Source: https://www.wosipsp-chancellery.org/index.php/doc-inglese/172-open-letter-11-august-2016
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 08:10:31
Document Index: 40465961

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 16', 'art. 1', 'art. 2', 'art. 3', 'art. 13', 'art. 18', 'art. 4', 'art. 14', 'art. 4', 'art. 38']

OPEN LETTER August 2016 - IPSP CHANCELLERY
OPEN LETTER August 2016
Object: Open Letter august 2016: “NULLITY Opinion” concerning the work of the General Ordinary Assembly on 28/06/2016 from the General Chancellery WOS-IPSP”.
From: The Great Chancellor WOS-IPSP (mailto: Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo. ) sent: thursday 11 august 2016 16.15
To: Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.' Cc:Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo. ; Eugenio Lai World Parliament
To Mr. President W.O.S.- I.P.S.P. - H.E. Eugenio LAI
E.P.C. To the Member States of the “Parliament”
NULLITY Opinion concerning the work of the General Ordinary Assembly on 28/06/2016 from the General Chancellery WOS-IPSP.
Just today this Chancellery has come into possession of a verbal copy, about the activites done, during the General Ordinary Assembly on 28/6/2016, in second calling, of the WOS.IPSP in Cagliari, for which he expresses his opinion, as determined by the statutory rules.
In order to make it categorically clear the work done by this entity, established in the art. 16, par. 3 and 4 of the statute, for the interests of the Organization and the common good, it is specified that the present Verbal Note DOES NOT want to represent absolutely an indictment or demerit of the leadership, but a valid support to the activities that always has done, offering the “opinions”, like pro veritate, dictated by logic, by experience, from the study of the acts, facts, statutes, specific and relatives situations.
Made this premise, we move on to the examination of the communication, of the verbal, the rules and facts.
1) In the constitutive Act/ License n. 2321 of the 24.7.2014, pag. 1, the “Appearing” declares to “ act as President of the General Security Council...” of the organization understood as “ ...International association between States...” and then “... which has a legal personality of international right...” (pag. 8, art. 1 par. 2). Consequently since its establishment, the administrative body determined to direct each activity of the organization is clear and undisputed, so much so that, otherwise, the notary could not have concluded, in a license form, the act n. 2321.
2) The sing it with the act registration referred to in the previous point, it was appropriate after the General extraordinary Assembly of that association “IGO”, in which, opening the works, you specified that: “the members of P.M. For the Security and Peace must be the State Members, that means the States that accept the obligations established by the statute. ...With that we want to affirm that the acceptance of the proposal of adhesion to the P.M. Must be examined, accepted or rejected by the executive body by the Association (Cap. 1 O. del G. sheet 5 license). “It is clear that the only one main executive and administrative body of this organization is the General Council of Security of which you are the President, rightly recognized also in an international legal level, so much so the notary, lawyer F. Adami of Lugano, seen the documents, he legitimizes it and ratifies membership, qualifications and quality.
3) In the art. 2, par. 1 c. q of the statute, it specifies, between the social purposes, the constitution of the subsidiary organism of the General Security Council, and in the art. 3 it is still ratified that the members of the P.M are the States (and only those) that subscribe the statute with the obligations arising. Practically IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT CONCEIVED in the association AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE GREATER BODY of the General Security Council (if anything, subsidiary) and then the States also, if they do not have to subscribe specifically and expressly the statute, THEY CAN NOT BECOME ACTUAL MEMBERS WITH ALL RELATIVE RIGHTS (mainly those of vote, diplomatic ones, etc.) and have a place in the C.G. Of Security!
4) Sanctioned these first incontrovertible assumptions, it is possible to go deeply on the verbal and the works in question. It is first declared the NULLITY of the General Ordinary Assembly for “violation”of the artt. 16 par. 2 and 22 par. 3, 4 of the Statute. In fact, even if it results the presence of the General Secretary of the WOS-IPSP, Mr. Alfredo Maiolese (also delegate of the Kingdom of San Pietro e Paolo), it was determines, as Secretary o the Assembly, the Dr. Giuseppe Caddeo, that is, another person and not precisely the General Secretary holder of that office, in violation of the statutory articles.
5) Moreover it is specified the NULLITY of the General Ordinary Assembly for “violation” of the art. 13, par. 1,3,7;18,par.2, and 35 par. 2 and 3. Pratically, NOT having been called the General Security Council, single administrative governance body of the IGO and neither the General Presidency Council (which anyway would have to then bring to knowledge of the C.G. Of Security the accounting results, for ratification, before the General Ordinary Assembly), it is always the administration council that “determines the budget to be presented in the Assembly to approve or not,” certainly NOT a professional because, even if he is more experienced in the branch, clearly it will never be able to operate legitimately in relation to the policies of the institution or to the appropriate authorizations, which are expressly referred to this structure.
6) Despite being planned the “ discussion in the General Ordinary Assembly on any subject...” (art. 18 par. 3 of the statute), and the members NOT permanent are elected by the A.G.O., “to discuss” does not mean “deliberate” contra legem”, specially when the Associative Statute rules determine otherwise (art. 4 par. ¼ statute). That means that, never having been called the General Security Council to “discuss and accept or not” the entry in the WOS of the States:: Republic of Gambia, Republic of Gabon, Kingdom of S. Peter and Paul, Republic of Magagascar, Republic of Iraq,, Kingdom Hashemite of Jordan, these could NOT have pro or versus on no point in the agenda, standing the “non acceptance”, by the administrative body. Therefore, according to the verbal, the assembly would have deliberated through the following States: Principality of King and State of Sao Tomé and Prince.
7) In relation to the point 6 of the agenda of the convocation of the assembly, that says: “Proposal to change the structure of the Presidency Council”, it must first of all make a distinction. A) A Proposal it is NOT a resolution, for which it is indicated the condition to “propose”, this status Does NOT determine decision making, as instead it is present of the other points in the agenda. B) in the WOS-IPSP DOES NOT EXIST a Presidency Council, or better to say what council, of a commision? In fact if it wanted to talk (as in fact later it was done dealing the figure of the Great Chancellor) of the General Council of the Presidency (art. 14, parr. 1/8), as indicated in the agenda is misleading, then is NOT correct and legitimate. C) Moreover, what would it mean to “change the structure”? The President would become Secretary, these Great Chancellor and the last one President or the other way around? Althought not less, evaluated the effective intention of “remove politically” the Great Chancellor, perhaps uncomfortable figure for the proposers of the “absurd and unreal relationship”, this Chancellery MUST specify that the current members of the General Council of Presidency (President, Vice-president, Great Chancellor and General Secretary) will be in charge, by statute (subject to resignation), until the july 2, 2019 (Cap. 3, sheet 24° of the License n. 2321).
8) For information purposes and for properly knowledge, regardless of any other position, a possible sanctioning decision in violation of the principles of defense, notification, terms, etc., it would be a very serious act against the sacrosanct Rights of man!
9) A possible disciplinary competence, firmly remaining that it is possible a punishable activity, and after having fulfilled the dictates of legal guarantee, is expressly determined by the statute of the General Council of Security, to the art. 4 par. 4 (pag. X); also to the art. 38 par. 1 it is ratified an “arbitration decision”, every different position is illegitimate.
10) Anyhow, Mr. President, since the Great Chancellor, before any other condition, in the case is a President of a state, permanent member of the General Security Council of the WOS-IPSP, it asks the immediate convocation, according with the statute, of this administrative body in order to resolve on this matter, also opening a disciplinary judgment against tha titular of the “Argentina Mission” on 2014-2015.
In the convocation of the C.G. Of the Security and the instruction of the relative report requested, this Chancellery advice the immediate CANCELLATION OF ANY RESOLUTION, and the call of the General Security Council of the WOS-IPSP above all to ratify the work of the General Presidency Council, admit the states that have requested (with express definition of the conditions, rights and duties); approve the financial statements for the immediate presentation to the general assembly, determine a constructive association policy, etc.
Anyhow, Mr. President, the present verbal note wants to be the constructive demonstration of the will to “do” and NOT to destroy, for how it has always operated this institutional safeguard body of the WOS.IPSP in good and bad luck.
Best Regards The Great Chancellor