[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

[Sam Goldstein]

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/