Oregon’s Burke: “Helping Other 3rd Parties Benefits LP,” Preps for Wagner Candidate “Disqualifications”

split rock

Split Rock Oregon Trail landmark near Muddy Gap.

Wednesday morning, 11 June 2014, several IPR contributors received a copy of an email from a third party with the allegation (and appearance) that it had been authored by Richard Burke.

The email indicated that Mr. Burke was offering his services to non-Libertarian third party candidates, claimed pro-bono robocall work had already been done for the Pacific-Green Party, related personal attendance at the Pacific-Green Party Convention, and revealed plans “to work with the Progressive Party, Constitution Party, and Working Families Party as well” noting “how dysfunctional the Libertarian Party of Oregon is right now.”

The complete text of the email is reproduced at the conclusion of this article.

WORK FOR OUR AMERICA INITIATIVE

OAI Oregon

IPR contacted Mr. Burke on Wednesday afternoon to verify the authenticity of the forwarded email; Mr. Burke responded in the affirmative and further reported that he is concurrently, “currently working with OIA’s leadership to set up some events in Oregon

Mr. Burke further stated that he has, “offered to resign from (his) OIA position in the past, but (his) offer was declined” adding that, “If at any time OIA changes it’s (sic) mind on this, my offer stands.”

(IPR also contacted OAI National Director Ron Nielson by email on Wednesday afternoon for comment; Joe Hunter, Press Relations & Media Director for OAI (and former Communications Director for Gary Johnson 2012) responded late today that, “The Our America Initiative is a 501(c)4 advocacy organization that does not engage in partisan political activities, and has no involvement whatsoever in this or any other Libertarian Party nominating process. Many of Our America’s volunteers, including Mr. Burke, are of course active in politics in their home states and communities. Those individual activities, however, are not related to their work with Our America.”

SUPPORTS LEGITIMATE LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES

Mr. Burke explained his current work for non-Libertarian candidates, stating that:

During the general election campaign, I will exclusively support legitimately nominated Libertarian candidates.”

(Ed- NOTE: emphasis in original.)

He also stated that in addition to the robocalls for non-Libertarian parties, he will be making additional robocalls for the upcoming (Wagner-free) “candidate nominating convention scheduled for August.” Finally regarding his website which as of 13 June 2014 still promotes the “upcomming” March 22nd (2014) business convention, rather than the offering any information about the (claimed) “scheduled August nominating convention”

LPOregonNET mainpage

Mr. Burke indicated that the site would be “updated within the week” and that “(he has) been busy with many projects and just haven’t gotten to it yet.”

IPR then received, following a series of follow-up questions and answers, this official statement for publication:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OFFERED

“Like many activists, I wear many hats and work in many capacities. While it is true I am the volunteer Oregon State Director for Our America Initiative, the project discussed here was undertaken on my own as a private activist apart from OIA or any other organization. In the course of this project, no money has passed hands.

“During this time when the Libertarian Party of Oregon is still fractured and dysfunctional, I am trying to help all third parties maximize the number of 2014 candidates. Naturally and especially, this includes the Libertarian Party. Libertarian voters will be contacted in advance of our candidate nominating convention scheduled for August as outlined in the governing documents enacted by members in properly noticed conventions.

“The project simply consists of robo-calls made to minor party voters prior to their party’s respective nominating conventions. The calls encourage them to show up and perhaps run for an office. No specific candidate is supported or opposed.

“The objective of this project is to erode the two-party mindset held by most Oregon voters by simply increasing the visibility of alternatives from every direction. To the extent the project is successful, I believe Libertarians will benefit most because of emerging demographics and the rising relevance of libertarians and their ideas.

“This project is being undertaken in the same spirit that Richard Winger monitors all third parties in his “Ballot Access News” and that the moderators of Independent Political Report offer news on all third parties. Painting it as anything else is a misrepresentation.

“That said, the general election campaign is a different thing altogether. This fall, if I work for any candidates, I will work only for Libertarian nominees or nominees from other parties facing no Libertarian opposition that I believe will move Oregon in a more libertarian direction.

“I have been a Libertarian since 1990, am a current elected public office holder having won six elections, am a 1998 Libertarian gubernatorial nominee, am a former state Executive Director, and have held party offices at county, state, and national levels. I expect to remain a Libertarian for the rest of my life. At present I am not working for any political party and have never worked for any party other than the Libertarian Party.

“As many of you know, the Libertarian Party of Oregon has been dysfunctional since March 31, 2011. On this date, outside of a properly noticed convention as required by our Constitution and Bylaws, Mr. Wes Wagner and some of his friends purportedly: 1) Replaced our party’s governing documents, 2) Elected themselves to new terms of office, and 3) Canceled a scheduled convention session mandated by a previous convention session. Until this coup is rectified, I think this is a good way to help the third party movement in general and the Libertarian Party specifically.”

IPR forwarded Mr. Burke’s official statement to LPO Chair Wagner who provided the following reaction.

WAGNER RESPONSE

“I wholeheartedly support this work of former LPO ED Richard Burke; his service to other political parties helps us recruit candidates and improve the legitimate LPO (because) among other things his reputation and abilities which he gifts to our adversaries does us a great service. I hope he continues his efforts.”

SUPPLEMENTAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT (ANTICIPATED LEGAL CHALLENGE)

IPR subsequently received the following:

“ON A SEPARATE MATTER

“The State of Oregon requires that candidates be nominated by minor political parties according to their legitimate governing documents. While I understand that Mr. Wagner’s group has purported to have nominated candidates through a vote by mail primary (including at least ten Republicans), the legitimate governing documents of the Libertarian Party of Oregon require that candidates be nominated at candidate nominating conventions.

“I therefore believe that the Wagner ballot will be determined to be invalid before the fall, which is why a nominating convention will be held before the filing deadline. All Libertarians, including the purported nominees of the Wagner process, will be encouraged to participate and/or legitimately secure their nominations at this event. I think all Libertarians can agree that it is in our interest to have a strong presence on the Oregon ballot that is not vulnerable to any possible outside challenge.

“Richard P. Burke”

LIST OF WAGNER CANDIDATES

The initial list of 65 candidates nominated by mail ballot (and apparently subject to the legal challenge anticipated above) is:

Amanda Burnham (L), Andy Olson (R) (Fusion), Austin Joseph (L) (TIE), Bill Post (R) (Fusion), Braden Nelson (L), Brandon Boertje (L), Brenden King (?), Brian Tanner (L), Bruce Alexander Knight (L), Caitlin Mitchel-Markley (L), Chuck Huntting (L), Craig Hilterbrand (L), Curt Ankerberg (L), Daniel Souza (L), David Chester (L), David Tate (L) , Edward R. Siener (L) (TIE), Eugene A. Newell Jr. (L) , Frank Brannen (L) (TIE), Gail Whitsett (R) (Fusion), Glen E. Ewert (L), Greg Smith (R) (Fusion), Guy Rosinbaum (L), Jack C. Stillwell (L) (TIE), James Bertelson (L), James Foster (L), Jeff Adams (L), Jeffrey Alexander Miller (L) (TIE), Jeffrey Langan (L), Jeffrey Miller (L), John S. Gerboth (L), John Verbeek (R) (Fusion), Kirk Hoppe (L) (TIE), Kyle Markley (L), Lars Hedbor (L), Laura D. Cooper (R) (Fusion), Lucas Eslinger (L) (TIE), Mark Johnson (R) (Fusion) , Mark Karnowski (L), Mark Richman (R) (Fusion), Mark Seligman (L), Mark Vetanen (L), Michael James Marvin (L), Michael Marvin (L), Mike Montchalin (L), Nicholas Koch (L), Paul B Grad (L), Perry Roll (L), Rachel Jewell Feigner (L), Ray Thomasan (L) (TIE), Robert C Fillingame (L), Robert Martin (L), Robert Miller (L), Robert Rumzie (L), Ryan Bredehoeft (L), Ryan Haffner (L) (win), Sal Esquival (R) (Fusion), Samantha Schrepel (L), Sharon Durbin (L), Thad Marney (L), Tim McMenamin (R) (Fusion), Tristan Reisfar (L), W. A. Bollinger (L).

(Source: http://lporegon.org/index.php/2014-elections/2014-primary-results)

WAGNER RESPONDS TO SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT

“”We are very pleased with our candidate turnout in 2014, and believe this puts us within sight of our original goal when we moved to an all mail primary system — to field more candidates than the republican party. We have hope now we can accomplish this by 2016.”

BURKE WILL NOT BE PART OF A LAWSUIT

IPR contacted Mr. Burke for an explication of his belief that the above candidates would be disqualified; specifically asking if he anticipated initiating legal action against their legitimacy; or if he was preparing an alternative set of candidates should a challenge from some unrelated party make such a challenge (and prove successful). He responded,

“I will not be a part of any lawsuit designed to remove Libertarians off the ballot. . . My concern is that the Republican or Democratic parties will do something. During the 2012 election, even though Tyler Smith was our attorney, the major parties were not really aware of or even interested in our case. We ourselves thought the court case would be resolved in time for the 2012 election. . . . Given that Libertarians have cost Republicans several victories in the past, I can’t imagine that they aren’t looking at our situation now.”

PRIOR IPR COVERAGE (2014 only)

Aaron Starr Revealed to be Primary Source of Funding for Oregon LP’s Lawsuit

Wes Wagner Writes to LP State Chairs List Re: Oregon LP Activity

Oregon Secretary of State Responds to Tyler Smith’s Letter Insisting Reeves Group is the Correct LPO

Reeves Group’s Attorney Writes Oregon SOS Still Insisting They Are the Official Libertarian Party of Oregon

“Official” Libertarian Party of Oregon Website Relaunches

Reeves is Ordered by Secretary of State of Oregon to File as a PAC Against the LPO

Burke/Reeves faction of Oregon LP planning convention

Geoff Neale reaffirms that the LNC recognizes Wes Wagner as LP of Oregon chair

(ED-NOTE: Articles related to the above issues published by IPR prior to 1 January 2014 can be found by searching within the site for OREGON, WAGNER, REEVES, etc.)

ORIGINAL EMAIL FORWARDED TO IPR CONTRIBUTORS ON 11 JUNE 2014.

Thank you for your email. I hope you are well. I attended the Pacific-Green Party convention with a friend and enjoyed the experience. Much less stressful than Libertarian events I usually participate in and I enjoyed meeting the people I met.

I have been working in Seattle and Olympia for the last couple of days, so I am sorry I did not get back to you sooner. Below you will find the text of the robo calls I did. I have an old Pentium II system with some voice modems that I do robo-calls with from time to time. It is an older system and I struggle with it some, but I am able to make it work. As I understand it, at least two people showed up as a result of the calls and one of them opted to run for state senate.

I “paid” for this myself (Richard P. Burke, 18220 NW Cornell Road, #B, Beaverton, OR 97006, Self-Employed, Political Advocate), but my costs are essentially nothing since I run the system myself from my office and my computer. I think that the going rate in the market is something like $.02 per call. I have basic Comcast business phone service. I have approximately 1,000 numbers from access I had from previous projects unrelated to this year’s elections. I called them all. If you have more numbers and would like to repeat the robo call for your August convention, perhaps we can work together. Perhaps you would like to record the call.

Given how dysfunctional the Libertarian Party of Oregon is right now, I am working this year to increase the number of third-party candidates on the ballot generally. I plan to work with the Progressive Party, Constitution Party, and Working Families Party as well.

In any case, if you have any questions, please call me or email me at your convenience. I would also like your phone number so I can call you. Left or right, we need to break the two-party stranglehold on electoral participation. Thanks.

Richard P. Burke 503-(deleted)

*SCRIPT FOR ROBO-CALLS TO PACIFIC PARTY VOTERS*

Hello. I am calling for Oregon’s Pacific Green Party. I’m calling you because you are a registered Pacific-Green Party voter. At 10AM this Saturday, June 7, the party will hold a candidate nominating convention at 299 Cottage Street in Salem. You are invited! We will nominate candidates to run in the November election against Republicans and Democrats. Details and the event’s address are available on PACIFICGREENS.ORG.

At the convention you can vote for the candidates you like. You can even run as a candidate yourself! In fact, we’re looking for MORE candidates and running is a great way to get involved, make a difference, and offer voters a choice. Again, details the event’s address can be found at PACIFICGREENS.ORG. Whether you run or not, you’ll meet new people, make new friends, and promote progressive ideals!

Are interested are you in attending the convention and, perhaps, running as a candidate this fall? If so, you will receive a follow-up phone call from a real person.

If you are not interested, PRESS 1 –

If you are somewhat interested, PRESS 2 –

If you are interested, PRESS 3 –

If you are very interested, PRESS 4

Again, the convention will be held at 10AM THIS SATURDAY, June 7, at 299 Cottage Street NE in Salem. Details and the event’s address can be found at PACIFICGREENS.ORG. I hope we will see you on Saturday. Thank you!

*END OF SCRIPT*

136 thoughts on “Oregon’s Burke: “Helping Other 3rd Parties Benefits LP,” Preps for Wagner Candidate “Disqualifications”

  1. Richard Winger

    Even though this post is very long, it doesn’t mention that a top-two initiative is very likely to qualify for the November 2014 Oregon ballot, and obviously all types of Oregon Libertarian need to work together, and with all other friendly forces, to defeat that initiative if it does get on the ballot. The initiative most likely to qualify is a repeat of the Washington and California systems, and a repeat of the Oregon 2008 initiative that lost 2-1. It is not the innovative top-two that allows approval voting in the May primary.

  2. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Richard,

    Thanks. I wrote both Wes and Richard to clarify the original short article version. Incorporating their responses to each other might best have been handled in the comments here rather than in the article above. That said, the issue of Top Two was not raised in any emails among us over the past 2+days.

  3. Wes Wagner

    It is hard to know if the Top Two initiative will make it… they have been funded correctly, but they started late. There is also a lack of data in the submission log for signatures being turned in as-they-go. Silver Bullet LLC is doing the work. I asked around and did not find anyone with experience using their services.

    Top two is definitely the largest threat to third-party viability and worth its own article.

  4. Kyle Markley

    Richard: “I will not be a part of any lawsuit designed to remove Libertarians off the ballot.” Do you restrict “Libertarian” to mean only those who are dues-paying members of your club? Or do you mean anyone who selected Libertarian on their voter registration?

  5. Richard P. Burke

    Richard WInger is right about that. We killed the last top-two primary, and we will need to kill this one too. It seems to me that not only should Libertarians unite on this issue, but members of all minor parties should as well. It is good to build relationships for such purposes, which is part of what I am trying to do.

  6. Richard P. Burke

    @Kyle – I mean anyone on the ballot who is a registered Libertarian voter. Despite your prejudicial use of the term “club” to describe the Libertarian Party of Oregon as organized by governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions, registered Libertarians have ALWAYS been welcome to participate in candidate nominating conventions and seek the party’s nomination for partisan office under versions of LPO bylaws I have ever seen.

  7. Fred

    OMG
    This is funny that we are still having this discussion.
    The issue has been decided. The dysfunction didn’t start in 2011– in ended in 2011. Unless you mean RB’s personal electile dysfunction of being able to get up any ballot access.
    The Libertarian Party of Oregon is functioning better than it has since I’ve been eligible to vote in Oregon (1983, when I registered as a Libertarian upon turning 18).
    We have more Libertarian candidates than ever before. The party is at its strongest ever. despite the years we spent combating the lawsuits that Richard Burke brought against the party in order to get control of our process.
    Work for any party you like, but “dysfunction” doesn’t mean–“nobody in the party wants to work with me because I tried to control the party to use as a means to personal goals”
    The party is functioning the best it has ever functioned.

  8. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Looking over the OAI website, it appears that most states have zero events scheduled, and most positions listed as TBA. This has been the case for well over a year, perhaps two. When I have time I may do a more detailed content analysis, but I’m estimating 2/3rds of the available positions remain open.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    Joe, this is a great article. I love the way you set it up, and I don’t think it’s too long. Your graphioc is amusing, also.

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    Fred, maybe Burke is referring to his own “Libertarian Party of Oregon” that is dysfunctional.

  11. Joseph Buchman Post author

    I just received the following from Joe Hunter, Media Relations Director for OAI:

    “The Our America Initiative is a 501(c)4 advocacy organization that does not engage in partisan political activities, and has no involvement whatsoever in this or any other Libertarian Party nominating process. Many of Our America’s volunteers, including Mr. Burke, are of course active in politics in their home states and communities. Those individual activities, however, are not related to their work with Our America.”

  12. Jill Pyeatt

    Burke said: “I therefore believe that the Wagner ballot will be determined to be invalid before the fall, which is why a nominating convention will be held before the filing deadline. All Libertarians, including the purported nominees of the Wagner process, will be encouraged to participate and/or legitimately secure their nominations at this event.”

    It certainly sounds to me that you’re saying that all those people who think they’ll be on the ballot because of the mail voting will have their candidacies invalidated. Is this a way to make friends, so that your group’s leaders will be voted in as the LPO’s leaders at your convention after you’re vindicated (somehow)?

  13. Richard P. Burke

    @Fred (I am assuming this is Fred Jabin),

    On what basis do you believe the issue “has been decided?”

    1. The judge didn’t say Wagner’s actions were valid. His decision, which is being appealed, only said he doesn’t have jurisdiction and that the matter needs to be decided internally. As long as there is active litigation, the matter is not decided.

    2. The Sec. of State (by unwritten policy) recognizes Wagner solely because he was Chair of Record on 3/31/2011. But they have not said and have refused to decide whether Wagner’s actions were valid because the US Supreme Court forbids election officials from interfering with internal party politics.

    [NOTE: Fred, even you should be able to see the problem with this. If the Sec. of State cannot get involved in internal party matters and there is no judicial recourse, any state chair at any time of any party can sit at his/her kitchen table as often as he/she likes, rewrite the bylaws and draw up lists of officers, submit them to the Sec. of State and have them be accepted as valid regardless of pre-existing governing documents or the wishes of party members. No matter who is in charge of the LPO, such a situation is intolerable.]

    3. The LNC said twice that Wagner’s actions were invalid and that the Reeves LPO was legitimate. This is the only authoritative entity which has made any statement specifically on the legitimacy of Wagner’s actions themselves.

    4. The national Judicial Committee didn’t say that Wagner’s actions were valid either. They punted on the question entirely and defaulted to the Sec. of State which explicitly refuses to take a position on the legitimacy of Wagner’s actions. In fact, the Sec. of State continues to let both groups operate as the Libertarian Party of Oregon because they are aware of the dispute. Doesn’t sound like they consider it decided.

    5. When the national Judicial Committee punted to the Sec. of State, the LNC again came down on the side of the Reeves group by pointing out that the Judicial Committee exceeded their powers, a matter being addressed in fact by Bylaw proposal 20 at this year’s convention.

    6. Geoff Neale has since said that, in his opinion, the Wagner side is valid, but he does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the LNC which has never been reversed.

    In fact, not a single authoritative body has specifically said that Wagner’s actions (and yours) of 3/31/2014 were legitimate. In contrast, the LNC has sided with the Reeves group many times.

    Your group clings to it’s current status by virtue of the force of the state, not very libertarian. Without the Secretary’s unwritten policy of accepting whatever the Chair of Record gives them, the whole house of cards falls down. It is literally the force of the state keeping you in power. If the Sec. of State were to change her mind, it would be all over. Being so totally on the mercy of the Sec. of State isn’t a position of stability, and cannot be a principled position for any Libertarian.

    You, Fred, according to the 3/31/2014 meeting minutes, attempted to provide a basis of legitimacy for your coup, citing ORS 248.072 which says that a party’s State Committee is a party’s highest authority. Never mind that you are co-opting the force of the state to override member-approved bylaws. You misread the law which applies only to major parties (see ORS 248.007). In any case you attempted to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal.

    If your side was so convinced of the validity of it’s actions, they would allow the case to come to issue and let the case be decided on the merits of what happened on 3/31/2014. Instead, Wagner and his friends have exclusively relied upon the power of the state to attempt to secure their current positions instead of working through party institutions. This should not be tolerable to anyone who supports the Statement of Principles.

  14. Richard P. Burke

    @ Jill,

    The objective here is to get Libertarians on the ballot and keep them there. The objective is not necessarily to make friends. We want to make sure Libertarian candidates cannot be kicked off the ballot which is why we are holding a candidate nominating convention as a backstop. If Wagner’s primary is not invalidated, the matter is moot. But if it is, our convention can save those candidacies, in which case we would make a lot of friends.

    Richard

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    Richard,where do you buy that wonderful marijuana you’ve been smoking?

    You said: “In fact, the Sec. of State continues to let both groups operate as the Libertarian Party of Oregon because they are aware of the dispute. Doesn’t sound like they consider it decided.”

    Hmmm, the letter I read from the SOS told your group to file as a PAC (which is not the same as a political party).

    So, are you really going to use Starr’s money to chase a prize, which is virtually gone? Again I say, do you honestly believe the people of the Libertarian Party of Oregon will vote you few in as their leaders, even though you’ll demand a membership fee and exclude them from many of the Party’s event?

    As I think about it, those must be hallucinogenic mushrooms you’re using.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    It sure looks to me that, considering that your attorney Tyler Smith also represents the Republican Party of Oregon, that perhaps the GOP is trying to keep the LP of Oregon from being a force in your state by forcing the expensive and continuing lawsuit.

    It clearly hasn’t worked.

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    I had the leader of our local Tea Party come speak to our group a few months ago, because he called and asked to speak. He wanted to have us join them in suing Democrats everywhere we can in the state. That way, the Democratics will be kept so busy and so broke defending themselves that their power in the state will be diminished. Yeah, that really happened.

  18. Wes Wagner

    1. Judge said that even if he had the authority to rule on this case, the court has the discretion not to, and he wouldn’t because there is no cause to get involved.

    2. This has been refuted. SoS made specific administrative rulings which were not appealed in the time required.

    3. Most of the people on the LNC who made those hamfisted decisions got whacked.

    4. Not true. The SoS directed the Reeves group to file as a PAC and will not accept political party filings from them. There is no special covenant bestowed by being permitted to exist.

    5. The judicial committee did not punt. Sarwark, Ploeger, Hall and others have refuted this multiple times. They made a solid decision about the matter and the authority of the LNC in these affairs.

    6. As a chair Neale has great authority to interpret party rules. His interpretations have not been refuted by any members of the LNC.

    As far as being hung up on authoritative bodies… I am sorry that after all this time you think running around getting some authority figure to give you back your football is a way to go through life. Son I am disappoint.

  19. Richard P. Burke

    @Jill

    I notice that you made no comment about Wagner’s reliance on the power of the state to maintain his status. In any case, it is true that the Sec. of State did require us to file as a PAC, but the PAC is called “Libertarian Party of Oregon” and this PAC under this name has been accepted. We realize that due to their unwritten policy of accepting whatever the Chair of Record says offers Wagner momentary recognition, but this is not the same as the Sec. of State stating that what Wagner did was valid.

    @ Wes

    On number 1, the judge saying that he didn’t think he needed to get involved is not the same as him saying that your actions of 3/31/2011 were valid.

    On number 2, irrelevant, we have been taking a different set of tacks as you know.

    On number 3, Perhaps some LNC members got whacked, but it is a leap to think it is because of the Oregon issue. In any case, the new LNC did not change the positions the LNC took on Oregon (they had two years to do so) and it will be interesting to see what LNC comes out of the upcoming convention.

    On number 4, See my response to Jill above.

    On number 5, Yes they punted. They explicitly deferred to the Sec. of State. That is what I mean when I say they punted. They did not explicitly say that your actions of 3/31/11 were valid.

    7. Check the national bylaws. Whatever powers he might have, he does not have the power to speak for the LNC which took a clear position against you on multiple occasions and the Judicial Committee which punted to the Secretary of State.

    Mr. Wagner belittles my pointing out that no authoritative body has declared that his actions of 3/31/11 were legitimate. This is ironic given that Mr. Wagner owes his current status to the state’s unwritten policy and took actions against it’s own members by misinterpreting a state statute. Mr. Wagner’s entire case relies on state support instead of the support of members at a properly noticed business convention.

    One can agree or disagree with my side or Mr. Wagner’s side of these issues, but the point is that the larger matter is not decided.

    Richard P. Burke

  20. Wes Wagner

    Does anyone actually buy Burke’s power of the state bullshit? Anyone… anyone… Buhler? Buhler?

  21. Wes Wagner

    This is the thing, for 3+ years Burke has been running around screaming this and that about who abused the power of the state… but what really happened?

    1) A committee meeting passed a change in party rules (legal under Oregon law by the very statutes Burke claims gave him authority to raise his suit … some people would debate the ethics of it one way or the other — if you feel it was wrong, fuck you and get the hell out of this party, you are in the wrong spot and need to read a history book or 40)
    2) One group with no valid credentials ran a rump meeting and submitted documents to the Oregon Secretary of State surreptitiously (after we stole their plan which we implemented in item #1 … it was their plan by the way, they hatched it first, probably what pisses them off the most is we did it in an act of self-defense whereas they wanted to do it as an act of aggression – Mattson, Starr and Carling were in on it – when we learned about it, that was the actual catalyst for pulling the trigger on the bylaws change, because we knew there would be no recourse and we could not allow the Libertarians in Oregon to live under oppression indefinitely. We would have naturally preferred a more inclusive transparent transition of the party to its rightful owners, such as what was planned in November 2010 which the Hinkle , Carling, and Mattson shut down … but it was made impossible. All the same, you do not permit an injustice to continue for the sake of obeying the law. If you disagree with that, again you are in the wrong party, go the fuck away.)
    3) There was a plebescite with 97% support the actions of the group that acted in bullet point 1
    4) In the interim the party has been highly functional and people are very happy with the results
    5) There have been consistent elections in a transparent and open process
    6) A tiny splinter faction who was on the wrong side of a populist revolt has been suing to take over the party – who appear to only have one active member who isn’t even an officer of the alleged group and is tied to the hip to the Oregon Republican Party’s general counsel

    Who in that scenario is using the power of the state rather than the power of individuals?

  22. Matt Cholko

    What’s wrong with the guy making calls on behalf of various parties asking their members to come to their conventions and/or run for office? Sure, he could use that time to do something for the LP. But, it’s his time. He can (and should) do whatever he wants with it.

    This article appears to me to be an attempt to create some drama out of nothing.

  23. From Der Sidelines

    *SIGH* Must we rehash The History of The Libertarian Party of Oregon Part I again?

    Look, people, it’s very simple: In Oregon top-two needs to be KILLED. PERIOD. If it isn’t then the entire LPOR dispute is meaningless anyway.

    Beyond that point, the rest is sideshow bullshit. This is one case where the LPOR factions need to put that aside and work together against the bigger enemy. If Burke is as libertarian as he claims, he’ll quit his delusions of grandeur and denial and work with Wagner, the GP-OR, and every other minor party in Oregon to kill and bury that Really Bad Idea, and then he can go back to his delusions.

  24. Fred

    Richard,
    you continue to make the same argument that has been disputed on multiple occasions. As you are well aware, the bylaws that existed prior to 2011 were not created by the members of the Oregon Libertarian Party as defined by Oregon election law. Even if one was to accept your membership roster as superseding the authority of the legal definition of members–the bylaws were not developed without considerable disputes to their legitimacy. There were members who were denied access to the process, and there were rules that were ignored,
    Prior to the vote in 2011, we tried to find the last set of bylaws that were created without any membership disputes and without any broken rules–we could not find the last time that was true.
    The issue we were dealing with was that we had a broken set of bylaws that were created improperly (the membership that they intended to serve–was inaccurate) and illegally (the membership didn’t match the legal definition under ORS)
    The true authority of the party is the registered Libertarians in Oregon. The LNC has no authority in Oregon election law, they have no authority to determine who has ballot access in Oregon. The only thing they can determine is what group they want to include as part of their organization.
    I think you are confusing “using the force of the State” with “following Oregon election laws” There is certainly nothing “unlibertarian” about following the election laws and giving fair and equal access to the electoral process to all of the Members who expect that by joining the party (registering as a Libertarian) they would have all the privileges that the law states they would have.
    Its over, Richard, because despite your constant claims that candidates need to submit to your groups authority to be validated–you don’t have ballot access.

  25. David Terry

    Matt Cholko, June 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm
    >”This article appears to me to be an attempt to create some drama out of nothing.”” It sure looks to me that, considering that your attorney Tyler Smith also represents the Republican Party of Oregon, that perhaps the GOP is trying to keep the LP of Oregon from being a force in your state by forcing the expensive and continuing lawsuit.

    There has been a considerable amount of rhetorical nonsense from some individuals re; our attorney also represents the GOP. What then are we to make of the fact that the list of “LPO candidates” from the bogus primary/mail election contains 10 members of the Republican Party???

    Has Wagner & Co. signed a pact with the Devil?

  26. David Terry

    I don’t understand why portions of my posts are somehow scrambled!!!

    I’ll try again
    :
    Matt Cholko, June 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm
    >”This article appears to me to be an attempt to create some drama out of nothing.””

    BINGO!!!!

    Jill,.”” It sure looks to me that, considering that your attorney Tyler Smith also represents the Republican Party of Oregon, that perhaps the GOP is trying to keep the LP of Oregon from being a force in your state by forcing the expensive and continuing lawsuit.

    There has been a considerable amount of rhetorical nonsense from some individuals re; our attorney also represents the GOP. What then are we to make of the fact that the list of “LPO candidates” from the bogus primary/mail election contains 10 members of the Republican Party???

    Has Wagner & Co. signed a pact with the Devil?

  27. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “notice that you made no comment about Wagner’s reliance on the power of the state to maintain his status.”

    .
    *chuckle*
    .
    Had it gone your way, you’d make no mention of this. What kept you from attemting to use the power of the state in 1994 to squash three candidacies who were nominated in a county convention that you as opposition puppeteer could not prevent and did not want to take place? You first used your Judicial Committee majority to squash them (they “did”), and then contacted the Sec of State to plead Help – there are three candidates who were told to end their campaigns and they are ignoring me! The Sec of State told you to go away.

    .
    BBob T

  28. Joseph Buchman Post author

    David Terry @ June 14, 2014 at 10:17 am

    “I don’t understand why portions of my posts are somehow scrambled!!!”

    I had this same problem some time ago. It’s due to WordPress mistaking your GREATER and LESSER THAN signs for HTML code.

    So I had to learn to stop using those here, and to switch to Quotation Marks.

    I think that’s the only reason your prior post was scrambled.

    Hope that helps,

    Joe

  29. Richard P. Burke

    @ Fred,

    You and your friends have completely misread (some intentionally and others ignorantly) the meaning and context of the term “party members” as applies to this conflict. I understand this is a point on which we are unlikely to agree but is clearly a point that has not yet been adjudicated. I believe Mr. Wagner and his friends know this, and is why they don’t want this case to come to issue.

    TWO ORGANIZATIONS, NOT ONE.

    Under Oregon law, minor political parties are established by petitioning. They maintain their status through electoral performance or by maintaining voter registration levels. In this process each party submits and later maintains governing documents establishing an organization with infrastructure minimally capable of complying with state election laws in such matters as campaign finance reporting and facilitating the nomination of candidates for partisan public offices.

    IMPORTANT POINT: Oregon law has never required members of organizations established in these governing documents to also be “members” of the party as narrowly defined in statute as Oregon voters affiliated with the party. The two sets of members are not the same, and are two different entities. Such has been the case in Oregon since the genesis of the Libertarian Party as we have had the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” (consisting of those who subscribe to the non-aggression pledge and pay annual dues) and the body of registered voters in Oregon affiliating with the Libertarian Party (which I will refer to as the OLP for brevity).

    The LPO governing documents defined LPO membership, provided for all OLP members to participate in candidate nominating conventions as electors and/or candidates, and provided methods to amend the LPO governing documents.

    WAGNER AND HIS FRIENDS PROVE THEY ARE AWARE OF THEIR FOLLY

    Since 2007 Mr. Wagner and his friends have tried on multiple occasions in regular and special business conventions to amend the LPO’s governing documents. They wanted to redefine the membership of the LPO to mirror the set of registered Libertarian voters in Oregon.

    Given their multiple attempts, they seem to understand well that there are two entities, the LPO and the body of registered Libertarian voters. That being the case, their attempts to apply the term “party members,” referring to the body of registered Libertarians, to members of the LPO are patently disingenuous.

    Perhaps out of frustration or impatience, and after several failed attempts to change the LPO bylaws in accordance with the LPO governing documents, you, Wagner, and your friends simply decided to take over on 3/31/2011 by declaring a new regime. In a regular State Committee meeting, not a properly noticed business convention, you purportedly adopted new governing documents, declared new terms of office, and cancelled a properly called session of the LPO Annual Convention.

    Why? Because Wagner and his friends, including you, frustrated by your failures within the LPO’s established processes, just decided you wanted to. Wagner himself dispaired on video available on You-Tube as he contended that current LPO members would not give up their “golden scepter” of power.

    You then attempted to have the second group of people, registered Libertarian voters in Oregon, ratify a replacement set of governing documents for the first group of people, members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. That’s like allowing every citizen of the United States vote on an Oregon ballot measure.

    It was invalid, in violation of the pre-existing LPO governing documents by Wagner’s own admission, and our side did not participate. And all of this was based on your misreading of ORS 248.072, saying a party’s State Committee is a party’s highest authority, a statute which only applies to major political parties.

    Fortunately, minor parties are governed by corporate law which says that governing documents may only be changed according to processes outlined in an organization’s governing documents. In the end, this will weigh heavily. It also speaks to justice.

    YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF: WHAT IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN A PARTY?

    You said in your post that a party’s members are a party’s highest authority. But according to you, as documented in the State Committee meeting minutes of 3/31/2011, 248.072 says that a party’s State Committee is a party’s highest authority. True, you misapplied this statute, but you offered this as the basis for Wagner’s coup. So which is it???

    The answer, at least for now, is neither. Let’s look at the status quo: If the Secretary of State accepts any governing documents and officer lists provided to them by a party’s “Chair of Record”, and if the Secretary of State cannot involve itself in the internal governance of political parties, and if the courts are not available as an avenue of recourse, then a party and all of it’s members are literally at the mercy of the “Chair of Record” who can redefine a party, it’s membership, it’s leadership, and it’s organization and governance at will at his or her own kitchen table.

    You and your friends have created a legal environment where the “Chair of Record” is the highest and ultimate authority of political parties virtually without limit. Members of political parties are completely dependent on the benevolence of their “Chairs of Record.”

    What would you guys do if, when Wagner ultimately steps down, the next State Chair of Record decides to reinstate the prior organizational structure of the LPO? If he or she sits at his or her kitchen table, rewrites the governing documents, and hands them to the Secretary of State, it’s all over. So who is the party’s highest authority? At present, the Chair of Record… one person. That’s what ultimately happens when you co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal which is what you did and what the LP is supposed to stand against.

    Very libertarian. Nice job. Pat yourself on the back. In any case, I’m not going to sit still for it.

    Richard P. Burke

  30. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “Very libertarian. Nice job. ”

    .
    You mean, “very libertarian”, like the way you re-defined “member in good standing” as well as when membership expiration dates take place?

    .
    Pat yourself on the back.”

    .
    You’re a good teacher for that.

    .
    “In any case, I’m not going to sit still for it.”

    .
    Then stand up for it!

    .
    Bob T

  31. Richard P. Burke

    Bob, we could go on about what happened twenty years ago, but what you post does not refute what I said above.

  32. Wes Wagner

    Burke will yammer on about how the members had exclusive right … but the plain language of the older bylaws did not grant exclusive authority. He will probably try to make an argument from silence … which is also both a legal and logical fallacy.

  33. Fred

    Richard,
    You were not even at that meeting and you are trying to take one argument (out of context) and claim that it was the full intent of the motivation behind the actions.
    The problem was that we did NOT have any valid governing documents because every set of governing documents in record was created without following either the LPO rules at the time of creation or ORS.
    We had to do something to correct the problem. There was no undisputed membership list and according to a letter from the SOS to you (discovered in the file) it appeared that the SOS believed registered voters were members for all intents and purposes.
    In that light I argued that the members had the authority of the party but the state committee needed to use it’s authority (over the illegally and improperly created governing documents) to return the party to its proper owners.

    PS– I have many friends, some of them even take your side of the issue. You can continue to take your aggressive actions against the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Or you could recognize that the party has been doing extremely well despite your distractive and costly lawsuit. I wonder how much better we would be doing if you stopped trying to take control of the party and did something productive for it.

  34. Fred

    Eugene,
    You bet right. You could almost believe that one of the dominant parties would try to make it happen.
    But despite Burke’s group suing the LPO, we have a record number of candidates who will be on the ballot this year.
    I wish the money that was going to defend against his lawsuit was going toward those campaigns instead.

  35. Andy

    “Richard Winger June 13, 2014 at 4:55 pm
    Even though this post is very long, it doesn’t mention that a top-two initiative is very likely to qualify for the November 2014 Oregon ballot, and obviously all types of Oregon Libertarian need to work together, and with all other friendly forces, to defeat that initiative if it does get on the ballot. The initiative most likely to qualify is a repeat of the Washington and California systems, and a repeat of the Oregon 2008 initiative that lost 2-1. It is not the innovative top-two that allows approval voting in the May primary.”

    Everyone should keep in mind that there are non-libertarian mercenary petition circulators working on the Top Two Primary petition in Oregon right now. I know that there are non-libertarian mercenary petition circulators who worked on the Top Two initiative in Arizona a few years ago who have also worked on Libertarian Party petition drives. I’d like to see a blacklist created of for any petition circulator who works on a Top Two Primary initiative, as well as for any petition coordinator who works on a Top Two Primary initiative, as in their names get placed on a DO NOT HIRE list for any Libertarian Party petition drives, as well as for any libertarian ballot initiative.

    I’d love to see one of these people call the Libertarian Party looking for work, and then get a response like this, “Oh, I see that your name is on the list of people who worked on the Top Two Primary initiative in Oregon. Sorry, but you working on that initiative put your name on our DO NOT HIRE list. The Libertarian Party does not hire mercenary scum.” and then hang up on them.

    If not a BLACKLIST/DO NOT HIRE LIST for the people working to put this on the ballot in Oregon, I’d at the very least like to see their names added to the bottom of the to hire list, as in if you work on a Top Two Primary initiative, then you would only get hired to work on a Libertarian Party petition drive or libertarian ballot initiative petition drive if it were some kind of last minute desperate type of situation where enough people to finish the job on time could not be found.

    Really, if Libertarian Party ballot access were properly managed there would not be an over-reliance on non-libertarian mercenary petitioners anyway, and there certainly would not be a need for any who worked on a Top Two Primary initiative.

    Minor parties should put the word out that anyone who works on a Top Two Primary initiative will be blacklisted from working on their petition drives.

  36. Wes Wagner

    Top two in oregon is being managed by Silver Bullet LLC … I was on a hike of dog mountain today with Seth Woolley .. he thinks they started too late to be successful even though they are funded correctly. There is just a shortage of good spots to petition and you need more time.

    Whether it fails to make the ballot or not … we intend to go on the offense in 2016 and propose IRV and proportional representation alternatives to address the real problems.

    You can bet we won’t hire Silver Bullet to manage the drive 😉

  37. Andy

    “Wes Wagner June 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm
    Top two in oregon is being managed by Silver Bullet LLC … I was on a hike of dog mountain today with Seth Woolley .. he thinks they started too late to be successful even though they are funded correctly. There is just a shortage of good spots to petition and you need more time.

    Whether it fails to make the ballot or not … we intend to go on the offense in 2016 and propose IRV and proportional representation alternatives to address the real problems.

    You can bet we won’t hire Silver Bullet to manage the drive 😉 ”

    Good. I’d go one step further and find out who the petition circulators were as well. Each petition circulator who worked on that petition ought to be blacklisted, or at least put their names at the bottom of the list when it comes to hiring people, and if you or anyone else if the LP talks to any of these people, they should be chewed out for working on a scumbag ballot initiative. Top Two Primary is really one of the worst ballot initiatives ever. Let them know that what they did was wrong, scold them like you’d scold a dog who took a dump on your new carpet. Compare them to the people who built or guarded concentration camps in Nazi Germany or communist Russia.

    This may sound overly dramatic or extreme to some, but Top Two Primary is a step toward tyranny, make no mistake about it. Top Two Primary is meant to not only further tilt the election process toward the establishment choice candidates, but it is also meant to silence descent, by blocking alternative voices from appearing on general election ballots, which is when the highest percentage of the public is paying attention to the elections and the issues of the day.

    I think for far too many years, the Libertarian Party has REWARDED non-libertarian mercenaries by not caring what all tyrannical campaigns they work on and hiring them for LP work anyway. There ought to be consequences for actions.

    Want to be a scumbag who will work on any tyrannical cause? Well good for you, but don’t expect any work for the Libertarian Party.

  38. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Andy @ June 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    wrote:

    “Wes . . . I’d go one step further and find out who the petition circulators were as well. Each petition circulator who worked on that petition ought to be blacklisted.”

    You’ve reached out to the master of Blacklisting! I’d bet it’s already DONE.

    🙂

    You might want to also offer a path toward redemption, however. I know Wes believes in, and has advocated, the opportunity for self-reflection, enlightenment, repentance, compensation of victims, contrition, apology, and renewed commitment as an alternative to permanent banishment to outer darkness — if not for everyone, at least for those who were relatively ignorant/temporarily addled/young and/or foolish.

    Joe

  39. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “, we could go on about what happened twenty years ago”

    .
    Yeah, “At this point, what difference does it make?!”, or as another Obama puke said during an interview, “Dude, that was like, two years ago!” I see you’re left with the Michael Palin defense: “Let’s forget who killed who”.

    .
    “but what you post does not refute what I said above.”

    .
    It refutes some of things you’ve been claiming for 20 years. But if you want me to address the court ruling then you won’t get support from me. So what if the court was saying they had no jurisdiction. That often means that it’s already been decided by those who do have a say in it. You lost. Deal with it. Your shitty, crumbling empire was a flop. You worked hard for over 20 years to be in control and the results were, all along, a small and ineffective party so long as you had your way. Your ego was never enough.

    .
    Bob Tiernan

  40. Wes Wagner

    Bob,

    Not only did the court say they had no jurisdiction, but even if they did, they would exercise judicial discretion and decline to hear the case.

  41. Kyle Markley

    In the original post, Richard expressed his desire “to help all third parties maximize the number of 2014 candidates[,] [n]aturally and especially … the Libertarian Party.”

    I submit that the (Wagner) Libertarian Party of Oregon has in fact just done a tremendously good job at that. This slate of more than fifty candidates who are registered Libertarians is an Oregon record and is more than twice the number that ran in 2012, which was itself an excellent year.

    This does not appear to be a “dysfunctional” political party at all. It appears to be growing rapidly in both size and effectiveness. With the hindsight of two nominating seasons, the revolution that overthrew the old governing documents has been a great benefit to the LPO.

  42. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    While I believe his chosen means are illegal, wrong-headed, and ultimately destructive to all third parties in Oregon, I can only applaud Mr. Wagner’s desire to increase the number of Libertarian candidates. He and I share similar objectives in this regard. And I can see how people looking at his long list of purported nominees can seem impressive.

    But a look under the hood tells a different story.

    Wagner’s 2012 slate of candidates featured a lot of candidates too. But they were all but invisible during the campaign. There were few active campaigns and none of them ran highly visible campaigns. Precious few of them even had photos and statements in the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet. In my version of the pamphlet, the only Libertarian candidate with a presence in the Voters’ Pamphlet was actually a Democrat, and she didn’t even provide a photo. The Libertarian statewide candidates had no presence at all.

    The Libertarian Party no longer has a presence in the Oregon legislature, has elected few if any Libertarians to local non-partisan office in recent years, has virtually no media presence anymore, is no longer a significant factor in any ballot measure campaigns, and boasts little organized activity outside of the Portland metropolitan area.

    But they do go on a lot of recreational hikes and reportedly have fun meetings at a local tavern.

    The apparent size of the Wagner ballot notwithstanding, the LPO has taken huge strides back toward returning to what the LPO had been in the 1980s and 1990s, a Portland-based chess club with ballot access.

    Prior to Mr. Wagner’s regime, all of this was different. In 2006 we had almost two-dozen local elected office holders including a partisan county commissioner who had defected from the Republicans. We had a slate of about thirty candidates in 2006. While smaller than Wagner’s vaunted slate, almost all of these candidates ran active campaigns, were in the media, and had a presence in the Voter Pamphlet statement. Almost all of that has disappeared under Wagner.

    All four TV news organizations set up camp in the LPO office (yes, we had a highly visible office) on election night to cover our impact on tax initiatives – during two consecutive elections. We were regularly in the news and had a presence in the Oregon legislature significant to stop several tax measures and pass three election reform bills. We had 15 county parties across Oregon and had voter registration figures actually topping what the Libertarian Party has today. Almost all of that has disappeared under Wagner.

    We also had a paid internship program, an arrangement with the World Affairs Council which brought members of foreign parliaments into our office to learn about libertarianism, and our accomplishments were the main reason why Portland was selected as the site of our party’s 2006 national convention. All of that has disappeared under Wagner.

    But not all was good. We didn’t go on recreational hikes or hold our meetings in a pub.

    I leave it to the reader to determine which narrative is more likely to lead to political accomplishment.

    Richard P. Burke

  43. Wes Wagner

    I will forward your comments to all our candidates past and present so they know you pissed on their efforts.

  44. Mark Vetanen

    I think everyone is getting the picture now that Burke kept Libertarians off the ballot, limited our pool of candidates, and discouraged registered Libertarians from running for office while he was involved in the party.

  45. Richard P. Burke

    @ Wagner,

    You of course may mischaracterize my comments as you wish to your candidates, but I didn’t say anything that wasn’t true. I expect either through your efforts or ours (if the legal environment moves forward), your candidates will be on the ballot.

    If passing my previous comments on to your candidates prompts them to be more active than they were in 2012, it will be a good thing. If so, than my comments will prove to be a net positive for the ticket. I can live with that.

    @ Vetanen,

    What a bunch of rubbish. Let’s compare recruited candidates and their track records sometime. Your accusations will not stand up to that light.

    Richard P. Burke

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    Horse manure Mr. Burke and you know it and I know you know it. You tried to keep Libertarian candidates off the ballot in the 1900s. Hell you even had the gall to bring Republican hopeful Bill Witt to a convention.

  47. Mark Vetanen

    @ Burke
    Yes, your track record speaks for itself! Just ask Dan vander Ploeg all about your “track record” … LOL

    So, please, please, please go help the Greens, Working Families, Constitution Party, the D’s and R’s. You far better help us by helping them. LOL

    Somehow our record high number of candidates, 50+, will just have to manage without you. however, I some how feel they will be greatly relieved to know you are helping our opponents.

    Thank you!

  48. Bob Tiernan

    Michael H. Wilson: “You tried to keep Libertarian candidates off the ballot”

    .
    Yup – Let’s not forget the classic Burke line in front of a crowd of about 91 people at one nominating convention: “We’ve already shown that we can run candidates. Now let’s show that we cannot.”

    .
    Bob T

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    i’m looking forward to having Mr. Burke update their website with all their activities and successes since the convention.

  50. Richard P. Burke

    @Mark, Bob, and Mike,

    I love how you guys attempt to refute contentions about things going on now with mis-characterizations of things that happened in 1994 and 1996.

    @ Jill,

    It’s hard to compare Mr. Wagner’s list to ours given we are not yet allowed to nominate candidates and our candidate nominating convention is not until August. But we are active, have plans to be more active, and will post this information presently.

    But aside from their slate of candidates, what else has the Wagner LPO accomplished as such in local elections, the legislature, the media, and organizationally compared to what was accomplished in 2001-06?

    Incidentally, one of Wagner’s purported nominees, Brenden King (who is a registered Libertarian voter) also won the Republican nomination via write-in votes in the Republican primary election through his own efforts. As such he will be legitimately on the ballot regardless of what happens with the LPO.

    Since his place on the ballot is assured regardless of what happens with the LPO, King represents the best chance we have seen in Oregon of actually electing a Libertarian to the state legislature in the same way Libertarians did in New Hampshire.

    Mr. King is a promising candidate and activist. I am already working with Mr. King and look forward to him becoming a leader in Oregon’s Libertarian movement.

    Richard P. Burke

  51. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “I can only applaud Mr. Wagner’s desire to increase the number of Libertarian candidates. He and I share similar objectives in this regard.”

    .
    Okay, now sit there and applaud, and stay out of the way.

    .
    “Wagner’s 2012 slate of candidates featured a lot of candidates too. But they were all but invisible during the campaign.

    “Precious few of them even had photos and statements in the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet.”

    .
    Hey, that reminds me of the time when one of your candidate recruits back in 1994 got nominated and you and your friends did jack for him – but I came to the rescue and loaned him close to $1,000 to get into the pamphlet even though he was your guy. He later disappeared and I got stuck with the loss. Your guy, not mine.

    .
    “All four TV news organizations set up camp in the LPO office (yes, we had a highly visible office)”

    .
    Oh what a crock. This never amounted to much, if anything. That “highly visible office” cost many thousands of dollars every few months and was a black hole. A few seconds on TV amounted to nothing. The money was best spent on other things other than a facade for yourself. It was also so visible that someone drove into the front window and it was boarded up for many, many months and looked like a slum building. You had a few major donors giving the LPO lots of money month after month so you could have this facade for yourself, and it was all wasted. As outreach, it did nothing. It was all about an image and no substance, typical of you. As for being on TV, big deal. This is Oregon. The top story on the news sometimes is the death of one of the goats at the zoo. The TV stations have shown practically every building and shack on TV by now.

    .
    “[we] had a presence in the Oregon legislature significant to stop several tax measures and pass three election reform bills.”

    .
    Man, you really love to puff up your alleged accomplishments. Anything you point to as having been accomplished by LPO influence was in face accomplished because of hard work by other activists from other parties as well as some in the major parties. You have this awful habit of hanging around, doing a little, and then taking credit (“I was there!”). Oh by the way, you forgot to mention that one state legislator who employed you eventually fired you.

    “… the main reason why Portland was selected as the site of our party’s 2006 national convention.”

    .
    Nah. Not many want a convention in a non-presidential year so this was easy as I recall only one other state made a bid. If Oregon’s record under you was as good as your puffery makes it, Oregon would have been awarded the convention in 2004 or 2008.

    .
    “All of that has disappeared under Wagner.”

    .
    Speaking of disappearing, remember when your hand-picked fund-raising specialist disappeared (so to speak) and went to Federal lock-up after the FBI got him? Think of how deadly embarrassing it would have been for the party had he been an LPO office holder at that very time.

    .
    “But not all was good. We didn’t go on recreational hikes or hold our meetings in a pub.”

    .
    This from a puke who was addicted to taking his LPO buddies to strip clubs and filming the dancers with his cell phone, and later showing the video to some others (“Hey look at this”) while their under age kids were a few feet away.

    .
    “I leave it to the reader to determine which narrative is more likely to lead to political accomplishment.”

    .
    I think that determination was made long ago. Now shut up and see what occurs for a few years before you open your mouth again. Do something else. Cheat on your wife again (You’re on your fourth now, right? The one you imported from Russia?). Screw some other guy’s wife again. Go to more strip clubs.

    B. Tiernan

  52. David Colborne

    On a somewhat related subject, does anyone have contacts in or near Klamath Falls, or SE Oregon in general, that I can talk to? I have an LP-related event that we’re getting set up in Reno in early September and I want to see if there’s any interest in participating with us on it.

    Feel free to pass on my contact info:
    David (dot) Colborne (at) lpnevada (dot) org

  53. Wes Wagner

    David

    Get in contact with our member outreach and development committee chair, Amanda Burnham … she has a geo database of active members who we have had contact with an can do a targeted emailing and give you a dump of phone numbers that we have.

  54. Mark Vetanen

    @ Burke

    You have threatened many times in this thread that somehow the Oregon Libertarians nominated, except those that come to your private club and kiss your ring of power, will be removed from the ballot.

    I have to ask you what has changed since 2012 and now, other than you losing your court case, that gives you belief that the SOS will make such a determination or that some judge will intervene?

    My gut says you are a Troll, a Crank, a Internet kook. That you will now say anything to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt and imply that somehow you are ‘the savior’ if only we come to your convention and bow to your reign and dominance.

    to that I say NUTS! And, I am sure all of the other nominated Oregon Libertarians will say the same to you as well.

    To be honest, I am tired of you and Aaron Starr. I am tired of you two tearing down this party and doing everything you can to keep us Libertarians down.

    GO AWAY! You lost your court case, and you lost any respect you might have had in this party.

  55. Mercury is Rising

    While I am happy to see political opponents being sucked into the Burke Reality Distortion Field, I sincerely hope that no genuinely libertarian candidate is foolish enough to let Tricky Dick Burke have access to campaign funds.

    Say, did the Johnson campaign ever get the money raised in their name by the Burke “organization” here in Oregon during his run for President? Or the real LPO get the funds raised in their name (before the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” PAC was created)? Or did Sir Dicks-a-Lot already spend it all on another cheeseburger run?

  56. Brenden

    Hello,

    As a rule from day one, I have no interest in being involved in party disputes. My goal and purpose for being in politics is to promote an agenda built on socially liberal, fiscal conservative which is laid out on my website http://www.voteforbrenden.weebly.com and to run an agressive grass roots campaign in House district 34. If anyone has questions about who is involved in the campaign and to what extent they can contact me via email and I will gladly let them know.

    Thanks

    Brenden King

  57. paulie

    Wes,

    Silver Bullet LLC is a front for big money Republican interests. If the pay is cranked up high enough they can get it on the ballot. They can bring in enough people to raid enough parking lots, bars, street corners, gas stations, house doors…whatever it takes. It is a mistake to believe they don’t have enough time. By the financial standards of regular initiatives they may not but they have deep enough pockets backing them that they can get it done.

    See http://ballotpedia.org/Silverbullet_Group,_Inc.

    http://ballotpedia.org/Tim_Mooney

  58. Fred

    Brenden,

    Staying out of the fray and concentrating on a positive campaign is a very smart choice.
    I wish you well.

  59. Fred

    Richard,
    Having more visible campaigns would be much easier if key donors didn’t have to waste so much money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) trying to defend against your attempt to re-gain control of the party through continuous law suits.

    Please stop trying to act as if you are on a moral crusade. You had no problems with the SOS administrative rules of accepting the chair on record’s documents when you (or the chairs you supported) were submitting documents — even though they were created under disputed procedures. And when it was pointed out to you that the election law requires that a party makes its process to “insure the widest and fairest representation of members” you usually replied that the OARs also state that they won’t enforce that rule as an excuse for not following it.
    Now you are faced with the reality that the party is making every attempt to give that required representation to the members, and you suddenly don’t like the SOS procedures and want them to start enforcing rules. The irony is that the current party administration didn’t break any OARs–your administration broke the rules and in 2011 we took actions to get the party to a place where it was following Oregon election laws.
    If you want to change the law regarding how the SOS accepts a parties governing documents then you should try to petition the legislature to change the laws.

    What you are doing is a blatant attempt to get control of the party and return to the exclusive group that gave you an income and nominated the candidates of your choosing.

    Stop wasting money that could be spent promoting liberty.

  60. Wes Wagner

    Brenden,

    Burke asserted that he is working on your campaign. There was no denial that he is working on your campaign.

    Thank you for indirectly confirming that he was working on your campaign — but a more direct answer would have increased people’s confidence about your transparency.

  61. Bob Tiernan

    Brenden: “If anyone has questions about who is involved in the campaign and to what extent they can contact me via email and I will gladly let them know.”

    .
    Why don’t you just state up front that Burke is involved in your campaign?

    .
    The only thing I can say is that you should be aware that Burke is not that interested in you but is using your campaign to get visibility, credit, points, new contacts, you name it.
    .
    Bob T

  62. Wes Wagner

    Bob

    You forgot money … if there is a way for him to squeeze some money out of it he would want that too.

  63. Richard P. Burke

    @ Fred,

    Prior to Mr. Wagner, no governing documents were ever submitted to the Secretary of State which were not approved by members in properly noticed conventions. It has never been shown otherwise. On the other hand, had I tried to do what Wagner, you, and your friends did on 3/31/2011, you would all by howling in moral outrage.

    @ All,

    Please don’t pick on Brenden King. With respect to this conflict, he’s a civilian. And he’s also a good man. Offering my help to his campaign doesn’t put him on my side of the conflict any more than Wagner’s offers of help put him on Wagner’s side.

    I mentioned I was helping him only to demonstrate that my goal is not to undermine the campaigns of Libertarians and that, if asked, if asked, I would help any Libertarian candidate who was legitimately on the ballot. To the extent that he wants my help, I will provide it free of charge. And I’m sure he is intelligent enough to listen to advice from any corner and determine whether it has value to him or not.

    Richard P. Burke

  64. Wes Wagner

    If you cared about Brenden more than yourself you would not extend your persona non grata status to him and set aside your opportunism.

    We all know how this will actually play out. We have been down this road before.

  65. Wes Wagner

    @Burke

    Your side was planning to do exactly what we did on 3/31/11 … you just intended to disaffiliate from the national party, do it, and re affiliate as if that would somehow whitewash the action. You also intended to try to misinterpret office vanacies and apply some other M Carling sanctioned parliamentary voodoo on it (I still can’t figure out while all that was necessary except to keep Alicia Mattson’s hands quasi clean under some additional parliamentary voodoo)

    Your having conspired to do that forced our hands to do it first in self-defense. In just planning to do it you crossed a line that made political genocide of your faction a necessity.

    Sorry it had to work out this way, but it is over and you are never coming back.

  66. Kyle Markley

    Bob: “Why don’t you just state up front that Burke is involved in your campaign?”

    Perhaps because nobody actually asked him. He said he would be happy to answer questions by e-mail. I read that to mean that he doesn’t care to monitor this comment thread.

    Wes: You didn’t ask him, either. The best way to get the “more direct answer” you want is by actually asking the question.

    I’m surprised to see people getting worked up about unanswered questions that were not asked!

  67. Wes Wagner

    @Kyle

    He was being somewhat obtuse via email as well. Spin and potential damage control are a big part of managing a public image when you are a candidate.

    For example if you are a political presidential candidate, and Roger Stone is implicated in being associated with your campaign — there are some serious choices to make. You can allow Stone to potentially work for your campaign surreptitiously – but accept everything that comes with it … or you can publicly distance yourself from him.

    You don’t get to have it both ways.

    The Johnson campaign appears to have tried that strategy, and it cost them much goodwill with many people.

  68. Fred

    Richard,
    Totally dismissing every single complaint about your excluding members or failing to follow appropriate procedures does not negate the existence of those contentions.

  69. Richard P. Burke

    @Fred,

    Anyone can contend anything at anytime. But those who level charges have a responsibility to back them up, and nobody ever has. I, myself, have not been the “Chair of Record” since the spring of 1994 and never submitted any governing documents to the Oregon Secretary of State.

    If anyone believed that false documents were filed subsequent to that, the matter could have been brought up and documented in State Committee, Judicial Committee (as it was still populated and functional at the time), or in subsequent conventions. Never happened.

    In contrast, you, Mr. Wagner, and a few others submitted governing documents purportedly adopted in a monthly state committee meeting, not even a properly noticed convention. This was admitted by Mr. Wagner and actually supported by you, according to the 3/31/2011 minutes where you contended that ORS 248.072 obviated the need to have a convention to adopt new governing documents – a law which only applies to major parties.

    So in your case, there is documentation, there is video. Even admissions from your leader that the pre-existing bylaws were not adhered to. This is quite different than the non-specific complaints regarding alleged undocumented unspecified offences you appear to be referring to.

    Who are you trying to kid?

    RIchard

  70. Wes Wagner

    Burke

    http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/65.437 undoes your whole case even if you got it back to trial by some miracle

    1st amendment will prevent you from doing that

    in pari delicto prevents you and your associates in particular for getting any relief should you overcome all those hurdles

    and… simply you lost, you are a loser, and no matter how much you argue, you are still a loser and will still be a loser.

  71. Mercury is Rising

    What is it that you actually want, Richard? Every one of your actions to date points in the same direction – personal power and perquisites, including a swivel chair in a fancy office, unfettered (mis)use of party funds for personal purposes, and sexual exploits that decent people blush to ponder.

    It’s very hard to see how anything you’ve ever done has served to further the cause of liberty in Oregon or the nation. Please name something that you, personally, have done to ensure freedom, that did not accrue first and foremost to your own benefit.

    I kinda figure that this question will be met with deafening silence, high-grade manure, or a demonstrable lie, but I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.

  72. Fred

    I’m not trying to kid anybody, Richard.
    Fooling people doesn’t have much value unless your intentions are to use them.
    You might want to evaluate why there is a trail of people who claim you have tried to fool or cheat them. That rarely happens to people with good intentions.

  73. Richard P. Burke

    @ Fred,

    You speak incessantly about people I have “fooled” or “cheated”, but provide no specifics. While I have certainly made mistakes in my 24 years of Libertarian activism, and while my opponents have made mistakes, I think the issue here is simply of people getting upset when they don’t prevail, regard themselves to be victims, and then feel justified in going outside of what were regarded as commonly accepted guidelines as a means to an end.

    In any case, even if I am guilty of everything I have ever been accused of, it doesn’t mean that what you, Wagner, and your friends did on 3/31/2011 were right. Hurt feelings and frustrations to not offer license to violate the governing documents of the LPO as approved by 2/3 majorities of members in properly noticed convention – only one of which was the “evil” Richard Burke.

    The actions taken on 3/31/2011 at least equalled any outrage I have ever been accused of perpetrating and, if I had done the same, I’m sure such actions would have been considered by you and your friends to be the worst thing I had ever done.

    Richard P. Burke

  74. Wes Wagner

    Anyone who is outraged about my actions can sit down with me for coffee … and we can talk about it.

    So far no one seems to have been pissed enough at me to even so much as write one angry letter.

    Literally in 3+ years, I have not received one piece of personal correspondence saying that they were upset with what happened … or a single invitation to discuss it.

    The outrage is artificial and exists only in the mind of Burke.

  75. Mercury is Rising

    Well, you’re forgetting the 3% who voted against ratifying the bylaws when it went out to a public vote of registered Oregon Libertarian voters. 😉

  76. Wes Wagner

    Given that only 82.3% voted in favor of endorsing the most popular of all the recreational use marijuana initiatives in this recent primary… I am going to take 3% dissent as about as good as it will ever get.

  77. Richard P. Burke

    @ Mercury is Rising and Mr. Wagner,

    Yes, and supposedly a large majority of Crimean citizens voted to join Russia in an election that violated the Ukrainian constitution that opponents did not participate in for that reason.

    In this case, you asked one set of people to vote on ratifying the governing documents for another set of people in an purported election that was not provided for in the LPO governing documents. Opponents did not participate for that reason. In the process you purportedly made thousands of registered Libertarian voters members of the LPO without their knowledge and without affirming or subscribing to the Statement of Principles.

    Your purported ratification vote was a sham, and has not more legitimacy than the Crimean vote had.

    Richard P. Burke

  78. Wes Wagner

    Where are the protests? Where is the outrage? All I ever hear is you. 3 years and not a single letter? A single protest? A single person in the minutes registering a complaint at a meeting? … You can fantasize all you want about this being Crimea … but just like wishing a rock on a deserted island will turn into a loaf of bread, it just won’t happen no matter how hard you wish it so.

    In the beginning some of your co-conspirators who were helping you in your hamfisted attempt to steal the party. Most of them were politically whacked … and you luring them into the rat trap and ending their reputations and ability to screw with the LNC, for that I must be thankful.

    http://assets.motivationalgenerator.com/hashed_silo_content/silo_content/35002/resized/teamwork-share-victory-share-defeat-66d276.jpg

    And for pressing your campaign so far that you had to expose Aaron Starr … for that I am thankful too — he doesn’t know it yet, but that was the end of him on so many levels. Everyone who does not flee the political blast radius of that and throw him under the bus ASAP is likewise permanently hosed.

    You have done some good work — completely by accident. But I don’t have any need of you anymore.

    Goodbye Mr. Burke.

  79. mvetanen

    @ Burke

    And using your logic …

    Would the succession of the American colonies and creating new governing documents in 1776 also be illegitimate?

    Succession was clearly against the Crown, and the charter that the colonies where under.

    Would you have us return to the rule of Great Britain and the crown?

    The opening statement of the Decoration of Independence:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    Read more at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    Mr. Burke, may I offer that you consider joining another political party that is more aligned to your views.

  80. Richard P. Burke

    @Wes,

    The thing about fantasies not being true is that such is true for everyone.

    Your comment basically amounts to , “I don’t care about whether I did was according to the rules or not. You can say what you want. I declare victory. Now go away.”

    You’ve done a bit of exposing of yourself. The 9 (wasn’t it nine?) votes you got for national chair in 2012 in Las Vegas after your actions were known was telling. Are you planning to run again on your vaunted accomplishments?

    Richard P. Burke

  81. David Colborne

    Time out – a career in the Libertarian Party can lead to “sexual exploits that decent people blush to ponder”?

    WHY WAS I NOT TOLD OF THIS SOONER?!

    That tears it – I’m going to Las Vegas. Be back after the antibiotics kick in.

  82. Richard P. Burke

    @ David,

    That’s pretty funny. Is this what this thread has come to? If so it would appear that is is pretty well spent. On the third page of IPR anyway.

    Richard P. Burke

  83. Fred

    Richard,
    There were no valid undisputed documents created in accordance to Oregon revised statues in which we could violate
    Your insistence that the bylaws were created in accordance to former rules doesn’t mean they ever complied with ORS.

  84. Mercury is Rising

    Li’l Dickie, I find it fascinating that you keep coming back to the Statement of Principles, when everyone knows that what you really object to is that we’re not charging dues for you to skim off of.

    And if the principles of eschewing the use of force and fraud were so important to you, then why are you so often in the thick of both?

  85. David Colborne

    That’s pretty funny. Is this what this thread has come to? If so it would appear that is is pretty well spent. On the third page of IPR anyway.

    Heh… come.

    I feel spent. Don’t you feel spent? I mean, I suppose I might have another round in me, maybe, but… we’re going to need some coffee.

    Seriously though, I’m giving this thread the respect it deserves.

  86. Richard P. Burke

    @ Vetanen,

    The American Revolution was instigated in opposition to the Crown of England which initiated force to achieve social, political, and economic goals. England had guns to impose their will and people could not elect to be subjects to the crown or not short of revolution.

    In contrast the Libertarian Party of Oregon is a private voluntary association of members with no authority over the lives of other people or the ability to coerce. If anything, your reliance upon the state to secure your current status is an utter betrayal of what the American Revolution was fought for and what the Libertarian Party purports to stand for.

    Your comparison is bizzarre and actually underscores the moral underpinning of our case.

    @ Fred,

    Regarding ORS, please refer to the response I gave some time ago. While you certainly are not obligated to, you didn’t my argument on it’s merits or even it’s lack thereof. Rather, you seemed to ignore it’s existence and repeated what you said before.

    Richard P. Burke

  87. Mercury is Rising

    You’re accusing Vetanen of using bizarre (not “bizzarre”) comparisons, just after you compared the vote ratifying the new LPO bylaws to that in Crimea?

    Yep, you’re right, we had Russian Spetnaz standing by on every street corner, in case the vote had gone the “wrong” way.

    Your delusions are more vivid today than usual, DIcks-a-Lot. Best see to getting your medication adjusted.

  88. Fred

    There is nothing to dispute.
    Your claim that we were bound to follow your illegally and improperly created governing documents has no value.
    It is not my job to prove that your documents were created illegally, it is your problem to prove that they were created according to appropriate and legal means.
    Nobody at the meeting in 2011 could show that and nobody since then has proven it.
    Yet, you still are costing the party hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs because you want to control it.
    Stop it.

  89. Joseph Buchman Post author

    David Colborne @ June 16, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    IMO This is the winning comment here:

    “A career in the Libertarian Party can lead to “sexual exploits that decent people blush to ponder”? WHY WAS I NOT TOLD OF THIS SOONER?!”

  90. Andy

    Joseph Buchman Post authorJune 14, 2014 at 11:14 pm
    Andy @ June 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    wrote:

    ‘Wes . . . I’d go one step further and find out who the petition circulators were as well. Each petition circulator who worked on that petition ought to be blacklisted.’

    You’ve reached out to the master of Blacklisting! I’d bet it’s already DONE.

    :-)”

    Knowing the way the Libertarian Party operates in reality, the LP would likely get a list of all of the petitioners who worked on the Top Two Primary petition in Oregon, and then hire them to petition for the Libertarian Party, and then they’d hire the person who is in charge of the Silver Bullet Group which is coordinating the Top Two Primary petition drive in Oregon and hire them to be the new Political Director, and then vote to put whoever the proponent of the Top Two Primary initiative is in Oregon to serve on the Libertarian National Committee.

    “You might want to also offer a path toward redemption, however. I know Wes believes in, and has advocated, the opportunity for self-reflection, enlightenment, repentance, compensation of victims, contrition, apology, and renewed commitment as an alternative to permanent banishment to outer darkness — if not for everyone, at least for those who were relatively ignorant/temporarily addled/young and/or foolish.

    Joe”

    The petition circulators who are working on the Top Two Primary either know what it is and don’t care if it takes minor party and independent candidates off the ballot during the general elections, or they are too ignorant to know this. Even if they are ignorant of this, it is still no excuse, because one can research it online and find out what it is.

    I remember the first attempt to get Top Two Primary passed in California back in 2004. This was placed on the ballot through a petition (note the one that passed in California in 2010 was put on the ballot by the state legislature). I happened to be working on California petition at that time, and I was in a California petition office the day the Top Two Primary petition hit the streets as a paid petition back in 2004.

    I remember being in the office, and the petition coordinator announced that they had a new petition that was for an Open Primary that was paying $2 per signature. I walked up to the petition coordinators desk and picked up a copy of it and then sat down in a chair to read it (note that I was one of the few people that would actually read an entire petition before I went out and collected signatures on it). I remember sitting there reading it and thinking something like, “Oh, this doesn’t sound bad…..wait a second. What does this thing do? Does this do what I think it does? Would this lead to minor party and independent candidates not being on the ballot in the general elections? If that’s what this is, there’s no way in hell I’m going to work on this thing.” I figured I’d look it on online when I got home (I was living in California at the time) to make sure that I was interpreting it correctly, so I grabbed a few copies of it and left the office. When I got home I went online and started researching it, and I found out that I was correct, in that Top Two Primary would lead to minor party and independent candidates being highly likely to not appear on general election ballots, and that it could even lead to races where the only candidates on the ballot in the general election would be Democrat vs. Democrat or Republican vs. Republican. I even found articles online where the people behind Top Two Primary admitted that there intention was to remove Libertarian Party, Green Party, and other minor party or independent candidates from the ballot during general elections so they could not “take votes” away from Democrats or Republicans. I thought that this petition was one of the worst pieces of crap of a petition that I’d seen in the (then) 4 years that I’d been working in the petition business.

    The next time I went back to the petition office I talked to one petition circulator who I was friendly with at that time who was sort of a libertarian, I say sort of, because this person had been an LP member for one year many years before this, but they had let their membership expire and never got involved with the party after that. They were also not that consistent when it came to libertarian philosophy, as they were libertarian sometimes, but other times they were not. Even so, this person was still better on issues than most of the mercenary petitioners one encounters in the big initiative states like California. So I was able to talk this person out of working on this petition. I tried to explain what the Top Two Primary petition was really about, and why it was a bad thing, to a few other petition circulators, but none of them gave a shit, all they cared about was that it was another $2 to add to their petition boards. I then realized that I was wasting my breath with most of these people so I didn’t bother to say any more about it after the first couple of turn ins after that.

    I was not in Arizona when the Top Two Primary initiative was paying for petition signatures there in 2012, but I did put the word out to petition circulators over the phone and online to boycott that petition because if it passed, it would remove minor party and independent candidates from the ballot in Arizona during general elections. I did get one or two petitioners to stop working on it, but most of them did not give a rat’s ass and kept working on it anyway. I know that there were at least a few petition circulators who worked on Top Two Primary in Arizona who have worked on Libertarian Party drives.

  91. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Andy,

    I respect your on-the-ground experience and support your recommendation to ban any petitioner who works for top-two; my bias toward going for the humor in the situation notwithstanding.

    Joe

  92. Andy

    “Joseph Buchman Post authorJune 17, 2014 at 3:31 am
    Andy,

    I respect your on-the-ground experience and support your recommendation to ban any petitioner who works for top-two; my bias toward going for the humor in the situation notwithstanding.

    Joe”

    If not out right banning them form working on Libertarian Party ballot access drives, I would at least put their names on the bottom of the list of people to hire, as in they should only be hired if it is some kind of emergency situation and you tried, and could not find anyone else.

    I’m sick & tired of seeing people who are happy to work on any scumbag big government cause that comes along getting rewarded by the Libertarian Party with work.

  93. Bob Tiernan

    David: “On a somewhat related subject, does anyone have contacts in or near Klamath Falls”

    .
    There is an ex-LPO member in the Klamath Falls area who has deep pockets and contributed thousands while Burke was in charge, but since Burke wasted it all (and the $$$ of others), he’s probably extremely uninterested at this point.

    .
    Bob T

  94. Bob Tiernan

    Kyle: “The best way to get the “more direct answer” you want is by actually asking the question. I’m surprised to see people getting worked up about unanswered questions that were not asked!”

    .
    There’s a lot of information that’s mentioned here, even in passing. And considering that Burke’s name is well known by readers here it might have added something for King to mention that he’s being aided by someone others claim is no real help to anyone. By not mentioning this King comes off sounding like a weasel-wording politician who’s trying to conceal something, like he’s afraid to mention it. Maybe he is afraid. I’ve seen too many of those people, the ones who won’t admit to something unless you ask iy in just the right way. Reminds me of that skit from SNL about President Carter growing to 90 feet after exposure to radiation at Three Mile Island: QIs the President 89 feet tall? A: Not at all. Q: Is he 91 feeet tall? A: Absolutely not! Q: Is he 90 feet tall? A: No Comment!

    Bob T

  95. Wes Wagner

    Well this conversation appears to have come to a close. At this point we are left in the same position we were when we began.

    Burke continues to use the same arguments that have been refuted multiple times and lost in court.

    He claims to have all this support, yet we have yet to have received a single formal protest in 3+ years aside from the ambush filings with the SoS and the court to try to steal the party. (never a demand letter, a request for reconsideration, a formal appeal or petition etc.. just a failed SoS filing and a lawsuit filing with no provocation and were clearly attempts at blatant theft and intimidation)

    If he sent his supporters to our meetings he knows they would get invited in, a conversation would occur and they would abandon him with perhaps the only exception being David Terry, who most people here have enough exposure to understand why that may be the case. This is why we have popular support. 97+% of libertarians supported the change and there is no growing revolution against us with swarms of angry protestors — and Burke’s ranks continually shrink and wither. He lacks the moral law and we continue to grow because we possess it.

    He continues to fight a battle with nothing but empty pawns that he won’t even put on the board because he knows that if he exposed them to us, his lies would be undone and they would flee the board or switch sides like almost every agent he has ever had before them. He attempts to use this to make it appear to to outsiders that he is larger than he is … but he really is just one deranged man and his alleged people are worthless empty suits.

    I have no clue what he has been telling Mr. Starr in order to convince him to continue to fund this persecution against the Libertarians of Oregon, but Starr is either the world’s largest fool or the most corrupt agent the LP has. If it is the former he should consider trying to get his money back form Burke and Tyler Smith for fraud/detrimental reliance, if it is the latter then he has one of the most ineffectual agents I have ever known and clearly can’t even discern who is a competent person. In either respect the LP itself should never trust him with a mote of responsibility ever again.

    Either way Mr. Starr spent over 100k funding the wrong side of a libertarian populist revolt and hired the republican party’s general counsel to do it. He now has the audacity to request donations to fund his campaign in Oxnard. I suggest mailing him printouts of flaming middle fingers — that is all he deserves.

    Despite all of this the LP of Oregon will be fielding 50+ libertarian candidates and a handful of fusion nominations and perhaps by 2016 will have more candidates than the republican party.

    I will see you all in Ohio where I am sure some ridiculously stupid things will be attempted by Burke and Starr. Hopefully the party this time will have the good sense to dispose of these people and all of their allies with finality.

  96. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “You speak incessantly about people I have “fooled” or “cheated”, but provide no specifics”

    .
    Dan Vander Ploeg
    Fred Oerther
    Gene Nanni
    Josh Poulson
    Kevin Wheeler
    Jerry Boal
    Toni Nathan
    Mark Vetanen
    Dan Wilson
    Dick Meinhart
    Paul Bonneau
    so many, so little time…

    Bob T

  97. Bob Tiernan

    Mercury: “unfettered (mis)use of party funds for personal purposes”

    .
    Money is extremey important to him. One example I’ve mentioned before but doesn’t come up often here or elsewhere is what UMP did to National-only members in Oregon. At the time of passage, there were a few dozen National-only members living in Oregon. They were well aware of the existence of the state party, but had no interest in joining. That was their choice. That choice needed to be honored and anyone who wanted then to join the LPO needed to convince them to join. That required the kind of work that Burke was never good at (and he’s not good at much of anything).

    By passing UMP, half the dues from those National-only members went to the state party where Burke could use it. He didn’t care at all about those members. He wanted their money.

    B. Tiernan

  98. paulie

    Well this conversation appears to have come to a close.

    Seems to still be going.

    At this point we are left in the same position we were when we began.

    After a hundred or more other conversations on this topic, did anyone expect any chance that it would be otherwise?

  99. From Der Sidelines

    “Starr is either the world’s largest fool or the most corrupt agent the LP has.”

    It’s not either-or. It’s both.

  100. Joseph Buchman Post author

    I like Aaron; he’s a highly competent chair of the Audit Committee in my experience of him; did some real lasting good there IMO, was always professional and gracious with me personally. I was surprised even to find myself liking him, told him so directly and apologized for the uninformed ill will I initially brought to our relationship.

    That said, dude . . . if Aaron could somehow bilocate and have Aaron audit Aaron’s own books, I think Auditor Aaron would find more fraud, deception and waste in Legal Funder Aaron, especially in the payments to Tyler Smith, than what Unified Aaron found in the 2012 financial records of the LNC.

    I once asked Aaron over lunch if he was funding the legal battle in Oregon. He deflected the question by saying, “$100,000 IS a LOT of money, isn’t it?”

    I also think he used the Clinton meaning of “is” in a denial of current funding/support. When we met in Indianapolis for the Platform Committee meeting last month (he was the alternate to elected CA representative Sara Bales (who apparently took her last name literally and didn’t show for the meeting)), after the story broke here on IPR, see:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/04/aaron-starr-revealed-to-be-primary-source-of-funding-for-oregon-lps-lawsuit/

    I asked him in Indy what he remembered of our conversation in LA over lunch where I challenged him about funding Tyler. He admitted to deflecting the question with the statement above . . .

    So I’ll be more careful with my questions of him in the future. Just like Clinton denying an affair because Monica wasn’t on his lap when the question was asked; it seems to me there IS something wrong here. Very wrong.

    (On an aside, my only significant interaction with Aaron prior to being elected to the Audit Committee was in Las Vegas, just after that election, at the July 2012 LNC meeting where he told Ron Nielsen point-blank that there was NO CHANCE Wes Wagner would have the authority to put Gary Johnson’s name on the ballot. After observing that I asked him how on earth he thought the legal system would manage to rule in favor of the Reeves side so quickly (in August). What I remember is his utter confidence based (apparently) on inside information. But I had no hint at the time, nor would I have imagined then, that he was funding the legal battle there. If that was something Ron was aware of, it would explain some of the weirdness that summer when I was tasked with being sure Wes put Gary on the ballot . . .).

    Bottom line: I don’t think any version of Aaron would spend his own money so recklessly, with no possible return for that investment. He’s a smart (very smart, IMO) guy. His whole life is centered around managing money carefully.

    Which leaves me pondering one question more than any other — the one (at least for me) at the top of a pile of questions around Oregon — Whose money is it that, if he didn’t earn it himself, he is passing along? Where did this $100,000+ originate? and Why?

    I do not KNOW that to be the case, but I also believe I knew him well enough during the time I served on the Audit Committee with him to know he doesn’t simply throw money away, and certainly not in the $100,000+ levels.

    So I wish we had an Aaron Starr Auditor to audit Aaron Starr Funder’s books with an equivalent level of attention to detail that he brought to the “Cloudy” issues on the LNC that left them all “Howelling” under the bright Starr-Light he brought there.

    What would that show, I wonder?

    And if indeed it showed that every dime of that $100,000+ was earned by Aaron in his job — really?!? A whole year (more or less; I’m just guessing what he might be paid) of one’s professional life’s income — a whole year for . . . someone else to be in charge of Oregon? Really?!?

    Just doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Of course I wasn’t chair of the Audit Committee, MBA in Finance from Purdue is a bit dated, my skills rusty at best (been 30 years since I taught F301 at Indiana University) . . . I would not have found much of what Aaron found in the Cloud/Howell mess, or certainly not as quickly, but what adds up here to make sense?

    (The only theory that fits all the data currently at hand is that he is working to create a case for massive repayment due to gross incompetence on the part of those professionals he paid for services . . .). But I don’t believe that one either.

  101. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m with Joe on this one. I’m utterly baffled that Aaron is still paying money to what certainly appears to be a black hole. I would think that the money is coming from the Republican Party of Oregon, in an unsuccessful attempt to keep the Libertarian Party of that state ineffectual, but I understand that would be a crime. I know Aaron pushes boundaries, like that stupid incident where he tried to get Lee Wrights kicked of the LNC because someone else paid his membership, but why would he commit crimes over Oregon? I’m sure he’s well paid…but $100,000 where the prize is no longer there, and when everyone with a brain knows they’ve lost the case? I just don’t get it.

    I’ve known Aaron over twenty-five years. Many IPR readers know that I learned about the Libertarian Party through him. If I hadn’t met Aaron on a ski slope on New Year’s Day a long time ago, I wouldn’t have the husband that I have, the child I have, or much of my identity, which comes from being part of the Libertarian Party. I can’t reconcile that kid with the strange from him these days. I just don’t get it.

  102. David Colborne

    Even if you’re talking about Aaron fronting money from some third… party (pardon the term), it still doesn’t make a lot of sense. Imagine what $100,000 could do toward getting top-two past the ballot, for example, or some other method of contesting LP Oregon’s ballot access.

  103. Fred

    David,
    that is the most important part of this issue.
    Its not about which side is right or wrong. Its that fighting against each other is a massive waste of time and money.
    Its not just the $100,000 Starr (or whoever) paid Tyler Smith to sue the LPO, its the hundreds of thousands that the LPO has had to pay to prevent the takeover.
    This is all money and energy that could be used toward candidates campaigns, voter outreach, or fighting against ballot measures such as “top two”

  104. Wes Wagner

    “Investing” the money for top two would just create a unified set of enemies in Oregon of all 3rd parties. Attempting to suppress just the Libertarian Party of Oregon with a proxy government seems to be more in alignment with a series of action that all add up to a mission of: “controlled opposition”

    It also adds up with many other activities Starr, Carling, Mattson, et.al. have been involved in.

  105. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “Your purported ratification vote was a sham, and has not more legitimacy than the Crimean vote had.”

    .
    .
    *chuckle*. Okay, so people will read this as well as your other, lengthier, explanation of why Wes Wagner’s political assault against your forces is illegitimate and then (Wes included) Gee you’re right, let’s go back to the way it was before and try again.

    .
    Forget it. You lost big time, and you brought it upon yourself because of your never-ending quest for control of the LPO even if that meant a party of three people and an affice facade for image. If you want control again you’re going to have to work hard and lobby many hundreds of LPO members to see it your way. Even considering the fact that you’ll have to lie to and fool all of those people about your intentions and integrity, that’s a lot of work. And as Michael Wilson has pointed out many times over the yers, you are very lazy and have terrible work habits. It’ll be much harder for you. Bye bye.

    .
    Bob T.

  106. Dave Terry

    > Jill Pyeatt ; June 18, 2014
    ” I’m utterly baffled that Aaron is still paying money to what certainly appears to be a black hole.”
    ” Many IPR readers know that I learned about the Libertarian Party through him.”

    Perhaps the ONE most important thing that you DIDN’T learn was that you CAN’T put a PRICE tag on Integrity! From MY perspective this issue is simple. When individuals deliberately ignore and circumvent the rules for whatever purpose, THEY SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO SUCEED

    Are we as Libertarians AND as Americans going to put a dollar value on which laws/rules we are going to enforce or which crimes we are going to prosecute? Opposing a law/rule based on the merit or lack thereof, is one thing, but simply refusing to enforce it because it will cost too much is not an honest or honorable position.

    I am extremely grateful that Aaron was available and willing to front the legal expenses for this
    legal action, “whatever” his motives might be.

    Fred wrote: “This is all money and energy that could be used toward candidates campaigns, voter outreach, or fighting against ballot measures such as “top two”

    This is the same logic that the D’s and R’s use. I’ll be the first to concede that, YES, money is the “mother’s milk” of politics, but we simply CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT allow monetary considerations to control our agenda or our ideology

  107. Jill Pyeatt

    Aaron has proven his (lack of) integrity by flat-out lying that he was supporting the Oregon lawsuit. I heard him lie myself.

  108. Joe

    Dave Terry @ June 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm wrote:

    “When individuals deliberately ignore and circumvent the rules for whatever purpose, THEY SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO SUCEED (sic)”

    (Oh, I just can’t resist this one . . . apologies in advance).

    But they succeeded when they seceded — LITERALLY!!

    The very first definition of “succeed” is

    “(1) to come after and take the place of”

    They came after; they took the place of.

    The second meaning:

    “(2) to accomplish something desired or intended.”

    If what was desired and intended was an advance in the fight for liberty, then by the measure of folks in Oregon voting with their feet (part of your historical heritage), they have, based on results so far, done that too.

    See:

    http://grammarist.com/usage/secede-succeed/

  109. Dave Terry

    2/3 right Joe, the Wagnerians succeeded in their coup, and then seceded from the libertarian movement, but they are FAR from successful in the electoral process, which is their ONLY criterion for success.

    Isn’t it ironic that so much has been said about the fact that we have an attorney who is a Republican, but so LITTLE has been mentioned about the fact that 10 of the candidates of
    the ‘mail-order’ LPO are also members of the GOP..

  110. Steve M

    mail order?

    As if to discredit the idea of mass participation instead of control by a small central committee.

    right Comrade Dave Terry?

  111. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Dave,

    Seriously when you write

    ““When individuals deliberately ignore and circumvent the rules . . .”

    When you say these things do you see yourself writing to an audience of Libertarians?!?! Because the only cheers I hear to that kind of pontification are coming from the Statists.

    Perhaps George Washington should be impeached for not following the rules. I mean fighting on Christmas Eve, or shooting from behind trees, or defying the rules of the King. Terrible stuff. No higher moral law need apply.

    Liberty is not won by playing within or by (insert appropriate Oregon Organ Trill here) “THE RULES” (or as Ernie Hancock says, so eloquently, no one ever got more liberty by voting for it, not once, not ever.)

    The genius of this Compound Constitutional Republic was in the founding concept that RIGHTS are 1) Self-Evident, 2) Inalienable, 3) providenced by/from Nature (and/or Nature’s God). Where “THE RULES” (or “the sacred inviolable rules” as you’re openly worshiping them here) violate those RIGHTS, then all of good character are called, are they not, to stand against them? To violate them in the cause of that higher moral law?

    Your answer here is clearly “no.”

    Rights are grabbed, clung to, defended with passion; they are neither granted by nor purchased from some state-run rights creation and distribution center. They are not something to ever be grateful to someone else for having been given. Neither are they yours with zero effort on your part.

    But to advocate playing by the “rules” — when those rules in Oregon (and elsewhere) are one convoluted, ill-conceived, freedom-crushing mess?

    The State does not follow its own laws; Presidents from Lincoln, to Nixon, BuObsmaha don’t; the NSA doesn’t; patriots like Manning and Snowden either rot in jail or escape to Russia — did they “follow the rules” or give their lives, sacred honor, fortunes to some higher cause? police don’t; the SOS in Oregon doesn’t (note the modification of the rules you quote so perfectly with the weight of administrative practice/administrative law.) Oregon selectively enforces some rules, ignores others; has rules that conflict with local city rules, local county rules, HOA rules . . . party bylaws rules . . . socially acceptable norms of unspoken rules.

    So why do you expect Wes and his fellow “rule breakers” to be any different?

    But even more strikingly, why would you expect some agency of the State to go with your demand for rule following? They have limited resources and far bigger games to play.

    Do you really think you can successfully make the case that you were the spotless victim of some aggressive act against you personally? Against your property? Without having played any role in its precipitating causation? Because that’s about the ONLY rule Libertarians play by; the NAP.

    You’ve not made a compelling case for that (at least not yet, and not here).

    It seems to me that you (at best) have been duped by legal advice more designed to fleece you than to win anything of value here and/or are aligned with the forces opposed to any advance of liberty in Oregon.

    I feel sad for you — in the same way I feel sad for the me of 15 years ago who took on whistle blowing here in Utah foolishly thinking that some part of the state would care that some other part of the state had lied to a third part of the state (namely the courts would care that the college where I had worked had lied (outrageously) to the Regents). I was sure I would “win.” Sure I was “right.” Sure I had the best counsel possible. If I could go back in time, I’d slap myself silly over that. The only thing I learned in the end was to despise the counsel I had hired, more than the University that had played a dishonest game that everyone already knew was going on. Kinda like I was blowing a toy whistle to bring everyone’s attention to the 400 car diesel engine that had just roared past.

    Doubtless I am biased here, but DUDE, you, Aaron, et. al, sure seem to me to be doing the same thing.

    And even the best case imaginable for your side, sure as hell looks like a pyrrhic victory excrement hole of mythic proportions.

    Well, it’s 4AM my time and I’m rambling after a long night of editing/writing. Hopefully something I said above is of some value to someone. I know I found value in thinking about what you (and Wes) have written here.

  112. Fred

    I’m so flummoxed about what a person means when they use the word “integrity” to insist that we need to keep following the illegally and improperly created rules that exclude registered Libertarians from accessing their own political party.
    Apparently “integrity” must mean that a small group of people (including those who can’t vote in our state) should be able to break the contract they have with the voters of the state and rule over the people in that party–and any effort for the people to take control of their own party is a break in that “integrity.

  113. David Colborne

    I’m not going to lie, when I first heard about the situation in Oregon, I was kind of on Burke’s side because of “the rules”. It seemed, at least from where I was sitting, that “the rules” – LPO’s bylaws, Robert’s Rules, and so on – were more in favor of Burke’s side than Wes’, and I felt it was important that, no matter how noble Wes’ cause might have been, that he and his crew work within the rules to change them.

    Time and research changed my perspective since then.

    The goal of Robert’s Rules is to ensure that every voice in an organization that wants to be heard is heard as often as every other voice that wants to be heard. The goal is a more or less even playing field. The goal of LPO’s bylaws is, ostensibly, to build on that same spirit and use that fairness to build an inclusive political organization that fields candidates that represent the voices within the LPO. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the LPO backed themselves into a corner and started working against that goal. The pre-2011 bylaws were something of a mess, a mess made worse when people from out of state decided that LPO’s bylaws required a majority of all members, even poorly documented and tracked “Lifetime Members”, many of whom could be dead or live far away, to attend a convention in order for that convention to be valid. When people in Oregon took that decision seriously, that was the end of the LPO – according to the rules, it was technically impossible for the LPO to hold a convention or otherwise function.

    The trouble with bylaws, or law in general, is it isn’t computer code. A lot of it is poorly written, contradictory, or just nonsensical. That’s why we have lawyers and judges – to take the messiness of “the rules” and make it all somehow make sense in the real world. Both sides decided, after the better part of a year, to find some way to “bend” LPO’s bylaws in a direction that allowed the LPO to function once more. Burke’s side leaned on Robert’s Rules to do the heavy lifting. Wes’ side leaned on the SoS and his filed position as State Chair. Since filed political parties are a creation of the state and not Robert’s Rules, Wes’ crew won, at least as far as the state was concerned. It may not have been the most technically satisfying win in the world – I thought Burke’s massaging of Robert’s Rules was quite elegant, actually – but a win is a win, and besides, none of it would have been necessary if the LPO’s bylaws weren’t an unworkable mess to begin with.

    Besides, I also learned since then that, really, bylaws can say whatever people want them to say, if you’re creative enough. You’d think that bylaws that include county affiliates would suggest that a state party should have them – I was wrong. You would think that bylaws that mention conventions would require state parties to hold timely ones and not monkey with their scheduling. I was wrong again. In the end, most LP members are really poor legislators and state party bylaws almost universally reflect that. The key is to remember that the “legislation”, the bylaws, aren’t an end of themselves – they’re a means to an end, a tool that should serve in service to the goal of maintaining a functioning Party. When the bylaws begin to work against that goal, they either need to be changed, if possible, or ignored, if necessary. LPO’s needed to be ignored, and now hundreds of thousands of dollars – yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars – have been spent arguing over who best ignored the bylaws. Not only is that a collosal waste of capital, it’s a silly argument in general.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea that someone can make themselves “Chair-For-Life” just because they’re on file with the SoS. The solution to that, though, is easy: Have rules that everyone respects and wants to follow, instead of rules that everyone is trying to find some way around. Once you do that, a putative Chair-For-Life can play that game all they want, but nobody will be around to work with them, so the SoS will ultimately remove ballot access from them and pull them off the rolls. Once that happens, refile, reestablish ballot access, and elect better Party officers next time.

  114. Wes Wagner

    I appreciate David comments… I do want to remind everyone that there have been orderly elections for 3+ years now — sans armed thugs intimidating people when they cast their ballots. The tiny handful of people who are allegedly Burke supporters (though I never hear them speak) have had access to that process, have been regularly sent ballots, have been sent election materials explaining how they can file candidate statements, arguments, etc. They have elected to not participate.

  115. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry: “When individuals deliberately ignore and circumvent the rules for whatever purpose, THEY SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO SUCEED [sic, and sick]”

    .
    What a hoot. Burke on numerous times ignored, broke, violated, and invented rules to suit his purposes, yet you latched onto him like a parasite on the back of a bottom-feeding scum sucker. You integrity-free fool.

    .
    Bob T

  116. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “And I’m sure [Brenden King] is intelligent enough to listen to advice from any corner and determine whether it has value to him or not.”

    .
    Yeah, but if he wants to be associated with you then I’d have to say that his intelligence is to be questioned. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh to some people here, but I’ve known Burke for what he is since 1993. There’s a price for associating with the likes of Burke, and King should be aware of it. After all, look at Dave Terry. He made a choice some years back – he latched onto Burke, joined his cult, and now he’s a bitter old man with nowhere to go.

    .
    Bob T

  117. Wes Wagner

    Does Joe win the thread with “And even the best case imaginable for your side, sure as hell looks like a pyrrhic victory excrement hole of mythic proportions.” ?

  118. Joseph Buchman Post author

    No, Wes, I think this post wins . . . The “soon” as in “glacial time” post . . . after all it is literally timeless!

    “The leadership of the LPO and the governing documents governing it’s (sic) operation are in dispute. The Libertarian National Committee, delegates assembled at the 2012 Libertarian National Convention, and the state Judicial Committee recognizes (sic) the leadership and governing documents associated with organization (sic) sponsoring this website. The Oregon Secretary of State is barred from taking a position, and has for the moment defaulted to recognizing an alternate organization because it is supported by the most recent “Chair of Record.” This is being contested in a variety of venues and we expect the situation will be resolved soon.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *