[Lnc-business] The Judicial Committee decision and how it effects the Libertarian National Committee

[Daniel Hayes]

 <http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/09/libertarian-party-judicial-committee-issues-majority-and-minority-opinion-on-libertarian-party-of-oregon-dispute/#comment-1239068>
I think that Chairman Sarwark did a pretty good job of fairly succinctly summing up an A-1 MESS.
Note he makes the point that this has been and is currently being adjudicated. Also note that LPO is a political party organized under Oregon State Law. Oregon state law ONLY allows ONE Political Party referred to as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon”. The other entity in Oregon is currently operating as a PAC as ordered by the State of Oregon. Legally they are not currently a Political party. The National Libertarian Party only affiliates with State Parties.

Even if the LNC voted to disaffiliate the Wagner/Hebor run LPO, they would still be the ONLY entity in Oregon known as the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Legally, the other group, Burke/Reeves/Epstein is not a political party. I am unaware of any rule that currently allows us to affiliate with a PAC. I don’t have Oregon’s laws handy but I know that in Louisiana, there is a provision against allowing parties with deceptively similar names to be formed. I am unsure that even if the BRE group formed another group with a differing name that they would be allowed to call themselves a party under Oregon Law. Furthermore, even if the LNC would affiliate with any other entity formed for the purpose of representing the NLP in Oregon, because of the likely restrictions under Oregon Law, it would have to have a rather different name in order to achieve ballot access otherwise the NLP would lack an affilate able to get ballot access in the state.

Until such time as the current appeal by the BRE group is ruled on the by the courts, I see the LNC/NLP as having no ability make any changes, no matter what the LP JC has recently done or not done. The JC is supposedly in existence to keep the LNC/NLP out of court. As the LP is involved in litigation currently regarding this matter, the JC involving itself further is unneeded and potentially injurious to the NLP. Couple that with the Chairman of the JC being a party to the currently pending lawsuit under appeal, it becomes even more problematic. That he recused himself from voting but did not recuse himself entirely from the matter further complicates this.

I support the Chairman’s overall points on this matter. I see the ONLY action that the LNC could possibly take would be to Rescind the motion previously adopted by the 2011 Executive Committee and entirely remove ourselves from the matter as best we are able until such time as the courts make any further ruling. The EC itself could rescind the motion, or the LNC as a whole as the EC is a subordinate body to the LNC. However, we could also do nothing and allow this matter to be sorted out by the delegates at convention. I suspect there will be motions by some that will not allow the LNC to do “nothing” and there will likely be a vote. Be aware, I agree with Chairman Sarwark that allowing this matter to be handled at the convention by the delegates is the more appropriate course. The most appropriate course is that the BRE group continue it’s lawsuit(or not) and work within whatever rules that currently exist within Oregon in the W/H factions bylaws to put forth their positions.



Daniel Hayes
LNC Region 7 Alternate Representative


> On Sep 15, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I assume that you all have had a chance to read the document forwarded
> to this list by the Secretary and myself.
> 
> There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee
> came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took
> up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit
> enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior
> decision four years after the fact, etc.  Any one or more of those
> would make the decision we received invalid.  If anyone would like to
> discuss the specifics of those issues, I'm happy to do so.
> 
> However, I think it's more productive to proceed with the decision we
> received and leave what to do about the process that allowed it to
> occur to the delegates in convention in Orlando in 2016.
> 
> By a vote of 4-2, the current Judicial Committee decided to rescind
> the decision of the prior Judicial Committee in Wagner v. LNC.  Wagner
> v. LNC reversed decisions of the Executive Committee of the LNC that
> constructively disaffiliated the Libertarian Party of Oregon without
> the appropriate vote of the full LNC by recognizing officers and
> bylaws different from those recognized under state law as the officers
> of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, which is organized as a political
> party under the laws of the state of Oregon.
> 
> For reference, the three Executive Committee motions originally adopted are:
> "--------------------------Motion 1------------------------
> Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the
> Libertarian National Committee finds that the Bylaws of the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended March 14-15, 2009) are the
> Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and that these bylaws have
> been in effect since March 15, 2009.  (This motion was adopted by a
> vote of 6-1.)
> --------------------------Motion 2------------------------
> Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the
> Libertarian National Committee recognizes as the officers of the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon those people elected by the State
> Committee during its meeting on May 21, 2011. They are:
> Chair:  Tim Reeves
> Vice chair:  Eric B. Saub
> Secretary:  Carla J. Pealer
> Treasurer:  Gregory Burnett
> (This motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1.)
> --------------------------Motion 3------------------------
> The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges
> the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to
> resolve their disagreements. (This motion was adopted by a vote of
> 7-0.)"
> 
> It is important to understand what a motion to rescind can and cannot
> do to understand the effect of the Judicial Committee ruling.  Under
> Robert's, motions to rescind cannot undo what has been done.  If a
> body votes to paint a building green, then paints the building green,
> a subsequent motion to rescind the decision to paint the building
> green does not unpaint the building, nor does it repaint the building
> a different color.  New action by the body is required to repaint the
> building.
> 
> Accordingly, rescinding the decision that reversed the motions of the
> Executive Committee listed above has the effect of saying that the
> current Judicial Committee disagrees with the decision of the prior
> Judicial Committee.  It also reinstates the sense of the Executive
> Committee in 2011 that "based on the available evidence" a certain
> group of people and a certain set of bylaws were the correct ones for
> the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
> 
> However, in the subsequent four years, perhaps in the spirit of
> "work[ing] together to resolve their disagreements," there has been
> extensive litigation in Oregon state courts over who controls the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon, a political party organized and governed
> by Oregon state law.  The result of that litigation has been that the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon is presently chaired by Lars Hedbor.  The
> rival group, presently chaired by Ian Epstein, has been ordered to act
> as a Political Action Committee, as there may not be more than one
> political party referred to as the "Libertarian Party of Oregon."
> There is an appeal pending, but the decision of the lower court was
> not stayed on appeal, so the lower court decision stands.
> 
> The Libertarian Party of Oregon has nominated and run many Libertarian
> candidates for public office in the last four years, including placing
> Gary Johnson and Jim Gray on the ballot in 2012 as the Presidential
> and Vice Presidential nominees, as required by the affiliation
> agreement between the Libertarian National Committee and the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon.
> 
> The LNC affiliates with state Libertarian parties.  Some of those
> parties are allowed or required to organize under state laws, some are
> not.  In Oregon, the LNC is affiliated with the Libertarian Party of
> Oregon, an Oregon political party.
> 
> If the members of the Libertarian National Committee feel that the
> Oregon political party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, should no
> longer be our affiliate in the state of Oregon, for whatever reason, a
> motion to disaffiliate that political party as our state affiliate is
> in order.  Until such time as such a motion is moved and passes, it is
> my intent as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to maintain
> the affiliate agreement with the Oregon political party, the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon.  This would not and will not change
> should future litigation change who is in control of that political
> party.
> 
> Yours in liberty,
> 
> Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150915/7dc74781/attachment-0005.html>