[Lnc-business] Fwd: Judicial Committee motions
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Jul 24 06:12:27 EDT 2018
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chuck Moulton <chuck at moulton.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Judicial Committee motions
To: Nick Sarwark <chair at lp.org>, Caryn Ann Harlos <secretary at lp.org>
Cc: Chuck Moulton <chuck at moulton.org>, D Frank Robinson <
dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com>, Darryl Perry <Darryl at darrylwperry.com>, Ruth
Bennett <bennettruthaz at gmail.com>, Geoff Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>,
Jim Turney <LP at jimturney.com>, Tricia Sprankle <tricia at spranklelaw.com>
Mr. Chair and Ms. Secretary,
Please relay the following information to the Libertarian National
Committee.
I write on behalf of the 2018-2020 Judicial Committee, which was arguably
elected by plurality for the 2016-2018 term (which consists of D. Frank
Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett, Geoff Neale, Jim
Turney, and Tricia Sprankle with Chuck Moulton serving as interim chair).
We passed the following motion by email ballot with a vote of 6-1-0:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I move to adopt the current rules of appellate procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By this motion we adopt the Judicial Committee Rules of Appellate Procedure
which were used by the 2016-2018 Judicial Committee (found on pp. 14-15 of
the 2016 Libertarian Party Bylaws and Convention Rules on the LP website)
without amendment and submit them to the Libertarian National Committee by
the 90 day deadline in bylaw 8.3.
Chuck Moulton
Interim Chair, 2018-2020 LP Judicial Committee
P.S. I additionally write in my individual capacity to clear up some
misconceptions.
Earlier I wrote the following:
Chuck Moulton wrote (7/6/2018 at 4:31 pm):
> Without getting into details of the relative merits of each
>> interpretation, I believe this is an exhaustive list:
>>
>> [removed for brevity]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
Subsequently, I wrote the following:
Chuck Moulton wrote (7/16/2018 at 9:41 am):
> First (to harmonize #3 with #1), the Judicial Committee from the
> 2016-2018 term [...] 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [removed for brevity]
>
> 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 [...]
> 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 [...] 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.
>
Some LNC members and LP activists have claimed that the 2016-2018 JC and/or
the 2018-2020 top 7 vote getters for the JC election have ruled a
particular interpretation as correct -- in effect declaring themselves the
legitimate JC and disregarding the interpretation that no JC exists. Some
of those ascribing such an action to us have done so because they support
said action; others ascribing such an action to us have done so because
they oppose said action.
Neither the 2016-2018 JC nor the 2018-2020 top 7 vote getters for the JC
election have done any such thing. What we have done is simply to take
action authorized to us under the bylaws if we are legitimate (filling
vacancies) and used that process to harmonize two different interpretations
so they would result in a JC of the same composition, avoiding having 4 JCs
with completely different compositions (which would make it very
complicated to know to whom things ought to be appealed). If either
interpretation were not valid (and they seem mutually exclusive), then the
action dependent on that interpretation (filling vacancies) would be null
and void and irrelevant. The goal was simply: if there is a JC, we are it.
The question of which interpretation is correct -- and whether there is a
JC at all -- has never been addressed by any of the groups of people above
(the 2016-2018 JC, the top 5 JC vote getters in 2018, nor the top 7 JC vote
getters in 2018). The people who voted for the motions I have passed on to
you have a range of opinions on what is the correct interpretation.
In my individual opinion, the JC lacks the power to make rulings unless
there is a case in controversy on which it has subject matter jurisdiction,
so it is not appropriate at this time for the JC to say anything about
which interpretation it (as a body) believes is correct. In my individual
opinion, if a case in controversy on which the JC has subject matter
jurisdiction arises this term, then the JC in the beginning of its opinion
ought to rule on whether the JC exists (given the range of opinions,
ceteris paribus I doubt this would be unanimous in either direction). In
my individual opinion, because I want to avoid the perception of bias or
coming up with a judgement before hearing the evidence and reading briefs,
I believe JC members ought to avoid sharing their opinions publicly on
cases which may come before the JC, including the question of whether the
JC exists. Therefore, I have avoided and will avoid talking outside the JC
about which interpretation I believe is most valid.
Apparently the timing of my relaying of our earlier motions on July 16
offended some LNC members because it immediately followed a failed LNC vote
to recognize the top 7 JC vote getters. I would note two things: First, our
motions took a great deal of time to execute and ended synchronously with
the LNC vote by sheer coincidence (the old JC vote took the full 7 days
because Gary Johnson did not vote, the top 5 JC vote took 2.5 days after
that because Geoff Neale was at Freedom Fest). Second, I am always several
days behind on following the LNC business list because you all are
incredibly prolific (I am, however, elated to see that Caryn Ann Harlos
will be single-handedly paying off the balance of our LPHQ mortgage by
virtue of her commitment to pay $1 for each email over 5 per day).
The top 7 vote getters for the JC election cannot prevent the LNC from
taking an action and cannot compel the LNC to take an action regarding this
judicial committee mess. We as an entity are working within the
constraints of our limited power to do what we can to clean it up a
little. What (if anything) the LNC does is up to you.
Please cease mischaracterizing any of us (as entities) or me (as an
individual) as advocating for a particular interpretation.
Thank you.
-Chuck Moulton
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <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*
-------------- next part --------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chuck Moulton <[1]chuck at moulton.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Judicial Committee motions
To: Nick Sarwark <[2]chair at lp.org>, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[3]secretary at lp.org>
Cc: Chuck Moulton <[4]chuck at moulton.org>, D Frank Robinson
<[5]dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com>, Darryl Perry
<[6]Darryl at darrylwperry.com>, Ruth Bennett
<[7]bennettruthaz at gmail.com>, Geoff Neale <[8]liber8or at austin.rr.com>,
Jim Turney <[9]LP at jimturney.com>, Tricia Sprankle
<[10]tricia at spranklelaw.com>
Mr. Chair and Ms. Secretary,
Please relay the following information to the Libertarian National
Committee.
I write on behalf of the 2018-2020 Judicial Committee, which was
arguably elected by plurality for the 2016-2018 term (which consists of
D. Frank Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett, Geoff
Neale, Jim Turney, and Tricia Sprankle with Chuck Moulton serving as
interim chair).
We passed the following motion by email ballot with a vote of 6-1-0:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I move to adopt the current rules of appellate procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By this motion we adopt the Judicial Committee Rules of Appellate
Procedure which were used by the 2016-2018 Judicial Committee (found on
pp. 14-15 of the 2016 Libertarian Party Bylaws and Convention Rules on
the LP website) without amendment and submit them to the Libertarian
National Committee by the 90 day deadline in bylaw 8.3.
Chuck Moulton
Interim Chair, 2018-2020 LP Judicial Committee
P.S. I additionally write in my individual capacity to clear up some
misconceptions.
Earlier I wrote the following:
Chuck Moulton wrote (7/6/2018 at 4:31 pm):
Without getting into details of the relative merits of each
interpretation, I believe this is an exhaustive list:
[removed for brevity]
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.
Subsequently, I wrote the following:
Chuck Moulton wrote (7/16/2018 at 9:41 am):
First (to harmonize #3 with #1), the Judicial Committee from the
2016-2018 term [...] 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
------------------------------------------------------------
----------
[removed for brevity]
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 [...]
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 [...] 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.
Some LNC members and LP activists have claimed that the 2016-2018 JC
and/or the 2018-2020 top 7 vote getters for the JC election have ruled
a particular interpretation as correct -- in effect declaring
themselves the legitimate JC and disregarding the interpretation that
no JC exists. Some of those ascribing such an action to us have done
so because they support said action; others ascribing such an action to
us have done so because they oppose said action.
Neither the 2016-2018 JC nor the 2018-2020 top 7 vote getters for the
JC election have done any such thing. What we have done is simply to
take action authorized to us under the bylaws if we are legitimate
(filling vacancies) and used that process to harmonize two different
interpretations so they would result in a JC of the same composition,
avoiding having 4 JCs with completely different compositions (which
would make it very complicated to know to whom things ought to be
appealed). If either interpretation were not valid (and they seem
mutually exclusive), then the action dependent on that interpretation
(filling vacancies) would be null and void and irrelevant. The goal
was simply: if there is a JC, we are it.
The question of which interpretation is correct -- and whether there is
a JC at all -- has never been addressed by any of the groups of people
above (the 2016-2018 JC, the top 5 JC vote getters in 2018, nor the top
7 JC vote getters in 2018). The people who voted for the motions I
have passed on to you have a range of opinions on what is the correct
interpretation.
In my individual opinion, the JC lacks the power to make rulings unless
there is a case in controversy on which it has subject matter
jurisdiction, so it is not appropriate at this time for the JC to say
anything about which interpretation it (as a body) believes is
correct. In my individual opinion, if a case in controversy on which
the JC has subject matter jurisdiction arises this term, then the JC in
the beginning of its opinion ought to rule on whether the JC exists
(given the range of opinions, ceteris paribus I doubt this would be
unanimous in either direction). In my individual opinion, because I
want to avoid the perception of bias or coming up with a judgement
before hearing the evidence and reading briefs, I believe JC members
ought to avoid sharing their opinions publicly on cases which may come
before the JC, including the question of whether the JC exists.
Therefore, I have avoided and will avoid talking outside the JC about
which interpretation I believe is most valid.
Apparently the timing of my relaying of our earlier motions on July 16
offended some LNC members because it immediately followed a failed LNC
vote to recognize the top 7 JC vote getters. I would note two things:
First, our motions took a great deal of time to execute and ended
synchronously with the LNC vote by sheer coincidence (the old JC vote
took the full 7 days because Gary Johnson did not vote, the top 5 JC
vote took 2.5 days after that because Geoff Neale was at Freedom Fest).
Second, I am always several days behind on following the LNC business
list because you all are incredibly prolific (I am, however, elated to
see that Caryn Ann Harlos will be single-handedly paying off the
balance of our LPHQ mortgage by virtue of her commitment to pay $1 for
each email over 5 per day).
The top 7 vote getters for the JC election cannot prevent the LNC from
taking an action and cannot compel the LNC to take an action regarding
this judicial committee mess. We as an entity are working within the
constraints of our limited power to do what we can to clean it up a
little. What (if anything) the LNC does is up to you.
Please cease mischaracterizing any of us (as entities) or me (as an
individual) as advocating for a particular interpretation.
Thank you.
-Chuck Moulton
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [11]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:chuck at moulton.org
2. mailto:chair at lp.org
3. mailto:secretary at lp.org
4. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
5. mailto:dfrank_robinson at yahoo.com
6. mailto:Darryl at darrylwperry.com
7. mailto:bennettruthaz at gmail.com
8. mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com
9. mailto:LP at jimturney.com
10. mailto:tricia at spranklelaw.com
11. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list