[CRNMC] CELDF response to Legal opinion of Initiative

[Shannon Biggs]

Of course Losak can argue is not a single subject, but we can also argue
that it is. I¹m not sure what it matters if Oregon has a single subject
rule, but its common.

In terms of argument ­ this is and has always been about  our right to
decide, our right to protect local water, and to do that we must ban
fracking - that¹s the frame we¹ve always had.


On 8/13/14 4:52 PM, "karinajoy" <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding the issue of single vs. multiple subjects:  Losak claims the
> ordinance has more than one subject. CELDF says, no the single subject is
> Community Rights.
> 
> I concur with Kelly and Tim that we have been telling everyone (because that
> is what we voted on) that the ordinance protects our water by banning
> fracking.
> 
> I wrote this yesterday, as my first reaction to CELDF's response:
> "This ordinance protects our water by banning fracking - that is how we've
> presented it to the public. We are basing our right to ban fracking on our
> unalienable rights, which we are defining with a Community Bill of Rights. And
> this Bill of Rights supports our right to ban fracking. Everything in the
> Ordinance points back to banning fracking - even the "rights of Nature"
> section states that nature/water has a right to be free from contamination by
> fracking."  
> 
> If  a "Community Bill of Rights" is the single subject, why did we add in a
> fracking ban? Why not just submit a Bill of Rights to the voters?"  I hope
> CELDF can explain this for our education, as well as why a fracking ban
> enforces the bill of rights, so we can all explain it clearly to others.
> 
> Not at all sure that CELDF's explanation will quell the fears of our opponents
> or make things worse... However, since CELDF is defending this ordinance, the
> argument must be one they feel is defensible by them in court.
> 
> Also, I am wondering if Oregon really has a single subject rule like
> California - Ben, can you verify that for us, please?
> 
> It is important that we are all on the same page - if some of us say the
> subject is protecting our water, and others say "community rights" and others
> anti-fracking - we will be proving our opponent's point about multiple
> subjects. 
> 
> Unfortunately, one day with CELDF was not enough for them to educate and align
> us with their purpose - hence our confusion.  And now I feel we have no choice
> but to try to align ourselves with CELDF, if we want to keep them on board as
> our legal team. Paul Cienfuegos agrees with their response, by the way. He
> says, "i stand 1000% behind celdf on this piece of the work - their very
> carefully designed legal strategy. this is the part celdf does best, imo."
> 
> Our confusion must be addressed soon! We need clarity and cohesion in
> everything we communicate to our fellow Citizens.  Please add this topic to
> the agenda for sunday.
> 
> I won't be able to make it to the meeting sunday till 12:30 or 1. If the
> actual meeting will be over by then, I won't come at all. If we can have this
> discussion at 1pm, I will come for that. Otherwise, I may call a meeting next
> week just to discuss and try to understand CELDF's point of view on this
> subject with whoever is interested.
> 
> We are certainly learning a lot from this process!
> 
> Karina
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Kelly Larson wrote:
> 
>> That is true of me too, Tim.  I thought that was the tack.  The lawyer stuff
>> is confusing, but we have to get it straight.  I prefer this anyway.
>> 
>> "Measure S contains one subject ­ a Bill of Rights. The prohibitions on
>> fracking activities enforce those rights; and the limitations on corporations
>> and state government protect the enforcement of the Measure."
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Tim Rice <tim at multitalents.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>>>> > In regards to the single subject rule, Measure S contains one subject ­
>>>> > a Bill of Rights. The prohibitions on fracking activities enforce those
>>> 
>>> We had better get consistant on our messaging. Some of us were under the
>>> impression that the single issue was protecting our water by banning
>>> fracking and the Bill of Rights was how we accomplished that.
>>> 
>>>> > rights; and the limitations on corporations and state government protect
>>>> > the enforcement of the Measure. The law only requires that the different
>>>> > parts of the Measure be germane, or reasonably connected, to each other.
>>>> > As an example, groups in two Oregon Counties have put forward Community
>>>> > Bills of Rights dealing with GMO¹s which contain almost identical
>>>> > provisions to Measure S. Courts there have found that the bill of rights
>>>> > ordinances pass single subject review. As to the inclusion and legality
>>>> > of felony charges, that section was added because of local legal advice
>>>> > obtained by the CRN, and since it deals with enforcement, passes single
>>>> > subject review.
>>>> >
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Tim Rice                                Multitalents    (707) 456-1146
>>> <tel:%28707%29%20456-1146>
>>> tim at multitalents.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> crn mailing list
>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140813/c5370a23/attachment.html