The Libertarian party has filed Suit Against my University

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-09 02:03pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:As Howedar said, ASU wont release their dinancial records, and only a lawyer can Suboena them. Even if the ASU staff is paind while taking part in the administration of the debate, and if they are paid out of ASUs bank accounts, it is illegal. SO we will see if even a single public dollar ends up being spent when the LP attourney gets a hold of the records.

So ... you're saying that they're lying in their FAQ? Is this some giant conspiracy against the Libertarians?

Fact remains, in the RAQ they use the word seek in the FUtURE tense, as in, they have the gotten the money yet. So we shall see.

Red herring. Obviously you missed the bolded section of the quote, so I'll try big letters this time.

No state appropriation of tax dollars has been received to fund the debate.

Know what that means? The state has not given them an appropriation for tax dollars to fund the debate.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 02:07pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
What partisan reasons? That they are not recignized on a national level, which happens to be where this debate was organized?
No, the election may be national, but it is using astate facility, state employees, and depending on what the ASU records say, state funds.

Cause remember folks, just because there's zero evidence for them using state funds and some evidence against it, you should keep mindlessly repeating that like repeated assertions will somehow make it true.

It is a state function,

and it has national significance unless you want to claim that someone who by some miracle takes 271 electoral votes wont become president because he isnt recognized by all the states as a candidate.

If there was the slightest indication this man could obtain one electoral vote, let alone the required amount to become President, I would support his bid to enter the debates. Unfortunately, he and the rest of the third parties remain not even a blip on the radar.

Maybe when the third parties start netting more than single digits in nationwide polls, they'll be considered for this.
SO someone's rights depend on how many of them there are now? Jeez, nice to know you have that mentality

Well, this is the same party which makes up the bullshit List Of No Rights. So it's quite funny to hear them whine about their rights being violated when these so-called rights don't exist. None of the Bill Of Rights says you can take part in a national debate just because you have a Presidential campaign. I know, I checked.

In the meantime, it's a lawsuit launched with no evidence, just whining. And yes, Nitram has vast contempt for those who launch into the SUE SUE SUE mentality that America seems entirely too caught up in.
Are they seeking damages? No, and if they are, they seek a direct cost restitution directed at registered libertarians for being forced to support a debate in which they have no say.

And again we see this repeated despite zero evidence state funds are being used and evidence against it being present. Alyrium: Stop taking lessons from the Trekkies. Repeating something does not make it true.

They are seeking the ability to enter into a presidential debate being held on state property.

They can enter provided they have tickets, same as anyone. As for participate as a candidate, again, they will have some legitimacy when they have the potential to take any state, even one electoral vote. What are their poll numbers in Arizona alone? Do they even approach 10%?

Frankly, no, not every yahoo who is running for President should be in these debates. Those who have the likelihood of at least capturing some electorals should be debated.

In retrospect, I must ask: Does the Lib party propose anything against frivolous lawsuits? You know, ones launched without evidence of wrongdoing, just to get attention and suchlike.
Dont think so, though they would encourage judges to laugh such things out of the court when the argument started.

You mean like claiming ASU is spending state funds when there's no evidence presented, even on the Lib campaign headquarters? When there's evidence against it? Oops!

And a lawsuit in the common usage of the word is different from seeking an injunction and courtorder.

Unfortunately, what you quoted stated lawsuit, so I'm of course going by that for what they're doing.

A suit seeking an injunction and court order is seeking the court to order the redress of a grievance before the fact. A lawsuit seeks redress after the fact. At least in my limited understanding of the court system.

The article you posted stated lawsuit. If the differences are as you say, I have no choice but to laugh; this isn't about getting in, this is about throwing a tantrum on a national stage because the cool kids didn't let him into their club.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:11pm

Red herring. Obviously you missed the bolded section of the quote, so I'll try big letters this time.

No state appropriation of tax dollars has been received to fund the debate.

Know what that means? The state has not given them an appropriation for tax dollars to fund the debate.

GASP ASU has a discretionary budget. We will however, have to see their financial records. Now wont we? I personally want to know how they are paying ASU employees who are working the debate. Oh and they are giving ASU tshirts and press kits to the media, I dont know how that will work, and they are using Gammage auditorium, and paying tech crews.

If even so much as a dollar is spent by AsU on any of the above activities, it becomes a violation of the AZ constitution.

So ... you're saying that they're lying in their FAQ? Is this some giant conspiracy against the Libertarians?

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how recently it has been updated. It is possible that they just havent updated it, and it is causing them a bit of trouble. However if it is current, and they have yet to recieve private donations, they have to have paid for all the proparations up until this point with something

AND THAT IS WHAT A SUBPOENA IS FOR

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 02:14pm

Alyrium, you are now outright lying. Your own article, with sections bolded:

Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties.

"It's a clear case of misusing state funds," said David Euchner, attorney for the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP).

"Arizona recognizes three political parties," Euchner continued. "A debate which included all three of those parties would be a legitimate expenditure on education and public information. A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial -- and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."

AZLP Vice Chair Barry Hess agreed: "It is so outrageous because the Republicans and the Democrats clearly violate their own Finance Reform Act, which in this case operates against all parties except the Republicans and the Democrats."

The AZLP and its treasurer, Warren Severin, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit, which seeks an injunction or restraining order against the use of state funds for the debate.

"Additionally, this use of these particular funds is in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution," Hess added.

The Arizona Constitution prohibits making grants or donations to any individual, association, or corporation.

Libertarians also claim that if special privileges are granted to Bush and Kerry, Arizona Libertarians will have been denied their 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee. The university and the Commission for Presidential Debates were named as defendants in the suit.

Representatives of the AZLP and of Libertarian Michael Badnarik's presidential campaign conducted a joint press conference after filing the complaint with the Maricopa County Superior Court.

"They have absolutely no right to use our tax dollars for what is effectively a very expensive television commercial for Bush and Kerry," Hess told reporters.

You know what's missing Alyrium? Any signs of them filing a subpeona for the data. They're just stating it's happening. So, again, STFU you whiny little sycophant, unless you have some evidence they actually are using state funds. Thsi is tiresome.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:23pm

Cause remember folks, just because there's zero evidence for them using state funds and some evidence against it, you should keep mindlessly repeating that like repeated assertions will somehow make it true.

It is not possible to tell until we look at ASUs financial records

If there was the slightest indication this man could obtain one electoral vote, let alone the required amount to become President, I would support his bid to enter the debates. Unfortunately, he and the rest of the third parties remain not even a blip on the radar.

So, once again, someones right to be heard is dependant upon their popularity? Nice

Have you considered the fact that yor reasoning is a bit cicular.

"They arent allowed to participate in the debates, so they arent a blip on the radar, but I wont let them participate in the debates until they are a blip on the radar"

Well, this is the same party which makes up the bullshit List Of No Rights. So it's quite funny to hear them whine about their rights being violated when these so-called rights don't exist. None of the Bill Of Rights says you can take part in a national debate just because you have a Presidential campaign. I know, I checked.

Nationa constitution, 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law. If government funds are used, if even a single cent of the ASU discretionary budget is used, the debates are required by both national and state constitution to be open to the parties recognized in the state in question.

And again we see this repeated despite zero evidence state funds are being used and evidence against it being present. Alyrium: Stop taking lessons from the Trekkies. Repeating something does not make it true.

Nice to see you completely ignore the fact that I keep saying

WE WONT KNOW FOR SURE UNTIL THE RECORDS ARE SCRUTINIZED

Frankly, no, not every yahoo who is running for President should be in these debates. Those who have the likelihood of at least capturing some electorals should be debated.

DO you have any justification for that? Or is it just an interesting variance on an Appeal to Popularity? Why shouldnt the libertarians, or any other third party be allowed to debate?

See above statement regarding the roundness of this line of argument you put forth.

Unfortunately, what you quoted stated lawsuit, so I'm of course going by that for what they're doing.

Did you even read the text of the case itself, which I also provided? Because it clearly states they are seeking an injunction.

READ THE FUCKING CASE

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:26pm

You know what's missing Alyrium? Any signs of them filing a subpeona for the data. They're just stating it's happening. So, again, STFU you whiny little sycophant, unless you have some evidence they actually are using state funds. Thsi is tiresome.

Guess what cocksucker wow ironic insult when someone files for an injunction, or files any kind of court case regarding anything financial in nature, they also subpoena the financial records in question.

Common Fucking Sense.Unlss the LP laywer is completely incompetant.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:28pm

Here is theCASE again, actually read it. This is different from the arcticle

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:30pm

Oh, and su summarize my position, so you can no longer strawman my arguments

IF state funds are used in any way shape or form, if even 1 cent of ASUs discretionary budget was spent without private donation covering the costs, the state is in violation ot the arizona and national consitutions.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 02:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Cause remember folks, just because there's zero evidence for them using state funds and some evidence against it, you should keep mindlessly repeating that like repeated assertions will somehow make it true.
It is not possible to tell until we look at ASUs financial records

Because ASU must be lying, mustn't they. You can't handle the fact it might be legit.

And of course let's not forget that your own political party is not saying 'Let us look at the records'. They are saying 'THEY ARE DOING IT!'. Whoops.

If there was the slightest indication this man could obtain one electoral vote, let alone the required amount to become President, I would support his bid to enter the debates. Unfortunately, he and the rest of the third parties remain not even a blip on the radar.
So, once again, someones right to be heard is dependant upon their popularity? Nice

Nothing to do with rights, kiddo. There's no right to force others to read your opinion. It is instead of reality, something the Libertarian party traditionally has trouble with.

Have you considered the fact that yor reasoning is a bit cicular.

No, I don't really consider falsehoods.

"They arent allowed to participate in the debates, so they arent a blip on the radar, but I wont let them participate in the debates until they are a blip on the radar"

Nice one, Alyrium, that man of straw never even saw you coming. Now try debating what I've said.

Yea, I'm pretty contemptuous of that lie of yours too. I never said they're not a blip on the radar because they're not in the debates. I said they're not a blip on the radar because even in a state that recignizes them, they don't have a prayer of taking an electoral vote.

Well, this is the same party which makes up the bullshit List Of No Rights. So it's quite funny to hear them whine about their rights being violated when these so-called rights don't exist. None of the Bill Of Rights says you can take part in a national debate just because you have a Presidential campaign. I know, I checked.
Nationa constitution, 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law. If government funds are used, if even a single cent of the ASU discretionary budget is used, the debates are required by both national and state constitution to be open to the parties recognized in the state in question.

Funny interpretation of that amendment. I didn't know the Bill Of Rights included the right to shove your opinions into debates you weren't invited to.

Of course, we come back to the fact that there's no evidence money was spent in that way, there is evidence it wasn't, and the Libertarians, instead of seeking to find out, are declaring it's already happening.

And again we see this repeated despite zero evidence state funds are being used and evidence against it being present. Alyrium: Stop taking lessons from the Trekkies. Repeating something does not make it true.
Nice to see you completely ignore the fact that I keep saying

WE WONT KNOW FOR SURE UNTIL THE RECORDS ARE SCRUTINIZED

Wow, you can use color and size tags. Do you feel like a big strong debator now? Now run along, kid. Come back when there's evidence, instead of insisting we take every unsubstantiated claim seriously.

Oh, wait. We're supposed to take this unsubstantiated claim seriously, because that's the claim the Libertarian lawyers are screeching in the press release as being true, despite this gaping maw, this void, a singularity, if you will, of LACK OF EVIDENCE. Wowie.

Frankly, no, not every yahoo who is running for President should be in these debates. Those who have the likelihood of at least capturing some electorals should be debated.
DO you have any justification for that? Or is it just an interesting variance on an Appeal to Popularity? Why shouldnt the libertarians, or any other third party be allowed to debate?

They weren't invited? Again, when any of these third parties becomes likely to take even one electoral vote, I will wholeheartedly support them.

See above statement regarding the roundness of this line of argument you put forth.

And again you knock down that poor man of straw. Have you no heart, Aly? Have you no compassion for his straw innards you keep knocking out?

Unfortunately, what you quoted stated lawsuit, so I'm of course going by that for what they're doing.
Did you even read the text of the case itself, which I also provided? Because it clearly states they are seeking an injunction.

And they are also stating it's happening without any evidence of subpeona.

READ THE FUCKING CASE

Yea, the one where they're already asserting it's happening, no evidence, no subpeonas, it's just happening. Anyone demanding evidence or showing the FAQ from ASU itself is just part of the vast conspiracy against the Libertarians, right?

My god, this debate drives home the point that politics makes people trolls. You can't even recignize that NO EVIDENCE = NOTHING TO STAND ON.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 02:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
You know what's missing Alyrium? Any signs of them filing a subpeona for the data. They're just stating it's happening. So, again, STFU you whiny little sycophant, unless you have some evidence they actually are using state funds. Thsi is tiresome.
Guess what cocksucker wow ironic insult when someone files for an injunction, or files any kind of court case regarding anything financial in nature, they also subpoena the financial records in question.

Common Fucking Sense.Unlss the LP laywer is completely incompetant.

I wouldn't doubt he's incompetent, given he's already asserting it's happening. Whoops, again! You just can't get around that they're lying like this, because they have no evidence!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-09 02:35pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:GASP ASU has a discretionary budget. We will however, have to see their financial records. Now wont we? I personally want to know how they are paying ASU employees who are working the debate. Oh and they are giving ASU tshirts and press kits to the media, I dont know how that will work, and they are using Gammage auditorium, and paying tech crews.

I guess that depends on how they've estimated the $2 million cost. Are you saying that they failed to account for paying their employees to work on the debates when they budgeted this thing?

If even so much as a dollar is spent by AsU on any of the above activities, it becomes a violation of the AZ constitution.

And you have absolutely no evidence that this is the case, aside from of course, a frivolous lawsuit by your favorite party.

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how recently it has been updated. It is possible that they just havent updated it, and it is causing them a bit of trouble. However if it is current, and they have yet to recieve private donations, they have to have paid for all the proparations up until this point with something
AND THAT IS WHAT A SUBPOENA IS FOR

Oooh, so it's possible that they may have paid with state-appropriated tax dollars, even though the state hasn't given them an appropriation, so we must subpoena their records and sue the school to find out if these completely baseless accusations have merit! Are you on fucking drugs? Do you have any idea how the justice system works?

No record of such appropriations exist, so there's no grounds for a subpoena. Don't you get it? To subpoena for those records, you need a reason. And "My favorite party's candidate wasn't invited to the debates by a private, non-partisan organization" doesn't count. Jesus, isn't this guy a Libertarian? What happened to "private organizations can do what they want"?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:41pm

I guess that depends on how they've estimated the $2 million cost. Are you saying that they failed to account for paying their employees to work on the debates when they budgeted this thing?

It does depend on how they bugeted the damn thing. maybe they planned it, planning to be reimbursed, who knows.

No record of such appropriations exist, so there's no grounds for a subpoena. Don't you get it? To subpoena for those records, you need a reason. And "My favorite party's candidate wasn't invited to the debates by a private, non-partisan organization" doesn't count. Jesus, isn't this guy a Libertarian? What happened to "private organizations can do what they want"?

No record exists unless ASU releases said records, or is that to hard for you to grasp.

ANd guess what, ASU is a state institution, it is public, not private.

we will just have to see what a judge says in this case. As none of us has all relevant information. WHich has been my point the entire time(besides the moral issue of keeping third parties out the the debate)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-09 03:19pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
I guess that depends on how they've estimated the $2 million cost. Are you saying that they failed to account for paying their employees to work on the debates when they budgeted this thing?
It does depend on how they bugeted the damn thing. maybe they planned it, planning to be reimbursed, who knows.

Obviously not, since the state has not given them an appropriation.

No record exists unless ASU releases said records, or is that to hard for you to grasp.

In the absence of an appropriation, there is no need to release said records because they'll only tell us what we already know: that ASU did not appropriate tax-payer money to fund the debate. Unless you can offer reason to suspect that they did, this lawsuit is completely baseless.

ANd guess what, ASU is a state institution, it is public, not private.

And guess what? The Commission on Presidential Debates is private. ASU may be hosting their event, but please explain why the CoPD is obligated to invite the Libertarian party's candidate.

we will just have to see what a judge says in this case. As none of us has all relevant information. WHich has been my point the entire time(besides the moral issue of keeping third parties out the the debate)

Actually, we do have the relevant information. The only thing lacking is evidence to support your position.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 03:29pm

*sigh*

Conceeded

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-09 04:24pm

Concession accepted.