[CRNMC] CELDF response to Legal opinion of Initiative

Shannon Biggs shannon at globalexchange.org
Thu Aug 14 13:24:13 PDT 2014 

The single subject is the bill of rights. That's all the rights inc. but I can schedule a call with me and Ben if folks would like for next week. ? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:14 PM, "Tim Rice" <tim at multitalents.net> wrote:

> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn

More information about the crn mailing list