After the dismissal of the lawsuit on May 26, 2013, by Judge Breithaupt of the Clackamas County Court, the Officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon have filed a motion to recoup their legal fees. They are filing against the Reeves group, with Richard P. Burke as their spokesman, who filed the lawsuit hoping to prove they were the correct officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
For background of this dispute, here are a couple links:
Libertarian Party of Oregon Lawsuit Dismissed
Capozzi: the only problem there is that the government itself a racket,
The Reeves faction sent the government “racket” after the LPO.
In that context, I don’t think it’d be unlibertarian for the LPO to turn that same “racket” back against the Reeves faction.
tk, seems like LPO is a one-off to me, a setup based on extraordinary circumstances. IYO, is OR the only affiliate to have been besieged by this semi-covert war?
As I recall, you structured the BTP as a national party to avoid the challenges of having a sort of confederation-of-state-parties structure that the LP labors under.
What purpose is served by maintaining maximum affiliate independence?
RC,
I didn’t say they SHOULD go after the LNC under RICO or some other avenue. I just wondered whether they might have the ABILITY to do so.
I’m skeptical that there’s much value in the LP at this point, but if there is any at all, having the LNC conduct semi-covert war on its own affiliates, as happened with Oregon, would seem a sub-optimal approach to maximizing and preserving that value; and exacting such appropriate restitution as possible from it for doing so seems like a reasonable incentive approach to take to get it to refrain from doing so in the future.
tk, the only problem there is that the government itself a racket, particularly from the perspective of a nonarchist. Going to one of at least two racketeers who are damaging you or your organization seems off to me. š
NS @27
There is a civil section to RICO law.
@26: I think RICO only allows for Federal criminal actions, not civil. But I don’t practice in Federal court, so I may be wrong.
GP @ 21,
Yep. Apart from attaching them for recovery of fees, I’m wondering whether LPO might not have a cause of civil action versus the LNC under RICO.
14 NS: ….the fact that Burke had previously prevailed in court on the same basis that the defendants prevailed may establish issue preclusion and bad faith, as may the financial ties to the Oregon GOP.
ME: Thanks. That IS interesting. If Burke used the same basis before, that seems to me on its face to require some serious gonads, even if they are not functioning.
teeth 11: Iām also sure that the term āringleaderā has appeared in a great many criminal motions and rulings.
me: You may be “sure,” but my quick research didn’t find any. Could be.
But, then, the non-legal usage of the term “ringleader” DOES connote (possibly denote) “criminal” behavior. Since this is happening in civil court, it seems really quite inflammatory and unnecessary to use the term “ringleader” in this context.
Thankfully, I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s a good reason to label a member of the other party a “ringleader” in this case.
“Does anyone know if the total legal fees for the Wagner group is close to six figures?”
I don’t know, but if the information above about using top law firms is correct, it could easily be that much or more after several months of work.
“Will the Reeves group ever admit theyāve lost?”
They may eventually run out of funds for lawsuits and appeals (or courts willing to hear them), but they’ll never reconcile with Wagner et al.
Does anyone know if the total legal fees for the Wagner group is close to six figures?
@17 I am not sure I have a full list of parties, but you are transparently obviously correct that the LNC *voted* material support of the Reeves faction by allowing its funds to be used to support the Reeves suit, namely by allowing something that they had paid for to be used in the suit. They reinforced this message by re-electing to the LNC the person who originally spent the money.
“Interestingā¦I stressed about finally calling the Wagner group āThe Libertarian Party of Oregonā without disclaimers, but decided it was finally time to. I thought Iād be blasted for it, but no one has even mentioned it.”
Given the court ruling, it’s getting harder and harder for anyone to have any credibility in claiming otherwise.
Interesting…I stressed about finally calling the Wagner group “The Libertarian Party of Oregon” without disclaimers, but decided it was finally time to. I thought I’d be blasted for it, but no one has even mentioned it.
Will the Reeves group ever admit they’ve lost?
“For instance, the words āisā and ātheā appear in many legal documents, despite not being strictly legal words or terms.”
That depends on what the meaning of “is” is…
š
The usual disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this should not be construed as legal advice, etc.
But in reference to what George is alluding to:
The LPO has moved to recover legal fees.
If the formal plaintiffs can’t be squeezed for full recovery, it seems to me that actual plaintiffs who were not formal plaintiffs — that is, people or organizations who funded and encouraged the litigation for purposes of their own while declining to name themselves — would be an obvious target for collection activities.
That would presumably involve going to the judge and saying “this person or organization is not named as a plaintiff, but in fact was one, and we should be allowed to recover from him/her/it.”
I cannot speak either to what Oregon law might say about such a course, or how the judge would view it, but it seems like a reasonable subject to consider.
I’m not sure why George et. al are being cagey about naming the person/entity in putative question:
The LNC as an organization, through Mark Hinkle as its chair, seems to have funded, at least to the extent of financing and sharing legal research, the lawsuit of the Reeves Gang against the LNC’s own affiliate in Oregon.
Above and beyond any legal force that might be brought to bear upon the LNC to compel it to pay the fees in question, it might just be a good moral lesson for the LNC to have to pay for trying so hard to fuck over one of its own affiliates.
@15: I’m not an Oregon lawyer, but there’s not an indication here that the plaintiffs are not real parties in interest to the litigation, so I doubt that a court would find that they’re straw plaintiffs.
@13 You want to research Oregon law first. Many states have worked out that allowing people to use straws — street people for example — as litigants leads to negative outcomes and have fixed the matter.
@7: The email thread suggesting that the defendants couldn’t afford to continue litigation to the point that the trademark would be an issue is one. Also, the fact that Burke had previously prevailed in court on the same basis that the defendants prevailed may establish issue preclusion and bad faith, as may the financial ties to the Oregon GOP.
None of these things are dispositive and it’s up to the judge, but I thought it’d be worth a read.
I think Starr would only get a bill if he were one of the parties on record filing suit. I don’t think that’s the case.
I think Starr was only donating money to the parties who filed the suit. In which case, Starr would have no obligation to donate any further. (Of course, he can if he wants to.)
@9 There were a bunch of defendants. The lead attorney for the party is a senior person from the top corporate law firm in the state. The others are also I gather top-rate. Having once been part of a case that went to the Supreme Court, I would say that you are surely correct.
@10 Hypothetically, there would have to be litigation for legal fees, and whoever would have to be brought in as a plaintiff (i.e., on the plaintiff’s side), found to be an active behind the scenes party or whatever Oregon Law calls it, and it goes on for a while. Obviously, there are several other people or groups who might find themselves in this hypothetical predicament.
Capozzi: “I didnāt realize that the word āringleaderā is a legal term.
Not every word in a legal document is a “legal term.” Indeed, most words aren’t.
For instance, the words “is” and “the” appear in many legal documents, despite not being strictly legal words or terms.
I’m also sure that the term “ringleader” has appeared in a great many criminal motions and rulings.
@6 are you saying aaron starr may get a bill or no?
Based on what the judge said in the decision, sounds pretty likely legal fees will be awarded.
I suspect they will be very high.
Nick @ 5, you presume it would have any bearing on his opinion.
NS, well, at your urging, I did scan the motion. I didn’t realize that the word “ringleader” is a legal term. Kinda cool on one level, actually! Who says jurisprudential law is “dry”?
The exhibits that I glanced at didn’t seem to be truth enhancing. Is there one or two that represent a smoking gun of truth?
@3 In some states, if you fund a lawsuit, and make a deal with some poverty-stricken folks to be the plaintiffs, as your front, and massively lose, why sometimes you too (nothing personal meant) can get handed the bills for the defense. Fortunately, the LNC kept out of this one, didn’t it?
Mr. Capozzi would do well to read that motion, especially the exhibits referenced therein.
BR @3
You forgot and did this all at the urging of a republican party lawyer.
In this case legal fees should be awarded. When a tiny, rump groups loses elections, uses RRoR as a hammer to try to obfuscate, trick and defeat their competitors for party office, then go on to try to use the court system when their fellow party members have rejected them en masse, and then lose finally and totally in court, all while wasting the time and resources of the real LP members, and worst of all, dissipating the momentum and opportunity for the LP and freedom movement to grow, build and change our nation – yeah, those guys should be required to pay the legal costs of the LP of Oregon.
In reality they should be required to pay some penalty – perhaps triple damages and costs – and everyone involved in the Burke, Reeves, Carling et al cabal should be required to pay.
Thanks, Dr. Rustles. I’ve changed the title.
I don’t know if “sue” is the right word. Requesting attorney fees is usually a motion made as part of the original suit.