Meeting came to order at 7:32. All members were present. Chadderdon raised an issue. He was told he was not a committee member. There is some question as to which motions are present. There is a motion to sue in the New Mexico issue and a motion to create a litigation committee to run the litigation. They are arguing as to which motion needs to be passed first. McMahon says that the intent of his motion was to assemble information to decide whether to litigate. Chadderdon repeatedly intrudes. McMahon vigorously objects to Chadderdon’s interruptions. Chadderdon says the information needed should have been assembled in the last week. He insists that the motion to sue should be voted on at this meeting. Ford says information is needed. Chadderdon interrupts. 3 in favor, none opposed.
We reach the motion to adopt the agenda. The agenda is adopted without objection. Watkins: we need to agree to sign onto a lawsuit, so we need to sue. Ford: I am concerned that there are multiple versions of what happened. Ford: Did LPNM disaffiliate voluntarily or was it disaffiliated? Nekhaila does not remember; it was a long time ago. Ford: Does the use of our porcupine impair our trademark? No one knows. Ford: Is the Luchini branch of the party using the same domain as when they were an affiliate.Ford: Are we suing LPNM as a corporation or are we proposing to sue individuals? Nekhaila: We will not know until we form a litigation committee to recommend to the full LNC what we should do? We want to protect our trademark. Ford: Did LPNM participate in the Liberal Party’s Presidential Nominating convention? We need to proceed to sue as fast as possible to protect our name. I oppose suing any person.
McMahon: I think we are all in favor of passing this, so we don’t need a lot of debate.
Darr: The motion is very openended. We go forward with litigation but have to get the details first, budget, legal targets, etc.
Watkins has a more specific motion: Move to authorize the initiation of litigation for trademark infringement in New Mexico. $20,000 is allocated from sources deemed appropriate by the FSC, the Treasurer, or the Chair in accord with the policy manual.
McMahon:I don’t believe this is an appropriate path and it ties the hands of the path.
Watkins: I have not seen a proposal to be submitted here as directed at the recent LNC meeting
Nekhaila: I proposed a committee. We have no idea what the litigation will actually cost. We need to go to an attorney and get solid cost estimates before we go forward.
Ford: We do not have a choice here. We must advance. We do not have 4-6 weeks; we must advance now. This is a straightforward situation. Amendment: we want to be clear that $20,000 does not impose a limit on what we will spend.
Nekhaila: We need a cost estimate before we decide to proceed.
Ford wants agreement that we will proceed.
Watkins: We need to commit to going forward.
McMahon: The original motion was good. We want to hear from an attorney first.
They are arguing about whether they should allocate the $20,000 now.
Question moved. Redpath seconds. Chadderdon tried to interrupt several times and is told to keep quiet or he will be removed. There is a question as to what is being voted upon.
Darr No. Redpath Pass. secretary pass. Ford Yes Watkins Yes. Redpath No. Chain abstained. Mcmahon votes yes. Motion passes 3-2-1. McMahon says he is unhappy with the motion.He is unhappy with non-ExComm members speculating about the motion’s motivations.
Nekhaila proposes creating a litigation committee to supervise litigation composed of Vinson, McMahon, and McGee. Litigation to include the trademark and New Mexico ballot access. Redpath seconds. Ford speaks in favor. Watkins moves to add Chadderdon, Lam, Wylie, and Martin to the committee. McMahon speaks against amendment–the increased committee would cost us the pro bono attorney. Watkins — this involves region 1, so their representatives should be on the committee.
Nekhaila: Chadderdon and Martin cost us the pro bono attorney. We should not have them spend $20,000 that they cost us.
Chadderdon: I think the chair’s remarks are inappropriate. We have always needed a paid trademark attorney. Scott, LPNM chair, asks if he could be on the committee. LPNM has an attorney lined up for much of this.\
Nekhaila: Litigation committee will work closely with out LPNM affiliate.
Redpath: This is not a region issue; it is a national committee. Expanding the committee from 3 to 7 is unwise.
Ford: We should add the LPNM Chair to committee. Watkins moves to change extra members to Chadderdon and Scott. Amendment passes 3-2. We are now back to adding Scott and Chadderdon to the litigation committee.
Darr:I support adding Scott but not Chadderdon. Question called: Vote is 2-2 Discussion fails.
Redpath: If we want pro bono ballot access work, Chadderdon cannot be on the committee.
Darr: Move to amend to add Scott but not Chadderdon.
Ford: We need a region 1 rep on the committee. Is someone other than Chadderdon more acceptable?
Darr: An NM person Scott could be on the committee. Vote is 4-2.
Watkins: Amendment to require Region 1 reps up to date. Vote on adding Scott to the Committee: Motion passes 5-0.
We advance to a vote on the motion: Motion passes 6-0.
They adjourn.
JJ says he is sending information to Chadderdon. He claims that a state affiliate cannot disaffiliate itself. However, the LNC disaffiliated the LPNM group. Ford emphasizes that the suit will be against the organization not and members. Ford notes he proposed three years ago that the LNC should sell its building.
Idk why we’re wasting time and money on trademark litigation when principled libertarians shouldn’t even believe in copyright. We should be focused on growing the party, and thus, working on mending the wounds between us and the disaffiliated. Even just by sheer numbers, a merger/annexation of the Liberal Party and others would make us stronger and more threatening to the two party system. They agree with us on more things than not and were once members of the LP. Division over minor disputes is what happened to the left and their now countless socialist parties. And meanwhile, look at the exponential growth of the Forward Party, flawed in their own ways, but by bridging where they agree they’re becoming the fastest growing party and would likely compare to us in 2012 by 2032.
Thank you for speaking up for libertarian communism, in particular its opposition to property rights, in particular intellectual property. Anarchism and Communism were for a long time close together, and that has not changed.
While there is an argument to protect trademarks in order to prevent fraud, and attribution to the original creator should always be given if for no other reason than as a courtesy, “intellectual property” is not actual property. If someone’s physical property is stolen, as the communists advocate, the owner is deprived of that item. If a copy of someone else’ property is made, the owner still has his original copy. Wealth was transferred in the instance of the theft of an item. In the instance of making a copy, wealth was increased.
Intellectual property laws are just state granted monopoly privileges for an arbitrary length of time which slow economic and technological advancement and artificially increase costs during that time period. And IP laws are for an arbitrary length of time. Consistency in the argument that intellectual property is property and should be protected by the government would mean no expiration date, just as there is no expiration date of the legal property claim of a house or car.
Thomas Jefferson, the first head of the Patent Office of the US, and someone within the Classical Liberal tradition from which libertarianism is derived – and not a communist – seems to have only supported IP laws for their utility and may not have supported them ideologically, or even considered them strictly necessary for society.
Jefferson wrote:
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.”
What is this Chadderdon’s relation to the party? I am assuming he is a member.
Regional Representative from Region iirc 1.
He is one of Region 1’s reps. Former Chair of MI.
Thank you.
No, I sent information to Pat Ford, in answer to a question that he asked during the meeting. After the meeting, I answered his question verbally.
A state affiliate, under the LP Bylaws cannot disaffiliate itself; that is the sole action of the national party. The affiliate may request disaffiliation or it may, without LNC approval, dissolve. It is covered in Bylaws 5.2 and 5.6.
Neither Bylaws 5.2 or 5.6 states what you’re claiming, JJ.
5.2 is specifically related to the process of LNC recognizing state level organizations who wish to voluntarily affiliate with LNC/LP.
5.6 is specifically related to the process of LNC revoking state affiliation.
Nowhere in 5.6, or anywhere else, does it say a LP state affiliate cannot disaffiliate itself.
If a state affiliate existed prior to LNC affiliation, they can obviously then disaffiliate if they so chose.
We’re not authoritarians.
You have a reading comprehension problem, JJ.
And the utter lack of self-awareness that his “opinion” was not asked for nor welcome by a majority as he’s merrily defamed them (not claiming any legal argument but certainly in colloquial sense) and Jonathan thinks he hadn’t burned ALL bridges with anyone who is not MC? Insane. I’m super critical of many on LNC and have the self-awareness that busting on to the mic using Party property would not be welcome or appropriate. This is only made WORSE than he emailed Pat. No, he just had to publicly insert himself. When I hear something I have information on, I privately email them. If I have to say anything more, I use MY property where choose to come hear me. No one chooses to go to LNC meetings to hear Jonathan. He’s not their parliamentarian and he is in a grossly adverse position with the majority as a member. Not everyone wants to hear it. Get a show. Go off on social media but do not showboat to a captive audience though to be fair, many dropped off once they heard him start.
Interesting.
Neither of those bylaws forbid organizations which may become, for whatever period of time, affiliates of the LNC from ending that affiliation.
Since intellectual property is not property, and since the LNC’s trademark claim has been fraudulent and frivolous from the very beginning, any litigation to “defend” the trademark violates the Statement of Principles, and any act of the LNC to engage in such litigation should be appealed to the Judicial Committee.
We have to operate in the real world as it exists todau. In the real world there are people who want to or may want to donate to the Libertarian Party of New Mexico. They need to know which organization is the Libertarian Party of New Mexico. If a rogue group calls a convention without giving proper notice so they can control the state committee, disaffiliates with the Libertarian National Committee (which according to what J.M. Jacobs (no relation to me)) says is a by-laws violation on another post in this thread), then affiliates with a different national political party, the Liberal Party, while still calling itself the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, even though New Mexico is one of the few states which allows a ballot qualified party to change its name without have to conduct another ballot access drive, the group who does this is clearly engaging in fraud. This is made worse by ballot access laws. The Libertarian Party of New Mexico is a recognized ballot qualified party. So this impacts ballot access. The group affiliated with the Liberal Party who fraudulently calls itself the Libertarian Party of New Mexico has control over which candidates can get on the ballot under the Libertarian Party label. Incidentally, the last time the Libertarian Party of New Mexico had to do a party recognition status ballit access petition drive, which was in 2010, all or a large percentage of the funds spent on that ballot access drive came from the Libertarian National Committee. So this is not just about a name, it is also about who controls Libertarian Party ballot access in New Mexico.
Who controls whatever “ballot access” means in New Mexico is determined by the state government, not by the LNC.
Exactly!
“The Libertarian Party of New Mexico is a recognized ballot qualified party.”
Correct.
And it remains a recognized ballot qualified party regardless of which, if any, national committee it chooses to affiliate with. It has no obligation to change its name just because a particular national committee filed a fraudulent trademark claim on its name.
We should not spend one cent on this.
JJ always manages to insert himself but members are rapidly losing interest in him. It is grasping at relevance.
Of course affiliates can disaffiliate- under his logic to claim otherwise is….. wait for it…. a violation of the Statement of Principles.
Wrong. A state can disaffiliate. It’s anti-Libertarian nonsense to claim otherwise that affiliation is the Hotel California. People with actual roots in the Party know this.