[Lnc-business] Fwd: Judicial Committee motions

brent.olsen at lp.org brent.olsen at lp.org
Sat Jul 21 12:07:42 EDT 2018


I agree that we should have an election.  However, I do not recognize 
the sitting JC as the actual legitimate JC.  Otherwise I would have kept 
my Yes vote on the vote to acknowledge them.  There was no proper 
election of one completed.

-Brent

On 2018-07-21 01:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> The members can reject them.
>    My solution solves it all.
>    A mail ballot of some sorts.
>    -Caryn Ann
>    On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:02 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>    <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
>         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][2]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][3]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][4]chuck at moulton.org>
>              Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:41 AM
>              Subject: Judicial Committee motions
>              To: Nick Sarwark <[2][4][5]chair at lp.org>, Caryn Ann Harlos
>              <[3][5][6]secretary at lp.org>
>              CC: D Frank Robinson <[4][6][7]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com>,
>      Chuck
>           Moulton
>              <[5][7][8]chuck at moulton.org>, Darryl Perry
>           <[6][8][9]Darryl at darrylwperry.com>, Ruth
>              Bennett <[7][9][10]bennettruthaz at gmail.com>, Geoff Neale
>              <[8][10][11]liber8or at austin.rr.com>, Jim Turney
>           <[9][11][12]LP at jimturney.com>, Tricia
>              Sprankle <[10][12][13]tricia at spranklelaw.com>, Alicia 
> Dearn
>              <[11][13][14]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com>, William Hall
>           <[12][14][15]WHall at wnj.com>,
>              John Buttrick <[13][15][16]jabuttrick at gmail.com>, Rob 
> Latham
>              <[14][16][17]freeutahns at gmail.com>, Michael Badnarik
>              <[15][17][18]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org>, Gary
>      Johnson
>              <[16][18][19]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][20]chuck at moulton.org
>              2. mailto:[20][21]chair at lp.org
>              3. mailto:[21][22]secretary at lp.org
>              4. mailto:[22][23]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>              5. mailto:[23][24]chuck at moulton.org
>              6. mailto:[24][25]Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>              7. mailto:[25][26]bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>              8. mailto:[26][27]liber8or at austin.rr.com
>              9. mailto:[27][28]LP at jimturney.com
>             10. mailto:[28][29]tricia at spranklelaw.com
>             11. mailto:[29][30]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>             12. mailto:[30][31]WHall at wnj.com
>             13. mailto:[31][32]jabuttrick at gmail.com
>             14. mailto:[32][33]freeutahns at gmail.com
>             15. mailto:[33][34]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>             16. mailto:[34][35]sedition at aol.com
>             17. mailto:[35]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>      References
>         1. mailto:[36]alicia.mattson at lp.org
>         2. mailto:[37]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>         3. mailto:[38]chuck at moulton.org
>         4. mailto:[39]chair at lp.org
>         5. mailto:[40]secretary at lp.org
>         6. mailto:[41]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>         7. mailto:[42]chuck at moulton.org
>         8. mailto:[43]Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>         9. mailto:[44]bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>        10. mailto:[45]liber8or at austin.rr.com
>        11. mailto:[46]LP at jimturney.com
>        12. mailto:[47]tricia at spranklelaw.com
>        13. mailto:[48]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>        14. mailto:[49]WHall at wnj.com
>        15. mailto:[50]jabuttrick at gmail.com
>        16. mailto:[51]freeutahns at gmail.com
>        17. mailto:[52]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>        18. mailto:[53]sedition at aol.com
>        19. mailto:[54]chuck at moulton.org
>        20. mailto:[55]chair at lp.org
>        21. mailto:[56]secretary at lp.org
>        22. mailto:[57]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>        23. mailto:[58]chuck at moulton.org
>        24. mailto:[59]Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>        25. mailto:[60]bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>        26. mailto:[61]liber8or at austin.rr.com
>        27. mailto:[62]LP at jimturney.com
>        28. mailto:[63]tricia at spranklelaw.com
>        29. mailto:[64]aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>        30. mailto:[65]WHall at wnj.com
>        31. mailto:[66]jabuttrick at gmail.com
>        32. mailto:[67]freeutahns at gmail.com
>        33. mailto:[68]scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>        34. mailto:[69]sedition at aol.com
>        35. mailto:[70]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 
>    --
> 
>    --
>    In Liberty,
>    Caryn Ann Harlos
>    Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>    - [71]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
>    3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    4. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>    5. mailto:chair at lp.org
>    6. mailto:secretary at lp.org
>    7. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>    8. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>    9. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>   10. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>   11. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
>   12. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
>   13. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
>   14. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>   15. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
>   16. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
>   17. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
>   18. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>   19. mailto:sedition at aol.com
>   20. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>   21. mailto:chair at lp.org
>   22. mailto:secretary at lp.org
>   23. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>   24. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>   25. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>   26. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>   27. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
>   28. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
>   29. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
>   30. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>   31. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
>   32. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
>   33. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
>   34. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>   35. mailto:sedition at aol.com
>   36. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
>   37. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   38. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>   39. mailto:chair at lp.org
>   40. mailto:secretary at lp.org
>   41. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>   42. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>   43. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>   44. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>   45. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
>   46. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
>   47. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
>   48. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>   49. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
>   50. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
>   51. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
>   52. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>   53. mailto:sedition at aol.com
>   54. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>   55. mailto:chair at lp.org
>   56. mailto:secretary at lp.org
>   57. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
>   58. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
>   59. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
>   60. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
>   61. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
>   62. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
>   63. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
>   64. mailto:aliciadearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>   65. mailto:WHall at wnj.com
>   66. mailto:jabuttrick at gmail.com
>   67. mailto:freeutahns at gmail.com
>   68. mailto:scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>   69. mailto:sedition at aol.com
>   70. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>   71. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org




More information about the Lnc-business mailing list