---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roderick Long
Date: Sunday, September 16, 2012
Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Fw: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Re: [lpradicals] Fwd: [Statechairs] Richard Wing...
To: left <leftlibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: goldrecordings <travellingcircus@gmail.com>
To: GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Re: [lpradicals] Fwd: [Statechairs] Richard Wing...
From: goldrecordings <travellingcircus@gmail.com>
To: GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Re: [lpradicals] Fwd: [Statechairs] Richard Wing...
@ballot-access.org
http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/09/15/some-supporters-of-top-two-open-primary-take-punitive-action-to-crush-opponents-with-crippling-legal-fees/
Some Supporters of Top-Two Open Primary Take Punitive Action to Crush Opponents with Crippling Legal Fees
September 15th, 2012
On August 1, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruled that the six plaintiffs in Field v Bowen must pay attorneys fees to the groups that intervened in the lawsuit in support of the top-two system. The amount is $243,279. The six plaintiffs include Rodney Martin, chair of the Reform Party of California; Jeff Mackler, leader of the San Francisco Bay Area branch of Socialist Action; Steve Chessin, president of Californians for Electoral Reform; and Richard Winger.
Field v Bowen attacked two particularly oppressive aspects of the California top-two open primary law: (1) the original law said write-ins in November for Congress or state office could never be counted, but the state continued to let candidates file as declared write-in candidates and continued to print write-in space on the ballot; (2) the law said that only candidates who are registered members of qualified parties could have their party mentioned on the ballot next to the names of that candidate. Nor can such candidates even have the word "independent" on the ballot; they can only have "no party preference", which for many is an untrue statement. Earlier this month, a Washington state court ruled that it is unconstitutional to print "no party preference" for a Socialist Alternative candidate for the legislature, and ordered the Secretary of State to print the candidate's party name on the ballot next to her name.
But the California state courts upheld the write-in and label provisions of the California law last year, and Field v Bowen is no longer an active case, except for the matter of attorneys fees.
California state courts judges are justifiably unhappy that the state budget crisis has meant reduced funding for the court system, which has created many severe problems with administration of the courts. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the California state court judges believe that the top-two open primary will result in a legislature that will have fewer opponents of tax increases. Therefore, these judges appear to be biased in favor of the top-two system. This is best illustrated by Judge Karnow's shocking and punitive decision that we six plaintiffs must pay $243,279 to the law firm Nielson, Merksamer, which represents the groups and individuals who intervened in the case.
The plaintiffs asked for reconsideration. In response, Nielsen Merksamer has argued that we had no right to ask for reconsideration, and a hasty acceleration of the matter, only set on Friday afternoon, September 14, has pushed a hearing forward to Monday, September 17, at 11 a.m. at the San Francisco Civil Superior Court at the northwest corner of McAllister and Larkin Streets. Here is a FairVote story about the matter.
14 Comments
--- In GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
>
> He did this for all party's but I do not know how the suit was titled.
> Your idea is a good one. Thank You
>
> John Wayne Smith
>
>
> In a message dated 9/16/2012 1:32:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> hilgi@... writes:
>
>
> Did he do this on behlaf of all third parties, or just the LP? If it is al
> we should setup a paypal account and promote it to all parties.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "travellingcircus@..." <travellingcircus@...>
> To: lnc-discuss@...; LNCRegion7@yahoogroups.com; Lib
> <GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; lpradicals@yahoogroups.com; LP Radical Caucus
> <2497146127@...>
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:22 AM
> Subject: [lpradicals] Fwd: [Statechairs] Richard Winger was assessed $243,
> 500 in attorney fees
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forwarded message
> From: Chuck Moulton <_chair@..._ (mailto:chair@...) >
> Date: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM
> Subject: [Statechairs] Richard Winger was assessed $243, 500 in attorney
> fees
> To: _statechairs@..._ (mailto:statechairs@...)
>
>
> As you all know, Richard Winger has been a tireless advocate for better
> ballot access throughout the country. He is a true friend of all third party
> and independent candidates.
>
> Richard Winger was assessed $243,500 in attorney fees for challenging
> top-2.
>
> There was a ballot access news article about it posted yesterday:
> http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/09/15/some-supporters-of-top-two-open-prim
> ary-take-punitive-action-to-crush-opponents-with-crippling-legal-fees/
>
> I wanted to make sure all state chairs were aware of this. Richard has
> helped all of us over the years. Hopefully we can repay the favor by
> helping him with this monstrosity. We ought to publicize it far and wide and
> offer the best possible legal advice to Richard.
>
> Note: Richard is not judgment proof like many third party activists hit
> with attorney fees (e.g., Ralph Nader 2004 in Pennsylvania, Carl Romanelli
> 2006 in Pennsylvania). He has been living off an inheritance, which the court
> wants to seize from him.
>
> Chuck Moulton
> Chair, Libertarian Party of Virginia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Statechairs mailing list
> _Statechairs@..._ (mailto:Statechairs@...)
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org
>
http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/09/15/some-supporters-of-top-two-open-primary-take-punitive-action-to-crush-opponents-with-crippling-legal-fees/
Some Supporters of Top-Two Open Primary Take Punitive Action to Crush Opponents with Crippling Legal Fees
September 15th, 2012
On August 1, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruled that the six plaintiffs in Field v Bowen must pay attorneys fees to the groups that intervened in the lawsuit in support of the top-two system. The amount is $243,279. The six plaintiffs include Rodney Martin, chair of the Reform Party of California; Jeff Mackler, leader of the San Francisco Bay Area branch of Socialist Action; Steve Chessin, president of Californians for Electoral Reform; and Richard Winger.
Field v Bowen attacked two particularly oppressive aspects of the California top-two open primary law: (1) the original law said write-ins in November for Congress or state office could never be counted, but the state continued to let candidates file as declared write-in candidates and continued to print write-in space on the ballot; (2) the law said that only candidates who are registered members of qualified parties could have their party mentioned on the ballot next to the names of that candidate. Nor can such candidates even have the word "independent" on the ballot; they can only have "no party preference", which for many is an untrue statement. Earlier this month, a Washington state court ruled that it is unconstitutional to print "no party preference" for a Socialist Alternative candidate for the legislature, and ordered the Secretary of State to print the candidate's party name on the ballot next to her name.
But the California state courts upheld the write-in and label provisions of the California law last year, and Field v Bowen is no longer an active case, except for the matter of attorneys fees.
California state courts judges are justifiably unhappy that the state budget crisis has meant reduced funding for the court system, which has created many severe problems with administration of the courts. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the California state court judges believe that the top-two open primary will result in a legislature that will have fewer opponents of tax increases. Therefore, these judges appear to be biased in favor of the top-two system. This is best illustrated by Judge Karnow's shocking and punitive decision that we six plaintiffs must pay $243,279 to the law firm Nielson, Merksamer, which represents the groups and individuals who intervened in the case.
The plaintiffs asked for reconsideration. In response, Nielsen Merksamer has argued that we had no right to ask for reconsideration, and a hasty acceleration of the matter, only set on Friday afternoon, September 14, has pushed a hearing forward to Monday, September 17, at 11 a.m. at the San Francisco Civil Superior Court at the northwest corner of McAllister and Larkin Streets. Here is a FairVote story about the matter.
14 Comments
--- In GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
>
> He did this for all party's but I do not know how the suit was titled.
> Your idea is a good one. Thank You
>
> John Wayne Smith
>
>
> In a message dated 9/16/2012 1:32:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> hilgi@... writes:
>
>
> Did he do this on behlaf of all third parties, or just the LP? If it is al
> we should setup a paypal account and promote it to all parties.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "travellingcircus@..." <travellingcircus@...>
> To: lnc-discuss@...; LNCRegion7@yahoogroups.com; Lib
> <GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; lpradicals@yahoogroups.com; LP Radical Caucus
> <2497146127@...>
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:22 AM
> Subject: [lpradicals] Fwd: [Statechairs] Richard Winger was assessed $243,
> 500 in attorney fees
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forwarded message
> From: Chuck Moulton <_chair@..._ (mailto:chair@...) >
> Date: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM
> Subject: [Statechairs] Richard Winger was assessed $243, 500 in attorney
> fees
> To: _statechairs@..._ (mailto:statechairs@...)
>
>
> As you all know, Richard Winger has been a tireless advocate for better
> ballot access throughout the country. He is a true friend of all third party
> and independent candidates.
>
> Richard Winger was assessed $243,500 in attorney fees for challenging
> top-2.
>
> There was a ballot access news article about it posted yesterday:
> http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/09/15/some-supporters-of-top-two-open-prim
> ary-take-punitive-action-to-crush-opponents-with-crippling-legal-fees/
>
> I wanted to make sure all state chairs were aware of this. Richard has
> helped all of us over the years. Hopefully we can repay the favor by
> helping him with this monstrosity. We ought to publicize it far and wide and
> offer the best possible legal advice to Richard.
>
> Note: Richard is not judgment proof like many third party activists hit
> with attorney fees (e.g., Ralph Nader 2004 in Pennsylvania, Carl Romanelli
> 2006 in Pennsylvania). He has been living off an inheritance, which the court
> wants to seize from him.
>
> Chuck Moulton
> Chair, Libertarian Party of Virginia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Statechairs mailing list
> _Statechairs@..._ (mailto:Statechairs@...)
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org
>
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment