The Libertarian Party of Michigan Judicial Committee received a complaint from Mr. Jacobs, proposing that the resolution of the March 8 State Convention, saying that the Lansing state convention was valid,is not valid and should be set aside. The text of his complaint, and the Judicial Committee ruling sustaining it, follow. We thank J. M. Jacobs for copies of the text of these documents in word format.
Appeal to the Judicial Committee
RE: INSUFFICIENT NOTICE OF BUSINESS CONDUCTED AT THE DELEGATE
NOMINATING CONVENTION ON MARCH 9, 2024
Jonathan M. Jacobs – – March 9, 2024
To: The Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of Michigan
Date: March 9, 2024
Statement of Facts
On February 8, 2024 the Libertarian Party of Michigan sent out proper notice of their “national delegate selection convention,” as described in the Bylaws (Article VI, Section 2.). This notice stated the following items would be considered”
“● Election of delegates to the 2024 Libertarian National Convention in Washington DC on May 23-26, 2024 (LPMI is entitled to send up to 34 delegates and 50 alternates)
“● Receive the report of the Trial Committee appointed by the July 15, 2023 Regular Convention in Pinconning. The convention may decrease any penalty established by the Trial Committee by a motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted.
“● Conduct caucuses for District Representatives to the LEC for Districts 5, 8, & 10 based on 2023 Congressional Districts (reference https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/districtlocator/).”
As a member, I received no additional notice after this point.
At the March 9, 2024 delegate nominating convention, a motion, without previous notice was made and adopted and claimed to have the effect to remove the following individuals, Chair Andrew Chadderdon, 1st Vice Chair Leah Dailey, 2nd Vice Chair Trevor Step, Secretary Daniel Ziemba, Treasurer Paul Urben, and district representatives Dana Carver (1st), Ben DeJong (2nd), Rich McClain (3rd), Michelle Gregoire (4th), Justin Miramonti (6th), Dominic Thelen (7th), Daniel Muehl-Miller (9th), Jeff Pittel (11th), James Harris (12th), and Ryan Brennan (13th ). The specific text of the motion, as related, is “to ratify and confirm that the Libertarian Party of Michigan’s Executive Committee is currently comprised of the individuals who were elected at the April 1, 2023 Lansing Convention, with the exception of those individuals who have resigned from, or otherwise vacated their seats since that time.”
It is important to restate that there no prior notice sent to the individual members that this action would be considered, as required by Article VI, Section 4, 5 of the Bylaws.
Statement of the Rules
A case similar to this was adjudicated by this Judicial Committee (JC) on December 13, 2022. That issue was the attempted removal of an officer at the July 2022 Candidate Nominating Convention, without prior notice. The JC noted, in part, “When we consider these terms as written in both the bylaws and RONR, the Appellant is plainly correct. ALL conventions require a 30 days notice. As discussed in the previous section, the bylaws authorize specific items of business at this convention.”1 This supposed motion to “ratify and confirm,” was never given notice and is not specified in the bylaws.
The delegate selection convention is much like the “candidate nominating convention,” as both are authorized to conduct but a single item of business as specified in the bylaws. The JC determined that this was a special convention, stating: “The JC weighed these arguments and definitions at length. We came to the conclusion that while the Candidate Nominating Convention on July 9th may be considered “a special convention” as the Appellant argues, it cannot be defined as a “regular convention” as the bylaws plainly use and define the term.”1 Likewise, the delegate nominating convention meets this established definition of a special convention. As noted in that opinion, this convention would require previous notice of the business to be considered, no motion to remove all the officers or to “ratify and confirm,” was noticed.
In reaching their conclusion, the JC looked that the rules for interpreting bylaws in the parliamentary authority, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th ed. (RONR). These were sections 56:68 #2 and #8. Neither the JC, nor the witnesses, dealt with the intent, though one witness, Richard Brown, called the use of the term “regular meeting” in the Bylaws, “unfortunate.”2 The correct word is “deliberate.”
The term “regular meeting” was introduced in the 2/4/2017 Bylaws. Prior to that, the Bylaws read, “The Party shall hold an annual convention each odd-numbered year between April 1 and July 31, performing such business as required herein.”3 Had they wished to treat the even numbered year meetings as regular meetings that could conduct any business, they could have designated then so. Further, the chair at the time, Kim McCurry, is cited in Lpedia, as indicating that “clear intent was to create several non-regular conventions to deal with specified topics and one of the reasons was so that any faction could ram through other business at these conventions such as stacking the Executive Committee (opinion statement).”4 RONR 56:68 #1 notes that, if possible, an ambigious bylaw should be interpreted in accord with the intent of the framers of that bylaw. This adds new information that strengthens the JC position.
While there were suggestions that it was beyond the ability of the JC to reverse an action of the convention, not merely the JC, but an outside source, at the time, noted that a committee can be granted the power to act in general and that the JC, in specific, is granted wide authority to adjudicate. This has been submitted as evidence is a lawsuit and is in a public filing.5
Requested Remedy
The requested is to declare the motion void, as it violates the bylaws, but I also request a summary judgement in this case. The reasons are twofold.
1. This is, effectively, repeat of the actions from the 2022 candidate nominating convention. This is something that has been adjudicated and decided. While there is “new” information, it only strengthens the JC’s initial position.
2. The members knew that notice was required. They could (and some attempted to) circulate a petition prior to the meeting, which would have required much more that the 39 votes the motion received. The notice requirement is well known, and well established in the LPMI. The peccancy of these bad actors should not be rewarded even by a slight delay.
Signed,
Jonathan M. Jacobs, #1092248
End notes:
1 https://lpedia.org/w/images/a/aa/MI_2022-12-13_JC-Ruling.pdf
2 https://lpedia.org/w/images/3/3a/MI_2022-12-26_Nepoceno-Concurring-Opinion.pdf
3 https://lpedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Michigan_State_Party_Bylaws
4 https://lpedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Michigan_Leadership_Controversy_2022-2023(footnote)
5 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67334397/17/11/libertarian-national-committee-inc-v-saliba/
On March 9th, 2024, Mr. Jonathan Jacobs submitted an appeal to the Judicial Committee (JC). Other members subsequently emailed the JC indicating their desire to be included as concurring signatories: Todd Baker, Grant Baker, Andrew Chadderdon, and Collin Fitzgerald.
Mr. Jacobs and the other Appellants alleged that a motion passed at the March 9th LPMI National Delegate Nominating Convention violated the Libertarian Party of Michigan bylaws by improperly removing and replacing duly elected members of the LPMI Executive Committee. The Appellant argues that since this session was a special convention, any business not included in the original call to convention must be declared to be null and void, due to lack of notice.
On Sunday, March 10th, the Judicial Committee convened to consider Mr. Jacobs’ appeal and the requested remedy. (Attached)
Since the previous JC ruling of December 19th, 2022, we have yet to see a technical critique or refutation of the contents of that ruling, and therefore see no reason to revisit those issues. A special convention, therefore, still requires sufficient notice of business items. Additionally we find Mr. Jacobs’ assertion that the March 9th convention was a special convention to be a correct interpretation of our Bylaws.
Therefore, the Judicial Committee voted to uphold Mr. Jacobs’ remedy. We declare the March 9th motion to replace the Executive Committee to be null and void.
Regards,
Connor J. Nepomuceno
Andrew M. Evans
Joshua Jongema
Has the LPM selected national convention delegates? If so, were those delegates selected by the real LPM, the Chadderdon impostors, or will there be a real delegation and an impostor delegation fighting to be seated?
Delegates were selected at the convention that just happened (unsure if that was the real LPM, or the Chadderdon impostors). Any wagers on whether there will be an alternate slate elected/appointed by another entity?
While there is an appeal of supposed rule to not fill some positions, there is currently no appeal of the delegate selection. I do not plan to file one.
It should also be noted, the motion passed by the convention body did NOT attempt to remove any member of the executive committee. It simply affirmed the members already on it.
They are appealing to the wrong JC. In 2023 the LPM changed the definition of what the JC is to an ad-hoc committee
“The judicial power of the Party shall be vested in an ad hoc Judicial Committee composed of three total Party members. Each side shall appoint one member and the third member will be agreed upon by both parties when alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions occur. No member of the Executive Committee or an interested party in the appeal may be a member of the Judicial Committee.”
That is not part of the bylaws. That is why the link was provided.
Note that at least two other appeals, on different subjects, were filed. Neither dealt with the previously adjudicated subject, the removal of officers at a special meeting; no summary judgement was requested in either case.