BEFORE the TRUSTEE the LINCOLN CHARITABLE TRUST : Democratic National Committee, : Grievant : : V. : Resolution No. 2018-5A (MUR
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BEFORE THE TRUSTEE THE LINCOLN CHARITABLE TRUST : Democratic National Committee, : Grievant : : v. : Resolution No. 2018-5A (MUR 2018-1) : Republican National Committee, : Respondent : : AWARD OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND IMPOSITION OF SURCHARGE Syllabus Trustee finds breach of fiduciary duty owed to voters by “Republican Curia” of attorneys, staff and independent contractors who usurp the authority of institutional entity Respondent Republican National Committee (“RNC”) by reneging on a pledge to a charitable entity which as a matter of law is enforceable. After hearing combined with trial on merits on injunctive relief, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 65, held June 4, 2018 the Trustee: Found as Fact; (1) As majority of various classes of voters no longer affiliate with or support the Republican Party and Partisan Composition Index shows decreasing vote splitting; the RNC increasingly relies on (1) voter suppression of social-demographic constituencies traditionally aligned with Democratic Party and (2) fund-raising from increasingly narrow pool of approximately 31,000 pool of affluent donors to sustain itself. §§ 18-10, ¶¶ 127-203, pp. 21-28. (2) In a March 18, 2013 Growth and Opportunity Project report, a post-mortem analysis of the 2012 Presidential election, the RNC formally ratified long-held academic criticisms that the RNC was dedicated to messaging, not policy-making to win elections, will accelerate usurping the powers and duties of 365,858 elected Republican precinct party committee among 182,851 U.S. voting districts, declaring them as “old fashioned” by diverting their responsibilities to party professionals and aligned 527 organizations, and while written euphemistically with “dog-whistles” affirmed ongoing voter suppression efforts against African-American voters. § 30, ¶¶ 215-282, pp. 30-38. (3) Despite millions spend on vendors purveying out-dated political technology that is static “Web 1.0” platforms. The Trust Property’s MyVoterPage.com™ a political version of Facebook™ is interactive “Web 2.0” platform as is Election Day Whip™ a GOTV (acronym for get-out-the-vote) application for precinct party representatives and poll workers fulfilling the Feb. 21, 1840 “Lincoln Rule.” As neither DNC or RNC has Web 2.0 political technology, and thus Trust Property does not compete against any existing technology used by DNC or RNC, there is no rationale under Business Judgment rule not to employ the Trust Property. It is also the only economially efficient software due to impositions under McCain-Feingold. §§23-24, 62-78, ¶¶ 283-304, 864-1171, pp 38-48, 134-1171. (4) When a “Mega-Donor,” upset over RNC’s arbitrary abandonment of U.S. Republican Sen. Rick Santorium’s 2016 losing re-election campaign, established a trust to mitigate RNC’ usurpation of local elected party representatives to be funded by pooling of resources among fellow mega-donors, the RNC superceded the mega-donor by first pledging, then reneging on a $20 million pledge under the pretext of demanding McCain-Feingold compliance. §§ 46-63, ¶¶ 658-919, pp. 112-143. i (5) The RNC refuses to acknowledge that it is a co-beneficiary of the trust, despite one of its RNC members serving as the trust’s co-trustee, and multiple RNC members attempting to mitigate the RNC’s reneging on its $20 million pledge; all because of the RNC top-down culture which requires obsequious to party rule is threatened by the trust’s “watchdog” existence. §§ 54-59, ¶¶ 757-824, pp. 123-130. (6) Although Hillary Clinton committed errors, Donald Trump was elected President in 2016 only because RNC suppressed African-American voter turnout by euphemistic dog-whistle messaging, and moderate Republican voter turnout by usurping precinct committee representatives, and by denying Trust Property to DNC, state, county and local Democratic Party committees. §§ 80-81, ¶¶ 1180-1258, pp. 165-172. (7) The RNC refuses to acknowledge its failure to adhere to rational politics per Anthony Down’s political marketplace theory, is dominated by its top heavy corporate hierarchy’s intolerance of dissent as documented by Jo Freeman, and increasingly relies on rent-seeking professional party operatives criticized by Samuel Issacharoff and Daniel R. Ortiz, who are fulfilling the “I” political culture of profiteering at the expense of the Moralistic political culture of public service per Daniel J. Elazar’s three-political culture theory. Pp. 133-140. (8) When election crimes are committed, public corruption almost always exist, because election crime is driven by a motive to control governmental power for corrupt purposes which must be concealed from the public’s scrutiny. §§82-96, ¶¶ 1259-1532, pp. 172-216. Held as Conclusion of Law. (1) The Trustee exercising his statutory authority to sit as the Arbitrator under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act, 20 Pa.C.S. § 7780.6(a)(3), is a neutral in disputes among co-beneficiaries, In re Trust of David H. Keiser,392 Pa.Super. 146, 150 & n.2, 572 A.2d 734, 736 & n.2 (1990), and although has the right to summarily dispose of the grievance when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and disposition as by governing law, will nonetheless hold a hearing. Trustee also has the authority to grant relief ex aequo et bono. ¶ 3, 16, pp. 262,264. (2) Because the RNC never disclaimed its interests in the Trust, arguendo, if such is legally permissible but for the Statutes of Elizabeth, RNC is bound by arbitration pursuant to contract law, as RNC clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitration being expressly specified within the Trust Agreement, ¶ 8(E), the failure to disclaim constituting assent to Trust Agreement despite not being a signatory, further affirmed by actual election to utilize ¶ 8(E) provisions and deriving direct benefits from such usage. ¶ 1, 14-15, pp. 262, 264. (3) Because the Trust is a charitable trust, co-beneficiaries are barred from disclaiming by the Statutes of Elizabeth, 20 Pa.C.S. § 7706, co-beneficiaries who are political parties or public officeholders, are merely conduits through which charitable purposes flow to the public, In re Trust of Brooke, 82 Ohio St. 3d 553,561, 697 N.E.2d 191 (1998). ¶ 4, pp. 262. (4) When co-beneficiary provides no democratic means of governance and controls intra- party participation and voter outreach by intimidation, threats or coercion to suppress party participation and subsequent voter turnout, made official by the RNC in its’ March 18, 2013 Growth and Opportunity Project report, co-beneficiary ceases being a political party, because political parties have no existence of their own, as they are only manifestations of their members who choose to associate, and co-beneficiary’s failure to facilitate participation by and representation of party electors is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, multiple criminal statutes and the Trust Agreement, ¶ 2(A), ¶ 8A, ¶ 8(B)(1)-(2), ¶ 30(L) and ¶ 30(M), and thus is subject to arbitrability under PA Uniform Trust Act, 20 Pa.C.S. § 7780.6(a)(3) and see also Uniform Trust Code § 816(23) and comment, because such constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty owed by one co-beneficiary to all other co-beneficiaries. ¶ 5-15, pp.262- 264. (5) Election crimes and resulting public corruption violates public official’s constitutional oath of office, U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl 3, 5 U.S.C. § 3331. ¶ 13, p. 263. ii (6) A pledge to a charitable entity, such as the Trust, is enforceable under its original terms and conditions if subsequently reneged by the donor. ¶ 14, p. 264. (7) A co-beneficiary who breaches its fiduciary duty to other co-beneficiaries by violating the Trust Agreement, ¶ 2(A), ¶ 8(A), ¶ 8(B)(1)-(2), ¶ 30(L), and ¶ 30 (M), is required to make the charitable trust whole which is by surcharge. Restatement (Third) Trusts § 104(1)(c) (“Liability of Beneficiary to Trust”) and comment f (“the beneficiary is personally liable to the trust for all [or part] of the loss...”). See also Austin W. Scott, William F. Fratcher & Mark L. Ascher, Scott and Ascher on Trusts §§ 22.6, 25.1-25.3 (5th ed. 2007); George G. Bogert & George T. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 191 (Rev. 2d ed. 1979); id. § 814 (Rev. 2d ed. 1981); and Amy M. Hess, George G. Bogert & George T. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 718 (3d ed. 2009), being Black Letter. DuPlaine’s Estate, 185 Pa. 332, 334-335, 39 A. 947, 948 (1898). ¶ 15, p. 264. (8) In as Trustee has the authority to grant relief ex aequo et bono, his powers no less and probably greater than that of a judge, and given that Respondent’s illegal customs and usages have become so entrenched but that a major political party is too important to fail, Trustee will appoint receiver to takeover Respondent if Respondent does not cease and desist in violating Civil Rights Act of 1957 and implement reforms as ordered. ¶ 16, p 264. The Syllabus constitutes no part of the Resolution, but is prepared by the Trustee for the convenience of the reader. Table of Contents A. FINDINGS OF FACT........................................................1 § 1. Statutory Authority, Arbitrarity, Probable Cause (¶¶ 1-13) . 1 § 2. Trust Organized for Charitable Purposes (¶¶ 14-19). 3 § 3. Pre-Election First Amendment Right of Political Association (¶¶ 20-21) . 4 § 4. Post-Election First Amendment Right of Political Association (¶¶ 22-24). 4 § 5. Applicable Terms of Trust Agreement Being Violated (¶¶ 25-30) . 6 § 6. Compliance with Internal Revenue Code (¶¶ 31-38) . 7 § 7. Parties and Parties-in-Interest (¶¶ 39-43) . 8 § 8. DNC’s Grievance (¶ 44) . 9 § 9. Procedures Governing Grievances (¶¶ 45-49). 9 § 10. RNC’s Purported Defense (¶ 50) . 10 § 11. Prior Grievances against RNC (¶¶ 51-52) . 10 § 12. Trustee’s Authority to Sit as Arbitrator (¶ 53).