There is now an LNC response to the Roos Appeal.
There is an amicus from Mr. Jacobs.
There is an amicus from the LP of Hawaii Secretary.
There is now an LNC response to the Roos Appeal.
There is an amicus from Mr. Jacobs.
There is an amicus from the LP of Hawaii Secretary.
Joseph, try reading the bylaws. They are binding on the Libertarian Party and they make the Statement of Principles binding.
J.M. Jacobs,
What you state is incorrect.
The bylaws govern the Party, period, not the Platform, which includes the SoP.
Regardless, even if what you state is true, which its not, no one has proven intentional fraud or misrepresentations exist in the SIC report, or proven intentional fraud and misrepresentations by the SIC committee, and until they do, this argument is irrelevant, really.
Allegations are not evidence or proof of fraud and/or misconduct.
We’ll see what JC does.
And the Bylaws say: ““The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail.” Because the Party “shall be sustained” by the Statement of Principles, they are binding on the Party.
Misrepresentations will be proven.
Misrepresentation doesn’t need to be intentional. Hanlon’s razor states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” This means that often, people’s actions are due to ignorance or mistakes rather than bad intentions.
And that’s not what SoP deals with – I think many have not really read it. That fragment is dealing with criminal laws.
Where it is pervasive enough, it violates the Bylaws by violating the Statement of Principles.
And to head off what I know will be the retort, things would be different if she was removed from office, since then the Bylaws specifically give the JC scope to inquire into “cause” because it is overturning the will of the delegates. McArdle resigned. If she believes she did nothing wrong and wanted to have a fuller JC inquiry she should have forced them to remove her. I am not claiming her resignation is an admission of guilt. I am saying that she voluntarily removed that avenue.
I am considering writing an amicus on that fact but likely will not only because I have read enough JJ hypergraphic (that is by his own admission he has hypergraphia) responses to last a lifetime. And I have paint to watch dry which is more fulfilling.
No one is claiming that McArdle was removed.
The claim is that the SIC is a misrepresentation,
The LNC was never consulted on any of the responses filed this term or last term. It is due to the short time frame. Dissenting LNC members are free to file things on their own. This is obvious by many facts, including the fact that an LNC member can file an appeal themselves, and it would be ludicruous to expect them to have to approve a response on their own appeal or have any voice in shaping it. The burden of response falls to the Chair who may delegate. This is the way it has always been.
The unhappy LNC members may file an amicus or dissents, but it is all a red herring since there was no misrepresentation. The JC is not an investigatory body (just like it demurred on saying whether or not the JFC was illegal as that is beyond its scope into that of the legal system), same thing here. This “misrepresentation” further would have been against McArdle, and she has adequate remedy at law. She can file a libel suit. She’d lose, but she can file one.
Was that always the case? I recall the LNC was guided by parliamentarian opinions in their responses. In the Kosin v LNC appeal, Parliamentarian Jonathan Jacobs was voted to represent the LNC after he submitted a brief.
The Chair delegated. As I said. Angela wrote some. Whitney wrote some. Hall has assisted. Sarwark wrote some. Never voted on by LNC in those times.
I didn’t agree with JJ’s responses. I submitted my own.
That was also kind of a special case. There was a chair who had submitted her resignation, and no vice chair. I was appointed by the chair whose resignation was being accepted, but not finalized. Then there was a motion to appoint me. Finally, the newly elected chair designated me.
All that said, Article 7.1 gives the LNC, as a body, the ability to reverse. The process described in RONR 49:7 would be applicable.
I an NOT taking a stand on if the LNC should reverse the action, only that they may reverse it.
LNC members are complaining they were not consulted by Mr. McGee on the response he drafted declaring that the Statement of Principles is not binding on the LNC. An email ballot moved by R1 Rep. Andrew Chadderdon to rescind the LNC response has started.
https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public/c/UvBjtQI1pUE
Yeah, umm….that’s not exactly what Mr. Mcgee stated.
Binding philosophically and binding procedurally are two entirely different things.
Regardless, IMO, the wording in the SoP concerning fraud and misrepresentation, is related to the “government interference with private property”, not potential misrepresentations in a report drafted by a committee appointed by the LNC and then voted on and approved by the entire LNC.
And no one has proven there are intentional misrepresentations in the SIC report.
Those are allegations at this point.
That being said, the entire LNC should have voted on the LNC Respondent Brief.
Hello Joseph. The Statement of Principles as a matter of procedure was most recently used by the JC in the Delaware fiasco to prevent the LNC from accepting actions of an affiliate that was egregiously violating its own bylaws and member rights. I missed why this procedural standard did not apply here. What do you see?
You missed where there is an explicit statement in Bylaws binding affiliates.
Again all a red herring because the SIC got it right and McArdle losing recourse is Court.
First of all, neither Roos, Martin or Chadderdon have proven intentional fraud or misrepresentation in the SIC report.
Many allegations of fraud or misrepresentations were made, but nothing has been proven to date.
They may not like the outcome of the report or how it was done.
But who cares. Cry harder.
The debate over fraud and misrepresentations in the SIC report is premature IMO until intentional fraud or misrepresentations is proven.
Second of all, corporations, political parties and nonprofits are governed by its bylaws and these bylaws are legally binding. They are “foundational legal documents”.
As far as the JC decision you referred to…see bylaws Article 5.4.
Again, the LP/LNC is governed by its bylaws, not its platform.
The platform is a philosophical document, not a legally binding document.
Hope that helps.
🙂
The Statement of Principles also binds the Party as a whole, as the whole of the bylaws do.
Disagree.
All corporations, political parties and nonprofits are governed legally by Adopted Bylaws. Adopted Bylaws are required (in most states) to become a recognized corporation, political party or nonprofit in that State.
They are a legally binding document and govern the corporation, political party or nonprofit.
A political party platform, however, is a philosophical document of principles and beliefs of said political party, are not required to become a recognized political party, and is not a legally binding document that governs said political party.
Honestly, I am surprised as a parliamentarian you don’t understand this.
Are you advising Hector Roos?
Joseph, the requirement for following the Statement of Principles IS in the bylaws. There IS no qualification in the bylaws. Article 3.1: “The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail. The enduring importance of the Statement of Principles requires that it may be amended only by a vote of 7/8 of all registered
delegates at a regular convention,”
We are NOT talking about the platform.
J.M Jacobs,
The Statement of Principles (SoP) is part of the Platform, not the Bylaws.
The Bylaws mention the SoP, but only affirming it as a philosophical foundational document of the Party, not the actual rules and regulations governing the Party.
Which are the Bylaws.
Yes, the Bylaws were written, in part, to uphold and sustain the philosophical principles outlined in the SoP, but the SoP and the Bylaws are two different documents.
One is a statement of principles, the other actually governs the Party in a manner to uphold the statement of principles.
Platform outline….
Preamble
Statement of Principles
Personal Liberty
Economic Liberty
Omissions
https://lp.org/platform-page/