July 15, 2006
Dear Wayne,
I appreciate your concern over my appearing to be inconsistent with my statements concerning the actions taken to relieve Vance Smith of his office in JBS, but I have to say that the various communications which I had received from everyone went a long way to causing a change in understanding as to what was happening. My earlier statement, concerning the Water’s letter etc., were what I honestly felt at the time. However, as I learned more about the proceedings I changed my mind, thus creating in your mind a confused picture of the real David Eisenberg.
To put things in the perspective that I have, let me explain further. It is my feelings that when the Executive Committee was requested to investigate, they chose to discuss rather than investigate. This forced the Council Members to go to the Board of Incorporators for action. The results of that action, plus seeing Art Thompson in action as C.E.O. and McManus in action lead me to understand that I was incorrect in my earlier opinion of these two gentlemen.
Wayne, you folks keep using downright nasty phrases to depict people and actions they took in this affair and to not be accurate in some statements you have made. Doing away with the Executive Committee was not a long term deal, but rather that which occurred when the Board of Incorporators took command. The Executive Committee was immediately returned to their original purpose as the new management took charge.
With appreciation for the many funds supplied JBS by you folks, and taking into consideration your statement that you are doing all you can to restore the JBS. That being the case then, why have you stopped your ads in TNA? Do you wish to bankrupt JBS in order to be able to reclaim it?
With respect to Jack McManus statements about Jews; I was requested by Vance to respond to Jacks speeches and tapes for the purpose. I feel, to be a part of the process of firing Jack. My exchange of letters and phone calls with Jack made me feel that Jack was not an anti-Semite. Jack has not been allowed to continue speaking in such a manner. What Jack had said about Jews did not imply that the Jewish religion is deadly.
I end this response to your letter by saying that I am not so pig-headed that I would continue to defend an incorrect position once I had been proven wrong. That is why my correspondence, taken over time, seems to be confusing. The best thing for the good of JBS that could occur is for all of you to realize that you, too, could be wrong in what you are doing in the name of trying to save the JBS. What you are, in fact, doing is making it harder for JBS to survive. Is that what you folks want if you can’t have your way? I think so.
Sincerely,
David Eisenberg
Wayne Rickert responds to David Eisenberg
|
|
