LP Judicial Committee Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior JC Decision re Oregon Affiliate; Carling Will Not Recuse Himself

LP Oregon

The Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee meets tomorrow in a virtual meeting to discuss whether they will overturn the prior Judicial Committee’s decision from 2011 regarding the ongoing, complicated matter of who the legitimate affiliate for the Oregon LP is.

IPR has written at length about the dispute, and the reader can learn about the 2011 events from this article. There are links in the article to provide history on the dispute prior to the September 2011 Judicial Committee (which I’ll now call JC) decision. The decision wasn’t well received by the members of Libertarian National Committee (which will be referred to from now on as the LNC). Here is an article discussing that.

Moving forward to 2015, much has happened in the interim. The leaders of the losing group, which for now will be referred to as the Reeves group, filed a lawsuit to the Oregon Secretary of State to prove that they are the legitimate affiliate, not the other group, for now called the Wagner group. In May of 2013, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying in essence (to this layperson) that the LP should settle its own issues. The decision was then appealed, which is where we are now. The appeal is currently awaiting a decision by a judge.

During the period of time between the 2011 JC opinion and now, much was written on IPR. An interested reader can put “Oregon” in our searchbox, and spend the entire weekend reading about the legal actions, and also the activities of both affiliates. Most of the articles have multiple links within them. Both groups held conventions and recruited candidates. The Wagner group, who had and still has ballot access, ran a record number of candidates in the past couple of elections.

The Judicial Committee elected at the national convention in 2014 recently announced that they would review the decision from 2011. That meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Both groups have elected new leadership since 2011, and the chair of the Reeves group is now Ian Epstein. The new chairman of the Wagner group is Lars Hedbor.

The chairman of the Judicial Committee is M Carling, a longtime member of the Libertarian Party. He has been part of the Oregon dispute since at least 2011 and is listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit which is currently under appeal. There has been discussion among many LP members that Mr. Carling should recuse himself because of what some people perceive to be a conflict of interest. IPR has covered many of the emails and discussions, either in the recent thread about Oregon, or in the thread about George Phillies’ August 2015 edition of Liberty for America. I’ll list them here to continue telling the story.

I may have been the first person who asked Mr. Carling to recuse himself. Here is the email I sent on August 11:

Since you have been involved in the Oregon lawsuit from the beginning, I’m sure you can see that it would be conflict of interest for you to vote in the meeting on Saturday. I’m requesting that you recuse yourself.

Thank you,

Jill Pyeatt
Regional Chairperson for the Libertarian Party,
Pasadena/Glendale Region
Judicial Committee LPCA
Judicial Committee LP Los Angeles County

Mr. Carling responded fairly quickly:

1. The three lawyers on the Judicial Committee are of the unanimous opinion that I do not have a conflict of interest in the case of Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee, either in the legal sense or in the RONR sense.

2. In the hypothetical case that a member of the Judicial Committee would have a conflict of interest, there is no requirement in our Bylaws, in the Judicial Committee’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, or in Robert’s Rules of Order which would require a member of the Judicial Committee to recuse herself.

3. There seems to be no precedent in the history of the LP of a member of the Judicial Committee ever recusing herself.

Despite the foregoing, I will take your request under advisement.

Regards,

M Carling

It is unknown whether anyone else wrote to Mr. Carling. However, we know that Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian Party, sent this email:

From: Nicholas Sarwark
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Subject: Judicial Committee Meeting to be held on August 15th
To: (List of Judicial Committee members)

Dear Mr. Carling and other members of the Judicial Committee,

I recently received notice that there will be a meeting of your
committee held on August 15th to “consider the case of Ian Epstein vs.
the Libertarian National Committee and to consider rescinding or
amending something previously adopted in the related case of Wes
Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee.” This was the first I
had heard that your committee had agreed that Mr. Epstein’s petition
was valid and fell under the specifically enumerated list of matters
the Judicial Committee could consider pursuant to Article 9, Section 2
of the Bylaws, which states:

“The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited
to consideration of only those matters expressly identified as
follows:
a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6),
b. suspension of officers (Article 7, Section 7),
c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 8, Section 5),
d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 8, Section 12),
e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 5, Section 7),
f. challenges to Resolutions (Rule 6, Section 2), and
g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates
(Article 15, Section 5).”

The only previous communication I had received regarding this issue
was on July 23rd, when I received the following email:

“Dear Mr. Sarwark,

You are named as a potential respondent in the attached appeal to the
LP Judicial Committee. Please also find attached a copy of the
current LP bylaws and the rules of appellate procedure of the Judicial
Committee.

M Carling
Chairman, LP Judicial Committee”

I would note that the email copied verbatim above did not include,
“notice that if the prospective respondent(s) desires to respond to
the petition(s) the prospective respondent(s) must do so in writing
within seven days (or promptly, if the request is received during a
National Convention) (“response”)” as is apparently required by the
Judicial Committee Rules of Appellate Procedure, section 2. As I was
not noticed that I was to respond, I did not do so.

If I had been noticed, I would have responded that Mr. Epstein’s
demand that I recognize his group as the affiliate of the Libertarian
National Committee in Oregon and my subsequent declining to accede to
that demand was not a suspension of an affiliate party, since his
group was not currently the affiliate pursuant to the prior decision
of the Judicial Committee. Him sending an email does not magically
make his group the affiliate and then suspend that affiliate, creating
standing to appeal to the Judicial Committee and force a change in the
affiliate party out of whole cloth. There needs to be an action of
the LNC that falls under the specifically enumerated list of Judicial
Committee subject matter jurisdiction to have an appeal, not the
routine email correspondence of the Chair. As to the substance of Mr.
Epstein’s demand, my response speaks for itself.

If the Judicial Committee does intend to consider Mr. Epstein’s
petition and/or to reopen the decision from two terms ago, I would ask
that Mr. Carling recuse himself from any consideration.

As I am certain all members of the Judicial Committee are aware, Mr.
Carling is a member of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling acted as
Chair Pro Tem during the 2013 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr.
Carling was elected as a member of the Judicial Committee of at the
2013 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling was elected as
Chair of the Judicial Committee of Mr. Epstein’s group after the
adjournment of their 2013 convention. Mr. Carling was re-elected to
the Judicial Committee at the 2014 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group.
Mr. Carling again acted as Chair Pro Tem at the 2015 convention of Mr.
Epstein’s group at which Mr. Epstein was elected Chair. Mr. Carling
is a named plaintiff in the case of Reeves et. al. v. Wagner et. al.,
(Clackamas
County Circuit Court No. CV12010345) and is an appellant in the
pending appeal of the dismissal of that case by the circuit court (CA
A155618).

As a member of Mr. Epstein’s group who has previously acted in
leadership roles at convention and presently is a member of that
group’s Judicial Committee, as well as a plaintiff in a lawsuit
against Mr. Wagner’s group that was dismissed and is presently on
appeal, Mr. Carling would benefit from a Judicial Committee ruling in
favor of Mr. Epstein’s group or a reconsideration of the previous
Judicial Committee ruling that recognized Mr. Wagner’s group. His
position as plaintiff and appellant would be improved by a ruling from
the Judicial Committee that would strengthen his case.

For the above reasons, I ask Mr. Carling to recuse himself from any
decision on whether Mr. Epstein’s petition is valid and falls under
the specifically enumerated list of subject matter jurisdiction of the
Judicial Committee, and also ask him to recuse himself from
consideration of Mr. Epstein’s petition or reconsideration of the
petition from Mr. Wagner from two terms ago.

Yours in liberty,

Nicholas J. Sarwark

Chair, Libertarian National Committee

cc: members of the Judicial Committee; the LNC Business list.

I received another email from Mr. Carling on the evening of the 12th:

Ms. Pyeatt and fellow members of the Judicial Committee:

I owe all of you an apology. I did not recall correctly the details of an email sent more than a year ago, when there was discussion during the election for Chair of the Judicial Committee about the possibility of a case concerning the ongoing dispute in Oregon.

One of the lawyers serving on the Judicial Committee only opined regarding the second numbered point below (that recusal is not required) and has not opined on the first point (whether or not a conflict of interest might exist). I should have re-read that email before answering Ms. Pyeatt.

With my sincere apologies,

M

I was unable to determine who the attorneys were who do not think Mr. Carling has a conflict of interest, and as a result, was unable to ask for comment.

As of this writing, it appears the virtual meeting will go on as planned.

Update: The draft minutes of the Judicial Committee meeting held on August 15, 2015 were posted by George Phillies in an IPR comment written on August 15, 2015 at 6:39 pm:

The draft minutes, all committee members being present.

Rule limiting debate to speaking twice per day on the same topic suspended by unanimous consent.

Moved and seconded to Rescind the Judicial Committee decision issued on August 25, 2011, including the amendment issued on September 23, 2011, in the matter titled Wes Wagner vs. the libertarian National Committee.

A point of order was raised on whether or not the motion to Rescind is order. The Chair ruled that Rescind is in order. The ruling of the Chair was appealed. The ruling of the Chair was sustained 4-2, with the Chair abstaining.

A question of parliamentary inquiry was raised on the vote required to Rescind. Because notice was given in the call to meeting and because no member of the Judicial Committee voted in the majority (either of these two reasons sufficing to require a majority vote), a majority vote is sufficient to Rescind.

The votes on the motion to Rescind are 4 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: No, Power: No, Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to Rescind carries. Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, and as amended, is rescinded.

Moved and seconded to dismiss the petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee. The votes are 6 in the affirmative and 0 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: Yes Power: Yes Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to dismiss carries. The petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee is dismissed.

1,160 thoughts on “LP Judicial Committee Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior JC Decision re Oregon Affiliate; Carling Will Not Recuse Himself

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    Even IF the Reeves Gang was once the legitimate affiliate and was “constructively disaffiliated,” the period for appeal of disaffiliation per the bylaws is 30 days. It’s been a LOT longer than 30 days. So in addition to the Judicial Committee having no jurisdiction in the matter (the bylaws do not provide for a Judicial Committee power to overturn previous Judicial Committee decisions), even if it did have jurisdiction the deadline for it to exercise that jurisdiction is long past.

  2. Wes Wagner

    There is no point in time where the Reeves group had actual legal custody/control of the LPO in Oregon. There is a brief time where the LNC-Ex-Comm who lacked the authority to recognize another group (The Reeves Group) attempted to do so. That act was nullified. From a practical standpoint – the Reeves group has never held the affiliation of the national party at any point in time either.

  3. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am confused. Carling’s first email stated:

    “1. The three lawyers on the Judicial Committee are of the unanimous opinion that I do not have a conflict of interest in the case of Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee, either in the legal sense or in the RONR sense.”

    His subsequent email referencing that earlier email to Pyeatt stated:

    “One of the lawyers serving on the Judicial Committee only opined regarding the second numbered point below (that recusal is not required) and has not opined on the first point (whether or not a conflict of interest might exist). I should have re-read that email before answering Ms. Pyeatt.”

    How did it go not only from no recusal or conflict of interest (which he attributes to bad memory… though I wonder at relying upon memory in such an important issue) to the number of attorneys giving this opinion from three to one?

  4. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Is he saying that two of them opined on both and the third only opined on one of the issues?

  5. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m not able to clarify that, Caryn. I’m impressed that you seemed to catch up on the story to that point!

  6. George Phillies

    Tom, there is nothing in Roberts that says you must use base 10 arithmetic. (8^)) Perhaps our glorious Judicial Committee is using base 500 arithmetic.

    The situation is totally absurd, but like the Titanic after the ship broke in half it is not clear what can be done about it.

    The LNC is already under significant financial stress, and it may be about to get considerably worse. For starters, they are about to need another 100Gs that they do not have for ballot access.

    Of course, the Wagner faction may piously hope that the LNC will do something about the situation, though no mechanism is apparent, and then blame the LNC when they find that there is nothing that they can do.

  7. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Jill thank you. I am really trying to get up to speed on this. Common horse sense demands recusal… being beyond reproach should be the standard, as much as is possible, with persons in position of trust. I am not an attorney (but I am a paralegal with a couple decades of appearance) and it seems to me in an ordinary case this would have certainly been grounds for a Judge to recuse himself– certainly for a request, and as a member of the public I would look at this a fishy eye if a Judge did not. A matter of equity and right decision should never be a matter of not wanting to relinquish personal power. I am sure the lawyers who advised Carling believe they have the letter in their favor and being lawyers they would know better than I as a non-lawyer, but it does not seem to me they have the spirit of what I would expect in personal ethics from libertarians in their favor. I do not yet have an opinion (still gathering information and reading voraciously) as to what side on the two factions has the right of it. But it seems to clear to me that a recusal is in order.

  8. From Der Sidelines

    Gee, how long does it take for the LP membership to realize that Carling is one of the biggest cancers in the party?

  9. Caryn Ann Harlos

    bad glasses… a couple of decade of “experience”— I hate seeing poorly

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Of course, the Wagner faction may piously hope that the LNC will do something about the situation, though no mechanism is apparent, and then blame the LNC when they find that there is nothing that they can do.”

    Actually, there is an apparent mechanism that’s easily done, only dependent upon one LNC member to do, and the response to which should clarify the position of the LNC vis a vis whether it intends to abide by the bylaws or not.

    When and if the Judicial Committee issues an opinion on the matter, it will presumably need to be formally called to the attention of the LNC.

    At that point the chair can simply refuse to recognize any attempt to report on the subject on the eminently reasonable basis that such a report would be out of order. Given the Judicial Committee’s lack of jurisdiction in the matter, its opinion on the matter is as relevant, and as qualified for recognition/hearing by the LNC, as the Domino’s delivery man’s report on how well the wedding party in the meeting room next door tipped him and whether or not that one drunk bridesmaid gave him a kiss.

    Of course, the ruling of the chair could be appealed and overturned. But it would at least be an OPPORTUNITY for the LNC to let a lawless Judicial Committee be reined in.

  11. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It looks to me that you’re “seeing” things very clearly so far, Caryn.

  12. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    That’s actually what I’m thinking, Thomas. From what I know of the Judicial Committee rules, there is nothing in the bylaws to indicate they have the right to revisit this. Therefore, the LNC doesn’t need to recognize any ruling they come back with.

  13. George Phillies

    Tom, that proposal is fairly ingenious, but a majority of the LNC has to support that ‘ignore” option. One would hope that there was such a majority,but I recall the outcome when the Excomm was chosen last year. Also, Sarwark actually has to do this, and the record here is chairs making unfortunate decisions, starting with the LPOR chair failing to rule, years and years ago, that the previous State Convention did not vote to change their quorum rule, at which point this entire line of idiocy would have been stopped dead in its tracks. Then there were several LNC chairs.

  14. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I wrote Mr. Carling as follows:

    Dear Mr. Carling:

    I am aware that several people have written you on this, and I have just read the article on Independent Political Report. It is very apparent to me, legal wrangling aside, that a desire to avoid the appearance of impropriety in this matter should move you to recuse yourself. I am not a lawyer, and far be it from me to know anything about the technical requirements of this, but I have witnessed in my several decades of experience as a paralegal decisions by people in matter of justice being asked to recuse themselves, and this is way within those bounds. You may be right (as you say the lawyers have advised) in the letter of the law, but not right in the libertarian spirit of what we members expect. It is a matter of simple sense that your personal interest in this renders it impossible to be unbiased…. at the very least, even if a right decision was reached, it would be forever tainted by these suspicions. I do not yet even have an opinion as to which of the factions is right in this dispute. It is clear to me though that your recusal in this matter is more than in order. With the utmost respect, please reconsider your decision.

    In Liberty
    Caryn Ann Harlos
    LP member Colorado

  15. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Mr. Carling wrote me back, and this is our exchange

    On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:48 PM, M Carling wrote:

    Dear Ms Harlos,

    I generally do not read Independent Political Report. Exactly what “personal interest” do you claim that I have in this case? I keep hearing vague and unspecific allegations, but have not seen any specific basis for claiming a personal interest. I have a well-known history of seeking that justice be done in this matter, just I hope any Libertarian would do. Certainly that is not a cause for recusal.

    Regards

    M Carling

    Dear Mr. Carling:

    I do believe Chair Nicholas Sarwark laid out the personal interests very well in his prior email to you. I really have no opinion at all on which party is right in the ultimate dispute. It is this portion I am referring to (being a named party in pending litigation involving the same parties is really enough without the other details—one cannot avoid the appearance of bias and personal interest when one a party in interest in related litigation):

    ==As I am certain all members of the Judicial Committee are aware, Mr. Carling is a member of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling acted as Chair Pro Tem during the 2013 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling was elected as a member of the Judicial Committee of at the 2013 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling was elected as Chair of the Judicial Committee of Mr. Epstein’s group after the adjournment of their 2013 convention. Mr. Carling was re-elected to the Judicial Committee at the 2014 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling again acted as Chair Pro Tem at the 2015 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group at which Mr. Epstein was elected Chair. Mr. Carling is a named plaintiff in the case of Reeves et. al. v. Wagner et. al., (Clackamas County Circuit Court No. CV12010345) and is an appellant in the pending appeal of the dismissal of that case by the circuit court (CA A155618).

    As a member of Mr. Epstein’s group who has previously acted in leadership roles at convention and presently is a member of that group’s Judicial Committee, as well as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Mr. Wagner’s group that was dismissed and is presently on appeal, Mr. Carling would benefit from a Judicial Committee ruling in favor of Mr. Epstein’s group or a reconsideration of the previous Judicial Committee ruling that recognized Mr. Wagner’s group. His position as plaintiff and appellant would be improved by a ruling from the Judicial Committee that would strengthen his case.

    For the above reasons, I ask Mr. Carling to recuse himself from any decision on whether Mr. Epstein’s petition is valid and falls under the specifically enumerated list of subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, and also ask him to recuse himself from consideration of Mr. Epstein’s petition or reconsideration of the petition from Mr. Wagner from two terms ago.==

    With all due respect, I find it a bit problematic when you say you have not seen any specific basis for claiming a personal interest. Chair Sarwark sent that recently. While you may disagree with him, he certainly presented a specific basis for this position. This very strong presumption of bias due to this entanglements is very certainly a cause for recusal. A desire for peace in the Party with the decision, as much as is humanly possible, is a cause for recusal.

    Thank you for writing back. I once again do not mean any contention or disrespect. Full disclosure: I post as a commenter at IPR and have been posting my emails as a matter of Party interest. I believe in full transparency to a much greater extent than the Party presently gives. That is not a critique of you, but a general critique of Party culture.

  16. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Latest email chain:

    Dear Ms Harlos,

    Mr. Sarwark’s claims are based on premises that range from dubious to absurd. I reject the implication that having served as a volunteer for the party creates a personal interest in the outcome of the case before the Judicial Committee.

    Regards

    M Carling

    Dear Mr. Carling:

    I respectfully disagree and note that you omitted the one I highlighted as personally most problematic- you are a named party in present litigation involving the same parties and issues. So it appears though we now agree that your prior email stating my you have only heard “vague and nonspecific allegations” was not accurate. You disagree with Chair Sarwark but he certainly was not vague or nonspecific.

    And I repeat, being involved as a party involving the same factual locus and parties is grounds for recusal in our court system, the standard should be even higher for Libertarians. Put the Party first, please. Thank you.

    [to me, he omitted salutation]

    Mr. Sarwark does not specify how “Mr. Carling would benefit from a Judicial Committee ruling in favor of Mr. Epstein’s group or a reconsideration of the previous Judicial Committee ruling that recognized Mr. Wagner’s group. His position as plaintiff and appellant would be improved by a ruling from the Judicial Committee that would strengthen his case.” Mr. Sarwark only makes general and unsubstantiated assertions. There are no specifics, because none exist in fact.

    Regards

    M Carling

    Dear Mr. Carling:

    It is specific as to your potential bias. With all due respect, that was the context of my email. If you were personally involved with some of the parties, you stand to benefit— this is standard grounds in legal and review proceedings. Also, I once again point out that you omitted my very specific reference to your being named as a party in pending state litigation.

    Once again please put the Party first. This isn’t about you. It is about the Party, and this is incredibly damaging.

  17. Wes Wagner

    In the time I have known him.. M only appears to have damaging the party as his primary motivation.

  18. Joseph Buchman

    Thomas L. Knapp @ August 14, 2015 at 7:38 pm wrote:

    “Given the Judicial Committee’s lack of jurisdiction in the matter, its opinion on the matter is as relevant, and as qualified for recognition/hearing by the LNC, as the Domino’s delivery man’s report on how well the wedding party in the meeting room next door tipped him and whether or not that one drunk bridesmaid gave him a kiss.”

    And if a majority on the LNC votes to hear a JC report, and then recognize Snow White or whoever as Chair of the LP Oregon, then president will be set for the next JC/LNC to overturn that in the first meeting of the new LNC/JC in Orlando.

    No way, I think, will these clowns have ballot access come November 2016.

    And do we really want each term of the LNC/JC occupied with factional fights among the various groups in the various state affiliates?

    Is that the door these combatants want opened? Are they some sort of anti-Libertarian infiltration group designed to split this party (again) from within? Where is Roger Stone in this?

    etc, etc, etc . . .

  19. Nicholas Sarwark

    The requested remedies from Mr. Epstein’s petition, should anyone care to read them:

    REMEDIES
    We ask the national Judicial Committee for the following remedies:
    1. To recognize that the national Judicial Committee decisions of 2011 were contrary to libertarian principles and exceeded their authority and are therefore null and void.
    2. To recognize that the bylaws adopted by the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon on March 9, 2013 are the governing documents of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
    3. To recognize that the governing documents purportedly adopted by Mr. Wagner and his supporters at the March 31, 2011 meeting of the Libertarian Party of Oregon State Committee were not lawfully adopted and that their subsequent actions purportedly undertaken under the authority of those governing documents are null and void.
    4. To recognize that Messrs. Epstein, Reeves, Burke, and Burnett are the legitimate officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
    5. To order the officers of the national Libertarian Party to:
    a. Write to the Secretary of State of Oregon with a respectful demand that she recognize Ian Epstein as the sole legitimate chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
    b. Update any mailing lists, websites, and any online or other information distributed internally or publicly by the LNC to include Epstein and Reeves and their successors as state officers and not Hedbor and Wagner and their successors.
    c. Share membership data with Epstein and Reeves and their successors and not Hedbor and Wagner and their Successors.
    d. Write to FaceBook, MeetUp, the domain registrar of “lporegon.org”, and any other relevant Internet companies that Epstein, Reeves, Burke, and Burnett are the legitimate officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    That’s what he specifically asks for.

    I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if granting one or more of those requests would be personally beneficial to the Chair of the Judicial Committee.

  20. Wes Wagner

    Btw.. just so we are clear.. criminal charges will be filed if anyone from the national office attempts theft by deception of our assets.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And do we really want each term of the LNC/JC occupied with factional fights among the various groups in the various state affiliates?

    Is that the door these combatants want opened? Are they some sort of anti-Libertarian infiltration group designed to split this party (again) from within?”

    That is, admittedly, not the ONLY plausible explanation for their antics.

    It is, however, seemingly the MOST plausible explanation for their antics.

    To the best of my recollection, in every dispute in which they’ve been involved in the last decade or so in which the question has been “should we do X, which is good for the party or Y which is bad for the party,” the Starr/Mattson/Carling position has been “we should do Y which is bad for the party.”

    With respect to questions of parliamentary procedure, I do not recall the specifics but I do recall one instance in which Alicia Mattson cited the bylaws and/or RONR and supported abiding from them. In every other instance I recall in which she has addressed parliamentary questions, her position has been “even though there’s no support whatsoever for my position to be found in either the bylaws or Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, my position is correct because I’m a parliamentarian and I say so.”

  22. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TK said “even though there’s no support whatsoever for my position to be found in either the bylaws or Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, my position is correct because I’m a parliamentarian and I say so.”

    That certainly seems to be Carling’s MO. I guess they think they’re smarter than we are, and we won’t notice.

    Yeah, well we noticed.

  23. Andy Craig

    From what I can tell, the Judicial Committee and M Carling have as much authority to order me to wear a purple shirt on Thursdays, as they do to adopt any of the proposed “remedies.”

  24. Andy Craig

    “a. Write to the Secretary of State of Oregon with a respectful demand that she recognize Ian Epstein as the sole legitimate chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”

    “d. Write to FaceBook, MeetUp, the domain registrar of “lporegon.org”, and any other relevant Internet companies that Epstein, Reeves, Burke, and Burnett are the legitimate officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”

    Say they get what they want, and JC “orders” LP officers to do this- the correct response from both the OR SoS and FB et al will be “so what?” None of them have any reason to care whether or not the group they recognize or do business with is an affiliate of the national LP.

  25. Andy Craig

    On M Carling’s facebook page (which I looked up to write a respectful demand of my own) is the following-

    “Stop the Iran deal!
    The Iran deal is weaker than the 1994 deal that helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons. It’s also weaker than the 1938 deal between Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler. Both of those deals were worse than no deal. Adolph Hitler and Kim Jong-il didn’t believe that nuclear armageddon is the key to eternal paradise. Iran’s ayatollahs do seem to believe that. Allowing zealots who believe that nuclear annihilation results in ever-lasting life to have nuclear weapons is not a good plan.
    Please sign this petition. ”

    Along with nonsense about how how Muslims in Minnesota “want sharia law” and other assorted Islamophobic tropes.

    *THIS* is the person who’s going to adjudicate “libertarian principles”?!

    https://www.facebook.com/m.carling.5

  26. paulie

    Say they get what they want, and JC “orders” LP officers to do this- the correct response from both the OR SoS and FB et al will be “so what?” None of them have any reason to care whether or not the group they recognize or do business with is an affiliate of the national LP.

    Exactly.

  27. paulie

    From what I can tell, the Judicial Committee and M Carling have as much authority to order me to wear a purple shirt on Thursdays, as they do to adopt any of the proposed “remedies.”

    Unfortunately, I predict most of the LNC will disagree. After which we will all be in for a world of hurt, including the LNC being sued by Wagner et al (who have a lot of money for lawsuits – remember that as much as Starr has spent on the Oregon lawsuits, they actually spent several times more, whereas the LNC is already hurting financially; a widespread publicity campaign by Wagner et al to get people to not give money to LNC, which is already in trouble on that front; and a big new ballot access hurdle we didn’t have before – Oregon is not an easy state to qualify, but in recent decades we didn’t have to worry about it; now we will — all while we are going into the presidential election cycle with no surplus set aside for ballot access, unlike the hundreds of thousands we had set aside in the past, and fundraising already sucking tailpipe.

    Unfortunately, I predict the LNC majority will not understand all this when they force compliance with what I am predicting will be the inevitable JC ruling (in fact, I am thinking it’s already written, too). They will fall for the arguments that the Oregon SOS and judges, facebook, ISPs, etc. will just listen to them, or that it’s the right thing to do on principle, or that the JC has the final say (which, to be fair – if they don’t, why do we have one?) … there will probably be a lot of naive thinking going around that LNC will prevail in a trademark infringement case against Wagner et al, which the LNC will lose.

    This is like being on a train that you know is about to wreck soon and not having any way to stop it. For someone like me who has put many thousands of hours over many years into trying to build the LP it is very depressing. On the other hand, I saw this coming over a year ago when the JC was elected, and actually expected it to happen sooner than this. Although, August is smart timing on their part (lots of people in summer vacation mode) and August 15 has some symbolic historical relevance in various ways (look it up).

  28. Daniel Hayes

    Typing at 7:30 in the morning isnt the best..lost a whole portion of a sentence in my head..and I will slap the follow up paragraph in here as well. Hopefully the moderator sees both and DELETES the first post by me.

    Regarding Mr Carling recusing himself. The is nothing from a Parliamentary standpoint, speaking strictly regarding RONR (11th ed.), when applied to this situation that says Mr Carling MUST recuse himself.

    That said..

    While I said above, that there nothing that says Mr Carling MUST recuse himself in RONR, There may be one that says he SHOULD recuse himself. That means its strongly suggested.

    “ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. RONR (11th ed.) p.407, ll. 21-25.”

    If Mr Carling was a member of one of the factions being ruled upon in this hearing by the JC, that certainly strikes me as a direct personal interest. Throw in that he is named in a lawsuit in an actual court case and he may even have a pecuniary interest in the case. That SHOULD recuse himself is getting a bit on the loud side.

  29. paulie

    That’s what he specifically asks for.

    I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if granting one or more of those requests would be personally beneficial to the Chair of the Judicial Committee.

    The stated rationale of the Epstein group is that they hope the SOS and Oregon courts will yield to the LNC on this. If the court were to defer to the lNC, responsibility for paying rather substantial lawyers fees and court costs will go to the plaintiffs; if they don’t, to the defendents. Carling is in fact one of theh plaintiffs. He has a direct personal financial stake, which is actually quite significant, here. Additionally, he is a member of the Epstein et al group and has been one of their officers on several occassions (judicial committee, convention chair, etc). How is it even remotely plausible for attorneys, or anyone, to argue that he has no conflict of interest? And if RONR considers that to not be a conflict of interest that should require recusal, that’s a serious defect of RONR. I would guess, offhand, that whatever jurisdiction LNC Inc’s corporate charter is with, as well as the Oregon and Federal courts, will all agree it is a blatant conflict of interest when (not if) they get to take up this matter.

  30. NewFederalist

    Is this the end of the LP then? Even the Prohibition Party survived the Dodge fiasco.

  31. paulie

    If M sees no possible conflict of interest here, he is either bring really disingenuous or is really stupid.

    He isn’t stupid.

    I also wonder why a leading LP figure would not be reading IPR regularly — there’s no other source I know of that covers the party objectively (for the most part) and in detail.

    Most of our comment community is not on his side on this or other intra-party controversies, as well as some public policy issues (see above regarding foreign policy, for example).

  32. paulie

    Yawn. Carling, seeing no conflict in being cop, jury, bailiff, judge, executioner, funeral director, and janitor.

    Of course not. All of his interests point in the same direction, so where’s the conflict? LOL.

  33. paulie

    Will this gem be live streamed, or will we wait for the tape or will it be a secret meeting?

    You got me on that one. Dunno. I think it’s a phone meeting, but I don’t know if they will let the public listen in or keep a public recording of the call.

  34. Daniel Hayes

    My grandma used to collect State Plates from state’s she visited. Does M Carling collect LP state memberships? Just how many state’s is he a member of their party? I recall seeing his name mentioned in New York, and of course there is Oregon. Where else?

  35. Andy Craig

    “Unfortunately, I predict most of the LNC will disagree.”

    If that happens I will not be renewing my national membership (which happens to have just lapsed), until *none* of the persons who vote in favor of this are no longer on the LNC. The only exception being if I decide to attend Orlando myself to help vote them out.

    To see a smart and capable chair like Nick, repeatedly frustrated by a bunch of ignorant and self-interested clowns who contribute *nothing* to the cause of getting Libertarians elected, does not make me want to hand over any more of my money to them.

  36. Andy Craig

    In my anger I used a double-negative, obviously that first sentence should read the opposite.

    Seriously though, how can anybody look at this mess with a straight face and say the LNC is worth supporting? We need a clean sweep in Orlando, desperately. If I want to support ballot access, I’ll give directly to the relevant state party. Beyond that? What exactly am I paying for that couldn’t be done better by my own state and county parties? I can’t be the only one thinking that. And I’m about as diehard a loyal Libertarian as you’ll find.

  37. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    Unfortunately, I predict most of the LNC will disagree. After which we will all be in for a world of hurt, including the LNC being sued by Wagner et al (who have a lot of money for lawsuits – remember that as much as Starr has spent on the Oregon lawsuits, they actually spent several times more, whereas the LNC is already hurting financially; a widespread publicity campaign by Wagner et al to get people to not give money to LNC, which is already in trouble on that front; and a big new ballot access hurdle we didn’t have before – Oregon is not an easy state to qualify, but in recent decades we didn’t have to worry about it; now we will — all while we are going into the presidential election cycle with no surplus set aside for ballot access, unlike the hundreds of thousands we had set aside in the past, and fundraising already sucking tailpipe.

    Unfortunately, I predict the LNC majority will not understand all this when they force compliance with what I am predicting will be the inevitable JC ruling (in fact, I am thinking it’s already written, too). They will fall for the arguments that the Oregon SOS and judges, facebook, ISPs, etc. will just listen to them, or that it’s the right thing to do on principle, or that the JC has the final say (which, to be fair – if they don’t, why do we have one?) … there will probably be a lot of naive thinking going around that LNC will prevail in a trademark infringement case against Wagner et al, which the LNC will lose.

    This is like being on a train that you know is about to wreck soon and not having any way to stop it. For someone like me who has put many thousands of hours over many years into trying to build the LP it is very depressing. On the other hand, I saw this coming over a year ago when the JC was elected, and actually expected it to happen sooner than this. Although, August is smart timing on their part (lots of people in summer vacation mode) and August 15 has some symbolic historical relevance in various ways (look it up).

    Exactly! I completely agree with everything in this comment and have been saying this in bits and pieces elsewhere since the convention (most recent piece here).

    The LNC doesn’t understand the ramifications of what is going on with this judicial committee hearing and the “remedies” (except for Nick Sarwark, who has been sensibly trying to stop the trainwreck). The convention didn’t understand the ramifications of snubbing the Wagner delegation repeatedly. M Carling understands exactly what will happen — I know because I conversed briefly with Starr and Carling about Oregon before the bylaws committee “meeting” (dubbed an informal drafting session) last month and when I pointed out the probable reaction of the Wagner group Starr said any blame for bankrupting the national LP should fall on Wagner et al. not the people provoking him. A majority of the judicial committee (to be later rubber stamped by a majority of the LNC) will poke the bee’s nest, then blame the bees.

  38. Wes Wagner

    The issues with the LNC cannot be solved by voting at a convention. The powerful states who are in alignment with the true principles need to break away and form a new confederation.

    Anything less will cause us to wallow in turpitude until we die.

  39. Andy Craig

    If there really is a majority on the LNC that intends to go along with this insane scheme, then we’d do better picking names at random off the membership roll than what we have now.

  40. Wes Wagner

    Andy

    The problems are institutional, and they reflect a culmination of culture that has been allowed to develop over 30 years. This does not get solved in a convention… it is solved by all the productive members of the organization leaving the scum behind and restructuring in a manner that is aligned with the core principles shared by those producers.

    In reality the states own all the assets, the people in those states are the only value the party has. Everything else is nothing more than theater to benefit the bureaucrats, the game players, the apparatchiks, etc. The system is designed to allow them to pretend at being important, to play politics, while accomplishing nothing.

    This has been significantly deleterious to our ability to be effective in actually advancing our ideas in the marketplace of public thought. If one invests the time to consider what the national LP does, who is voted into control, why they are voted into control, how we manage our own finances, etc.,one would come to the conclusion that institutionally we are not significantly different than the people we claim we want to displace in congress and other branches of government.

    This is core as to why we fail … we fight the wrong war with the wrong structure using the wrong army and we allow our perversion to compound every election cycle.

    We have earned and deserve failure … but the pissing match regarding Oregon is just the symbol most ordinary and productive people who don’t dwell on these considerations needs to make the root of the problem so painfully obvious for them that they can no longer continue.

    The LNC was bankrupt long ago — this series of what may eventually be considered fortuitous events if we take the right actions resulting from them — may ultimately be something that is considered as having saved libertarianism in American politics rather than destroyed it.

    The difficulty level: a majority of producers need to come to the rational conclusion that the temple must be razed.

  41. Chuck Moulton

    There is a majority on the LNC that will say the JC decision must be respected under the bylaws, whether or not they agree with the decision (or think the JC has gone insane).

    I actually agree that the LNC can’t just ignore the JC. When the JC rubber stamps the Reeves group, the LNC would need to switch data sharing to the Reeves group. On the other hand, I do not see any reason the LNC should be forced into writing letters to a domain registrar, the secretary of state, Facebook, or Meetup. They could leave that be.

    The most sensible thing for the LNC to do after the JC violates the bylaws recognizing the Reeves group without subject matter jurisdiction would be to immediately introduce and pass a motion disaffiliating the Reeves group.

  42. Wes Wagner

    Email dated 6/4/2011 to Mary Ruwart:

    Mary,

    Mr. Knight is correct. The entire idea that national has any leverage on the Libertarian Party of Oregon is just the wishful dreams and hopes of some individuals at national who like to inspire fear and threaten state parties into line. These are the actions of an organization and people who believe they hold the power to decide who gets to have fiefdoms and if those feudal lords do not act as they desire, then they of course have to be disposed of.

    Unfortunately, as in most great lies, the reverse of the message being perpetrated by the liar is often the truth. That happens to be the case in this instance. National has absolutely no authority under Oregon election law whatsoever, and previous threats (ones which you are being simply echoing because you are hearing them) are vacuous.

    The intent behind those threats, however, speaks volumes of the woeful misguidance of party “leadership”. National already declared war on the Libertarian Party of Oregon, through the actions that occurred prior to the November 2010 convention, actions that were discussed and almost taken in 2007, and a few other issues. However, this latest interloping was far beyond the pale.

    I will however, out of the respect I have for you personally, settle down the sabre rattling in order to allow you to try to seek a favorable outcome and give our board time to take formal action on this matter.

    However, bear in mind that the typical national response of playing ostrich and pretending you do not have bad actors amongst your mix and hoping that no one will notice after a giant blunder like this occurred and that somehow it will blow over will not be considered acceptable and the issue will be pressed. Mr. Burke and his ilk tried that path in Oregon, and you have seen how that turned out for them. All they have now is a begging bowl, and some people at national seem inclined to repeat their mistakes.

    Ultimately though, this is the way it really is: If national does not take visible corrective action in an open and transparent manner, self-preservation and principle alone would compel us to respond, lest we continue to invite more abuse by behaving like a co-dependent cowed abused subordinate.

    In short, public seppuku is in order. If the individuals involved do not have that much honor, than the national party at least needs to regain their honor by making it involuntary seppuku in order to gain theirs back.

    Abiding them and doing nothing makes the entirety of your organization bear their guilt. If the national LP does not have the courage to take out the trash in their own organization, they cannot be trusted to deal appropriately with the D’s and the R’s, and thus are of no value. We learned this lesson in Oregon and it took way too long – but we will hold national to this standard now that we know better.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner

  43. George Phillies

    The effective alternative is to go down the list, namely the people on the original ExComm who voted to recognize the Reeves faction, the 14 LNC members who made a supportive statement to the last JudComm, anyone who identifiably supported the last two Oregon delegation travesties, and any people who manage to get the LNC sued if this actually happens, and expel the lot of them from the National Party. And return their current dues, of course.

    Fortunately, or perhaps not, the LNC does have substantial assets that the legitimate Oregon Party and its officers may recover if they sue successfully for damages: A Treasury, possibly with positive dollar contents. A building. Various pieces of literature. Intellectual property. All copies of multiple mailing lists. Oh, yes, various trademarks. Ownership of the corporate structure. The right to file with the FEC as a “political party” rather than a PAC.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    I just renewed my “national membership” this morning (I’ve been meaning to do it for a month and kept forgetting). I guess I’m just a die-hard bitter-ender, but the election of Sarwark as chair gave me new hope that the LNC could be straightened out. That hope may have been false, but I intend to fight for it at least one last time next year in Orlando.

    Quoth Paulie:

    “or that the JC has the final say (which, to be fair – if they don’t, why do we have one?)”

    The Judicial Committee has an explicit jurisdiction, laid out to a reasonable level of detail in the bylaws. That jurisdiction does not include acting as a “keep reconsidering as often as we please” appellate court versus prior Judicial Committee decisions on the basis of untimely complaints (if the Reeves Gang ever had been an affiliate, the bylaws gave them 30 days to appeal their disaffiliation) by parties without standing (the Reeves Gang was never an affiliate).

    The US Supreme Court has “final say” within its jurisdiction, too. But that doesn’t mean the justices can decide to “take up a case” that consists of the Comptroller of Argentina calling up John Roberts and saying “you really ought to outlaw cake.”

  45. George Phillies

    Oh yes, any member of the current Judicial Committee who votes to support the Reeves faction. And be sure that the other JudComm members are in position to appoint, immediately, replacement JudComm members so that when the expelees appeal their earned fate, well, they earned it.

    Alternatively, prepare to organize a new national party. “Liberty for America” based on Hayekian Libertarianism comes to mind.

  46. Andy Craig

    “There is a majority on the LNC that will say the JC decision must be respected under the bylaws, whether or not they agree with the decision (or think the JC has gone insane).”

    So the JC can do literally whatever it wants and issue any order it wants, in the total absence of any authority to do so, and the LNC will just rubberstamp it because they’re the JC? Why even bother having written by-laws at all then, if JC can just make it up as they go along and nobody can do anything about it?

    “The most sensible thing for the LNC to do after the JC violates the bylaws recognizing the Reeves group without subject matter jurisdiction would be to immediately introduce and pass a motion disaffiliating the Reeves group.”

    …which they never voted to affiliate with in the first place.

  47. George Phillies

    “he justices can decide to “take up a case”” Yes, you can file directly with teh SC, and in cases where they have first jurisdiction they may even take it up.

  48. Wes Wagner

    M and Burke are running the same game at national which caused the abolishment of the judicial committee as an institution in Oregon. I would not be surprised if the next national organization had no judicial committee.

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m not sure where you think you’re disagreeing with me.

    Yes, the Supreme Court can accept any case where a plaintiff has standing and the Court has jurisdiction. But as I pointed out, in this instance the plaintiff lacks standing and the Judicial Committee lacks jurisdiction.

  50. paulie

    My grandma used to collect State Plates from state’s she visited. Does M Carling collect LP state memberships? Just how many state’s is he a member of their party? I recall seeing his name mentioned in New York, and of course there is Oregon. Where else?

    Off the top of my head, California. Although last I heard, he actually lives most of the time in either Latvia or Lithuania, I’m forgetting which.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So the JC can do literally whatever it wants and issue any order it wants, in the total absence of any authority to do so, and the LNC will just rubberstamp it because they’re the JC?”

    The possibility of such a rubber stamp does indeed exist.

    It would be easy to just blame Starr/Mattson/Carling and their accomplices and dupes for that mindset, given their efforts over the course of more than a decade to destroy the LP by exploiting its institutional dysfunctions.

    But those dysfunctions were already there to exploit.

  52. Andy Craig

    “Although last I heard, he actually lives most of the time in either Latvia or Lithuania, I’m forgetting which.”

    That’s the first thing I’ve heard about this fiasco which makes any sense.

  53. paulie

    The LNC doesn’t understand the ramifications of what is going on with this judicial committee hearing and the “remedies” (except for Nick Sarwark, who has been sensibly trying to stop the trainwreck).

    I asked Nick what his next move was after the JC rules as I expect they will. He said he can’t control what other people do. If he’s thinking even one move ahead, he clearly does not want my advice on strategy. I also suggested that I thought it would help if the winning side of the 2011 JC vote which is being reconsidered (Wrights, Nick, and Judge Gray) clarified as Bill Hall already did that “..the group recognized by the SOS is the state affiliate…” just means the Wagner group in that particular case, not any state party recognized by any state SOS in any state at any time, as the Carling/Starr/Burke/Reeves/Epstein argument contends.

    I don’t think there is any way to head them off at the pass, but I do think that if the winning majority of the 2011 JC decision went on record about this it would help with the public relations nightmare and lawsuits which will follow from this.

    If the current JC can’t say that they did not see a clarification from the JC whose ruling they are supposedly reconsidering, it will be easier to counter-argue against their case.

    Nick said he will not engage them at this time, Lee asked me what the hell is going on (a few minutes ago), and Judge Gray did not respond (at least yet).

    As an illustration of their side of this argument the Epstein/Burke side got Mike Lawson to write the JC:

    Dear Members of the Judicial Committee:

    We are appealing to be recognized as the affiliate for Alabama.

    It’s my understanding that your rules require you to recognize as the affiliate whatever entity the Secretary of State recognizes. I have recently filed incorporation papers with the Alabama Secretary of State for the Libertarian Party of Alabama, Inc. I serve as the President and Treasurer. My daughter serves as Secretary.

    Currently, a group not recognized by the Secretary of State is recognized by the Libertarian National Committee. We request that you direct the Libertarian National Committee to recognize Libertarian Party of Alabama, Inc. as the affiliate, and myself and daughter as the officers.

    I am a big Rand Paul fan and also serve on the executive committee of the county GOP. To ensure we have a full delegation, we intend to recruit other Rand Paul supporters to send as delegates to the upcoming national convention in Orlando and I would like to know to whom we should send our list of delegates.

    Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Lawson
    President
    Libertarian Party of Alabama, Inc.

    Supposing Mike Lawson did in fact seriously do this, him and his daughter would be recognized by AL-SOS *as a PAC*, not as a party. The current LPAL is already recognized by AL-SOS as a PAC. We are not recognized as a *party* — but then neither would Lawson and daughter, unless they got about 35,000 valid signatures certified as such by the SOS not later than March 1, 2016, and comply with various other requirements of being recognized as a party. On the latter score we haven’t done that since 2000 – but they will not have, either.

  54. paulie

    The convention didn’t understand the ramifications of snubbing the Wagner delegation repeatedly. M Carling understands exactly what will happen — I know because I conversed briefly with Starr and Carling about Oregon before the bylaws committee “meeting” (dubbed an informal drafting session) last month and when I pointed out the probable reaction of the Wagner group Starr said any blame for bankrupting the national LP should fall on Wagner et al. not the people provoking him. A majority of the judicial committee (to be later rubber stamped by a majority of the LNC) will poke the bee’s nest, then blame the bees.

    Yep.

  55. paulie

    There is a majority on the LNC that will say the JC decision must be respected under the bylaws, whether or not they agree with the decision (or think the JC has gone insane).

    Yep. But, additionally, by all past indications, most of them will actually agree with that decision as well. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

    I actually agree that the LNC can’t just ignore the JC. When the JC rubber stamps the Reeves group, the LNC would need to switch data sharing to the Reeves group. On the other hand, I do not see any reason the LNC should be forced into writing letters to a domain registrar, the secretary of state, Facebook, or Meetup. They could leave that be.

    If the JC issues that ruling and the JC is the ultimate authority, isn’t the LNC directed to do all those things? Wouldn’t failure to do them just lead to another JC appeal?

    The most sensible thing for the LNC to do after the JC violates the bylaws recognizing the Reeves group without subject matter jurisdiction would be to immediately introduce and pass a motion disaffiliating the Reeves group.

    I don’t see that happening. Even if it did, they would then have to reaffiliate with the Wagner group, and who says the Wagner group would decide to reaffiliate with them? I am guessing the answer would be no.

  56. George Phillies

    Listening to advice, especially form people who do not agree with you, is good up to a point. You need to stop before you reach the chemtrail nuts, the out of the UN because it is the chief threat to our liberties folks, etc., at least on the topic of their lunacies.

    Mr Sarwark has already dropped at least two hints that he may not be running for re-election. At some point, when you reach that class of conclusion, you decide to look ahead and let current matters take their course. However, like all hints, perhaps they need a different interpretation. Lawsuits take sufficiently long to resolve that the catastrophe may take years to occur.

    I have had several of our party’s competent attorneys try to explain to me that an Oregon suit for court costs would go no where. This explanation lasted until I explained that the entire process is occurring under Oregon law, not Federal law, and Oregon law apparently has somewhat vigorous shields against straw litigants.

    Mr Wagner’s remarks about criminal law protections of his organization’s property should in my opinion be taken seriously.

  57. paulie

    “or that the JC has the final say (which, to be fair – if they don’t, why do we have one?)”

    The Judicial Committee has an explicit jurisdiction, laid out to a reasonable level of detail in the bylaws. That jurisdiction does not include acting as a “keep reconsidering as often as we please” appellate court versus prior Judicial Committee decisions on the basis of untimely complaints (if the Reeves Gang ever had been an affiliate, the bylaws gave them 30 days to appeal their disaffiliation) by parties without standing (the Reeves Gang was never an affiliate).

    The US Supreme Court has “final say” within its jurisdiction, too. But that doesn’t mean the justices can decide to “take up a case” that consists of the Comptroller of Argentina calling up John Roberts and saying “you really ought to outlaw cake.”

    I agree. The question is what happens if the LNC and JC disagree whether the JC has jurisdiction or not. In 2011 after the JC vote, the LNC passed a resolution that the JC did not have jurisdiction and had exceeded its authority in recognizing the Wagner group as a group with standing to bring the case, and in issuing a ruling that they believe is not supported by the bylaws. Supposing the shoe is now on the other foot… If it’s up to the LNC to decide whether a particular JC ruling was within the authority of the JC, that makes the LNC, not the JC, the final arbiter. Atthat point you can reasonably say that the JC is toothless and should not even exist as it serves no practical purpose – appeal an action of the LNC, lose at the JC, LNC overrules it.

    It was on this basis that Starr and allies advanced a bylaws proposal to eliminate the JC altogether last year.

  58. paulie

    The effective alternative is to go down the list, namely the people on the original ExComm who voted to recognize the Reeves faction, the 14 LNC members who made a supportive statement to the last JudComm, anyone who identifiably supported the last two Oregon delegation travesties, and any people who manage to get the LNC sued if this actually happens, and expel the lot of them from the National Party. And return their current dues, of course.

    That’s rather a lot of people. And the convention delegates by and large did not understand the ramifications of that vote.

    Fortunately, or perhaps not, the LNC does have substantial assets that the legitimate Oregon Party and its officers may recover if they sue successfully for damages: A Treasury, possibly with positive dollar contents. A building. Various pieces of literature. Intellectual property. All copies of multiple mailing lists. Oh, yes, various trademarks. Ownership of the corporate structure. The right to file with the FEC as a “political party” rather than a PAC.

    Fortunately? I don’t think so.

  59. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If the JC issues that ruling and the JC is the ultimate authority”

    The second clause there is fantasy. The JC is the ultimate authority ON CERTAIN THINGS and UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. It’s not just some magical ultimate authority on everything.

    The bylaws say what the JC’s jurisdiction is.

    Its jurisdiction does cover actual disaffiliation of actual affiliate parties, provided that the disaffiliated organization appeals the disaffiliation to it within 30 days.

    In this case, there was no actual disaffiliation, since the Reeves Gang was never an affiliate party. And even if the Reeves Gang HAD been an actual affiliate party and HAD been actually disaffiliated, the 30-day appeal period within which the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction applies ran out a long time ago.

    The LNC is not “directed” in the bylaws to do whatever the Judicial Committee says, just because the Judicial Committee said to do it. There are specific rules for disaffiliation, just as there are specific rules for other situations. For example, if the LNC does something M Carling doesn’t like, M Carling doesn’t get to just convene the Judicial Committee and overturn it. An action of the LNC has to be appealed to the Judicial Committee by a certain number of members or national convention delegates before the Judicial Committee gets the power to consider it.

  60. paulie

    Alternatively, prepare to organize a new national party.

    Good luck. It’s not as easy as that. Putting all those lists and databases and other existing infrastucture back together will be a massive task, and quite likely impossible. In the meantime, we will fail to get ballot access in multiple states, some states will lose existing ballot access, some will cease to have LPs of any kind at all. Many states don’t even have their own database other than what national gives them, and don’t have anyone that will create and consistently maintain one. There won’t be much of a mechanism for states to help each other out with ballot access. A chunk of our national press release/media interviews – out the window. Sorry, office closed, no one to call. Who does the national media call about national issues if they want the LP’s opinion…some state party? Which state? Many states don’t have a newsletter – LP News is the only communication a lot of members ever see. That will be gone. Many states don’t do their own fundraising; LP national fundraising is all that people ever get. And when they don’t get emails, snail mail, etc, the lists get stale. People move, lose interest, etc.

    How long will it take to replace all that? Can it even be done at all?

  61. mvetanen

    Clearly M Carling has gone ‘Rouge’ and leading the JC down that path as well. This is from what I see, M Carling though the JC is taking control of the LNC though judicial fiats.

    It is now up to the LNC Board to stand up and counter M Carling or will backdown and become his submissive.

  62. paulie

    The bylaws say what the JC’s jurisdiction is.

    Yes, but in this matter there is disagreement over who is right. The question is who gets to decide? If an act of Congress and the President is appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court rules against them, should Congress and the president be able to say the court lacked authority?

    Its jurisdiction does cover actual disaffiliation of actual affiliate parties, provided that the disaffiliated organization appeals the disaffiliation to it within 30 days.

    In this case, there was no actual disaffiliation, since the Reeves Gang was never an affiliate party. And even if the Reeves Gang HAD been an actual affiliate party and HAD been actually disaffiliated, the 30-day appeal period within which the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction applies ran out a long time ago.

    The other side has counterarguments to all those points, and arguments for why they believe the 2011 ruling lacked standing and exceeded authority by ruling on a basis not covered in the bylaws. The LNC agreed with that counterargument. The question is who gets to decide?

    An action of the LNC has to be appealed to the Judicial Committee by a certain number of members or national convention delegates before the Judicial Committee gets the power to consider it.

    Or by a state affiliate. According to them, Epstein, Reeves, Burke et al are the legitimate state affiliate, as recognized by various votes of the LNC and convention delegates; the 2011 decision is null and oid and lacked jurisdiction and authority to begin with; etc.

    And Carling accepted that logic in taking the case. Naturally, since he probably wrote or co-wrote it.

  63. paulie

    Clearly M Carling has gone ‘Rouge’

    So next we will have a bloody ‘Mascara’.

    It is now up to the LNC Board to stand up and counter M Carling

    Sadly, I don’t see it happening.

  64. Wes Wagner

    “Yes, but in this matter there is disagreement over who is right. The question is who gets to decide? If an act of Congress and the President is appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court rules against them, should Congress and the president be able to say the court lacked authority? ”

    If the court took a case about regulations requiring veterinarians to have certain qualifications and in turn issued a ruling ordering the president to launch a nuclear strike against china… ?

  65. paulie

    If the court took a case about regulations requiring veterinarians to have certain qualifications and in turn issued a ruling ordering the president to launch a nuclear strike against china… ?

    The 2011 LNC caimed this was the case with the 2011 JC.

  66. Wes Wagner

    “The 2011 LNC caimed this was the case with the 2011 JC.”

    And those claims were absurd, as the judicial committee explained to them that the officers and agents of a legal entity remain that legal entity no matter what fantasy they want to believe. There is objective reality and the 2011 LNC was trying to ignore it.

  67. paulie

    Listening to advice, especially form people who do not agree with you, is good up to a point.

    Why would you presume I disagree with him? I’m on his side on this and was hoping to help him plan. That’s OK though.

    You need to stop before you reach the chemtrail nuts, …

    No one was discussing chemtrails here, and it’s not a particular hobby of mine. I was going to help strategize about possible responses to the present situation. Clearly my advice was not wanted.

    the out of the UN …

    Off topic, but what’s so great about the UN?

    Mr Sarwark has already dropped at least two hints that he may not be running for re-election.

    He said he hasn’t decided. I would not blame him for not taking another two years to devote to such a huge volunteer task when he he has a growing family and business to take care of, nor for being fed up with crap like this and much else, but he hasn’t actually said he is unlikely to run, only that he hasn’t decided.

    Geoff Neale likewise claimed to be undecided about running again, until he announced, although it seemed clear to me and many othesr that he had and was running again.

    Lawsuits take sufficiently long to resolve that the catastrophe may take years to occur.

    Yes, but they will suck up a lot of money and good will in the meantime, as will the publicity campaign and the ballot access domino effect.

    Mr Wagner’s remarks about criminal law protections of his organization’s property should in my opinion be taken seriously.

    I agree.

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    “An action of the LNC has to be appealed to the Judicial Committee by a certain number of members or national convention delegates before the Judicial Committee gets the power to consider it.

    “Or by a state affiliate.”

    Nope. At least not according to the bylaws. The only thing state affiliates get to appeal is disaffiliation.

  69. paulie

    Nope. At least not according to the bylaws. The only thing state affiliates get to appeal is disaffiliation.

    They are saying they have been de facto disaffiliated, just like Wagner et al did in 2011.

  70. Nicholas Sarwark

    Clarifications for those who may be interested:

    I am likely to seek re-election as Chair. Like all things likely, that is subject to change if circumstances dictate. There are good reasons to stay Chair and good reasons to step down, but the former outweigh the latter at present.

    My not seeking advice at this time is not because I don’t want or appreciate it, it’s because this situation is fluid and it seems premature to spend a lot of time planning for unknown future events. I know that many of the commenters here are very confident that they know what is going to happen next; I am less so.

    Additionally, much of my time in the last couple of weeks has been taken up with the actual work of being Chairman of the LNC, like fundraising calls, communication with staff, responding to Libertarian Party members, etc. I also work and have a family. The time I budget for shenanigans is a relatively small amount.

    As a Marine I used to work with liked to say, “Semper Gumby,” i.e. stay flexible.

    The Marines have another saying that’s also apropos, “Adapt and overcome.”

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How long will it take to replace all that?”

    Everything except the donor base? A week or so.

    Of course the donor base is necessary to providing for ballot access in states with tough laws and/or not especially strong affiliates. And it might take years to rebuild that donor base. Or it might turn out that there are lots of former national donors out there who are ready to become donors again if the LP straightens the hell up; and people who’ve declined to donate in the past due to the ongoing foolishness who might take a flyer on a new organization that seems to have its shit together.

    The best time for state affiliates to leave the LNC and set up a new affiliation apparatus would be the day after a presidential election, giving them four years to get handle on presidential ballot access for the next one.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    “They are saying they have been de facto disaffiliated”

    Yeah — more than 30 days ago. They had 30 days from disaffiliation to appeal. It’s been what, two years? Three?

  73. paulie

    Everything except the donor base? A week or so.

    You’re dreaming.

    Of course the donor base is necessary to providing for ballot access in states with tough laws and/or not especially strong affiliates.

    The will to make it happen, knowing how to plan it and execute it, knowing how to fundraise, credibility with donors … donor base is just one of many elements.

    And it might take years to rebuild that donor base.

    In the meantime, all the other things I mentioned happen.

    Or it might turn out that there are lots of former national donors out there who are ready to become donors again if the LP straightens the hell up; and people who’ve declined to donate in the past due to the ongoing foolishness who might take a flyer on a new organization that seems to have its shit together.

    Highly unlikely.

    The best time for state affiliates to leave the LNC and set up a new affiliation apparatus would be the day after a presidential election, giving them four years to get handle on presidential ballot access for the next one.

    Many of the states don’t care about the states without ballot access. In fact that is one of their perpetual complaints about the LNC. There are a lot of things that have been built up by trial and error, institutional knowledge… that will all be gone.

    The best time for state affiliates to leave the LNC and set up a new affiliation apparatus would be the day after a presidential election, giving them four years to get handle on presidential ballot access for the next one.

    And they most likely will still be in disarray four years later.

  74. Nicholas Sarwark

    To be more clear, the claim is that my email to Mr. Epstein was a disaffiliation and that they are appealing that within the 30 days.

    Regardless of merit, it’s important to correctly state their position.

  75. Andy Craig

    “I am likely to seek re-election as Chair. Like all things likely, that is subject to change if circumstances dictate. There are good reasons to stay Chair and good reasons to step down, but the former outweigh the latter at present.”

    At least that’s some good news today. 😉

  76. paulie

    To be more clear, the claim is that my email to Mr. Epstein was a disaffiliation and that they are appealing that within the 30 days.

    Regardless of merit, it’s important to correctly state their position.

    That’s one of their claims. They also claim various ongoing actions (not getting monthly dumps, not being on statechairs list, not being listed on the website, etc). The underlying premise is that they are the legitimate affiliate as expressed indirectly by the votes of the delegates and more directly by the LNC motion which passed in 2011 saying the JC ruling then is null and void because it lacked jurisdiction and authority.

    Also they claim they have unlimited time to reconsider any ruling by any past JC, in this case the 2011 ruling.

  77. Andy Craig

    Somebody should dig up some JC ruling from the 70s or 80s (if the archives even exist) and try to appeal it for reconsideration by Carling et al.

  78. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am going to beg tolerance once as I am new to this and been diligently working at keeping up. Right now, I am ignoring the history prior to the 2011 JC decision. To me, that is kind of the reset point and that what went on before is irrelevant (will eventually learn that). So the 2011 JC decided in favor of the Wagner faction against the Reeves faction. The LNC disagreed, but eventually had to capitulate so that the Wagner faction is the official affiliate? Is this correct so far?

    Now, many years later, the Reeves (now Epstein but going to call it Reeves for continuity) faction is appealing the 2011 JC decision. On what grounds? And under what theory of jurisdiction?

    And Carling is biased towards the Reeves faction…. if a decision is granted in favor of the Reeves faction, the Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP (which I have a lot of problems with that threat btw–some of us are in this because we actually believe this stuff and what is best for people, not this power bullshit– just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you should and screw everyone up the yahoo )?

  79. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===To be more clear, the claim is that my email to Mr. Epstein was a disaffiliation and that they are appealing that within the 30 days.===

    To be sure I am following, where is the text of this email exchange?

  80. paulie

    I am likely to seek re-election as Chair

    In addition to this giant mess, the fundraising and membership trends issue needs to be effectively addressed. Biggest relatively easy thing that has to be done on that is get HQ to push monthly pledges way, way, way more. Large scale prospecting would be great, but it does take some money to get rolling with that.

    this situation is fluid and it seems premature to spend a lot of time planning for unknown future events.

    It’s possible to have some contigency plans.

    I know that many of the commenters here are very confident that they know what is going to happen next; I am less so.

    Carling, Visek, Wolf, and almost certainly Sink-Burris are solid votes on their side. I don’t think M would have even bothered taking the case unless he knew he had the votes lined up. Setting himself up for a defeat wouldn’t have been smart.

    And please don’t tell me we can’t predict which way Carling will vote, LOL.

    Additionally, much of my time in the last couple of weeks has been taken up with the actual work of being Chairman of the LNC, like fundraising calls, communication with staff, responding to Libertarian Party members, etc. I also work and have a family. The time I budget for shenanigans is a relatively small amount.

    Certainly understandable, but the fallout from this one will be huge. Contigency plans are important, as I think would have been a clarification from the 2011 JC. Oh well.

    The Marines have another saying that’s also apropos, “Adapt and overcome.”

    I believe Marines are also fond of the 6 Ps, although I don’t know whether that’s specifically a Marine thing or just more general. Knapp might could fill us in on that.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You write:

    “if a decision is granted in favor of the Reeves faction, the Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP (which I have a lot of problems with that threat btw”

    It’s somewhat untrue to treat it as a “threat.”

    What you’re calling the “Wagner faction” has a formal name. It is the Libertarian Party of Oregon. It will remain the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and it will control access for the Libertarian Party ballot line in Oregon, regardless of anything the Judicial Committee or the LNC does. All the LPO is saying is that if the JC/LNC disaffiliate it, it will act accordingly. If it’s not the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, for example, it has no obligation to put the LNC’s presidential nominee on the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon.

    You mention a lack of familiarity with the situation prior to the 2011 ruling. In brief, that history includes several instances of the LNC itself, the LNC’s executive committee, and certain persons associated with both, aiding and abetting the Reeves Gang impostors in their attempt to destroy LPO, steal its LNC affiliation without even the formality of a vote of the full LNC, etc.

    So far LPO has talked mean but played nice. At some point it is not unreasonable to expect that they’ll start defending themselves instead of just hoping the LNC and the Judicial Committee do the right thing.

  82. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom I am using the names for my own clarify, not imply no one is legitimate. I DON’T KNOW!!! I am trying to figure this out. So until then I hope you will excuse my terminology it is not meant for anything else other than clarity for me.

    And I am sorry Tom, it was worded as a threat. And I didn’t say they didn’t have the right to make it. I was asking if they should make it.

    I have a lack of familiarity with the whole thing, admitted. I am not yet interested in going prior to the 2011 JC ruling as I want to understand properly what happened after.

    So other than not liking my terminology or my objection to what I saw as a threat, were the facts right? Can you correct me where I am wrong on the facts?

    It is obviously you have a side in this and that is fine, but I don’t yet. It may yet be your side, but that won’t happen except by patient explaining. I really just want to learn.

  83. paulie

    All the LPO is saying is that if the JC/LNC disaffiliate it, it will act accordingly. If it’s not the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, for example, it has no obligation to put the LNC’s presidential nominee on the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon.

    That’s not all. What has been hinted at also includes lawsuits and nationwide publicity to minimize LNC donations, working to get other states to disaffiliate from the LNC, etc.

  84. Nicholas Sarwark

    To be sure I am following, where is the text of this email exchange?

    The text is reproduced in the petition, but it’s easier for me to copy from my email, since I was one of the participants in the exchange. See below:

    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Received: by 10.180.41.208 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
    Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:12:11 -0700
    Subject: Re: LP Oregon snafu
    From: Nicholas Sarwark
    To: Ian Epstein
    Cc: “secretary@lp.org”
    Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11c2883010318e051925ebc1

    –001a11c2883010318e051925ebc1
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28830103180051925ebbf

    –001a11c28830103180051925ebbf
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

    Dear Mr. Epstein,

    Thank you for contacting me.

    It is my understanding that your group’s lawsuit to establish your status
    as the Libertarian Party of Oregon was dismissed at summary judgment on
    October 25, 2013 and that you are currently appealing that ruling.
    Additionally, it is my understanding that your group has requested that the
    Oregon Secretary of State recognize it as the Libertarian Party of Oregon
    and that the Secretary of State has both declined to do so and required
    that you operate as a political action committee (see attached letter).

    As such, I will not comply with your demands. Please do inform me if the
    legal situation changes.

    Yours in liberty,

    Nicholas Sarwark

    Chair, Libertarian National Committee

    On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Ian Epstein wrote:

    > Dear Chair Sarwark,
    >
    > The Libertarian Party of Oregon held it’s 2015 Annual Business Convention
    > at the Red Lion Inn on Saturday, March 21, in the city of Pendleton. The
    > convention was properly noticed and held in accordance with LPO Bylaws
    > adopted by members in properly noticed conventions.
    >
    > At that convention I was elected to the position of LPO Chair and
    > currently serve in that capacity. Unfortunately, your staff continues to
    > recognize another organization as the LNC’s Oregon affiliate. This is
    > despite numerous resolutions adopted by the LNC and it’s Executive
    > Committee during the previous LNC term saying that the organization I
    > represent is the legitimate LNC affiliate in Oregon. From what I
    > understand, none of those resolutions have been rescinded or reversed by
    > the current LNC.
    >
    > I understand that the National Judicial Committee, which you chaired in
    > the previous term, ruled to defer a question to the Oregon Secretary of
    > State which they have refused to adjudicate, specifically whether the
    > legitimate LNC affiliate organization in Oregon is the one operating under
    > governing documents adopted by members at properly noticed conventions or
    > the organization operating under governing documents purportedly adopted at
    > a March 31, 2011 State Committee meeting.
    >
    > This being the case, I respectfully demand that you instruct your staff to
    > follow LNC resolutions still in force by recognizing our organization as
    > the legitimate LNC affiliate in Oregon (the one operating under governing
    > documents adopted by members in properly noticed conventions) which has
    > been the LNC’s Oregon affiliate since the 1970s. I further demand that
    > staff be instructed to make all necessary changes to the LNC’s Internet
    > presence and all other relevant administrative policies in order to be
    > consistent with this recognition.
    >
    > For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the minutes of the March
    > 21, 2015 LPO Annual Business Convention. Thank you.
    >
    > Ian Epstein, State Chair
    > Libertarian Party of Oregon
    >
    > Attachment
    >
    > cc: Alicia Mattson, National LP Secretary
    >

  85. paulie

    ===To be more clear, the claim is that my email to Mr. Epstein was a disaffiliation and that they are appealing that within the 30 days.===

    To be sure I am following, where is the text of this email exchange?

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Judicial-Committee-Petition-Submission.pdf and see discussion at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/appeal-on-oregon-libertarian-effective-disaffiliation-filed-with-libertarian-national-judiciary-committee/

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    This isn’t a matter of me “not liking your terminology.”

    The “Wagner faction” IS the Libertarian Party of Oregon. That’s a simple and irrefutable fact established several times in court. And that fact has consequences. If the Judicial Committee and/or the LNC disaffiliate LPO, the consequences that cannot be properly blamed on LPO or described as LPO “going nuclear.”

    LPO owns the name “Libertarian Party of Oregon.” The LNC does not.

    LPO owns the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon. The LNC does not.

    Those are just facts.

    I know that you want to limit the discussion to events following the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling, but that’s just impossible to do.

    The LNC’s executive committee attempted to disaffiliate LPO in favor of the Reeves Gang, even though it had no power to do so — disaffiliation requires a vote of the entire LNC. That was why the Judicial Committee came into the matter in the first place.

    The LNC spent member money on lawyers to assist the Reeves Gang in its legal attempts to fraudulently wrest control of LPO’s assets from LPO through the courts.

    Four five years or so now, the LNC has fairly routinely made war upon its Oregon affiliate. That affiliate’s response has been to defend itself and to “threaten” the LNC with the obvious ultimate consequences of its actions.

    If you keep breaking into my house to steal my stuff and I keep escorting you to the door and threatening to shoot you if you don’t knock it off, when I finally DO shoot you it’s your own damn fault.

  87. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What has been hinted at also includes lawsuits and nationwide publicity to minimize LNC donations, working to get other states to disaffiliate from the LNC”

    But none of those constitute “going nuclear on the LP.”

    The LNC is not the LP. It never has been and it never will be. It is a mutual affiliation mechanism through which the LPs — all 50-odd of them — do certain things.

    If the LNC follows the likely prescriptions in Carling’s forthcoming ukase, it will be the LNC that is “going nuclear on the LP.”

  88. George Phillies

    “he convention delegates by and large did not understand the ramifications of that vote.” That’s why I said “identifiably”. the delegates who voted that way are not identifiable.

    “especially from people who do not agree with you” For example, people who do think you should consider the next step, like Paulie.

    “Fortunately, or perhaps not, the LNC does have substantial assets” There was a reason I said “or perhaps not”

  89. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom I am sorry you are getting so aggressive with me. I am a potential ally. Still am.

    Can you let me know if my rendition of the facts post-2011 is correct? And despite objections to my terminology, I feel the need to use it for my own clarification until I get my head around this thing.

    If Tom does not wish to say whether my understanding of the post-2011 facts are correct will someone else? I don’t want to proceed any further in trying to understand without knowing if I screwed up somewhere there.

  90. paulie

    the delegates who voted that way are not identifiable.

    I thought it was roll call, but it may have just been standing count.

  91. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>>That’s not all. What has been hinted at also includes lawsuits and nationwide publicity to minimize LNC donations, working to get other states to disaffiliate from the LNC, etc.>>>

    Yes Paulie that is what I was getting at. I see that as a distinct threat to the LP.

  92. paulie

    If Tom does not wish to say whether my understanding of the post-2011 facts are correct will someone else? I don’t want to proceed any further in trying to understand without knowing if I screwed up somewhere there.

    Refresh my memory, what time stamp comment are you referring to? I can probably answer your question.

  93. George Phillies

    I may be forgetting, but I do not believe the National Convention does tole calls, except for the Secretary verifying a count during certain events at a recent NatCon.

  94. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    I’m not sure why you think I’m being “aggressive” with you. I’m not looking for allies. I’m just discussing an issue. Feel free to ignore me, and I’ll do my best to remember to do likewise if it makes you feel better.

  95. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie — Let me just repost it, as I am going to need to update it with information Nick just gave:

    I am going to beg tolerance once as I am new to this and been diligently working at keeping up. Right now, I am ignoring the history prior to the 2011 JC decision. To me, that is kind of the reset point and that what went on before is irrelevant (will eventually learn that). So the 2011 JC decided in favor of the Wagner faction against the Reeves faction. The LNC disagreed, but eventually had to capitulate so that the Wagner faction is the official affiliate? Is this correct so far?

    The Reeves faction sued in OR to get themselves recognized which was denied October, 2013. They are appealing that decision. In June 2015, the Reeves faction wrote Chair Sarwarck demanding recognition pursuant to the LNC refusal to recognize the 2011 JC decision. They considered themselves as an affiliate since that LNC decision. They take Chair Sarwarck’s reply as an official disaffiliation notice and are appealing.

    Now, many years later, the Reeves (now Epstein but going to call it Reeves for continuity) faction is appealing the 2011 JC decision. On what grounds? And under what theory of jurisdiction?

    And Carling is biased towards the Reeves faction…. if a decision is granted in favor of the Reeves faction, the Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP (which I have a lot of problems with that threat btw–some of us are in this because we actually believe this stuff and what is best for people, not this power bullshit– just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you should and screw everyone up the yahoo )?

  96. paulie

    Yes Paulie that is what I was getting at. I see that as a distinct threat to the LP.

    So do I, despite the distinction Tom draws above regarding the difference between the LNC and the LP. He believes as he said above that what the LNC does for the LP can be easily replaced. And as I said above, I disagree on that point.

  97. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom no need to ignore, I enjoy your comments (both here, on your blog, and in your podcast). I am sorry if you don’t see how you are getting a bit too riled up from someone asking questions, but this is complicated to learn.

  98. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom

    >>I know that you want to limit the discussion to events following the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling, but that’s just impossible to do.>>>

    I only want to limit it until I understand what happened post 2011. I have to take this in chunks or it is overwhelming.

  99. Wes Wagner

    “If you keep breaking into my house to steal my stuff and I keep escorting you to the door and threatening to shoot you if you don’t knock it off, when I finally DO shoot you it’s your own damn fault.” -Knapp

    At least someone understands what is about to happen.

  100. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Were anyone from the Reeves faction seated as delegates last convention? Were they refused? If they thought they were the legitimate affiliate wouldn’t THAT have been notice of disaffiliation? Sorry if that is a beginniner question it came to mind…

  101. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>At least someone understands what is about to happen.>>>

    Nice threat Wes. Because of course we are all in this for liberty right?

  102. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    Some of us are not.. some of us are traitors and are not here for the good of the cause, and the national party has strayed so far from the path, institutionally they have become an enemy to the cause as evidenced by their actions.

  103. Wes Wagner

    They survive because new naive people keep entering the meat grinder and can’t figure out quickly enough that there are honestly very bad people within the organization intentionally making it ineffective and occasionally using its resources to attempt to suppress libertarians – but mostly just wasting them.

  104. Caryn Ann Harlos

    As someone who has no clue who is right here, it just seems that the threats and the expulsions and all that just are not what is best for the cause we all believe in.

    I would love to know very in detail what happened. Do you want to explain it to me? I would welcome a phone call.

  105. Caryn Ann Harlos

    That invitation is open to Tom as well, who’s work I have greatly admired.

  106. Wes Wagner

    When it comes down to it, it is as simple as this… 97% of the registered libertarians voted in Oregon that they approved of and supported our new structure. (800+ votes cast) We ran record numbers of partisan candidates in 2012 and set a new record in 2014. Per capita we run more candidates than any other state.

    The other side has the Oregon Republican Party Vice Chair as their lawyer and is suing to overturn the will of the registered libertarians of Oregon.

    If you can’t figure out which side is which from that… we have larger problems.

  107. Wes Wagner

    Tom is intimately aware of the details of the who did what to who and could give a blow by blow account with less bias.

  108. George Phillies

    Caryn,

    The LPOR views the LNC as an organization that has repeatedly tried to destroy it. This situation is a two way street.

    Their fundraising antipublicity will I expect emphasize how badly the LNC spends its money, at least until their suit against the LNC finishes.

    With respect to party splits, persuading state parties to switch affiliation may take time, like next state convention. My state’s party bylaws let us affiliate with as many groups as we see fit.

    You will be able to identify the serious groups after the split, because they are the ones that will move vigorously to launch affiliates in states where the local LP stayed with another faction.

    George

  109. paulie

    So the 2011 JC decided in favor of the Wagner faction against the Reeves faction. The LNC disagreed, but eventually had to capitulate so that the Wagner faction is the official affiliate? Is this correct so far?

    Correct in practical effect. Wagner et al are being treated as the LNC affiliate by executive order of three successive national chairs to HQ staff (the first one, Hinkle, sided with the other side, but concluded that he needed to defer to the JC even though he thought they were wrong). That is being listed in the listing of state chairs, on the LP national website, given monthly data dumps, etc. The full LNC on the other hand has voted in the other direction, and has never rescinded its resolution that the other side is the affiliate. As of last term when HQ took over the statechairs list from the LSLA, Wagner also replace Burke and Reeves on the statechairs list. As far as I know Wagner’s successor Hedbor has never posted on that list, so I can only assume he is on there lurking. As far as convention seating goes the question was undecided in 2012, and the delegates sided against Wagner. In 2014, it was technically Wagner et al’s delegation, but the other side moved to seat themselves in that delegation against the delegation’s wishes. Chair Neale ruled that to be in order, and his ruling was upheld by the delegates. The other side took over the delegation by 3-2 and chaired it from then on.

    The Reeves faction sued in OR to get themselves recognized which was denied October, 2013. They are appealing that decision. In June 2015, the Reeves faction wrote Chair Sarwarck demanding recognition pursuant to the LNC refusal to recognize the 2011 JC decision. They considered themselves as an affiliate since that LNC decision. They take Chair Sarwarck’s reply as an official disaffiliation notice and are appealing.

    Yes, although it’s Sarwark (no c).

    Now, many years later, the Reeves (now Epstein but going to call it Reeves for continuity) faction is appealing the 2011 JC decision. On what grounds? And under what theory of jurisdiction?

    As you said above – they consider themselves to be the valid affiliate because the LNC ruled that the JC decision lacked authority in the bylaws and lacked jurisdiction to take the case because according to them Wagner et al were never the legitimate affiliate so had no standing to bring a case to the 2011 JC. Thus, they conclude that they should have been treated as the legitimate affiliate all along. Additionally, they point to the actions of the delegates in 2012 and 2014 essentially siding with them. Finally, M Carling contends that Roberts Rules allow any JC to reconsider any decision by any past JC with no time limit.

    And Carling is biased towards the Reeves faction….

    He has been one of their officers several times, on their state JC and as chair of their conventions. He is a plaintiff in their lawsuit before state courts in Oregon. So yeah, he is biased towards his own faction, LOL.

    Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP

    Yes, despite Tom’s caveat that the LNC is not the LP. If someone nuked DC I would say they had gone nuclear against the US even though DC is clearly not the whole US.

    just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you should and screw everyone up the yahoo

    As Wagner lays out his case above, and as Knapp agrees, they believe that going nuclear against the LNC will be in the larger interests of the party. I think the party will crash and burn. I guess we’ll have to find out the hard way.

  110. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thank you Paulie, that clarified things a LOT. I will have to chew on that.

    And yeah I know the right spelling of Sarwark, but my eyes aren’t so good on this little keyboard and I mess up.

    Another puzzlement though…. I understand Carling’s position that they can revisit JC decisions at any time pursuant to RONR, but it seems the Reeves faction is claiming that they are within the bylaws timeframe because they requested this within 30 days of Sarwark’s email “disaffiliating them”—– I thought it took a whole vote of the LNC to disaffiliate them if that is what happened…. if one email from the Chair is what triggers this 30 day window then why did not the three executive orders from other Chairs recognizing Wagner trigger the window?

  111. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>As Wagner lays out his case above, and as Knapp agrees, they believe that going nuclear against the LNC will be in the larger interests of the party. I think the party will crash and burn. I guess we’ll have to find out the hard way.>>>

    I agree with you, and I hope it is worth it to them if they go that route. Because it seems pretty damned rotten from here. Throw the rest of the corpse of our freedoms to the dogs.

  112. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    You are not winning this battle surrounded by disloyal allies who constantly stab you in the back, undermine you, etc. This is just unfortunate reality that not everyone involved is a friend.

  113. paulie

    I would love to know very in detail what happened. Do you want to explain it to me? I would welcome a phone call.

    You can give me a call at 205-534-1622 if you feel like it.

  114. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Caryn, I think you have a general understanding of what has occurred since 2011. I am not an attorney, so my writing of the events were a bit simplistic in this article. I came onto this situation around 2011, and I don’t have specifics of what happened before then, and don’t feel like filling in that void. It’s clear to me who the troublemakers are, and I clearly have taken up a side, which is probably not good since I’ve done much of the reporting on Oregon here, but because of that understading, I definitely side with the Wagner group.

  115. paulie

    I understand Carling’s position that they can revisit JC decisions at any time pursuant to RONR, but it seems the Reeves faction is claiming that they are within the bylaws timeframe because they requested this within 30 days of Sarwark’s email “disaffiliating them”

    Yes, although those are actually two separate matters.

    I thought it took a whole vote of the LNC to disaffiliate them if that is what happened…

    That’s why it’s “constructive” or de facto disaffiliation, which was also what Wagner et al claimed in 2011.

    why did not the three executive orders from other Chairs recognizing Wagner trigger the window?

    They would have, except that the appeal wasn’t filed. Obviously they wouldn’t have appealed to the 2011 JC because that was the one that just ruled against them. I don’t know why they did not appeal in 2012-2014; probably because they didn’t have the votes on the JC to win, or because they were hoping they would win in Oregon courts first or some other reason or excuse or combination. I guess they can say they exhausted all their other options with the LNC, took time to put together their case, etc. And by executive orders I don’t mean there was an Executive Order number so and so issued on such and such a date; rather, informal or off the record conversations between chair and staff, in most cases. Some of it may have been on the record – I’m not sure. Mostly it’s just been continuity of operations.

  116. paulie

    I came onto this situation around 2011, and I don’t have specifics of what happened before then

    I know a fair bit of it, but it stretches way before my time – into the early 1990s and I have been told even into the 1980s.

  117. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I keep asking this, and I suppose it appears to be rhetorical, but I’m really curious as to what Carling and Company think will happen *if* they ever win.

    Bear with me–remember, I’m an artist, and I’m mostly a visual person–

    So, they win, and Tim Reeves, Ian Epstein, Aaron Starr, M Carling, Dave Terry and, just for fun, let’s throw in Roger Stone, join arms like they did in “Wizard of Oz”, and skip toward the “Land of Oregon”, whereby they are greeted by delighted servants of the castle, pampered from their long trip, and treated as if they’re royalty?

    Seriously, what will happen when they get there? It seems the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon have been fairly happy the past four years.

  118. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    Your understanding of the post-2011 situation seems to be sound. But to repeat, until you examine the previously existing situation, a lot of key information on what is at stake and who’s done what is going to be missing. You don’t have to flatter my work to get me to calm down. But it helps, so thanks 😀

    Paulie,

    With respect to the LNC, I think you’re leaving half the equation out. Yes, there’s institutional memory — of at least 20 years or so of complete organizational dysfunction. Yes, there’s the ability to get ballot access — but the key factors in that are money and skilled workers, and it’s not obvious that only the existing LNC could tap that money or persuade those skilled workers to do the work.

    It is my considered opinion, knowing what I know of what Wagner has done in the past, how he’s done it, and how he plans and prepares for things, that an entirely new national committee organization is already sitting in a box under his desk, ready to launch complete with initial funding, a ready-to-go appeal to key states to choose a new affiliation center, and a plausible plan for raising money and getting the ballot access job done for the presidential election following his push of the big red button. Frankly, I think he’s been patient to a fault with respect to declining to push that button so far.

    It’s sad to put a lot of money over a lot of years into a house and wake up one day to realize that it’s long since become structurally unsound and can’t be saved. But not as sad as ignoring that situation and having it fall in on top of you. If the LNC is a teardown, it’s a teardown.

  119. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Also, since it’s noon on the west coast, has the JC meeting happened? It was supposed to be for 1 o’clock, but I don’t think I know what time zone that was.

  120. Andy Craig

    “if one email from the Chair is what triggers this 30 day window then why did not the three executive orders from other Chairs recognizing Wagner trigger the window?”

    That is an excellent question, and yet another reason why their theory of “constructive (i.e. de facto) disaffiliation” is a house of cards.

    Regarding “going nuclear” etc., at this point I am starting to think the LP would work better as a looser confederation of state parties, which is what LNC is *supposed* to be. Their only real job, such as it is, is to put on the convention so the state parties can agree on a presidential ticket and platform, to help that ticket have nationwide ballot access, and to charter affiliates in states that don’t yet have one. I’m sure I’m missing one or two other things, but that’s the gist of it.

    However, I agree with Paul, a formal split with different states (and different factions within the same state) being affiliated with different national parties is not the answer. Unless the LNC- be that Convention or Committee- agrees and approves of the change, too much would be lost and the acrimony would run too deep for too long. It would not be the relatively quick and seamless transition where all 50-ish state parties disaffiliate from LNC and re-affiliate with each other in some Federation of Libertarian Parties. Whether or not that’s the fault of LPO or LNC, I’m inclined to say the latter at this point. The vast majority of the rank-and-file membership still have no idea about the whole situation, and as we’ve seen at national conventions (which are relatively more involved and informed than the membership at large) they don’t react kindly or positively to having Oregon’s mess dumped on their lap on the other side of the country.The typical response is something to the effect of a parent trying to tie two petulant bickering children together with a rope to teach them their lesson (I know because that was my former response to the situation). But of course LNC is not a parent and LPO is not their child.

    I don’t think it would be the end of the LP- the Greens went through something similar and came out the other side of it more-or-less OK. But it would certainly set us back and take upwards of four or five years, if not longer, just as we were starting to get going again after a mostly-wasted decade.

  121. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Caryn, the threats to the LNC disturb me also. I do know, however, that the legal fees due to the silly lawsuit have been well over a quarter of a million for the Wagner group, which is a figure I knew about many months ago. It’s undoubtedly much more. My state party (CA) would have trouble overlooking that.

    However, I also wonder if the current people of the Libertarian Party of Oregon still wish to go forward with the threats Mr. Wagner has outlined. He isn’t chair anymore–is it conceivable at all they’ll just take their disaffiliation and choose to work without the LNC, efffectively just ignoring them?

  122. Mark Axinn

    >>My grandma used to collect State Plates from state’s she visited. Does M Carling collect LP state memberships? Just how many state’s is he a member of their party? I recall seeing his name mentioned in New York, and of course there is Oregon. Where else?

    >Off the top of my head, California. Although last I heard, he actually lives most of the time in either Latvia or Lithuania, I’m forgetting which.

    M has been a member of LPNY for decades, as he used to live in Manhattan. My understanding is that his last residence was in Tel Aviv as he left his teaching position in Latvia a while ago.

    M is not the only New Yorker on the JC. Rob Power is also a member of the Committee.

    I don’t believe that they will vote the same way on the Oregon situation, but I am glad to have both of them as members of LPNY.

  123. paulie

    Yes, there’s institutional memory — of at least 20 years or so of complete organizational dysfunction.

    Grass is greener mentality. There has been a lot of worse dysfunction in alt parties. I’m sure you remember how things worked out with the BTP. I’m sure you have read what happened with the Reform Party. Etc.

    Yes, there’s the ability to get ballot access — but the key factors in that are money and skilled workers, and it’s not obvious that only the existing LNC could tap that money or persuade those skilled workers to do the work.

    It’s not obvious whether anyone else can. There are a lot of steps involved.

    It is my considered opinion, knowing what I know of what Wagner has done in the past, how he’s done it, and how he plans and prepares for things, that an entirely new national committee organization is already sitting in a box under his desk, ready to launch complete with initial funding, a ready-to-go appeal to key states to choose a new affiliation center, and a plausible plan for raising money and getting the ballot access job done for the presidential election following his push of the big red button.

    Maybe, but we have yet to see how it will work out in practice. I expect chaos, and possibly falling flat. Even if there is a detailed plan it doesn’t mean it will work. And as poorly as existing things work, it’s often unappreciated how well they work compared to many other potential attempts to get those same things done. It may be, but is not necessarily, that the reason we are doing better than other existing alt parties in ballot access and most other respects is because of our ideology. Or it may be because of that “dysfunction” you speak of and are fully ready to discard because you just assume that what will replace will not be even more dysfunctional. Never mind all the lists and everything else that will be lost in transition, all the contacts that will go stale, etc., etc.

    It’s sad to put a lot of money over a lot of years into a house and wake up one day to realize that it’s long since become structurally unsound and can’t be saved. But not as sad as ignoring that situation and having it fall in on top of you. If the LNC is a teardown, it’s a teardown.

    Just because some of you want to tear it down doesn’t mean that it can’t be saved, only that it won’t be. Building from scratch may be better, but more likely not. Just like some mutations are advantageous, but most are not.

  124. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom, I am glad we smoothed things out. My compliments were genuine. You have helped me be a better libertarian.

  125. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie, I will give you a call- let me get with my husband to see what our plans are. Getting my hair re-pinked right now.

  126. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There has been a lot of worse dysfunction in alt parties. I’m sure you remember how things worked out with the BTP”

    Yes, I do.

    In particular, I remember that when it stopped working, we stopped trying to pretend it DID work.

  127. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes

    >>You are not winning this battle surrounded by disloyal allies who constantly stab you in the back, undermine you, etc. This is just unfortunate reality that not everyone involved is a friend.>>>

    And these threats take down friends as well. I very well understand there are destructive people within. I have been appalled at some of the moves. But the nuclear option takes out too many of the good guys and destroys the enterprise IMHO. the average Libertarian does not even know of this (or care) – they are working for Liberty in the best way they know and the LP is the best thing around for them. This state war harms all of them and is short sighted IMHO. Nolan wept.

  128. Wes Wagner

    They work hard to have all their efforts destroyed in the end by these people. It has happened over and over again.

    If nothing is done another generation will show up and waste a decade .. leave dejected and nothing changes.

  129. paulie

    Yes, I do.

    In particular, I remember that when it stopped working, we stopped trying to pretend it DID work.

    It was a mess all along and limped along for years, never getting much traction, but inspiring endless reams of animosity and bickering. The LP may operate at that lower level, or somewhere in between, without the structure we have in place nationally. It’s possible the structure has been holding us back, but probably not.

    Also, if the LNC does get dynamited, you may have various different groups all claiming to be the national party trying to get different states to affiliate with them, or starting competing affiliates in various states, suing each other, etc, etc. Which one will reporters call? Which one will nominate the presidential ticket? Will they nominate the same presidential ticket?

  130. paulie

    However, I also wonder is the current people of the Liberterarian Party of Oregon still wish to go forward with the threats Mr. Wagner has outlined? He isn’t chair anymore–is it conceivable at all they’ll just take their disaffiliation and choose to work without th LNC, efffectively just ignoring them?

    Maybe, but I think they will make good on it sooner or later. And allegedly, Wagner is actually one of the more moderate people on his side, as far as escalating the conflict goes.

  131. paulie

    I am starting to think the LP would work better as a looser confederation of state parties, which is what LNC is *supposed* to be. Their only real job, such as it is, is to put on the convention so the state parties can agree on a presidential ticket and platform, to help that ticket have nationwide ballot access, and to charter affiliates in states that don’t yet have one. I’m sure I’m missing one or two other things, but that’s the gist of it.

    Database, press inquiries, member communications – all the various things we do now. As it is, we are already a fairly loose confederation. It’s just that a lot of states don’t have all that much going on on their own, and might cease to exist entirely without the little bit of help they get from national. Other states are better organized, and probably in most cases don’t realize that there is a ripple effect from being a national party that has affiliates in and a presidential ticket on the ballot in all or almost all states, which leads to a lot of people looking into the LP and getting involved in their states, or already knowing what the LP is when they are approached. Thus, what national does for the weaker states helps the stronger states stay strong, and most states go through phases of weakness.

    I don’t think it would be the end of the LP- the Greens went through something similar and came out the other side of it more-or-less OK.

    Eight years later, and still not to the level of the LP by most measures even now.

    But it would certainly set us back and take upwards of four or five years

    And that’s if we’re lucky.

  132. paulie

    Also, since it’s noon on the west coast, has the JC meeting happened? It was supposed to be for 1 o’clock, but I don’t think I know what time zone that was.

    Formal Notice of Meeting

    The Judicial Committee will meet Saturday, August 15, 1:00pm PDT, 2:00pm
    MDT, 3:00pm CDT, 4:00pm EDT to consider the case of Ian Epstein vs. the
    Libertarian National Committee and to consider rescinding or amending
    something previously adopted in the related case of Wes Wagner vs. the
    Libertarian National Committee.

    Call-in details to be provided.

    M Carling
    Chair, Libertarian Party Judicial Committee

  133. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Sorry Wes

    >>They work hard to have all their efforts destroyed in the end by these people. It has happened over and over again.>>>

    So you will be the vanguard to deliver the mercy kill?

    I am sorry, this destructive path is wrong. I am a worker bee and I don’t want this kind of help.

  134. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom, I will look into pre-2011 when I am sure I have a handle on what is going on now.

    Speaking with Paulie I am sure will help.

  135. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Nick, I am glad you are considering running again btw. Neglected to say that.

  136. paulie

    I keep asking this, and I suppose it appears to be rhetorical, but I’m really curious as to what Carling and Company think will happen *if* they ever win.

    By win I take it you mean in the Oregon courts, not just the national JC.

    They believe most party members will support whoever the official state party is, new ones will be recruited and some previous ones will come back. Some people would go away, but they don’t think that is bad in some cases and are willing to live with it in others.

  137. Nicholas Sarwark

    Notice and opportunity to be heard are typically things that one expects from judicial proceedings.

    That those things are not being provided in this instance is, shall we say, atypical.

  138. Andy Craig

    “Database, press inquiries, member communications – all the various things we do now.”

    Fair enough. Like I said there are other things, I didn’t mean to minimize them, nor do I want them to not be done. But it does sometimes feel like national- which is responsibly for running two candidates in one election- sometimes gets a bigger share of the attention and focus than the state parties- whose job it is to run candidates in every other election.

    ” As it is, we are already a fairly loose confederation”

    That’s the theory, it’s hard to reconcile that with the actions sometimes. A loose confederation would not be involved in either side of the Oregon drama at all. If the courts and the process under Oregon election law (under which LPO’s existence is governed) says one group is the LPO and the other group is just a group of random posers, that should be it. (and no I’m not interested in ‘we shouldn’t let the state decide’ – we’re a political party operating under the state’s election and campaign laws, that’s the whole point). And if I understand correctly, Wagner et al are the party recognized as holding the “Libertarian” ballot line in Oregon and being the legitimate continuation of the pre-dispute LPO. I don’t understand why that isn’t end of story.

    If persons on/with the LNC or in other states don’t like who’s running a state affiliate, they have their informal options to call on Libertarians in that state to do something about it, and ultimately to disaffiliate. An option they don’t have, is to simply appoint a new state chair and cmte. for LPO, any more than they could do so for LP-WI or LP-AL.

    “It’s just that a lot of states don’t have all that much going on on their own, and might cease to exist entirely without the little bit of help they get from national. Other states are better organized, and probably in most cases don’t realize that there is a ripple effect from being a national party that has affiliates in and a presidential ticket on the ballot in all or almost all states, which leads to a lot of people looking into the LP and getting involved in their states, or already knowing what the LP is when they are approached. Thus, what national does for the weaker states helps the stronger states stay strong, and most states go through phases of weakness.”

    I agree with this, though I do wonder how much resources get marshaled to the states by LNC vs. how much is diverted *to* the LNC that would otherwise go to states. It’s probably a net gain, I don’t really doubt that, but it isn’t necessarily obvious or certain.

    “Eight years later, and still not to the level of the LP by most measures even now.”

    True, but most of the growth and success did come after the feud between what it is now the main Green Party and “the Greens/GPUSA”

    In any event, I’m not disagreeing on the substance. Just that as bad as it would be, I wouldn’t call it the end of the LP. The LP in some form could, and probably ultimately would, come out the other side of the whole mess. But I wouldn’t call it a sure thing, or that it wouldn’t be catastrophic in the short- and medium- term.

  139. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===Notice and opportunity to be heard are typically things that one expects from judicial proceedings====

    More so from a libertarian proceeding.

  140. paulie

    If the call-in details were provided, they were not provided to me.

    That was from a forward by Alicia Mattson.

    The original distribution was:

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: M Carling
    Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:22 AM
    Subject: Notice of Meeting: Saturday, August 15, 2:00pm MDT, 3:00pm CDT,
    4:00pm EDT

    To: steven r Linnabary , Rebecca Sink-Burris < rebecca.sinkburris at gmail.com>, AR Wolf , Rob Latham < freeutahns at gmail.com>, Rob Power , ”
    dianna.visek at gmail.com”

    Cc: johannstein at gmail.com, lhedbor at gmail.com, “Tim Reeves (
    timothy.reeves at tenthamendmentcenter.com)” < timothy.reeves at tenthamendmentcenter.com>, wes.wagner at gmail.com, “< chair at lp.org>” , Alicia Mattson ,
    rwsully at att.net, jimpgray at sbcglobal.net, Bill Hall ,
    rleewrights at gmail.com, Brian Holtz


    I guess he must have meant they would be provided to JC members.

  141. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==If the courts and the process under Oregon election law (under which LPO’s existence is governed) says one group is the LPO and the other group is just a group of random posers, that should be it. (and no I’m not interested in ‘we shouldn’t let the state decide’ – we’re a political party operating under the state’s election and campaign laws, that’s the whole point). And if I understand correctly, Wagner et al are the party recognized as holding the “Libertarian” ballot line in Oregon and being the legitimate continuation of the pre-dispute LPO. I don’t understand why that isn’t end of story.===

    This is very persuasive. I think I need to look into more the bylaws etc on how affiliates are recognized.

  142. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    FYI–I believe Judge Gray is on vacation. (as per an email he sent out yesterday).

  143. George Phillies

    “Cc: johannstein at gmail.com, lhedbor at gmail.com, “Tim Reeves (
    timothy.reeves at tenthamendmentcenter.com)” , wes.wagner at gmail.com, “” , Alicia Mattson ,
    rwsully at att.net, jimpgray at sbcglobal.net, Bill Hall ,
    rleewrights at gmail.com, Brian Holtz ”

    The list of CCs appears to interesting. The complaint is Epstein v LNC. The people invited are Hedbor and Wagner from the LPOR, Stein and Reeves from the other people, Sarwark, and then Mattson, Brian Holtz, Lee Wrights, and an email that I believe is Bob Sullentrup.

  144. paulie

    But it does sometimes feel like national- which is responsibly for running two candidates in one election- sometimes gets a bigger share of the attention and focus than the state parties- whose job it is to run candidates in every other election.

    Some of that is because national is more effective at fundraising than most states. There are exception, Texas for example. Some is because most states don’t have a lot going on – not much in the way of media, I may not be on their lists, etc. If they do put something out, I’m a lot less likely to see it than something from national. Most states don’t have any staff, and the few that do, in most cases it is only one person. Most states don’t have an office. If I look for Libertarian news, I’ve got one link for the LP in the IPR sidebar. I guess we could have links to every single state party, but really, how many people would check those as often as just one link? Suppose you are a news reporter and want comments on a story from the LP, Greens and Constitution Party, which state LP would you call? Would state parties without a national LP have the FB team that we have? Even though the FB team is volunteer, someone had to put that together, and people had to be in various places to see that it exists to want to join in. And so on. A lot of people only pay attention to national politics, or even only the presidential election, as far as they pay attention to politics at all. Rightly or wrongly that is the big ticket item. So yeah, national does get attention more.

    A loose confederation would not be involved in either side of the Oregon drama at all.

    It came about because some people with a connection to Oregon – M was at the center of it – brought in their national LP friends to help them out, ostensibly to help sort out a mess. Naturally people in the national party care about what goes on within affiliates to some extent.

    If the courts and the process under Oregon election law (under which LPO’s existence is governed) says one group is the LPO and the other group is just a group of random posers, that should be it. (and no I’m not interested in ‘we shouldn’t let the state decide’ – we’re a political party operating under the state’s election and campaign laws, that’s the whole point). And if I understand correctly, Wagner et al are the party recognized as holding the “Libertarian” ballot line in Oregon and being the legitimate continuation of the pre-dispute LPO. I don’t understand why that isn’t end of story.

    It should be, but on the other side they say what if some anti-LP SOS recognizes some rogue faction, etc. I’ve seen cases where some outgoing factions refuse to acknowledge they lost an election. The SOS could theoretically side with them. The Reeves/Burk side contend that is what happened here.

    I agree with this, though I do wonder how much resources get marshaled to the states by LNC vs. how much is diverted *to* the LNC that would otherwise go to states.

    Overwhelming the first one, IMO.

    In any event, I’m not disagreeing on the substance. Just that as bad as it would be, I wouldn’t call it the end of the LP. The LP in some form could, and probably ultimately would, come out the other side of the whole mess.

    Sure; the Reform Party in some form came out on the other side, too.

    But I wouldn’t call it a sure thing, or that it wouldn’t be catastrophic in the short- and medium- term.

    Yep.

  145. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Andy can you please expound on what you meant by the constructive disaffiliation argument being BS?

  146. paulie

    The list of CCs appears to interesting. The complaint is Epstein v LNC. The people invited are Hedbor and Wagner from the LPOR, Stein and Reeves from the other people, Sarwark, and then Mattson, Brian Holtz, Lee Wrights, and an email that I believe is Bob Sullentrup.

    I know who all of them are except Stein. You are right, that is Sullentrup. They are inviting the 2011 JC – I think you missed Jim Gray, who is on there too. But I’m not sure if they are actually inviting all those people to the call or just letting them know it will happen and then only inviting the JC members themselves.

  147. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’ll also weigh in on hoping that Sarwark will run again. I particularly like the fact that’s he’s accessible to us underlings. I don’t think I’d have had the nerve to contact Geoff Neale about anything, as I did yesterday.

  148. Andy Craig

    “This is very persuasive. I think I need to look into more the bylaws etc on how affiliates are recognized”

    That raises another point of information- this isn’t even a dispute over affiliation. Everyone agrees that back in the 70s or whenever it was, the LNC recognized LPO as the Oregon affiliate. Neither the LNC nor LPO have ever revoked or disputed that. The dispute is over who *is* the LPO, i.e. the organization which exists under Oregon law predating (and which could exist without) any affiliation with a national party. That isn’t a matter for LNC (much less a rouge JudComm) to decide, it’s a matter for Oregon law to decide. It’s no more up to the JC/LNC than it would be for them to adjudicate disputed ownership of a cat or a coffee table between two ex-lovers who happen to both be Libertarians.

    For example, the Independent Party of Oregon is not affiliated with any national party, but they’re just as much an Oregon political party as LPO is (actually moreso since they recently got major-party status recently, but that’s neither here nor there). If the Oregon SoS got a letter from some group calling themselves “the Independent Party USA” demanding that the IPO ballot line be transferred to them, they’d be told (in as many words) where to shove it. The same will happen if the LNC demands that the LPO ballot line be transferred to whoever LNC designates, on the grounds that LNC has disaffiliated the state-recognized LPO.

  149. Andy Craig

    “Andy can you please expound on what you meant by the constructive disaffiliation argument being BS?”

    There is no such thing. There’s only disaffiliation by a 3/4 LNC vote, which never happened. The Reeves group was never disaffiliated, because they were never an affiliate, and even if they were their alleged “disaffiliation” happened years ago. The idea that an email from Sarwark simply repeating the status quo can open up the 30-day window for appeal of a disaffiliation, is what I believe lawyers euphemistically call a “novel” argument, and the rest of us would probably us stronger language to describe.

  150. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Andy – you let the vampire in your house:). Now I am going to bugging you.

    So we seem to agree that IF we agree for sake of argument that they were constructive fully disaffiliated – that happened a long time ago by the very same grounds they are using to argue the Sarwark email is a disaffiliation?

    I am becoming very certain of this which would make two things I am certain of. Carling should have recused himself and this.

  151. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===That raises another point of information- this isn’t even a dispute over affiliation. Everyone agrees that back in the 70s or whenever it was, the LNC recognized LPO as the Oregon affiliate. Neither the LNC nor LPO have ever revoked or disputed that. The dispute is over who *is* the LPO, i.e. the organization which exists under Oregon law predating (and which could exist without) any affiliation with a national party. That isn’t a matter for LNC (much less a rouge JudComm) to decide, it’s a matter for Oregon law to decide. It’s no more up to the JC/LNC than it would be for them to adjudicate disputed ownership of a cat or a coffee table between two ex-lovers who happen to both be Libertarians.===

    This also is persuasive though there is something niggling at me that I can’t place my finger on. I am not entirely sure state law is all that matters. What about the bylaws of the LPO? Surely the organization has a right to self-define, particularly if the state does deal with that.

  152. Nicholas Sarwark

    The LNC has the power to affiliate with state parties.

    The LNC has the power to disaffiliate with state parties.

    Whether the LNC chooses to affiliate or disaffiliate with a state party has little, if any, effect on the state party’s status under state law.

    In 2011, the LNC could have chosen to disaffiliate from the Wagner group and reaffiliate with the Reeves group. They did not choose to do that, but even if they had, it would not have changed who the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as a political party.

  153. Andy Craig

    “So we seem to agree that IF we agree for sake of argument that they were constructive fully disaffiliated – that happened a long time ago by the very same grounds they are using to argue the Sarwark email is a disaffiliation?”

    Exactly. .

    “I am becoming very certain of this which would make two things I am certain of. Carling should have recused himself and this.”

    That’s what I’m so outraged by, and I’ll add that it shouldn’t even be a matter of recusal, because Carling (who acted alone in this regard) should never have accepted the alleged “appeal” as even being proper to be heard. And he then did not even follow proper procedure for when a case has been accepted, i.e. proper notice to those who had to respond, as Nick explains above.

    I have been indifferent to affirmatively apathetic about the Oregon dispute in the past, and I honestly still don’t care that much about who’s “right” in it. But this whole action by Carling et al is so flagrantly improper and lawless, it implicates if the national party can be trusted to follow its own rules at all, or if one middling sub-committee chair can just go rogue and start making it up as he goes along. It would be like if Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court tried to issue orders for the US Army to invade Canada because he has an investment in Vermont maple syrup which would benefit, it’s that far beyond the pale.

  154. paulie

    Notice and opportunity to be heard are typically things that one expects from judicial proceedings.

    That those things are not being provided in this instance is, shall we say, atypical.

    null

  155. Andy Craig

    “This also is persuasive though there is something niggling at me that I can’t place my finger on. I am not entirely sure state law is all that matters. What about the bylaws of the LPO? Surely the organization has a right to self-define, particularly if the state does deal with that.”

    Yes they do, but any disputes over that are to be resolved (if LPO itself fails to do so), though the Oregon legal process. Their ability to adopt bylaws etc., is all a creature of Oregon law, not their affiliation with the national party.

    “They did not choose to do that, but even if they had, it would not have changed who the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as a political party.”

    Not even if you respectfully demand it? :p

  156. paulie

    That’s what I’m so outraged by, and I’ll add that it shouldn’t even be a matter of recusal, because Carling (who acted alone in this regard) should never have accepted the alleged “appeal” as even being proper to be heard. And he then did not even follow proper procedure for when a case has been accepted, i.e. proper notice to those who had to respond, as Nick explains above.

    Yep!

    It would be like if Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court tried to issue orders for the US Army to invade Canada because he has an investment in Vermont maple syrup which would benefit, it’s that far beyond the pale.

    I could see Roy Moore doing something like that…

  157. Andy Craig

    It’s getting rather late, is this so-called Judicial Committee meeting still ongoing? Can we expect any news of what action, if any, they take this evening?

  158. paulie

    This also is persuasive though there is something niggling at me that I can’t place my finger on. I am not entirely sure state law is all that matters. What about the bylaws of the LPO?

    Wagner et al threw out the then existing bylaws in a state exec comm meeting and put in new bylaws which totally redefined the definition of membership, governance structure, etc.

  159. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Andy I am not so sure I agree… I don’t disagree either… my head merely hurts:

    ==Yes they do, but any disputes over that are to be resolved (if LPO itself fails to do so), though the Oregon legal process. Their ability to adopt bylaws etc., is all a creature of Oregon law, not their affiliation with the national party.==

    The state doesn’t grant an organization the right to create bylaws. I have been part of several groups that have had bylaws… we didn’t organize under the state. I think this right and separate and apart.

  160. Andy Craig

    “I could see Roy Moore doing something like that…”

    So can I. Difference is I wouldn’t expect it to work.

  161. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie>>> Wagner et al threw out the then existing bylaws in a state exec comm meeting and put in new bylaws which totally redefined the definition of membership, governance structure, etc.>>>

    By what authority?

    BTW I would like to give you a call tomorrow am, will you be around?

  162. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Anyone have a copy of the old LPO bylaws, post-Wagner Bylaws and Constitution?

  163. paulie

    In 2011, the LNC could have chosen to disaffiliate from the Wagner group and reaffiliate with the Reeves group.

    They preferred to decide that the Reeves group was already the affiliate, so no disaffiliation or reaffiliation would be needed.

    they did not choose to do that, but even if they had, it would not have changed who the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as a political party.

    True, I don’t think anyone has said it would (although they hope it would have some influence). They’re just disputing that this should be the determining question.

  164. Mark Axinn

    >I’ll also weigh in on hoping that Sarwark will run again. I particularly like the fact that’s he’s accessible to us underlings. I don’t think I’d have had the nerve to contact Geoff Neals about anything, as I did yesterday.

    Jill, I agree that Nick running again is a great idea. Two years go by in a flash, and it’s not enough time to achieve all the things he wants to do.

    OTOH, I must disagree about the accessibility of former national chairs. I have corresponded privately and publicly with Jim Lark, Bill Redpath, Mark Hinkle and Geoff Neale. All of them were of great support to my state and to me when I was a state chair.

  165. Andy Craig

    @Caryn

    First point, LPO isn’t just a regular organization, they’re a state-recognized political party operating as such under the state laws governing political parties. But that aside, let’s say you and some friends incl. John Doe started Libertarian Club of Nowhere, USA. LCNUSA adopts its own bylaws- you’re absolutely right about- but when John Doe accuses you of not following the bylaws, their only recourse (once internal mechanisms are exhausted) would be to the state court of general jurisdiction, seeking an injunction, etc. For example (and I’m not a lawyer so this might be getting slightly beyond my expertise)- John Doe gives LCNUSA $1000 in membership dues under the bylaws, the bylaws allegedly get violated, John Doe’s claim that his $1000 was then taken from him illegitimately becomes the basis for standing to sue, etc. If not settled voluntarily some other way, the dispute (like any other) ends up in court before a judge.

    Same is true here- LPO has the right to adopt its own bylaws (within some constraints imposed by law), but if John Doe says LPO isn’t following its bylaws or isn’t really the LPO, they would appeal first to the Sec’y of State (who runs elections), and then ultimately to the courts. Which is in fact exactly what happened, the Reeves lawsuit was summarily dismissed, and that dismissal (with Carling as a named plaintiff) is currently pending appeal.

  166. Caryn Ann Harlos

    @Andy (and any time I am saying something out of ignorance of facts, someone jump on me) — no there is a substantial distinction here. In the case of LCNUSA, the court would be treating it quasi-contractual, and actually interpreting our agreement. In the case of LPO the SOS did not do that, they had their own rules about who they recognize irregardless of the LPO’s own self-defining bylaws because they are a political party. That does not make it de facto right in accordance with the LPO’s right to self-define. I do think that a just determination here requires a look at what happened in accordance (or not) with the bylaws. Your premise requires that the the state actually did look at their bylaws and rule on them, but my understanding is that such is not the case.

  167. Caryn Ann Harlos

    So I guess what I want to know is this? Were the bylaws violated? By what authority were the bylaws replaced?

  168. Wes Wagner

    The bylaws were replaced by authority granted under ors 248 and OREGON non profit law if it applies, the rule of necessity, and a 97% plebiscite.

    While Judge Breithaupt did not rule on the legality of what we did .. he did agree with its legality in open court.

  169. Andy Craig

    “So I guess what I want to know is this? Were the bylaws violated? By what authority were the bylaws replaced?”

    My understanding (and others can speak to this much better than I can) is that it was basically by doctrine of necessity. LPO conventions had repeatedly failed to make quorum (defined as a certain % of all registered Libertarian in OR, a figure which had risen well into the five figures). That quorum requirement could normally only be modified by the convention, which couldn’t make quorum, creating a catch-22. The executive committee took the least-bad of their bad options on the table, in order to preserve the continued existence and functioning of the organization.

    Is that correct? Iffy, perhaps. But every competent authority that has reviewed the matter has sided with Wagner, so even if it was initially incorrect I consider the matter no longer up for review. If you dig into the four-decade history of some of the older parties, I doubt you’d find the perfect chain of continuity of 100% bylaws compliance from the initial founding, as we might desire. But that doesn’t mean that group is no longer the LP of [state].

    “In the case of LPO the SOS did not do that, they had their own rules about who they recognize irregardless of the LPO’s own self-defining bylaws because they are a political party. That does not make it de facto right in accordance with the LPO’s right to self-define. ”

    That’s correct as to the SoS, and I agree that’s a bad rule, but I do believe this was the claim made in the court case that was dismissed and is now pending appeal, as well as by the prior JC ruling that Carling is purporting to overturn.

  170. Andy Craig

    It should be added, while it was a “state executive committee” meeting, it was at/during (or just after?) a convention which had failed to make quorum. Not just some sneaky behind-closed-doors thing between conventions, and then as Wagner notes it was ratified by a postal membership referendum, which as an option OR provides to parties.

  171. Caryn Ann Harlos

    @Andy this isn’t going back 40 years to find continuity of a party or group. This is 6 years. And a still hot controversy. I highly disagree that such cannot be revisited to determine who has the right of the thing here.

  172. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes… >>While Judge Breithaupt did not rule on the legality of what we did .. he did agree with its legality in open court.>>>

    That is called dicta and not persuasive. So it appears that the idea that this is res judicata – which is what I found persuasive is not quite so.

  173. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thank you Paulie for that link… are the petitions to the JC actually public? And are there minutes of the deliberations?

  174. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===That quorum requirement could normally only be modified by the convention, which couldn’t make quorum, creating a catch-22. The executive committee took the least-bad of their bad options on the table, in order to preserve the continued existence and functioning of the organization.=====

    Was this quorum required by state law or by the bylaws? If by the bylaws, why not just by “doctrine of necessity” just amend the quorum requirement?

  175. George Phillies

    Caryn,

    Much of the Oregon issue has been covered in my magazine Liberty for America LibertyForAmerica.com with the current cycle starting in April 2011 and advancing. Much else went on with the LNC in this period.

    George

  176. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===Not just some sneaky behind-closed-doors thing between conventions, and then as Wagner notes it was ratified by a postal membership referendum, which as an option OR provides to parties.====

    Then why was a non-quorum at convention such an organization-destroying threat? They could have just done business, including modifying the quorum requirement, by postal membership referendum.

    Why take away the opportunity for public discussion and debate by replacing the entire bylaws?

  177. paulie

    It should be added, while it was a “state executive committee” meeting, it was at/during (or just after?) a convention which had failed to make quorum. Not just some sneaky behind-closed-doors thing between conventions, and then as Wagner notes it was ratified by a postal membership referendum, which as an option OR provides to parties.

    It was the Reeves group that held a meeting right after yet another quorumless convention. The Wagner group had already (from its perspective) cancelled that convention and completely changed the bylaws at a previous meeting in between conventions.

    Wagner notes it was ratified by a postal membership referendum, which as an option OR provides to parties.

    However, that word membership is problematic. The old definition of membership was dues-paying pledge-signing LPO members. The new definition was registered Oregon LP voters. 97% or so of the new members were not members under the older definition. Some of the older-definition members were not members under the new definition – people disqualified from voting due to citizenship, age, or residence elsewhere, prior Oregon residents who had moved, people who refuse to register to vote, perhaps some people denied voting rights due to felony (not sure if Oregon does that but some states do), Oregon voters who for whatever reason register with another party or no party but want to remain involved in LPO under the old definition of membership.

  178. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thank you George, I will check those out.

    Something is not sitting right with me with this whole replacing of the entire bylaws via excomm. If there was something in them that was preventing convention I do not understand why that wasn’t just addressed. Emergency situations require procedures we might not want to resort to, but the minimal amount of that required to actually address the problem is the solution. Sort of like proportionality with the NAP… yes you can use violence, but only the amount necessary to get rid of the threat.

  179. paulie

    Was this quorum required by state law or by the bylaws?

    Byalws, as interpreted…by M Carling, iirc. There are people who disagree with that interpretation.

    If by the bylaws, why not just by “doctrine of necessity” just amend the quorum requirement?

    Wagner and friends wanted a more wholescale change.

  180. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>Wagner and friends wanted a more wholescale change.>>>

    And that, right now, seems to me to be the elephant in the room. You don’t do that. You don’t use failure to get a quorum as an excuse to emergency powers (totally legitimate) and then overstep the narrow exigencies.

    More information may change my mind. Earlier today, I was totally coming down in favor of the Wagner group, this sways me the other way.

  181. paulie

    And are there minutes of the deliberations?

    Dunno. Nor do I know what time they finish(ed) or when they plan to anounce their decision, although I have a sneaky suspicion that I know what it will be.

  182. paulie

    More information may change my mind. Earlier today, I was totally coming down in favor of the Wagner group, this sways me the other way.

    IMO both sides have some issues.

  183. George Phillies

    Judicial Committee Acts!

    It rescinds its 2011 ruling, then rejects the Epstein ruling.

    The draft minutes, all committee members being present.

    Rule limiting debate to speaking twice per day on the same topic suspended by unanimous consent.

    Moved and seconded to Rescind the Judicial Committee decision issued on August 25, 2011, including the amendment issued on September 23, 2011, in the matter titled Wes Wagner vs. the libertarian National Committee.

    A point of order was raised on whether or not the motion to Rescind is order. The Chair ruled that
    Rescind is in order. The ruling of the Chair was appealed. The ruling of the Chair was sustained 4-2, with the Chair abstaining.

    A question of parliamentary inquiry was raised on the vote required to Rescind. Because notice was given in the call to meeting and because no member of the Judicial Committee voted in the majority (either of these two reasons sufficing to require a majority vote), a majority vote is sufficient to Rescind.

    The votes on the motion to Rescind are 4 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: No, Power: No, Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to Rescind carries. Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, and as amended, is rescinded.

    Moved and seconded to dismiss the petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee. The votes are 6 in the affirmative and 0 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: Yes Power: Yes Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to dismiss carries. The petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee is dismissed.

  184. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>IMO both sides have some issues.>>>

    I suspect that is the case. But simply deciding to use an exigent circumstance of failure to get a quorum to replace the entire bylaws does not seem right to me.

  185. Caryn Ann Harlos

    George isn’t the Wagner group the official affiliate? So wouldn’t that simply mean that the Wagner group remains the official affiliate?

    Seems to me that we need to wait to see what the appeal results in OR. Since apparently that appeal if heard will deal with the actual situation of the bylaws…. which to me is the crucial thing here. If a court adjudicates on that, then it is settlement. The SOS didn’t really deal with the issues in its recognition.

  186. paulie

    Much of the Oregon issue has been covered in my magazine Liberty for America LibertyForAmerica.com with the current cycle starting in April 2011 and advancing. Much else went on with the LNC in this period.

    Also at IPR. Enter relevant search terms into IPR search box on the main page.

  187. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And that, right now, seems to me to be the elephant in the room. You don’t do that. You don’t use failure to get a quorum as an excuse to emergency powers (totally legitimate) and then overstep the narrow exigencies.”

    Well, that’s the thing — when LPO finally came apart at the seams over the convention quorum issue, there were two groups that came out of it claiming to be the “real” LPO.

    One of the groups, the “Wagner faction,” admitted that the bylaws had created an insuperable barrier, so they discarded the bylaws and, operating on their prior authority as the elected executive committee, set up a referendum process and so forth to rebuild the organization.

    The other group, the “Reeves faction,” held a fake “state committee” meeting — so fake that one of the participants was, IIRC, actually a member of the state committee of an entirely different party (the Republican Party) — and announced that they had elected themselves as the new “officers” of LPO.

    It’s not like one group abided by the bylaws and the other didn’t. Both groups violated the bylaws — one group with the objective of rebuilding LPO, the other group with objectives that aren’t entirely clear but seem to run at the “best case” end to keeping LPO dysfunctional and out of the GOP’s way, and at the “worst case” end to destroying it entirely.

  188. paulie

    I am not sure where the JudComm members think this leaves the affiliation situation.

    The LNC has had votes in prior terms recognizing Reeves et al. They will now argue that those votes are still in effect. They’ll probably have a LNC majority to back that up, but we’ll see.

  189. Thomas L. Knapp

    “George isn’t the Wagner group the official affiliate? So wouldn’t that simply mean that the Wagner group remains the official affiliate?”

    Not exactly.

    The 2011 decision basically said “no, you can’t disaffiliate the affiliate by a vote of the executive committee, it takes a vote of the whole LNC.”

    But that was logical and reasonable. The underlying case was, well, a bunch of bullshit.

    The executive committee didn’t come out and say they were disaffiliating the LPO and affiliating the Reeves Gang.

    What the executive committee did was something they’d done before (with Arizona in 1999). They did some hand-wringing about how “confusing” the situation was and how they “were not sure” whether the real LPO or the Reeves impostors were the “real” affiliate. Then they asserted that since they were confused, they just had to make a decision as to which group was the “real” affiliate, and that that group was the Reeves Gang, and that this wasn’t really disaffiliation, just a clarification of the situation.

    So the Judicial Committee rescinding the 2011 ruling, if it had the power to do so (it does not), would have the effect of recognizing the Reeves Gang as the “real” affiliate.

  190. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Well, that’s the thing — when LPO finally came apart at the seams over the convention quorum issue, there were two groups that came out of it claiming to be the “real” LPO.

    One of the groups, the “Wagner faction,” admitted that the bylaws had created an insuperable barrier, so they discarded the bylaws and, operating on their prior authority as the elected executive committee, set up a referendum process and so forth to rebuild the organization.===

    Why didn’t they just amend the portion dealing with the quorum to get a convention so that things could be done ordinarily?

    ==The other group, the “Reeves faction,” held a fake “state committee” meeting — so fake that one of the participants was, IIRC, actually a member of the state committee of an entirely different party (the Republican Party) — and announced that they had elected themselves as the new “officers” of LPO.==

    If they didn’t get a quorum either and didn’t try to amend, that seems completely out of line too, agreed.

    ==It’s not like one group abided by the bylaws and the other didn’t. Both groups violated the bylaws — one group with the objective of rebuilding LPO, the other group with objectives that aren’t entirely clear but seem to run at the “best case” end to keeping LPO dysfunctional and out of the GOP’s way, and at the “worst case” end to destroying it entirely.==

    But I see the Wagner group as saying they did nothing wrong. I think scrapping the bylaws in ExComm is not precisely right. Using emergency powers to remedy the situation just enough to actually remedy it would be right. If the other situation is as you say, yes, they did wrong too.

    But when wrong is done in an organization the solution isn’t to look at motives…. though at this point I do not know what can be done. It seems like there is no clean hands, and I have no idea what to do with that.

  191. Andy Craig

    “It was the Reeves group that held a meeting right after yet another quorumless convention. The Wagner group had already (from its perspective) cancelled that convention and completely changed the bylaws at a previous meeting in between conventions.”

    I knew I’d get something wrong once we got that far back into it. 😉

    “IMO both sides have some issues.”

    Absolutely.

    “And that, right now, seems to me to be the elephant in the room. You don’t do that. ”

    Won’t argue with you there. Like I said, the original dispute wasn’t really my interest and I haven’t paid all that much attention to the details of it. Whatever the situation, it’s Oregon’s mess to sort out.

  192. paulie

    One of the groups, the “Wagner faction,” admitted that the bylaws had created an insuperable barrier, so they discarded the bylaws and, operating on their prior authority as the elected executive committee, set up a referendum process and so forth to rebuild the organization.

    The new bylaws were vastly different than the old ones

    http://oregonvotes.org/doc/cand/bylaws_lib.pdf

    And who got to vote on them was vastly different than the old definition of membership.

    The other group, the “Reeves faction,” held a fake “state committee” meeting — so fake that one of the participants was, IIRC, actually a member of the state committee of an entirely different party (the Republican Party) — and announced that they had elected themselves as the new “officers” of LPO.

    They claim that it was a state committee meeting that met after a failure of quorum at the preiously scheduled convention, that the exec comm had no authority to cancel the convention, that their terms in office had expired as officers so thus it was legal under the old (to them still current) bylaws for the exec comm to appoint new officers, and they also claim that they had a quorum of the exec comm and that those voting were exec comm members and eligible; which of course is disputed.

  193. Thomas L. Knapp

    I can’t speak for LPO (aka “the Wagner group”). My recollection is not that they have said they did “nothing wrong,” but rather they admitted they were making the best of a bad situation while the Reeves Gang were trying to make the worst of the same situation.

  194. Andy Craig

    “It seems like there is no clean hands, and I have no idea what to do with that.”

    Welcome to the club.

  195. Caryn Ann Harlos

    So… if both groups violated the bylaws, why are either of them right? Motives? It is okay to break the bylaws as long as you have a really really good reason and go beyond what your mandate might be?

  196. George Phillies

    The original ruling was that the LNC ExComm could not unilaterally cut off the Wagner faction, that there had to be a disaffiliation vote. With that decision rescinded, the Chair or ExComm gets to decide. As neither Wagner nor Reeves is now a chair of something in Oregon, they need to make a decision.

    THE LNC MOTION THAT HAS NOW BEEN REVIVED READS

    ) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
    mittee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the
    Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended
    March 14 15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party
    of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since
    March 15, 2009. (Vote was 6-1. Hinkle, Rutherford,
    Mattson, Redpath, Knedler Lark in favor; Ruwart opposed)

    2) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
    mittee of the Libertarian National Committee recognizes as
    the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon those people
    elected by the State Committee during its meeting on May
    21, 2011. They are: Chair: Tim Reeves; Vice chair: Eric B.
    Saub Secretary: Carla J. Pealer ; Treasurer: Gregory Bur-
    nett (Motion passed 6-1, same votes as previous motion.)

    However, these people are not claimed by anyone to be the current LPOR officers. If the 2011 ExComm had the authority to decide who the LPOR is, so does the 2015 ExComm, and they have but to recognize the Wagner faction to make this issue go away.

    It appears that with the JudComm motion, the decision is back in the hands of the LNC Chairman or ExComm, who could simply rule that the LPOR is currently the Wagner faction. Rescinding the 2011 decision means that the authority of the Chair or Excomm — someone else can sort it out — ,to decide where to send the datadump and link, has been restored.

    From the standpoint of the Reeves faction, having the Epstein petition dismissed was a losing outcome.

  197. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>>Welcome to the club.>>>

    Andy that’s not helpful! I want their to be a clear hero and a clear villian!

  198. Andy Craig

    I just received a response from Carling to my earlier message-

    “I dispute that I am an “interested party” though I acknowledge that there may be an appearance of interest. For whatever it may be worth, I abstained on every vote, procedural and substantive.”

    I’ll let the imaginative reader fill in the blank on what I think of that technically-true statement as contrasted with the minutes George posted.

  199. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Probably a stupid question, if both groups violated the bylaws, how come the just result wouldn’t be to just reset back just prior to the first violation, and follow whatever laws, bylaws etc would apply if the officers all had dropped dead or if they are still around and willing to serve, who they are and handle this the right way? The affiliate is unquestionably the entity. The question is whether or not the present people and bylaws are the legitimate ones. This is an Oregon issue.

  200. Mark Axinn

    >But every competent authority that has reviewed the matter has sided with Wagner, so even if it was initially incorrect I consider the matter no longer up for review.

    That is generally the feeling of every other state chair (or past state chair) too.

  201. Andy Craig

    “So… if both groups violated the bylaws, why are either of them right? Motives? It is okay to break the bylaws as long as you have a really really good reason and go beyond what your mandate might be?”

    Wagner et al violated the bylaws as the excom. Reeves at al never were the party, and were no more capable of violating its bylaws than I am. Or that’s theory, I think.

    Like I said, you’ve reached the limits of my knowledge of the matter by going that far back into it, long before I was writing here at IPR (though I was a sporadic reader and commenter). The original dispute (that happened around the same time I was busy graduating high school) isn’t so much my concern, it’s the impropriety of the JC’s behavior here and now in 2015.

    *Even if* Reeves et al are 100% correct as to the original dispute, this was wrong. Procedure matters.

  202. George Phillies

    However, a consideration of the ExComm membership says that the Epstein faction may win there 4-3 or 5-2. The nearly unprecedented act of the LNC last year in rejecting the chair’s request as to who he wanted on the ExComm may well finally bear its poisonous fruit.

  203. Andy Craig

    “Probably a stupid question, if both groups violated the bylaws, how come the just result wouldn’t be to just reset back just prior to the first violation, and follow whatever laws, bylaws etc would apply if the officers all had dropped dead or if they are still around and willing to serve, who they are and handle this the right way? The affiliate is unquestionably the entity. The question is whether or not the present people and bylaws are the legitimate ones.”

    The terms would have expired by now, would be the immediate parliamentary hurdle to a “reset” I believe. Not to mention you’d be back to square one as regards the convention quorum problem.

    “This is an Oregon issue.”

    Yup.

  204. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am reading through the National Bylaws and the affiliate status was granted to a qualifying organization. That organization would be one organized pursuant to the laws of the state of Oregon presumably since that is how they applied (anyone know this??) for affiliate status. That would be the same creature of statute that still exists today. Whether or not internally they violated their bylaws would be an issue for the people in that organization to take up legally. That is how it seems to me. That whichever entity is the one that has legal continuity recognized by OR as the same entity that existed when affiliate status was granted is the affiliate.

    Again my mind can change, but this seems logical to me.

  205. paulie

    Probably a stupid question, if both groups violated the bylaws, how come the just result wouldn’t be to just reset back just prior to the first violation, and follow whatever laws, bylaws etc would apply if the officers all had dropped dead or if they are still around and willing to serve, who they are and handle this the right way?

    Well, for one thing, because then you would still have a severe quorum problem. For another there have been allegations of all sorts of improprities about who was allowed to vote, who wasnn’t, etc. etc, for many past conventions. The notion that the 2009 bylaws and/or membership rolls were pristine may be problematic. Lastly who is it that is to make such a decision? If that was what the LNC decided, Wagner et al would still be LPO as far as OR-SOS is concerned.

    The affiliate is unquestionably the entity. The question is whether or not the present people and bylaws are the legitimate ones. This is an Oregon issue.

    To be decided by the Oregon government, by the LNC, or by each separately and independently of each other?

  206. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>The terms would have expired by now, would be the immediate parliamentary hurdle to a “reset” I believe. Not to mention you’d be back to square one as regards the convention quorum problem.>>

    What is the parliamentary procedure if all the persons died in a plane crash? Why would not that apply here?

    Yes you would have the convention quorum problem, it should have been dealt with as precisely as possible then, and then regular procedure followed.

  207. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>>Well, for one thing, because then you would still have a severe quorum problem.>>>

    In that I think the Wagner group was correct that an emergency correction to the bylaws could be done.

    >> For another there have been allegations of all sorts of improprities about who was allowed to vote, who wasnn’t, etc. etc, for many past conventions.>>>

    All past issues cannot be revisited ad infinitum. Presumably if they had a quorum this wouldn’t have been an issue, or they would have handled internally. This shouldn’t be an issue now.

    >>
    The notion that the 2009 bylaws and/or membership rolls were pristine may be problematic. Lastly who is it that is to make such a decision?>>>

    The Oregon courts or private arbitration. Not the LNC.

    If that was what the LNC decided, Wagner et al would still be LPO as far as OR-SOS is concerned.

    >>
    To be decided by the Oregon government, by the LNC, or by each separately and independently of each other?>>>

    The affiliate approved was already the creature of statute of the state. It is up to the members and OR to decide.

  208. Andy Craig

    “That whichever entity is the one that has legal continuity recognized by OR as the same entity that existed when affiliate status was granted is the affiliate.”

    That would be Wagner et al. That’s why the other group isn’t recognized as a political party and doesn’t have the ballot access (which was established pre-dispute). Instead they filed for a totally new PAC that just so happens to be named “The Libertarian Party of Oregon.” (the name of the party doesn’t have a ‘the’ in it.)

    For extra icing on the cake, TLPO-PAC then started endorsing Republican candidates with Libertarian opponents, even after they’d lost or not run in the Libertarian primary (Oregon is a fusion state, so other-party candidates can run for and also win the Libertarian nomination.)

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/09/libertarian-party-of-oregon-disputes-claim-that-they-have-endorsed-republican-candidate-jason-yates/

  209. Caryn Ann Harlos

    On a side issue, still very troubled by the Wagner nuclear option threat. I get trying to convince other states to disaffiliate. Freedom of speech and association. I think it is destructive but I get it. But suing the LNC when the people who end up getting screwed are those who donated money for things such as the building? No, sorry, that is unacceptable.

  210. Andy Craig

    “What is the parliamentary procedure if all the persons died in a plane crash?”

    I haven’t got the faintest clue. I have a rough working familiarity with Robert’s Rules but I’m no parliamentarian.

  211. paulie

    I am reading through the National Bylaws and the affiliate status was granted to a qualifying organization. That organization would be one organized pursuant to the laws of the state of Oregon presumably since that is how they applied (anyone know this??) for affiliate status.

    As far as I know LP affiliates don’t get affiliated on the basis of whether they are organized pursuant to the laws of any given state. Some people have interpreted the now-supposedly-rescinded 2011 decision to say that is how we recognize affiliates but that is disputed.

  212. Andy Craig

    “As far as I know LP affiliates don’t get affiliated on the basis of whether they are organized pursuant to the laws of any given state.”

    They’re all organized under the laws of their respective states, they just might not be recognized *as political parties*.

  213. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>>As far as I know LP affiliates don’t get affiliated on the basis of whether they are organized pursuant to the laws of any given state. >>>

    I think you are misunderstanding my point. If I agree to contract with you. Who is YOU? Well it is the biological person that is YOU. The affiliate status was granted to an organization which was in existence as a legal entity under the laws of the state. That is its’ biological to analogize. The only kind of continuity such an organization has is that under the laws of its state.

  214. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I didn’t claim that their acceptance as an affiliate was dependent upon being recognized as the state. It is my understanding that either initially it was the organization which was already voluntarily a creature of the state that was the affiliate. Big difference.

  215. paulie

    All past issues cannot be revisited ad infinitum.

    They can according to the Carling interpretation of RONR which supposedly allowed them to rescind the 2011 decision, which rests on the premise that indeed they can be.

    The affiliate approved was already the creature of statute of the state. It is up to the members and OR to decide.

    The factions dispute who the members are; their definitions are very diferent. But the state has already decided and does not seem likely to change that decision.

  216. Andy Craig

    I’m still hoping somebody will file a petition to rescind the oldest JudCom decision they can find. I’m talking “Is this Tonie Nathan interloper a member in good standing that we can nominate for VP?” old.

  217. paulie

    They’re all organized under the laws of their respective states, they just might not be recognized *as political parties*.

    Reeves/Epstein is also organized under state law, as a PAC. It’s not recognized as a political party, and most likely never will be.

  218. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>They can according to the Carling interpretation of RONR which supposedly allowed them to rescind the 2011 decision, which rests on the premise that indeed they can be.>>

    I disagree with Carling, but even so, that wouldn’t mean that that all injustices of any group can be. This group is a creature of the state, and follows the rules of the state. The statute for its existence isn’t RONR.

    >>
    The factions dispute who the members are; their definitions are very different…

    Then the interested parties must find a way to resolve it. It is their issue.

    >> But the state has already decided and does not seem likely to change that decision.>>>

    Actually they really haven’t yet. that is what the appeal is about. The initial decision was a ruling of a rebuttal rule that didn’t decide anything on the merits.

  219. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>I’m still hoping somebody will file a petition to rescind the oldest JudCom decision they can find. I’m talking “Is this Tonie Nathan interloper a member in good standing that we can nominate for VP?” old.>>

    Let’s do it

  220. Andy Craig

    “Reeves/Epstein is also organized under state law, as a PAC. It’s not recognized as a political party, and most likely never will be.”

    Yes, but that PAC is not recognized as being the same entity as the pre-dispute LPO. That corporate continuity question would arise under state law, regardless of if LPO (which is also technically a PAC, just one that has party status recognition) was recognized as a party. Like with my hypothetical Libertarian Club above. Though it does place the ball at least initially in the Secretary of State’s court, whereas at might otherwise go straight to judicial adjudication. I guess that would depend on what authority the SoS has over PACs vs. recognize parties in Oregon, which I wouldn’t know. The kind of Secretary of State I was running for has one employee in the Capitol basement and zero substantive authority.

  221. Andy Craig

    That’s why LPO is PAC#622 and Reeves/Epstein are PAC#16869.

    That numbering scheme alone is enough to tell you which is the much older one.

  222. Nicholas Sarwark

    Actually they really haven’t yet. that is what the appeal is about. The initial decision was a ruling of a rebuttal rule that didn’t decide anything on the merits.

    This is procedurally incorrect. The dismissal of the Burke/Reeves/Carling suit is a final judgment that preserves the SoS decision recognizing Wagner. It is being appealed, but it is not stayed.

    So a final decision has been entered, but it’s possible that it will be reversed.

  223. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>This is procedurally incorrect. The dismissal of the Burke/Reeves/Carling suit is a final judgment that preserves the SoS decision recognizing Wagner. It is being appealed, but it is not stayed.

    So a final decision has been entered, but it’s possible that it will be reversed.>>>

    I see where you got this, but my response assumed a greater context of my prior posts. The dismissal wasn’t based on an examination of the merits of the bylaws issues for instance, but a ruling of the presumption that they will only recognize a change in leadership if the chair of record signs off. The appeal is whether they will set aside this presumption based on extraordinary circumstances…. at least this is how I understand it. If this understanding is correct, my statement is procedurally correct in context.

  224. Wes Wagner

    In 2010 the leadership was elected with a charter for reform. The republican traitors asked national for help and interference to prevent its implementation.

    They lost everything and will never be accepted back into the community again.

    They labor under the belief that the LPO should be property of the LNC and dues paying members with divided loyalties or secret loyalties to the repubican party.

    We believe the party is owned by the registered libertarians of this state.

    There was a reform movement, a populist revolution when they blocked its implementation, and blowback for the national party when they attempted to support republican-aligned loyalists.

    The national party’s reputation in oregon is so bad that the average member here wants it to die in a fire as a result of the attempts to press us into vassalage.

  225. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes they can want that, and it is destructive to those of us who don’t. Don’t force your will on everyone.

    Here is what is ironic. I am a radical. I don’t like the Republucanizing of the party. We probably would agree on principles and be able to have a grand old time together working ourselves up in a fine frothy libertarian lather.

    But that doesn’t give you the right to lead a destructive charge. Just disaffiliate if you feel you must.

  226. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You write:

    “On a side issue, still very troubled by the Wagner nuclear option threat. I get trying to convince other states to disaffiliate. Freedom of speech and association. I think it is destructive but I get it. But suing the LNC when the people who end up getting screwed are those who donated money for things such as the building? No, sorry, that is unacceptable.”

    Look at it from the perspective of self-defense.

    The LNC has already spent a good deal of time, effort, and that same donor money you just referenced attempting to destroy its Oregon affiliate and replace that affiliate with a Republican impostor organization.

    If LPO does disaffiliate (or is disaffiliated), it seems likely that the LNC will escalate, rather than end, its war on LPO — supporting the Reeves Gang’s attempts to steal its ballot line and so forth.

    If someone is waging war on me and has declared his intention to continue doing so, and if I can reduce his ability to do so effectively (and cost-effectively) by filing a lawsuit that has merit, you’re damn straight I will do that.

    The national convention delegates could have put a stop to this in 2012 or 2014. They declined to do so; in fact, they returned several known bad actors to office, or elected them to new office.

    At some point, the only way to get the delegates to extract crania from recta may be to make it very expensive for them to not do so.

  227. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And I would rather you didnt do that either. There are things I don’t like– I want to work to change those. I care very deeply about this party and this movement. I hate politics. I am here for one reason only. I utterly believe this stuff. We can’t have these circular firing squads- we are already too few.

  228. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I would add- you are getting “abused” as you see it in a situation you are voluntarily staying in. I have been there and done that. I took my ball and played elsewhere and managed not to leave burning wrecks behind nor did I thirst to do so.

  229. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    So, will anything really change at this point? I understand there will likely be an action by the LNC to decide who the correct leaders are, but does anything change in the meantime?

  230. George Phillies

    It is very hard to tell what happens next.

    Caryn, please do your background reading on exactly what happened in the past before you conclude what should be happening now.

  231. Wes Wagner

    Caryn,

    Do you think for a moment that the malefactors in the LP will just leave us alone in peace if we were to walk away? They have aggressed against us on multiple occasions over a decade.

    Sorry, but at this point they have proven themselves militant, incapable of remorse, are not sorry, and will continue to interfere in our affairs. They have attempted coups against us, have figuratively attempted to murder our organization on multiple occasions by taking it and handing it to the enemy, and they will do it again.

    The moment they are vulnerable enough to figuratively murder, we will. Self-preservation and moral imperative demands it.

    You lack the depth of history and understanding to interpret this as a reasonable positions, but someone like Tom Knapp does not. If you honestly think you can talk us out of it, use an ambassador we would listen to.

    I suspect he may refuse you, however, and recognize that it is impossible to talk moral people out of this course of action.

  232. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Here is right now (have a ton of material to review) I see it. The state recognized entity that is LPO is the affiliate that was recognized and by OR law it has continuity with the LPO that presently exists. Any irregularities that happened (and personally I think the way the bylaws were scrapped is more than suspect) is between OR libertarians and their courts. If there was such hanky panky that the actual LPO ethically doesn’t exist anymore or some other issue, let someone petition for disaffiliation for cause but that disaffiliation would be from the organization that exists – the LPO.

    This is an Oregon matter. I do not see the natiotional jurisdiction here.

    Will I want to torch the LPO is the wrong decision is made? No. I will disagree and try to find ways for peaceful voluntary resolution.

  233. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes

    ==Do you think for a moment that the malefactors in the LP will just leave us alone in peace if we were to walk away? They have aggressed against us on multiple occasions over a decade.===

    Yes. You are not innocent here Wes. I find your definition of aggression a bit troubling as well.

    ==Sorry, but at this point they have proven themselves militant, incapable of remorse, are not sorry, and will continue to interfere in our affairs. They have attempted coups against us, have figuratively attempted to murder our organization on multiple occasions by taking it and handing it to the enemy, and they will do it again.==

    The “they” you are referring to includes ideological friends you seek to destroy with friendly fire.

    ===The moment they are vulnerable enough to figuratively murder, we will. Self-preservation and moral imperative demands it.===

    No that is vengeance and it is terribly ugly.

    ===You lack the depth of history and understanding to interpret this as a reasonable positions, but someone like Tom Knapp does not. If you honestly think you can talk us out of it, use an ambassador we would listen to.===

    I am speaking to you myself. One radical to another.

    ===I suspect he may refuse you, however, and recognize that it is impossible to talk moral people out of this course of action.===

    I deny the morality of this part of your cause.

  234. Wes Wagner

    There are reasons the statewide plebiscite came in at 97% in favor … the reformation was done to take care of issues of equity, egality and to deal with some bad actors with finality.

    The previous bylaws violated so many issues of equity and egalitarianism that the bulk of the party found them unlawful in construct (read Bastiat – The Law if this principle is not understood) … therefor unworthy of respect and was abandoned with all due disrespect when continuing the theater of following it was impractical and the enemies of our cause sought to use them to press us again into ineffectiveness and suppression.

    The law when it has become a perversion no longer binds people to obey it. First moral principles are higher than the law — and the concept that the law and the rules should be respected as a matter of near religious indoctrination — which some people have been trying to spoonfeed members of the LP for a while now through parliamentarianism and “rule of law (conservative horseshit)” — is in fact a perversion of the precepts of the age of reason.

    I challenge you to find many things 97% of libertarians agree on when asked.

  235. Wes Wagner

    “===The moment they are vulnerable enough to figuratively murder, we will. Self-preservation and moral imperative demands it.===

    No that is vengeance and it is terribly ugly.”

    No, it is self preservation and the moral imperative of all living creatures. I will not sacrifice the sovereignty of Oregon for the faintest hope of redemption of the LP – which no longer deserves any such consideration after their series of depraved actions.

    I think we are done here – I will no longer converse with you on this matter because it is clear we have radically different moral paradigms of responsibility and civic duty.

  236. Bryan G. Jensen

    I’d like to know what national has to gain by sticking it’s nose in this. Reeves group is what? A dozen or so people trying to align LPO with ORP? I left ORP and have no desire to rejoin it under some fake faction calling itself LP that is actually RP. I don’t get how national thinks it has any business in the matter.

  237. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes suit yourself. We do disagree and perhaps one day someone’s mnd will be changed.

    I don’t think at this point national has any standing here, and if they intervene they are not doing the right thing. Our disagreement is in how you should handle it if they do.

    I enjoy a good fire breathing stump as much as anyone (anyone who follows me on FB knows that is an understatement) – but you have ideological friends that you have in the collateral damage.

    I will not cease t reach out to you agan, as one radical to another.

    And I have been known t change my mind. Radically.

    Peace.

  238. Wes Wagner

    “but you have ideological friends that you have in the collateral damage.”

    Grab a banner and stand on this side of the field…

    Go on a nice vacation and come back later to rebuild….

    But it would be ill-advised to jump in front of the other side to protect them from the flames.

  239. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If you discussed this earlier and I missed it, sorry, but what is the state of the bylaws now? Does the JC think they have installed the old bylaws, due to its recission of the 2011 JC decision?

  240. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes I am a nobody who just wants to work for liberty.

    I will not argue with you any longer. I am a friend. I do intend on working for the destruction of anyone. I just want liberty for the country. I want libertarians t be actual libertarians ( know you want this too)

    I don’t thnk national has jurisdiction here – the LPO as recognized by the state of OR is its affiliate as far as I can see

    You will do what you think you need to do.

    I would love to chat ideology with you some day.

  241. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Jill how would the LNC (or JC) have any right to tell them what their bylaws are?

  242. LibertyDave

    As to who’s definition of party member is correct, in Oregon, membership in a political party is defined by state law. ORS 248.002(4) “Member” means an individual who is registered as being affiliated with the political party.

    Also ORS 248.005 states, Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members. Each political party by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation of party members in the party organization and activities. Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and open participation of all interested party members.

    Richard Burke and the Reeves group are doing the opposite of the above.

    As a resident of Oregon since 1996 and a registered libertarian I have watched Richard Burke and his faction (the Reeves group) drive the LPO into the ground. In 1996 when I moved to Oregon there were 16 active county parties and by the time this dispute happened in 2010 there were only 5 active county parties.

    When I joined the LPO in 1996 and tried to get involved in the state and county parties I was told by Richard Burke that because of my support of medical marijuana I wasn’t welcome in the LPO and that the LPO supported the war on drugs.

    From then on until 2010 I keep my membership in the national party and refused to support the state party while Richard Burke was still involved.

    In 2010 I got an email from the Wagner group asking for help reforming and rebuilding the LPO. That’s when members of the LNC came to Oregon to interfere with the state conventions on behalf of Richard Burke to keep the bylaws from being change to include the registered libertarians which allow the LPO to maintain ballot access without having to petition for it every two years.

    Since then I have let my membership in the national party laps and refuse to have anything to do with the national party until the national party quits interfering with the state of Oregon. Also because of this interference the state now seems to be only trying to recruit candidates for office and fight the interference of the Reeves group and the national party.

    Because of this when I go to events like marijuana rallies, gay rights events, gun rights events, and other events, when I find people interested in the libertarian movement I give them Information about the Advocates for Self-Government instead of the Libertarian Party because I no longer trust the Libertarian Party to be the party of principals because of people like Richard Burke, M Carling and the people who support them.

  243. Nicholas Sarwark

    Since then I have let my membership in the national party laps and refuse to have anything to do with the national party until the national party quits interfering with the state of Oregon. Also because of this interference the state now seems to be only trying to recruit candidates for office and fight the interference of the Reeves group and the national party.

    Because of this when I go to events like marijuana rallies, gay rights events, gun rights events, and other events, when I find people interested in the libertarian movement I give them Information about the Advocates for Self-Government instead of the Libertarian Party because I no longer trust the Libertarian Party to be the party of principals because of people like Richard Burke, M Carling and the people who support them.

    Of all the things I’ve read today, this saddens me the most.

  244. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==That’s when members of the LNC came to Oregon to interfere with the state conventions on behalf of Richard Burke to keep the bylaws from being change to include the registered libertarians which allow the LPO to maintain ballot access without having to petition for it every two years.==

    Did they do this on behalf of the LNC? Or personally as individual Libertarians?

    And Florida had this same issue with regards to membership. It isn’t as clear cut as that, though the wording of the OR law may be different from Florida. They handled it by voting on whether or not to change the bylaws to remove the pledge for instance. They voted against it. If there are repercussions from the state, they will have to handle that…

    I don’t think you can unilaterally change the bylaws to change the definition of membership without the consent of the members as provided in the bylaws. I just don’t. This has nothing to do with the state or the “rule of law” but a voluntarily arrangement in an organization.

    But this is an OR issue.

    On every sngle ideological issue you mentioned, I absolutely agree with you. If the LPO before was advocating those sorts of things, they could have been disaffiliated for cause I would think.

  245. Bryan G. Jensen

    ^^^^ is why I registered NAV when I left ORP even though I align with what Wes has done. I just switched to LPO yesterday because Wes convinced me no matter what National does, Reeves and those like him are never taking over.

  246. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I will not sacrifice the sovereignty of Oregon for the faintest hope of redemption of the LP – which no longer deserves any such consideration after their series of depraved actions.”

    Goddammit, Wes, you of all people I should not have to keep reminding of this:

    THE LNC IS NOT THE LP.

    The LNC is one organization that serves some specific functions for the various state LPs, binding them together in such a way that it is reasonable to treat the aggregate as “a national LP,” but the LNC itself is not that “national LP.”

    The quicker people — especially LNC members and national convention delegates — get it through their heads that the LNC can, if it becomes necessary, be replaced by a different organization to fulfill those functions, the less likely it will become necessary to do so.

    Of course, it’s entirely possible that we’re past the point of no return, that the LNC is corrupted and dysfunctional beyond salvaging, and that the choice has become whether to replace the LNC or let the LNC drag the virtual “national party” down with it. But in neither case does the LNC itself constitute that “national party.” It’s just a single node in a much larger enterprise.

  247. Bryan G. Jensen

    “the LNC can, if it becomes necessary, be replaced by a different organization”

    It has become necessary and hasn’t happened. National is to blame.

  248. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom, in theory you are right. But why not advocate (if this is what is best for Libertarians and represents actual Libertarians) that like-minded people run for positions and turn things around? If that is not possible how do you suppose a new organization will do that? you will need the will of the parties to support a new organization and if you have support you can change the LNC…

    It seems circular.

  249. Wes Wagner

    The structure and culture combined of the current national party makes reformation from within impossible. The average convention is composed of over 50% of delegates who have never attended a convention before typically… therefore they will via inertia refuse to make any radical changes to the organization because they lack the history of the organization to understand how necessary it is.

    A convention specifically called for the purpose of reformation on the other hand would be effective because the people showing up would specifically be doing so for the purpose of restructuring and setting aside old problems.

  250. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    The cancer and rot has spread beyond the LNC … a larger solution is necessary.

  251. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Libertarians like M Carling inspire me to thank God that our government is instead being run by Republicans and Democrats.

  252. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I have am now a bit more familiar with this old timeline than most and have to say I do not think those bylaws were amended properly and nor that ORS 248 section applies. If this was not done right the whole enterprise fails and the Reeves group was elected.

    That being said, unless OR and it’s members have to resolve.

    Still searching for justification on national getting involved. I don’t see it.

  253. Michael H. Wilson

    Back in 1995 I was elected chair of the Libertarian party of Oregon and almost immediately found myself in the middle of a fight started by Mr. Burke. I ran offering to do three things.; develop a public relations program, outreach to the registered Libertarians and bringing those two things together to support LP candidates. Senator Bob Packwood resigned during my time as chair. I was in Colorado taking care of details after my stepson died. Burke and company had planned an executive committee meeting while I was out of town at which they were going to make Burke the executive director and sideline me. That meeting surprised him and his buddies when they got a recall petition handed to them. Meanwhile I had called Tonie Nathan asking her to start looking for a candidate for us to run and I quickly headed home with some of our work in Colorado left undone. As it turned out when I got back to Portland nothing had been done towards getting the work moving forward on selecting a candidate. I suggested calling a convention. Burke told me I did not have the authority to do so. Well I went ahead and did so not knowing what legal problems I was creating for myself. After we have a candidate on the ballot I decided to resign and avoid a nasty fight which I had no desire to be in. You see someone was calling my home and when my wife answered they hung up. Since she was dealing with a serious disability at the time I had no desire to put her through any more. This has been going on since the early 1990s and if you think this is going to stop any time soon well I have a bridge to sell you. Someone is going to have to go broke before they quit. And for what it is worth we had a number of people leave the party over this nonsense.

  254. Jim

    Caryn Ann Harlos: You said, “I have am [sic] now a bit more familiar with this old timeline…”

    People who are nervous make errors in their verbiage. You then said, “That being said, unless OR and it’s members have to resolve.” [again, SIC]
    You apparently have a lot to be nervous about! Are you here on a mission?

    While I can’t say I am familiar in detail with the history, I suspect you are wrong to have said, “If this was not done right the whole enterprise fails and the Reeves group was elected.”
    Whether or not they WERE elected, that doesn’t mean they have legally remained elected since then.

    The Burke cabal have been trouble-makers for as long as I was familiar with Oregon libertarian politics: 1995 and probably earlier. Ask people who were THERE.

  255. paulie

    When I joined the LPO in 1996 and tried to get involved in the state and county parties I was told by Richard Burke that because of my support of medical marijuana I wasn’t welcome in the LPO and that the LPO supported the war on drugs.

    Whuh ?!

  256. paulie

    I don’t thnk national has jurisdiction here – the LPO as recognized by the state of OR is its affiliate as far as I can see

    LNC has no jurisdiction over the state but it does have jurisdiction over who its state affiliate is. The Carling JC decision is that we are not bound to recognize the state-recognized party as the LNC affiliate. They will next post to previous LNC decisions that say the other side is the LNC affiliate.

  257. paulie

    If you discussed this earlier and I missed it, sorry, but what is the state of the bylaws now? Does the JC think they have installed the old bylaws, due to its recission of the 2011 JC decision?

    Each side has their own bylaws. Epstein/Reeves have ones that have been somewhat amended since 2009, whereas Wagner/Hedbor have ones that are far more radically different than the 2009 bylaws. The argument of those on the LNC who side with Epstein/Reeves, who are probably a majority of the LNC, will probably be that the 2011 JC decision was the only basis for the LNC to recognize Wagner/Hedbor rather than Reeves/Epstein, and that in it absence other prior LNC rulings point in the other direction.

  258. paulie

    I’d like to know what national has to gain by sticking it’s nose in this…. I don’t get how national thinks it has any business in the matter.

    Differet people with different motivations.

    For some it’s because they are friends and factional allies of Burke and want many of the same things on the national level that he does. For some it’s becase they believe it is a matter of principle, because they believe the Burke/Reeves side followed the 2009 bylaws and the Wagner side didn’t. For some, they don’t really care about any of that, they just see how hostile Wagner is to them, as far as they know or understand unprovoked. Most probably wish the whole thing would just go away.

  259. George Phillies

    As the ExComm resolution in place on who the officers are has no meaning, the LNC ExComm may need to act again. The resolution on which bylaws are in place is problematic for the same reason.

    Most delegates until recently received every second or so issue of Liberty for America, and had some detail on what was going on.

  260. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Jim what are you on about? I have poor eyesight and most of the time and one finger typing on my phone. You do better with errors in those conditions.

    Or go all eye-spy and imagine some sweaty spy on a mission.

  261. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie by national LP- does he mean collectively the states? You see the target of hostility here seems to jump from the LNC to the whole of the states/LP which casts any moderating attempts out the window

  262. George Phillies

    Brian,

    National had a problematic group of people running the LNC in 2011. Many but not all of them were tossed. Enough of them are still there that there is an issue. Worse, they and probable friends appear to still be a majority of the ExComm. Some who were snet on their way moved over top the Judicial Committee. Amusingly, some of the ones who were sent on their way were put on the Judicial Committee instead. Thus, the issue is still here.

    George

  263. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie

    ==LNC has no jurisdiction over the state but it does have jurisdiction over who its state affiliate is. The Carling JC decision is that we are not bound to recognize the state-recognized party as the LNC affiliate. They will next post to previous LNC decisions that say the other side is the LNC affiliate.==

    The affiliate is who it always has been– the one that has continuously statutorily existed as LPO is my argument and that it is not the job of the LNC to determine which group that is- it is done by OR. If the members or potential members in OR wish to challenge it seems they need to do so in OR or our Bylaws need to be changed to give the LNC that power. I am still reading more- Perhaps I will yet be persuaded differently.

    That would make it the Wagner group.

    But… All that being said, I now know the timeline (I am pretty sure unless something significant is missing) and I do not believe at this point the Wagner group assumed power properly. If it was the LNC’s job to determine which bylaws were in effect (and my interim opinion is that it was not) then it seems to me they came to the right conclusion on the bylaws.

    I am willing to be persuaded either that it was the LNC’s job or that the Wagner group assumed power properly.

    It pains me to say the Wagner group didn’t assume power properly so far as I understand right now. From every indication that I see, I think the intentions and believes (and motives) of the Reeves/Epstein group are antithetical to what I believe and the opposite of what I want for the Party.

    So this brings us to the tyranny of the law argument by Wagner that an overthrow was just on moral principles. That is a tacit concession that the procedure was not followed but it was justified not to. While again, I am all about the ideologically firestorming – if I am anything it is a radical firebrand – if we are going to be a legal political party there are rules whether we like them or not. My views on the state are pretty well known.

    It seems to me that if the LNC felt there was internal malfeasance, it is not their job to adjudicate it (someone show me the rules/bylaw/manual where it says it is?) but to disaffiliate to protect its assets.

    Opinion subject to change but this is where I am at.

  264. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    “Tom, in theory you are right. But why not advocate (if this is what is best for Libertarians and represents actual Libertarians) that like-minded people run for positions and turn things around? If that is not possible how do you suppose a new organization will do that? you will need the will of the parties to support a new organization and if you have support you can change the LNC…”

    Just because I’m defending the course that LPO/Wagner may take, that doesn’t mean I think it’s the only possible course, or even the best one. I’m all for trying to get good people onto the LNC and its various sub-committees to turn things around (and I’ve tried to be one of those good people a number of times, with a modicum of success — regional alternate on the LNC for a bit, and a term on the Judicial Committee).

  265. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Specifically I read the 9/23/11 JC clarification (and original decision) and I think it is right in its interpretation as far as the power of National goes by our own governing documents

  266. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If this was not done right the whole enterprise fails and the Reeves group was elected.”

    If this was not done right, I suppose it’s possible that the whole enterprise fails.

    However, there are no circumstances under which the Reeves Gang was elected. Their “state committee meeting” election was the equivalent of me creating a new board of directors for Apple by calling up five other non-stockholders up and having them come over to my house for a “shareholders’ meeting.”

  267. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thank you for your clarification Tom. From what I know of you – you would be one of those good people.

  268. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom this is where I disagree – though I think it is an OR matter. It seems to me that the Reeves group was elected under the bylaws.

    Let’s say they were not and Wagner’s bylaw wholesale replacement was invalid- who would have been the officers?

    Exhaust that then would be my position. I do not think what Wagner did was proper under the existing bylaws.

    The quorum problem could have been dealt with by itself. Either through emergency powers (sketchy) or by appeal to the state to resolve under OR statute

  269. Caryn Ann Harlos

    The ;tldr is this. The LNC has no power not to accept the Wagner group unless OR rules that way. It has the power to disaffiliate to protect its assets.

  270. NewFederalist

    For those of us without sufficient life spans to read this entire thread can someone provide a synopsis?

  271. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You write:

    “Tom this is where I disagree – though I think it is an OR matter. It seems to me that the Reeves group was elected under the bylaws.”

    It’s been a long time since I looked at LPO’s old bylaws, but I think I would remember if they included a provision that allowed new officers to be elected by a fake “state committee” composed largely of people who, under those same bylaws, could not possibly be part of said committee.

    “Tom this is where I disagree – though I think it is an OR matter. It seems to me that the Reeves group was elected under the bylaws.”

    And I agree. NEITHER group acted in accordance with the then-existing bylaws.

    One group, which had been abusing those bylaws for years in an effort to keep LPO from ever succeeding in the political arena, held a fake “state committee meeting” and elected itself in charge.

    The other group, which had been fighting within the bounds of those bylaws for years in an effort to have LPO start succeeding in the political arena, finally said “obviously these bylaws do not work, and the doctrine of necessity requires us to come up with ones that do.”

    If I see two cars going down the road well in excess of the speed limit, I’ll agree that they’re both breaking the law. But if I find out that one of those drivers is speeding to get his pregnant wife to the hospital, and the other one is speeding in hopes of seizing the opportunity to run down a pedestrian in the next crosswalk, I’m going to end up with a distinct preference in favor of one of those drivers and against the other.

  272. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom my question is if neither group acted within the bylaws (you concede Wagner did not- I need to be persuaded that Reeves did not by citing actual bylaw provisions and events) then who would be the rightful officers?

    Citing people abusing the bylaws in the past as justification to abuse the bylaws oneself is not persuasive to me under legal or libertarian grounds. This is a voluntary association who organized under certain rules. If Reeves et al abused them in the past action was to be taken within the rules or through the courts or through contacting libertarians and getting it changed. Or petitioning the LNC to disaffiliate for cause

  273. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Just because I’m defending the course that LPO/Wagner may take, that doesn’t mean I think it’s the only possible course, or even the best one. I’m all for trying to get good people onto the LNC and its various sub-committees to turn things around (and I’ve tried to be one of those good people a number of times, with a modicum of success — regional alternate on the LNC for a bit, and a term on the Judicial Committee).==

    If you have ideas/plans for this I am all ears and a likely ally. I think we are friends on FB as this discussion, if you wish, should not take place here.

  274. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    I’m not an internal LP ideas/plans guy anymore — the necessity for that was a large part of what made me give up the LP for four years (2010 until last year). The only thing that brought me back was Nick getting elected chair. I figured that was a sign that at least SOME people were getting serious about setting things right.

    I’m sure there are a few people out there already working on possible LNC and Judicial Committee slates. I’ll be trying to hook up with them at some point as a minor player (or, just maybe, as a candidate for the Judicial Committee). I’ll let you know when and if I do, and I hope you’ll tell me if you find them first 🙂

  275. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom what is the best way to reach you privately? I have an old pending friend request to you on FB

  276. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    The friend request is no longer pending — not sure why I hadn’t already confirmed it. I try to go through and confirm them all once or twice a week.

    I can also be reached through the contact link at my blog (I’d post my email address here, but that would get it harvested by the spam bots).

  277. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Sent you a PM. I got your blog through my blog reader and didn’t even think to go look at the actual site (please get on iTunes so I can get the podcast easier!)

  278. Wes Wagner

    The proper leaders are the ones who have the consent of the governed. The fact that this is so hard to understand is very worrisome.

  279. Wes Wagner

    So who all is on the committee to ensure that we rescind that whole US Constitution thing and beg the royal family of England to let us come back into the fold because that whole thing was illegal and not done according to the rules?

  280. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes – the organization was created voluntarily under certain rules. The organization is not like the state where it is a monopoly. The voluntarily governed are those who agree to the rules- and that includes the membership definition. You can’t just break the rules to change the membership definition and use that new membership definition to say see? We have the consent of the governed.

    But I also think this is an OR matter and one for the prior class of members to pursue if they wish and the LNC has the right to disaffiliate if they wish.

  281. paulie

    my question is if neither group acted within the bylaws (you concede Wagner did not- I need to be persuaded that Reeves did not by citing actual bylaw provisions and events) then who would be the rightful officers?

    I’ve seen the case laid out that they did not have a quorum of current exec comm members during the post-quorumless-convention meeting that created the “Reeves group”, that they had people who had already resigned from the exec comm earlier voting there, people claiming to represent various counties with no evidence that they had been elected or appointed to represent those counties, at least one member of a Republican state or county committee, etc. I’ve seen details on this before but don’t remember where. I’ve also seen them deny this allegation.

    Supposing it’s true, though, there are no rightful officers, if by rightful you mean following a chain of proper procedure under the prior bylaws.

    Who the state party is on the ground in Oregon seems pretty hard to dispute – they’re recognized by the state (which seems unlikely to change), run lots of candidates, have been recognized as both the ballot-qualified party and the LNC affiliate for about four years now. For the LNC to switch its affiliate to a group with no ballot access seeral years later just because that group (disputably) may have followed prior procedure seems unwise. And from everything I’ve seen, it seems very unlikely that the SOS or the courts will change who the state recognizes, or that they will care who the LNC recognizes.

  282. Wes Wagner

    The rightful owners of the party are and were the registered libertarians of Oregon, not the feudal class who had it usurped. If national does not like the new government because it does not evince their ends of feudalism, hierarchy and nationalism — they could have always voted to disaffiliate instead of paying money to republican lawyers to try to take us over and put the dispossessed loyalists (who never did perfect their claims) back into control.

  283. Wes Wagner

    Mr. Wagner;
    Below is an email string between Tyler Smith and myself. As you can see, we see the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon as an entity independent of any other organization. No matter
    what the LNC does it will not impact the standing of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. The only
    way the Libertarian Party of Oregon could be affected is if we were presented a binding court
    decision that the Libertarian Party of Oregon could no longer use the word Libertarian in their
    party name if a court were to decide that the LNC has exclusive rights to the use of the word
    Libertarian.
    I hope this clarifies our position. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
    We will be expecting nominations for the 1st Congressional Special Election from you as Chair
    of the LPO.
    Stephen N. Trout
    Director of Elections
    Oregon Secretary of State
    503-986-1518
    steve.trout@state.or.us

  284. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Back on the subject that started all this, Carling did not vote which is what was asked for as far is it goes. However it was he who decided that the issue could have heard to begin with – he should have passed the baton on that decision. That is a wrong decision is another matter. There was no standing to bring this. If there was a constructive disaffiliation of the Reeves/Epstein group (I dispute that- the internal dispute of the LPO has to be resolved by them in their state or the LNC had to disaffiliate from the LPO) it happened long before – Sarwark’s email did not trigger a new window.

  285. George Phillies

    “For the LNC to switch its affiliate to a group with no ballot access seeral years later just because that group (disputably) may have followed prior procedure seems unwise. ” So are you predicting that they will do it? One might suppose that the JudComm or part of it) thinks that they have already done it.

  286. paulie

    But I also think this is an OR matter and one for the prior class of members to pursue if they wish and the LNC has the right to disaffiliate if they wish.

    Pursue through what means, though? Reeves, Carling and the other plaintiffs in their case say that they are acting on behalf of the prior class of members through their lawsuit and through pursuing their case to the national LP. Whether they really do speak for most of the prior class of members is questionable. True, they do hold conventions where those of the prior definition of membership can vote, but as I understand it few people have attended those. It may be that most of the prior class of members are OK with the new rules or simply don’t care, or that it’s not a big deal to them, or that they actually like the change. If so, it’s not likely that they would bother to tell Burke, Reeves, et al, because it’s not worth their time and effort to do so.

    As for the LNC’s right to disaffiliate, it comes with a loss of ballot access as well as provoking the nuclear option response from Wagner et al., wich may or may not be coming otherwise anyway. However, those on the LNC who believe Reeves et al is the proper affiliate don’t see it as a need to disaffiliate, because they don’t consider Wagner et al to be or have ever been the affiliate. The LNC would be smarter to leave well enough alone here, but there’s little chance that will happen, and slim may have just gone to none thanks to the Carling committee ruling.

  287. paulie

    So are you predicting that they will do it? One might suppose that the JudComm or part of it) thinks that they have already done it.

    Yes and yes.

  288. Wes Wagner

    When we ran the plebiscite we do not know how people voted because there was a secret ballot, but if you assume all the NO votes came from the previous dues paying members, and count how many previous dues paying members voted, you cannot even arrive at a majority of previous dues paying members voting no.

  289. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes

    ==The rightful owners of the party are and were the registered libertarians of Oregon, not the feudal class who had it usurped.===

    You can’t usurp a voluntary agreement (the bylaws) unless you violate the bylaws. Arguably your group usurped it. That is for the original member group to pursue if they wish.

    === If national does not like the new government because it does not evince their ends of feudalism, hierarchy and nationalism — they could have always voted to disaffiliate instead of paying money to republican lawyers to try to take us over and put the dispossessed loyalists (who never did perfect their claims) back into control.===

    Here we have agreement. The only option the LNC has is to disaffilate.

    Still unclear who paid Republican lawyers – that was an individual LNC member not the LNC right? Do they live in OR? Of course someone can step in to assist people they think are right but I find it highly personally ethically problematic for an LNC member to do that when the LNC has entangled themselves.

    I have no love for the Republicanization of our party or the insipid moderation of libertarian principles Wes.

    The 2011 JC reasoning was sound.

  290. Wes Wagner

    (This also explains why the Reeves crew is never any larger than about 6-8 people who actually live in Oregon)

  291. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===When we ran the plebiscite we do not know how people voted because there was a secret ballot, but if you assume all the NO votes came from the previous dues paying members, and count how many previous dues paying members voted, you cannot even arrive at a majority of previous dues paying members voting no.===

    Neither do you. The burden is on you to prove so. The members as defined by the existing voluntary organization had the right to ratify. You changing the bylaws have the burden to show they did before claiming consent of the governed.

  292. Wes Wagner

    Mark Hinkle, Chair of the LNC, hired Tyler Smith (who was a republican lawyer and also then the son of the Oregon Republican Party vice-chair and now is the Oregon Republican Party vice chair) to give a legal opinion to the LNC Ex-comm about what to do. The money used to hire him was never lawfully authorized by the LNC and violated the set policies.

    He then signed a conflict of interest waiver to release Mr. Smith to represent the Reeves group after they finally lost their bids to be recognized at the LNC so that Mr Smith could utilize the intellectual property the LNC paid for in pursuing litigation against us.

  293. paulie

    Back on the subject that started all this, Carling did not vote which is what was asked for as far is it goes. However it was he who decided that the issue could have heard to begin with – he should have passed the baton on that decision. That is a wrong decision is another matter. There was no standing to bring this. If there was a constructive disaffiliation of the Reeves/Epstein group (I dispute that- the internal dispute of the LPO has to be resolved by them in their state or the LNC had to disaffiliate from the LPO) it happened long before – Sarwark’s email did not trigger a new window.

    Sarwark’s email triggering a new window is a moot point now, because that related to the Epstein petition, which was dismissed.

    The question now is whether the JC in 2015 can simply open a case from 2011 for reconsideration. Carling did not recuse himself, and ruled that it can. A majority of the current JC upheld that ruling and voted to rescind the 2011 decision – and it’s true that Carling did not vote on those matters, but he didn’t have to, because he already had the votes. The more imporant matter was that it was him who decided that the JC could simply reconsider decisions from past terms any time it wants to begin with. There would have been no hearing if he hadn’t called it. The Epstein petition was just a diversion, bargaining chip, or trial balloon that didn’t fly. It may have been a way to distract opposition, or perhaps a way to get Rob Latham’s vote so M wouldn’t have to vote himself.

  294. Wes Wagner

    “Neither do you. The burden is on you to prove so. The members as defined by the existing voluntary organization had the right to ratify. You changing the bylaws have the burden to show they did before claiming consent of the governed.”

    Statistically there has to be more yes-es from the previous class of membership in the vote than nos. That is how math works. Also more previous members of the previous class voted than had attended any convention in the history of the party for as far back as anyone has records.

  295. Caryn Ann Harlos

    But the upshot of course here is that I think the LNC has to recognize the officers determined in accordance with the state or disaffiliate. And that the bylaws and propiety dispute is not within the gambit of the LNC. The organization has to work that out.

  296. paulie

    When we ran the plebiscite we do not know how people voted because there was a secret ballot, but if you assume all the NO votes came from the previous dues paying members, and count how many previous dues paying members voted, you cannot even arrive at a majority of previous dues paying members voting no.

    Some of the previous dues paying members were not eligible to vote in your plebescite (M Carling, for example). Others would have been eligible, but chose not to, since they did not consider it a legitimate question. That doesn’t mean that most of them were against what you did, but it also doesn’t mean most of them were OK with it – neither their lack of voting against it in your plebiscite, nor their lack of attendance at Burke/Reeves conventions, is definitive proof. Chances are a lot of them have lost interest in the LP altogether since then, either because of yoru feud, the many reasons people lose interest in the LP in any state, or a combination of both.

  297. George Phillies

    Wes makes an interesting point, namely that the plebiscite ballot did go out to a large number of members under the old definition, namely the ones who were also registered Libertarian, and the vote among that group was in favor of the new bylaws.

  298. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The only option the LNC has is to disaffilate.”

    And that’s the only option they’ve ever had. Unfortunately, over the last decade or so, the Starr/Mattson/Carling group has been very cagey about manipulating things to create a general fog about whatever they’re up to.

    If the LNC had disaffiliated Oregon in 2011 and chosen a new affiliate, there would have been consequences, but it would at least have been formally legitimate and a lot fewer people OUTside of Oregon would have taken a continuing interest in the matter.

    That’s what happened in 1999 with Arizona. The LNC moved to disaffiliate the Arizona LP, on the same premise that they acted on Oregon in 2011: “We don’t know which organization claiming to be the AZLP is the real one.” [NB: That was bullshit; they knew which organization was the real AZLP but had reasons for wanting to replace it with a more pliable group; but at least they followed procedure] The disaffiliation cost Harry Browne presidential ballot access in the 2000 presidential election.

    With Oregon, instead of just disaffiliating LPO, choosing their preferred organization as the new affiliate, and accepting the consequences, what happened is that the SMC cabal manipulated the executive committee, rather than the whole LNC, into using the “we don’t know who the real officers” argument into claiming the power to DECIDE who the real officers were, and pretending that what it was doing was not a disaffiliation. That’s what led to the appeal to the Judicial Committee and the ruling that the new Judicial Committee just pretended it had jurisdiction to overturn.

    It was a mess. And that’s a lesson that needs to be learned:

    Whatever their overall goal or goals may be, Starr/Mattson/Carling’s STRATEGY is to look for weak points on the LNC and in parliamentary procedure and then use those weak points to create fake controversies (e.g. pretending that R. Lee Wrights could be “automatically” removed from the LNC by having their pet LNC secretary “notice” a claimed irregularity in his dues payments) or to leverage real controversies into much larger and more divisive affairs than they have to be (e.g. trying to hide a disaffiliation as an EC administrative manner; discovering language in Robert’s that created a power to put a poll tax on convention delegates where it was quite clear in the bylaws and had long been a universally acknowledged fact that no such power existed; etc.). Making a new controversial mess every six months or so just to keep the party fighting internally instead of accomplishing real political goals may or may not be their end goal, but it’s certainly their preferred tactic.

  299. Wes Wagner

    None because they haven’t paid dues and ceased doing so to maintain their class of membership long ago. 😉

  300. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===Statistically there has to be more yes-es from the previous class of membership in the vote than nos. That is how math works. Also more previous members of the previous class voted than had attended any convention in the history of the party for as far back as anyone has records.===

    I am not a statistician. I would love to see how you prove this, and how you calculate what members of the previous class were not coextensive with this one. Also how the bylaws deal with allowing this kind of vote versus what the state law says. I would think the bylaws allowed that everyone have the opportunity to vote and this mail in ballot did not do that.

    When did this mail in vote occur? (I do not have this on my timeline I don’t think. What was actually asked?)

    Of course all this is irrelevant to the LNC at this point as far as I am concerned they don’t have the right to decide on these disputes except to disaffiliate.

  301. paulie

    None because they haven’t paid dues and ceased doing so to maintain their class of membership long ago. ?

    Some of them may have been life members of LPO (old definition) and are still registered LP voters in Oregon (your definition). A few may be registered LP voters of Oregon who are also dues-paying members of the Burke/Reeves/Epstein group. So not necessarily none.

  302. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom I am pleased to see we agree on the main points vis a vis that disaffiliation was the only option they had.

  303. paulie

    Statistically there has to be more yes-es from the previous class of membership in the vote than nos. That is how math works.

    Although that doesn’t tell you how many did not vote (because they did not consider the election to be legitimate, or because they didn’t care – we don’t know).

    Also more previous members of the previous class voted than had attended any convention in the history of the party for as far back as anyone has records.

    Supposing that’s true that is a point in your favor. Of course it’s easier to vote by mail than to attend a convention, especially if it’s not even in your city, but even if it is.

  304. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote:

    The votes on the motion to Rescind are 4 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: No, Power: No, Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to Rescind carries. Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, and as amended, is rescinded.

    Moved and seconded to dismiss the petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee. The votes are 6 in the affirmative and 0 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: Yes Power: Yes Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to dismiss carries. The petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee is dismissed.

    It is good that Carling did not vote on either motion, given his clear conflict of interest.

    The vote is not surprising. Latham was on the JC that issued the rescinded decision, and back then he wanted to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

    On the second motion I suspect the ones who wanted to rule for Epstein thought it was moot (defaults to the Reeves crew with previous LNC decisions and no more JC decision — and even if it didn’t, a sympathetic LNC / EC will rule that way later this term) –, whereas the ones who wanted to rule against Epstein thought there was no subject matter jurisdiction — and even if there was, a majority of the JC would rule in favor of Epstein. It’s hard to pin down how people would behave in a counterfactual and what the reasoning of various people is in a vote… this is just my best guess.

    George Phillies wrote:

    THE LNC MOTION THAT HAS NOW BEEN REVIVED READS

    Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended March 14 15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since March 15, 2009.
    (Vote was 6-1. Hinkle, Rutherford, Mattson, Redpath, Knedler Lark in favor; Ruwart opposed)

    George Phillies wrote:

    However, a consideration of the ExComm membership says that the Epstein faction may win there 4-3 or 5-2. The nearly unprecedented act of the LNC last year in rejecting the chair’s request as to who he wanted on the ExComm may well finally bear its poisonous fruit.

    The current LNC executive committee is:
    Nick Sarwark
    Sam Goldstein
    Jim Lark
    Alicia Mattson
    William Redpath
    Arvin Vohra
    Tim Hagan

    Of these Redpath, Lark, and Mattson voted for the Reeves crew in the above referenced motion from a previous LNC. Lark is a life member of the LP Oregon under the Reeves bylaws. Mattson was in Oregon for some of the earlier fireworks and sent a letter to the secretary of state supporting the Reeves crew.

    Mattson will be solidly in the Reeves / Epstein camp. Lark will probably be in that camp, but there is a chance he may change his mind given the litigation history or abstain given his conflict of interest. Redpath will probably fall in that camp, but there is a chance he may change his mind given the near certain loss of Oregon ballot access and the fact that the Wagner bylaws use proportional representation (which Wagner has not emphasized enough to Redpath, who is a board member on FairVote).

    Sarwark will support the Libertarian Party of Oregon (i.e., Wagner) given his past JC vote, statements, and actions as LNC chair.

    Hagan and Vohra are harder to predict. I suspect they will be more open to persuasion from Sarwark than from others, but they are certainly independent people who will form their own conclusions.

    I suspect Goldstein will vote for the Reeves crew given past conversations with him and the fact that he comes from Indiana, where he has been listening to the opinions of Rutherford, Sink-Burris, etc. about this matter for years. However, Goldstein also has an independent streak and has been open to Sarwark’s views many times before.

    * still munching popcorn *

  305. Nicholas Sarwark

    Another thing they have in real courts is a concept called laches.

    It’s possible that might apply to sitting on a claim for four years until you can get the tribunal you want.

  306. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie also I would argue that the bylaws provision for a convention vote are designed for the delegates to be belly to belly for a reason. A mail in vote IMHO to cover these bases would have to at a minimum be sent to all if the previous class, they have to have had an opportunity to oppose- they might have changed the mind of others. The knowledge that the votes were sent to all libertarians could gave influenced the prior class in avast that wouldn’t have happened otherwise…. We don’t know.

    But yes, if the statistics and numbers are a fact that is a point in the Wagner’s group favor. This is an internal/OR dispute that has to be resolved there.

  307. Nicholas Sarwark

    There’s also the concept of detrimental reliance that may be of interest to some people.

    When a person or persons have acted in reliance on a decision for four years, there’s a reason that a court would not just rescind such a decision.

  308. paulie

    A judicial body and an executive body have different roles.

    We shall see what, if anything, happens next.

    Using just common sense alone, you already know that Alicia for one isn’t just going to leave it alone. Given how the votes relating to Oregon already went earlier this term does not create a cause for optimism here.

  309. Wes Wagner

    They also have potential consequences for lying, destroying evidence .. the list goes on and on.

  310. paulie

    But yes, if the statistics and numbers are a fact that is a point in the Wagner’s group favor. This is an internal/OR dispute that has to be resolved there.

    It basically has been, beacuse the court case is highly unlikely to go anywhere. Maybe the Epstein group will have a chance if they get a Republican SOS, but that probably won’t happen either.

  311. George Phillies

    I believe that Moulton is more or less right about the LNC vote. However, I expect Vohra will vote with Sarwark, assuming Sarwark supports the current affiliate.

    On the other hand, the issue may be passed to the full LNC.

    However, there was also a wrong lesson learned from Arizona, namely that if you as LNC decide to eject a state party the consequences will necessarily be minor and short-lived. It appears to me that the Oregon people believe that it is advantageous to have a national party, which we do, as witness national dues, a national committee, etc., and therefore they need to get one with a sound organization. Part of that getting will I expect be clearing out the parasite that ejected them.

    Of course, if good sense prevails the current affiliate will remain as the affiliate. The smart money (see ‘the David Nolan 1% of a building’) is not on the LNC making the right decision.

  312. Thomas L. Knapp

    I would be surprised if Hagan didn’t vote with Sarwark. I can’t claim to know him WELL, but I have met and talked with him (IIRC he was an LNC alternate back in the day when I was). He’s from Nevada, right? And if I’m not mistaken, he was part of the rebellion against the Starr/Carling/Mattson takeover of THAT state LP, when they dissolved all of LPNV’s county affiliates and turned the state party into a moribund Wayne Allyn Root fan club. So he knows he’s dealing with snakes, and that’s a good start.

  313. paulie

    Hagan and Vohra are harder to predict. I suspect they will be more open to persuasion from Sarwark than from others, but they are certainly independent people who will form their own conclusions.

    I was on the LNC with Arvin, and he sided solidly with Reeves/Burke. You are friends with him so you may have some influence there? Redpath I think may be more concerned with the ballot access issue at this point. If Lark didn’t recuse himself before why would he now?

  314. George Phillies

    However, and Caryn in particular is completely missing this point, this is primarily a political question, not a legal or Roberts question. The core issue is “who should the LNC want to have as their affiliate? A group of people who ran a whole pile of candidates, or a couple of folks who do rather little?

  315. paulie

    I would be surprised if Hagan didn’t vote with Sarwark. I can’t claim to know him WELL, but I have met and talked with him (IIRC he was an LNC alternate back in the day when I was). He’s from Nevada, right? And if I’m not mistaken, he was part of the rebellion against the Starr/Carling/Mattson takeover of THAT state LP, when they dissolved all of LPNV’s county affiliates and turned the state party into a moribund Wayne Allyn Root fan club. So he knows he’s dealing with snakes, and that’s a good start.

    I’m not sure that Tim would consider Silvestri’s actions towards the end of his decade as LPNV chair to be part of a Starr/Carling/Mattson takeover or not. How did he vote on the Oregon-related motions earlier this term?

  316. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ====However, and Caryn in particular is completely missing this point, this is primarily a political question, not a legal or Roberts question. The core issue is “who should the LNC want to have as their affiliate? A group of people who ran a whole pile of candidates, or a couple of folks who do rather little?===

    The bylaws do not permit this. Who they “want” as their affiliate is already decided. The LPO is their affiliate. The time for that “political” decision was done at the point of affiliation. The bylaws does not give them the right to interfere with an internal dispute by deciding pragmatically which group they like better. The LPO is who is legally recognized as our bylaws do not provide any other means for recognition. I have no problem with the LNC having the authority to decide these ethical issues IF THEY had the power. I don’t have a philosophical theoretical problem with it. I have the problem that is a voluntary group organized under voluntary rules and this isn’t one of their powers.

  317. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===There’s also the concept of detrimental reliance that may be of interest to some people.

    When a person or persons have acted in reliance on a decision for four years, there’s a reason that a court would not just rescind such a decision.===

    Yes there are issues of equity no doubt.

  318. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    I’ve been thinking about your line of reasoning, and I have a counter-argument to your contention that the Reeves Gang may have been the correctly elected group of officers back when.

    As you correctly point out, the organization that has heretofore been the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon is the organization recognized under Oregon law as the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Not BECA– USE it is recognized under Oregon law; it just HAPPENS to be the same organization.

    Now, your contention that the Reeves Gang were the correct officers relies on the previously existing bylaws. But those bylaws were established conditionally, under and subject to Oregon law’s definitions of political parties. And both Oregon’s Secretary of State and the Oregon courts have agreed on two things in the litigation so far:

    1) That a “doctrine of necessity” supervenes party bylaws when it applies; and
    2) That in this situation it DID apply, and that the Wagner faction correctly applied them.

    In this particular situation, Oregon state law on political parties precedes, and overrides, internal procedures which conflict with it. LPO’s resort to that law versus its internal bylaws was entirely appropriate. It would have been inappropriate if LPO had been a private group with a voluntary association agreement not organized under that state law. But that was not the case.

  319. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===It basically has been, beacuse the court case is highly unlikely to go anywhere. Maybe the Epstein group will have a chance if they get a Republican SOS, but that probably won’t happen either.===

    Which goes back to my saying Doug’s point on the legal status is persuasive for as far who the LNC must recognize or disaffiliate. Whether or not this is violative of a group’s right to self-define is another matter that the LNC does not have jurisdiction over.

  320. paulie

    Of course, if good sense prevails the current affiliate will remain as the affiliate. The smart money (see ‘the David Nolan 1% of a building’) is not on the LNC making the right decision.

    Good sense is unlikely to prevail. However, as you know, I believe it did prevail on the office purchase. Not sure where you get 1% from; it’s half of a building which is attached by a brick walkway/wall and parking lot with six other such buildings. You could call it half a building, which is what I would call it based on my observations of when I was there, or a twelfth, but certainly not 1%. I think that may refer to another unit we looked at and did not get. Anyway, much better than remaining at the watergate or continuing to sink money into rent at some other office around there. Moving out of the DC area was never seriously on the table, and I made arguments elsewhere on IPR why it shouldn’t have been. Regardless of all that, I think you are right that good sense is unlikely to prevail here.

  321. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==I’ve been thinking about your line of reasoning, and I have a counter-argument to your contention that the Reeves Gang may have been the correctly elected group of officers back when.==

    I am glad you said “may” because I really don’t know.

    ==As you correctly point out, the organization that has heretofore been the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon is the organization recognized under Oregon law as the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Not BECA– USE it is recognized under Oregon law; it just HAPPENS to be the same organization.===

    Yes. This is a point that many seem to get really wrong.

    ==Now, your contention that the Reeves Gang were the correct officers relies on the previously existing bylaws.===

    “May” have been….

    == But those bylaws were established conditionally, under and subject to Oregon law’s definitions of political parties. And both Oregon’s Secretary of State and the Oregon courts have agreed on two things in the litigation so far:

    1) That a “doctrine of necessity” supervenes party bylaws when it applies; and
    2) That in this situation it DID apply, and that the Wagner faction correctly applied them.==

    Here is where I go off the rails from your reasoning. I would need to see the case law and the state law I suppose, but let’s take this just as completely accurate for the sake of argument.

    A doctrine of necessarily means only the means necessary to overcome the catastrophic hurdle. This would have been amending the quorum requirement. I would parallel to the MAP (minimization of aggression principle or as Block puts it, “in the gentlest way possible.”)

    So I would say that the Wagner group overstepped their mandate from the doctrine of necessity and do not see by what authority they cancelled the schedule convention the following month (I believe it was the following month, going from memory).

    That is another reason I asked about the timing of the mail-outs.

    ==In this particular situation, Oregon state law on political parties precedes, and overrides, internal procedures which conflict with it.===

    This get a little hairy here, but I follow your reasoning. I would counter with… only if they wish to remain a political party. A group can decide not to, and the membership of that group needs to be presented with that decision. Which is why I reject a unilateral redefinition of membership, even if the statutes define membership differently. The voluntarily organized membership would have to decide to change or face the consequences.

    == LPO’s resort to that law versus its internal bylaws was entirely appropriate. It would have been inappropriate if LPO had been a private group with a voluntary association agreement not organized under that state law. But that was not the case.==

    See above for the little distinction I would take here. They are a voluntary association who agreed to be a organized as a political party. They can voluntarily decide not to be. Their agreement is not inalienable, they can, as a group, change their mind.

    But I agree that the quorum issue was making it impossible to even be a group so that there was an emergency situation. Whether that should have been handled at an ExComm, I can see how it could be but I think the more prudent action would have been to take to a court who I understand under statute can override quorum impossibilities.

  322. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom btw, I may change something I said above, I need to go read the old bylaws again… I am not in front of a computer I can do that at for a while.

  323. Chuck Moulton

    Tom Knapp wrote:

    I would be surprised if Hagan didn’t vote with Sarwark. I can’t claim to know him WELL, but I have met and talked with him (IIRC he was an LNC alternate back in the day when I was). He’s from Nevada, right? And if I’m not mistaken, he was part of the rebellion against the Starr/Carling/Mattson takeover of THAT state LP, when they dissolved all of LPNV’s county affiliates and turned the state party into a moribund Wayne Allyn Root fan club. So he knows he’s dealing with snakes, and that’s a good start.

    Hagan was also an alternate when I was an alternate on the LNC (2004-2006). He can work with anyone and I’ve found he gathers information to make an informed decision rather than voting on any issue because his friends vote a certain way. I suspect he’ll side with the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wagner), but he’s not a factional guy and his votes are sometimes surprising.

    As for Nevada, if I recall correctly he was a treasurer initially under Silvestri, then he was given the boot because he didn’t fall in line with the dictator. He joined the rebellion and is now treasurer under Pojunis. Hagan keeps good books as treasuer, doesn’t rock the boat, and votes his conscience.

    Paulie wrote:

    I was on the LNC with Arvin, and he sided solidly with Reeves/Burke. You are friends with him so you may have some influence there? Redpath I think may be more concerned with the ballot access issue at this point. If Lark didn’t recuse himself before why would he now?

    I also suspect Vohra will lean towards the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wagner). For Vohra radical vs. Republican is a factor in his decision as well. But his vote is less predictable than Mattson’s.

    I don’t see my “influence” as being particularly relevant in any upcoming vote. Most of them are familiar with all the issues — including Vohra. If Sarwark asks me to talk to someone in particular, I will; otherwise, I don’t see much point beating a dead horse.

    The only person I make a point of talking to about Oregon is Redpath. This isn’t because Redpath is particularly likely to listen to me — if anything, the opposite — but rather because Redpath talks regularly to M Carling and Alicia Mattson and has drunk their Kool-Aid, so I want to make sure he gets some perspective and facts that aren’t being filtered through the Carling lens. In particular, I’ve found before talking to me he wasn’t aware of some of the ballot access issues (surprising for Redpath), wasn’t aware the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wagner) uses proportional representation, and was convinced the lawsuit would be a slam dunk win for Reeves that would be over in a month.

    It’s true that Lark didn’t recuse himself before, so may not in the future either. I’ve found Lark is very concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest though and abstains probably more often than any other LNC member, so it’s always possible.

  324. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And because I think all the points obscure this, I want to ;tldr again, I think the Wagner group is the affiliate (the LPO) as far as the LNC is concerned. I see no jurisdiction to do anything but disaffiliate if they don’t want to be associated with them. Yes the OR state law appears to be lacking but it is what it is. The LNC accepts this when they accept affiliates organized under state laws. Change the law. Or violent revolt. As a party we have chosen (and pledged) to the path of working in system…. so here we are.

  325. George Phillies

    1%

    I was referring to the previous not-consummated purchase.

    The new one is 50%.

    The notion that an association of civil engineers–prior owners–did not have flow detectors on their sprinklers is a bit surprising.

  326. George Phillies

    Of course, if the LNC does make a decision as to which group to recognize, then there unmistakably was a recent decision, and the Epstein petition is again of interest. With respect to laches, Epstein might try to claim to the JC that there was ongoing litigation that they did not want to confuse. Note key word “try”.

  327. Wes Wagner

    “The notion that in America you can win a contested major lawsuit in a month is amazing.”

    They thought they were picking on the defenseless. It was more telling of their psychology than anything.

  328. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Of course, if the LNC does make a decision as to which group to recognize, then there unmistakably was a recent decision, and the Epstein petition is again of interest.===

    My migraine is coming on again.

  329. Chuck Moulton

    Caryn Ann Harlos, I agree with you that under the doctrine of necessity the Wagner group should have just changed the quorum requirement back then rather than adopting entirely new bylaws. That would have made this entirely clear. Unfortunately, they didn’t do that. There are two groups with unclean hands. It’s not clear, it’s muddy. The choices we are presented with are not an ideal group and a less than ideal group (a hero and a villain).

    Our choices are the Wagner group that did a series of things under one justification or the Reeves group that did a series of other things with another justification. And we are also presented with the Wagner group that has ballot access and engages in a lot of political activity vs. the Reeves group that does not have ballot access and doesn’t engage in much political activity. We are presented with the Wagner group that has won lawsuits and the Reeves group that has lost lawsuits. We are presented with the Wagner group that has no ties to the Republican party and the Reeves group that has many ties to the Republican Party. We are presented with the Wagner group that has been operating as the affiliate of the Libertarian National Committee for years and the Reeves group that has not.

    The credentialing and stacking of delegations at the Libertarian National Conventions throws a monkey wrench in that clear series of reasons the Wagner group has the much better claim to affiliate status; however, as a firsthand witness of those conventions I would chalk the Reeves wins there up to shenanigans. The Libertarian Party of Ohio locked the doors of the convention halls and permitted only the Reeves group to leaflet every seat with their literature before people came in — right before the credentials vote. The Reeves group stacked the 2012 credentials committee with sympathizers who had conflicts of interest but refused to recuse themselves. The Reeves group hoodwinked the convention into seating a majority of Reeves delegates in the Wagner delegation in 2014, not advertising that they intended to immediately change the delegation chair and steal 2014-2016 LNC regional representation — it was clear the convention delegates just thought everyone should be seated, not caring or thinking about the gross affront to affiliate sovereignty this caused. And of course, Starr purchased the Ohio delegation for his personal amusement by spending over $10,000 to renew national LP memberships of Ohio residents, increasing the delegation size and stacking it with people who vote lockstep.

    I’ve heard at length about the long history of problems in Oregon long before 2011. I’ve also witnessed shenanigans from Starr / Carling / Mattson both related and unrelated to Oregon going back many years. Like many others, I’m at the point where I view any act of Starr / Carling / Mattson with suspicion — fool me once, shame on you; fool me 8592306720487267489 times, shame on me.

  330. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    When the LNC started interfering in our business, the concept of a fair and equitable meeting went out the window. One side brought in outside interlopers on multiple occasions… that is an act of war, and gets resolved via the rules of war… not law or democracy.

    War also is not resolved until both sides are willing to sue for peace or one is exterminated.

  331. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes, sorry, I would love to communicate and will on the facts and issues, but really not a fan of this violent destructive imagery, particularly when part of it is aimed at a party I wish to preserve. We disagree.

    I hope you are wrong on the extermination bit. That will be IMHO a sad day for liberty. And I think we are forget why we are doing this.

  332. Wes Wagner

    I don’t forget… I have a decade of experience and know who our allies are, who our enemies are, and many of them wrap themselves in our flag and appeal to people who “are just here trying to help” .. hoodwink them, exploit them and use their moderate tendencies to protect the the perpetrators from their nefarious deeds.

    The actions the LNC and members of the LP have taken in the past, they are liable for, they will not be forgotten and the consequences will be tolled.

    That is what is necessary to have a society where sociopathy is punished rather than rewarded and the only path through which we will be liberated.

    I have not forgotten why I am here … and perhaps in another decade you will think as I do.

  333. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck

    ==Our choices are the Wagner group that did a series of things under one justification or the Reeves group that did a series of other things with another justification.===

    But sequence matters does it not? Or does it… I am honestly asking… were the things the Reeves group did inappropriate presuming the Wagner new bylaws never existed?

    It seems like they “might” have been appropriate under the bylaws.

    I don’t know. I do know this, I do not find justification for scrapping the entire bylaws under the doctrine of necessity. This seems pretty clear to me.

    But not an LNC issue to decide. If were an Oregon finder of fact, if the Reeves group also breached the prior bylaws then law and procedure would determine what follows… there has to be a procedure for determining who the officers are in the event of all the offices expiring and there being no valid officers.

    But ultimately not an LNC issue. For right or wrong, the legal entity of the LPO, which is the legal affiliate is as it is identified by Oregon. That is the affiliate.

    The best I hope for is to accept that and move on. And for the LNC to say out of OR’s business and for the LNC members to stop instigating things on a personal level for the good of the party. If they do, for the delegates to replace them. If after that the LPO wants to disaffiliate that is their choice. And if they chose to engage in vengeance that is their choice too, an unfortunate one.

  334. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And I remember a wise person said Wes that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. I don’t live that way. I don’t thirst for vengeance or figurative blood. Maybe in a decade you will think as I do. I wish you much success in OR in your valiant fights for liberty and the good work you do.

  335. Wes Wagner

    ” If after that the LPO wants to disaffiliate that is their choice. And if they chose to engage in vengeance that is their choice too, an unfortunate one.”

    Electing new leaders does not undo the damages done… reparations and penance must be paid for lessons to truly be learned and not repeated.

  336. Wes Wagner

    Yes Caryn … really. We dealt with these people in Oregon and learned the process well. The National LP has to deal with them and dispose of them or it will forever be hindered, fail on its own accord, or be wiped out by reformers.

    Your position and policy on how to deal with these matters has failed for over three decades and resulted in organizational decline. Ours is working.

  337. Caryn Ann Harlos

    We were talking in the context of leaving OR alone and letting the delegates choose to replace or not. You want lashes and I am not sure anything will satisfy your desire for that right now.

    I am not a reformer. I am openly a radical. But my position is one if trying to get this settled peacefully and to move forward to liberty. actual liberty not conservative Republicanized liberty.

    I agree that your group is the affiliate. I do not agree to desire to carve out a pound of flesh

  338. Wes Wagner

    “I do not agree to desire to carve out a pound of flesh”

    You should think of it more like cutting out a pound of cancer.

  339. Chuck Moulton

    Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

    But sequence matters does it not? Or does it… I am honestly asking… were the things the Reeves group did inappropriate presuming the Wagner new bylaws never existed?

    It seems like they “might” have been appropriate under the bylaws.

    My take on that is that the Reeves group is right that if new bylaws were not passed, the convention continues on the other day; if the convention continues on the other day, at the end of the convention the terms of all the officers expire (the term of chair is especially clear, because the vice-chair became the chair); if the convention continues on the other day, there is a state committee meeting immediately following the convention; and if that state committee meeting is proper (has a quorum and properly credentialed state committee members), then it can fill officer vacancies and the new officers as part of the new state committee could do party business, set the date/location of the next convention, etc.

    Where the Reeves group goes off the rails is claiming that the state committee meeting was proper. They had no quorum. Even if they did have a quorum, there were many people voting who were not properly credentialed as state committee members: county chairs who had previously resigned their positions, other county chairs who had no proper documentation that their county was recognized or they were the proper representatives of that county, etc. The Reeves group later claimed that the only opportunity to object to lack of a quorum or improperly credentialed state members was at that “state committee meeting” itself, so it was too late after the fact. That’s nuts.

    By the logic of the Reeves group, if a convention was planned at a certain location on a certain date, but a huge blizzard prevented most everyone from attending save a few random people who were not on the state committee, those people could replace the whole state committee by holding a fake meeting, claiming quorum, improperly credentialing themselves, and claiming there is no opportunity to object after the fake meeting.

    So in my opinion both sides had dubious claims on a proper chain of succession.

    At some point you have to admit that there is no perfect answer, make a definitive determination of who the proper affiliate should be, and be done with it, moving forward like adults. That was done long ago: the Wagner group is the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

  340. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck that is about the clearest explanation I have heard. Thank you. Let me chew on that.

  341. Wes Wagner

    Chuck,

    What happened in Oregon was a populist revolution … and there is not even a deposed government that had a proper chain of custody because the people occupying the imperial palace and trusted with its care and custody were the ones who called for a populist uprising.

    Burke and crew attempted to create a non-existent deposed government out of fantasy.

    It is lunacy to try to back, either legally or politically.

    Oregon is owned by the Libertarian faction of the LP. All those who attempted to oppose us have shown their loyalties.

    You are a student of game theory and strategy… you know what is next.

  342. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes I will continue to find common cause where I can. I too consider myself part of the libertarian wing of the Lubertarian Party

  343. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Bad spelling again- typing most of this on an iPhone – dare anyone to do better:)

  344. Wes Wagner

    Just try to remember… most your allies in the libertarian wing of the libertarian party are not “lawful” people … they are ethical people… but not lawful.

  345. Steve Scheetz

    Regardless of anything else, the current Judicial Committee has no jurisdiction in this matter. Like Chuck stated, this was handled a long time ago. The courts have, thus far, scratched their heads wondering why this topic continues to be an issue coming before them, and yet, NOW, an individual who has a vested interest in the Judicial Committee reversing the decision of a previous Judicial Committee has inserted himself into the position of doing exactly that.

    This is just as corrupt as when the members of Congress started allowing themselves to invest their money in stocks that are dependent on their votes on Capitol Hill…. (legal, but DEFINITELY not ethical.)

    Burke et al, as a group, has thrown an expensive temper tantrum because they can. There is no other way to say it. Certain members of their cause have put themselves in a position within the LP to continue wreaking havoc on the party, and from what I have seen / read, their cause has no merit. They have continued to act on their vendetta against the Wagner group and they, so far, have continued to lose, because their unethical vendetta is without merit.

    At this point, I believe that the Judicial Committee, if they continue down the path with this meeting, needs to be disbanded, for being rogue, and replaced.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz
    Immediate Past Chair, LPPA
    Life member, Libertarian Party

  346. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Just try to remember… most your allies in the libertarian wing of the libertarian party are not “lawful” people … they are ethical people… but not lawful.==

    Wes you do not know me well. I am not a “lawful” person in the way you mean either… but this is a voluntary association based upon voluntary rules. Part of the agreement to voluntary political party is to abide by certain rules, or laws if you will. I do not think you guys abided by your own rules and under color of law, ironically, went beyond what the law allowed. I see this as violative of the voluntary association. I do not know if the Reeves group did too. From Chuck’s recounting it appears they did. This I understand is in dispute, and I do not have enough information to tell. Assuming they were, what can be done about it now? I don’t know, but whatever it is, it is OR’s business.

    This does not mean I do not think your group is not the Affiliate. I do not see the LNC as having jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.

  347. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carny,

    Wes’s bellicose rhetoric aside, I think there’s something you’re missing in his assertion that a disaffiliation of LPO would be followed by continued warfare.

    Let’s suppose that tomorrow, the LNC votes to disaffiliate LPO and affiliate the Reeves Gang. OK, so, it’s over, right? The LPO is left to do its thing and the LNC and its affiliate do theirs, right?

    Nope. What would happen is that the LNC would back and fund the Reeves Gang’s continued attempts to steal LPO’s ballot line and its fraudulent claims to a right to replace LPO not just as the LNC affiliate, but as Oregon’s recognized Libertarian Party.

    If you know that war has been declared on you, and you know that the other side is not going to simply stop at a reasonable truce, the best solution may be to go on the offensive.

    LPO has a good case for damages against AT LEAST some particular members of the LNC. For example Hinkle, who, as chair, spent money trying to help the Reeves Gang replace the legitimate affiliate. While it’s true that Hinkle spent that money completely illegally and without LNC authorization, the smart move would be to sue the LNC for the damages and make the LNC be the ones to try to shift the blame to Hinkle as an individual.

    Every dime the LNC has to spend defending itself from a very legitimate damages claim is a dime it can’t spend attacking LPO. And who knows? — the LNC might even get smart and offer a settlement in which it agrees in some binding way to knock off the fuckery, the LPO agrees to let the financial damages go, etc. There’s really no way for the LNC to come out of this looking GOOD to the donors whose money it’s been blowing on this stuff, but like the guy in the bottom of a hole who wants to get out, it might finally occur to them to STOP DIGGING.

  348. George Phillies

    Steve is right. Alas, what he proposing is difficult to carry out before it is too late.

    The LNC cannot impeach the Judicial Committee; no such power exists. However

    The Bylaws say

    The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members elected at each Regular Convention, and any five members shall constitute a quorum. No member of the National Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee. The members of the Judicial Committee shall select the Chair of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention. All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection. The remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.

    Fortunately, there is a path, albeit a difficult one:

    “The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members”
    “All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection.”

    The second sentence refers to the situation at time of election. The first is operative now.

    Thus, if the LNC expels the five miscreants from the Party, they are no longer Party members and are no longer JC members. The remaining two JC members may then hopefully appoint a better Judicial Committee.

    A two-thirds vote of the LNC would be needed.

  349. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve,

    You write:

    “At this point, I believe that the Judicial Committee, if they continue down the path with this meeting, needs to be disbanded, for being rogue, and replaced.”

    There’s really no provision in the bylaws for disbanding/replacing the Judicial Committee. That could only be done at the national convention. Replacing its members is as simple as electing new ones. Disbanding it would require bylaws amendments …

    … and would be a VERY bad idea. Absent a Judicial Committee, what would there be to stop the LNC (or the executive committee) from doing anything it damn well pleased, any time it damn well wanted?

    If you want evidence that the Judicial Committee is a good and necessary element of party governance, you need look no further than the current situation: For years, the Judicial Committee stood in the way of various Starr/Mattson/Carling schemes … enough so that they realized they needed to take it over. Just like they took over the credentials committee in 2014 and 2012. Just like they insinuated themselves into party governance under the cover of being “parliamentarians” in cases where they couldn’t actually win party elections leading up to 2008.

    What’s needed is for the gloves to come off at the next national convention. We need solid LNC and Judicial committee slates uninfected by the SMC taint, and we need a very public and very well-presented indictment of SMC and their co-conspirators such that nobody will be interested in voting for any of them for any office.

    The only way to root this infection out without simply abandoning the LNC is to thoroughly cleanse the LNC and its sub-committees of Starr, Mattson, Carling and anyone known to carry their water.

    I’ve been through this same fight over and over again. Personally, I’m finding it hard to get my blood up after several rounds of people insisting on treating this like a matter of collegiality. If it’s anything short of a bare-knuckle brawl, SMC wins as usual, because they don’t think twice about whether or not it’s nice to defraud nice people.

  350. George Phillies

    Also, there is a historical record as to how effective the Oregon group has been at attacking party finances. This happened internally, and the anti-Wagner faction had its income crash by a large amount within a short period of time. The Oregon party knows exactly how to do this, and undoubtedly has the resources available to do so if they choose.

  351. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    Interesting. I wonder if the “four years” requirement would be interpreted as four SEQUENTIAL years, or just four years?

    I was a party member from 1996 through 2010, then left (not just in terms of paying dues, I formally rescinded my membership) and came back in 2014. So I’ve been a member for more than four years … just not four years in a row, leading up to the convention.

    I was thinking about running for Judicial Committee next year, but I’d have to have an answer to that question first. I suspect most people would go with the “four years in a row prior to the convention” definition. And that definition is eminently reasonable.

    As far as expelling members from the party, the bylaws provide for no such thing.

  352. George Phillies

    “the bylaws provide for no such thing’ Yes, thanks to SMC, they do. They inserted Roberts into the rear of…the Bylaws, so Roberts covers it. Roberts says members can be expelled, which is how I was threatened with expulsion from the Party at the 2008 New York Libertarian Convention. M Carling himself said so to me, and I have witnesses.

  353. Thomas L. Knapp

    I won’t be running for LNC. Too much travel and expense involved. If I run for anything, it will be for Judicial Committee. Since I may be unqualified for that, I’ll just be looking for candidates to support. As you may recall from the 2008 presidential cycle, I’m pretty good at opposition research. And according to Steve Dasbach in 2004, I’m pretty good at dirty tricks, too 😀

  354. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==Wes’s bellicose rhetoric aside, I think there’s something you’re missing in his assertion that a disaffiliation of LPO would be followed by continued warfare.==

    Bellicose is the right way to put it:)

    ==Let’s suppose that tomorrow, the LNC votes to disaffiliate LPO and affiliate the Reeves Gang. OK, so, it’s over, right? The LPO is left to do its thing and the LNC and its affiliate do theirs, right?

    Nope. What would happen is that the LNC would back and fund the Reeves Gang’s continued attempts to steal LPO’s ballot line and its fraudulent claims to a right to replace LPO not just as the LNC affiliate, but as Oregon’s recognized Libertarian Party.===

    Here is where we might have some disagreement, and I will be said to be slavishly devoted to rules. And that’s okay people can think that, and perhaps people will change their minds (me or others).

    But the LNC has the right to disaffiliate and reaffiliate. It is the only thing it can do here. That is not a statement on my part as to what they *should* do, but rather what they *can* do legitimately. Does the ballot line and the name belong to OR or the LP? I think it is pretty clear that this is an LNC/LP asset not an LPO asset. They have it on the basis of being an affiliate, and the LNC retains the right to disaffiliate. LPO took this agreement on voluntarily and have to abide within the terms.

    ==If you know that war has been declared on you, and you know that the other side is not going to simply stop at a reasonable truce, the best solution may be to go on the offensive.===

    I generally disagree with offensive strategies so this may be just a personal outlook. I am, after all, a personal pacifist. (people lose their minds over this, I do not deny anyone’s right to their own aggressive defense, I simply chose not to invoke that right for myself). Not claiming this has anything to do with violence, just that one area of own’s worldview impacts everything.

    ==LPO has a good case for damages against AT LEAST some particular members of the LNC. For example Hinkle, who, as chair, spent money trying to help the Reeves Gang replace the legitimate affiliate. While it’s true that Hinkle spent that money completely illegally and without LNC authorization, the smart move would be to sue the LNC for the damages and make the LNC be the ones to try to shift the blame to Hinkle as an individual.===

    Here is where I would have an ethical problem though Tom. I work in law. I know the gamesmanship of this type of strategic suing, but I don’t think it is right. If you know someone was not within the gambit of authority, you don’t make a group/person you know didn’t authorize have to defend against that. You go after the guilty person.

    ==Every dime the LNC has to spend defending itself from a very legitimate damages claim is a dime it can’t spend attacking LPO.===

    And it is given from LP members who either disagree or cannot be expected to aware of all this. Most people are not like me. Yes they can choose not to donate, and the ultimate loser here is liberty, and the end of the wonderful experiment in American politics I suppose.

    == And who knows? — the LNC might even get smart and offer a settlement in which it agrees in some binding way to knock off the fuckery, the LPO agrees to let the financial damages go, etc. ===

    Wes’ rhetoric seems to indicate that he would not be happy except with complete destruction.

    ==There’s really no way for the LNC to come out of this looking GOOD to the donors whose money it’s been blowing on this stuff, but like the guy in the bottom of a hole who wants to get out, it might finally occur to them to STOP DIGGING.==

    Exercising their right to disaffiliate though I wouldn’t agree is an attack… it is a right they have and was agreed to by the parties.

    I suppose we shall have to wait and see.

  355. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Does the ballot line and the name belong to OR or the LP? I think it is pretty clear that this is an LNC/LP asset not an LPO asset. They have it on the basis of being an affiliate”

    Nope. Exactly the opposite.

    All political parties are organized at the state level and receive ballot access from the state in which they are organized. That access goes with the state recognition, and affiliation with a national committee has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    Case in point: In 1948, several state Democratic Parties disaffiliated with the Democratic National Committee and affiliated together as the States Rights Democratic Party, running Strom Thurmond rather than Harry Truman on their ballot lines.

    That’s why the consequences the LNC is playing with are so dangerous.

    The Libertarian ballot line in Oregon belongs to LPO. As part of their affiliation with the LNC, they agree to make that ballot line available to the LNC’s presidential slate … and if the affiliation goes away, so does that availability.

    The name “Libertarian Party” also belongs to LPO in Oregon. A few years ago, the LNC filed some fraudulent applications for trademark on the phrase, but their trademark claims wouldn’t last a hot minute in court.

    So if the LNC disaffiliates LPO, it loses the ballot access, and it loses the name “Libertarian Party” for its affiliate. If it accepts the Reeves Gang as its affiliate, it will have to completely regain ballot access in Oregon, and it will have to choose a name other than “Libertarian Party” to run its candidates under.

    Unless, of course, the LNC wants to waste six or seven figures of its donors’ money trying, probably unsuccessfully, to bully Oregon’s government into aiding it in its theft of the name and ballot access line. Which is probably what it would do. And that’s why Wagner has a pronounced tendency toward preemptively striking. If the LNC is going to waste its donors money, it might as well waste it on damages to an organization it has harmed instead of on doing further harm to that organization.

  356. Wes Wagner

    “If you know someone was not within the gambit of authority, you don’t make a group/person you know didn’t authorize have to defend against that. You go after the guilty person.”

    The LNC knew his spending was rogue, were aware of it and failed to act on it. They own it now.

  357. Wes Wagner

    I also have it on excellent authority that the errors and omissions insurance for the members of the LNC was lapsed at the time all this went down.

  358. Steve Scheetz

    Tom and George, I was not discussing the mechanics of how to find a legitimate solution to this problem, just a broad general overview of the problem and that it needs to go away before the party is destroyed. (I believe we can all agree that something needs to be done regarding members of the Judicial Committee determining, all by themselves, what their jurisdiction is, and how they can work regardless of how corrupt they appear.)

    I like George’s specific solution, and if I am qualified to become a member of the Judicial Committee, I would happily throw my hat in that ring. (I have been a Libertarian for decades, a member of my state party for 5-6 years, but I am not sure when I became a member of the LP (national)

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  359. paulie

    “Does the ballot line and the name belong to OR or the LP? I think it is pretty clear that this is an LNC/LP asset not an LPO asset. They have it on the basis of being an affiliate”

    LPOR pre-existed its affiliation with national, from what I have been told. LNC will probably try a trademark case and will almost certainly lose. I don’t see how LNC could win on that, actually.

  360. Andy

    I have got to wonder if both sides of this Oregon dispute are government plants. Wagner’s refusal to do a Freedom Of Information Act request is a red flag. It would not surprise if they are all feds working together to sabotage the LP.

  361. paulie

    TLK @ 2015/08/16 at 1:25 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos is correct on the facts of what would/will happen, though not necessarily of what should happen.

  362. paulie

    I have got to wonder if both sides of this Oregon dispute are government plants. Wagner’s refusal to do a Freedom Of Information Act request is a red flag. It would not surprise if they are all feds working together to sabotage the LP.

    Andy is one of the few non-government plants in the LP, maybe the only one? Pretty much everyone else, if not everyone are all government plants 🙂

  363. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==Nope. Exactly the opposite.

    All political parties are organized at the state level and receive ballot access from the state in which they are organized. That access goes with the state recognition, and affiliation with a national committee has nothing whatsoever to do with it.==

    We are treading into waters here you are more knowledgeable than I so I will concede to greater knowledge at this point.

    ===The Libertarian ballot line in Oregon belongs to LPO. As part of their affiliation with the LNC, they agree to make that ballot line available to the LNC’s presidential slate … and if the affiliation goes away, so does that availability.==

    Then how can they be stealing anything if it goes away? The LNC deciding that the Reeves group is the legitimate officers does not make it so as far as the state of OR is concerned.

    ==The name “Libertarian Party” also belongs to LPO in Oregon. A few years ago, the LNC filed some fraudulent applications for trademark on the phrase, but their trademark claims wouldn’t last a hot minute in court.==

    Here is where I disagree. The LPO agreed to that when they accepted affiliate status. Whether that would hold up in court is one matter… whether it is a voluntary agreement that was made, well the side of the angels is not on the side of the LPO for this in the case of disaffiliation, arguably.

    ==So if the LNC disaffiliates LPO, it loses the ballot access, and it loses the name “Libertarian Party” for its affiliate. If it accepts the Reeves Gang as its affiliate, it will have to completely regain ballot access in Oregon, and it will have to choose a name other than “Libertarian Party” to run its candidates under.===

    I agree it will have to regain ballot access. But if it does, isn’t stealing the ballot line. And I think it is very ethically arguable they have every right to the name. What the courts would say is another matter. I hate trademark and have no wish to defend it. I am defending the voluntary agreement.

  364. Steve M

    I also wonder about this 4 years membership requirement. I haven’t paid dues for a few years. Buth recently I made a specific donation to help get Oklahoma ballot access. Then the mail arrives and in it is a new membership card? As if my donation to help a specific program which was to match the funds that Richard had promissed to help with Oklahoma ballot petitioning was included in with the general funds of the party?

    Ok back to my new card. It states “Libertarian Since:8/12/1991”

  365. Steve Scheetz

    Caryn, Can you blame Wes? the LPO has been under attack for the better part of a decade… It seems to me that the only way to really stop the attacks, given the failures of those doing the attacking, is to render the attackers inert.

    I am very happy I am not in his situation, but having been through something similar, though to a much smaller degree, here in Pennsylvania, (we had someone come in and attempt to dismantle the LPPA’s county committees and replace them with committees he could control) I learned that the only way to end the attack was to remove the attacker.

    In our case, most of the people he recruited, we re-recruited and put to work in the original county committees. (total destruction of his efforts)

    Anyway, the point is that I have been on that same road, and it sucks.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  366. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve

    ==Caryn, Can you blame Wes? the LPO has been under attack for the better part of a decade… It seems to me that the only way to really stop the attacks, given the failures of those doing the attacking, is to render the attackers inert.===

    I do not find Wes innocent here. I don’t find anyone innocent, but no, my sympathies do not go in full when I believe his group’s wholesale bylaws replacement was justified.

    The stuff going on before was typical political maneuvering it seems, and the way to counter it was not by unilaterally replacing the bylaws. This was the huge triggering event and I think it was absolutely wrong.

    That being said, I do not think the LNC has the jurisdiction by its own bylaws (a flaw in its bylaws) to determine that. I have had a private correspondence where I was challenged on disaffiliation saying there was no cause. My reply: Then they are stuck and must go with the bylaws recognized by the officers as recognized by OR since the LPO is a creature of the state.

  367. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Crap, I do NOT believe his group’s wholesale bylaws replacement was justified

  368. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And that my friends is the elephant in the room. All the temple-burning, people-handing language will not make that go away.

  369. George Phillies

    The JudComm requirement is *Member* not *Sustaining Member*. You must be a Sustaining Member to be elected. The LNC Requirement is “Sustaining Member” to hold office, but that is not the same.

  370. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===TLK @ 2015/08/16 at 1:25 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos is correct on the facts of what would/will happen, though not necessarily of what should happen.==

    I am obviously missing some protocol on posting here… what does that mean?

  371. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===Okay, I didn’t see the post on the keyboard problem. Sorry.==

    No problema:) It is also poor eyesight and insomnia typing on an iPhone. I can be a hot mess with issues.

  372. Steve M

    I argue, that under Oregon Law the old bylaws that restricted participation to dues paying members was in violation of the state law.

    http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/248.pdf

    “248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members”

    GENERAL PROVISIONS 248.002 Definitions.
    As used in this chapter:

    (4) “Member” means an individual who is registered as being affiliated with the political
    party.

    I also believe that Oregon Law with respect to non-profit organizations deals with the issue of what to do in the event a dysfunctional organization because of their inability to form a quorum.

    There as I recall, the state looks to the last executive board to fix the bylaws.

    In my opinion the LPO under Wes was functioning not only legally when changing the quorum but also was bring the LPO’s bylaws into compliance with Oregon State Law.

  373. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve:

    ==I argue, that under Oregon Law the old bylaws that restricted participation to dues paying members was in violation of the state law.===

    I understand the argument, at this point I reject it. When was this law passed? The history looks like 1975.. then the original bylaws were invalid and the party nonexistent. The members voluntarily agreed to a certain formation. It was up to them to expand the definition to comply with the state law, choose to no longer be a political party or whatever other consequences.

    ==I also believe that Oregon Law with respect to non-profit organizations deals with the issue of what to do in the event a dysfunctional organization because of their inability to form a quorum.==

    No that section deals with major political parties. There are certain opt-out provisions but you can’t opt-out piecemeal.

    The quorum issue was real. There were several ways to solve it.

  374. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Florida btw just faced this same issue and did it the right way. They put it to a membership vote and the membership voted NOT to expand membership. We shall see how that plays out, but it is their decision to make.

  375. Andy

    I do not think that everyone in the LP is a government plant. Most of the party is made up of good, well meaning people. If there are government plants in the LP, which there probably are, it is likely just a few plants in key places. This is all that it would take to seriously screw up the party.

  376. Steve M

    That is the current law and when the law changes the political parties must amend the bylaws to stay in compliance.

    The LPO also put it to a vote of its members as defined by Oregon State Law.

    You don’t like it and so you reject. Well that and $3.50 will get you a coffee.

  377. Steve M

    yes under Oregon law the non-profit laws apply. why because the law states that they do.

    248.004
    Powers of political parties; liability of
    political parties and of officers, employees and members of political parties.
    (1) A minor political
    party or a major political party shall have all the powers granted to a
    nonprofit corporation under
    ORS 65.077.
    (2) A major or minor political party shall be treated for purposes of
    contractual, tort or other liability as a nonprofit corporation.
    (3) Officers and employees of a major or minor political party, including officers and
    employees of local subdivisions of the parties, shall be treated as
    officers and employees of nonprofit corporations for liability for all
    matters relating to the political party.
    (4) Any member of a governing body of a major or minor political party, including local subdivisions of the parties, shall be treated as directors of nonprofit corporations for liability for all matters relating to the political party. If the bylaws of a party designate a central committee, such as a state, county or congressional district central committee, as the governing body of the party, then the members of the central committee shall be directors of the party for purposes of this section.
    (5) Notwithstanding ORS 65.157, creditors of a major or minor political party may
    not proceed against members of the political parties for liabilities members owe to the
    parties arising from their party membership.
    (6) This section does not affect the liability of political committee directors,
    treasurers and candidates as provided in ORS chapter 260

  378. Caryn Ann Harlos

    You are missing the point. The law didn’t change. It was that way since 1979. If the membership was invalid up to that point, it questions all the prior elections. You are now arguing in a circle saying it was valid because the members voted, but the identity of the members is the exact issue.

    I reject for reasons other than my “liking” it or not. I do not understand what part of I “I’m a radical and support Wes’ overall ideological agenda so I am predisposed to be in favor of him” is unclear.

    Correction: Florida only dealt with removing the NAP pledge. And that is not as clear cut as it made out to be. Even if we could argue that the dues thing should have went by fiat (I don’t agree) there was no authority to fiat remove the pledge.

    As was argued in another discussion regarding the Florida proposal to remove the pledge:

    “Since signing NAP does not require any monetary or financial contribution/encumbrance, this rule change has nothing to do with complying with the Law. There is no law prohibiting a pledge requirement for active membership, neither does the law prohibit a honorific sustaining membership for those who chose to participate in such a scheme. So that argument has no merit ”

    Further, the law does’t state that membership can’t be broader to include convicted felons for example.

  379. Caryn Ann Harlos

    You are shifting the goal posts with regards to the quorum provision btw. Instead of copying and pasting, I require actual argument to consider. I am a paralegal, copying and pasting law doesn’t impress me. I see it every day. It is application that is important. If you want to quote the non-profit law, quote it and apply it.

    Though I don’t dispute the right to fix the quorum (though there were better ways to do it). I dispute the right to unilaterally change the membership definition.

  380. Caryn Ann Harlos

    For part of the problems, I cite a brief filed in relation to the 2011JC matter. You can’t pick and choose.

    ==Representatives of the Appellant have claimed that ORS 248.072 does apply to the LPO, yet the bylaws purportedly adopted on March 31 are not in compliance with other portions of ORS 248.012 to ORS 248.315. Notably, the alleged new bylaws do not provide for any county central committee representatives on their state central committee, even though that is how ORS 248 prescribes construction of the state central committee.

    When specifically asked about this point during the July 17 teleconference with the LNC’s Executive Committee, the Appellant’s representatives explained that they had opted out of that aspect as permitted by ORS 248.007. That provision does allow major parties to opt out of the ENTIRE section from 248.012 to 248.315, but says nothing about piecemeal opting out of some portions and keeping others. If the Appellant opted out of other portions of ORS 248.012 to 248.315 regarding county central committee representation, they must have opted out of ORS 248.072 simultaneously. We do not know if the Appellant has actually followed the procedure specified in ORS 248.007 for how a major party opts out of the provisions in question.==

  381. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thus I continue to maintain, the quorum change was arguably justified. Better ways to handle however. The membership change other than potentially removing the dues requirement (I am granting that only for the sake of argument, I do not agree this could have been done unilaterally and disenfranchised life members) could arguably have been justified. Removing the pledge was not. This was something to be up to the current identified members. They could choose whether to remain a political party or suffer consequences etc. This was done all the wrong way.

    All that being said, I am done arguing about it as I am not an OR finder of fact and I do not believe the LNC is authorized to be either. This is an OR matter. I am merely explaining why I do not believe Wes to be an innocent lamb in all of this. I agree with him ideologically.

  382. Steve M

    when the law talks about major political parties they use the term “Major Political Party”, when the law talks specifically about minor political parties they state “minor political party”.

    this requirement leaves out the words major and minor implying it speaks to both.

    “248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members”

  383. Andy Craig

    Regarding the name, it isn’t necessarily even a matter of trademark. Oregon law, like most if not all states, prohibits PACs and parties from adopting identical or confusingly similar name to an existing party or PAC. That should have prevented Reeves et al from registering their PAC (which they used to endorse Republicans) under the name “‘*The* Libertarian Party of Oregon.” – but the SoS declined to enforce that law because of the ongoing dispute. Once that is settled (and as a matter of OR law it is), the entirely proper and correct step would be for LPO to request TLPO-PAC’s approval be rescinded unless and until they change their name to something else. Just like I couldn’t file for a PAC in Oregon called “The Republican Party of Oregon” and then issue endorsements of Democrats or Libertarians under that name.

  384. Steve M

    the party bylaws giving preferential treatment to duespaying members was clearly in violation of state law. You have a beef? then change the law. Otherwise the bylaws are broken.

  385. Andy Craig

    …and even if that didn’t apply to PACs, it would certainly apply to parties. So no hypothetical LNC-backed group could ever establish a recognized party or petition onto the ballot under the name “Libertarian” or anything confusingly similar (states have reached different results on the question of if “Liberty” is too similar to “Libertarian”- but anything containing the actual word Libertarian certainly would be.)

  386. Steve M

    The inherent risk of ignoring the law, is that it opens your slate of candidates to being kicked off the ballot because they weren’t selected in compliance with state law.

  387. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >>248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members..

    Not the portion I am talking about. I suspect you are repeating talking points and not really reading the issues. I could be wrong. But I posted what I wished and the reader can judge.

    >>The inherent risk of ignoring the law, is that it opens your slate of candidates to being kicked off the ballot because they weren’t selected in compliance with state law.

    That is the choice of the identified members. It is a risk they alone are qualified to make.

  388. paulie

    the party bylaws giving preferential treatment to duespaying members was clearly in violation of state law.

    That’s disputed. The other side says that this snippet of the bylaws does not apply to minor parties because it is taken from a section of other things that clearly only apply to major parties, not minor parties, so in context that is not the case. And LPOR operated under its prior rules for decades; the law did not just suddenly change recently to outlaw how the party operated for decades, as far as I know. Also, you’ll probably find that there are other minor parties that operate on the membership model or something else other than the ORS 248 rules for major parties (legally recognized as such) in Oregon.

  389. Caryn Ann Harlos

    >> And LPOR operated under its prior rules for decades; the law did not just suddenly change recently to outlaw how the party operated for decades, as far as I know. >> appears to be at latest 1979… I could be wrong, I only glanced at it

  390. paulie

    There are lots of states which have all sorts of similar rule lists for major parties which don’t apply to minor parties. In most of those, the threshold for major parties is so high that as a practical matter the LP doesn’t have to worry about those rules since we never meet the threshold. There have been a few times where alt parties found themselves in callenging situations by virtue of meeting major party threshold which imposed all sorts of new rules on the way they operate that they were unable to comply with. One example that comes to mind is the American Constitution Party in Colorado, which was briefly a major party after they ran Tancredo for Governor, and found themselves unable to comply with major party rules.

  391. paulie

    The inherent risk of ignoring the law, is that it opens your slate of candidates to being kicked off the ballot because they weren’t selected in compliance with state law.

    Read the context. Does it really apply to minor parties? Has any minor party ever been kicked off the ballot or even challenged for not complying with any of these set of rules? Does the Wagner/Hedbor LPO comply with other rules in that section?

  392. Steve M

    section 248 has paragraphs that are specific to major parties and it has paragrapgs which are specific to minor parties.

    “248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members”

    see that it says Parties not major not minor.

    248.006 Qualification and maintenance of status as major political party; loss of status as
    major political party; calculation of number of party members
    248.007 Organization of major political parties; applicability of ORS 248.012 to 248.315;
    election of precinct committeepersons; notice to Secretary of State; use of primary election

    see that when they want to talk about a major party they very clearly state major party.

    and when they talk about minor parties they state so for example

    248.008 Qualification as minor political party; party member registration requirement;
    eligibility to nominate candidates; maintenance of status as minor political party;
    loss of status as minor party
    248.009 Process for nominating candidates by minor political party; notice to filing officer;
    notice of nominating convention

    This paragraph clearly speaks to both major and minor parties.

    “248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members.
    Each political party by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation
    of party members in the party organization and activities.
    Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and open participation of all
    interested party members.”

  393. George Phillies

    With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.

  394. paulie

    This paragraph clearly speaks to both major and minor parties.

    “248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members.
    Each political party by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation
    of party members in the party organization and activities.
    Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and open participation of all
    interested party members.”

    And where does it define what “party member” means for the purpose of this section?

  395. Steve M

    has any group or individual candidate every been kicked off a ballot for not being in compliance with election law?

    Are you serious? A Good question for Richard 😉

    The side that contends that paragrap 248.005 doesn’t apply to minor parties… this side wouldn’t be the side that lost in court would they?

    This may be their real objective. The republicans may have been keeping a ballot access challange for when they had a chance to win an important election.

  396. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie

    ==Read the context. Does it really apply to minor parties? ===

    I think it does, but it does not prohibit a membership pledge – not obviously. That is for the present membership to decide.

    ==Has any minor party ever been kicked off the ballot or even challenged for not complying with any of these set of rules? Does the Wagner/Hedbor LPO comply with other rules in that section?==

    No and no.

  397. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And if it does apply to minor parties, it is still for the then membership to decide to amend or risk consequences.

  398. paulie

    has any group or individual candidate every been kicked off a ballot for not being in compliance with election law?

    That wasn’t my question. The question again Has any minor party ever been kicked off the ballot or even challenged for not complying with any of these set of rules? Does the Wagner/Hedbor LPO comply with other rules in that section? referring specifically to ORS 248.

  399. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Ack, violated my own statement. Done arguing what they did as I agree that it is now pointless. What to do now, and the LNC can do is the question. I merely was supporting why I don’t see any pure victims here.

  400. Steve M

    I think the words “open participation” do block at least unreasonable dues.

    What other rules in that section does the current LPO bylaws violate?

  401. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve,

    There’s a reason why your card is dated 1991, and why you would be eligible in any case:

    The bylaws require Judicial Committee members to have been members of the party for four years. The bylaws define “member” as anyone who’s signed the membership pledge. Even if you are not a “sustaining” member — one who pays dues — you remain a member. IIRC, there are about 150,000 “members” by that definition; people who paid dues in the past but never voided their membership oath.

    When I left the party, I left the party, period — I requested that the LNC remove my name from the list of those who had certified per the pledge. So I was a member from 1996-2010, then I stopped being a member, then I started being a member again in 2014 when I took the pledge again. So I’ve been a member for a total of 15.x years, but I’ve only been a member consecutively for the two years leading up to this convention.

    If I ran for Judicial Committee and that was brought up when nominations were made, I don’t know which way the chair would rule. But I would not consider it unreasonable for the chair to rule that the meaning of the four years was “the four years prior to being elected,” and declare my nomination out of order. And I would neither appeal such a ruling to the body nor expect it to overturn the chair’s ruling if it did. Unlike some people, I respect reasonable interpretations of bylaws, convention rules and parliamentary points. So unless I hear of some precedent, the smart move to me seems to be to just not run.

  402. Steve M

    thats too bad Tom, if you were there at least the final reports would be fun reading.

  403. paulie

    I think the words “open participation” do block at least unreasonable dues.

    Unreasonable is open to interpretation.

    What other rules in that section does the current LPO bylaws violate?

    I don’t remember. I’ve seen various lists to that effect before. I am not arguing any side here, but if you are saying that this one thing puts them in compliance with the entire section 248, I know I’ve seen other people say otherwise and point to all sorts of other things in there that neither side in Oregon is een attempting to comply with.

    Do we have any examples yet of any minor parties in Oregon being kicked off the ballot or threatened by the state with being kicked off, for not complying with anything in ORS 248? Why didn’t it happen for all the decades that LPOR operated under the old rules?

  404. Steve M

    For oregon No. But there are a lot of examples of Republicans getting Libertarians kicked off the ballot. I suggest that the LP state parties toe the legal line so as to avoid giving the Republicans the opportunity to do so.

    It would be a pitty to not do so and then have it happen if it could have been avoided.

  405. paulie

    The side that contends that paragrap 248.005 doesn’t apply to minor parties… this side wouldn’t be the side that lost in court would they?

    Yes, but I don’t remember that question ever being specifically litigated. They lost, iirc, for other reasons.

    This may be their real objective. The republicans may have been keeping a ballot access challange for when they had a chance to win an important election.

    Seems highly umlikely. Republicans have wanted the LP out of other elections they considered to be important before, and never challenged the LP on this basis, as far as I know.

  406. paulie

    For oregon No. But there are a lot of examples of Republicans getting Libertarians kicked off the ballot.

    The exact circumstances and pretexts are all very different. I’ve yet to see evidence that a challenge on this particular basis in Oregon ever would or could happen.

  407. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    George, why did Carling want to kick you out of the party in 2008? I don’t recall hearing anything about it. My guess is, though, that it involved Root somehow.

  408. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve,

    Oh, I’ll be there. I’m a member, I live 90 minutes from the national convention site, and I intend to stand for selection as a Florida delegate and if there aren’t enough open slots to start talking to friends in other delegations that accept “drop-ins” to fill their empty slots.

    I just don’t anticipate running for Judicial Committee, unless someone happens to know that there’s precedent that contradicts my “a member for four years sequentially leading up to nomination” interpretation of the rule.

  409. paulie

    George, why did Carling want to kick you out of the party in 2008? I don’t recall hearing anything about it. My guess is, though, that it involved Root somehow.

    IIRC, only tangentially. It was because Phillies petitioned separately in NH from the national ticket, having been nominated by the LPNH well in advance of Denver, and in Mass as a stand-in. OTOH, I don’t recall any threats to kick Tom Stevens out, even though he was on the ballot against Barr/Root as the Objectivist candidate in Florida and Colorado .. while serving on the LP national JC, among other LP titles.

  410. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wes said: “I also have it on excellent authority that the errors and omissions insurance for the members of the LNC was lapsed at the time all this went down.”

    This is significant. Hinkle and Starr seem to have good sources of income, although I doubt either of them are limitless unless the GOP is providing funds. I’d be surprised if Hinkle was in that category, but I wouldn’t put it past Starr (Caryn, did you know this CA character has funded the Oregon lawsuit in the category of $100,000 plus)? Carling seems to have family money, although I don’t know that for sure. I know nothing about Alicia or the source of her income (don’t wanna know, actually). Were those four all officers in 2011?

    I don’t know who would be asked to pay damages if and when the court orders the losing people from the lawsuit to pay damamges. I imagine Starr would be asked to, since it’s easy to prove he funded it. Who else could be held liable for that, Wes? For example, the court could order Burke to pay damages, but if he doesn’t have money, that doesn’t really mean much.

  411. paulie

    With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.

    Agreed. However, that question will keep being brought up in LNC arguments, IPR discussions, probably legal case fallout, etc., so it can’t be avoided entirely.

  412. paulie

    This is significant. Hinkle and Starr seem to have good sources of income, although I doubt either of them are limitless unless the GOP is providing funds. I’d be surprised if Hinkle was in that category, but I wouldn’t put it past Starr (Caryn, did you know this CA character has funded the Oregon lawsuit in the category of $100,000 plus)? Carling seems to have family money, although I don’t know that for sure. I know nothing about Alicia or the source of her income (don’t wanna know, actually).

    Mark owns a company that puts safety fences around swimming pools, iirc. Aaron is a comptroller for a large corporation. I’m very sketchy on what Carling does for a living; I’ve been told he grew up poor, but I think I heard that second hand. Above, Mark Axinn says that Carling was some kind of teacher in Latvia, but what Carling himself told me that was that he owned a business there – I believe he said it was focused on helping landlords evict occupants of apartments who refused to move out. Axinn also says Carling moved to Israel; I have no idea what he does there, if so. Carling has a law degree, but I’m not aware of him actually practicing law. Alicia used to own a computer store of some sort when she lived in Tennessee and was married. Later, she divorced and moved to the Vegas area. She was some kind of employee, or more like contractor, for the defense department or some intelligence agency or something like that with the feds for a while, but more recently she told me she had moved on to become a full time professional parliamentarian as a business. That’s probably been a couple years now, so I don’t know if she still does that now or something else.

  413. Andy Craig

    “With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.”

    I can not agree with this emphatically enough.

  414. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==“With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.”

    I can not agree with this emphatically enough.===

    I would word it differently. The available choices are accepting it as the state-defined OR entity or disaffiliating (if the LNC can… I have been challenged on whether there is a “cause”). I think there is cause if they chose to. For the record, I do not want them to choose too, merely stating what I think they have a right to do.

  415. paulie

    …and even if that didn’t apply to PACs, it would certainly apply to parties.

    It must not apply to PACs since the Epstein PAC has a very similar name that contains the L-word and even “Party”.

    So no hypothetical LNC-backed group could ever establish a recognized party or petition onto the ballot under the name “Libertarian” or anything confusingly similar (states have reached different results on the question of if “Liberty” is too similar to “Libertarian”- but anything containing the actual word Libertarian certainly would be.)

    Not necessarily true, although it may be. I believe there are states where there are more than one parties with the word Socialist in their name, for example.

  416. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You write:

    “I have been challenged on whether there is a ’cause'”

    If precedent is of any importance, that’s not much of a worry. In 1999, when the LNC moved to disaffiliate Arizona, I pointed to the “cause” provision in the bylaws and asked what the alleged cause was.

    The response — I don’t recall from whom — was “well, we just can’t figure out which organization is the real one, so we’re disaffiliating Arizona and starting from scratch.”

    That didn’t really seem to fit the usual definition of “cause” to me — I had assumed that “for cause” ran to things like “it says X in the affiliation agreement and they didn’t do X.” But the disaffiliation was not appealed, so there was never any way to have “cause” tested.

    A sort of side thought, for your edification:

    I was a Judicial Committee member from 2002-2004 (I’m trying to remember whether or not I served a second term — it was THAT non-eventful). At some point, I asked one of the people who’d been in the party from the beginning when the last time anything had been appealed to the Judicial Committee, and his recollection was that there had been a single case, some time around 1975, in the entire history of the party. I seem to recall that that was actually pursuant to the other function of the Judicial Committee, which is determining at the convention, on appeal, whether or not an act of the convention violates the Statement of Principles.

    Offhand, I can think of FOUR cases since 2008:

    – The attempted removal of Lee Wrights from the LNC by Starr/Mattson/Carling (they used a sock puppet, then-Secretary Bob Sullentrup, to do the dirty work; overturned on appeal to the Judicial Committee;

    – the imposition of a poll tax on delegates, supported by, and characteristic of, Starr/Mattson/Carling (upheld by the Judicial Committee even though it clearly contradicts the bylaws — and likely to go back to the Judicial Committee at some point)

    – the initial Oregon case, brought in response to the machinations of Starr/Mattson/Carling; and

    – this case, brought by proxies for Starr/Mattson/Carling.

    Are you detecting any common thread there?

    It’s tempting to accept George’s proposal that they be expelled, but my understanding of the bylaws says that’s just not possible, and I’m not inclined to accept Carling’s parliamentary interpretation to the contrary even for purposes of booting his ass out.

  417. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom

    ==You write:

    “I have been challenged on whether there is a ’cause’”

    If precedent is of any importance, that’s not much of a worry. In 1999, when the LNC moved to disaffiliate Arizona, I pointed to the “cause” provision in the bylaws and asked what the alleged cause was.===

    I was told by the friendly challenger (not here) that the “cause” portion of the bylaws was added after and the implication was, because of, the Arizona situation. Is that incorrect?

    ==I think there is cause, and I think that questions of bylaw irregularity is cause.
    It’s tempting to accept George’s proposal that they be expelled, but my understanding of the bylaws says that’s just not possible, and I’m not inclined to accept Carling’s parliamentary interpretation to the contrary even for purposes of booting his ass out.==

    Does the party expel anyone? Our likely next Presidential candidate (Johnson) denies freedom of association. Another topic, another day. Isn’t WAR still a life member or did I miss something there?

  418. Andy Craig

    “It must not apply to PACs since the Epstein PAC has a very similar name that contains the L-word and even “Party”.”

    Wagner could speak to this better than I can, but I recall reading that law was only not enforced by the SoS because of the ongoing dispute. At some point the dispute must cease to be “ongoing”

    “Not necessarily true, although it may be. I believe there are states where there are more than one parties with the word Socialist in their name, for example.”

    That would be a question for Richard Winger. 😉 But I do know a lot of states have such laws, and that there have been problems before (though not currently) for new LP affiliates because of pre-existing parties that had “Liberty” in their name.

  419. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    “I was told by the friendly challenger (not here) that the ’cause’ portion of the bylaws was added after and the implication was, because of, the Arizona situation. Is that incorrect?”

    Yes, that is incorrect. I raised a ruckus over cause in the Arizona situation precisely because that portion WAS in the bylaws.

    “I think there is cause, and I think that questions of bylaw irregularity is cause.”

    The bylaws require the LNC to respect the autonomy of affiliates, with specific exceptions (e.g. nominating or endorsing other parties’ candidates). Internal bylaws struggles are simply not the LNC’s business. “Cause,” rationally defined, would have to relate to the affiliation, not to an affiliate’s internal affairs.

  420. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Yes, that is incorrect. I raised a ruckus over cause in the Arizona situation precisely because that portion WAS in the bylaws.==

    If I have further discussions with this person, I will raise that.

    ==The bylaws require the LNC to respect the autonomy of affiliates, with specific exceptions (e.g. nominating or endorsing other parties’ candidates). Internal bylaws struggles are simply not the LNC’s business. “Cause,” rationally defined, would have to relate to the affiliation, not to an affiliate’s internal affairs.==

    But you are saying there is precedent,but you don’t agree with the precedent?

    We agreed that they’re only cause would have been disaffiliation… on what grounds would you say? Or are you saying the LNC had no options? I am fine with that…. it is our voluntary bylaws, if we created a bed, we must lie in it, or as a friend like to say to me, Libertarians are awfully reluctant to sample our own wares. If this is our product, we must abide by it. And there would be only one rational way to respect the autonomy of the affiliate, define it in accordance with the state recognition they are organized under. This may be a harsh conclusion to Reeves supporters, but I see no authority to be arbiter over internal disputes.

  421. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wow, almost 500 comments in 48 hours! Clearly, I’m not the only person concerned about the judicial committee meeting. I consider that good news.

  422. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But you are saying there is precedent,but you don’t agree with the precedent?”

    Correct. When they disaffiliated Arizona, I thought that the disaffiliation was in violation of the bylaws, for two reasons:

    1) No “cause” was cited in the disaffiliation motion; and

    2) The “cause” cited to me when I asked about that did not seem to me to meet the intended meaning of the term. Normally, for example, when someone is fired “for cause” from a job, that means they got caught stealing, or wouldn’t do their job. “I just can’t seem to remember the guy’s name no matter how hard I try, so I canned him because it bugged me” is not “for cause.”

    But only the affiliate can appeal disaffiliation; I didn’t have standing. And the affiliate was not interested in appealing. They were just fine with going about their business independently and running L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz on their presidential ballot line instead of Harry Browne and Art Olivier like the other 49 state LPs.

    So yes, if the LNC is going to disaffiliate “for cause,” I think they should cite said cause and that that cause should stand up under scrutiny.

    I do not think that “we don’t like how they internally handled a bylaws controversy” would stand up as “cause,” because the bylaws require the LNC to respect affiliate autonomy. “Cause” would logically only apply to the terms of affiliation itself as the bylaws outline them, not to whether or not the LNC liked how an affiliate handled its internal affairs.

  423. paulie

    “Cause,” rationally defined, would have to relate to the affiliation, not to an affiliate’s internal affairs.

    Dunno. Conceivably, at least, it could apply to internal. Suppose for example that a few Marxists or Nazis joined the LP, showed up to the convention without letting it be known that they are anything other than libertarians, and took over the affiliate putting themselves in as officers. Now suppose after this point they would just refuse to hold conventions or let themselves be ousted. Or suppose they actually were libertarians but their real agenda unbeknownst to anyone while they were being seated was to keep the LP out of the way of their or their friends’ attempt to take over the NSGOP. Or suppose they were secretly the anti-voting kind of libertarians who would take over the LP just so it would not run candidates. Any number of possibilities exist – LPNV in the last days of Silvestri comes to mind. Say Joe Silvestri simply refused to schedule any conventions, and say the SOS and courts didn’t care what LP bylaws were. Could LNC disaffiliate for cause under any of these scenarios? “For cause” doesn’t say what counts as cause and what doesn’t.

  424. paulie

    That would be a question for Richard Winger. ? But I do know a lot of states have such laws, and that there have been problems before (though not currently) for new LP affiliates because of pre-existing parties that had “Liberty” in their name.

    I asked Richard before and he cited examples of states with more than one socialist party etc. Different laws in different states, I guess. Dunno bout Oregon.

  425. paulie

    Does the party expel anyone?

    I’m not aware of the national party ever actually expelling anyone, although it can. I’ve seen it threatened.

    I know state LPs have formally kicked at least a few people out, and threatened others, but that’s a separate matter.

  426. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, pretty much every affiliate doesn’t run candidates for at least SOME offices in at least SOME elections. What’s the threshold there for “cause” to disaffiliate?

    There are affiliates that don’t have ongoing ballot access, and don’t seem to have resources to make any earth-shaking attempts to get it, except for the presidential slate when they can get assistance to do so (or at least there used to be — one of the Dakotas, IIRC). Do they get disaffiliated, or only affiliates where the LNC thinks that there’s an intention to avoid running candidates, rather than just not being able to, in play?

    As long as the affiliate makes its ballot line available to the presidential ticket, I’d say that running or not running candidates is the affiliate’s business, not the LNC’s. And I suppose if the affiliate didn’t cooperate in “supporting” that ticket, that might rise to the level of “cause.”

    The LNC itself ignores actual, real, bylaws-defined “cause” in the case of several states — the bylaws forbid affiliates to nominate candidates of other parties, which means that “fusion” is grounds for disaffiliation.

    If the LNC is going to ignore plainly bylaws-mandated cause and not disaffiliate plainly offending state parties, I’d set a pretty high threshold for them to claim “cause” versus other state affiliates.

  427. paulie

    http://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Bylaws_and_Convention_Rules_w_2014_JC_Rules.pdf

    Section 6.6 says nothing about what counts as cause and what doesn’t, as far as I can see, only what the rules for invoking and appealing it are, the voting procedures and time frames allowed.

    7.7 does the same for LNC officers, but again does not define “cause.”

    Ditto for 8.5 regarding LNC at large members.

    Article 5 defines national LP membership, and says nothing about kicking anyone out, with or without cause, as far as I can see. So it appear I was wrong in thinking that kicking out national LP members (other than LNC members off the LNC, but that is different) is een possible. I don’t know on what basis George could have been threatened with having his membership revoked, unless that section read differently on this matter back then. IE I remember the issue, but I don’t see the mechanism.

  428. paulie

    Well, pretty much every affiliate doesn’t run candidates for at least SOME offices in at least SOME elections. What’s the threshold there for “cause” to disaffiliate?

    There are affiliates that don’t have ongoing ballot access, and don’t seem to have resources to make any earth-shaking attempts to get it, except for the presidential slate when they can get assistance to do so (or at least there used to be — one of the Dakotas, IIRC). Do they get disaffiliated, or only affiliates where the LNC thinks that there’s an intention to avoid running candidates, rather than just not being able to, in play?

    Dunno. I was just citing conceivable examples, not saying whether or not these specifics would be “cause” or not. What if state parties ignore their own bylaws completely? Get taken over by anti-libertarians, of whatever sort? Refuse to ever have conventions or allow leadership to be removed? Some combination of these? All of these things can exist on some slippery slope, too.

    The bottom line is I see nothing that defines cause one way or the other in the bylaws. Maybe it’s in Roberts, which I don’t study and don’t want to. As far as I can tell though “cause” can be anything the LNC wants it to be as long as it meets the vote threshold and survives an appeal to the JC if there is one.

  429. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I know the CA LP expelled someone named Paul Ireland maybe 10 years ago for repeated name-calling, indecent posts, and so on. I wasn’t involved int that, so I don’t know much about it.

    The LPC CA Ex-Com voted to expel a certain person who is a registered sex offender because he was asked not to take a leadership position after the discovery of how many boys were involved, and that it was done as an assistant scout master. The person immediately took a leadership position in his county, so the Ex Com took fairly aggressive action and voted to expel him. At the same time, we voted to expel Bruce Cohen because he wouldn’t shut up about it. As a matter of fact, this very weekend Cohen is posting MB’s criminal info on FB. Well, both MB and Cohen took it up with our judicial committee, who allowed them both back in. Mark Hinkle was a member of the judicial committe who welcomed them back.

    My husband and I were on the Ex Com during that unpleasant time, and I won’t do anything like that ever again.

    Fast forward to 2015, Cohen is still around, but all he does is spread ugliness, much of it not being true. I believe most FB pages have removed him. MB (the pedophile) is still an active member, but is quite divisive and is a controversial character. He is, however, an excellent recruiter. He brings many young men into the party.

    We currently have a very problematic character, but he’s never joined the party. We just need to continue ignoring him, and he’ll be completely shunned like Cohen is. Oh yeah, our new guy and Cohen are good buddies.

  430. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie I agree with you.

    Tom we disagree there. Cause is not defined and thus I think pretty broad and interpreted in a reasonable man standard. And since bylaws are required to be filed, if the LNC questions the bylaws legitimacy then it us a moral out to object to the capriciousness of the state. The JC could then be the arbiter of the reasonableness of it to a legitimate cause. Not every contingency can be spelled out.

  431. paulie

    I know the CA LP expelled someone …

    Yes, as I said states can and have. CA is probably not the only one, although I don’t have other examples handy. But that says nothing about national membership, only state.

    pedophile…..brings many young men into the party

    Must resist temptation to wisecrack, because it’s not really funny.

  432. Thomas L. Knapp

    Every state affiliate has its own organizational principles and bylaws, and some of them have provisions for expelling members.

    The LNC’s bylaws, on the other hand, say that you are a member of “the party” (by which it means the notional “national party”) if you’ve certified the non-initiation pledge. That definition ends with a period, not with exceptions like “unless the LNC decides you don’t belong.”

    Where it gets interesting is with Robert’s. The bylaws say that Robert’s is applicable in cases consistent with the bylaws. The SMC cabal has tried to convert that into “Robert’s is applicable in any case where the bylaws doesn’t say the exact opposite of Robert’s, even if a plain reading of the bylaws is clearly inconsistent with what we want to do.”

    So where the bylaws say a member is X, SMC would say that since it doesn’t specifically SAY they can’t add conditions to X, they can if they can find a hook to hang those conditions on in Robert’s.

    Just like, even though the bylaws specifically list the qualifications of a delegate, with no stated or implied ability to add to those qualifications, SMC held that since Robert’s non-specifically mentions a “registration fee” in its section on meetings/conventions, they can add that as a condition.

  433. paulie

    If the LNC is going to ignore plainly bylaws-mandated cause and not disaffiliate plainly offending state parties, I’d set a pretty high threshold for them to claim “cause” versus other state affiliates.

    The next a cop pulls you over try telling him or the judge that the reason they can’t give you a ticket, arrest you, prosecute you, give you a fine or put you in jail or whatever, is because other people are violating the same laws or more serious laws and not being ticketed, arrested, prosecuted, jailed, etc. Failure to do anything in some other case won’t help you. I doubt it would help anyone in a JC case if the LNC removed an affiliate for whatever it defined as cause, although that would be up to the JC.

  434. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    Yes, as I said states can and have. CA is probably not the only one, although I don’t have other examples handy. But that says nothing about national membership, only state.

    I think New York expelled Sam Sloan. They may have expelled Tom Stevens too. Mark Axinn can speak to that.

  435. Thomas L. Knapp

    I hold the LNC to a higher standard than I would a cop or a judge. If the LNC is going to ignore clear cases of cause instead of asking the delegates to amend the bylaws to allow “fusion,” then they can damn well go to the trouble of drumming up a real, compelling cause when they DON’T want to ignore something. But that’s just my personal thing, not something I’m proposing as a legalistic standard.

    I’m fine with the “reasonable man” standard … but let’s be clear on what that is. Like I said, when an employer fires an employee “for cause,” it means the employer is claiming the employee didn’t live up to the terms of employment. The employee was repeatedly late to work. The employee got caught with his hand in the cash register. The employee called in sick every Friday. That’s “for cause.” “I just took a disliking to his eye color one day” isn’t “for cause.”

    Clearly, if the LNC disaffiliated a state party for violating its obvious commitments AS AN AFFILIATE, that would be “for cause.” The state affiliate said “screw the national convention’s nomination, we’re running Howdy Doody and a turnip for president on our ballot line instead” would obviously be “for cause.”

    If the LNC disaffiliated and the affiliate appealed, I’d say the Judicial Committee should soberly consider whether or not the “cause” cited was reasonable, and that reasonable entails whether or not the affiliate actually did something inconsistent with its affiliation, not just something that pissed off the LNC.

  436. paulie

    TLK August 16, 2015 at 5:40 pm: True. “Should” does not necessarily mean “would,” though, I’m sure we can agree.

  437. paulie

    Andy J @ 2:20 pm today

    I do not think that everyone in the LP is a government plant. Most of the party is made up of good, well meaning people. If there are government plants in the LP, which there probably are, it is likely just a few plants in key places. This is all that it would take to seriously screw up the party.

    Maybe, although we have no way of knowing how many or few there may be.

  438. paulie

    ===TLK @ 2015/08/16 at 1:25 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos is correct on the facts of what would/will happen, though not necessarily of what should happen.==

    I am obviously missing some protocol on posting here… what does that mean?

    I’m missing what you are missing. I referred to who posted it (Knapp by initials) and the time, to refer to a specific comment he left with that time stamp. Then I responded as if I had quoted the comment.

    If I was responding to your comment here in the same way I would start out with CAH Submitted on 2015/08/16 at 1:55 pm rather than include the blockquote. We used to have a more convenient comment numbering system where I could say @386 or whatever the comment number is but that went away when Warren switched to a different theme, iirc in 2013.

  439. George Phillies

    “IIRC, only tangentially. It was because Phillies petitioned separately in NH from the national ticket, having been nominated by the LPNH well in advance of Denver, and in Mass as a stand-in.”

    Actually not quite. First, I did not petition in New Hampshire. The LPNH announced well in advance that it would be filling a slate and invited Presidential candidates to appear. They chose me; they did the petitioning. Each nominating paper is signed by one voter, and covers a stack of candidates, a fine arrangement; they were petitioning equally for me, a Senate candidate, Congressional candidates, etc. I did show up while they were still petitioning for their Congressional candidates, and helped collect signatures, but by that point I had enough signatures so the nominating papers that I was holding had Barr at the top of the ticket. I collected for my friends running for Congress anyhow.

    We had in writing from the Secretary of the Commonwealth that substitution was allowed. The people who paid for most of the petitioning for Phillies – Bennett as stand-ins, putting down money well *before* the National Convention, were the LNC. Someone in the LNC did have a complaint about this, well after the National Convention, and was circulating accusations that I had tried to sabotage LP ballot access in Massachusetts, which was a outright lie.

  440. paulie

    SS 1:47 pm today

    I am very happy I am not in his situation, but having been through something similar, though to a much smaller degree, here in Pennsylvania, (we had someone come in and attempt to dismantle the LPPA’s county committees and replace them with committees he could control) I learned that the only way to end the attack was to remove the attacker.

    In our case, most of the people he recruited, we re-recruited and put to work in the original county committees. (total destruction of his efforts)

    I can understand why you wouldn’t want to say his name, but I think it’s OK to identify that you are referring to Tom Stevens. I’m pretty sure he actually lived in NYC that whole entire time, too.

  441. paulie

    GP @ 5:54 pm

    We had in writing from the Secretary of the Commonwealth that substitution was allowed. The people who paid for most of the petitioning for Phillies – Bennett as stand-ins, putting down money well *before* the National Convention, were the LNC. Someone in the LNC did have a complaint about this, well after the National Convention, and was circulating accusations that I had tried to sabotage LP ballot access in Massachusetts, which was a outright lie.

    I was in Mass at the time, before and after the convention, and can confirm this part.

    I believe my recollection of NH is the same as yours as well. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you personally petitioned for yourself there. You did agree to be a candidate there, way before the national nomination took place, and did appear on the ballot, as did Barr. I don’t kow whether you had to sign something after the national LP nomination that certified your willingness to appear on the NH ballot as a presidential candidate or not. I think some people had a problem with you agreeing to it at all, before anyone knew whether you would be the nominee or not. I also know why LPNH did it, given how their ballot access drives in 2004 and 2006 both failed.

  442. paulie

    recently I made a specific donation to help get Oklahoma ballot access

    Thank you. Getting on the bus in that direction in about an hour if the bus runs on time and if I don’t get denied for having too many carry on items.

  443. paulie

    Then the mail arrives and in it is a new membership card? As if my donation to help a specific program which was to match the funds that Richard had promissed to help with Oklahoma ballot petitioning was included in with the general funds of the party?

    Good question. You may want to inquire with HQ to see if there was some mix-up with the targeting of the donation.

  444. paulie

    Then how can they be stealing anything if it goes away? The LNC deciding that the Reeves group is the legitimate officers does not make it so as far as the state of OR is concerned.

    Correct. Hence “attempt to,” say via the LP helping Reeves et al on their side of the lawsuit, etc.

  445. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Re: Expelling from Party

    What if someone blatantly advocates/initiates political force… like what if McVeigh was a lifetime member?

  446. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Thank you. Getting on the bus in that direction in about an hour if the bus runs on time and if I don’t get denied for having too many carry on items.==

    Good luck! It was great speaking with you earlier btw, it is always nice to put a voice to the text.

    Knowing that folks like you put so much effort into these essential activities makes the looming threats all the more distressing to me.

  447. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Just in general shooting out there: If National helped fund a ballot access drive (no idea if they did in OR) wouldn’t they have a claim to the ballot line?

  448. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==I’m fine with the “reasonable man” standard … but let’s be clear on what that is. Like I said, when an employer fires an employee “for cause,” it means the employer is claiming the employee didn’t live up to the terms of employment. The employee was repeatedly late to work. The employee got caught with his hand in the cash register. The employee called in sick every Friday. That’s “for cause.” “I just took a disliking to his eye color one day” isn’t “for cause.”

    Clearly, if the LNC disaffiliated a state party for violating its obvious commitments AS AN AFFILIATE, that would be “for cause.” The state affiliate said “screw the national convention’s nomination, we’re running Howdy Doody and a turnip for president on our ballot line instead” would obviously be “for cause.”

    If the LNC disaffiliated and the affiliate appealed, I’d say the Judicial Committee should soberly consider whether or not the “cause” cited was reasonable, and that reasonable entails whether or not the affiliate actually did something inconsistent with its affiliation, not just something that pissed off the LNC.==

    I find nothing to disagree with. And it would be questionable whether or not a question on the legitimacy of the bylaws would pass muster,but it would be the proper protocol.

    I would vote for Howdy Doody and a turnip against the clowns we often have.

  449. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What if someone blatantly advocates/initiates political force… like what if McVeigh was a lifetime member?”

    The bylaws don’t say that members can’t advocate initiation of force. They just say that you are a member if you’ve certified you don’t do so.

    Might it be a good idea to give the membership oath real teeth? And to have a way to get rid of people who are clearly doing their damnedest to undermine the party itself.

    Sure … except that those people are substantially in control of the party right now, which means it wouldn’t be them getting kicked out, it would be the people fighting them.

  450. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==The bylaws don’t say that members can’t advocate initiation of force. They just say that you are a member if you’ve certified you don’t do so.==

    Ack. I kinda think if that is the entrance exam so to speak, if you were lying, you haven’t passed the entrance exam.

    ==Might it be a good idea to give the membership oath real teeth? And to have a way to get rid of people who are clearly doing their damnedest to undermine the party itself.==

    I am probably the wrong person to ask since I am so tired of Libertarians advocating aggression-based solutions, not as compromise steps with the end-game in mind, but having no end-game. The interim is the goal for them, and they are unapologetic about the force aspect. Drives. Me. Freaking. Nuts.

    If anyone is indeed advocating in ways really blatantly in contradiction to the Pledge and the SoP why are they not called out more? And I am not talking about parsing the fine points of Libertarian purity, but very very blatant and long-standing deviations?

    I suppose it is hard without a witch hunt atmosphere, which I detest. I am just venting. Though I think it pretty pathetic if the Party of Principle couldn’t expel Tim McVeigh. Houston there is a problem.

  451. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And just to clarify… I am not referring to anyone specifically. I am just venting. When I am referring to specific people, I am not shy about saying it. I am not a passive aggressive type.

    I think this thread may reach a record…. what is the IPR record? I know this is the longest one I have seen.

  452. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    Well, one thing to keep in mind about the membership oath is that a number of party members, including older ones who were around early on (even David Nolan before his death) insist that the membership oath has nothing whatsoever to do with the nearly universal libertarian value of non-initiation of force, but was simply a way to signal to the FBI that the LP wasn’t a bunch of violent terrorists preparing to overthrow the government.

    That claim is clearly bullshit, but you’ll still hear a lot of people making it. Here’s a piece I wrote on the subject a few years ago.

  453. Andy Craig

    “Just in general shooting out there: If National helped fund a ballot access drive (no idea if they did in OR) wouldn’t they have a claim to the ballot line?”

    Nope, it attaches to the state party.

    There is one case of a state election agency siding with the national party over the state affiliate, and that was in 2012 when Oklahoma sided with national Americans Elect (which had decided to not run any candidates) over the OK AE affiliate (which had decided to give its ballot line to Johnson/Gray). But that was pretty obviously illegal and incorrect, OK Republicans just did it anyway to screw the LP.

    “Re: Expelling from Party

    What if someone blatantly advocates/initiates political force… like what if McVeigh was a lifetime member?”

    I know you meant this as a hypothetical, but the national party did actually put out a statement denouncing his description of himself as a libertarian in 2001.

    That was actually a decent part of what the pledge was originally about- yes, it’s a statement of the basic libertarian premise, but it was also adopted as a CYA measure to prove to government agencies we aren’t a terrorist organization and don’t believe in violently overthrowing the government, shooting cops, and that sort of thing. That concern seems quaint now, but it was a bit more pressing in the era of Patty Hearst robbing banks and Jim Jones leading people off into the woods in Guyana and the Weather Underground planting pipe bombs.

    “Might it be a good idea to give the membership oath real teeth?”

    Because that’s exactly what we need, Libertarians trying to kick each other out of the party for not toeing the line as to LNC’s interpretation of what the NAP pledge means.

    That’s why we have a platform.

  454. Andy Craig

    “insist that the membership oath has nothing whatsoever to do with the nearly universal libertarian value of non-initiation of force, but was simply a way to signal to the FBI that the LP wasn’t a bunch of violent terrorists preparing to overthrow the government.”

    I’ve never heard it claimed that was the *only* reason for the pledge, or that is has nothing to do with libertarianism. Just that it was *part* of the reason why it was adopted.

  455. Andy Craig

    “I think this thread may reach a record…. what is the IPR record? I know this is the longest one I have seen.”

    We’ve got a ways to go before we reach that. I’ve seen ones with over 1,000 posts. I don’t know what the record is, but most of our monthly open threads reach a few hundred.

  456. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==There is one case of a state election agency siding with the national party over the state affiliate, and that was in 2012 when Oklahoma sided with national Americans Elect (which had decided to not run any candidates) over the OK AE affiliate (which had decided to give its ballot line to Johnson/Gray). But that was pretty obviously illegal and incorrect, OK Republicans just did it anyway to screw the LP.==

    Not sure I understand that part, but I get it. Thanks for answering

    ===

    I know you meant this as a hypothetical, but the national party did actually put out a statement denouncing his description of himself as a libertarian in 2001.===

    I knew that actually from a debate I had with someone who was trying to tell me I was inconsistent in not advocating violence. But that raised the question to me, what if he was a member? It is easy to denounce non-members who claim to be vaguely libertarian.

    ==That concern seems quaint now, but it was a bit more pressing in the era of Patty Hearst robbing banks and Jim Jones leading people off into the woods in Guyana and the Weather Underground planting pipe bombs.==

    Actually it doesn’t seem quaint to me. It seems as relevant as ever in defense against state accusations.

    ==Because that’s exactly what we need, Libertarians trying to kick each other out of the party for not toeing the line as to LNC’s interpretation of what the NAP pledge means.==

    Good point on the LNC – but still for flagrant issues, I have no problem.

    ==That’s why we have a platform.==

    Platforms are fickle. I would say that’s why we have a SoP.

  457. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==We’ve got a ways to go before we reach that. I’ve seen ones with over 1,000 posts. I don’t know what the record is, but most of our monthly open threads reach a few hundred.==

    We need to try harder than slacker.

    So how ’bout those roads?

  458. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom

    == Well, one thing to keep in mind about the membership oath is that a number of party members, including older ones who were around early on (even David Nolan before his death) insist that the membership oath has nothing whatsoever to do with the nearly universal libertarian value of non-initiation of force, but was simply a way to signal to the FBI that the LP wasn’t a bunch of violent terrorists preparing to overthrow the government.==

    Yes I have heard the claim myself, and it is bullshit. It makes no logical or historical sense. I do believe that was the exigent factor, but there is a reason it is worded the way it is, and OBVIOUSLY it wasn’t intended to have zero ideological content. That is just ridiculous. I agree that the expedient reason it was made a requirement was the desire to get off the state radar. I disagree that it wasn’t chosen because it was actually TRUE about what Libertarians were supposed to universally belief. I just doubt that it would have been made a requirement if not for the immediate need.

    Yes, I have read your article a while ago. I said I was a fan:) Your Against Stockholm Libertarianism article was very influential to me.

    I have been to this Pledge rodeo many times, and eliminating it doesn’t eliminate the problem to non-radicals of the SoP which states the same thing. I have seen the parsing to get around that too, and it isn’t convincing at all.

  459. George Phillies

    P @6:03 Thank you. I am not sure which piece of the LNC and staff was claiming I tried to sabotage our 2008 Presidential ballot access in Massachusetts, so I do not name names. I also stay entirely clear of such efforts in Massachusetts now.

  460. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I thank God (or whoever anyone or no one you wish to thank) that the 7/8 requirement is there. The LP would be dead in the water without that. And clever boys and girls back then, making the 7/8 requirement need another 7/8 requirement, though I have read of the ways people have tried to get around that. I am not fooled for a second.

    My ideological zeal is showing. I am hear for one reason and one reason alone. I believe this stuff. I was “converted” in the space of 15 minutes.

  461. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And back to the topic, if the ExComm is going to do anything with this… when?

  462. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And back to the topic, if the ExComm is going to do anything with this… when?”

    The timing of this is not coincidental — the wreckers clearly want to get their way late enough in the game to screw up the LP’s presidential ballot access and/or Oregon electoral prospects, but far enough in advance of the national convention that any outrage has had some time to tied down (they don’t have much respect for the organizational skills of their opposition; based on past events, that lack of respect seems somewhat justified).

    So, their next consideration is whether it is the executive committee or the full LNC that’s most likely to vote their way. Once they’ve decided that, it will go like this:

    – Some item will be added to the agenda that puts the Judicial Committee’s ruling into effect.

    – The chair will, I hope, rule that item out of order since the Judicial Committee’s ruling exceeds its authority, has no basis in the bylaws, and is therefore void and of no effect.

    – The wreckers will appeal the ruling of the chair and get a vote to overturn that ruling.

    – If the chair’s ruling is overturned, there will be a vote to put one or more consequences of the ruling into effect (e.g. changing information on the LNC’s web site regarding the identification of its Oregon affiliate; directing staff to do database dumps to the Reeves Gang instead of the LPO; etc.).

    I’m guessing that the chair’s ruling WILL be overturned and that the impostor gang will be fraudulently advertised on the LNC’s web site as if it were a real affiliate and so forth.

    Then again, Nick Sarwark is a pretty smart guy. Perhaps he has another way through these waters already charted that a simpleton like me can’t even comprehend.

  463. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    We can keep pressure on the usurpers here and on Facebook. It’s conceivable they won’t make a move since so many people are paying attention. They’ll wait until we’re wound up about something else.

  464. Wes Wagner

    The pledge is an analog of a first moral principles of greek ethics .. e.g. don’t hit people, don’t take their stuff.

  465. Mark Axinn

    Regarding two of Chuck’s posts:

    >Hagan keeps good books as treasurer, doesn’t rock the boat, and votes his conscious.

    I hope all of the LNC members are conscious when voting, but after reading all these comments, I doubt that I am any more. Sorry NF, no summary has been provided although if there were one, I think it would read as follows:

    “The non-ending Wagner/Reeves battle, which has bored and distracted us silly for at least the last five years, continues with no end in sight.”

    ** ** ** **
    On another post, Chuck very accurately remembers that both Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens were expelled as LPNY members. That happened in my first year as state chair, although for very different reasons. Tom was expelled in July 2010; Sam in August 2010.

    I won’t go into the reasons for the Stevens expulsion, but Sloan’s is more straightforward: force and fraud. He took the LPNY petition form, whited out Warren Redlich’s name, wrote his own in, submitted a couple hundred signatures (all in the same handwriting) and claimed to the BOE that he was the LPNY candidate for Governor and had 15,000 valid signatures supporting his nomination. He sued Warren, Chris Edes, Eric Sundwall, LPNY and me. He lost. He appealed. He lost.

    Sam tried to become a delegate at the National Convention last year from both NY and CA and neither Kevin nor I would agree to seat him. He tried to be a delegate most recently at the LPNY Convention last April, and I told him he could stay but could not be a voting delegate as he is not a member of LPNY in good standing.

    Sam is like a case of herpes; he keeps coming back just when you thought everything was clean.

  466. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Mark Axinn said: “Sam is like a case of herpes; he keeps coming back just when you thought everything was clean.”

    Very funny way to put it! We can say that about BC in CA, also.

  467. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    We’ve had 2 or 3 articles reach over 1,000 comments, the most recent being from the 2014 convention, IIRC. Paulie would know, but he’s apparently on a bus now.

  468. Chuck Moulton

    Mark Axinn wrote:

    > Hagan keeps good books as treasurer, doesn’t rock the boat, and votes his conscious.

    I hope all of the LNC members are conscious when voting

    As a contributor here, luckily I can edit my comments to fix spelling/grammar/usage mistakes. 🙂

    Mark Axinn wrote:

    On another post, Chuck very accurately remembers that both Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens were expelled as LPNY members.

    I’ve been friends with both Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens for years.

    Despite Tom Stevens running Pennsylvania as a dictator and alienating many Pennsylvanians, to his credit he was a pretty good organizer and recruiter. He was meticulous about following up with inquiries (an opportunity many state and county chairs squander) and excellent at getting people more involved by matching members up with tasks.

    Sam Sloan may be over-litigious and his behavior in the governor’s race was outrageous, but he can always be counted on to run as a candidate for offices at all levels (if only more Libertarians would step up!) and he doesn’t back down when the board of elections tries to bully him (I’m sure you’re CCed on the current email chain). Sam has the distinction of being the only non-lawyer to argue pro se at the U.S. Supreme Court and win, which he will hold forever because they no longer allow non-attorneys to participate in oral arguments. I run into Sam frequently at my other main hobby: chess tournaments all over the country.

    It’s too bad that NY expelled them rather than channeling their energies into productive ends, though I understand it can get tiresome babysitting the bulls so they don’t run loose in your China closet.

  469. Steve Scheetz

    Caryn, I apologize for widening the yellow brick road regarding who was innocent or not regarding Oregon… I was only commenting on how long this has been going on, etc….

    Mark is being very kind to not bring up why Tom Stevens was thrown out, but I will respect the LPNY by not stating it here.

    When we were planning on throwing Tom Stevens out here in PA, He was attempting to resign, and given the fact that if we threw him out, he could attempt to use the Judicial Committee to bludgeon us further, we decided to allow him to resign, and wrote a letter basically stating to not let the door hit him on the way out.

    The point of bringing this up is to bring up the fact that it is extremely difficult to toss anyone from the party, for any reason.

    However, sometimes there are reasons and a necessity. Self defense should never be confused with the initiation of force.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  470. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    The only way for you to know is on the first page of the site, right below the headline. Yours was comment # 524. The number is also in the dashboard by comments, but only the writiers and editors can see that.

  471. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Caryn, I apologize for widening the yellow brick road regarding who was innocent or not regarding Oregon… I was only commenting on how long this has been going on, etc….==

    No problem Steve. I wish there were a party here with completely clean hands. I don’t believe there is. There is definitely a side I align with ideologically, but the ends do not justify the means, and I am not convinced the means was correct. By either side. And I am not sure even if I were an OR finder of fact (I obviously am not) that there is a clean remediation. But I don’t see the LNC has the authority to even try. They have competing claims to the OR leadership. I do not see they have any choice but to accept what the state of OR says is the OR leadership or determine there is an cause to disaffiliate.

    If I were to pretend that LNC was to be the OR finder of fact of who their leadership is, I don’t think it should have found for either group, which again would have led to disaffiliation.

  472. Nicholas Sarwark

    Good question. You may want to inquire with HQ to see if there was some mix-up with the targeting of the donation.

    No mix-up. Sustaining member is someone who gave $25 within the last year. It does not matter if the $25 is earmarked for the building fund, ballot access, or the Nicholas Sarwark Memorial Margarita Machine at the national headquarters.

    You can specifically ask to not be listed as a member when donating, but being a sustaining member is automatic is you give $25 and have signed the pledge.

  473. Steve M

    Nicholas,

    Thanks for the reply. I have little interest in participating in the soapoprish antics of the LNC. I am very sure I wouldn’t want any of my cash spent enabling these antics. I do occasionally see a project that I want carried through. Oklahoma ballot access for example.

    My suspicions was this had more to do with inflating membership numbers rather then miss-using my donation.

    Pauli, we have knocked heads in the past. So what. Have fun and get the job done!

  474. paulie

    The only way for you to know is on the first page of the site, right below the headline. Yours was comment # 524. The number is also in the dashboard by comments, but only the writiers and editors can see that.

    Both of those only tell you how many comments so far in the thread, not what the comment number of any individual comment is after more comment are added after that.

  475. paulie

    We’ve had 2 or 3 articles reach over 1,000 comments, the most recent being from the 2014 convention, IIRC. Paulie would know, but he’s apparently on a bus now.

    I’m at a long layover switching buses in Memphis. You are correct. Two threads w/ over 1k to date. Both originated with LP ational conventions, I believe (2012 and 2014). IIRC, next highest after that was about Angela Keaton resigning from the LNC, which was in our first year of operation. I think the next few after that involved one with LP vs CP comparison, and a couple on LP intra-party controversies in CA and PA. If there are others that are way up there I am not remembering them now. This one is probably either already, or about to pop some of those off the leader board in comment numbers.

  476. paulie

    Just checked. There were a couple I forgot but not very many.

    1,000+:

    Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29
    Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 1,064 comments
    Published 2014/06/26

    LNC Elections Thread
    paulie Libertarian Party 1,034 comments
    Published 2012/05/06

    500+:

    Angela Keaton resigning from LNC
    G.E. Libertarian Party 736 comments
    Published 2008/12/08

    Libertarian Party vs Constitution Party: An Analysis
    Krzysztof Lesiak Constitution Party, Libertarian Party
    664 comments Published 2013/03/26

    LNC Meeting Mar 28-29, 2015 Phoenix (Updated)
    paulie Libertarian Party 654 comments
    Published 2015/03/29

    California LP Judicial Committee overturns member’s suspension on appeal
    Thomas L. Knapp Libertarian Party 583 comments
    Published 2010/01/29

    LP Judicial Committee Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior JC Decision re Oregon Affiliate; Carling Will Not Recuse Himself
    Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 532 comments (this one)
    Published 2015/08/14

    Coverage of LNC meeting 12/14-15/13
    paulie Libertarian Party 528 comments
    Published 2013/12/14

    What’s Going On with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania?
    Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 502 comments
    Published 2013/01/28

  477. paulie

    @ TLK 2015/08/16 at 7:39 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos.

    Without saying whether I agree with TLK’s characterizations (wreckers, impostors, etc), I think TLK is on the money about how things will play out.

  478. paulie

    I thank God (or whoever anyone or no one you wish to thank) that the 7/8 requirement is there.

    Very close to being overcome in 2006, along with most of the platform being trashed, in, ahem, Oregon. Reason it was there was due to all the (disputedly) impressive work Burke and friends did with the Oregon affiliate.

    Fast forward almost a decade, and we now have the other side of the Oregon mother-of-all-messes, Wes Wagner, preparing the nuclear option to destroy the LNC/national LP, and with it that 7/8.

    Something in the water in PDX?

    Oy vey.

  479. paulie

    I also stay entirely clear of such efforts in Massachusetts now.

    Certainly understandable. As I recall, they wasted your time and money by starting the petition over with Barr’s name post-convention and throwing out everything collected before then. And the accusation that you were going to not cooperate with substitution was false. I was at your state committee meeting, at your house, and you convinced people to go along with substitution. Some of them were not very eager, to say the least, but they agreed to.

  480. paulie

    Just in general shooting out there: If National helped fund a ballot access drive (no idea if they did in OR) wouldn’t they have a claim to the ballot line?

    Yes, but it wouldn’t be the LP line. That would remain with Wagner/Hedbor and friends unless OSOS or OR courts say otherwise, which they probably never will, regardless of what LNC does.

    The current LP already has a ballot line, and still will regardless of whether someone affiliated with the LP or its national presidential ticket qualifies another one or not. The first one, which will stay with Hedbor et al., will still be there regardless.

  481. paulie

    Good luck! It was great speaking with you earlier btw, it is always nice to put a voice to the text.

    Thank you, and likewise.

    Knowing that folks like you put so much effort into these essential activities makes the looming threats all the more distressing to me.

    Backatcha.

  482. paulie

    TLK

    I won’t be running for LNC. Too much travel and expense involved.

    Alternate does not necessarily require travel. Just think you could be the counter-Lieberman on the LNC email list, all from the comfort of home.

  483. Caryn Ann Harlos

    RECAP of the 2011 portion

    At the July 17-18, 2011, LNC meeting, the LNC was already aware and been presented with the fact of two competing claims to be officers of the LPO who were given time to speak.

    During executive session they ruled which bylaws were correct and then concluded that the officers elected were the Reeves group.

    NOTE: I believe they are right about the bylaws in effect and wrong about the officers. I also believe there was credible evidence about issues of damaging interference by Republican interests in that make-up. I do not think either group, if I were the OR finder of fact, has a clean legitimate claim.

    That being said, I do not see the bylaws authority for the LNC to make these determinations. I in theory would not have a problem with a bylaws amendment to cure this for future but they did not have it then. I understand their rationale that it is implied that having to work with an affiliate implies the authority to identify the affiliate. But the identity of the affiliate is clear. It is the LPO, a creature organized under the laws of OR and deriving its statutory existence from OR. It’s bylaws and officers are an internal matter that the LNC does not have the right to take sides on without violating their autonomy. The legal entity of the LPO had officers recognized by OR. If the LNC felt this was done unjustly or in error or scandalously, their only power was to disaffiliate OR for cause.

    This does and is a harsh conclusion if one of the two groups were innocent but it is our bylaws. We are a voluntary group with bylaws approved by members who have a right to know what powers they are agreeing to. And for me, in this case, I do not believe either group is innocent. There was gamesmanship, pure and simple. This is politics as usual but not what I hope for in Libertarian politics.

    On 8/25/11 and supplemented 9/23/11 the JC ruled pretty much what I said above. I came to this rough conclusion prior to reading the final decisions so it was confirmation to me.

    The LNC made a motion afterwards codifying its disagreement with the JC decision and interestingly blaming the JC for the OR deciding to recognize the Wagner group. Could we have blamed the LNC if their decision influenced OR?

    The LNC further claims the JC did not have jurisdiction to hear this which gets into constructive disaffiliation. I believe the JC did. Our dealings with our affiliates vis a vis ourselves are not bound by statute but by libertarian principles. If the LNC improperly took a side – and both sides had potentially legitimate claims- it is potentially constructive disaffiliation if the legal entity was identified by the state as having the rules against officers- which it did. The JC did not instruct or guide OR, it stated the current status of things. If OR used bad reasoning the parties with standing in OR need to take that up there to the extent they can.

    I note (and did not look up the timing) if the LNC goes beyond the bylaws again there is a procedure for members to appeal.

    I would add lastly that the LNC has no authority over the state of OR and deciding that they get to decide who are the officers is not binding, and then what? And likely lose ballot access as well.

  484. Caryn Ann Harlos

    BTW: I now have more information relating to things after these events-particularly dealing with how OR handled to review.

    Will it change my opinion? I am always open to changing any opinion with more facts. And do not follow faction lines – in this case it is evident. Factionally I should think Wagner’s claim is pure, but I just don’t believe that for reasons stated.

  485. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You seem to be coming to a lot of the same conclusions I reached over time.

    I agree that neither side’s hands are clean. As a matter of fact, if you go back to early in the controversy, you’ll see me stating flatly that BOTH “factions” broke the bylaws.

    My reason for thinking the Wagner faction had the better case was pretty simple:

    The Wagner faction was clearly acting with intent to make the party functional; the Reeves faction was clearly acting with intent to make sure LPO remained Burke’s moribund plaything.

    The Wagner faction seemed to be backed mostly by Oregon Libertarians; the Reeves faction was backed, and funded, by out-state actors who had a long record of working hard to do the same thing in other states and at the national level.

  486. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am reviewing some additional information and there are some wrinkles.

    First, with regards to the “widest and fairest representation of members”- that was allegedly such a dire threat that the Wagner group had to fiat revise the bylaws– the state apparatus declined to enforce this provision, besides the fact that this law was in place for over twenty years at the time of Wagner’s action without repercussion; it would take a court case, presumably by an aggrieved registered Liberation, not state action, to enforce. See:

    § 248.011¹
    Enforcement of ORS 248.005 or political party rules

    Except as expressly required by law, the Secretary of State, a county clerk or any other elections official shall not enforce the provisions of ORS 248.005 (Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members) or any other rule adopted by a political party. [1995 c.606 §2]

    Anyone setting aside their factions and ideologies, I think, should fairly see that this changing of the bylaws was not to protect the Party from imminent harm from losing its ballot access, but to reconstitute the membership in a way favorable to the Wagner group. I agree that this reconstitution was likely in line with the law as far as dues goes (not as far as the pledge goes), but this is gaming. Perhaps gaming for a good motive but it disenfranchised prior member class people that were not co-exensive with this new definition. That is my real big hangup. I think it should be for all Libertarians.

    But note something else interesting… this statute states that the SoS, county clerk, or any other elections official shall not enforce the provisions of “any other rule adopted by a political party.”

    I am not entirely sure how broadly that is to be interpreted. ANY rule? Including bylaws? That is the interpretation suggested to me, and I can go with that until shown otherwise. Thus it was further suggested that this renders the JC 2011 functionally impossible. The SoS in this case when presented with the conflicting claims said “Not my job” and stuck with what was on record as per their unwritten procedure or decision. But that is what they decided, that is who the Chair was as far as they were concerned and comprising the legal entity of the LPO: Wagner. They didn’t look at the facts and decide this, this was just how it happened, for right or for wrong. But this is still the state’s legal identification… whether we like it or not. And whether the LNC liked it or not. And whether it is fair or not. When one is a creature of the state, fairness often goes by the wayside.

    I do not agree though that this renders the JC 2011 ruling impossible. But let’s accept for the sake of argument it did. So? This still does not give the LNC additional powers it didn’t have. It merely shows how the state ruins everything:) It puts the LPO in a pickle, puts everyone in a pickle, but it doesn’t create LNC powers out of whole cloth. What to do? Disaffiliate or go with the legal identity. Those are the only options.

    But I don’t accept that this rendered the JC 2011 impossible. Let’s look at the pertinent part (JC Opinion clarification rendered 9/23/11)

    “The interpretation of a state-level affiliate’s bylaws is an internal matter for the members of the state-level affiliate to pursue by negotiation, political action, litigation and/or other action in state-level affiliate meetings, and before the state-level judicial committee (if any), courts, and governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the state-level affiliate.”

    So if the SoS has no authority to enforce any rules of a political party, those other entities can. And if they can’t, that still doesn’t create a new power of the LNC.

    Now interestingly, if the LNC wanted to attempt to make this determination of who was right and who was wrong, I think they could have (if the JC agreed… probably doubtful but who knows) done it,but a different route, and disaffiliation would still have been required–thus not the result of putting the Reeves group in control. They could have disaffiliated the LPO (led legally as per the SoS by Wagner) for cause, and then let Wagner appeal the disaffiliation and the JC would have examined if the cause had merit. How far they would have examined, I do not know, but this was a route open to them. This would have been a loss to the National Party of ballot access etc.. but has that been avoided really? And all the acrimony and strife? And now they will likely just put the Reeves group back on control in paper in the mind of the LNC but the SoS has obligation to accept this neither do the Oregon courts, neither do the registered Libertarians of Colorado or the previous member class. And draw all kinds of legal hassle potentially if Wagner makes good on his threats (which I still think are vengeance, his hands are not clean, and we will all suffer for it, and liberty is the biggest loser of all).

    I have heard the charges that this renders the affiliates very potentially vulnerable to hostile actions and takeovers by forces that are enemies to the party. This is true. This is an argument to amend the bylaws, however, not to create new powers without proper ratification at convention.

    I cannot express how appreciative I am to the people who have reached out to me privately and provided a ton of extraordinary information for my education in this. Particularly since I am not coming to the same conclusions on many things (I am on some things), but things remain cordial and collegial. I have much more to review, but I can only eat an elephant one bite at a time. I asked for information and an education. I am getting it.

  487. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I said Colorado instead of Oregon… whoops. I am from Colorado and so used to writing it, it came out as second nature. Should be “registered Libertarians of Oregon.”

  488. Wes Wagner

    “I have heard the charges that this renders the affiliates very potentially vulnerable to hostile actions and takeovers by forces that are enemies to the party. This is true. This is an argument to amend the bylaws, however, not to create new powers without proper ratification at convention.”

    And this becomes a very different tactical situation when the enemy is at the gates and they themselves are intending on using this power to unilaterally re-write the bylaws to ensure that the libertarian faction of the LP is locked out, and you have to choose whether or not to shoot first because you know the threat is imminent and credible.

    We had grey intelligence that indicated that this was the case. During discovery we obtained the documents that proved our intelligence was in fact correct. We acted on grey intelligence — that much is true, but it was credible and represented an existential crisis large enough that we chose to act.

  489. LibertyDave

    I find it amazing that people, who state that they believe in a non-interventionist policy with other countries, believe that it is OK to interfere with the political parties in states where they don’t live.

    If you don’t like how the Libertarian Party of Oregon is being run you can either disaffiliate with us or you can move to Oregon and register Libertarian and get involved. This load of crap of people who don’t live in Oregon trying to tell us who our leaders are, is as bad as when our government tries to bully another country to change their leadership because they don’t like their current leaders.

    I get why you don’t like Wes Wagner, he is an asshole. Of this there is no doubt, but I would rather have an asshole who is consistent in fighting for liberty in charge of the LPO than the lying disgruntled republicans trying to change the Libertarian Party into what they believe the Republican Party should be.

    For those of you who are crying, “There and no clean hands”. In this there never could be any clean hands. In 2010, M Carling and Alicia Mattson came to Oregon and threatened our party with disaffiliation if we tried to change the bylaws to be more accommodating to Oregon libertarians. They claimed that by our current bylaws we could never achieve quorum. If we had only changed the quorum requirement then changed the bylaws in convention, M Carling would have come up with a different excuse to try and stop us. We can all see how good he is at twisting some rules and ignoring others by his use of the judicial committee in this current mess.

    If Wes Wagner goes nuclear on the LNC and he likes to put it, it is still self-defense and is deserved because the National Libertarian Party members keep putting these bad actors into leadership positions.

  490. Marc Montoni

    For whatever it’s worth, the Virginia LP could not meet quorum for many years (12, as I recall), and we had things we wanted to change. Those things waited until we finally did achieve quorum.

    Wagner and company weren’t that patient.

    I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.

    We spend a lot of time saying how stupid various laws are and then some of us turn around and try to tell me that the LP has no right to determine its own chapter relationship; that it’s all up to the vagaries of state laws.

    I call BS.

    I also believe that as long as there are trademark laws, the LP does indeed have the right to use them like any other organization, and should be able to protect the use of its name by unauthorized groups.

    Whichever group is affiliated with the national LP is the group that should have the legal right to use our name on the ballot.

    Burke and the rest of his cohort spent the better part of a decade or more using the LPOR as their personal toys. So in a sense I fully understand the nuclear reaction. Suppress change long enough and eventually you’re going to find yourself on top of a volcano.

    Yes, I understand all of that.

    And yes, Wagner’s group staged a coup. Yes, I understand they felt was necessary. However, they violated the right of the dues-paying membership to decide for themselves in convention what their rules were going to be, going forward.

    In that sense, yes, Wagner’s group is entirely illegitimate.

    It is just as illegitimate as the LNC giving itself the authority to charge a floor fee that the delegates themselves have not been given the opportunity to vote on.

    All of that said, the “Reeves Group” was also illegitimate, as they purported to meet as the state committee of the LPOR when none of them were current party officeholders.

    In any case, I favor continuing to recognize the Wagner faction, as long as that faction respects the right of the national convention delegates to name our presidential candidate, and agrees to do the paperwork necessary to have their state government print that name on the general election ballot.

    If that group subsequently named some other person to be the LP presidential candidate in OR, al la what happened in Arizona between 1996-2000, then I would be first in line to condemn them.

  491. Marc Montoni

    George Phillies said:

    The nearly unprecedented act of the LNC last year in rejecting the chair’s request as to who he wanted on the ExComm may well finally bear its poisonous fruit.

    Mr Phillies has already been corrected on this in another forum, yet he continues to make an issue of it.

    This is the earlier response to Mr Phillies claim:

    George, I have reviewed the Minutes and discussed this with a couple of people who attended the meeting in question.

    My conclusion is that you have conveyed information that is at best incomplete and misleading.

    The chair does not appoint the EC; rather the LNC elects it. When this agenda item arose, Nick asked whether he could express his preference; no one objected to his doing so. He then stated his preference that the LNC choose Sam Goldstein, Bill Redpath, and Jay Estrada.

    After some discussion, Arvin Vohra moved to elect these three people to the EC; the motion was defeated on a vote of 6 to 7.

    Members were then asked to vote for up to three people on a ballot. Redpath received 11 votes, Lark received 9 votes, and Goldstein received 8 votes. No one else received a majority (out of 15).

    The only way in which there was something unusual about this matter was Nick’s expression of a preference. While it certainly wasn’t out of bounds for Nick to express his preference, it was probably not a good idea to make that request *after* several people had already been nominated.

    Estrada was almost completely unknown to other LNC members. He did not seem well-known even among his own state delegation.

    So pardon me but I find your concern about the EC selection process to be without merit.

    It might be a good idea for you to explain why you raised the issue of the EC election and why you suggest there was something untoward about it.

  492. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hi Marc, I always love hearing from you, and this time we disagree on some things and agree on most.

    ==I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.

    We spend a lot of time saying how stupid various laws are and then some of us turn around and try to tell me that the LP has no right to determine its own chapter relationship; that it’s all up to the vagaries of state laws.==

    The LP has bylaws which set the scope of its powers. I agree that it could have chosen to not be subject to the vagaries of state laws, and in this case, there is a definite vagary in that the SoS rubberstamped an event, there is no determination on the merits, yet. If the LP wanted such control, it should have been in the bylaws. But instead the bylaws grant specific autonomy to the affiliates except as provided in the bylaws, and here we are. The autonomy punts it back to the states where they have organized under certain laws… and a lot of stupid ones that take power away… not from National from the affiliates themselves. The LP does have a right to determine its own chapter relationship; through disaffiliation affiliation.

    The other states are affected by this.. they are relying on our bylaws and the affiliation agreement therein. To just go and state that the LP is the final arbiter in this broad manner when that is not what they agreed to is violative of them. This is a union based on agreements, and these agreements cannot be unilaterally expanded. I tend to agree with you that the LP should have more control here, and the only way to remediate that is to revise the bylaws.

    ==I also believe that as long as there are trademark laws, the LP does indeed have the right to use them like any other organization, and should be able to protect the use of its name by unauthorized groups.==

    I agree here.. but isn’t this using stupid laws? It is. And for the same reason I support this, if the LP chooses to affiliate with a creature of the state (not that there is any choice if we want to play the electoral game, but we know the game we are signing up for), then it is subject to the vagarities of the state that go along with it. Our bylaws are deficient here.

    It pains me to be arguing “muh state” but this is what we signed up for in entering this arena, and we have to play the game with an eye towards beating the game to dismantle the game—this is how we chose to fight contra the no-voting voluntaryists. I have no love for the state. I prefer my state nonexistent.

    ==Whichever group is affiliated with the national LP is the group that should have the legal right to use our name on the ballot.==

    I agree.

    ==Burke and the rest of his cohort spent the better part of a decade or more using the LPOR as their personal toys. So in a sense I fully understand the nuclear reaction. Suppress change long enough and eventually you’re going to find yourself on top of a volcano.

    Yes, I understand all of that.==

    I also understand the rage. And sympathize with it to a great deal. But I also think part of what you sign up for when joining a movement is to also put away some pride, and I see a great deal of pride here in the chest-thumping would-be-destroyers.

    ===And yes, Wagner’s group staged a coup. Yes, I understand they felt was necessary. However, they violated the right of the dues-paying membership to decide for themselves in convention what their rules were going to be, going forward.

    In that sense, yes, Wagner’s group is entirely illegitimate.===

    ^THAT. And you picked up on something important with “in that sense”— there are many “senses” here.

    ==All of that said, the “Reeves Group” was also illegitimate, as they purported to meet as the state committee of the LPOR when none of them were current party officeholders.==

    ^THAT.

    In the absence of our bylaws, agreed to by the agreed process in our organization, giving the LP the power to not be subject to the vagaries of the state, I have come to the conclusion I have.

    I do not think either of the groups have the right of it. They are both illegimate. How to work that out? The LP interfere when we have no express warrant to do so and an express warrant not to? I keep hearing (not here) that we need to judge in equity between the two groups… I say there aren’t only two groups there is a third one. And that is where the LPO would have been two seconds before the coup. Now that may be impossible to go back to, but that is the legitimate third group in the room. And in order to sort this out, the LPO is a organization existing under the laws of their state, and representing Libertarians in a certain state, and it is their’s to work out. The bylaws do not give us this power. They only give us the power to disaffiliate from the affilitate— which is the LPO— which is a state-created institutional form.

    I agree it is a catch-22. If the LP didn’t like what the state records were saying were its officers due to this, they should have disaffiliated.

    I am not entirely satisfied with this, but is the best I can make of the situation.

  493. LibertyDave

    I have a question for Mark Montoni.

    You stated the following;

    “In any case, I favor continuing to recognize the Wagner faction, as long as that faction respects the right of the national convention delegates to name our presidential candidate, and agrees to do the paperwork necessary to have their state government print that name on the general election ballot.

    If that group subsequently named some other person to be the LP presidential candidate in OR, al la what happened in Arizona between 1996-2000, then I would be first in line to condemn them.”

    Will you still be first in line to condemn Oregon when we name someone else for president in 2016 when the national convention delegates refused to respect the rights of the Oregon Libertarian Party like they did in 2012, 2014, and appears will happen in 2016 if the LNC disaffiliates the Oregon Libertarian Party without even following their own rules?

  494. George Phillies

    “I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.”

    Your description of my position is wrong.

    I believe that a National Party or National Convention can choose who to recognize as its affiliate in a state. There are a long series of precedents and examples (see, e..g, the 1968 and 1972 Democratic National Conventions) for parties making those choices. The now-reversed 2011 Judicial Committee ruling does not disagree; it simply chose an obfuscatory way of saying which group was the state affiliate.

    There have been proposals as to whom national *should* recognize, but that’s a different question. There have been emphatic reminders that the LNC has a well-defined disaffiliation rule. If the LNC wants to disaffiliate a state group, and then extend an affiliation offer to a particular group in that state, they are entitled to do so by following their rules.

    I do not believe the LNC has to decide who they are disaffilating in order to do the disaffiliation. That is, going back four years, the LNC could have disaffiliated the Oregon affiliate without deciding first whether the legitimate affiliate was the Wagner or Reeves group. They could then have offered affiliation to whoever. That’s not what they did.

    With respect to your other point, your own words

    “The chair does not appoint the EC; rather the LNC elects it. When this agenda item arose, Nick asked whether he could express his preference; no one objected to his doing so. He then stated his preference that the LNC choose Sam Goldstein, Bill Redpath, and Jay Estrada.

    After some discussion, Arvin Vohra moved to elect these three people to the EC; the motion was defeated on a vote of 6 to 7.”

    prove that I am telling the truth and your sources are lying.

  495. George Phillies

    Liberty Dave makes an excellent point. If the LNC via the disaffiliation process, or the National Convention by rejecting their delegation list, disaffiliates Oregon, then they are not our affiliate, and we have no claim on their loyalties.

  496. LibertyDave

    You all seem to be hung-up on one act that you call an unethical, that happened in 2011 by the Wagner group and don’t seem to be upset about the unethical acts that the Reeves group and their friends on the national committees have been committing ever since then.

    And it was at most an unethical act, not an illegal act as the courts in Oregon have already ruled once and will probably rule again on appeal.

    This is why I refuse to support the National Libertarian Party and instead send people new to the Libertarian movement to the Advocates for Self-Government because at least they are consistently Libertarian.

  497. Wes Wagner

    I beg to differ regarding it being unethical 🙂 There are reasons no one whipped out pitchforks and torches domestically when it was done and the outrage primarily came from outside our borders.

  498. Daniel Hayes

    Can everybody agree that Wes Wagner’s intent is to bring about the destruction of the National Party in it’s current form?
    If you didnt agree to that you havent listened to Wes very closely.
    It might surprise people but I think to a degree Wes and I are “cool”. ,despite my having told all of their LPO board to “shit or get off the pot” in response to their demand that the LNC apologize for the Convention or the LPO would disaffiliate. I recognized what he was doing with that demand. Be aware. Wes is setting another “trap” for the national party. Carling and those guys couldnt just let things ride out there for a while and had to oblige him and take the cheese. IF LPO voted to disaffiliate on their own, that left the NLP the right to seek a new affiliate without having “FORCED” the affiliate. It would get hairy over trademarks, ballot line access, but gee…I think we are already in the barber shop and people have been cutting hair for 4 years without sweeping the floor.

  499. Wes Wagner

    Also LibertyDave, I would like to beg a minor bone of contention … I act like a giant asshole, but I am not a complete dick. 😉

  500. Caryn Ann Harlos

    LibertyDave seems to have missed where I have clearly said I believe the LNC overstepped its bounds and interfered in the autonomy of OR.

    The anger is clouding reason.

    I didn’t say unethical, I have been avoiding the ethics since I am dealing with institutional legitimacy. And what Wagner did was not legitimate.

  501. Wes Wagner

    And legitimate is irrelevant when things break down to the point of revolution. The egg can’t be put back into the shell at this point. Moral of the story: deal with your traitors, saboteurs, etc., before someone just breaks the egg again.

  502. Caryn Ann Harlos

    That is a fair bit of narcissistic posturing, which has not been in short supply.

    At least now you admit what you did was illegitimate. Earlier we didn’t have that.

  503. George Phillies

    No, the totally unethical act was persuading the 2010 LPOR State Convention to adopt Roberts, and then showing up in 2011 and claiming that the State Convention had without noticing adopted a *new* quorum rule, so that the largest state convention they had had in recent memory allegedly did not have a quorum even though a new quorum had not been discussed in 2010.

    The Wagner decisions were totally appropriate and legitimate under the circumstances. Indeed, if the Reeves group had announced “we are keeping the dues-paying members, and we are a private body, the Libertarian Association of Oregon”, no different that the association of the Americans for Democratic Action with the Democratic Party, there would have been much less fuss.

  504. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    I will admit that what happened was not done in exact accordance with the bylaws… but the problem is that Oregon law protects what we did, and the other side already started planning to do it first so we were compelled to act.

    It is what it is… the registered libertarians of Oregon own this party now. Most of us contend that they were the rightful owners in the first place and it was the structure that was perverted.

    We tried to work within it, but people cheated and started to bring in outside parties.

    At that point they don’t get a fair fight… and that is just simply the way it is.

    Now we have to cleanup every person who ever helped them or gave them quarter.

  505. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==No, the totally unethical act was persuading the 2010 LPOR State Convention to adopt Roberts, and then showing up in 2011 and claiming that the State Convention had without noticing adopted a *new* quorum rule, so that the largest state convention they had had in recent memory allegedly did not have a quorum even though a new quorum had not been discussed in 2010.===

    No doubt that is a sneaky move. I never claimed the Reeves group was pure… I have said the exact opposite, and I don’t hold their elections to be legitimate either.

    ==The Wagner decisions were totally appropriate and legitimate under the circumstances. ===

    I disagree. They took a small mandate and drove a truck through it. The quorum had other ways to be dealt with. Or just wait it out like Marc said. The redefining of membership was completely illegitimate and disenfranchised the then existing member pool. The wholesale replacement of the bylaws was illegitimate.

    And once again…. the Reeves election was illegitimate as far as I can tell.

    This is an OR matter however. Not mine.

  506. Daniel Hayes

    Wes said: “Moral of the story: deal with your traitors, saboteurs, etc., before someone just breaks the egg again.”

    SOoo…there’s still an egg to be broken….stop trying to take all the yokes out of all the others eggs you selfish somebeach. :D.
    Just cause your egg broke and the yoke is out doesnt mean you have to tilt over the basket and dump out every other person’s egg just cause you hate the basket. That smacks of aggression…
    Since we are using bad analogies..I figgert let it roll…

  507. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes I am not arguing with your fire-breathing threats any more. Other issues, okay but the rest of that is on virtual ignore.

  508. Wes Wagner

    George,

    It is also important to remember that in the spring convention of 2010 the party was almost dead. The bank account was closed and overdrawn, the party had been evicted from its office, etc.

    There was a resolution that was passed by that convention with a charter. Some people tried to bring in outside powers to prevent the execution of that charter in good faith.

    When you break a deal — you can have serious problems.

  509. Wes Wagner

    Daniel

    Don’t let snakes use your basket as sanctuary and hurl rocks at the eggs we are rebuilding from within it and think that basket will stay safe.

  510. NewFederalist

    C’mon folks… we need another 200 or so posts to break the record. I know we can do it. Oregon is, after all, a state where you can legally kill yourself so it is vitally important that there be a vibrant LP affiliate to assist with the euthanasia of the national party! In other words… most of us are pretty freaking tired of this. There is no answer.

  511. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===C’mon folks… we need another 200 or so posts to break the record. I know we can do it. Oregon is, after all, a state where you can legally kill yourself so it is vitally important that there be a vibrant LP affiliate to assist with the euthanasia of the national party! In other words… most of us are pretty freaking tired of this. There is no answer.===

    Best post of the thread.

  512. paulie

    NF, still almost 500 to go for the record. See my post above from 1:01 AM today.

    Still, this…one…could…go…all.. the…way….

  513. Wes Wagner

    Yeah… I am disappointed that we were not #1 in legalized mj… but maybe we can be #1 for legal opiates.

  514. paulie

    Also, there is a historical record as to how effective the Oregon group has been at attacking party finances. This happened internally, and the anti-Wagner faction had its income crash by a large amount within a short period of time. The Oregon party knows exactly how to do this, and undoubtedly has the resources available to do so if they choose.

    I guess we’ll see if people at the national level will be as inclined to listen to them.

  515. paulie

    Thus, if the LNC expels the five miscreants from the Party, they are no longer Party members and are no longer JC members. The remaining two JC members may then hopefully appoint a better Judicial Committee.

    A two-thirds vote of the LNC would be needed.

    Your characterization (“miscreants”) aside, I predict a snowball would have a much better chance in hell than there is of 2/3 of this LNC will remove 5/7 of this JC as party members, even if we grat that such a power exists at all.

  516. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.”

    We don’t disagree on that at all.

    Where we disagree is where you pretend that the national organization has a legitimate power to keep controlling things like ballot lines and names of organizations once those organizations AREN’T its chapters any more.

    Most, if not all, of the state Libertarian Parties existed before there ever was a Libertarian National Committee. It is their creature, not vice versa. It certainly has the right to part ways with them, as they do with it, but it doesn’t get their stuff (e.g. their names and their ballot lines) if that happens, any more than they get its stuff (e.g. its office and equipment).

  517. paulie

    At some point you have to admit that there is no perfect answer, make a definitive determination of who the proper affiliate should be, and be done with it, moving forward like adults. That was done long ago: the Wagner group is the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    Yep.

  518. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I don’t know M, although I know I met him in Pasadena once, briefly. I don’t want to know M. But, I’m curious as to how he got any power with the LP. Aaron has been CA State Chair, served as LNC treasurer for years, so I get that. I don’t know Alicia, either (again, don’t particularly want to), but I know she has worked as secretary for the LNC for many years, and is apparently good at it (although not distributing info deliberately, as Rachel Hawkbridge claimed in the Libertarian Peacenik link I just posted makes me question whether she was good). But, what has M contributed? I’m really curious about this.

  519. paulie

    For those of us without sufficient life spans to read this entire thread can someone provide a synopsis?


    Judicial Committee sets LNC on course for nuclear suicide, poking its nose once again into the Oregon mess years after the fact thanks to an obvious conflict of interest and endless cycle of intra-party cycles of vengeance, to the delight of the duopoly and its corporate sponsors.

  520. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Additional information I took a look at… the Arizona precedent is not the only precedent. Apparently a conflicting set of officers has happened in Oregon before (1995), and the LPO’s Judicial Committee had to rule on a recall election and there were still two competing claims afterwards, and the LNC stated that the matter was handled properly by the LPO’s JC, thus perhaps telling an affiliate who it’s officers were. No one appealed this decision.

    This was very interesting and certainly caused me to question my position of whether or not the LNC had the authority to determine which officers were the right set. Of course, I could always just think it was wrong back then but no one appealed…. but, I actually see this as factually distinguishable. First,I was very impressed by that former letter in how it was very careful to respect the affiliate’s autonomy. It appears that it was couched in the form of an opinion (it “appears” and “urges”) and not an absolute directive and it continuously urged the affiliate to work through its own disputes. If there was no challenge, it seems that the parties agreed to be bound by the opinion, which is different than happened here. If there was an appeal of this as binding… it would be a different story. We don’t know what would have happened.

    The beginning of the letter says that the LNC must be able to identify its affiliate in order to fulfill its duty to insure only one affiliate exists and that practically means it must be able to identify its officers. This is the same reasoning used in the LNC decision in favor of Reeves. In making the determination of the identity though, it is stated, that the affiliate’s autonomy must not be breached. The LNC deferred to the LPO’s JC as the proper body to determine this and makes the statement of what the results appear to be and urges the affiliate to insure there is only one state convention and only one set of delegates… seeming to recognize that this decision was not the end-all, that it was in their hands.

    Apparently this letter was submitted to the SoS who relied upon it to change the records.

    This throws a wrinkle in the whole thing, and if this was a binding decision then it shows precedent that the LNC thought it had this authority, and if advisory, then not, but in either event it was not challenged apparently.

  521. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I further note that the letter — addressed “to whom it may concern” — purports to convey the “views” of the LNC. Not a final decision.

  522. LibertyDave

    Something to consider. Allowing the judicial committee to reconsider a prior JC decision is like the US Courts allowing someone to be tried for the same crime twice. Is this what we want to show the world what libertarian are about.

  523. Marc Montoni

    I’ve said my piece. On some things, Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner are simply full of it. And I will leave it at that.

    Meanwhile, while these geniuses are fighting over the carcass, there is a wholesale attack on the right of association going on in the same state, it seems neither of the OR LP’s have made an issue of it — despite the fact that Libertarians in Oregon have a unique standing to participate in the debate.

    Even non-Libertarians appreciate the Libertarian position on the issue; yet Libertarians everywhere have been mostly silent about it.

    Libertarians used to be ideological trailblazers. So many of our early spokesmen giddily reveled in being at 1 or 2% in the polls — because they realized it gave us the absolute freedom to speak unabashed truth to power.

    Now, we fight over scraps.

  524. Thomas L. Knapp

    The better comparison would be whether or not the Supreme Court reconsiders prior Supreme Court decisions. And it does. The Court may decide something one time, and later another case comes up and it reverses its prior decision.

    What it doesn’t do is just say “hey, let’s go dig up Lochner and re-think it.” There are rules. The plaintiff has to have standing. Appeals have to be timely.

    In this case, a party without standing filed its complaint long after the 30-day window for doing so would have closed even if the party HAD had standing. Yes, they came up with a bullshit story to bring it into that window, but that bullshit story was clearly a bullshit story.

    The equivalent would be someone popping up today claiming to be William Marbury and demanding that the Supreme Court reverse his “constructive non-commission” as Justice of the Peace in DC because even though that case was settled in 1803, he suddenly noticed last week that he wasn’t getting the paycheck he thought he was entitled to. Since William Marbury is clearly dead, the guy wouldn’t have standing, and since the case is 212 years old, not actually from last week, it wouldn’t be timely. So for John Roberts to assert that Marbury v. Madison is up for reconsideration on that basis would be, like I said, a bullshit story.

  525. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I agree with you Dave. And the only good course of action I see here is this.. and it isn’t going to happen. The LNC refuses to recognize this decision as improper due to res adjudicata and bias and affirms the 2011 JC decision. This will not happen, but this would put the LNC on the high ground and is the best hope for resolving this dispute amicably as possible. Individuals can have their own opinions (and the LNC itself can have its own opinion on the merits) but it isn’t its decision.

    Marc, are you surprised? Libertarians are too chickenshit to touch this issue though it is a fundamentally basic right. National won’t touch. I’m not surprised Oregon wouldn’t either, but for all the cock-crowing here about how fundamentalist they are now, you would think so. I am utterly disgusted with the official Libertarian cowardice on this. And Gary Johnson denies freedom of association, so what do we expect… never mind the redefinition of aggression by another candidate.

    Forget the infighting, it is this kind of stuff that if I ever walk away will be the reason. Libertarians too big of cowards to be libertarian on a hot issue. It is this issue that makes me seriously consider NOTA.

  526. paulie

    What it doesn’t do is just say “hey, let’s go dig up Lochner and re-think it.” There are rules. The plaintiff has to have standing. Appeals have to be timely.

    In this case, a party without standing filed its complaint long after the 30-day window for doing so would have closed even if the party HAD had standing. Yes, they came up with a bullshit story to bring it into that window, but that bullshit story was clearly a bullshit story.

    Reconsideration of the 2011 decision was not on the basis of the Epstein petition. It coincided, but the Epstein petition was denied. Reconsideration was based on M’s interpretation of Roberts to say that the JC cn reconsider any prior decision it ever made, no matter how much time had passed, without anyone bringing a new petition. According to this logic, this “reconsideration” could have happened even if there had been no Epstein petition.

  527. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Let’s get them to reconsider the reconsideration and then to reconsider the reconsideration of the reconsideration and…..

  528. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Libertarians “giddiily reveling”– don’t know why but that makes me smile

  529. Marc Montoni

    Forget the infighting, it is this kind of stuff that if I ever walk away will be the reason. Libertarians too big of cowards to be libertarian on a hot issue. It is this issue that makes me seriously consider NOTA.

    Unfortunately, Caryn, this is just the way politics is. These debates have been around since the beginnings of the movement. “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

    That’s the case, even within the Libertarian Party, and even within the movement.

    I thought the AZ fiasco was going to be enough to destroy the LP; but it’s still here. I honestly do not know if the LP will survive the combined effect of declining revenues and membership levels, on top of more lawsuits in this Oregon mess. I hope it will, but we will see.

    One fact is clear: Wagner continues to cast blame on people who both are powerless to stop what is happening, and who had no part in creating the conditions he opposes. Collective punishment — which is what he’s calling for with his repeated threats to make the LNC or the national LP (meaning: the general membership and donors) pay — is just evil.

    The LP is the best recruiting tool the overall libertarian movement has, bar none. We engage in wholesale education of the mass market. All other libertarian movement organizations recruit on a far smaller scale. If Mr Wagner does succeed in shutting down the LP, there WILL NOT be anything to replace it in that role.

    Paulie summed all this up pretty well:

    Different people with different motivations…. For some it’s because they are friends and factional allies of Burke and want many of the same things on the national level that he does. For some it’s becase they believe it is a matter of principle, because they believe the Burke/Reeves side followed the 2009 bylaws and the Wagner side didn’t. For some, they don’t really care about any of that, they just see how hostile Wagner is to them, as far as they know or understand unprovoked. Most probably wish the whole thing would just go away.

    It was Wagner’s open hostility that drove me from being pretty much 100% in his corner (I supported seating his delegation, and so on) to being in the “both sides are seedy” camp. He has continuously made statements blaming LP members in general (and that includes me) for having to fight his war.

    Problem is, I’ve actively opposed, with my votes and statements, all of the people who have been attacking the Wagner faction.

    The fact that other LP members have outvoted me is not my fault.

  530. Marc Montoni

    Caryn said:

    I have had a private correspondence where I was challenged on disaffiliation saying there was no cause.

    Your correspondent would say that only if he thinks Robert’s Rules overrides the LP bylaws.

    Which it doesn’t.

    Affiliation is at-will. All it should take is a 50% + 1 vote to disaffiliate or reaffiliate, regardless of whether there is cause or not. The bylaws do not require any cause.

    Those who suggest — because “cause” and a formal hearing and a trial and a right of appeal and all sorts of additional bureaucracy are all in Robert’s — showing cause is a legitimate requirement are also (strangely) people who deny the right of national to charge a floor fee because it’s NOT in the LP bylaws.

    I prefer consistency.

    National LP should be free to affiliate and disaffiliate at will if an affiliate is no longer loyal to the national party. And yes, ballot access should follow national’s affiliation.

    The law is generally an ass, and anyone who uses its vagaries to convince me of their position might as well tell me Prohibition is just.

  531. George Phillies

    Montoni is not right in the prior remark. The Bylaws say “The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.” The Bylaws do require a cause.

  532. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The bylaws do not require any cause.”

    Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, and please accept a complimentary copy of our home game.

    “The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, FOR CA– USE, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee.”

    Emphasis mine.

  533. Marc Montoni

    By the way, Carling’s inability to remain at arms’ length from questions he had a direct interest in has been well-established for several years now. I posted the below summary of the Credentials Committee meeting on May 2, 2012:

    The Credentials Committee just decided to seat the Reeves delegation, partially with the promise the Reeves group made to seat with their delegation as many Wagnerians as they have opoen seats for.

    M Carling, one of the aggrieved parties in the Oregon dispute, voted with the majority.

    The vote was as follows:

    Ayes:

    Gary Johnson – TX
    Joan Coleman
    Scott Lieberman
    M Carling

    Nays:

    Steve Linnaberry
    Vicki Kirkland
    Emily Salvette

    Carla Peeler, an alternate, was not seated and did not vote.

    Mark Bodenhausen abstained.

    I left the meeting with one very clear impression: Emily Salvette did a great job as CC chair under extremely difficult conditions and high emotions, and was exceedingly fair.

  534. Marc Montoni

    Phillies said:

    Montoni is not right in the prior remark. The Bylaws say “The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.” The Bylaws do require a cause.

    Yep, sometimes I do get it wrong.

    And Knapp, you could be less of an ass.

    Nevertheless, I favor an at-will relationship.

    I’m consistent about it, as well. A similar issue came up a couple of years ago in Virginia, where a local affiliate had elected officers who were campaigning for Republicans. At the time the affiliation relationship was at-will; however, despite years of this behavior, the state committee refused to act and one member insisted on (essentially) formal charges and a public trial. Last year we added a “for cause” provision.

    And my position was then and is now that if we weren’t willing to do anything when the relationship was at-will, we definitely won’t do anything when severing it requires 18 steps of bureaucratic wrangling. That would require piling even more on people who are already predisposed to be eager to end normal 3-hour meetings; asking them to instead sit through a contentious, disputed 6-hour meeting and forever afterward be known as part of a group that had to do something (gasp) controversial.

    If there was a way to ensure absolute paralysis, “for cause” is it.

  535. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc,

    I can see advantages and disadvantages to an at-will relationship. To be honest, it’s what we have now anyway, since nobody seems to take the “cause” requirement seriously. Much less in the way of extended messing around on any given instance is the advantage. The likelihood of continuing musical chairs is the disadvantage.

    And then there’s the whole problem of who owns what. I’m not sure you’d favor an at-will relationship if that came with acknowledging that each state LP owns its name and ballot line and that those go with it when the relationship ends.

  536. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Marc, you have worded what I have been trying to say a million times better than I. His bloodlust is misplaced and utterly wrong and is unlibertarian aggressive threats. And liberty suffers.

    And there are such differing motivations. I do not think what he did was legitimate. In any way. I have made that clear. YET, I still say that the LNC overstepped its bounds. Because of the way I read the bylaws. I would think this even if I thought the Reeves faction DID follow the rules, this in my view, is not the LNC’s place. They can express their opinion through disaffiliation. They certainly can have an opinion. And perhaps even with the precedent of that 1995 LNC letter, they are entitled to issue an advisory opinion.

    And this post-coitus rage he has is so cringeingly wrong. In one way, I want to find reason to believe the LNC has the right to make this declaration because saying they don’t feels too much to me like cowing to threats. A person can start with some modicum of righteousness (I do think his group has revived the LPO and got them doing productive things and they do apparently have the support of registered OR Libertarians… though I would note, that his jettisoning of the pledge was totally illegitimate and who knows how many of these OR Libertarians would certify the pledge? if weeded out between those that would and those that would not, the approval rating might be much lower… we do not know)…. well they can start with some rightness and make themselves utterly wrong by subsequent actions.

    You are right. His threats include me, and I did nothing. I am too new to have done anything other than exist in the LP and in the short amount of time I have been involved to do a lot of work. The fact that I am cordial and friendly with everyone I can be in the LP, and welcome open communication with anyone, is probably enough to doom me.

    As far as the law being an ass…. no argument from me, but I still think these are the rules of the game, and we had the opportunity in our bylaws to overcome that, and we *chose* not to. Thus, in this, and the autonomy of the affiliates, the LNC is restricted in its decisions regarding the state affiliates to the vagaries of the state law. And no Prohibition isn’t just, but if we voluntarily affiliate with a business that organized under a license of the state and who’s existence depends upon that license… well we have subjected ourselves to that. And that,due to the state, is the price of political admission. We don’t like it…and that is kind of the point of the political involvement for a Libertarian, isn’t it? We are suing the PDC right now to follow the vagaries of the law aren’t we (yes I know some don’t agree with the suit)

    On the “at will” preference… it is a voluntary arrangement, I don’t care what is agreed to, and from the point of the view of an affiliate, the “cause” provision keeps the LNC from interfering with the autonomy of the affiliates with threats of disaffiliation because they simply would prefer the affiliate to do something else.

    And I thought we were saving calling each other asses for the convention?

    George, that is the rub. It is all about WAGNER when it comes to Wagner. The world revolves around him. I suppose I am not on his “side” because I think what he did was completely illegitimate (with a narrow exception to cure a quorum issue). As far as his views on the direction of the Party, I agree. I want to yank it hard libertarian-wise rather than the conservatish route it is on now. But I don’t believe in illegitimate affiliate take-overs and especially do not believe in disenfranchising members. By anyone. A good end goal doesn’t cleanse it to me.

  537. Marc Montoni

    Tom your whole argument centers around the fact that the ballot line goes with whichever arm of the Party state law specifies.

    I disagree with you.

    As stated, the law is an ass.

    If you want to fall back on the law, then you should also acknowledge that trademark is also the law, and that if state parties legitimately own the LP ballot line, then the national party also legitimately owns its trademark.

    Personally I’d favor getting rid of both laws. In the meantime, efforts should be made to establish ownership of name and ballot lines via contract.

    Going back to the example in Virginia, had the state committee disaffiliated the local chapter, under Virginia law, the state party would still retain all rights to its ballot line.

    Using your argument, the affiliate actually owns the LP ballot line in its claimed jurisdiction, thus the state party would no longer have any rights in that area.

    I would not agree with that.

    I guess let a thousand flowers bloom and all that, but that would be an idiotic outcome and it would make party identification meaningless.

    I suppose if your aim is to eliminate the limited-but-still-useful information that party affiliation gives to the average voter, then disrupting the proper order of ballot ownership is just fine.

    In my opinion, ballot line ownership begins with the national party, and is granted to state and local parties. They have no claim to the reverse.

    A split as in Oregon or Arizona has threatened Viginia in the past; for that matter, I think every state party has stared at the abyss at one time or another in its history. But if it had happened in Virginia, I would not be threatening “the nuclear option”. I’d wait until the idiots simply exhausted and visited ruin on themselves, and left.

    The most proper response to the LP no longer serving your purpose is to start a competing political party, building your own database and gaining your own ballot access by your own independent and legitimate efforts. Doing anything less is unethical.

  538. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Marc

    ==The most proper response to the LP no longer serving your purpose is to start a competing political party, building your own database and gaining your own ballot access by your own independent and legitimate efforts. Doing anything less is unethical.===

    Nailed it again. I said it earlier when I said I have been there- I was treated badly at a successful forum I vokunteered for – lies plots the whole nine yards- I made my dramatic exist with a small group of supports and we torched the place! No, actually we took our bitterness and our balls and built a new one– still successful. I could have plotted and destroyed. We got our own software, operating manuals, protocols, content and members.

  539. Wes Wagner

    The trademark claims are unenforceable. My understanding is that the trademark is filed on the logo – not the word “Libertarian” (which would be an R mark if it exists and they don’t advertise it on everything) – on top of that the prior art issues are legion, and on top of that I have twice asked them to defend their alleged trademark in Oregon in writing and they declined to do so.

  540. LibertyDave

    You people who are arguing who owns ballot access are funny.

    Ballot access doesn’t belong to the state party or national party it belongs to the state and the state is the sole entity that decides who has access.

    That’s why some states its supper easy to get ballot access and other states its almost impossible.

    So instead of wasting time arguing who owns ballot access, just ask the ballot access experts who will get ballot access for the next election in Oregon. They will tell you that it will be the Wagner group regardless what the National party does. The Reeves group could also have ballot access if they and the National party want to spend enough money to get the petitions that will be needed.

  541. paulie

    How would national win a trademark case, when LPOR existed prior to any affiliation with national? Seems like a non-starter to me.

  542. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Marc: trademark is also the law …. then the national party also legitimately owns its trademark.

    NO. The one does not follow the other.

    Just because trademark law is law, does not mean the LP owns its trademark.

    Courts have already determined that state parties own their ballot line.

    No court has yet determined that the national LP’s trademark is valid under trademark law.

    I studied trademark law back in law school. I don’t have space here to give you a lesson. But the state parties’ claims to their ballot lines are legally strong. The LP’s claim to its trademark is legally weak.

    That’s the law. Too bad if you don’t like it.

  543. Andy

    How is any of this bullshit that is going on in the LP of Oregon advancing the Libertarian Party and movement?

  544. Marc Montoni

    By that logic, these statements work also:

    “Prohibition: Too bad if you don’t like it.”

    “Cop as Executioner: Too bad if you don’t like it.”

    Stealing your property for a factory: Too bad if you don’t like it.”

  545. Steve Scheetz

    OK, most of the discussion I have been sifting through revolves about who was right and who was wrong.

    I am wondering what the outcome of the Judicial Committee meeting was. Currently I am not hearing anything yes or no, therefore I am wondering if that means they decided to not meet and simply forget about the whole thing given what was coming in they continued their farce.

    Anyway, I would really like to know what happened, because that answer will tell me what is GOING to happen.

    Steve Scheetz

  546. Mark Axinn

    >the Nicholas Sarwark Memorial Margarita Machine at the national headquarters.

    Now that’s something we can all agree upon. In fact, I think we should get a movement out to send some of them to the affiliates too.

    NF’s comment was good, but it can’t top my comparison of Sam Sloan to a case of herpes.

    I hope this is comment 1000!!

  547. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc,

    I do not think that ballot lines and party names belong to the state parties BECA– USE of state law.

    I think that ballot lines and party names belong to the states because the state parties existed before the Libertarian National Committee. It is their instrument, not vice versa.

    And yes, I acknowledge that copyright law is law even though I don’t agree with the concept of “intellectual property.” But even under that law, fraudulently registered copyrights that claim a property right in names that were already in use by other entities before the entity claiming them existed are not valid.

  548. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I have a question about this quorum crisis requirement. It has been said here that the Reeves contingent sneaked in RONR in order to change the quorum requirement under the radar without mentioning this would do that. That is kinda a shaky theory- couldn’t anyone have looked it up? Anyways….

    Wasn’t the quorum issues rather caused, at least in part (totally correct me if I am wrong, I obviously have put out an open request here for information and multiple people have privately contacted me to provide some) by a Wagner led change restructuring the convention? And this change led to the drastic quorum change? How could the Reeves people have a crystal ball to know that this structuring would take place so that a quorum crisis would result?

  549. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Also after that bylaws rewrite which had to be done under emergency powers to fix the quorum issue (starting to seriously doubt this was such an emergency but grant IF it were that emergency powers might be warranted)— did the first convention after this re-write make quorum?

    IOW, did the ostensible catalyst for the coup (and I think we all know that is a pretext and I have called bullshit on the rest of it) — was the quorum issue even fixed? Was quorum made? I understand it was not.

  550. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    If only it was as simple as looking it up. But it isn’t. This relates to the pre-2011 history of the Starr/Mattson/Carling antics.

    Sometime in the early 2000s, there was suddenly a lot of talk about parliamentary procedure, and Carling and Mattson (at least) got themselves certified as “professional parliamentarians.” Then they started inserting themselves into various questions, declaring in any given controversy that their interpretation of RONR came down on whatever side of any issue they were on.

    In their visit to Oregon prior to the split, they basically told LPO that it was doing things wrong because RONR said this and RONR said that. Were they right? I haven’t studied that particular incident carefully, so I don’t know. But I do know how they use RONR, and here’s one example:

    The national bylaws carefully lay out what one has to be or do to be a national convention delegate. It is an all-inclusive list in format: If a qualification is not listed, then any demanded qualification is not CONSISTENT with it. If you meet those qualifications, you’re a delegate. If you don’t, you’re not. It does not allow for an ad hoc rule to be added, i.e. “must dye one’s hair pink” or “must at all times keep a live peregrine falcon on one’s shoulder;” therefore, no additional such rule can be imposed. And it does not provide for assessment of a poll tax (“registration fee”) to serve as a delegate.

    Up until 2012 (IIRC — it may have been 2010), the obvious, correct, and universally understood interpretation of those bylaws was that no such poll tax was allowed. The convention organizers could try to sell you a package with various perqs at the convention, but they couldn’t force you to buy it as a requirement for being a delegate.

    Then it suddenly became an issue, it got sent to the Judicial Committee, and the SMC argument was that since RONR’s section on conventions/meetings credentialing processes mentions, in passing and without elaboration, “payment of the registration fee,” that such a fee can be assessed no matter what the bylaws say. They won that round, but hopefully the next case of such a bylaws-forbidden poll tax being imposed will be appealed yet again.

    So: I wouldn’t put much stock in what M Carling or Alician Mattson say about the content of RONR. When they want something the bylaws say they can’t have, they go looking through RONR trying to find some way, any way, to get whatever it is they want, and they don’t give a tinker’s damn whether or not their logic actually holds up.

  551. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom

    Lol at must dye one’s hair pink

    And I realize these issues which iny questions I have stayed away from – just dealing with the claims made here.

    I get that the insertion of RONR is a sore spot and people think there was out if state meddling. On that point I agree… No good ever comes of that.

    But Wagner said they inserted RONR conveniently not mentioning this changed quorums considerably— but did it change quorums considerably if the convention composition was not changed? Wagner led for a change in the convention composition AFTER RONR was “inserted”- arguably it was his responsibility to realize this would jack up the quorum? There is an issue about gaming the timing of that meeting too- but I accept those as political games played—- on both sides.

  552. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I avoided the poll tax issue- totally ignorant on that controversy and have my hands full.

    I really want to pin this quorum thing down as I have two conflicting sets of narrative – or actually maybe they don’t actually factually conflict- it is the interpretation that does.

    I have very serious concerns about people being involved in OR’s business also being involved in these decisions— I am not ignoring that-

  553. George Phillies

    Steve, TheJudicial Committee overturned their 2011 decision, dismissed the Epstein petition, and adjourned. The 2011 decision overturned the 2011 LNC ExComm vote that recognized Mr. Reeves by name as the LPOR chair, Mr. Saub by name as the LPOR Vice Chair, etc.

  554. George Phillies

    The point of having rules is to use them to advance the organization’s business, as opposed to the point of the organization being to figure out how to apply rules no matter whether they advance or retard the organization’s business. Miss Harlos, you completely miss this basic point, so the rest of your gazillion words — not to mention the pree-2011 events that you are ignoring — are fairly pointless.

  555. Richard P. Burke

    Carol,

    I have neen reading this thread and admire your desire and ability to examine this issue independently and critically. Moreover, I appreciate your ability to disagree with people without maligning them and your ability to maintain a high level of decorum. It does not bother me that you regard yourself to be in an “opposing faction” from my perspective because you are consistently civil. The party needs more of that. Thank you.

    IPR is a forum dominated by people who belong to a particular faction of libertarians. Most of the people I work with are not a part of this faction and simply don’t post here. Most of them don’t even read it. It is therefore not surprising that it is a biased venue. Respectfully, while not your fault I think some of your current opinions may have been colored by this.

    Yesterday, I made an detailed attempt to correct some of the “statements of fact” which have been made and attempt to correct some errant assumptions people have been operating on. They are legion. Unfortunately, my post was rejected because it exceeded this board’s maximum length and was sibsequently lost.

    I don’t have the energy or desire to reconstruct it, but am willing to interact with you privately and answer whatever questions I can. If you choose to do so you are free to share our correspondance. I don’t really want to do it here because of the threats and abuse I typically get, particularly (it seems) when I make a point. In this respect, the loss of my post of yesterday could be for the best. My email is rpbcomm@gmail.com.

    But I will say this now:

    1. I am not evil. Likewise, I am not a Republican plant and there is no Republican conspiracy to take over the LPO. I can see why those who see black helicopters everywhere might get that idea, but such is not the case.

    2. That said, I acknowledge that my hands are not pristine. I’ve made mistakes. I have occasionally been quite machieavellian, and there are some moves I would take back if I could. But I have always functioned within the bounds of the LPO constitution and bylaws. None of the charges Wagner has made against me with respect to theft, forgery, and much more ever survived examination by LP committeescand government entities charged with doing so.

    3. I don’t really give a damn who our leaders are, at least not any more than is typical for one who is politically active. Sure, we didn’t like it when Wagner and his friends led the LPO legitimately and didn’t like it at times when we lost political battles. But we accepted it organized for the next time. That is how our organization is supposed to work. Mr. Wagner and his supporters have historically failed to do likewise. Since 2006, they have consistently turned to lawsuits, harassment, defamation, intimidation, and have even attempted to co-opt the force of the state to achieve their goals when frustrated at convention or the State Committee.

    4. Those of us on the Reeves side make no claim of perfection. But we have gone to great lengths to abide by the governing documents approved by LPO members at properly noticed conventions. I truly believe that the State Committee meeting held at the conclusion of the May 21, 2011 LPO Annual Convention session was valid and that we met the 20 percent quorum requirement laid out in the bylaws.

    5. The above notwithstanding, this is not about Wagner, myself, or any other individuals. It is about whether or not it is possible for a single person within the LPO, in this case the “Chair of Record,” to arbitrarily write governing documents, make up officer lists, redefine the membership, eliminate the NAP requirement, attempt to impose all of this on the membership by mis-applying statute in an attempt to co-opt the force of the state to acieve a political goal, attempt tobwhitewash all of this with an illegal mail ballot, arrange for the filing of official documents with the state which he himself acknowledges were not adopted in accordance with our governing documents, and effectively disaffiliate the LPO which has continually existed since 1972 in favor of his organization.

    If one chair can do all of this, the next chair can do it too and turn it all around. Or in some other weird direction. After all, if Wagner prevails, what is to stop a future chair from doing the same thing? Watching the LPO struggle with this, the Oregon GOP feared that they might suffer the same fate when they found themselves on the verge of ousting their state chair, Suzanne Ghallager, who was looking for a way to hold onto power. She ultimately stepped down, but this, and some whacky correspondance between Wagner and Ghallager’s replacement, is what caused the GOP to write an amicus brief in support of our lawsuit.

    Anyway, if one person has this power, no member will ever know with any degree of certainty, what their membership status is, what their rights and responsibilities as a member are, how the organization functions, or what the purposes and direction of the organization are.

    Apart from close circles of belligerents and their supporters, few members will invest their time, talent, or money in such an organization. Nobody wants to invest in unpredictability, and the base of donors to the LPO (either LPO) have shrunk dramatically.

    Wagner and others argued that his coup was justified because of the lack of a quorum clause in our bylaws. It therefore represents the height of irony that, at their last convention in April, Wagner’s organization failed to make quorum.

    Anyway, this is why we are fighting. This is why we don’t quit. I have no doubt that if we gave up and entered Wagner’s organization, it would be redefined as soon as we made enough traction to make Wagner and his friends uncomfortable. That is no way to build a stable and enduring organization capable of supporting the candidates we nominate. That, ultimately, is what we are fighting for.

    I realize that I have been a polarizing figure in Oregon. That in itself does not make me wrong here. So as things stand now, if we prevail, I intend to back out of a leadership role to facilitate the introduction of new faces and deny my opponents a rallying post.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian party of Oregon

  556. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    RRO was not “inserted” into the special convention of 2010. RRO has been incorporated into our bylaws since before I joined the party in 1990.

    The quorum issue, created by the lack of a quorum clause in the bylaw amentment proposals introduced by Wagner in 2007 (which turned our conventions from assemblies of delegated to an assembly of members), was not detected until 2010.

    The close examination of our bylaws in 2010, which resulted in the discovery of a quorum problem, was prompted by an attempt by Wagner, Jeff Weston, and their supporters to bar new members from participating in the special convention because they feared the new members would not vote their way. This followed closely on the heels of an attempt by Wagner’s group to unilaterally terminate the memberships of lifetime LPO members, an action which was overturned by the Oregon Judcomm.

    Together, these two acts of disenfranchisement invoked the concern of the LNC, many members of which feared that the rights of national party members were being arbitararily violated by their state affiliate. The folks from the LNC, including Rachel Hawking who supported Wagner’s objectives, did not impose rulings and did not participate in debate. They answered questions where they could before the special convention, and Mark Hinkle spoke about people working together, but they came as observers wanting to see that the rights of national party members were respected. All rulings were made by LPO chair Jeff Weston.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  557. paulie

    The quorum issue, created by the lack of a quorum clause in the bylaw amentment proposals introduced by Wagner in 2007 (which turned our conventions from assemblies of delegated to an assembly of members), was not detected until 2010.

    Assuming this is accurate, what was “inserted” was not Roberts Rules (RONR) itself but the interpretation under which the then-current bylaws were reinterpreted to make quorum virtually impossible, an interpretation that at least some people dispute is even accurate.

  558. Wes Wagner

    People seem to trust the current organization enough that we fielded a record number of partisan candidates in 2012, and then again in 2014… and likely will again in 2016.

  559. Thomas L. Knapp

    Precisely.

    The purpose of a parliamentary authority such as RONR is to facilitate an organization’s operations by lending structure to its meetings and decision-making processes. In the usual case, such as the LNC, it applies only in cases “consistent with” the organization’s bylaws.

    Parliamentary authorities can be used as weapons of debate/decision-making warfare, and I wouldn’t go so far as to say they never should be. Things like moving the previous question to end debate, appealing a ruling of the chair, etc. are sometimes wise tactical moves regardless of the merits of either side’s case.

    But SMC has turned RONR exclusively into a weapon of decision-making warfare. Whenever the normal and obvious application of a set of bylaws would produce a result they don’t like, they dig into RONR looking for a hook to hang the result the do like on. They use it to frustrate, rather than to facilitate, the operations of the LNC, the national convention, and sometimes state affiliates.

    The LNC and the state parties might be wise to adopt a simpler parliamentary authority, like the Standard Code, which is less vulnerable to such exploits.

  560. paulie

    IPR is a forum dominated by people who belong to a particular faction of libertarians. Most of the people I work with are not a part of this faction and simply don’t post here. Most of them don’t even read it.

    That’s unfortunate. You all are welcome to participate here. I understand why virtually no one wants to do it without the other and be badly outnumbered, though.

    Respectfully, while not your fault I think some of your current opinions may have been colored by this.

    Caryn has been talking to people from your side on email. I guess more of them read IPR, at least some of the time, than you realize. Your side has been laid out in many past IPR threads, and if someone (first hand or second hand) wants to lay it out in this one – whether to join the fray or not – that would be good. I could so it with some research, but I already am biting off more than I can chew.

  561. paulie

    Yesterday, I made an detailed attempt to correct some of the “statements of fact” which have been made and attempt to correct some errant assumptions people have been operating on. They are legion. Unfortunately, my post was rejected because it exceeded this board’s maximum length and was sibsequently lost.

    Sorry to hear that. I don’t see it in pending posts or spam.

    I don’t have the energy or desire to reconstruct it, but am willing to interact with you privately and answer whatever questions I can. If you choose to do so you are free to share our correspondance. I don’t really want to do it here because of the threats and abuse I typically get, particularly (it seems) when I make a point. In this respect, the loss of my post of yesterday could be for the best. My email is rpbcomm@gmail.com.

    I hope someone does reproduce the Burke side here, Caryn perhaps, so the other side can address it. I agree that threats and abuse are unfortunate.

  562. paulie

    I acknowledge that my hands are not pristine. I’ve made mistakes. I have occasionally been quite machieavellian, and there are some moves I would take back if I could.

    Too bad if you aren’t sticking around. I would be interested in knowing what you think those were.

  563. paulie

    The above notwithstanding, this is not about Wagner, myself, or any other individuals. It is about whether or not it is possible for a single person within the LPO, in this case the “Chair of Record,” to arbitrarily write governing documents, make up officer lists, redefine the membership, eliminate the NAP requirement, attempt to impose all of this on the membership by mis-applying statute in an attempt to co-opt the force of the state to acieve a political goal, attempt tobwhitewash all of this with an illegal mail ballot, arrange for the filing of official documents with the state which he himself acknowledges were not adopted in accordance with our governing documents, and effectively disaffiliate the LPO which has continually existed since 1972 in favor of his organization.

    If one chair can do all of this, the next chair can do it too and turn it all around. Or in some other weird direction. After all, if Wagner prevails, what is to stop a future chair from doing the same thing?

    The Wagner side denies that the reason the SOS ruled in their favor was solely because Wagner was the chair of record, just as there is an interpretation of the 2011 JC decision that says that while the ruling said it was in favor of the side recognized by the SOS, it was not solely because that side was recognized by the SOS – in other words, that these were just a way for the SOS and JC to refer to which side they were ruling for, not the sole reason why they made those rulings as your side suggests.

  564. paulie

    Wagner and others argued that his coup was justified because of the lack of a quorum clause in our bylaws. It therefore represents the height of irony that, at their last convention in April, Wagner’s organization failed to make quorum.

    The difference is that under the Wagner bylaws conventions don’t decide very much anyway. Most actual decisions are either made by mail ballot or by the board/exec comm, which is replaced by the board/exec comm itself, not the convention. By contrast, under prior rules and under the Burke/Reeves/Epstein rules today, conventions make most of the important decisions about the leadership, candidates and rules of the state party, just like in most other state LPs.

  565. paulie

    The 2011 decision overturned the 2011 LNC ExComm vote that recognized Mr. Reeves by name as the LPOR chair, Mr. Saub by name as the LPOR Vice Chair, etc.

    The latter, especially, could prove to be a problem…

  566. paulie

    but did it change quorums considerably if the convention composition was not changed?

    The change noticed or invented (depending on who you a