This is a document referred to from my online diary for
December 2007. It won't make much sense unless you've read that first.
From grog@lemis.com Fri Nov 30 12:10:24 2007
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:10:24 +1100
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
To: Antonia Munoz <pascalis100@yahoo.com>
Subject: Your unsolicited mail about Andrew and Rosemary Mackay (was: subject omitted)
Message-ID: <20071130011024.GS67217@dereel.lemis.com>
References: <897401.22618.qm@web44906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <897401.22618.qm@web44906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
Single line paragraphs.
My apologies to the many cross-posted recipients of this message; it's
possible that this is of even less interest to you than it is to me.
Unfortunately, since I don't know any of you, I can't trim the list.
On Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 1:23:35 -0800, Antonia Munoz wrote:
>
> Andrew and Rosemary Mackay (www.gundaroohorsepark.com.au) are being
> pushed into the Supreme Court of New South Wales by the current and
> certain past Board Members of the American Saddlebred Horse
> Association of Australia.
I have no idea who you are, or why you have sent me this message.
From your name, time zone and the Spanish footer to your message, it
appears that you are on the West Coast of America, so it's not clear
what your relationship is with this matter.
I have nothing to do with Saddlebreds or the ASHAA, and my only
contact with the Mackay's (Rosemary) was a reply to an unsolicited
diatribe on her part, to which I objected. I threatened to take
action if she continued this breach of privacy. Until now she has not
done so, but it appears that you have sent this message on her behalf,
particularly since you could only have received my email address from
Rosemary, so she has not respected this demand. I shall now take
action against her. I am copying Rosemary on this reply to make this
matter clear.
In any case, please stop. You may reply to this letter or any
legitimate followup, but I will consider further unrelated and
unsolicited messages from to be a breach of privacy.
> Andrew and Rosemary Mackay have been long term members of the
> association, having bred many American Saddlebred Horses, putting on
> Open Days at The Elms, Gundaroo NSW 2620. They have sat on the
> Board of ASHAA.
>
> Andrew and Rosemary, it appears with no due process and with, it
> appears, a denial of natural justice, were told, early 2007, they
> were no longer members of ASHAA and Rosemary was told, it appears,
> with no due process and, it appears, with a denial of natural
> justice, was told, during 2006, that she was 'off the Board'. This
> has enormous implications for the Mackays in their ability to
> undertake their American Saddlebred Horse Stud business.
My understanding was that, despite reminders, the Mackays had not
renewed their membership. People who do not renew their membership
cease to be members. This is not a lack of due process or "denial of
natural justice": it's the way associations are run, and the fault is
their own.
> Andrew and Rosemary have taken lengthy measures to avoid this matter
> going into the Supreme Court of NSW to no avail.
This statement is misleading at best. They initiated the proceedings.
If they don't want it to go to court, there's a very simple solution:
they should just stop this nonsense.
One obvious question that nobody has answered is: *WHY* do the Mackays
want to join the ASHAA when it's clear that nobody wants them there?
> All attempts to conciliate with ASHAA were rejected by certain
> current and past Board Members of ASHAA.
This is a very different story from what I have heard. Did they not
gate crash the last AGM of the ASHAA and refuse to leave? That is not
a conciliatory measure.
> This matter is of supreme importance to all members and Boards
> sitting on incorporated associations, especially breed societies and
> the outcomes should be watched carefully by all members and boards
> of incorporated associations.
Finally I can agree with something you said.
Everything I have seen about the Mackays, both directly and by report
from people I trust, suggests that the ASHAA would be better off
without them. Your letter fits this mold perfectly. I don't know the
constitution of the ASHAA, but I believe that it is in the vital
interests of any association to be able to remove members who make a
nuisance of themselves.
I hope that the court will agree that nuisance cases such as this are
a waste of everybody's time and money. In the case of the ASHAA, the
costs are high enough that I expect that they will have to increase
membership fees to pay for the costs of the legal action. In whose
interest is that?
Greg Lehey
--
When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
original text.
For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
