[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

[Tim Hagan]

I got word that we've spent $5000 with Mr. Gura on the FEC lawsuit, so 
$1000 is still left in the Litigation budget item, in addition to the 
$659.11 in the Legal Offense Fund. A total of $1659.11 is available for 
an amicus brief without modifying the budget.

---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

On 2018-03-16 08:43, Tim Hagan wrote:
> 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/