[CRNMC] CELDF response to Legal opinion of Initiative

Beth Riedel beth at multitalents.net
Thu Aug 14 13:42:10 PDT 2014 

I'd really like to be in on this call as I'm hoping to do a little talk 
on this at a women's conference at the end of the month.

Thanks
	 Beth R


On 8/14/14 1:24 PM, Shannon Biggs wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>

-- 
Beth Riedel
beth at multitalents.net

More information about the crn mailing list