[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

Tim Hagan tim.hagan at lp.org
Fri Mar 16 11:43:30 EDT 2018


The Legal Offense Fund is a temporary restricted fund, and had $659.11 
carried over from last year. We budgeted $5000 for the 90-Project 
Program Other line in the budget, with the idea of $5000 for LPedia 
Historical Preservation, $0 for Building Fund Expenses, and $0 for Legal 
Offense Fund Project. So, without a motion to amend the budget, any 
amount over $659.11 spent on legal offense would cut into the amount 
available for LPedia Historical Preservation.

A similar expense line, 75-Litigation, consists of $6000 Legal-Proactive 
planned for the lawsuit against the FEC.

---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

On 2018-03-16 07:40, Sam Goldstein wrote:
> I would first ask the Treasurer how much we have budgeted this year in
> the Legal Offense fund and how much we have spent, if any of that
> amount.  My other concern is that March 28th is a very tight deadline
> and the last time we had a similar situation we were less than pleased
> with the result.
> 
> I would vote against this Amicus at this time.
> 
> ---
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> 317-850-0726 Cell
> 
> On 2018-03-16 09:49, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>> I am for this.
>> 
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2018, at 8:04 AM, Oliver Hall <oliverbhall at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the LPCO case, Counsel for the plaintiffs has advised me that they 
>>> may have a willing and able attorney, who is experienced in filing 
>>> Supreme Court amicus briefs, if th‎e LNC approves a fee of $1000 - 
>>> $3000.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Oliver Hall
>>> 
>>>   Original Message
>>> From: Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 7:31 PM
>>> To: Libertarian National Committee list
>>> Reply To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action
>>> 
>>> Full disclosure as everyone already knows, I am on the LPCO board 
>>> until
>>> 3/25 and my husband is the Chair. It has been going on a long time 
>>> and
>>> I do think this angle important to get legal help as we are not deep
>>> pockets as a Party (not just LPCO everywhere) - and if no chance for
>>> fees, few attorneys will do. I won my ballot selfie case that way.
>>> Now, however, I am not disinterested and as it has been public record
>>> in our meetings, LPCO could be on the hook at least partially for 
>>> fees
>>> if this is not successful.
>>> In general, I think we should assist any winnable court case, and 
>>> this
>>> one where they are trying to join one thing to another to defeat 
>>> fees,
>>> is a bludgeon against third parties. And its an easy trick as anyone
>>> in law knows.... for instance in a case where person A is suing 
>>> person
>>> B but really wants to get to person B's insurance carrier they can
>>> plead 10 things that the insurance excludes but as long as they throw
>>> in one that the insurance does, the insurer will be providing a 
>>> defense
>>> and is likely to put money on the table. Conversely here, the state
>>> knows they just throw in another angle and defeat the whole case for
>>> fees.
>>> And of course I will point out, as I always do, that CO is not a 
>>> ballot
>>> access issue state and is consistently (though not at this moment) a
>>> top ten BSM state - CO consistently supports ballot access in those
>>> other areas that are not as lucky so this is where the LNC could 
>>> assist
>>> - and CO is a pretty good state for third parties - let's keep it 
>>> that
>>> way and defeat these loopholes.
>>> what is the logistical issue? Getting a lawyer to write that quickly?
>>> that's plenty of time it seems to me but putting a motion on this 
>>> will
>>> take most of it.
>>> I ask that the EC meet on this to discuss- nothing will happen here 
>>> on
>>> this list.
>>> Nick, please consider this Region 1's request to consider and request
>>> to take it to the EC.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Oliver Hall
>>> <[1]oliverbhall at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My concern regarding that case is entirely logistical. The
>>> benefit to
>>> the LNC is that it is on record advocating for a position that, I
>>> believe, advances the LNC's interests by protecting the incentive
>>> for
>>> attorneys to take on ballot access cases pro bono, with the
>>> expectation
>>> that they will be awarded fees if they win.
>>> Oliver B. Hall
>>> Special Counsel
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> [2]617-953-0161
>>> On 3/13/2018 12:43 PM, Whitney Bilyeu wrote:
>>> With regard to the amicus brief with LPCO...Oliver, is your
>>> reluctance
>>> in this case based solely on the cost to the Party itself? You
>>> stated
>>> that it has merit. So, I would like to know if there is any
>>> potential
>>> benefit to the LP, even if our side loses and we suffer the
>>> expense.
>>> Thanks for providing the information!
>>> Whitney Bilyeu
>>> Region 7 Representative
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Justin O'Donnell
>>> 
>>> [1]<[1][3]justin.odonnell at lp.org> wrote:
>>> Mr Hall,
>>> With Regards to the Lavergne v US House case, there have already
>>> been previous suits regarding Connecticut's ratification of the
>>> amendment if I recall correctly, but regardless, the issue is a
>>> widely misunderstood one regardless. The actual text of the
>>> article,
>>> if read, does not limit the size of the congressional districts
>>> and
>>> increase the size of the house. The unratified article sets 4
>>> milestones for the growth of the house to schedule redistricting
>>> in
>>> line with a growing population to ensure the house would achieve
>>> at
>>> least 200 representative districts. However, the final clause of
>>> the
>>> Article states that once population had increased to the point of
>>> at
>>> least 200 Representatives representing Districts of at least
>>> 50,000
>>> citizens each, then 50,000 would become the new MINIMUM of a
>>> district size, not it's maximum.
>>> This argument has already been litigated extensively, and I would
>>> agree that it does not merit the cost or commitment for
>>> involvement
>>> from the LNC.
>>> Justin O'Donnell
>>> LNC Region 8 Representative
>>> ---
>>> Yours in Liberty,
>>> Justin O'Donnell
>>> LNC Region 8 Representative
>>> LPNH Alternate- LNC Platform Committee
>>> Chair- LPNH Platform Committee
>>> Candidate for US Congress, NH-2
>>> [2][4]www.odonnell2018.org
>>> On 2018-03-13 10:45, Oliver Hall wrote:
>>> Dear LNC Members,
>>> I have received two requests for the LNC to participate in two
>>> different legal matters. I think there are reasons why it will
>>> be
>>> difficult or unwise for the LNC to participate in either one,
>>> but
>>> I am
>>> forwarding these requests so that the LNC can make that
>>> determination.
>>> The first request is for the LNC to file an amicus brief in
>>> support of
>>> a petition for certiorari filed by the Libertarian Party of
>>> Colorado
>>> and a candidate, Ryan Frazier, in Frazier v. Williams.
>>> The cert petition arises from ballot access litigation that was
>>> filed
>>> in Colorado state court, asserting claims under both state law
>>> and the
>>> federal Constitution. The plaintiffs prevailed, and the
>>> candidate
>>> was
>>> placed on the ballot. But while the plaintiffs won on the
>>> merits,
>>> the
>>> state courts declined to award them attorney's fees pursuant to
>>> 42
>>> U.S.C. Sec. 1988, the federal statute authorizing such fees,
>>> because
>>> the cases were decided on state law grounds, and the courts
>>> didn't
>>> reach the federal claims. The plaintiffs argue that they were
>>> entitled
>>> to an award of attorney's fees, even though the case was
>>> decided
>>> on
>>> state law grounds. Their cert petition urges the Supreme Court
>>> to
>>> accept the case because otherwise, it provides states with a
>>> template
>>> for denying prevailing plaintiffs attorney's fees in these
>>> types
>>> of
>>> cases, by ruling on state law grounds and "mooting" the federal
>>> claims.
>>> That would dissuade attorneys from bringing such cases in the
>>> future.
>>> I have reviewed the cert petition (attached) and I think this
>>> case has
>>> merit. However, the LNC would need to find an attorney to
>>> author
>>> the
>>> amicus brief, and the filing deadline is March 28. The LNC
>>> would
>>> also
>>> need to pay printing costs of approximately $1,000.
>>> The second case is Lavergne v. U.S. House (complaint attached).
>>> In that
>>> case, the plaintiffs assert that the Bill of Rights originally
>>> included
>>> an additional two amendments, and that the original first
>>> amendment, or
>>> "Article the First", required that U.S. House members represent
>>> no more
>>> than 45,000 people. The plaintiffs contend that Article the
>>> First
>>> was
>>> ratified by the states and that it should have been made part
>>> of
>>> the
>>> Constitution. If that were the case, the U.S. House would
>>> greatly
>>> increase in size. For example, California would be entitled to
>>> 747
>>> members, and Florida would have 379 members. Based on this
>>> theory, the
>>> plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that Article the First is
>>> in
>>> fact
>>> part of the Constitution, and that the current Congress is
>>> void,
>>> for
>>> failure to reach a quorum.
>>> The plaintiffs may be right about the history behind their
>>> complaint.
>>> Assuming they are, however, I think this lawsuit has little
>>> chance of
>>> success. The plaintiffs likely have serious standing problems,
>>> as
>>> well
>>> as other justiciability problems, such as the political
>>> question
>>> doctrine. Notably, their claims do not focus on any alleged
>>> violations
>>> of their constitutional rights, but rather on violations of the
>>> "Federalism structure" and "Separation of Powers structure" of
>>> the
>>> Constitution. For those reasons, not to mention the near
>>> certainty that
>>> a Court will decline to hold that there is a new First
>>> Amendment
>>> to the
>>> Constitution, and that the current Congress is invalid and all
>>> its acts
>>> a nullity (a holding that presumably would apply to each
>>> previous
>>> Congress that lacked a quorum under Article the First), I don't
>>> think
>>> the LNC should get involved.
>>> I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
>>> Thank you,
>>> --
>>> Oliver B. Hall
>>> Special Counsel
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> [3]617-953-0161
>>> References
>>> 
>>> 1. [2]mailto:[5]justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 2. [3][6]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>>> 3. [4]tel:[7]617-953-0161
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[1][8]justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:[9]justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 3. [10]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>>> 4. tel:[11]617-953-0161
>>> 
>>> --
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, 
>>> Washington)
>>> - [12]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>>> Communications Director, [13]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> We defend your rights
>>> And oppose the use of force
>>> Taxation is theft
>>> 
>>> References
>>> 
>>> 1. mailto:oliverbhall at gmail.com
>>> 2. tel:617-953-0161
>>> 3. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 4. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>>> 5. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 6. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>>> 7. tel:617-953-0161
>>> 8. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 9. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
>>> 10. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>>> 11. tel:617-953-0161
>>> 12. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 13. http://www.lpcolorado.org/



More information about the Lnc-business mailing list