Portland Oregon: In the attached 126 page “RESPONDENT / CROSS-APPELLANT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGON’S ANSWERING BRIEF, SUPPLEMENTAL EXCERPT OF RECORD, AND CROSSOPENING BRIEF” filed yesterday, 31 December 2014, in the Clackamas County Oregon Circuit Court in response to the “Appeal from the General Judgment of Dismissal” entered on October 25, 2013, and the “Supplemental Judgment” entered on May 30, 2014, by Oregon Political Action Committee 16869 (which is also doing business as “The Libertarian Party of Oregon”), Defendants (Wes Wagner, Harry Joe Taylor, Mark Vetanen, Bruce Knight, Richard Skyba, Jeff Weston, the Libertarian Party of Oregon), among other things, through their attorneys, quote President Thomas Jefferson and petition the Court to reconsider its prior denial of their request for reimbursement of attorney fees.
President Jefferson is quoted in Footnote 5 in support of the following argument (beginning on page 50 of the above referenced Answering Brief):
” Judges, much like the Founders (5) have long recognized that an entity’s governing documents do not constitute a “suicide pact,” and that the rules of necessity and self-preservation may ultimately trump a rigid adherence to written laws. . . . Courts have thus excused actions taken to preserve an organization that do not comport with the letter of the organization’s governing documents. . . .
“(5) From Thomas Jefferson: “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
“T. Jefferson Letter to John B. Colvin Sept. 20, 1810, available at:
Beginning on page 62 and continuing onto page 63, the above referenced Answering Brief states:
“Plaintiffs’ claims lacked an objectively reasonable basis when they were made. If that was not obvious to plaintiffs at the time they filed their claims, it should have become so during the course of the litigation, when the issue preclusion and constitutional issues were raised in responsive pleadings. Yet, plaintiffs pushed forward in the face of briefing and undisputed evidence establishing those defenses. Pursuant to ORS 20.105(1), defendants are entitled to recover the substantial attorney fees they were forced to incur in response to plaintiffs’ objectively unreasonable claims.
“Plaintiffs were very aware of the financial strain that litigation would cause the defendants. In August 2011, they discussed ways in which they could create a party website with a new domain name without violating trademark laws. Plaintiff Burke concluded that discussion by observing, “I don’t know if Jim is correct about the possible outcome of [sic] trademark dispute, but I doubt
Wagner’s crew have the financial resources to push the case so far against the LNC’s retained lawyers that the trademark gets thrown out.” Dkt 163, Ex 6 (Steringer Decl). Plaintiffs might have underestimated the defendants’ wherewithal to mount a defense to their objectively unreasonable claims, but the expense of that defense should not be borne by them.
“The LPO respectfully requests that this court reverse the circuit court’s denial of the LPO’s Motion for Findings under ORS 20.105.”
See: Answering Brief and Cross-Opening Brief with SER 1-49 (P0470283xA8AA7)
PRIOR IPR COVERAGE (2014 only)
(ED-NOTE: Articles related to the above issues published by IPR prior to 1 January 2014 can be found by searching within the site for OREGON, WAGNER, REEVES, etc.)