[CRNMC] CELDF response to Legal opinion of Initiative

Thu Aug 14 13:14:00 PDT 2014

Sounds like we should schedule a conference call around
consistent messaging.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:

> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Tim Rice				Multitalents	(707) 456-1146
tim at multitalents.net