[Lnc-business] Fwd: Judicial Committee motions

Alicia Mattson alicia.mattson at lp.org
Sat Jul 21 03:02:32 EDT 2018


This strange posturing by the former Judicial Committee really makes it
problematic for us to implement the Not-A-Judicial-Committee Committee,
which would be rules compliant.

-Alicia


On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:

> There are several serious problems with the logic of this communication
> from Mr. Moulton.
>
> I see no ambiguity in Bylaw Article 8.1, which provides that, "The
> Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the
> Regular Non-Presidential Convention at which elected and shall serve until
> the final adjournment of the next Regular Non-Presidential Convention."
>
> I see no reasonable argument to be made that the 2016-2018 Judicial
> Committee members held any position from which they could (after convention
> adjournment on July 3) conduct email votes, fill vacancies, or resign from
> positions they no longer held.
>
> A motion they purported to pass to fill vacancies was contingent on 6
> people resigning.  But 6 people didn't resign, because Gary Johnson
> understood he had no position from which to resign, so the fill-the-vacancy
> motion has no effect because the condition wasn't met.  So all 7 are still
> on the JC?  Then 5 people purported to resign. With the prior motion
> failing to meet its condition for effectiveness, the vacancies aren't
> filled.  Now Gary Johnson and Chuck Moulton are the remaining JC members?
>
> So now will Chuck Moulton conduct an email ballot in which only he votes,
> and Gary Johnson refuses to participate, and will Chuck Moulton fill 6
> vacancies or 5?  He can't fill Gary Johnson's spot.  By Moulton's premise,
> there is no vacancy to fill, because Johnson hasn't resigned.  He can't
> apply Gary Johnson's premise to Johnson only and say he's no longer on the
> JC because his term ended at adjournment, but Moulton is somehow still on.
> The rules aren't different for Johnson versus the rest of the former JC
> members.  So how does Moulton come up with a new JC that doesn't include
> Johnson?
>
> Clearly I cannot choose the glass in front of you, and clearly I cannot
> choose the glass in front of me.  Wait, what's that?! (pointing, switches
> glasses, but they're both poisoned)
>
> Would the JC candidates who stood in front of the delegates on July 3 and
> pledged to apply the rules as written like to now explain how any of this
> is an example of applying the rules as written?  And how any future rulings
> from them will apply the rules in an equally rational manner?
>
> -Alicia in Wonderland
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>>    Please see the below communication from Chuck Moulton.
>>
>>    Which brings to mind another way to handle.  Since the maybe JC did
>>    this outside of our direction - if we refer ratification of this to the
>>    delegates my mail - majority vote- we have as legitimate of JC that we
>>    are going to get.
>>
>>    -Caryn Ann
>>
>>    ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>    From: Chuck Moulton <[1]chuck at moulton.org>
>>    Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:41 AM
>>    Subject: Judicial Committee motions
>>    To: Nick Sarwark <[2]chair at lp.org>, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    <[3]secretary at lp.org>
>>    CC: D Frank Robinson <[4]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com>, Chuck Moulton
>>    <[5]chuck at moulton.org>, Darryl Perry <[6]Darryl at darrylwperry.com>,
>> Ruth
>>    Bennett <[7]bennettruthaz at gmail.com>, Geoff Neale
>>    <[8]liber8or at austin.rr.com>, Jim Turney <[9]LP at jimturney.com>, Tricia
>>    Sprankle <[10]tricia at spranklelaw.com>, Alicia Dearn
>>    <[11]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com>, William Hall <[12]WHall at wnj.com>,
>>    John Buttrick <[13]jabuttrick at gmail.com>, Rob Latham
>>    <[14]freeutahns at gmail.com>, Michael Badnarik
>>    <[15]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org>, Gary Johnson
>>    <[16]sedition at aol.com>
>>    Chuck Moulton wrote (7/6/2018 at 4:31 pm):
>>    > Because no one received a majority vote with approval voting, there
>>    is a
>>    > controversy as to whether the Judicial Committee was properly
>>    elected.
>>    >
>>    > Without getting into details of the relative merits of each
>>    > interpretation, I believe this is an exhaustive list:
>>    >
>>    > 1. The convention elected all 7 JC members by plurality (the motion
>>    to
>>    > suspend the rules for at-large applies to JC because our rules say
>>    the
>>    > JC uses the same method of election as at-large).
>>    >
>>    > 2. The convention elected 5 JC members by plurality (the motion
>>    > referenced above explicitly said the top 5 would be elected by
>>    plurality)
>>    >
>>    > 3. The JC from the previous term continues serving another 2 or 4
>>    years
>>    > (no one received a majority)
>>    >
>>    > 4. The LNC can appoint the JC (the LNC can fill at-large vacancies,
>>    and
>>    > our rules say the JC is elected by the same method as at-large)
>>    >
>>    > 5. We have no JC (no one received a majority and our bylaws say the
>>    JC
>>    > serves until the final adjournment of the next convention rather than
>>    > when the next JC is elected)
>>    >
>>    > I can't do anything about interpretation #5.
>>    >
>>    > I am trying my best to at least make the interpretations in #1, #2,
>>    #3,
>>    > and #4 be the same people so those with different interpretations
>>    don't
>>    > think we have 4 different JCs.  I believe this will add to the
>>    > legitimacy of the JC.
>>    Mr. Chair and Ms. Secretary,
>>    Please relay the following information to the Libertarian National
>>    Committee.  I write both on behalf of the 2016-2018 Judicial Committee
>>    and on behalf of the 2018-2020 Judicial Committee.
>>    First (to harmonize #3 with #1), the Judicial Committee from the
>>    2016-2018 term (which consisted of Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick,
>>    Alicia Dearn, Bill Hall, Gary E. Johnson, Rob Latham, and Chuck Moulton
>>    with Chuck Moulton serving as chair) passed the following motion by
>>    email ballot with a vote of 6-0-1:
>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    I move that the following people be appointed to the Judicial Committee
>>    to fill the 6 vacancies created upon the resignations of 6 members of
>>    the Judicial Committee:
>>    * D. Frank Robinson
>>    * Darryl Perry
>>    * Ruth Bennett
>>    * Geoff Neale
>>    * Jim Turney
>>    * Tricia Sprankle
>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    The following members of the old JC submitted letters of resignation
>>    contingent on the motion passing:
>>    * Alicia Dearn
>>    * John Buttrick
>>    * Bill Hall
>>    * Rob Latham
>>    * Michael Badnarik
>>    Gary E. Johnson did not respond to emails, participate in the vote, or
>>    submit a letter of resignation.  By phone he told me that he is not on
>>    the Judicial Committee.  He also believes we have no JC this term.
>>    Second (to harmonize #2 with #1), the Judicial Committee which was
>>    arguably elected by plurality for the 2016-2018 term under the
>>    interpretation that the top 5 (but not the top 7) were elected (which
>>    consisted of D. Frank Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth
>>    Bennett, and Geoff Neale with Chuck Moulton serving as interim chair)
>>    passed the following motion by email ballot with a vote of 5-0-0:
>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    I move that the following people be appointed to the Judicial Committee
>>    to fill the 2 vacancies left on Judicial Committee (if such vacancies
>>    exist):
>>    * Jim Turney
>>    * Tricia Sprankle
>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    At this point we 7 (D. Frank Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry,
>>    Ruth
>>    Bennett, Geoff Neale, Jim Turney, and Tricia Sprankle) plan to elect a
>>    committee chair and consider rules of appellate procedure to submit to
>>    the Libertarian National Committee by the 90 day deadline in bylaw 8.3.
>>      We realize that the JC election may still be a mess, but any further
>>    resolution is out of our hands.  Therefore, we will proceed as if we
>>    were legitimately elected in order to meet bylaws deadlines.
>>    Chuck Moulton
>>    Interim Chair, 2018-2020 LP Judicial Committee
>>    Chair, 2016-2018 LP Judicial Committee
>>
>>    --
>>
>>    --
>>    In Liberty,
>>    Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>>    - [17]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>>    Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>    A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>    We defend your rights
>>    And oppose the use of force
>>    Taxation is theft
>>
>> References
>>
>>    1. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>>    2. mailto:chair at lp.org
>>    3. mailto:secretary at lp.org
>>    4. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>>    5. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>>    6. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>>    7. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>>    8. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
>>    9. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
>>   10. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
>>   11. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>>   12. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
>>   13. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
>>   14. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
>>   15. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>>   16. mailto:sedition at aol.com
>>   17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   This strange posturing by the former Judicial Committee really makes it
   problematic for us to implement the Not-A-Judicial-Committee Committee,
   which would be rules compliant.
   -Alicia

   On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Alicia Mattson
   <[1]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:

   There are several serious problems with the logic of this communication
   from Mr. Moulton.
   I see no ambiguity in Bylaw Article 8.1, which provides that, "The
   Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the
   Regular Non-Presidential Convention at which elected and shall serve
   until the final adjournment of the next Regular Non-Presidential
   Convention."
   I see no reasonable argument to be made that the 2016-2018 Judicial
   Committee members held any position from which they could (after
   convention adjournment on July 3) conduct email votes, fill vacancies,
   or resign from positions they no longer held.
   A motion they purported to pass to fill vacancies was contingent on 6
   people resigning.  But 6 people didn't resign, because Gary Johnson
   understood he had no position from which to resign, so the
   fill-the-vacancy motion has no effect because the condition wasn't
   met.  So all 7 are still on the JC?  Then 5 people purported to resign.
   With the prior motion failing to meet its condition for effectiveness,
   the vacancies aren't filled.  Now Gary Johnson and Chuck Moulton are
   the remaining JC members?
   So now will Chuck Moulton conduct an email ballot in which only he
   votes, and Gary Johnson refuses to participate, and will Chuck Moulton
   fill 6 vacancies or 5?  He can't fill Gary Johnson's spot.  By
   Moulton's premise, there is no vacancy to fill, because Johnson hasn't
   resigned.  He can't apply Gary Johnson's premise to Johnson only and
   say he's no longer on the JC because his term ended at adjournment, but
   Moulton is somehow still on.  The rules aren't different for Johnson
   versus the rest of the former JC members.  So how does Moulton come up
   with a new JC that doesn't include Johnson?
   Clearly I cannot choose the glass in front of you, and clearly I cannot
   choose the glass in front of me.  Wait, what's that?! (pointing,
   switches glasses, but they're both poisoned)
   Would the JC candidates who stood in front of the delegates on July 3
   and pledged to apply the rules as written like to now explain how any
   of this is an example of applying the rules as written?  And how any
   future rulings from them will apply the rules in an equally rational
   manner?
   -Alicia in Wonderland

   On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
   <[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        Please see the below communication from Chuck Moulton.
        Which brings to mind another way to handle.  Since the maybe JC
     did
        this outside of our direction - if we refer ratification of this
     to the
        delegates my mail - majority vote- we have as legitimate of JC
     that we
        are going to get.
        -Caryn Ann
        ---------- Forwarded message ---------
        From: Chuck Moulton <[1][3]chuck at moulton.org>
        Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:41 AM
        Subject: Judicial Committee motions
        To: Nick Sarwark <[2][4]chair at lp.org>, Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[3][5]secretary at lp.org>
        CC: D Frank Robinson <[4][6]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com>, Chuck
     Moulton
        <[5][7]chuck at moulton.org>, Darryl Perry
     <[6][8]Darryl at darrylwperry.com>, Ruth
        Bennett <[7][9]bennettruthaz at gmail.com>, Geoff Neale
        <[8][10]liber8or at austin.rr.com>, Jim Turney
     <[9][11]LP at jimturney.com>, Tricia
        Sprankle <[10][12]tricia at spranklelaw.com>, Alicia Dearn
        <[11][13]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com>, William Hall
     <[12][14]WHall at wnj.com>,
        John Buttrick <[13][15]jabuttrick at gmail.com>, Rob Latham
        <[14][16]freeutahns at gmail.com>, Michael Badnarik
        <[15][17]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org>, Gary Johnson
        <[16][18]sedition at aol.com>
        Chuck Moulton wrote (7/6/2018 at 4:31 pm):
        > Because no one received a majority vote with approval voting,
     there
        is a
        > controversy as to whether the Judicial Committee was properly
        elected.
        >
        > Without getting into details of the relative merits of each
        > interpretation, I believe this is an exhaustive list:
        >
        > 1. The convention elected all 7 JC members by plurality (the
     motion
        to
        > suspend the rules for at-large applies to JC because our rules
     say
        the
        > JC uses the same method of election as at-large).
        >
        > 2. The convention elected 5 JC members by plurality (the motion
        > referenced above explicitly said the top 5 would be elected by
        plurality)
        >
        > 3. The JC from the previous term continues serving another 2 or
     4
        years
        > (no one received a majority)
        >
        > 4. The LNC can appoint the JC (the LNC can fill at-large
     vacancies,
        and
        > our rules say the JC is elected by the same method as at-large)
        >
        > 5. We have no JC (no one received a majority and our bylaws say
     the
        JC
        > serves until the final adjournment of the next convention
     rather than
        > when the next JC is elected)
        >
        > I can't do anything about interpretation #5.
        >
        > I am trying my best to at least make the interpretations in #1,
     #2,
        #3,
        > and #4 be the same people so those with different
     interpretations
        don't
        > think we have 4 different JCs.  I believe this will add to the
        > legitimacy of the JC.
        Mr. Chair and Ms. Secretary,
        Please relay the following information to the Libertarian
     National
        Committee.  I write both on behalf of the 2016-2018 Judicial
     Committee
        and on behalf of the 2018-2020 Judicial Committee.
        First (to harmonize #3 with #1), the Judicial Committee from the
        2016-2018 term (which consisted of Michael Badnarik, John
     Buttrick,
        Alicia Dearn, Bill Hall, Gary E. Johnson, Rob Latham, and Chuck
     Moulton
        with Chuck Moulton serving as chair) passed the following motion
     by
        email ballot with a vote of 6-0-1:
        -----------------------------------------------------------
     -----------
        I move that the following people be appointed to the Judicial
     Committee
        to fill the 6 vacancies created upon the resignations of 6
     members of
        the Judicial Committee:
        * D. Frank Robinson
        * Darryl Perry
        * Ruth Bennett
        * Geoff Neale
        * Jim Turney
        * Tricia Sprankle
        -----------------------------------------------------------
     -----------
        The following members of the old JC submitted letters of
     resignation
        contingent on the motion passing:
        * Alicia Dearn
        * John Buttrick
        * Bill Hall
        * Rob Latham
        * Michael Badnarik
        Gary E. Johnson did not respond to emails, participate in the
     vote, or
        submit a letter of resignation.  By phone he told me that he is
     not on
        the Judicial Committee.  He also believes we have no JC this
     term.
        Second (to harmonize #2 with #1), the Judicial Committee which
     was
        arguably elected by plurality for the 2016-2018 term under the
        interpretation that the top 5 (but not the top 7) were elected
     (which
        consisted of D. Frank Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth
        Bennett, and Geoff Neale with Chuck Moulton serving as interim
     chair)
        passed the following motion by email ballot with a vote of 5-0-0:
        -----------------------------------------------------------
     -----------
        I move that the following people be appointed to the Judicial
     Committee
        to fill the 2 vacancies left on Judicial Committee (if such
     vacancies
        exist):
        * Jim Turney
        * Tricia Sprankle
        -----------------------------------------------------------
     -----------
        At this point we 7 (D. Frank Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl
     Perry,
        Ruth
        Bennett, Geoff Neale, Jim Turney, and Tricia Sprankle) plan to
     elect a
        committee chair and consider rules of appellate procedure to
     submit to
        the Libertarian National Committee by the 90 day deadline in
     bylaw 8.3.
          We realize that the JC election may still be a mess, but any
     further
        resolution is out of our hands.  Therefore, we will proceed as if
     we
        were legitimately elected in order to meet bylaws deadlines.
        Chuck Moulton
        Interim Chair, 2018-2020 LP Judicial Committee
        Chair, 2016-2018 LP Judicial Committee
        --
        --
        In Liberty,
        Caryn Ann Harlos
        Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
        - [17]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
        Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
        A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
        We defend your rights
        And oppose the use of force
        Taxation is theft
     References
        1. mailto:[19]chuck at moulton.org
        2. mailto:[20]chair at lp.org
        3. mailto:[21]secretary at lp.org
        4. mailto:[22]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
        5. mailto:[23]chuck at moulton.org
        6. mailto:[24]Darryl at darrylwperry.com
        7. mailto:[25]bennettruthaz at gmail.com
        8. mailto:[26]liber8or at austin.rr.com
        9. mailto:[27]LP at jimturney.com
       10. mailto:[28]tricia at spranklelaw.com
       11. mailto:[29]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
       12. mailto:[30]WHall at wnj.com
       13. mailto:[31]jabuttrick at gmail.com
       14. mailto:[32]freeutahns at gmail.com
       15. mailto:[33]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
       16. mailto:[34]sedition at aol.com
       17. mailto:[35]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

References

   1. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
   2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   3. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
   4. mailto:chair at lp.org
   5. mailto:secretary at lp.org
   6. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
   7. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
   8. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
   9. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
  10. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
  11. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
  12. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
  13. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
  14. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
  15. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
  16. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
  17. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
  18. mailto:sedition at aol.com
  19. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
  20. mailto:chair at lp.org
  21. mailto:secretary at lp.org
  22. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
  23. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
  24. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
  25. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
  26. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
  27. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
  28. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
  29. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
  30. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
  31. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
  32. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
  33. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
  34. mailto:sedition at aol.com
  35. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list