I would not be apart of such a suit even if it did stand a chance. If there are any purges of leadership I think it would be much better to do it internally or seperating entirely from their leadership by starting another party.--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, I said that maybe fraud was not the right word. What are some > other legal words for delebrate misleading of the facts for monetery > gain ( taking donors money with the intention of using that money to > advance measures counter to the stated goal of the organzation and > its leadership)? Remember I did say the donor could read the bylaws > before donating and find out that the party can change its goals but > it must change its goals in accordance with the bylaws. To change the > goals or a goal on purpose with knowledge without following the > proper by laws might be willful neglect for monetery gain.--- In > [email protected], Richard Shepard <shepardelectionlaw@> > wrote: > > > > Although the mantra differs from state to state there is > considerable proof necessary to make out a case for fraud. Here is a > typical list: > > > > (1) Representation of an existing fact; > > > > (2) Materiality of the representation; > > > > (3) Falsity of the representation; > > > > (4) The speaker's knowledge of its falsity; > > > > (5) The speaker's intent that it be acted upon by the plaintiff; > > > > (6) Plaintiff's ignorance of the falsity; > > > > (7) Plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; > > > > (8) Plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and > > > > (9) Resulting damages. > > > > These elements are conjunctive, meaning that you have to prove > each one. Miss any one and the case fails. > > > > Although I could spend some time discussing each element, I think > any LP member would have a significant problem with items (8) and > (9). The LP is, after all, a poltiical party (and despite some > claims to the contrary, that is how it has historically held itself > out to the public), and political parties are known to change > platform planks, programs and what-have-you with the wind. That is, > after all, the whole point of conventions. So I think any plaintiff > would be hard pressed to prove it had any "right" to rely on the LP > to stand for much of anything. > > > > Even if one could get over that hurdle, there is still the > problem of damages. Emotional distress simply isn't going to cut > it. To prevail a plaintiff is going to have to show a palpable loss, > whether in money, business prestige, property interests or something > objectively demonstrable. > > > > I can not think of any way that could happen here. > > > > Richard Shepard > > > > terry12622000 <cottondrop@> wrote: > > I'm not sure it would ever make a case but if paty > officals told > > donors that the party was against intiation of force and the donors > > could read that it was a national membership requirement to pledge > > not to advocate intiation of force, the donors would expect the > > leadership and party to do what it said it > > would. > > Yes the donors can also read the bylaws and find out with enough > > votes the party can change or do away with the pledge but if the > > leadership, candiadtes and party advocates intiation of force > before > > getting enough votes to change or delete the pledge would that not > > be fraud?--- In [email protected], Richard Shepard > > <shepardelectionlaw@> wrote: > > > > > > And the cause of action would be...what? > > > > > > And the palpable injury would be...what? > > > > > > terry12622000 <cottondrop@> wrote: > > > Could the National Party and the Reformist leadership > > members be > > > setting themselves up for a big law suit, even possibly a class > > > action law suit for fraud by large donor members, including small > > > donor members in a class action. With trial lawyer fees going as > > high > > > as 40% one or more effective law firms might be willing to take > on > > a > > > case?--- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > The LP is supposed to be a political party that gets people > > elected > > > > without sacrificing our principles. It was wrecked by those who > > > have > > > > no principles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Richard Shepard > > > > <shepardelectionlaw@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have now heard several times over the last week or so that > the > > > > founders of the LP never really expected the LP to be > a "political > > > > party," and that the fundamental purpose in forming the party > was > > to > > > > educate the public in matters of liberty. > > > > > > > > > > First, isn't that what CATO, Reason, Heartland and several > > > others do? > > > > > > > > > > Second, if indeed the purpose of the party founders was not > > > > political why on earth did they form a political party? They > could > > > > have formed a PAC, or a think tank, or an interest group like > the > > > ACLU. > > > > > > > > > > Third, they DID form a political party. Why should anybody be > > > > surprised if its members want it to act like one? > > > > > > > > > > Richard Shepard > > > > > > > > > > steven linnabary <linnabary51@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/samuels1.html > > > > > > > > > > PEACE > > > > > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer > > > > > Franklin County Libertarian Party > > > > > (614) 891-8841 > > > > > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115 > > > > > > > > > > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make > violent > > > > revolution > > > > > inevitable" John F. Kennedy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > > Great rates starting at 1ยข/min. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. > Just radically better. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
