The LP Judicial Committee has already ruled unanimously in favor of the Libertarian National Committee. The attached documents explain their reasons for their ruling.
There is a 76 page document, including a five page table of contents, from Ken Moellman.
There is a 44 page document from Chuck Moulton.
There is a two page document from Mary Gingell.
Documents were signed by other committee members.
Moulton’s opinion is golden and unassailable. It also leaves no excuse for anyone defending NH. This has virtually guaranteed there will no suit. Getting anywhere near defending this rightly should make any person a national pariah – not just LP. The Free State Project will want nothing to do with this either. Brilliant job.
That’s a lot of words to say I was right; it looks like Mr. Moellman’s opinion was written to be used in a subsequent lawsuit since it is lengthy and wordy in a legalistic format, and it also covers the social media issues, which I did not (nor was it necessary, IMO, since the Bylaws violation itself was cause enough. Dr. Moulton says as much in his opinion at 3.7.).
However, he does miss a point of my amicus. I did not characterize the disaffiliation motion as a motion to rescind in order to “gain” anything by it; it was characterized that way in order to properly link it to a correct type of motion under RONR in order to establish that the vote threshold itself was met regardless of the notice circumstances. See paragraph 2 of my amicus. Mr. Moellman does admit this on page 46, which makes it strange that he would arrive at a conclusion that such characterization was for any gain (gain of what, besides parliamentary clarity?).
Dr. Moulton appears to err in his opinion in 2.2 when he states, “There is no notice requirement for disaffiliation motions under Robert’s Rules. This would be true even if a motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party were considered a motion to rescind the acceptance of a petition for affiliation.” He then misquotes RONR 10:45, omitting the part about motions to rescind, which says exactly the opposite, that there are specific thresholds for such a motion depending upon notice or not. Again, see paragraph 2 of my amicus. Notice itself is required; but the vote threshold made it irrelevant (paragraph 3). Dr. Moulton admits that in the next paragraph and in 2.3.
Maybe that’s nitpicking. Or maybe it’s just recognizing the role RONR and motions play into this.
But it should be noted that both the Moellman and Moulton opinions are comprehensive and detailed, and will carry great weight if a subsequent lawsuit occurs.
Ms. Gingell’s opinion, in contrast, reads as a timeline and offers nothing of substance. Not sure why that was even written.