Received by email early on 01/29/10 from Mark Hinkle, chair of the California Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee:
For Immediate Release:
On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of California issued a ruling that overturned the suspension of a member by a vote of 5-0. While Robert’s Rules of Order prevents the Judicial Committee from revealing the details of the proceedings, the Judicial Committee finds that it may comment on certain inaccurate information circulating about this case. The suspension of the member by the Executive Committee was not for the commission of any crime, the Judicial Committee was not asked to render a decision that depended on the determination of whether or not the member had committed any crime, and the statements of the causes for suspension that were submitted to the Judicial Committee did not pertain to any such crime.
The Judicial Committee recognizes that the Executive Committee acted within the authority granted to it by the Party Bylaws to vote to suspend a member for a specific cause or causes. The member also acted within the Bylaws by appealing the suspension to the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee met the time lines delineated by the Bylaws and held an extensive hearing during which both parties had the opportunity to present their cases and call witnesses. Following the hearing, the Judicial Committee carefully reviewed the statement of the causes, and the evidence and arguments, which had been submitted to it. The Judicial Committee concluded that neither the Executive Committee nor the member presented their respective cases effectively. The Executive Committee not having met the burden of proof on the causes as stated, and the Judicial Committee not being empowered nor inclined to extend or substitute for the stated causes, the Judicial Committee accordingly rendered a decision to overturn the suspension and restore the individual’s membership as provided for under Section 6 of Bylaw 5.
Privacy considerations which are described in Robert’s Rules of Order, as well as past precedents from membership suspensions by the Executive Committee, prevent the members of the Judiciary Committee from making any more specific comments with regard to this case. Individual members of the Judicial Committee are of course always free (as is any member of the Party) to advocate for improvements in such things as declarations of Party membership requirements and the quality of administrative procedures, but such advocacy should not be assumed to reflect on the merits of this individual case.
The Judicial Committee has reviewed and affirmed its decision of Tuesday, January 26, 2010.
Yours in liberty…………Mark Hinkle,
LPC Judicial Committee Chair