Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:49:56 EDT From: registrlbt@aol.com Subject: Re: [lpaz-xcom] New minute entry from the judge To: lpaz-xcom@egroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-xcom@egroups.com
Dear Jason and Governing Committee:
Below is the text of the minute entry. It means that since the new ALP bylaws ARE in compliance with the law, and since the SecState and County Recorder previously failed to enforce the law against us, there is no grounds to overturn the status quo. So, Peter's attempt to have himself declared head of the Arizona Libertarian Party is dead, at least for this year. He will have to take his case to the Court of Appeals, if he is of a mind, and that cannot be briefed before the election. Perhaps that is why this has become so urgent to the LNC.
But I digress. Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I introduce the final and authoritative word of the Maricopa County Superior Court on the subject of who really constitutes the Arizona Libertarian Party...
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY COPY 04/13/2000 CLERK OF THE COURT FORM R193B
Honorable ROBERT D. MYERS PRESIDING JUDGE J. O'Malley
CV 1999-003904 Deputy
Docket Code 119
THE ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, ET AL.
V.
HELEN PURCELL, ET AL.
FILED:
COUNTY ATTORNEY By: JILL M. KENNEDY
THOMAS V. RAWLES
JOHN A , BUTTRICK
HUGH L HALLMAN
DAVID T HARDY
MARTY HARPER
JOSEPH P. ABATE
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has received the County Recorder's Notice to the Court. There appear to be three issues remaining before the court;
Defendants ALP, Inc.'s Amended Motion to Clarify and Helen Purcell's Application for TRO and Temporary and Permanent injunctions Helen Purcell's Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
The Court rules as follows:
1) Defendants Motion to Clarify and Amend:
This Court has considered Defendants Schmerl and Gallant's Motion to Clarify and Amend and now reaffirms its previous minute entry dated January 25, 2000. This Court acknowledges the apparent inconsistent application of law, but resolves that its prior ruling was just and based on sound principles of law.
Mr. Schmerl and Ms. Gallant are not office holders of the Arizona Libertarian Party as they purport in their Motion to Clarify and Amend. The Arizona Libertarian Party is one of the Plaintiffs before this court and the Party has unequivocally stated (with no conflicting evidence presented) that Ms. Elizabeth A. Brandenburg-Andreasen and Mr. Ernest Hancock are, respectively, the State and County Chairs of that organization. It is true that neither Ms. Brandenburg-Andreasen nor Mr. Hancock have apparently complied with the statutory mandate of A. R. S. SS 16- 824 - 16-828. However, this Court's January 25, 2000, order prospectively requires such compliance. The only other solution might be to rule that no person is entitled to the Voter Data and return it to the County Recorder. This Court declines to take that action, in light of the fact that the County Recorder had previously failed to require compliance with the statutory mandate.
In the future, if the Arizona Libertarian Party fails to comply with the statutory mandate, the County Recorder will be under no obligation to provide the Voter Data to the Arizona Libertarian Party's State or County Chairs.
Based upon on the fact that parties have changed, this court will substitute Plaintiff Elizabeth A. Brandenburg-Andreasen for Plaintiff Michael Voth in its January 25, 2000 order- Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc modifying this courts January 25, 2000, minute entry as follows:
Striking the language which reads, 'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the Court shall release to Plaintiffs Arizona Libertarian Party, Michael Voth and Ernest Hancock, the Voter Data which was deposited, with the Clerk by the County Recorder, pursuant to this Court's August 20, 1999, minute Entry." Instead, the order shall now read:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clark of the Court shall release to Plaintiff Elizabeth A. Brandenburg-Andreasen, as the Arizona Libertarian Party State Chair, and Ernest Hancock, as the Arizona Libertarian Party Maricopa County Chair, the Voter Data which was deposited with the clerk by the County Recorder, pursuant to this court's August 20, 1999, Minute Entry.
2) and 3) Helen Purcell's Application for TRO, and Motion for Reconsideration
After this Court issued its January 25, 2000, minute entry, Plaintiff Ernest Hancock made a public announcement that he intended to make the Voter Data at issue in this case available on the Internet. The County Recorder then filed an application for a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent Mr. Hancock from placing the Voter Data on the Internet. A hearing was held on this Court's Order to Show Cause on February is, 2000.
At the initial hearing, Counsel for Mr. Hancock objected to the appearance of the County Recorder in this action. The County Recrder immediately filed a Motion to Intervene. This Court entered an order affirming the status quo and permitting Mr. Hancock to file a response to the Motion to Intervene. The hearing was continued to March 20, 2000, and at that time this Court granted the County Recorder's Motion to Intervene. At the conclusion of the hearing, this Court took the matter under advisement pending a possible resolution of the issues by the parties by Friday, March 24, 2000. At their request, the parties were granted an extension until March 31, 2000. The parties having not reached an agreement, this court now rules further as follows:
The county Recorder argues that posting the Voter Data on the Internet violates A. R. S. 16-168 and 39-121.03, and jeopardizes the privacy interests of over one million registered voters in Maricopa County. Mr. Hancock argues that no statute prohibits placing the Voter Data on too Internet.
Mr. Hancock concedes that there are restrictions on his use of the Voter Data. He recognizes that under A. R. S. 16-168 (E), he can only provide the list to individuals or organizations who plan to use the data for purposes relating "to a political [sic] or political party activity, a political campaign or an election, for revising election district boundaries, or for any other purpose specifically authorized by law." In addition this Court notes that A. R. S. 16-168 (F) the Voter Data on the Internet. Pursuant to A.R.S. 12-1801 and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65, this Court finds more han sufficient evidence to issue a temporary injunction against Plaintiff Ernest Hancock preventing him from placing the Voter Data on the Internet.
IT IS ORDERED granting a temporary injunction enjoining Ernest Hancock and the Maricopa County affiliate of the Arizona Libertarian Party, its County Chair, and any of their attorneys, officers, agents, servants, employees and any and all persons in active concert or participation with them from releasing any portion of the Voter Data provided by the Couny Recorder for any purpose not authorized by A.R.S. 16-166. This injunction shall prohibit the publishing of the entire or even any parts of the Voter Data files on the Internet. This injunction shall remain in place until Mr. Hancock is able to convince the County Recorder or the Court that the state of technology is such that it is possible to safely and securely make the data available on the Internet without the potential for invasion of the privacy of the citizens whose names are found on the Voter Data list kept by the County Recorder. Dated this 19th, day of April, 2000.
Robert D. Myers Judge of the Superior Court
Docket Code 119
Enjoy the award-winning journalism of The New York Times with convenient home delivery. And for a limited time, get 50% off for the first 8 weeks by subscribing. Pay by credit card and receive an additional 4 weeks at this low introductory rate. http://click.egroups.com/1/3101/3/_/38365/_/956299804/