can only deal with resort like activities but politics - oh, no, too much for our pathetic and failing brains. Tell that to the people running for presidential office who are of our age. How's that working out for Bernie Sanders?
      George, think of all this and see if you understand our motivations and aims a tad better than before. As always, a pleasure to share thoughts with you, even be it via email and on line.
                                Esther