“PROJECT GROUNDSWELL” – Press Release from Oregon PAC 16869 (DBA “The Libertarian Party of Oregon”)

TimAtLNCConvention

05 December 2014, DATELINE: PORTLAND OR

IPR received the following media release from Mr. Reeves earlier this evening.

“While issues around the leadership and governance of the LPO remain unresolved, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, as led by the so-called “Reeves” group of officers operating under governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions (ED NOTE: This organization is, “currently registered with the Oregon Secretary of State as PAC #16869.”  See paragraph 2 at: “http://www.lporegon.net“) has announced its plans for 2015 to become more politically active and grow as a party.

Current Status of Things in Oregon

“The Oregon Secretary of State, due to its unwritten policy of accepting official documents from whomever the LPO Chair was on March 31, 2011, still defaults to the Wagner group in nominating partisan candidates.

(ED NOTE: See: http://oregonvotes.org/doc/political_parties.pdf.)

“But because the Oregon Secretary of State knows that the governance and leadership of the LPO are still in dispute, she is allowing both groups to otherwise operate as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon.”

(ED NOTE: See: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/sooDetail.do?cneCommitteeId=16869.)

“Both are able to raise and spend money, both are responsible for financial reporting.

Things are Moving in the Right Direction Within the LPO

“The LPO, as led by Tim Reeves, is therefore once again able to raise money using the Oregon Political Tax Credit. Also, the Reeves LPO has regained possession of party archives, files, records, computers, furniture, and other property dating back from the LPO’s founding in 1971. The court case concerning the LPO is proceeding, as appeals briefs are now being filed by both sides. Still, we are now turning most of our energies to doing productive political work in the field.

Moving Forward OUTSIDE the LPO Through “PROJECT GROUNDSWELL

“The developments mentioned above have enabled the Reeves-led LPO State Committee to adopt “PROJECT GROUNDSWELL” as a direction for the LPO during 2015. The goals of PROJECT GROUNDSWELL are to

  1. Rebuild the LPO’s statewide organization by establishing and building county parties affiliated with the Reeves organization functioning in accordance with the 2013 bylaws adopted by members in convention. This includes achieving growth in dues-paying membership and registered membership.
  2. Rebuild an effective presence for the LPO in the Oregon legislature.
  3. Rebuild the statewide political relevancy of the LPO, raise the LPO’s media profile, and once again have a real impact on Oregon’s political culture.

WHAT IS “PROJECT GROUNDSWELL?

“The project consists of a package of realistic projects the LPO and its affiliates will take on in 2015. Together, the initiative will increase the membership, registered voter base, political relevance, and political effectiveness of the LPO. Another purpose of Project Groundswell is to help the LPO rebound from years of infighting, achieve political success now, and position the LPO for success during the 2016 election cycle. Project Groundswell consists of the following projects:

PROJECT 1: The 2015 Oregon Legislative Session

“The LPO will be active during the 2015 Oregon legislative session. The LPO will maintain an active presence in Salem, impacting legislation affecting our personal and financial liberty. The LPO will also arrange for the introduction of legislation that will help us raise important issues related to privacy and election reform. The LPO has also arranged to join with Portland’s Cascade Policy Institute to promote a “Right to Try” bill, legislation that would make it easier for terminally ill patients to use experimental drugs as they fight for their lives. The LPO will make training resources known to Libertarians who want to become citizen lobbyists, testify to legislative committees, or campaign online.

“NOTE: Tim Reeves and Richard Burke, who has experience working in the Oregon legislature, have already had meetings with legislators about the Right-to-Try legislation and those willing to introduce LPO bills.

PROJECT 2: LPO 2015 Annual Business Convention

“The LPO will hold its 2015 Annual Convention sometime in March. In accordance with LPO bylaws, as it is the year following an election for governor, the convention will be held in eastern Oregon (2016 convention will be held in the metro area). Elections for LPO officer positions and county representatives will be held, amendments to LPO governing documents will be considered, and resolutions will be voted on. The convention will retool the LPO to embark on the next election cycle and see through the rest of Project Groundswell.

PROJECT 3: Elections for Local Non-Partisan Office

“The LPO has a track record of electing about two-thirds of its candidates who actively campaign for local non-partisan office. These offices, which include school board, water board, city council, and other such positions, most directly impact the daily lives of regular citizens. Libertarians serving in such positions build the networks and skills they need to credibly run for higher office in the future while re-weaving our political culture today.

PROJECT 4: Building County Parties

“This year the LPO will work to rebuild its network of county parties. County parties provide Libertarian voters and activists with venues of political activity where they live. They make it possible for the Libertarian Party to have a true statewide presence while providing local activists with statewide reach and resources. A vibrant network of county parties is key to providing support for Libertarian candidates and building party registration.

PROJECT 5: Building Party Registration

“Simply engaging in political campaigns and other activities can inspire people to register Libertarian. But during 2015 the LPO will engage on a statewide media tour to promote the Libertarian Party, encourage voters to register Libertarian, and work with its county organizations to build their profile through activities such as county fair booths.

“More information about PROJECT GROUNDSWELL and the Libertarian Party of Oregon can be seen at www.lporegon.net.

Please email Tim Reeves at: timothy.reeves@tenthamendmentcenter.com.

“Thank you.

 

Tim Reeves
State Chair, Libertarian Party of Oregon”

(ED NOTE: The Tenth Amendment Center’s website can be found HERE.)

171 thoughts on ““PROJECT GROUNDSWELL” – Press Release from Oregon PAC 16869 (DBA “The Libertarian Party of Oregon”)

  1. Jed Ziggler

    Can we please just ignore these people? The biggest mistake the LNC ever made wasn’t bringing the seating of the Reeves delegation up for a vote, it was acknowledging that these people even exist.

  2. Wes Wagner

    We allowed them to have the Orrin Grover memorial trash pile rather than starting a pissing match over garbage.

    Now they brag about it. Cute 🙂

  3. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    >> While issues around the leadership and governance of the LPO remain unresolved <<

    Reeves sounds like the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. He still insists there's an ongoing battle raging, long since he's been decisively defeated. A defeat that is obvious to everyone despite his denials.

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    Has anyone established how many people are in this group? Can I count them with only my two hands?

    I wonder if Burke and Reeves will ever learn how ridiculous they look to everyone else. It’s pathetic, really.

  5. Andy

    How about doing a Freedom of Information Act request on this group? I’m talking FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, etc…

    I’d love to see what kind of files the government is keeping on the Libertarian Party, and how many plants that they have infiltrated into various positions in the party.

    It came out a few years ago that peace groups in Minnesota and Washington were infiltrated by government plants. The plants pretended to be activists, and weaseled their way into the organizations. Some of them were even chairing meetings.

    We already know that the government has spied on and sent plants into the LP in the past. Do you think in this age of mass NSA spying and with the birth of the Department of Homeland Security that the government has decided to leave the Libertarian Party alone, even though government documents such as the MIAC report clearly show that the government considers libertarians to enemies?

  6. Bondurant

    The local county party had a few “interesting” frequent visitors last year. All 3 showed up around the same time and all revealed a shocking admiration for government forcing it’s will upon the people. At one meeting they were challenged and called out and all 3 never showed up again. I have since wondered what their true motivation was.

  7. Fred

    They forgot to mention some of their projects:
    PROJECT 6: Sue the party to take control
    Because they can’t get elected by all voting members of the party, they will continue their lawsuit to take control of the party based on the premise that showing up at a cancelled meeting gives them legitimacy.

    PROJECT 7: Encourage people to vote against Libertarian candidates.
    They will continue to mail voters to encourage them to not vote for the libertarian candidate and to vote for the Republican instead.

    PROJECT 8: gain as many titles as possible from every upstart political cause to make it appear as they have authority, while failing to do any useful work, or to create any meaningful action or change through any of those organizations.

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for the update, Fred!

    Also, is that a picture of Tim Reeves with Gary Johnson? So, he really exists, and isn’t just a figment of Richard Burke’s imagination?

  9. Paulie

    He was at the national convention. Not sure why it’s all that significant that he had his picture taken with Gary – lots of people did, especially at a national convention. It’s got about as much “gotcha” to it as the pictures of Ron Paul with the Stormfront father and son duo.

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    “Things are Moving in the Right Direction Within the LPO”

    At least they’re finally admitting that they want things to move toward the Republican Party.

  11. Fred

    I’ve met Tim,
    He spoke at the Oregon Freedom Festival that I organized a few years back.
    He is a nice guy- he just happens to have been duped by someone who has fooled many others before him

  12. Joe

    The photo is from http://www.lporegon.net, filename is “TimAtLNCConvention.jpg”.” I’ve offered to replace that with whatever art/photo they would prefer and/or a higher res version if they have one. Just snagged that one out of convenience.

  13. Richard P. Burke

    Fred’s errant or disingenuous statements aside, We’ve simply decided to return to doing Libertarian politics in the field and build our organization between elections. That is what a state party organization does if it wants to be Politically Relevant in the long run.

    Between elections it is simply not enough to focus on events where Libertarians talk to each other, meet at bars like the Lucky Lab, go on hikes, and share conspiratorial visions of Republican spies and black helicoptors. All of that is fun, I suppose, but we need to do political work in the field, and accomplishment needs to become the standard by which we measure success.

    To date, two national conventions have recognized our delegate configurations over those of the Wagner group. To date, all six LNC resolutions explicitly recognizing one side or the other have gone our way. The national Judcomm ruling recognized nobody as legitimate, but deferred to the Oregon Sec. of State who has repeatedly said that her office would not adjudicate the case.

    The legal status of Mr. Wagner’s group is therefore based only on a thread, an UNWRITTEN policy of the Secretary of State saying that they will recognize any governing documents or officer lists provided by whomever the “Chair of Record” happens to be, regardless of how they came into existence. This policy could easily change on a whim or circumstance, a court case like ours, legislation, or simply with a change of office holder – Kate Brown won’t be Sec. of State forever.

    Our authority, despite Fred’s comment, was not based on a “meeting”, but based on a convention session ordered by a previous convention session – which the subordinate State Committee had no authority to cancel. Our governing documents were adopted by members in properly noticed conventions, not by five people at a regular State Committee meeting.

    We will therefore continue to operate as the sole legitimate Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions. We are confident that the issues still outstanding will work themselves out in our favor in due course.

    Richard P. Burke

  14. Jill Pyeatt

    “To date, all six LNC resolutions explicitly recognizing one side or the other have gone our way.”

    This is an amusing claim, and one I do not know to be true.

    Also, you forgot to mention that the last two party chairmen have recognized the Wagner group as the legitimate group.

  15. Wes Wagner

    It will take many years but some people will become painfully aware of how silly it is to hold a rump meeting to try to steal a political party then engage in a wrongful lawsuit where they filed false facts and destroyed evidence to attempt to advance their claims.

  16. Steve M

    googling this… it sure looks like if IPR didn’t cover Burke’s efforts he would get zero publicity.

    My other observation is that Groundswell is a heavily used term. Every thing from Oral Histories, backpacking, environmental concerns to a conservative group loosely associated with Judicial Watch. Can’t the Burke team come up with a less used more original project name?

  17. Kyle Markley

    “Fred’s errant or disingenuous statements aside, We’ve simply decided to return to doing Libertarian politics in the field”

    Oh, you mean “PROJECT 7”, just like Fred said.

  18. Joe

    I wonder which will happen first — the resolution of the Oregon issues in the Court of Appeals (or SCOUTS apparently as they (Aaron Starr et al) seem likely to fund legal action beyond the state courts), or OAI (read: the plaintiffs they are fundraising for) actually filing a suit against the CPD?

    Each has been repeatedly (mis) characterized as “imminent.” The former to be decided in time to prevent Mr. Wagner from being the authorized rep to submit Governor Johnson’s name to the Oregon Secretary of State for the November 2012 presidential election; the latter to be filed in time to get Governor Johnson in the third of the 2012 Presidential Debates (22 October 2012, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2012).

    From http://lporegon.net “This is being contested in a variety of venues and we expect the situation will be resolved soon.”

    From https://www.ouramericainitiative.com/presidential-debate-commission.html “Help fund the lawsuit to make the Presidential Debates fair. . . Our America Initiative has a no refunds policy & funds may be used for overhead cost. Our America Initiative, although not a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates, is proud to help finance the lawsuit through its fundraising efforts and to support the plaintiffs and their lawyers in other ways.”

  19. Daniel Hayes

    Is OAI currently sponsoring the Gary Johnson Mountain Climbing Expedition? “Debate on the Mount”

  20. George Phillies

    “I wonder which will happen first — the resolution of the Oregon issues in the Court of Appeals (or SCOUTS apparently as they (Aaron Starr et al) seem likely to fund legal action beyond the state courts), or OAI (read: the plaintiffs they are fundraising for) actually filing a suit against the CPD?”

    Perhaps you should compare with other times that seem likely to be of shorter length: “expected duration of life on earth before the Sun stops working” or “expected time until the heat death of the universe”.

  21. Paulie

    Is OAI currently sponsoring the Gary Johnson Mountain Climbing Expedition? “Debate on the Mount”

    No.

    BTW, I am regional co-deputy director for OAI, so give me a call if you want to express concerns or ask questions about the organization, Daniel. I have been given to understand that LPL and OAI have some friction, which should not be the case. In some other states such as Alabama we work together closely and have basically the same people involved, just the two different structures let us do different things.

  22. Wes Wagner

    George

    Unfortunately the “brains” behind the operation thinks that doing libertarian politics in the field is writing letter to libertarians asking them to vote for republicans and casting dispersions on excellent libertarian candidates.

  23. Richard P. Burke

    Answers to questions raised:

    Jill #1 – What we will win is the full restoration of an organization laid out along the lines of governing documents adopted by members in properly noticed conventions and establishing that one person, the “Chair of Record”, cannot unilaterally hand governing documents and officer lists to government authorities and have them be recognized without question.

    Jill #2 – LNC minutes establish the votes in question. And while the last two LNC chairpersons have recognized the Wagner group, such statements from LNC chairs represent their personal opinions only – LNC chairs are not empowered to take such positions on behalf of the entire LNC.

    Wagner – Huh? The “rump meeting” you refer to was a convention session called by another convention session in accordance with a motion YOU made. As our bylaws requred the State Committee to act under the direction of convention, State Committee did not have authority to cancel the session. As for the rest, these are assertions that will, in the end, be tested in court.

    Kyle – The letter I wrote was written solely by me on the grounds that you were not nominated in accordance with processes outlined in the LPO governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions. In any case, the Reeves LPO had nothing to do with it. At present, I am not even on the Reeves LPO State Committee. Consequently, it is dishonest to pin the letter on it.

    Joe – What can I say? Things don’t always go as planned.

    Daniel – What on Earth does this have to do with OAI???

    Fred and Steve – You don’t like the name “Project Groundswell.” That’s fair. I suppose you guys can come up with your own project to do Libertarian politics between elections and call it whatever you’d like. About “Project EGOswell.” Whose ego? Nobody’s name is attached to this. Tim Reeves put the release out, but nobody who knows Tim could fairly accuse him of that. Besides, he will not be chair after our next convention.

    George #2 – Thank you.

    Wagner #2 – Again, the letter in Kyles race was from me, not the Reeves LPO, distributed because of reasons outlined in my reply to Kyle above.

    Richard P. Burke

  24. Wes Wagner

    Burke

    Eventually all the lies and destruction of evidence that were necessary to keep your case running will have a final vetting of fact … but it will be in a courtroom determining how much you will all have to pay in damages – not who controls the party. That was decided with finality long ago.

  25. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    Clearly, given what has happened at the last two national conventions, the LNC, and other venues, combined with the fact that your current status relies solely on an unwritten policy that could change for any one of several causes including active litigation, demonstrates that the issue is not settled with anything like finality.

    But if you truly believe what you say, you will instruct your lawyer to accelerate the case moving forward, and abandon the strategy of delay, so you can realize the victory you predict.

    Richard P. Burke

  26. Wes Wagner

    It takes alot of time to counter bad practice of law and lies. It will likely take another 4 to 5 years before all the wrongful initiation claims, perjury, misuse of process and everything else is sorted out.

    Sorry I can’t rush all that.

  27. Wes Wagner

    Sorry .. also left out spoliation. It is hard to keep up with all the things pond scum do… it takes alot of time to get it all right.

  28. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    You contradict yourself. If you think that sorting out “all the wrongful initiation claims, perjury, misuse of process and everything else” would be a good thing, I would think you and your allies would want it brought to light and have us “held accountable” as quickly as possible. If it is delayed 4 or 5 years, as you say, it won’t be because of us (though we’ll be around). It will be because you want the process delayed. This is understandable because, while you are excellent at rhetoric, your spin will not in the end conceal that:

    1. Your purported attempting to replace the LPO’s governing documents at a monthly state committee meeting on 3/31/11 violated LPO bylaws,

    2. Your purported attempt to appoint yourselves to new terms of office under your bylaws was also in violation of LPO bylaws and,

    3. Your attempt to cancel the convention session of 5/21/11 was invalid under LPO bylaws.

    Your sense of personal righteousness concerning the above actions won’t hold up as personal feelings and sensibilities, inherently subjective, have no relevance in court. It is easy to understand that you would not want the above to come to light in a court of law.

    Richard P. Burke

  29. Wes Wagner

    Burke you do not understand the legal process. There are times for that. The time is not ripe yet.

  30. Richard P. Burke

    Spoken like one playing the system rather than one for whom the revelation of “truth” is of paramount importance. People who don’t live on IPR see right through you, and not just in Oregon.

    Richard P. Burke

  31. Wes Wagner

    So people who you lied to to manufacture consent for oppression of oregon libertarians then ?

  32. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    No. It’s more like “those who attempt to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal on the premise that the ends justify the means persistently attempt to avoid having the true nature of their actions exposed”.

    Specifically, I’m not sure what “lies” you are referring to, but your constant use of words like “oppression” truly challenge the heights of hyperbole and jocularity. Given that the LPO is a voluntary association with no means through which it could coerce anyone to do anything, your use of words like “oppression” lend a discrediting dose of melodrama to your arguments.

    Richard P. Burke

  33. Wes Wagner

    Yes. Voluntary. You register to vote as a libertarian and there is no central authority to demand you pay them tribute.

    The way it is meant to be.

  34. Jill Pyeatt

    I nominate Burke as the second most delusional person I’ve encountered on IPR. I won’t mention who the first person is out of respect for the mentally ill.

  35. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    You know full well that under bylaws approved by members in properly noticed conventions, it costs nobody anything to register as a Libertarian voter, be nominated for any partisan office, or participate fully in candidate nominating conventions. While dues are required to participate in other internal party business, fully recoverable through the Oregon Political Tax Credit, there are no “demands” for “tribute”. Many state Libertarian Parties, and the national LP, operate similarly.

    My, the words you use…”demands”…”tribute”…”oppress”… (eyes roll)

    Richard P. Burke

  36. Joe

    Richard,

    “Joe – What can I say? Things don’t always go as planned.”

    My experience too, generally, in life as well as on this issue. Wes’s side has played “slow-down” when it is to their advantage (nothing wrong with that) and/or when they needed time to generate the best possible defense (I’ve done this too in other domains).

    What I was pointing to above was the absurd, unfounded, irrational, yet believed-by-many metaphysical certainty of who would be putting Gary Johnson’s name on the ballot in Oregon in the late summer of 2012. At the July LNC meeting it was announced, and then confirmed in hallway conversation, that the legal dispute would be over within days, Wes repudiated and we (the campaign/LNC) best be prepared for that. Just silly (or so I thought at the time, seemingly alone among those worried about such things).

    Repeating this —

    “Joe – What can I say? Things don’t always go as planned.”

    In my experience so far (since about June 2012) they have repeatedly gone exactly as Wes has predicted they would go.

    The guy has qualified as a prophet even by Old Testament standards.

    Remember the punishment for being a false prophet. It seems about to rain down on yall.

    (or so it seems to me)

    Joe

    “The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion” Det. 13. (see for example: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm.)

    🙂

  37. Richard P. Burke

    Joe,

    If things had gone as Wes prophesied, our convention delegate slates would have been ignored at the last two conventions, the LNC would have reversed it’s previous votes supporting us, and us plaintiffs would all have judgments attached to us for tens of thousands of dollars by now.

    We won some early rounds in court, which Wes did not predict. He subsequently won one round that had nothing to do with the merits of the case, and an appeal on that point is still in play. So far as I can see, this one round is what you are using to case Mr. Wagner as a “prophet”. I also know Mr. Wagner didn’t expect anything like the resistance to his coup that we put up or the lengths LPO members have been willing to go to in order to restore governing documents adopted by members at properly noticed conventions.

    As for myself, I don’t claim to be a prophet. I offer estimations which, like Mr. Wagner’s, are not always correct. But holding Mr. Wagner up as a “prophet even by Old Testament Standards” is a bit premature and, perhaps, another example of hyperbole.

    This isn’t the first time Mr. Wagner has gone after us. After early success, his efforts always collapsed in the end. Like his 2006 lawsuit. Like his LPO recall election. Like the subsequent small claims suit that he backed, though he was not a plaintiff. Mr. Wagner was not prophetic then, either.

    Nobody can guarantee with certainty who will prevail at the end of this, but it is a fact that things can change quickly and there are a lot of moving parts to this. But in the end, as it will either be us or them who prevails, anyone with a coin to flip on the matter has a 50% chance of being “prophetic”.

    Richard P. Burke

  38. Joe

    Richard,

    I was being less serious than it appeared. In the summer of 2012, when ballot access in Oregon ate up a fair amount of my time, Wes was spot on in his predictions; Aaron, et all were way off.

    As for the conventions and what happened, I’d not be so certain about what Wes wanted, or how that was set up for you. Just saying, the guy is not stupid, he is a student of military history and tactics. The ultimate victors often set up apparent strategic losses along the way.

    I watched my cat kill a mouse the other day. Took a lot of time. The mouse seemed to have won, right up to the end. I’ve been to Mongolia five times now. The cat reminded me of Chinggis Khaan.

    😉

    Joe

  39. Wes Wagner

    Richard

    That is a felony in Oregon to pass a check of that size which you can’t cash.

    Don’t worry, you won’t be in the hot seat alone 😉

    Every single person who helped you will be there too to share in the repercussions of their actions.

  40. Wes Wagner

    (also please don’t have Eric Saub send us one either… we read all about the quality of his checks)

  41. Steve M

    “. People who don’t live on IPR see right through you, and not just in Oregon.”

    Richard P. Burke

    and my mom used to say… I didn’t make a good window….

  42. Jill Pyeatt

    Richard, I’m part if several Libertarian groups, some of whom know nothing about IPR. Those of us in CA have a general concept of what’s going on in Oregon. NO ONE is on your side. No one understands why you’re continuing your efforts to destroy the LP of Oregon. The phrase “laughingstock” comes up actually. You would benefit from a reality check.

  43. Fred

    Mr Burke,
    Yes I misrepresented the facts:
    Your claim to authority wasn’t based on showing up at a cancelled meeting, it is based on showing up at a cancelled convention.

    Please forgive me for this blatant error that completely changes the legitimacy of your claim.

    As to your other claims that all these were based on the legitimate governing documents– no, the documents that had been in place were not deemed legitimate due to multiple claims of misrepresentation during their creation.
    you keep repeating that the old documents were legitimate– yet you have never even attempted to prove that they were and every time you’ve been presented with the reasons why they were not legitimate, you dismiss the large pile if facts.

  44. Wes Wagner

    Fred

    You are probably not aware since you have not been involved in the deposition processes, but all 5 of the people at Burke’s alleged state committee meeting were unable to true up their credentials to represent the LPO under the old rules – notwithstanding that 5 people would not have been a quorum under parliamentary law, and all of Burke’s arguments that defy the rights of absentees aside.

  45. Wes Wagner

    To be entirely fair though the entire situation is really quite pathetic… there are people who struggle to heal from being a quadruple amputee: http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2014/11/quadruple-amputee-gains-new-arms

    Burke fights to gain dominion over a group of people who don’t want him so he can use dues money to fund his McDonald’s habits again with a party debit card.

    What is even more sad is that people were willing to believe his lies and back him out of their own petty political desires. There is an old saying, you can’t con an honest man. In that Burke at least did us a service by giving us a fair warning about all the other people who were so willing to believe and help him.

  46. paulie

    “We’ve simply decided to return to doing Libertarian politics in the field” That would actually be good.

    I agree!

    Of course, it’s also easier said than done, so I look forward to seeing what actually happens.

  47. Joseph Buchman Post author

    “Libertarian politics in the field”

    What would that look like based on principle?

    In this case I don’t think having two groups both branded as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” is very effective.

    Likda like me moving to California and opening up “Disneyland” in Anaheim because I want to do “theme park in the field.”

    🙂

  48. paulie

    If someone shows up to lobby the legislature and introduces himself as a Libertarian, if they lobby for pro-liberty issues, does it matter which LPO faction they affiliate with?

    If someone wants to create a county group that has meetings, does tabling, and registers voters, and if the current state-recognized LPO is either not interested in chartering local affiliates or has no one in some areas, is that political activity, and do you have something against it?

  49. Wes Wagner

    I do when they start asking for dues payments for an entity they don’t represent.

    I also have a problem with it when they represent they are an officer of a political party when they are really just an officer of a misc PAC.

    We call that FRAUD.

  50. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie said:
    “If someone shows up to lobby the legislature and introduces himself as a Libertarian, if they lobby for pro-liberty issues, does it matter which LPO faction they affiliate with? ”

    It would certainly matter to me, especially with the close ties the fake LPO has with the Republican Party.

  51. Wes Wagner

    Well I was giving the hypothetical benefit of the doubt to the hypothetical parties who were hypothetically actually doing work to advance libertarians.

    We all know what reality is like.

  52. Dave Terry

    Jill wrote: “At least they’re finally admitting that they want things to move toward the Republican Party.”

    Just WHO are this “they”, that want things to move toward the Republican Party?

    JP> “Has anyone established how many people are in this group? Can I count them with only my two hands?”

    It will take ALL THREE of your hands; the one at the end of your left arm, the one at the end of your right arm AND the one that’s up your back, pulling all your strings.

    JP> “The phrase “laughingstock” comes up actually. You would benefit from a reality check.”

    The “reality” is that defeat is temporary, surrender is permanent!.

  53. Jill Pyeatt

    Whatever, Dave.

    The “pulling my strings” comment is particularly amusing. You clearly don’t know me. I’m not known for letting anyone pull my strings.

  54. paulie

    Well I was giving the hypothetical benefit of the doubt to the hypothetical parties who were hypothetically actually doing work to advance libertarians.

    Me too. As I said we’ll see what develops, since it’s easier to say you will do something than to actually do it.

  55. Fred

    So according to dave there are In between 11 and 15 members in their group.
    Either that or three members and he hadn’t figured out how to count with his fingers.
    But how many of them are actually registered as Libertarians in Oregon?

  56. Wes Wagner

    How many of them ran for office? How many of them donated to their PAC in the last 12 months (seemingly zero or near zero according to their financial reports)

    How many collected a single signature for a voter guide statement or anything?

  57. Richard P. Burke

    Wagner #1 – You are completely wrong about quorum at the 5/21/11 State Committee meeting held immediately after the convention session adjourned sine die. Even if you were not wrong, nobody at the meeting raised quorum as an issue. Under RRO, that’s it. If you really believed quorum might be an issue, it might have been smart to send one officer to the event who might have raised the issue.

    Wagner #2 – You also know full well that my expeditures as the LPO’s Exec. were reviewed in light of your charges by a committee appointed by the State Committee and they found nothing improper. The receipts for meetings I had at such places as McDonald’s were noted with who I met with and what the purpose of the meeting was.

    Paulie – Thank you.

    Joseph – Regarding what doing libertarian work “in the field” would look like, I will refer you to the text of “Operation Groundswell” which lays it out well. We had a good day at the legislature yesterday. Details to come!

    Wagner #3- You call what we are doing to be “fraud.” You call everything you disagree with “fraud.” On our website and our mailings, we disclose the situation. At the legislature and to the press yesterday, Tim and I disclosed the situation. If one discloses the situation, there is no fraud.

    Jill #1 – A lot of people in CA are on our side. Your state chair, Keven Takenaga, for one. Also a substantial percentage of the CA delegation supported our delegate configurations in the two last national conventions. Opinion is not united in CA.

    Jill #2- Concerning our alleged “ties” to the GOP, people may think differently soon. A bill will be introduced that the GOP will not like, and one of the most promising legislative initiatives on our agenda will be spearheaded by a Democrat. Given that I worked on two Libertarian campaigns the GOP perceived to have cost them victory, the “GOP plant” narrative will melt in the light of close scrutiny. When we believe it is in the interests of liberty to do so, those in our group will work temporarily with others, including Republicans and Democrats, to advance freedom on specific matters.

    Wagner #4 – We will let our projects play out and rest on the determination of others how “hypothetical” our work is. At the same time, we will see what your group accomplishes.

    Fred #1a – Concerning the purportedly cancelled convention session. The 3/12/11 convention session “adjourned to a meeting” to be held on 5/21/11 at the request of Wes Wagner. This session could not therefore be cancelled by the State Committee as the State Committee is subordinate to the LPO convention. Article VI, Section 1, Para B of the bylaws says, “The State Committee shall have the responsibility, subject to direction by the LPO convention, for the development and implementation of party policy, the operations of the LPO, and the expenditure of LPO funds” and “The State Committee shall perform such other functions as it may be directed to perform by the Constitution and Bylaws or by LPO convention.” Had the State Committee called the 5/21/11 session, it could have cancelled it. But the State Committee had no authority to override action taken at convention.

    Fred #1b – You keep saying that you and others did not deem the 2009 bylaws legitimate because you had questions about their creation. Prior to your coup, the bylaws were last amended at the 2009 convention. Never did any members raise the issue in JudComm, the 2010 convention, or place the issue on the 2011 convention agenda. No motions were ever made to contest or amend the 2009 convention minutes. Even so, LPO Constitution, which also requires amendment to take place at an LPO convention, was not amended in 2009, and nobody EVER contested that.

    Fred #2 – We have a lot more members than that. You are forgetting the lifetime members. Before the 2013 Annual Business Convention, many of them were asked to resign their memberships in order to help us make quorum. Some did. Those which did had their memberships restored after the convention. These lifetime members represent nationally known libertarians, quality activists, and significant donors. As for the rest, rebuilding membership is again a priority. Those who have fallen off will be invited back, and we will be able to use the Oregon Political Tax Credit to offer them an effective dues rate of $0.

    Wagner #5 – You’d have to poll them to determine their level of advocacy. A lot of us have been politically active. As for the future, our Project Groundswell represents a good start in returning to the level of activity and success we enjoyed from 2002-2006.

    Richard P. Burke

  58. Wes Wagner

    Richard

    Rights of absentees are perpetual and no corporate acts in the absence of a quorum having never been established in the minutes can be enforceable. You are a fucking idiot.

    The fact that you still will not concede this point in spite of it being prima facie makes it impossible to argue with you because you do not recognize objective reality.

    Fortunately the law does and you will find taht out the hard way.

  59. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    Even if you are right on the quorum issue, and we still hold that a quorum WAS present, this would only bring into question who the leaders of the organization are – not the governing documents.

    Richard P. Burke

  60. Wes Wagner

    Burke,

    Every person to the man in depositions was unable to prove they were authorized by their respective county parties and in fact their governing documents and minutes said otherwise.

    The law you relied on to raise your case (which now you have no standing since you have no plaintiffs with standing if the rules were as you claim), also states that such amendment of the bylaws as was done on March 31st was legal.

    Your lawsuit is so absurd that I will be suing for wrongful initiation if we do not get some other alternative damage award between then and now.

  61. Wes Wagner

    Just to be clear, filing a lawsuit with false pleadings, affidavits with false statements and facts, your lawyer having to concede that you and your co plaintiffs destroyed evidence after the case began, hiring a lawyer who cannot possibly have a viable conflict of interest waiver because your dispute itself is about the corporate authority, continuing the case even when all the facts have been proven out in deposition to not support your case, that you don’t have standing, that even if you did have standing you would be claim/issue precluded, that the law itself you use as the basis for the standing for your claim state that the very acts you complain about are permissible,…

    it is beyond absurd, and a reckoning will come.

  62. Jill Pyeatt

    Burke said: “Before the 2013 Annual Business Convention, many of them were asked to resign their memberships in order to help us make quorum. Some did. Those which did had their memberships restored after the convention.”

    It is highly disturbing to me to that you did this. I’d raise holy hell if someone cheated like that in my state.

  63. Fred

    So how many dues paying members do you have?
    How many lifetime members?
    And how many of each are registered as Libertarians in Oregon?

  64. Fred

    Besides,
    I didn’t forget anyone. I’m just using Dave’s three handed math.

    You see, there are five fingers on each hand– and so if you need three hands to count all your member you must have….
    Oh never mind you probably still won’t get it
    Paulie, can you post a picture?

  65. Dave Terry

    Frantic Fred wrote: PROJECT 6: Sue the party to take control
    Because they can’t get elected by all voting members of the party, they will continue their lawsuit to take control of the party based on the premise that showing up at a cancelled meeting gives them legitimacy.

    PROJECT 7: Encourage people to vote against Libertarian candidates.
    They will continue to mail voters to encourage them to not vote for the libertarian candidate and to vote for the Republican instead.

    PROJECT 8: gain as many titles as possible from every upstart political cause to make it appear as they have authority, while failing to do any useful work, or to create any meaningful action or change through any of those organizations.

    Fred I have, until today considered you to be an honest, if somehow misinformed, person.
    But these fraudulent “PROJECTS” is just so much sewage!

    You should be ashamed of yourself!

  66. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Richard,

    Thanks for the replies. I find them interesting as do, apparently, most of our readers.

    If you’re still in the mood to answer questions, I have a few for you, you or Wes, or you&Wes.

    1) What has this legal battle cost so far — total for both sides. I believe Aaron Starr confirmed having “invested” $100,000 or so so far on your side.

    2) Do you feel it has been worth the cost? What, if anything, would you do differently if you had it to do over?

    3) When do you expect to win? Is a judge looking at the appeal now? Is there a date for a Hearing? A ruling?

    4) If you do win that appeal, would the other side have the ability to appeal that decision? How long could this A) realistically take before it is all settled B) what’s the maximum amount of time that it could take?

    5) I gather this battle did not begin on the day that the other LPO split from your LPO. Do you see a clear point where this conflict started? Was it before Wes became involved? It seems to me (without knowing all the facts here — and apparently without having the ability to really “grok” all of this) that Oregon has had various conflicts going back to to the late 1980s at least. Is that accurate?

    6) Given project Groundswell, if you had taken that approach when the two groups split, could you have not overwhelmed the other LPO with loyalists, and accomplished what you hope to accomplish with these lawsuits at far lower cost?

    7) Bottom line — is it worth it? Because I gather that most of our readers see you guys a lot like the “Let this be your last battlefield” episode of ST:TOS.

    Thanks again for your earlier candid replies. I am sincerely interested in any insights to any/all of the above you may have (and acknowledge my bias toward Wes. I mean, who can’t help but LIKE that guy?)

    🙂

    Joe

  67. Fred

    Dave,

    I don’t think satire can be fraudulent. But then what do I know, I didn’t think one could create satire in a frantic way either.
    But It is nearly hysterical that you think I should be ashamed for satirically claiming that the things your group has done in the past are part of your plans for the future — instead of being ashamed yourself that you take part in these activities.

  68. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt> “I nominate Burke as the second most delusional person I’ve encountered on IPR.
    I won’t mention who the first person is out of respect for the mentally ill.

    You must be referring to the multiplicity of folks who voted for NOA at the 2012 convention.

  69. Dave Terry

    Fred: Sorry that I didn’t recognize your comments as “satire”. Clearly, they were hardly distinguishaible from the nonsense spouted by your, “allies?”

    Just out of curiosity, can a person be accountable for alleged actions of a “group” that occured years before that person joined that “group”?

  70. Wes Wagner

    “You must be referring to the multiplicity of folks who voted for NOA at the 2012 convention.”

  71. paulie

    You see, there are five fingers on each hand– and so if you need three hands to count all your member you must have….
    Oh never mind you probably still won’t get it
    Paulie, can you post a picture?

  72. Dave Terry

    Steve M says> “My other observation is that Groundswell is a heavily used term.
    Can’t the Burke team come up with a less used more original project name?”

    So you would prefer a more vague and esoteric term?
    WHICH pseudo-intellectual term would you prefer?

  73. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt wrote:
    “It seems Burke et al are very comfortable with stealing.”

    You are getting extremely close to libel, Jill. Are you at
    liberty to indicate who “et-al” refers to

  74. Wes Wagner

    At least there is no sworn declaration under penalty of perjury in a case which has had its final disposition sitting in a court docket with lies on it about what happened that day which can be refuted by everyone but Mr Terry himself who was present.

  75. Jill Pyeatt

    And I can’t tell you who “et al” is because I don’t know who the current less-than-fifteen members of your renegade group is, Dave.

  76. Wes Wagner

    I have a feeling that their active membership can be counted on three hands because one would use only middle fingers to count them.

  77. Dave Terry

    It makes sense that you would THINK that, since you only HAVE middle fingers and can only express yourself using them

  78. Dave Terry

    Jill> “And I can’t tell you who “et al” is because I don’t know who the current less-than-fifteen members of your renegade group is, Dave.

    Well, can you name even ONE?

    Can you also explain how you can accuse “et al” of being “very comfortable with stealing”, if you don’t even know who they are?

  79. Martin Passoli

    Well, can you name even ONE?

    I’ll take Eric Saub for $50,000, Alex.

    http://www.bendbulletin.com/csp/mediapool/sites/BendBulletin/News/story.csp?cid=1522419&sid=497&fid=151

    Can you also explain how you can accuse “et al” of being “very comfortable with stealing”, if you don’t even know who they are?

    If one were to accept the allegations against certain close allies of yours as being true, the fact that you are working closely with them logically indicates that you must have a certain level of comfort with their activities, which have been discussed in many past threads here and elsewhere and in the court documents ad nauseum.

    I am not making any positive claims though; I’ll leave that to others.

  80. Dave Terry

    You stole the name of “Libertarian Party of Oregon”, remember?

    100% WRONG!!! Because of inadequacies and inconsistencies in election law and bias in the Sec’y of State’s Office, the name of Libertarian Party was detached from the legal documents
    that created it and awarded to usurpers.

  81. Steve M

    Steve M says> “My other observation is that Groundswell is a heavily used term.
    Can’t the Burke team come up with a less used more original project name?”

    So you would prefer a more vague and esoteric term?
    WHICH pseudo-intellectual term would you prefer?

    Dave Terry,

    I am not sure you can get much more vague and esoteric then groundswell.

    I would prefer the dropping of the legal battles, name calling and use of republican lawyers in exchange for letting the registered libertarian voters decide who their leadership is and whom their candidates are going to be.

    But given your stated goals of building competing county parties and continued fighting for control I would suggest Project Cake as in you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Which is really to bad because what Oregon really needs from all sides is project Humble Pie.

  82. Fred

    Paulie– Thanks for the picture, it was perfect.

    Dave– I have no idea what you mean by your use of “parentheses”

  83. Dave Terry

    Fred – I use “quote marks” for emphasis OR when I use a word that has multiple meanings.
    I’m not aware of using (parentheses) on this string, but I generally use them when I am quoting another person and calling attention to an incorrect use of a term or spelling.

  84. Dave Terry

    Pastassolit> “I am not making any positive claims though; I’ll leave that to others.”

    Of course not, why use statements when innuendo will suffice?

  85. paulie

    Dave– I have no idea what you mean by your use of “parentheses”

    No one ever does. Just one of the many reasons to not even read, and especially not reply, to anything he ever posts.

  86. Richard P. Burke

    Joe,

    I thought I’d take a stab at answering your questions. They’re good questions, so here goes:

    1) What has this legal battle cost so far — total for both sides. I believe Aaron Starr confirmed having “invested” $100,000 or so so far on your side.

    I think that is about right for Aaron, though I would guess it is a little more by now. I think that the other side has spent a lot more than we have (they have more lawyers). None of this includes the time and energy all of us have invested.

    2) Do you feel it has been worth the cost? What, if anything, would you do differently if you had it to do over?

    I won’t know the answer to this question until the situation is resolved one way or the other.

    What we are fighting for here is not personal control over the party, propaganda from the other side notwithstanding. I think I am safe in saying that while we would prefer some leaders over others, leaders are transitional and we don’t care so much who is in charge at any particular moment. There’s always next year.

    We are fighting to the idea that it should be impossible for one person, a party’s “Chair of Record” to sit at a kitchen table, write a set of bylaws and officer list, hand them to the Sec. of State, and have them be accepted as valid when the party’s governing documents specify a different method of amending or adopting governing documents.

    Knowing what I know now, and going back in time, there would be many opportunities to prevent what has been happening. In 2007, when Mr. Wagner worked to amend our bylaws in a special convention held close to New Year’s Eve, he got rid of the delegate system in favor of operating as an “Assembly of Members”. Fine, but he forgot to include a quorum clause. This omission, once discovered, was at the center of why we could not make quorum in Nov. 2010 and Mar. 2011. Had we had a quorum clause in place, the coup of 3/31/11 could not have happened.

    We could have worked with the Sec. of State or legislature to find a legal and constitutional alternative to allowing one person to effectively re-write a party’s organizational structure in violation of that party’s bylaws. We could have organized a little more and caused the 2011 LPO convention to end on 3/12/11 sine die instead of adjourning to a meeting on 3/21/11.

    3) When do you expect to win? Is a judge looking at the appeal now? Is there a date for a Hearing? A ruling?

    We have filed our appeal brief. Wagner’s side will file theirs soon. This will take time. I don’t know how much. But there are other ways the situation could be resolved before the judicial process runs it’s course. There could be a change in the Sec. of State’s unwritten policy that Wagner’s group draws it’s legitimacy from. There could be legislation. There could be action by the national party that impacts the situation. There are a lot of moving parts.

    4) If you do win that appeal, would the other side have the ability to appeal that decision? How long could this A) realistically take before it is all settled B) what’s the maximum amount of time that it could take?

    I don’t know the answer to any of those questions. But I have a feeling that the farther down that path we go, the harder it will be for either side to get a reversal. If we get the keys back, I think we’ll keep them unless new leaders are elected in accordance with governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions.

    5) I gather this battle did not begin on the day that the other LPO split from your LPO. Do you see a clear point where this conflict started? Was it before Wes became involved? It seems to me (without knowing all the facts here — and apparently without having the ability to really “grok” all of this) that Oregon has had various conflicts going back to to the late 1980s at least. Is that accurate?

    The Libertarian Party in Oregon, like the national party, has always had a factional divide. The conflict pre-dates both Wes and I, though there have been periods of calm and associated productivity. I witnessed the riff myself when I joined the party in 1990. Dr. Fred Oerther (who recruited me into the party) and some of his friends would frequently clash with Dr. Paul Smith and some of his friends. I heard complaints from both sides that are familiar today. But I think this is as bad as it has ever been.

    6) Given project Groundswell, if you had taken that approach when the two groups split, could you have not overwhelmed the other LPO with loyalists, and accomplished what you hope to accomplish with these lawsuits at far lower cost?

    If I understand what the Sec. of State has told us thus far, even if we had we every LPO member on our side standing against Mr. Wagner, his status as the “Chair of Record” would be all the Secretary of State would recognize. It is possible that the Sec. of State might have recognized the national party’s position on the matter, as they have done twice before. But while the LNC recognized us, the Judicial Committee deferred to the Sec. of State who said they would not adjudicate the case. In either case, meritorious activism would not have been of help.

    That said, we accomplished many projects similar to “Project Groundswell” from 2002-06 before Wagner and his friends started suing the party after they were unable to have their way at conventions and State Committee meetings. We regularly elected people to non-partisan office. We got a partisan county commissioner to defect to the LP. We had an office with a paid internship program. We had a legislative presence and passed two election reform bills into law. We were recognized as leaders in two anti-tax ballot measure campaigns – on two consecutive election nights, all four Portland news organizations set up camp in our office. Radio talk shows were broadcasting from our office. We had a statewide county party network. We had an relationship with the World Affairs Council who sent in MPs from other countries to learn about libertarianism. It was our success that prompted the citing of the 2006 national convention in Portland.

    I’m not saying we didn’t make mistakes. I made some. All of us did. But I certainly never tried to get our governing documents changed in a monthly state committee meeting. Had I done what Wes tried to do, I’m sure he’d have condemned me for it.

    In 2006, once Wagner and his friends began suing, donors closed their wallets. Mr. Wagner also initiated a criminal investigation against me alleging that I forged a signature on a campaign finance document. The case was sealed during the investigation, and Wagner wrote LPO members that I was under “criminal investigation” without telling them what the charge was or that he was the one initiating the charge. It was eventually dismissed as groundless (the LPO Treasurer had attested to the fact that I signed the document on her behalf with her permission – I had attempted to register her signature, but did it incorrectly).

    Getting back to the present, remember too that we have not until recently been able to operate as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” without risk of being hit with campaign finance reporting violations. Now that we are at least recognized as a miscellaneous PAC, we can operate in the open, offer the Oregon Political Tax Credit, and otherwise function normally. Prior to this development, it was hard to take on much of anything and get it funded by donors. We didn’t have access to the LPO website or LPO funds. Kind of hard to do much under those circumstances. But circumstances are now changing and we can function again.

    7) Bottom line — is it worth it? Because I gather that most of our readers see you guys a lot like the “Let this be your last battlefield” episode of ST:TOS.

    I’ve heard people compare the Star Trek episode to our current conflict. But it is not apt.

    At the end of the episode, both antagonists had a total hatred of each other. While I don’t know how he feels about it, but I don’t hate Wes. When I am not dealing with this conflict, I never even think of Wes. I’m sure he is good to the people in his life and that his wife loves him. I don’t like what he does within the LPO, but I don’t know Wes well enough to like or hate him as a person. One thing I have learned is to do ones best not to take things too personally in politics. If this were over tomorrow I would not concern myself with Wes.

    Another difference is that, at the end, both civilizations died, eliminating both of the causes they were fighting for. That’s not true here. Whatever happens, there will be a Libertarian Party, an Oregon Libertarian Party, and Libertarian voters. Not a dead planet. Even if the LPO were to wind up in ruins, someone would be around to rebuild it. But not even this will happen as long as things like “Project Groundswell” are undertaken.

    What we are fighting for is the idea that governing documents and officers can only be changed in accordance to those rules adopted voluntarily by members in properly noticed conventions, which is the legitimate way to function according to the legitimate LPO governing documents.

    We are fighting against the idea that one person can change these things at will due to an unwritten policy.

    We are fighting against the idea that a Libertarian organization, in this case the previous Judicial Committee, could defer to the state in matters of how our party is structured and who the leaders are.

    We are fighting for the concept, established in the legitimate governing documents, that those who have a say within the party subscribe to the non-aggression pledge and put some skin into the game, even though the Oregon Political Tax Credit lowers their net cost to zero. Those who are just Registered Libertarian electors have always been able to participate in candidate nominating conventions as candidates, delegates, or both.

    If we are unsuccessful, how do we know the next chair will not re-write the bylaws again and handpick new officers according to his/her preference? And the next one? Just as one cannot build a foundation on shifting sand, people will be less likely to invest time, talent, and money in an organization where membership rights and responsibilities are not secure and where the very fabric and makeup of the organization is subject to the caprice of one person. Such is the precedent that will be set if Mr. Wagner is successful, whether that is his intention or not. He may sincerely believe that his chosen means are necessary to do what he thinks is right, but the next chair may not be similarly motivated.

    This is why we are fighting. And if we accomplish these things, it will be worth it. If we don’t, it won’t.

    Thanks again for your earlier candid replies. I am sincerely interested in any insights to any/all of the above you may have (and acknowledge my bias toward Wes. I mean, who can’t help but LIKE that guy?) 🙂

    Before Wes and I found ourselves in conflict, we got along fine. I’m sure he has many fine qualities, and, yes, he is very smart. But that doesn’t make him right in this case. Within the context of this situation, I only know that by his own admission, he and his supporters have attempted to co-opt the force of government to achieve a political goal in violation of our pledge.

    Thanks,

    Richard

  87. Wes Wagner

    Then there is reality, more accurately reflected by this email from Fred Jabin in 2007:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: statecomm-bounces@lists.lporegon.org
    [ mailto:statecomm-bounces@lists.lporegon.org]On Behalf Of Fred Jabin
    Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:44 PM
    To: statecomm@lists.lporegon.org; LPO Volunteers’ List; LPO
    Announcements List
    Subject: [Statecomm] Termination for Just Cause

    Dear state committee members and Libertarians:

    Last night I attended an invitation-only meeting held by Richard Burke. The topic of discussion was how to eliminate the problems of aggression against the party.
    In the meeting Richard Burke outlined a plan which included removing members from the party for actions deemed destructive to the party, disaffiliating Multnomah county, circumventing the party’s bylaws, removing the representatives from Deschuttes county and Lane county on technicalities, and ostracizing members who did not “play nice.”

    His intentions were to conspire with the party chairman, Don Smith (whom he claimed has the power of God over the party) and Frank Dane who presides over Jud com. to make sure that the unwanted members had no voice to keep causing trouble. Thankfully, no one attending the meeting seemed interested in pursuing the goals that Mr. Burke was promoting. Still, it is my opinion that it is unacceptable to have a paid contractor attempt to silence several members of the state committee, and break the party’s bylaws in an effort to achieve his political agenda.

    That is why I have asked for discussion of Richard Burke’s contract to be terminated for just cause added to the state committee agenda. The people who were in attendance at the meeting were Don Smith, Frank Dane, Jeff Weston, Inessa Hamilton-lee, Tom Cox (left early), Alfredo Torrejon, Richard Whitehead, Richard Burke and myself. I am not a member of the reform group and I disagree with all of the lawsuits against the party. I am taking this action because I personally believe that the party can not move forward with an Executive Director who is willing to take those actions.

    I have enclosed a copy of the draft I sent to Don Smith
    In Peace and Freedom
    Fred P Jabin
    Chairman Marion County

    Don,
    I would respectfully ask that you include on the next state committee meeting agenda, discussion and debate about terminating Richard Burke’s contract for just cause.
    I believe that his attempt to create a conspiracy to break the bylaws of our organization and to remove Multnomah county from our organization and to discredit the representatives from Deschuttes and Lane counties in order to further his political agenda is unacceptable for a contractor who is hired to serve the members of this party.
    I would also assert that he has been negligent and/or ineffective in his duties as a fundraiser for the party.

    I will make my accusations more clear and will present them with plenty of time for everyone to respond but I wanted to get this request to you at the very earliest time.
    Thank you
    Fred P Jabin
    Chairman of Marion County

  88. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    i have a copy of this email. It is a wholesale misrepresentation of what happened.

    We had a number of people claiming to be county representatives on the state committee which were not selected in accordance with the county party bylaws.

    Some just showed up to meetings and said, I am from county “x”. One in particular asked a county chair if it would be OK for her to represent him at the meeting.

    What I asked for was a credentialing process to assure that all of those asserting to be county reps were actually authorized by their respective county parties in accordance with their bylaws. This was interpreted by my political opponents as wanting to kick people off the state committee and disenfranchise members.

    Even with at least four “State Committee members” whose credentials were in question, I was not fired and served until October of 2007 which was a time I determined to leave. The Chair at the time, Don Smith was supportive to the end.

    Richard P. Burke

  89. Wes Wagner

    “We had a number of people claiming to be county representatives on the state committee which were not selected in accordance with the county party bylaws.”

    Depositions in the current lawsuit show that all 5 people at the state committee non-meeting that occurred in May 2011 where people who were not members of the former state committee voted to appoint new officers to non vacant positions (or rather positions that would not have been vacant if the old rules were still in effect) were not actually holders of the offices they claimed to represent.

    Burke’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  90. Richard P. Burke

    Also, as to fundraising, I will assert and can prove, from documents in the “Orrin Grover Memorial Trash Pile,” that I probably raised about $100,000 during my time with the LPO. Certainly more, I think, than my political opponents during that time.

    Richard P. Burke

  91. Wes Wagner

    So immoralities are ok so long as you can convince people to blow their money on waste, administrative overhead and provide something to piler from for yourself… got it.

  92. Wes Wagner

    Because the State Committee and Richard Burke will not answer Lars
    Hedbor after over 14 days… I am posting this issue for public
    discourse.

    Posts from Lars Hedbor->>>

    Still the vigil continues in a search for an answer to simple questions

    What compelling reason is there for continuing to permit routine debit
    card access to the LPO’s operating account?

    What is the history behind starting down this path to an uncrontrolled
    financial situation, which has left every treasurer (that I’m aware of)
    since its inception on the hook for fines and penalties? (And people
    wonder why we have a hard time retaining treasurers…)

    Why do we have the cart before the horse, with expenditures pre-paid by
    the party, and then reimbursed if they cannot be substantiated, instead
    of paid for by the person incurring them, and reimbursed by the party
    upon substantiation?

    Why is the party leadership ducking these simple questions? Certainly,
    I mean our officers – they are responsible to the membership for the
    conduct of staff, but I also mean YOU, my fellow State Committee
    members.

    – Lars D. H. Hedbor
    Vice Chair, Clackamas County Libertarian Party

    ————– Original message ————–
    From: “Lars Hedbor”

    Howdy, folks.

    Just a quick note to let you all know that I still care, and I’d
    still love to hear even one compelling reason for permitting anyone
    routine debit card access to the party’s operating account. Also, I
    thought it might be instructive to recap:

    * October 1: Mr. Terry commented to the State Committee list
    with what appeared to be a defense of Mr. Burke’s usage of the debit
    card on the grounds that the LPO owes him a lot of money.
    I was moved to respond to this comment, recounting a similar
    situation in my own experience, with a different resolution.
    Mr. Burke and I exchanged a couple more e-mails, he asking
    for patience, and I expressing patience.

    * October 2: Mr. Burke suggests more frequent oversight of his
    activities, and outlines the 2004 expense policy, which requires him to
    compensate the LPO for expenses for which he cannot properly account.
    The Treasurer publishes the check register.

    * October 3: I review the check register, and express dismay at
    the pattern of usage apparent in it. I ask the question (which still
    begs an answer!) of what compelling reason there is for permitting
    routine debit card usage.
    Mr. Burke replies, again asking for patience, and claiming
    that all expenditures will be accounted for or else reimbursed.
    I respond, expressing weariness at waiting, and note that
    I’m not questioning the expenditures at this time, but the process.

    * October 4: Mr. Burke responds, decrying the timing of the
    complaints against him, and hinting that if only I had been more active
    in the party heretofore, all of this could have been avoided.
    I respond, taking umbrage at the insinuation that my
    commitment to the party has been wanting, and asking for an answer to
    my simple question.

    * October 5: I ask the question again.

    * October 6: I ask the question again.

    * October 7: I ask the question again, noting that I appear to
    be being ignored.
    Burke responds, saying that the questions are not being
    ignored, but stating that he does not intend to provide an answer via
    the (inherently documented and broadly distributed) e-mail list, but
    will only respond in the (inherently incompletely documented and
    poorly-attended) state committee meeting.
    I reply that, since I’m not trying to set policy, but
    gather information, I don’t see why the e-mail list is the wrong
    forum to use. I again ask the question.
    Burke again responds that he will not answer questions on the
    e-mail list, and will only answer in the state committee meeting.
    I reply again, noting that I do not require h is response,
    actually, since I’m asking questions about a policy, which is a
    matter for committee members, not staff. I further point out that in
    questions of ethics, the appearance of misdeeds is often as damaging as
    actual misdeeds. I ask the question again.
    – Hide quoted text –

    Mr. McDaniel and I have a brief discussion about the roots of
    the problem of the large debt to Mr. Burke; Mr. McDaniel states that
    the way to solve the debit card problem is to pay him what he’s owed.
    I agree that he should be paid, but deny that there’s a legitimate
    linkage to the debit card question. I ask the question again.

    – Hide quoted text –
    * October 8: I note that it appears that everyone agrees that
    usage of the debit card for personal expenses to settle this debt is
    not the appropriate solution to this problem, and I ask the question
    again. I further ask if anyone else has looked at the check register
    that caused me so much concern.
    Mr. McDaniel calls for everyone to sit down together to find
    a legal solution to the problem.

    * October 9: I again ask whether anyone’s looked at the check
    register, and I ask the question again.
    Mr. Burke posts a message decrying all of the
    “demoralizing” e-mails to the list, and saying that he’s sorry
    that he has responded to any of them.
    I object to Mr. Burke’s insinuation that this is all about
    attacking him, and again ask the State Committee members to look at the
    check register, which I attach for easy reference. I ask the question
    again.

    * October 10: Reflecting on the fact that some members of the
    State Committee list may not be set up to view attachments in the
    format provided, I post a one-month extract of the check register for
    easy reference, and beg the members to glance at it, and make up their
    own minds as to the concerns I’ve raised. I ask the question again.

    – Hide quoted text –

    That brings us up to today. I ask the question again: What
    compelling reason is there to permit anyone routine access via debit
    card to the operating account of the Libertarian Party of Oregon?

    I look forward to any and all answers to this simple question.

    – Lars D. H. Hedbor

    Vice Chair, Clackamas County Libertarian Party

    – Hide quoted text –

    From: statecomm-bounces@lists.lporegon.org
    [mailto:statecomm-bounces@lists.lporegon.org] On Behalf Of
    lhedbor@comcast.net
    Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:56 PM
    To: statecomm@lists.lporegon.org
    Subject: RE: [Statecomm] C&E Filing Update

    It occurs to me that perhaps not everyone here is set up to open
    PDF files, and so that’s why nobody else seems to be concerned about
    the check register. As a service to those who can’t (or prefer not to)
    open Adobe Acrobat files, I’ve extracted the most recent month’s
    activity, and include it below.

    I implore each of you to just glance over this information. If you
    are so moved, please do go ahead and compare it to the original file
    sent by the Treasurer. In light of this raw data, the uncontested
    facts of the account register, consider whether we can continue to
    tolerate routine debit card access to the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s
    operating account.

    Thank you.

    – Lars D. H. Hedbor

    Vice Chair, Clackamas County Libertarian Party

    Here’s the data:

    – Hide quoted text –
    8/9/2006 Discover Network PC-3;G Merchant Fees 10.61 1057.72
    8/9/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 6.40 1051.32
    8/9/2006 1163 Emily Shults PC-3;G Intern 10.00 1041.32
    8/9/2006 1164 Prime One Political Consulting PC-3 VOID:US Bank
    woud… X 1041.32
    8/9/2006 1165 CIT Group PC-3;G Copier 266.91 774.41
    8/10/2006 Debit Card Pizzicato PC-3;M Meal 12.25 762.16
    8/11/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 125.00 887.16
    8/11/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 50.00 937.16
    8/11/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 11.60 925.56
    8/13/2006 Deb it Card Figaro’s Pizza ! PC-3;M& nbsp;Meal 7.99
    917.57
    8/13/2006 Debit Card Arby’s PC-3;M Meal 7.97 909.60
    8/14/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 1000.00 1909.60
    8/14/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 320.00 2229.60
    8/14/2006 Deposit Misc Credit PC-2 75.00 2304.60
    8/14/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 9.15 2295.45
    8/14/2006 Debit Card Oil Can Henry’s PC-3;T Oil change for
    Richar… 34.78 2260.67
    8/14/2006 Debit Card Arby’s PC-3;M Meal 5.68 2254.99
    8/14/2006 Debit Card Chevron PC-3;T Gas 27.52 2227.47
    8/14/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 11.20 2216.27
    8/14/2006 1166 Richar d Burke PC-3;M 600.00&nb! sp;&nbs p;1616.27
    8/14/2006 1167 Prime One Political Consulting PC-3;M 400.00
    1216.27
    8/15/2006 Misc Credit PC-2 100.00 1316.27
    8/15/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 100.00 1416.27
    8/15/2006 Debit Card Office Depot PC-3;G Office Supplies 19.96
    1396.31
    8/15/2006 Debit Card Red Robin PC-3;M Meal 28.16 1368.15
    8/15/2006 1168 Richard Burke PC-2 800.00 568.15
    8/15/2006 1169 David Terry PC-3;G Steve Dodds 100.00 468.15
    8/16/2006 Debit Card Burger King PC-3;M Meal 4.87 463.28
    8/16/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 5.04 458.24
    8/16/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 9.15 449.09
    8/16/2006! D ebit Card U.S. Post Office PC-3:P Stamps 54.60
    394.49
    8/17/2006 Deposit Misc Credit PC-2 5.00 399.49
    8/17/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 3.89 395.60
    8/17/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 6.65 388.95
    8/17/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 4.45 384.50
    8/17/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 4.79 379.71
    8/18/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 218.00 597.71
    8/18/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 7.90 589.81
    8/18/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 4.30 585.51
    8/19/2006 Debit Card Chevron PC-3:P Gas 28.83 556.68
    8/19/2 006 Debit Card Abby’s Legendary Pizza P! C-3;M&n bsp;Meal
    12.55 544.13
    8/19/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 5.05 539.08
    8/20/2006 rd Misc Credit PC-2 50.00 589.08
    8/20/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 7.90 581.18
    8/20/2006 Debit Carde Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 3.25 577.93
    8/21/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 14.35 563.58
    8/22/2006 Debit Protus IP Solutions PC-3;G Fax 10.00 553.58
    8/22/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 4.55 549.03
    8/22/2006 Debit Card Dairy Queen PC-3;M Meal 8.30 540.73
    8/22/2006 Debit Card Tara Thai House PC-3;M Meal 18.20 522.53
    8/23/2006 Credit Card Misc Cre dit PC-2 Don McDaniel 500.00
    1022.5! 3
    – Hide quoted text –

    8/23/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 56.00 1078.53
    8/23/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 4.30 1074.23
    8/23/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 9.15 1065.08
    8/23/2006 1172 Richard Burke PC-2 800.00 265.08
    8/24/2006 Debit Card Shell PC-3;T Gas 22.08 243.00
    8/24/2006 Debit Card Arby’s PC-3;M Meal 8.98 234.02
    8/25/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 10.90 223.12
    8/26/2006 Debit Card Otis Cafe PC-3;M Meal 24.50 198.62
    8/27/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 4.30 194.32
    8/27/2006 1173 Oregon Secretary of State PC-3;G Voter Pamphlet
    State… 600.00 -405.68
    8/28/2006 Dep! osit&nb sp;Miscellanous Income PC-2 140.00 -265.68
    8/28/2006 Depsoit Miscellanous Income PC-2 3000.00 2734.32
    8/28/2006 Debit Card Ava Roasteria PC-3;M Meal 3.65 2730.67
    8/28/2006 Debit Card Albertson’s PC-3;M Meal 19.54 2711.13
    8/28/2006 Debit Card Fred Meyer PC-3;M Meal 3.78 2707.35
    8/28/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 3.90 2703.45
    8/28/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 5.04 2698.41
    8/28/2006 1174 Postmaster PC-3:P BRE Account 50.00 2648.41
    8/28/2006 1175 Lang Enterprises PC-3 VOID: September Rent X
    2648.41
    8/28/2006 1176 Lang Enterprises PC-3;G “September Rent 2,250.00”
    398.41
    8/29/2006 De! posit&n bsp;Miscellanous Income PC-2 Brad Fudge
    1000.00 1398.41
    8/29/2006 Deposit Misc Credit PC-2 Monthly Credit Card … 744.00
    2142.41
    8/29/2006 Debit Card Shari’s of Hillsboro PC-3;M Meal 16.56
    2125.85
    8/29/2006 Debit Card Starbucks PC-3;M Meal 9.95 2115.90
    8/29/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 5.45 2110.45
    8/30/2006 Debit Card 76 PC-3;T Gas 22.60 2087.85
    8/30/2006 Debit Card Starbucks ED Inkind Contributions Meal 12.70
    2075 .15
    8/30/2006 1177 Richard Burke PC-3;M Consultant 2000.00 75.15
    8/31/2006 Debit Card McDonalds PC-3;M Meal 3.40 71.75
    8/31/2006 EFT US Bank PC-3;G Credit Card Fees 152.53 -80.789/1/20
    06 Debit Discover Network PC-3;G Credit Card Fees 14.50 -95.28
    9/7/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 “Wes Wagner, Mark V…”
    200.00 104.72
    9/9/2006 Deposit Miscellanous Income PC-2 130.00 234.72

    – Hide quoted text –
    >I object to the insinuation that I am engaging in some sort of a
    personal
    >vendetta against Mr. Burke. I have been exceptionally cautious to
    avoid
    >personalizing my questions about the debit card policy. I have
    not even
    >made assumptions as to whose usage the debit card record reflects,
    much less
    >leveling accusations of “theft” against Mr. Burke.
    >
    >Indeed, I wanted to stay on the sidelines in this controversy, as
    well, but
    >I was so struck by the pattern of usage in the check register made
    available
    >by our Treasurer that I felt compelled to ask a couple (and only a
    couple)
    >of hard questions about what led to that pattern.
    >
    >I’ve attached that check register for the convenience of anyone
    who has
    >deleted it from their e-mail. I urge you to just open it up
    briefly and see
    >whether you see what I s aw – a usage pattern that looks more like
    my own
    – Hide quoted text –

    >household account! than t he account of any volunteer or
    professional
    >organization that I’ve ever seen.
    >
    >Please do not take my word for it – look at the register for
    yourself.
    >
    >Then ask yourself whether a policy of permitting routine debit
    card access
    >to your party’s operating account can be justified. I’ve drawn my
    >conclusion from primary evidence; I urge you to do likewise.
    >
    >- Lars D. H. Hedbor
    > Vice Chair, Clackamas County Libertarian Party
    >

    – Hide quoted text –

    ————– Original message ————–
    From: lhedbor@comcast.net

    Another day passes, with no answers to the simple questions I’m
    posing. To recap:

    1. I’ve asked for the historical view as to why anyone was
    given routine debit card access to the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s
    operating account.

    2. I’ve asked for any compelling reasons for the continuation
    of this extraordinary practice.

    3. I’ve now added to my questions whether anyone else is at all
    concerned about the “household” pattern of debit card usage seen in the
    check register.

    It’s been a full week since I started asking these questions,
    and other than being told to wait some more, and seeing a couple of
    attempts to change the subject (what else would you call it when a
    different topic is raised, without answering the original question?),
    I’ve gotten pretty much a deafening silence here. Is there anybody out
    there?

    Hello, is this thing turned on?

    – Lars D. H. Hedbor

    Vice Chair, Clackamas County Libertarian Party

  93. Fred

    Lol
    I must have imagined it.
    As all who know me can attest, I have a long and sordid history of trying to discredit people by creating elaborate stories about their actions.
    Just ask all the other people I’ve tried to get removed from power and excluded from being involved.
    I’m known for being divisive and unfair.there are dozens of people who will testify that I have tried to manipulate the rules, to get them removed.
    People know me as a lover of power who is willing to lie, distort the facts, cheat, and find technicalities in the rules that completely negate their value– just so I can hold on to my tiny bit of power.
    I guess I’m just kind of a dick.

  94. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    You amuse me. The LPO officer positions became vacant as their terms of office ended when the 2011 LPO business convention adjourned sine die. I believe even Jeff Weston took a position backing this.

    So far as any of us know, all of our country reps on the State Committee were legit. Also remember that without officers, quorum was less.

    In any case, had the LPO established a county rep credentialing process as I suggested while serving as the LPO’s Exec. Dir. (instead of trying to fire me for suggesting it), this controversy would not exist. This being the case, it would seem that Mr. Wager’s hypocracy knows no bounds. He now complains about the same problem he tried to fire me for addressing before.

    Of course, none of this has anything to do with attempting to illegitimately adopt new bylaws on 3/31/11.

    Foetunately, we fixed this at the 2013 convention where we finally met quorum. County delegates now select county reps by caucasing at annual LPO conventions. This eliminates all doubt about who the reps are.

    Richard P. Burke

  95. Jill Pyeatt

    I appreciate the answers you gave to Joe’s excellent questions, Richard. I have a question, which is related to what we’ve been talking about:

    What will it take for Reeves and you and the other plaintiffs to admit you have lost?

  96. Joe

    Back online after a couple of days of remodeling here (new carpet everywhere, office dismantled since last weekend). So I am catching up . . .

    Dave Terry @ December 10, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    wrote:

    “It seems Burke et al are very comfortable with stealing. You are getting extremely close to libel, Jill. Are you at liberty to indicate who “et-al” refers to?”

    Let’s see — we could start with everyone who works for our federal government, yes?

    🙂

    Joe

  97. Wes Wagner

    Burke,

    Parliamentary Law: Vacancies count towards quorum

    Roberts: If terms of office are not specifically defined they run until successors are elected (not appointed)

    You can state an incorrect conclusion of fact and law as many times as you want, but it does not make it true.

  98. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Richard,

    I second Jill’s note of appreciation. Sincerely, THANK YOU for responding. (If IPR can serve through this discussion to shed some light on the issues in Oregon, I’ll be pleased to have played some small part.)

    I especially appreciate this portion of your response to those questions:

    “But there are other ways the situation could be resolved before the judicial process runs it’s (sic) course. There could be a change in the Sec. of State’s unwritten policy that Wagner’s group draws it’s (sic) legitimacy from. . . .There are a lot of moving parts.”

    The reason that statement is helpful is, frankly, you appear less “insane” (to be overly dramatic) to me now. I had not thought about the possibility that the Secretary of State might just choose to choose Mr. Reeves (or whoever is elected by your PAC next). Perhaps after an aneurysm, unexpected personality change, OR — with a change in the Secretary of State, especially if it is a candidate who knows/favors you or your cause.

    That does seem to be a relatively thin thread given that, as we all know (or should know) by now, the state (not just Oregon, “the state”) seems to know no limits to being arbitrary, capricious and criminal. I get we all believe/know that to be the case with our GWOT, or the SWATification of our local (former) peacekeeping forces — and I get you believe that is the case with their current decision (or lack thereof) by this Secretary. And I can see how a reversal of that position with a change in the individual occupying the office based on a different philosophy or simple bias (rather than a consistent just application of law — something America was know for in its past and is not actively destroying/has torn asunder), would — justly — enrage the other side all over again.

    One last (tangential) question — Wes is a healthy dieter; I am personally more of a impulsive glutton. So . . . what is your favorite Voodoo Doughnut? (Mine is the “dirty old bastard” although it’s hard to top the Bacon Maple Bar (“Where the meat meets the sweet!”) And the “Magic is in the Hole.” And “Good things come in Pink Boxes.” — It’s hard to top the marketing genius of Voodoo Doughnuts, IMO. I wish we could be as effective in generating buzz and positive WOM for libertarian ideals as they are for sugar and a bit of dough.

    Best,

    Joe

    For IPR readers not familiar with Voodoo Doughnuts in Portland Oregon (really, regional food studies should be required in college (says this “libertarian!”)), see:

    http://voodoodoughnut.com/

  99. Jill Pyeatt

    The things you can learn on IPR! Who knew that crazy people in Oregon will eat a bacon/maple bar?

  100. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Jill,

    The Bacon Maple Bar at Voodoo Doughnuts is, IMO, the best thing in Portland (at least now that my oldest daughter has graduated medical school there (OSHU) and moved out of state).

    Bacon Maple Bar
  101. Joseph Buchman Post author

    “There are a lot of good doughnuts out there, trust me, I’ve eaten my fair share of them. When it comes to “everyday donuts”, you have your classics like Dunkin’, Entenmann’s, and the quintessential purveyor of hot and fresh melty delights, Krispy Kreme. Occasionally though you want something more, something special. You go out looking for the doughnut that leaves you wondering whether you just ate a doughnut at all or something entirely different. You have to seek out that special shop that comes along and decides to push the envelope. I’ve found that shop. Heck in this case they’ve taken the old envelope, shredded it, burned it, and then scattered the ashes. . . . ”

    For the rest: http://www.theconstantrambler.com/voodoo-doughnut-portland-americas-best

    “Heck in this case they’ve taken the old envelope, shredded it, burned it, and then scattered the ashes. . . . ” — hum, on second thought this DOES sound like something Wes would have written. . . .

  102. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Wes — Thanks for the reference to PORTLANDIA.

    Jill — Just found this — look at the lines in the background

    EVERYONE who doesn’t “get” Oregon — THIS video explains everything. Burke, Reeves, Wes, the Secretary of State ALL make sense to me now!

    http://youtu.be/r8y-6zPNqGI

  103. Dave Terry

    CHECK THIS OUT!
    http://listings.findthecompany.com/l/5942721/Libertarian-Party-of-Oregon-in-Beaverton-OR

    Libertarian Party of Oregon
    Charitable Organization – Single Location

    General Phone?
    (503) 924-5991
    Website + Add the website for this Company

    Founded in 2002, Libertarian Party of Oregon is a small organization in Beaverton, Oregon. It has 4 full time employees and generates $100,000 in annual revenue.

    Organization:
    Libertarian Party of Oregon
    Office Location 12602 Sw Farmington Rd
    Beaverton, Oregon 97005-2755
    United States

    County;
    Washington

    Contact Information
    General Phone Number
    503) 924-5991

    Name: Adam Mayor

    Title: Chairman

    Name; Richard Burke

    Title: Executive Director

    • Civic and Social Organizations
    • Charitable Organization

    Company Size
    Sales Volume (Estimated)
    $100,000

    Employees At This Location
    4

    Total Employees
    4

    Year Founded
    2002

  104. Dave Terry

    Reprise: $100,000 per year average contributions

    How many Voodoo donuts or Big Macs does that equal!!!

  105. Dave Terry

    Fred wrote: “Dave– I have no idea what you mean by your use of “parentheses”

    Porky replied: “No one ever does. Just one of the many reasons to not even read, and especially not reply, to anything he ever posts.”

    LOL! So, have you promoted yourself to ‘guru’ who automatically knows what does or doesn’t
    make sense for everyone on this list!!!

    I’d love to buy you, for what you are worth and sell you for what you THINK you are worth, &
    NEVER HAVE TO WORK AGAIN!

  106. Dave Terry

    “Too bad you had to steal a name for this PAC adventure, Dave”

    Jill, can you explain what you meant in the above???

  107. Jill Pyeatt

    Nah, Dave, the point is that you just don’t get it. It’s kinda like a joke; if I have to explain it, it’s just not worth it.

    It blows my mind that a grown man like you calls another man “Porky”. That’s the best example yet of your mental age.

  108. Dave Terry

    Yep, no doubt about it. My “mental age” is a hell of lot younger than yours. :>)

    What would YOU suggest I call him after he repeatedly urges others to shun me and anything I write? Your excellency?

  109. Dave Terry

    Jill> ““Too bad you had to steal a name for this PAC adventure, Dave”

    That was the third time you alluded to my alleged criminality. Sorry if
    I fail to find any humor in that!

  110. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “While dues are required to participate in other internal party business, fully recoverable through the Oregon Political Tax Credit”
    .
    .
    Me: Not if one makes contributions to numerous PACs. Therefore you cannot say that you get back your money. And you’ve stated many times over the years that you see dues increases not as a way to raise funds so much as a way to keep out certain people you know will not support your agenda.
    .
    .
    Can’t you find something to do?
    .
    .
    _____________ Bob T

  111. Dave Terry

    Bob T> ” And you’ve stated many times over the years that you see dues increases not as a way to raise funds so much as a way to keep out certain people you know will not support your agenda.”

    Film at 11:00?

    Funny, I’ve never heard him say that!

    Just out of curiosity, what IS Burke’s “agenda”?

    Now, I have said on several occasions, that those, who we have “vested” with authority, should be “invested” in the principles and policies of the Libertarian Party.

    We have no use for ‘free riders”!!!

  112. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry: “Funny, I’ve never heard him say that!”
    .
    .
    Me: Oh sure you didn’t.
    .
    .
    Terry: “Just out of curiosity, what IS Burke’s ‘agenda.’ ”?
    .
    .
    Me: For one thing, to raise dues.
    .
    .

    Terry: “Now, I have said on several occasions, that those, who we have ‘vested’ with authority, should be ‘invested’ in the principles and policies of the Libertarian Party.
    .
    .
    Me: If that’s what you believe, then you would never have started to follow Burke in the first place. You might be excused for succumbing to Burke’s (alleged) mesmerizing (to idiots) cult, but then, that in itself leads others to question your ability to, well, have abilities.
    .
    .
    Terry: “We have no use for ‘free riders’ ”!!!
    .
    .
    Me: Hence the call for high dues, and keeping them there.
    .
    ______B. Tiernan

  113. Wes Wagner

    Terry: “We have no use for ‘free riders’ ”!!!

    Psychological projection is a bitch … but basing policy on your own demons is not a way to advance an organization.

  114. Joe

    I am “No free riders!” aligned. I advocate for “No FREE Riders!”

    So if I give you money, what exactly do I get that is of value for me in return? Or are you trying to free ride on me (take money without giving equivalent, or higher, value in return).

    Starbucks does not occur as free riding on me when I fork over cash for their fluids (that awkward win-win exchange where BOTH sides say “thank you”).

    I am writing on an ancient IBM Thinkpad (a Z-60T just now). WOW have I gotten more value than the cash I forked over years ago.

    How come your organization isn’t having to process thousands of member dues payments? Answer: you do not, based on results, give greater value back than the cash you demand.

    It’s about as complicated as that.

    And you’re not alone. There are other organizations that over promise, gain collections and then have a “no refunds” policy.

    Not cutting edge, high quality, customer service, IMO.

    So, YES! NO, NO, NO (a thousand times NO!) FREE RIDING!!

  115. Dave Terry

    Joe wrote> “Starbucks does not occur as free riding on me when I fork over cash for their fluids (that awkward win-win exchange where BOTH sides say “thank you”).

    Joe, you need to think OUTSIDE the BOX. The situations are more akin to the difference between buying and selling finite commodities and “investing” in a commodity, on the hope that
    the value of that commodity will increase in value (i.e. give you more freedom over your life and property)

    > “How come your organization isn’t having to process thousands of member dues payments?

    Simply because if no member dues are asked for, none will be received.

    >Answer: you do not, based on results, give greater value back than the cash you demand.

    You have the cart in front of the horse. In simple terms, the LPO is NOT DEMANDING cash, up front, so your hypothetical is not valid. The question you should be asking is: IF membership is free, where is the motivation (for most) to contribute is non-existent.

  116. Wes Wagner

    This is your LPO on dues: 50k debt getting worse every month, a staff member of dubious moral character being accused of sexual harassment by female volunteers, number of candidates in decline since the peak of the Tom Cox campaign (which was before the LPO had an office, the LPO took over the office from the Cox campaign and then started a slow decline) and the treasury being used as a personal slush fund

    This is your LPO on no dues: no debt, record numbers of candidates, no reports of sexual harassment, the treasury is clean

    Ironically David Terry is a freeloader in the lawsuit since he is letting Aaron Starr pay his way, who is also the same man who would brand David Terry a povertarian and try to price him out of the party, I mean after all David’s dues check bounced according to the ORESTAR records to the fake LPO.

    I am not sure what his long-game is… maybe he thinks he can help turn the LPO and the LP into an Oligarchy just in time to win the powerball… but all I am seeing is a bitter old fool.

  117. Fred

    Don’t want to be a freeloader?
    Then don’t be.
    We would love you to pay for the ballots we send out to as part of our primary elections. As of now– you can considerate your ballot a gift from me– and starting now I will increase the donation I freely give to the party to include the cost of all mailings to Dave Terry– until the time you start paying for your share.
    You might want to recall, that during that “infamous” state committee meeting, I successfully argued that we shouldn’t include any mechanism to remove any Registered Libertarian in Oregon from the party. You, surly would have been kicked out of the party if there were a mechanism and you wouldn’t get a ballot.
    So, you’re welcome. You still have the ability to vote in the party, elect officers in the party, and if you want participate in our spring 2015 convention. I know you won’t want to freeload at that convention so you may make a payment for the actual costs if you like. But if you can’t afford to come Dave, I will gift you the cost of the convention and pay your share to participate.

    Because I believe that you can’t protect freedom through a hierarchical structure built on exclusion and elitism.

  118. Fred

    Yeah, not only reading them and responding– but I’m actually getting inspired.
    I think i might set up the “Dave Terry fund for freeloaders” which will raise money to ensure that people who can’t afford to contribute to the party’s efforts to include them, can still participate in the party.
    That way they won’t have to worry about being denied a seat at the table if their check bounces

  119. Dave Terry

    It is difficult to determine which orifice Wagner’s fulminations exit from; First he claims that I am a freeloader because I am letting Aaron Starr pay the lions share of the cost of the law suit. THEN he claims that Star would brand me as a povertarian (sic) and try to price me out of the party.

    Why would Mr. Starr attempt to remove me from the LPO while simultaneously assuming my portion of the legal fees? And Just as importantly, HOW would Starr accomplish such an act?

    .

  120. Wes Wagner

    “Why would Mr. Starr attempt to remove me from the LPO while simultaneously assuming my portion of the legal fees?”

    Because you are a useful tool to an end.

    ” And Just as importantly, HOW would Starr accomplish such an act? ”

    The same way he and his ilk did in California and intend to at the national level. Price floor fees for conventions so high that people like you either can’t or won’t pay them so they can get the “higher quality delegates” they are always looking for.

  121. paulie

    What we are fighting for here is not personal control over the party, propaganda from the other side notwithstanding. I think I am safe in saying that while we would prefer some leaders over others, leaders are transitional and we don’t care so much who is in charge at any particular moment. There’s always next year.

    We are fighting to the idea that it should be impossible for one person, a party’s “Chair of Record” to sit at a kitchen table, write a set of bylaws and officer list, hand them to the Sec. of State, and have them be accepted as valid when the party’s governing documents specify a different method of amending or adopting governing documents.

    Are you completely sure the SOS was referring to any state party chair under any circumstances or just to this particular case? I have heard differing opinions on this. I’ve also heard the interpretation circulated by your side that the LP judcom ruling referred to any state’s LP that is recognized by any state’s SOS or equivalent elections official, so I checked with member(s) of that LP judcom that issued that ruling and was told that no, in fact it only referenced this particular state LP that was recognized by this particular SOS, and not necessarily for that reason. Perhaps you have misinterpreted the SOS decision in a similar fashion?

  122. Wes Wagner

    The Oregon Secretary of State regards the state committee of a political party to be its highest authority. In this circumstance, I, in my duties as chair, related decisions of said state committee to the Oregon Secretary of State. I am fairly certain if an organization had a rogue chair, as claimed by the other side, and all of the other officers of record of the organization showed up with minutes to the SoS office and told a story that the state committee had a different opinion on the matter, they would try to discern the position of the committee itself… not the chair.

  123. Wes Wagner

    What the Secretary of State was confronted with in Oregon was a rump group who attempted to file documents replacing all the officers after a meeting in May 2011, shortly after they received new governing documents in April of 2011.

    When the new governing documents were filed in April 2011, the officers of record did not materially change by much, and the outgoing officers were copied on such correspondence simultaneously with the incoming officers.

    There were no objections.

    When the Burke Reeves group filed a whole set of new governing documents, none of the existing officers were copied, nor were any of them involved. The SoS called me, and I declare their actions and their filing illegitimate.

    The Secretary of State took the same position any reasonable third party would under such circumstances, and likely drew the same natural conclusions.

  124. Dave Terry

    DT> HOW would Starr accomplish such an act? ”

    WW> ‘The same way he and his ilk did in California and intend to at the national level. Price floor fees for conventions so high that people like you either can’t or won’t pay them so they can get the “higher quality delegates” they are always looking for”.

    DT> Someone on this list wrote: “Psychological projection is a bitch.…. but basing policy on your own demons is not a way to advance an organization.”

    OH! That was YOU! It seems that you could easily have this argument with yourself without ANY imput from anyone else!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7MQrL_ABE0

    The question is, WHO does your makeup and how do you remember which side is which?

    “Inquiring minds want to know”

  125. Wes Wagner

    No matter what DT says, he is still a tool and the man using him will discard him when he is of no use.

  126. Dave Terry

    WW> “No matter what DT says, he is still a tool and the man using him will discard him when he is of no use.

    Thank you Wes, I’m glad you acknowledge that I DO serve a useful purpose; unlike yourself!
    Apparently, you don’t own a “tool box”, (that’s a convenient place to store tools that are not currently being used so they can be accessed later when you DO need them again).

  127. Dave Terry

    Thank you, for posting the “selfie”, Porky.
    BTW, When did you loose all your hair?

    or did someone pull it out (hopefully using the proper tool)

  128. Dave Terry

    Lars provided; “8/15/2006 1169 David Terry PC-3;G Steve Dodds 100.00 468.15

    What EXACTLY is this supposed to be????

  129. Martin Passoli

    “The McMinnville DT seems to be about as useful, and almost as rational, as this fellow DT patient”

    That is giving Dave Terry way too much credit.

  130. Bob Tiernan

    Burke:

    “We had a number of people claiming to be county representatives on the state committee which were not selected in accordance with the county party bylaws. Some just showed up to meetings and said, I am from county ‘x’.”

    BT: How outrageous, I guess.
    .
    Recall that back in, oh, 1993-94 when you were chair-thing of the LPO (after your astounding 9-8 victory at ’93 State Convention, when you actively campaigned and passed out campaign material and managed to defeat a last minute opponent nominated from the floor – wow), and you eventually started to re-jump-start the county party structure. You would pick a temporary chair for a county and let that temp chair set up a county convention. Fine so far.
    .
    Let’s look at the choices you made. You could have picked serious, long time LPO members whether they cared for you or not. That’s not your way. You try to build loyalty the way a Latin american dictator would. For Multnomah County, a very populous county, you picked one Virginia Para, a recent arrival from Arizona who called the LPO number and naturally got you on the phone, so you could keep these people isolated, seeing you as the Big Cheese. No one else here knew her. She soon disappeared as soon as she failed to get elected as the Mult Co chair.
    .
    Then there was Clackamas County. You picked (drum roll) — your brother-in-law Maurice Aho (brother of your first prop wife, obviously the first one you cheated on). He did manage to get elected real chair of Clack Co LP, mainly because as temp chair he set the rules (written by you) that allowed non-Clackamas Co residents to vote in the Clackamas Co LP convention. After that the Clackamas County LP did zero for a couple of years.
    .
    Next was Washington County, the third of the three Portland-area counties. Your choice was (ta-da) your apartment complex manager !!!!!! I never did see that guy. He disappeared befoe too long, but he did his job I guess (i.e., nothing).
    .
    Funny thing, the one you lost – Multnomah County – did a LOT. We had monthly meetings with speakers, and nominated candidates which you tried to squash using the Secretary of State (who refused), and your packed Judicial Committee which invalidated the nominations but the candidates ran anyway because Mult Co chair sad screw you Burke and you crawled away.
    .
    B. T.

  131. paulie

    Next was Washington County, the third of the three Portland-area counties. Your choice was (ta-da) your apartment complex manager !!!!!! I never did see that guy. He disappeared befoe too long, but he did his job I guess (i.e., nothing).

    The same one who ran as a Republican against Kyle Markley this year?

  132. Pingback: Heroic OAI State Director Burke Acts To Save Libertarian Party Candidates From Imminent Disaster! | MassCentral, Rhode

  133. Pingback: Heroic OAI State Director Burke Acts To Save Libertarian Party Candidates From Imminent Disaster! | MassCentral, Boston

  134. Pingback: Heroic OAI State Director Burke Acts To Save Libertarian Party Candidates From Imminent Disaster! | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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