[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

[Daniel Hayes]

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/