The attorney for the Libertarian Party of Oregon, led by chairman Wes Wagner, has filed a motion for a summary judgement in the lawsuit by the faction headed by chairman Tim Reeves. A summary judgement, according to Wikipedia , is a “judgement entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial.” The article continues, explaining that a party “applying for summary judgement is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious”.
For history of this long-running and contentious dispute, IPR has at least 50 articles, stretching back to March of 2011. You can find them by putting “Libertarian Party Oregon” in the searchbox.
In addition to the motion itself, there have been letters to the court written by the individual defendants. Those are available to read at the end of the motion.
Paulie (14)
You WON’T hear it from OUR side. It is the Wagner group that has been dragging their feet!!!
p@16
Nothing yet.
A motion for summary judgment is filed when one side believes there are no material facts in dispute and accordingly moves for judgment in its favor either on the entire complaint or part. A “material fact” in dispute is a fact that will make a difference in the outcome.
Yet?
P@14
I have not heard of any such requests.
Do I hear a motion to postpone?
Hearing date is set for May 16th.
I guess only Milnes is really banned.
No, just that no one caught it til now.
The fact that a policy exists doesn’t mean that someone is always around to enforce it.
I think we have a fairly open month as far as the judgement goes. I know the Reeves’ attorney has a few weeks to respond, then Wagner’s attorneys have some rebuttal time. Any judgement will come after that.
Jill @ 2,
I don’t know what will happen when this is finally decided in July. I expect a lot will depend on the details. Concerning this particular motion for summary judgement, most of it deals with stuff that has already been ruled upon in previous motions. We are confident that it will meet with a similar fate.
Richard P. Burke
Jill Pyeatt (2):
“…or Mr. Burke can correct me if I’m wrong.”
The most he could do is to tell you what he wants it to mean. He’s been unable to honestly define simple no-brainers like what the LPO’s membership expiration dates were for any given member despite the super-clear text in the Bylaws that any 4th grader could understand.
Bob Tiernan
@6: Whenever I hear someone talk about a new movement, I remind them to make sure they wipe and flush afterwards… 😛
@6,
“I’m so happy that we left the real world behind years ago …”
There, fixed that for ya.
I guess only Milnes is really banned.
Nick @4
Not familiar with that incident… and my google-fu was weak.
Highlights and links?
It’s just like the Reform Party Collison-Blare fight. I’ve seen this happen before, and I’ll probably see it again.
I’m SOOO glad I’m not an attorney. I don’t think I’d be good at it at all. It was fascinating to sit in the courtroom last week to listen to the appeals court, but otherwise I think the slow pace would drive me nuts.
There has been a trial date set for July of this year. It’s possible this motion could settle things, but, whatever happens, of course the losing group can and probably will file an appeal. Mr. Wagner or Mr. Burke can correct me if I’m wrong.
Looks like this has been going on for a while? Are they even remotely close to resolving this dispute?