[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

Fri Mar 16 12:25:25 EDT 2018

Thanks for the update, Tim.  I am still opposed to spending money on an 
Amicus brief when we may need litigation money later in the year for 
ballot access cases.

---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2018-03-16 12:15, Tim Hagan wrote:
> 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/