UPDATED: Libertarian Party Judicial Committee Issues Majority, Minority, and Concurring Opinions on Libertarian Party of Oregon Dispute

LP-OregonYesterday, we posted draft opinions obtained regarding the opinions issued by the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee on its Reconsideration of its ruling in the matter of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee. Links to the pdfs of those draft opinions are preserved at the end of this article. The final documents (including Minutes) were issued today and are reproduced here. A pdf copy of the complete file can be found here. No differences were found in the opinions with the exception of a date added to the Majority Opinion and the formatting change of the footnotes being moved to the very end of the document instead of following immediately after the Majority Opinion. We have retained the footnotes to follow immediately as previously reported for ease of reading. You can read our previous article on the decision of the Judicial Committee to reconsider its 2011 decision here.


Majority Opinion

In the related cases of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee and Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee

On July 23, 2015, we, the Judicial Committee of the national Libertarian Party, received from Ian Epstein an appeal of an alleged constructive disaffiliation of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Before considering the case of Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee, we look to our previous ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee.

On August 23, 2011, we heard the case of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee. On August 25, 2011, we issued a ruling in that case. According to Article 6.6 of our bylaws, the last day on which we could have issued a ruling was September 22, 2011, 30 days after our hearing.i On September 23, 2011, we amended that ruling, pursuant to the power of every committee to amend or rescind something previously adopted.ii

Our ruling of 2011, both as originally adopted (“We find that the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state, in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon.”) and as amended (“that the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s secretary of state”), suffers from a number of defects that have since become apparent.

  1. By subjugating our affiliates to the whims of government bureaucrats, our ruling of 2011 conflicts with the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party by bowing to the cult of the omnipotent state.
  2. Other than Judicial Committee rules of procedure, the Judicial Committee has no power to create new rules governing the Libertarian Party. In other words, we have no power to legislate from the bench. Article 18 of our bylawsiii reserves to the delegates assembled in convention the power to establish rules governing the Libertarian Party. However, we arrogated power by concocting a new rule allowing the secretary of state to determine the officers of our affiliates, a rule not found in our bylaws, and then used this concocted rule rather than our bylaws as the basis of our ruling in Wes Wagner vs the Libertarian National Committee.
  3. In Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, we set a dangerous precedent that an outgoing affiliate party chair who was not re-elected could cling to power by lying to the secretary of state.
  4. In Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, by granting the secretary of state rather than the members of each affiliate the power to determine the officers and bylaws of each affiliate, we violated Article 6.5 of our bylawsiv and abridged the autonomy of all our affiliate parties.
  5. A logical consequence of our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee is that the Libertarian National Committee is enjoined from recognizing affiliate parties in more than a dozen states in which the secretary of state does not recognize our affiliate as a political
    party.
  6. Another logical consequence of our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee is that in cases where one group has adopted our Statement of Principles and another group has not but is recognized by the secretary of state, the LNC is required to recognize the entity not in compliance with Article 6.2 of our bylaws.v
  7. Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee was an appeal of an alleged disaffiliation pursuant to Article 6.6 which only allows the Judicial Committee to “either affirm the National Committee’s revocation of affiliation party status or order reinstatement of the affiliate party.” Our bylaws do not give us the power to decide such an appeal any other way. We exceeded our authority by deciding the question using a concocted rule outside these two options provided for by our bylaws.
  8. We decided Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee by voiding a decision of the LNC. “… the action of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee was void, ….” The authority to void a decision of the Libertarian National Committee is granted to us by Article 8.12 of our bylaws, but only upon the “appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members.” We find no evidence of an appeal by either.
  9. The appellant in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee (Wes Wagner) did not represent an organization that had its affiliate status revoked. Accordingly, the Judicial Committee had no subject matter jurisdiction, per Article 6.6 and Article 9.2.a of our Bylaws.

Therefore, our August 25, 2011 ruling in the case of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, and as amended on September 23, 2011, is hereby rescinded.

Rescinding our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Those decisions foundvi that on May 21, 2011, Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.vii Therefore, common sense would indicate that any process that respects the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the March 2009 Bylaws until March 9, 2013 and the March 2013 Bylaws thereafter) should produce a legitimate successor to Tim Reeves as Chairperson.

Additionally, having rescinded Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee becomes moot. Accordingly, Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

September 13, 2015

i. “Failure of the Judicial Committee to rule within 30 days shall constitute an affirmation of the National Committee’s revocation of affiliate party status…”

ii. RONR (11th ed.) p. 305: “By means of the motions to Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted – which are two forms of the one incidental main motion governed by identical rules, the assembly can change an action previously taken or ordered.” pp. 306-07: “In a committee, these motions require a two-thirds vote unless all committee members who voted for the motion to be rescinded or amended are present or have received ample notice, in which case they require a majority vote.” In the case of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, there are currently no members of the Judicial Committee who voted in favor of the decision, therefore a majority vote is sufficient to rescind or amend with or without notice. Further, ample notice was given, therefore a majority vote is sufficient to rescind or amend regardless of the current composition of the Judicial Committee or how any members may have voted in 2011. p. 307: “In contrast to the case of the motion to Reconsider, there is no time limit on making these motions after the adoption of the measure to which they are applied, and they can be moved by any member, regardless of how he voted on the original question.” On September 23, 2011, we had the power to amend our decision of August 25, 2011, despite the fact that our power to decide the original question had expired. We still retain the power to amend or rescind that decision.

iii.“These Bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the delegates at any Regular Convention.”

iv. “The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other
committee of the Party, except as provided by these Bylaws.” (emphasis added)

v. “Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and file a
copy of their Constitution and/or Bylaws with the Party Secretary.”

vi. The requirement to credential is unavoidable. For the Libertarian Party to faithfully comply with its bylaws, it must know the identity of the affiliates, their officers, and at times the rules by which each affiliate operates.

  • The Party’s purposes in Article 3 require it to charter affiliate parties and support their candidates for public office.
  • Article 6 requires that there be no more than one state-level affiliate in a state and that entitles them and only their sub-affiliates to use the name “Libertarian Party,” so identifying the affiliate is important if two groups are claiming leadership and have different sub-affiliate parties.
  • Article 6.4 prohibits affiliate parties from endorsing members of other political parties in partisan elections; if the National Committee chooses to disaffiliate the affiliate for the actions of its officers, it needs to establish that those were indeed the officers, not some rogue group claiming such.
  • Article 8.4 limits a member of the National Committee to being a candidate of the party or an affiliate.
  • Article 8.8 allows a Regional Representative to be removed and replaced by an act of its affiliates or its chairs; if more than one person claims to be the chair of an affiliate, the National Committee’s credentialing process sorts that out.
  • Article 11 includes eligibility requirements for national convention delegates, dependent on the action of the affiliates and its officers; this requires that the Secretary be able to identify the chairs of affiliates to inform them of delegation allocations and the Credentials Committee needs to know from whom to accept delegate listings.
  • Article 12 mandates that the Platform and Credentials Committees be partially populated by appointees of top-ranking affiliates; this requires that the identity of the officers be known to determine whose word to accept regarding the identity of these appointments.

The aforementioned represents only a partial list of bylaws-related actions requiring credentialing by the National Committee and does not address numerous interactions among the National Committee, its staff, and affiliates that require establishing the identity of an affiliate and its officers.

vii. This is not the first time that the Libertarian National Committee needed to ascertain which set of claimants were the officers of an affiliate. For example, in 1995, two groups claiming to be the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon contacted the Libertarian National Committee. Because the Libertarian National Committee must be able to determine who is the chair of each affiliate any time a regional representative or regional alternate vacancy is to be filled, the Libertarian National Committee is required by Article 8.8 of our bylaws to be able to determine who is the chair of an affiliate party. After the Libertarian National Committee had reviewed all the submitted documents and considered the matter, National Chair Steve Dasbach wrote inter alia to all concerned, after citing the national LP bylaw articles which are now numbered 6.3 and 6.5:

Thus, under the national Bylaws, it is the responsibility of the LNC to ensure that there is only one affiliate party in any one state. In practice, this means that the LNC must be able to identify the membership of the state central committee. In making that determination, the LNC is expressly instructed not to abridge the autonomy of that affiliate party.

The governance of an affiliate party is determined by its constitution and/or bylaws. In the case of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Article IV Section 5 of its constitution establishes that “The Judicial Committee shall be the final body of appeals in all matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution, Bylaws, rules, or resolutions of the LPO, subject to a provision that a decision of the Judicial Committee may be overturned by a three quarters vote at the next convention.” The LNC recognizes the authority of the Judicial committee of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, as specified in its Constitution and Bylaws.

Thus, the Libertarian National Committee rather than seeking governmental determination of who our affiliate officers are, instead respected the autonomy of the Libertarian Party of Oregon by looking to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to ascertain the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.


Concurring opinion in the related matters of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee and Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee

For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee in 2011, I concur with the majority’s result to the extent it rescinds this Committee’s earlier ruling in this matter.

However, in that dissent I wrote that it “should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the Libertarian National Committee’s determination as to which organization it recognized as its affiliate in this matter.”

This Committee was not petitioned in 2011 to affirm the Libertarian National Committee’s findings that “Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.” Rather, our Committee was petitioned to determine whether Wes Wagner represented an organization that had its affiliate status revoked by the Libertarian National Committee. One can answer the latter question by deciding that the petitioner had not met his burden of persuasion without answering the former question. Exercising such restraint was my view back then, and it remains my view now. The questions are similar and related, but they are different questions. Therefore, I do not join in that sentence in the penultimate paragraph of the majority’s opinion. To that end, I also don’t join in the footnotes accompanying that sentence which, although interesting, go beyond what is necessary to rescind this Committee’s earlier ruling and dismiss the later petition.

Concomitantly, I don’t join in the following sentence either, which strikes me as unnecessary dictum.

I also concur with the majority’s decision to dismiss Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee as moot.
Rob Latham
September 12, 2015


Minority opinion on Libertarian Party Judicial Committee vote of August 15, 2015 to rescind 2011 decision regarding Wagner vs Libertarian National Committee September 12, 2015

In passing the motion to rescind the ruling of the Judicial Committee from 2011, the majority has introduced in 2015 the new threat of double jeopardy to the Judicial Committee appeals process.

Previously, if an individual had his or her membership revoked, or a state party had its affiliation revoked by the LNC, they could appeal to the Judicial Committee in a timely manner. If they won that appeal, they were “safe” with regard to the initial claim against them. With this 2015 vote to rescind a decision from a prior committee in 2011, the Judicial Committee has made clear that any LNC that wishes to override a Judicial Committee decision on an appeal need only gain a majority in the next Judicial Committee election, even with members of the LNC whose decision was overturned by the Judicial Committee, and rescind that earlier decision.

The majority had other options at their disposal to address the controversy over whether the LNC always should recognize a state party that is recognized by that state’s government (such as simply rejecting an appeal this year from Alabama based on a claim of state government recognition), but instead they opted to set the precedent that winning an appeal of a revocation of membership or affiliation can be rescinded by a subsequent Judicial Committee.

This dangerous new precedent, while extremely corrosive to the trust that the Party’s members place in the impartiality of the Judicial Committee, offers a simple remedy. A new Judicial committee could be elected at the next convention to reverse this double jeopardy precedent.

We regret that the Judicial Committee now has been politicized in this way, and we hope that future Judicial Committees will use more restraint and follow the Bylaws that clearly state that the Judicial Committee only may review appeals to actions taken by the LNC itself, thus refraining from reviewing decisions by prior Judicial Committees. The Judicial Committee ought to be a check on the power of the LNC, not a subsequent tool of the very LNC members whose actions were appealed and overturned.

The best outcome now would be for the delegates at the next Libertarian National Convention to pass a change to the Bylaws explicitly restricting the Judicial Committee to reconsidering or rescinding only decisions regarding appeals made in its own term. To change a precedent from a previous committee, any subsequent committee would have to hear a new and timely appeal of the same nature, not simply reconsider or rescind an appeal made to a prior committee.

Double jeopardy in the judicial process is a dangerous precedent to set, and not in line with Libertarian principles of limited executive and legislative power with strong checks and balances.

Submitted by Steven R Linnabary and Rob Power


Minutes of the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party 15 August 2015

Called to order: 16:07 EDT

Present (via Adobe Connect): Carling, Latham, Linnabary, Power, Sink-Burris, Visek, Wolf Absent: none

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 in order. The Chair ruled that the motion to 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.

A ruling will issue within 30 days.

Adjourned to the call of the Chair by unanimous consent. Adjourned: 18:32 EDT


Here are the links to the previously published draft documents:

Draft Majority Opinion

Draft Minority Opinion

Draft Concurring Opinion

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged , on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, as well as Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LPCO, LPRC, or LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

542 thoughts on “UPDATED: Libertarian Party Judicial Committee Issues Majority, Minority, and Concurring Opinions on Libertarian Party of Oregon Dispute

  1. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I believe the JC has misrepresented (perhaps not intentionally, just in my reading of the case) the prior situation in which National Chair Steve Dasbach wrote a “To Whom it May Concern” letter. You can find a copy of that letter here:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kWXFJbHpfY1g2M2M/view?usp=sharing

    I also find it somewhat Orwellian to claim that it is not breaching an affiliate’s autonomy by taking for itself the authority to interpret its bylaws, judge its elections, and not follow those same bylaws on resolving disputes (which is to go to the LPO’s own JC… which it didn’t have set up, but that is not the LNC’s role then to take the place of that).

    Very clever though to appeal to Libertarian emotion by invoking the “cult of the omnipotent state” when it fact, the state only has the power here which the VOLUNTARY organizations have left to it.

  2. Michael H. Wilson

    A bit of B.S. here. I has the chair of the LPO in 1995 dealing with the mess I see referred to here. I sent a detailed email to the national office but was told they never received it. Though some 20 years have passed I recall that the Oregon Judcom was improperly seated and I would have noted that in my email.In fact one of the committee members was locked out of the building. But as I mentioned national claimed to never have received that email.

  3. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Michael, even so, I think for someone just coming to it now (as I have) just reading that prior letter shows a major disconnect … I detailed it in another thread, but I am hoping someone here will do an independent analysis… in the multiplicity of analysis there is often wisdom.

  4. Steve Scheetz

    Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – – George Orwell

    I am somewhat saddened, though not surprised that it was George Phillies, and not the LNC or Judicial Committee who provided the ruling. I am also equally confident that the LNC will not do anything about this ahead of the convention, yet they will wonder why people are not donating money, or devoting resources to help raise the level of membership to the party in the wake of this ruling.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  5. Michael H. Wilson

    Caryn if you come up with any other letters regarding this please post them.

    Ad I thought I posted a comment on my writing error but if not here it be. In the first it should read I was chair…

  6. Wes Wagner

    The LP does not have enough influence or power to continue to exist as a corrupt organization, nor enough principles to exist when dependent upon the generosity of its members.

    I know how this story ends already.

  7. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes, sorry to disturb your dreams of bringing down what so many of us work for. But no.

  8. Guy Rosinbaum

    I sit on the board of 2 Libertarian PACs here in Oregon. We have registered over 100 voters in the last 6 months and we have raised a lot of money. I can guarantee that not one dime of it will go to national so long as this continues. You want to keep backing the Burke group, that’s fine, but just know that the majority of REGISTERED LIBERTARIANS will not be abiding by this decision. To put a fine point on this, don’t seat our delegates, we stopped caring.

    This is of course my opinion alone.

  9. George Phillies

    Readers may correctly assume that there was an extended transmission trail, but Caryn happened to ask me. As a minor correction, I am not sure where the judicial Committee is on formally announcing the result, other than ‘late’ under their rules.

  10. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George Phllies kindly sent me a concurring opinion, which I am adding to the post above.

  11. Wes Wagner

    The cult of the omnipotent LP will die, and eventually you will realize the mistake of believing in it Caryn … on that day you will be one step closer to freedom.

    The die has already been cast – however.

  12. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    LOL, Wes, it is pretty funny to say I believe in the cult of the omnipotent LP when I have disagreed with their decision. On different grounds then you for sure, but I have disagreed. However, I am determined to be an agent for the change I want to see.

    FYI, I have not heard further from Richard Burke. I will write him back next week since I seem to be the designated IPR Oregon writer right now:)

  13. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ==Readers may correctly assume that there was an extended transmission trail, but Caryn happened to ask me. As a minor correction, I am not sure where the judicial Committee is on formally announcing the result, other than ‘late’ under their rules.==

    Correct, and I so appreciative of you passing it on.

  14. George Phillies

    However, to compensate for the pain I inflicted in sending Caryn the decisions, I also sent her a copy of my novel Mistress of the Waves (science fiction, with spaceships and sailboats) in which the heroine advances by using the power of capitalism.

  15. Paul Duke

    Being a member of both the national organization and the now defrocked state affiliate, I have been left twisting in the wind as collateral damage and forced to decide where loyalties lie. Once again it is the little guys that pay the price and get lost in the shuffle.

    It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the underhanded meddling of both the Democrat and Republican parties. The last thing we need is being divided amongst ourselves. We need to be better than this, or what is the point?

    The fact is, the Wes Wagner group has been the only group I’ve seen that has been putting libertarians on the ballot in Oregon. I have never heard of, let alone ever been contacted by the Reeves group. I think the national party has done a great disservice to the libertarians of Oregon with this decision. I’ve been a Libertarian member for the last 10 years. I’m beginning to wonder if I made the right choice.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    So, if Tim Reeves is the current chair, until those charmers can elect a new chair, does that mean that Eric Saub is currently treasurer?

    Has anyone gone to the prison to inform him?

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    Caryn, Richard Burke’s comments here are usually just re-hashes of previous comments. Maybe coming up with a whole new story has been stressful for him.

  18. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    JC: By subjugating our affiliates to the whims of government bureaucrats … we arrogated power by concocting a new rule allowing the secretary of state to determine …

    Whims? Is every government decision a whim? If the police intervene to protect your property from a burglar, are they acting on a whim?

    The JC spouts a lot of vapid libertarian rhetoric, arguing that it’s “libertarian” to ignore the Oregon Secretary of State.

    HOWEVER, at the 2005 California LP convention, Aaron Starr submitted a new internal structure for governing the LPC, in order to bring the LPC into compliance with the California Secretary of State’s requirements for political parties.

    Some LPC delegates argued that the California Secretary of State had no right to tell the LPC how to govern itself. But Starr argued that the LPC is a state-recognized political party, and as such must be in compliance with the Secretary of State’s rules governing political parties.

    The new rules were passed.

    I realize that Starr is not on the JC. Even so, I wonder, since Aaron Starr insisted the California LP must bow to the Secretary of State’s rules, does he likewise believe the Oregon LP must bow to the Secretary of State’s rules?

    Or does Starr believe that one Secretary of State is legitimate authority, while another Secretary of State is a source of whims? If so, why the difference?

    It would be nice if, in the interests of consistency, Starr defended the Oregon Secretary of State’s authority, as he did the California Secretary of State’s authority in 2005.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    Ruling: By subjugating our affiliates to the whims of government bureaucrats, our ruling of 2011 conflicts with the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party by bowing to the cult of the omnipotent state.

    me: I’m sorry, did this article initially appear in THE ONION?

    Or have we finally found an actual source for the long-rumored blind worshipers of the idea that the government should be all powerful? The ringleader for the cult is, in fact, the Oregon Secretary of State.

    Who knew?! 😉

  20. Caryn Ann Harlos

    There is some really clever gamesmanship in here that I have a lot of thoughts on. I repeat what I said in the other thread- which tends to not make any side happy- that even though I disagree with the reason- it does not rise to me to be pitchfork and dagger mob-worthy. The opinions are not unreasonable, though I think they are wrong– but my reasons for thinking they are wrong are due to our voluntary rules- which have deficiencies. I do not think they are wrong because I think what Wagner did was proper. The right outcome as far as equity can be had the wrong way– and that does not sanitize the way as far as I am concerned.

    How this rescinding came to be though I think does rise to the “pitchfork” level of outrage and I hope the delegates react appropriately.

    I will be going over these texts bit by bit in my usual way– which I hope is helpful— but is probably just tedious. I hope others jump in because I always learn more and sharpen (or sometimes change) my opinion with that. My outside correspondents who wrote me before are welcome to do so again.

  21. Daniel Hayes

    As a current member of the LNC through my role as Alternate Representative for Region 7, I have yet to be given these “rulings” by the JC. So at this point as far as I am concerned…they don’t exist.

  22. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Well apparently they *do* exist:) BTW, in case it isn’t apparent. The titles of each of the decisions, majority, minority, and concurring… are all hyperlinks to the actual PDFs.

  23. Humongous Fungus

    What do the requirements for timely notice from the JC to the LNC say? For example, if only the Secretary of the LNC is informed, does that satisfy the requirements of notice?

  24. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Everyone will note that the PDFs do not say “draft” and that the Minority and Concurrent Opinions are dated 9/12/15. The Majority opinion does not appear to have a date.

  25. Dave Terry

    Guy Rosinbaum: Sep. 12, 2015
    > I sit on the board of 2 Libertarian PACs here in Oregon.

    Are you at liberty to tell me which 2 Libertarian PACs, here
    in Oregon, on whose boards you ‘sit’?
    .
    I also do not wish to help fund the brigands who were instrumental
    in helping to destroy the Libertarian Party of Oregon

    > We have registered over 100 voters in the last 6 months and we have raised a lot of money.

    Are these 100 new ‘registered’ libertarians ALSO dues paying members of the LPO?
    If NOT, where ELSE have you been soliciting funds from?

    > I can guarantee that not one dime of it will go to national so long as this continues.

    Ditto, back at you.

  26. paulie

    So, if Tim Reeves is the current chair, until those charmers can elect a new chair, does that mean that Eric Saub is currently treasurer?

    Has anyone gone to the prison to inform him?

    Saub was vice chair. I doubt he is in prison yet. Most likely in the county jail awaiting trial, given the speed with which these things move.

  27. Steve Scheetz

    “There is some really clever gamesmanship in here that I have a lot of thoughts on. ”

    I will post this again:

    Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – – George Orwell

    I do not find the choice of arguments to be clever. I found them wanting. The authors were desperate in their attempt to find some sort of Libertarian Principle to justify their decision to both “re-examine” (I have that in quotes, because it is obvious that at least some of these people have been waiting for a long time to be in a position to do exactly what they did here.) and reverse the decision of the previous JC.

    Their attempts to find verbiage that resembled Libertarianism were overshadowed by their completely missing the point of what Libertarianism is, what it stands for, and why the party exists in the first place. Were we to use their logic with everything involving the party, we might as well stop running candidates and forget about attempting to do anything within the electoral system.

    The JC’s language is blatant sabotage to the Libertarian Party across the board. There is nothing clever about that.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  28. Guy Rosinbaum

    Dave.

    Statements of Liberty is one of the PACs.

    Yes they are new registered Libertarian voters.

    No they will not be paying your fee’s.

  29. Steve Scheetz

    Paulie,

    Jail, Prison, whatever… He is behind bars for…. What was it that he did again? Fraud, Murder? I seem to recall an Oregon Judge informing him that he was a “pretty good con man..”

    If I wrote fiction, I could NEVER get away with writing this… NOBODY would believe me….

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  30. Guy Rosinbaum

    We don’t collect fee’s, taxes, or other tricks to fund our programs. We ask for and receive donations.

  31. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Steve, you and I are using “clever” differently. I found them clever… and manipulative, and in the manipulativeness… offensive. The wording of the prior JC decision, even if one were to disagree (and in reading Hall’s after-explanatory concepts) were not “bowing to the cult of the omnipotent state” and it is highly offensive to suggest that is what they were doing. One can disagree without mischaracterizing one’s opponents, so immediately that turned me off.

    Some people are wanting to turn this into a more “libertarianier than thou” issue…. and fine, but I am not, I am trying to see what our voluntary organization allows for. Perhaps in my stressing of the “voluntary organization” portion, I am pulling the same card… but I am not intending to.

    A few new ideas have occurred to me in pondering this and I want to do some research…. but perhaps someone here knows the answer.

    With the SoS of Oregon, are these entitles assigned a number, perhaps a FIN number? What are the two legal names of these two contending organizations? What is the date of incorporation of each?

  32. paulie

    Jail, Prison, whatever…

    There’s an important difference between being incarcerated while standing accused of crimes, due to lack of funds for bail or due to bail not being offered due to the serious of the charges on one hand, or being convicted of those major felonies on the other.

    What was it that he did again? Fraud, Murder?

    He was previously imprisoned for fraud, did his time and was released. Afterwards he claimed he turned over a new leaf, and was vice chair under Reeves. Some time after that he moved to the east coast and is currently facing charges of fraud, identity theft and murder. As far as I know he hasn’t been tried yet. He’s most likely being held to await trial because he is not wealthy and the charges are serious, so it’s unlikely he could afford to bail out even if bail is offered. It’s also not likely to have had the trial over and done, especially in a murder case, this quickly.

  33. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    So I am going to start piece by piece….

    This portion is intriguing:

    ==On August 23, 2011, we heard the case of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee. On August 25, 2011, we issued a ruling in that case. According to Article 6.6 of our bylaws, the last day on which we could have issued a ruling was September 22, 2011, 30 days after our hearing.i On September 23, 2011, we amended that ruling, pursuant to the power of every committee to amend or rescind something previously adopted.===

    This is not correct, and I think this is important. I would love to hear (but sure we cannot at this point) Sarwarks’ opinion on this. Here is the 9/23/11 document they are referring to:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kcXp1ZWIwQzVOT3M/view?usp=sharing

    This was NOT an amendment. It didn’t CHANGE a thing about the 8/25/11 ruling. It “clarified” the prior ruling. I may have to ponder this some more, but this seems like a blatantly wrong statement right from the get go and is … downright scandalous IMHO in what it is trying to do. Let me explain. It refers to footnote [ii] as follows:

    RONR (11th ed.) p. 305: “By means of the motions to Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted – which are two forms of the one incidental main motion governed by identical rules, the assembly can change an action previously taken or ordered.” pp. 306-07: “In a committee, these motions require a two-thirds vote unless all committee members who voted for the motion to be rescinded or amended are present or have received ample notice, in which case they require a majority vote.” In the case of Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, there are currently no members of the Judicial Committee who voted in favor of the decision, therefore a majority vote is sufficient to rescind or amend with or without notice. Further, ample notice was given, therefore a majority vote is sufficient to rescind or amend regardless of the current composition of the Judicial Committee or how any members may have voted in 2011. p. 307: “In contrast to the case of the motion to Reconsider, there is no time limit on making these motions after the adoption of the measure to which they are applied, and they can be moved by any member, regardless of how he voted on the original question.” On September 23, 2011, we had the power to amend our decision of August 25, 2011, despite the fact that our power to decide the original question had expired. We still retain the power to amend or rescind that decision.

    You see, what this JC is doing is trying to distance itself from the idea that it is doing something novel by saying “See! That JC did it too! They amended their decision after the timeframe elapsed! So we can do it too!”

    Harumph. This brings up several more issues that will need to be set aside to be examined later:

    1. As per Burke, he pooh-poohed my suggestion that this rescissions could go on indefinitely by stating it could only be done once. Well, here amendment and recession seem to be conflated…. and if it was already allegedly done once in 2011, why is it allowed again now?

    2. Something seems not quite right in the voting issues here and whether or not the former committee members needed to be involved.

    On both those issues RONR gives me the hives, and I am NOT a parliamentarian —- I am though going to go through those sections of RONR to see if I can make some sense of them.

    Will be moving on in the decision…. (skipped footnote [i] as it was uncontroversial it seems)

  34. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt, September 13
    So, if Tim Reeves is the current chair, until those charmers can elect a new chair, does that mean that Eric Saub is currently treasurer?

    So, Jill is this a new form of “collective guilt” that you are trying to hang around our necks?

    FYI:
    On March 21st for the LPO’s 2015 Annual Business Convention was held at the Red Lion hotel
    in Pendleton, Oregon. At this convention officers were elected, vacancies on the Judicial Committee were filled, and amendments to the bylaws were considered.

    Who Got Elected? Ian Epstein, a longtime Libertarian living in the Portland area, was elected as the LPO’s next state Chair. Tim Reeves, who served as the LPO’s state chair since 2011, was elected Vice-Chair. Richard Burke, the party’s 1998 nominee for governor and current public office holder, was elected Secretary, and GREG BURNETT WAS RE-ELECTED TO THE POSITION OF TREASURER. Eli Stephens, Nick Hazelton, and Steve Dodds were elected to fill vacancies on the LPO Judicial Committee, joining Mark Delphine.

  35. Dave Terry

    in response to Steve Scheetz:

    Paulie, Jail, Prison, whatever… He is behind bars for…. What was it that he did again? Fraud, Murder? I seem to recall an Oregon Judge informing him that he was a “pretty good con man..”

    Was this judge a Republican or a Democrat? It seems to me that both of those parties are well stocked with con men and apparatchiks! AND BTW what party are YOU affiliated with?

  36. Paul Duke

    “Who Got Elected? Ian Epstein, a longtime Libertarian living in the Portland area, was elected as the LPO’s next state Chair. Tim Reeves, who served as the LPO’s state chair since 2011, was elected Vice-Chair. Richard Burke, the party’s 1998 nominee for governor and current public office holder, was elected Secretary, and GREG BURNETT WAS RE-ELECTED TO THE POSITION OF TREASURER. Eli Stephens, Nick Hazelton, and Steve Dodds were elected to fill vacancies on the LPO Judicial Committee, joining Mark Delphine.”

    Interesting I never heard about that convention. I did, however, hear about the LPO convention on Saturday, May 4, 2015 and I’m pretty sure none of those people were on the ballot I voted with for election to those offices. Certainly I’ve never seen any candidates on general ballots from the Epstein group, so what exactly is it that they are doing? The JC sure has made a mess of this whole thing.

  37. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Going back to my prior comment…. RONR certainly allows for recession and there is no time limit. I think right now there is a dispute whether this even applies to a Judicial Committee. It would seem to run contrary to the entire purpose of a JC to do so. I would argue though that our Bylaws explicitly limit what our JC can do and the RONR is subject to the Bylaws and this would not be allowed.

    There is another wrinkle here…. and I again am completely ignorant of RONR and parliamentary niceties but let me throw this out there:

    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/roberts-rules-for-rescinding-or-amending-something.html

    YES I REALIZE THIS IS A SILLY ‘FOR DUMMIES’ book but it brings up an interesting point I also read in more complex RONR articles…. one cannot rescind a “done action” or things that have been acted upon (such as unpaint a building after it has already been painted or unring a rung bell) but that this also applies to elections and terminations.

    That concept is not entirely exact, but I think it is on point. If the prior JC ruled on an issue of disaffiliation, then its decision is analogous to ruling on an election or termination THAT HAS BEEN ACTED UPON.

    I may be really off base here, but it is something that occurred to me…. parliamentarians may proceed to tear to pieces.

  38. Joseph Buchman

    I agree with Daniel Hayes September 13, 2015 at 10:34 am

    “I have yet to be given these “rulings” by the JC. So at this point as far as I am concerned…they don’t exist.”

    I also think the word “Issues” in the headline is wrong. The JC has not, apparently “issued” anything.

    That said, I find George’s sources are typically highly credible and strongly suspect that these are indeed faithful copies of — what has not yet been formally “issued” or reported, etc.

    I would suspect there are communications going on between the LNC and JC to alter what has been reported here as having already happened. If I were on the LNC I would, for example, consider it my fiduciary responsibility to do just that.

    So as for me I am neither condemning the LNC over this (yet) nor assuming that what has been reported above will be the factual outcome.

    It’s something I fear, something that seems probably, but for now, nothing has been “issued” or reported out of committee as far as I can tell.

    Joe (I also think the headline should be corrected to reflect that, unless Daniel and I are mistaken in the opinion above)

  39. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Joseph Buchman,

    Duly noted, and I will edit accordingly and put in an explanatory note at the end.

  40. Jill Pyeatt

    And, Caryn, you’re already one of us! Congratulations on what may be the longest titile for an IPR article yet!

  41. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    If the LNC has not received them yet, the JC can always amend, so I amended the headline. I am positive the documents are genuine. Whether they are final or not is apparently in dispute, so I made that correction.

    I will note that that if not final… very sloppy form for the JC. Non-final drafts that can be “leaked” should be marked draft…. always, always, always. And not dated if not marked draft.

    I also note in the “Concurring Opinion” that the “Majority Opinion” is quoted. It would be hard to submit a final concurring opinion quoting a majority opinion that can change.

    It isn’t a secret who sent them…. we have spoke in this thread, it is George Phlliies. Who yes, I consider to be reliable. Where he got them is his business unless he chooses to reveal it.

  42. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Jill,

    ==And, Caryn, you’re already one of us! Congratulations on what may be the longest titile for an IPR article yet!===

    LOL… hopefully there won’t be more ‘revelations’

  43. Jill Pyeatt

    People need to remember that Libertarian leaders have personal lives (as do IPR writers). I received the same email that Phillies received, which he forwarded to Caryn. I knew the info was important and timely, but I simply wasn’t able to stop wat I was involved in to post an article until later that evening, and, in the meantime, Caryn put it up (thanks for that, BTW). That may be what the situation is with Sarwark. I saw photos on FB that indidcate to me that there were family goings-on with Sarwark. He may not have been in a postion to react yet.

  44. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Jill,

    Just a clarification…. I didn’t get any email forwarded by Phillies… he sent me the documents directly with no accompanying email. He and I do not know each other very well yet so he probably didn’t want to reveal his source. He also kindly sent me a fictional work (he spoke about above as consolation to be the one that got to post this).

    I posted it because I figured I was the designated Oregon victim being new… and being inordinately interested in this topic for some reason.

    It is my understanding that no one on the LNC (perhaps Alicia has, that I don’t know) has received these.

  45. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    All, I spoke with a parliamentarian who took me up on my offer to tear apart some points made above, and am chewing on what they said.

    On another note, does anyone have a copy of the Rules of Appellate Procedure that govern the JC as mandated by the bylaws?

  46. Nicholas Sarwark

    I have not received these documents from either the Judicial Committee or the Secretary of the Libertarian National Committee. I would note that the LNC Secretary is very diligent and has quickly forwarded other emails she has received from the Judicial Committee.

    And yes, my brother-in-law got married yesterday, but we were on the Eastern Shore since Thursday, with spotty cell phone and Internet service and no laptop. This coincided with some media inquiries, petition drive issues, drafting a press release on Campaign Zero, and a lawsuit related issue. Most of those things got handled, but I assure you that not addressing this is because I’ve still not been officially informed.

    If/when I am, then I will deal with it. At present, I need to deal with getting dinner and bathing the children. 🙂

  47. Wes Wagner

    There are discussions starting here about graciously accepting the judicial committee’s disaffiliation in spite of them not having the authority to initiate such proceedings and being hopelessly corrupt, and ending our relationship with the whole of the national party (who elected them) permanently.

  48. Steve Scheetz

    Caryn,Robert’s Rules are applied ONLY in the event that bylaws do not cover a specific item. At least that is how it works here in Pennsylvania. I am pretty certain that Henry, when he wrote his rules, did not anticipate people bastardizing them the way they have, in the dispute in Oregon.

    This being said, I was asked by a poster what party I am affiliated with. LOL To whomever I have to explain how to figure out my party affiliation… If I have to explain that to you, you are unworthy of knowing.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

    P.S. just copy and paste my name to the IPR search…

  49. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I am revising the above article to include the final documents right now. I will post a comment when it is updated. The links to the draft documents will be preserved for the reader’s review.

  50. jim

    “All, I spoke with a parliamentarian who took me up on my offer to tear apart some points made above, and am chewing on what they said.”

    How about posting it? I too want to see the Burke crew get their comeuppance.

  51. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Jill, it was an informal discussion and not in support of the points I made (not surprising since I know little to nothing about RONR). I have not posted yet since I am still thinking about what was said. I had made two points about recissuons:

    1. They couldn’t be used for completed actions or in cases of election/termination

    2. Our bylaws limit the scope of what our JC can hear and recissuons are not one of them

    The parliamentarian disagreed with me on both. I think I am so far sticking to my guns on point 1and in point 2 I am technically wrong – but I think right in spirit.

    I will post more on this, just want to think about it more and go through the decision.

  52. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I think when I do start posting on the decision, I am going to keep the separate posts in a word file so that I have my notes together in one spot when I am done. Not that anyone is all that interested except myself in my ramblings, it helps me, and help anyone trying to follow what the heck I am saying.

    Although I said this numerous times in the other monster thread, I was speaking with Paulie yesterday, and I think my differences with some commenters needs to be laid out here.

    My opposition to the 2011 LNC EC decision lies primarily on one thing. I do not believe they had the authority to make a binding determination on the identity of LPO’s officers or to be the final arbiter on LPO’s bylaws. That’s it. I actually believe they came to the right decision regarding the Wagner group, I just don’t think it was their decision to ultimately make (though they could have issued an advisory opinion— like the Dasbach LNC did). I do not yet have an opinion on whether they came to the right decision on the Burke group since Burke has yet to send me his supporting documents proving that his election wasn’t completely flawed as alleged.

    My support for the 2011 JC decision is on shakier grounds procedurally, though philosophically strong. I do believe that what the LNC EC did was breach the autonomy of the affiliate and effect a constructive disaffiliation. Neither of those things are absolutely directly in the authority of the JC…. but they pass. Disaffiliation is a JC topic, and certainly being “constructive” would not disqualify it (whether or not that actually happened is one of the points of dispute, and I fully see how reasonable men differ here), and that gets you to breach of autonomy as that is the *means* that was used to get to constructive disaffiliation.

    In short, I do NOT buy into the narrative that the LNC EC were just evil awful power hungry brokers who did everything obviously wrong. I don’t believe that. I believe they did do the wrong thing… and came to a right decision in part in equity…. but our bylaws do not allow for this. I understand what they did and why. And it wasn’t nefarious as far as I am concerned, but based on reason and logic. But went outside our rules. Rules can bind and constrict and lead sometimes to inequitable results, but unless our rules provide for this bending…. we need to change rules, not make them so malleable that others cannot trust us to follow them. (yes I know some people will say that is exactly the problem with the Wagner group! I agree! But the LNC is not the autonomous affiliate).

    With this JC (speaking of majority opinion and those who supported hearing rescission) I do not have the same high presumption of good faith. This matter is in the courts, and the Chair of the JC is a named party. It is four years later. It is patently politically motivated and not in the best interest of the Party, even if many of its action were technically correct. My mind can be changed on this, but that is my initial impression.

  53. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    The law does not have the capacity to make unethical people act in ethical manners and often only serves to become perverted as to enslave and bind the ethical under the cruelty of those who find manners in which to not abide them.

  54. Jill Pyeatt

    Hmmm…might the commenters here know the parliamentarian you are speaking of? Does the individual happen to be female?

  55. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    For those unhappy with this newest rules, since the 2011 LNC EC decision now stands, perhaps this needs to happen in Orlando from our Bylaws:

    ==Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it shall be declared null and void.==

    How that form of appeal would be filed, or how one would go about getting this ten percent is up in the air. I think if this procedure were followed, we could put this to bed, at least as far as National goes. I would think that people on both sides of this issue would like to have this done once and for all, and if done at this convention, the same people would have the voting opportunity for the new JC.

    I think all sides would be interested in this. I would be interested in working on this with a group of others at the convention itself and beforehand. If we can’t get 10% of delegates to want this considered, the body has spoken. I have never been to a convention, someone with experience would need to spearhead this. If there is no interest… then we really just want to bitch on IPR and not do anything… which is fine but it seems this is an opportunity to resolve this once for all, at least in accordance with our bylaws. Well maybe… unless yet another future JC can just rescind.

    Back on RONR, I find it really difficult to believe (again, newb here) that this indefinite recission option is available to Judicial Committee….. who by their very nature are constituted to FINALLY resolve an issue. This goes against sense, and certainly to me goes against the intent of our bylaws. My respect goes out to the two dissenters here on the current JC.

  56. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Jill,

    I have used gender neutral pronouns intentionally (though I am not politically correct…. I use male pronouns as generic, such as my use of “men of good faith” so any use of a male pronoun with regarding to an unidentified person should not be taken as anything other than neutral). A lot of people have contacted me privately about Oregon, and unless they give me permission to reveal anything about their identity, I presume they want it confidential. So I cannot say. I want to be able to hear from people who do not (for whatever reason) wish to comment here, so I hold confidentiality very very close to my chest….
    .

  57. Mike Shipley

    I concur with the dissenting opinion. The JC has become politicized and it’s a dangerous precedent. As Paulie noted elsewhere, I hope delegates will consider going ahead and taking that Monday off work, staying at the hotel an extra night, and remaining on the convention floor long enough to give JC elections the attention they deserve. A bonus will the opportunity to not rush through other business, including floor proposals.

  58. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Mike,

    I agree. The two dissenters made the most sense and showed the most concern for the Party, though I respect the narrow focus of the concurring opinion, it was a principled stance that I understand from the 2011 controversy.

    I will be there for JC elections. I have encouraged everyone I know is going to be there as well.

  59. Wes Wagner

    I think the reason Jill asked about the parliamentarian who is helping is that there is one individual who happens to be the Secretary of the LNC who has literally and figuratively been in bed with the malefactors throughout, and it would be her MO to represent herself as an authority on such matters because she is and has acted as an amoral parliamentary hitperson regularly over the years.

  60. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    I read between the lines. But I am still not saying. I have been very open in the past that Alicia and I have a good relationship and that she has been nothing but helpful to me in the past. I am not saying who it is that reached out to me on this, I have enough of my own sense to independently evaluate any information given to me. And I welcome contact from anyone, and I will respect their confidentiality and not purposefully violate it (except obviously… and this should be given… to prevent or exposure force or fraud).

  61. Chuck Moulton

    Daniel Hayes wrote:

    By the way…were you aware that M Carling sits on the bylaws committee?

    M Carling is chair of the bylaws committee.

    I am on the bylaws committee, but I am effectively a minority of 1… there is zero chance I can get any good proposals reported out of committee. Any fixes of this mess and others will have to come from the floor.

  62. Chuck Moulton

    Daniel Hayes wrote:

    Also…What reason exists for the current bylaws committee to effectively be in Executive Session at all times..?

    Simple: every two years the LNC appoints a majority of bylaws committee members militantly opposed to basic transparency.

    Keep doing what you’ve been doing and you’ll keep getting what you’ve been getting.

  63. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck, though, realistically what can we all do?

    I love complaining with the rest of them…. but surely change can happen?

  64. Stewart Flood

    The JC should be elected first, which would eliminate it as the storage bin for outgoing (AKA defeated) LNC members and/or “also ran” candidates for office.

  65. George Phillies

    JC first is an excellent idea.

    We have several convention related committees, e.g., Bylaws, Platform, Credentials.
    A Bylaw forbidding a person to serve on more than one of these in a given convention cycle would help, in my opinion.

  66. paulie

    And, of course, they are always welcome to contact IPR writers who choose to make our contact info public at
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/about/

    Currently:

    IPR Admins
    Warren Redlich — CEO of SpinJ Corporation; Phone 888-733-5299; Fax 518-708-8752

    Contributors
    Paulie at Next Free Voice, on Facebook, 205 534 1622 cell, Paulie.Frankel@LP.org, Bio/Q&A
    Jill Pyeatt – jcpyeatt@hotmail.com, 626 375 0947, Facebook and Twitter
    Joseph G. Buchman, PhD, 435 602 0798, Facebook, Website

    If any other IPR writers want to add contact info please let me know. See the about link for embedded links to FB, twitter, etc.

  67. George Phillies

    Of course, there will be people saying “I know who the leaker is”, but practical experience shows that these people are usually wrong. If you are a member of the cloistered cabal, you should realize that you have rather fewer friends than you thought and some of the not-friends are much closer to you than you thought.

  68. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George,

    ==JC first is an excellent idea.

    We have several convention related committees, e.g., Bylaws, Platform, Credentials.
    A Bylaw forbidding a person to serve on more than one of these in a given convention cycle would help, in my opinion.
    ==

    I know we are a small party, but I agree with you here. The incestuousness (figuratively obviously) of some of our leadership is a bit troubling. Way too much room for even unintentional gaming, and not in the best interest of the diversity of the party.

  69. Joseph Buchman

    Mike Shipley @ September 14, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    “I concur with the dissenting opinion. The JC has become politicized and it’s a dangerous precedent.”

    Caryn Ann Harlos @ September 14, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    “The two dissenters made the most sense and showed the most concern for the Party,”

    DITTO.

    There is no principled basis for this decision, IMO. Matters in Oregon were a mess from at least the 1990s on. However else one judges, condemns or praises Wes Wagner, he and his TEAM have the results consistent with their past and current integrity. They cleaned house, startied over and have generated higher levels of success than (almost) any other state, if not more than any other.

    I have a hard time seeing how those who wish to attack this issue repeatedly, in multiple venues (including conventions and state courts), at high expense (including funding from out-of-state), over the course of years with failure after failure can have the best interests of either the LP or of Liberty herself at heart.

    I believe Wes does.

    And right now it would appear the best interest of the LP is to euthanize it.

    As Starchild used to disclose at every LNC meeting — he had a potential (if not current) conflict of interest between his obligations to the LP/LNC and to Liberty herself. That used to confuse some people. Thanks to this JC decision, it should not any longer.

    This is a crux-point. If the LNC repudiates the JC, and perhaps there is hope. If not, I fear this is the tipping point toward, not only Oregon, but other states not so much leaving the organization, but given that the LNC is a CREATION of the states and not their source or authorizor, destroying it in favor of something new, principled and likely to be far more successful in actually ADVANCING LIBERTY rather than aspiring to be the USA’s third largest political party.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens next. As for me, Give me the LPO as a cherished affiliate of the LP, or give the LP death.

    (the other group is just a PAC, with an outdated website, a lot of out-of-state funding (Aaron Starr) and an consistent result of hobbling the advance of Liberty — one state at a time.

    Or so it seems to me.

    (and, yes, remember they will have won all this in time to put Gary Johnson’s name on the ballot — over THREE years ago)

  70. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Joseph,

    ==And right now it would appear the best interest of the LP is to euthanize it.==

    As I have argued (and Paulie and others) I am not on board but with this, but I am tired of arguing right now. I doubt (and I hope I am not speaking out of turn) that Mike Shipley is on board with tis either.

    All I can say is that I have decided and am committed to be the change I want to see (yes I have been mocked for this statement, and I stand by it)

  71. Joseph Buchman

    Caryn Ann Harlos @ September 14, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    “I am not on board but with this, ”

    I use the word “appears” with precision.

    That said, I’m not seeing converts or action along those lines yet — but it is not just Oregon. It’s the rats nest of mismanagement, malfeasance (eg the Michael Cloud payments of an audit or two ago), the lack of commitment to Libertarian Principles of recent (former Republican) Presidential campaigns (both POTUS and VPOTS candidates from 2008 now firmly Republicans (again — as if they ever truly left), and the concerns expressed here regarding “the police are our heroes” by our last VP candidate and the “fair tax” priorities of our last POTUS candidate (who I like personally), or the lack of transparency and apparent massive debt still remaining by his campaign management team (Ron and Joe Hunter etc), etc.

    The question is — when would it be best to start a new liberty movement. Given the likely departure of the LPO, and the associated probability (not sure how high) of other states also leaving in protest – or taking other actions that will hurt the LP — when is the time to switch to a winning horse? I get you are not there yet (neither am I — thus the “appears” rather than a statement of certainty). But surely you see the likely course of events that will play out now?

    Liberty lovers don’t play by the rules. That is the very cherished heritage of those who tossed tea into the harbor. They didn’t wait to be in a majority. They were not committed to democracy — they were committed to liberty and what that means.

    Does the LP/LNC model that, or is there a better model elsewhere — say among one of its (former) affiliates?

    🙂

    Joe

    Out of the desert after 17+ days in Black Rock City/Burning Man, but still on the road (in San Francisco for the next few days before heading for home later this week)

  72. Steve M

    I suggest those in the national party leadership that spend more of their time and effort attacking the effectiveness of individual state parties should be sent down from the national leadership and back to their states.

    Let the states sort out their political issues with out interference.

    I as a reltively large downer, will vote as always with my wallet.

  73. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Joseph,

    I am done (at least for now) with the torch and pitchfork discussions about the LP. At worst they are horridly destructive and demotivating to those still working and at best egoistically (to some) delusional. Not feeding that any more.

    Rather than wait for my RONR copy (still stubbornly believe that rescission hearing was not in order), I hope to move on to throw out some thoughts on the next paragraph or so of the decision,

  74. Daniel Hayes

    Why did the JC come into existence? What prompted the creation of this entity that has so much power beyond what would be normal? I find it funny that some people I have spoken to about trimming the JC way back argue that we should keep it, we just need to implement more rules.
    And this is the group that is going to shrink government? WOW….thats gonna work.

  75. paulie

    Even anarchist libertarians, and we are a distinct minority in the LP, can be in favor of voluntarily adopted rules. This is neither statist nor nationalist; no one is forced to be in the LP, it is a completely voluntary association. Leaving does not generally entail uprooting yourself (and family if any) and moving thousands of miles to a place with a different language and culture, starting your career over, etc.

    There are, in fact, statists and nationalists in the LP, but that’s a separate problem from the fact that we have voluntarily adopted rules or even that some of those rules can be eye-glazingly complex.

  76. George Phillies

    LNC (or a member) goes out of the way to insult the Wagner group, as seen on the LNC duscuss board.:

    ” It is critically important that we reach out to Wes and his group and begin to heal the divisions that have festered for too long. I am encouraging the newly re-recognized LPO to declare that the Wagner group is, and always was, a committee of the LPO with the mission to recruit candidates. They did an excellent job in 2014, and should be encouraged to do even more in 2016. Maybe even a resolution of the LNC commending them for their work. They must have some politically effective members besides Wes in order to function so strongly through the turmoil, and we need them working for liberty, not plotting an appeal of the rescindsion of the appeal of the disaffiliation that wasn’t.
    Ron Windeler
    rowindeler@aol.com

    As Wes points out with some frequency, he is one of the more moderate members of his group.

  77. paulie

    torch and pitchfork discussions about the LP. At worst they are horridly destructive and demotivating to those still working and at best egoistically (to some) delusional.

    Amen!

  78. paulie

    Joe @ 1 AM, way too many points to clear up but the short version is… don’t expect something better to come along if you burn the house down. It’s possible, but not likely, and could take a long time if it even happens at all. Don’t be surprised if it’s still a burned out house on a vacant lot decades later. You also overestimate the structural problems of the existing structure.

  79. paulie

    I as a reltively large downer,

    I agree with your actual point in that comment, and I know you meant donor (and thank you!), but it’s still funny.

  80. paulie

    destroying it in favor of something new, principled and likely to be far more successful in actually ADVANCING LIBERTY rather than aspiring to be the USA’s third largest political party.

    Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

  81. Daniel Hayes

    Here is Chairman Sarwark’s response which he just forwarded to the LNC Business list:

    “All,

    I assume that you all have had a chance to read the document forwarded
    to this list by the Secretary and myself.

    There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee
    came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took
    up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit
    enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior
    decision four years after the fact, etc. Any one or more of those
    would make the decision we received invalid. If anyone would like to
    discuss the specifics of those issues, I’m happy to do so.

    However, I think it’s more productive to proceed with the decision we
    received and leave what to do about the process that allowed it to
    occur to the delegates in convention in Orlando in 2016.

    By a vote of 4-2, the current Judicial Committee decided to rescind
    the decision of the prior Judicial Committee in Wagner v. LNC. Wagner
    v. LNC reversed decisions of the Executive Committee of the LNC that
    constructively disaffiliated the Libertarian Party of Oregon without
    the appropriate vote of the full LNC by recognizing officers and
    bylaws different from those recognized under state law as the officers
    of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, which is organized as a political
    party under the laws of the state of Oregon.

    For reference, the three Executive Committee motions originally adopted are:
    “————————–Motion 1————————
    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. (This motion was adopted by a
    vote of 6-1.)
    ————————–Motion 2————————
    Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee 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 Burnett
    (This motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1.)
    ————————–Motion 3————————
    The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges
    the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to
    resolve their disagreements. (This motion was adopted by a vote of
    7-0.)”

    It is important to understand what a motion to rescind can and cannot
    do to understand the effect of the Judicial Committee ruling. Under
    Robert’s, motions to rescind cannot undo what has been done. If a
    body votes to paint a building green, then paints the building green,
    a subsequent motion to rescind the decision to paint the building
    green does not unpaint the building, nor does it repaint the building
    a different color. New action by the body is required to repaint the
    building.

    Accordingly, rescinding the decision that reversed the motions of the
    Executive Committee listed above has the effect of saying that the
    current Judicial Committee disagrees with the decision of the prior
    Judicial Committee. It also reinstates the sense of the Executive
    Committee in 2011 that “based on the available evidence” a certain
    group of people and a certain set of bylaws were the correct ones for
    the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    However, in the subsequent four years, perhaps in the spirit of
    “work[ing] together to resolve their disagreements,” there has been
    extensive litigation in Oregon state courts over who controls the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon, a political party organized and governed
    by Oregon state law. The result of that litigation has been that the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon is presently chaired by Lars Hedbor. The
    rival group, presently chaired by Ian Epstein, has been ordered to act
    as a Political Action Committee, as there may not be more than one
    political party referred to as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon.”
    There is an appeal pending, but the decision of the lower court was
    not stayed on appeal, so the lower court decision stands.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon has nominated and run many Libertarian
    candidates for public office in the last four years, including placing
    Gary Johnson and Jim Gray on the ballot in 2012 as the Presidential
    and Vice Presidential nominees, as required by the affiliation
    agreement between the Libertarian National Committee and the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    The LNC affiliates with state Libertarian parties. Some of those
    parties are allowed or required to organize under state laws, some are
    not. In Oregon, the LNC is affiliated with the Libertarian Party of
    Oregon, an Oregon political party.

    If the members of the Libertarian National Committee feel that the
    Oregon political party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, should no
    longer be our affiliate in the state of Oregon, for whatever reason, a
    motion to disaffiliate that political party as our state affiliate is
    in order. Until such time as such a motion is moved and passes, it is
    my intent as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to maintain
    the affiliate agreement with the Oregon political party, the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon. This would not and will not change
    should future litigation change who is in control of that political
    party.

    Yours in liberty,

    Nick”

  82. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Nick’s responses is spot on and handled beautifully.

    ==The LNC affiliates with state Libertarian parties. Some of those
    parties are allowed or required to organize under state laws, some are
    not. In Oregon, the LNC is affiliated with the Libertarian Party of
    Oregon, an Oregon political party.

    If the members of the Libertarian National Committee feel that the
    Oregon political party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, should no
    longer be our affiliate in the state of Oregon, for whatever reason, a
    motion to disaffiliate that political party as our state affiliate is
    in order. Until such time as such a motion is moved and passes, it is
    my intent as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to maintain
    the affiliate agreement with the Oregon political party, the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon. This would not and will not change
    should future litigation change who is in control of that political
    party.==

    This is precisely it, and lays down the line. It would be utter and absolute folly for anyone on the LNC to go the other way.. though we know that is the intent of some. I wish they would all just imprint this on the back of their eyelids: No egos, just the best interest of the Party.

    What a nightmare would ensure should the LNC decide to by fiat declare (outside of its authority) who the officers are of an organization it has no control over (should the state force the bank accounts over? any physical assets? or would that be “bowing” to the state… perhaps those who wish this things have some Libertarian heavies to do the job?) or just as bad… that an entirely different legal entity is the affiliate?

    And I see that my fumbling parliamentary musing are shared by him, so I was on the right track. That is heartening.

    The bell has been rung. There is no undoing what has been done. The LNC can decide that the current LPO is hopelessly corrupt and thus outside of libertarian equity that it can disaffiliate. That is the only option it has. If it tries the JC games, it will lose ballot access most likely anyways.

  83. Wes Wagner

    That was the precise nightmare they started in 2011 when they tried to do just that… decide who was right by fiat decree. Then 4 additional years have been spent trying to reassert that, or act like it is true by tampering with our delegations, etc etc.

  84. Daniel Hayes

    I think that Nick did a pretty good job of fairly succinctly summing up an A-1 MESS.
    Note he makes the point that this has been and is currently being adjudicated. Also note that LPO is a political party organized under Oregon State Law. Oregon state law ONLY allows ONE Political Party referred to as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon”. The other entity in Oregon is currently operating as a PAC as ordered by the State of Oregon. Legally they are not currently a Political party. The National Libertarian Party only affiliates with State Parties.

    Even if the LNC voted to disaffiliate the Wagner/Hebor run LPO, they would still be the ONLY entity in Oregon known as the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Legally, the other group, Burke/Reeves/Epstein is not a political party. I am unaware of any rule that currently allows us to affiliate with a PAC. I don’t have Oregon’s laws handy but I know that in Louisiana, there is a provision against allowing parties with deceptively similar names to be formed. I am unsure that even if the BRE group formed another group with a differing name that they would be allowed to call themselves a party under Oregon Law. Furthermore, even if the LNC would affiliate with any other entity formed for the purpose of representing the NLP in Oregon, because of the likely restrictions under Oregon Law, it would have to have a rather different name in order to achieve ballot access otherwise the NLP would lack an affilate able to get ballot access in the state.

    Until such time as the current appeal by the BRE group is ruled on the by the courts, I see the LNC/NLP as having no ability make any changes, no matter what the LP JC has recently done or not done. The JC is supposedly in existence to keep the LNC/NLP out of court. As the LP is involved in litigation currently regarding this matter, the JC involving itself further is unneeded and potentially injurious to the NLP. Couple that with the Chairman of the JC being a party to the currently pending lawsuit under appeal, it becomes even more problematic. That he recused himself from voting but did not recuse himself entirely from the matter further complicates this.

    I support the Chairman’s overall points on this matter. I see the ONLY action that the LNC could possibly take would be to Rescind the motion previously adopted by the 2011 Executive Committee and entirely remove ourselves from the matter as best we are able until such time as the courts make any further ruling. The EC itself could rescind the motion, or the LNC as a whole as the EC is a subordinate body to the LNC. However, we could also do nothing and allow this matter to be sorted out by the delegates at convention. I suspect there will be motions by some that will not allow the LNC to do “nothing” and there will likely be a vote. Be aware, I agree with Chairman Sarwark that allowing this matter to be handled at the convention by the delegates is the more appropriate course. The most appropriate course is that the BRE group continue it’s lawsuit(or not) and work within whatever rules that currently exist within Oregon in the W/H factions bylaws to put forth their positions.

  85. Daniel Hayes

    Wes wrote:

    “That was the precise nightmare they started in 2011 when they tried to do just that… decide who was right by fiat decree. Then 4 additional years have been spent trying to reassert that, or act like it is true by tampering with our delegations, etc etc.”

    There is a difference that exists now that did not exist 4 years ago. The courts have ruled in your favor. BRE and anybody else can nash their teeth and scream about fighting the “state”, and the courts MAY have made the wrong ruling, but they have ruled. Until they rule otherwise, that’s how it is.

    WE as an entity(LP) have decided to go on to their playing field. We can rail against the “MAN” and the “State” all we want. We can show up to their Superbowl prepared to play the game our own way, with badminton raquets and a birdie and we will get our teeth handled to us. When we play “their” game we have to play generally by their rules and use whatever different strategy we deem fit that works within those rules until such time as we change those rules.

  86. Wes Wagner

    In 2011 when the LNC ex-com made the decision they did in the face of government agencies already having rebuffed Burke/Reeves.

  87. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ September 15, 2015 at 9:14 am

    “Sounds like wishful thinking to me.”

    Would to me too, if not for my bias toward not underestimating Wes’s proven abilities to organize, transform and win . . .

    🙂

    Joe

  88. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    Of motions which cannot be rescinded, Robert’s Rules for Dummies says, “Motions that have already been carried out and that cannot be undone: If you voted to repaint the church, it’s too late to rescind the motion after the church has been repainted.”

    Robert’s Rules for Dummies is an oversimplified version which gives people enough information to stumble around with Robert’s enough to muddle through under most circumstances. It is not what organizations use who follow RORN. Here is what Roberts’ actually says from my copy of RONR:

    ACTIONS THAT CANNOT BE RESCINDED OR AMENDED

    a) When it has previously been moved to reconsider the vote on the main motion, and the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider.

    b) When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that it is impossible to undo. (The unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded or amended.)

    c) When a resignation has been acted upon, or a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office, and the person was present or has officially been notified of the action. (The only way to reverse an expulsion is to follow whatever procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for admission or reinstatement.)

    ——————–

    The decision to rescind the the Judicial Committee’s ruling of 2011 was completely in order because the 2011 ruling was not impossible to undo. It simply reset the standard of “Secretaries of State decide who our affiliates are” to “We decide who our affiliates are” and restored to validity the LNC resolutions of 2011. These were not impossible acts.

    According to RONR, Rescind is also known as “Repeal or Annul” and causes a previous action to be “cancelled or countermanded.” This is why a body cannot rescind a rescinded motion; the motion to rescind effectively repeals or annuls an action, meaning that the action ceases to exist. To reverse course again would require an entirely new action of business.

    Richard P. Burke

  89. George Phillies

    Burke is clearly right on the rescind issue. Hayes’ arguments are at best dangerous, in that our affiliates are parties in some states, other things in other states, etc.

    The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts actually has two PACs, State and Federal, and if we ever encounter a feature for which Levin Fund money must be used we must have a Levin Fund that is *separate* from our State PAC and our Federal PAC.

  90. George Phillies

    Sawark has taken the entirely sound position that the matter has since been litigated, the ExComm motions were revived by the JC but are now moot as referring to conditions that do not exist, and that there is a well-defined path by which the LNC can disaffiliate and affiliate.

    In the Bylaws, ‘affiliate state party’ might better have been ”state affiliate’.

  91. Wes Wagner

    George: “In the Bylaws, ‘affiliate state party’ might better have been ”state affiliate’.”

    This is a good point because it can become entirely possible that there is no functional method which a potential affiliate can even become a “party” in their state. They may have to be a PAC, or a club, or some other legal structure entirely that regularly undertakes the process of securing a libertarian ballot access line.

  92. paulie

    I added my photo to the IPR about page. If any other IPR writers want to add one for themselves let me know. Also which photo, if you do.

  93. Richard P. Burke

    George,

    With respect, I must offer a correction. The court has not ruled on any of the issues relating to this case, nor have they declared either side legitimate. The court dismissed our case on the grounds that the Judge believed it violates the first amendment. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It is also being appealed.

    But now, even if we lose our appeal, what do we have? A circular argument from Nick Sarwark that doesn’t hold up. Nick says he is sticking with Wagner’s group because, essentially, they control the Libertarian ballot line according to the Secretary of State.

    But Sarwark forgets that the ONLY reason the Sec. of State recognizes Wagner’s group is because of the 2011 Judicial Committee Ruling, which is now rescinded. Recall the Secretary of State’s letter of Sept. 29, 2011 saying:

    “We understand that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    While we have attempted to stay out of your internal party processes, it is clear that we will have to make a decision so that the voters affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be able to have a candidate for the Special Election in the 1st Congressional District.”

    Since the 2015 Judicial Committee has rescinded it’s 2011 ruling, the 2011 LNC resolutions are restored. What’s more, the 2015 Judicial Committee ruling clearly recognizes the 2013 bylaw changes and the election of a successor to Tim Reeves as Chair (Ian Epstein). Secondarily, this provides authority for the 2013 LPO Judicial Committee decision which went against Wagner.

    For the Secretary of State to stick with Wagner now, they would have to go against their own precedent, stand against the legitimate LPO, the LPO Judicial Committee, the LNC, the 2012 and, arguably, the 2014 national conventions. The Secretary of State would be the only entity standing by Wagner’s group, a group which proudly acknowledges that they attempted to secure power by breaking bylaws then on file with the Secretary of State.

    I’m not sure the Sec. of State wants to be in that position.

    And, given that Nick Sarwark (even as chair) does not have the power to set policy for the LNC unilaterally, he is now in violation of LNC resolutions and national Judicial Committee rulings. In the end, he may not want to add these challenges to those he already faces or may yet face.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  94. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    I would also point out that, as has been the case with other states in the past, it is possible for a state’s Sec. of State to recognize one group and the LNC to recognize another as it’s state affiliate. Momentarily, this is what we have in Oregon now subsequent to the national Judicial Committee’s ruling. It is my opinion (and yes, I have been right before and wrong before) that the Sec. of State will ultimately go with us for reasons previously posted.

    Let’s not forget that In 2011 the LNC passed a resolution condemning the Judicial Committee for their 2011 ruling. Although they didn’t like it, they didn’t defy it either. Delegates at the national convention took more concrete action by seating our delegates, but the LNC and Mark Hinkle and Geoff Neale did not defy the Judicial Committee.

    Under our party’s governing documents, the LNC Chair does not have the authority to unilaterally defy the national Judicial Committee and it does not have authority to defy LNC resolutions. Nick Sarwark is attempting to do both, and is throwing out our rule book. That’s pretty much the same thing that Wagner did. So Caryn, I’d re-examine your premises before praising Sarwark’s actions while condemning Wagner’s.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  95. Wes Wagner

    Burke reads alot of things into government writings to interpret them as if they are in his favor when really they are not. Bureaucrats, lawyers and judges write in a particular style.

    The letter Burke cites essentially translates to: “you keep bugging us, we wanted to leave you alone, but since your judicial committee wants an answer, here it is.” Notwithstanding that they will allow people to play let’s pretend all they want and have no duty to dissuade them of their insanities because that is not their job.

    The letter was a restatement of previous communications on the matter, but more importantly they took the time in this circumstance to structure it so that it met the standards of the administrative procedures act … so no one would be able to bug them about it anymore.

  96. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard,

    You promised me some documentation… I haven’t received it yet?

    And I believe you mischaracterized what Nick stated (and oddly enough what the JC stated), but that will come in a later explanation. I had committed to going through the JC decision paragraph by paragraph… and I intend on doing that first… along with another response elsewhere I have promised to a friend on the Dallas Accord.

  97. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    I’ve read over the dissenting opinions of Steven R. Linnabary and Rob Power very carefully. I find it very interesting that they had NOTHING to say about the merits of the case, and said NOTHING in defense of the 2011 ruling which was directly commented upon in the majority opinion. The entire opinion dealt with procedural issues and a bizzarre “double jeopardy” argument; nothing relating to the merits of the case.

    I’ve noticed that neither in the 2011 JudComm Ruling, court, or in the 2015 JudComm ruling, almost nobody on Wagner’s side seems anxious to base their arguments on the merits of the 3/31/11 coup attempt.

    The whitewash which was splashed over the 3/31/11 coup is wearing off and nobody seems to be anxious to apply a new coat.

    Richard P. Burke, Secertary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  98. Richard P. Burke

    I think the Dallas Accord has pretty much bought the farm. There was never much follow through on it.

  99. Richard P. Burke

    Caryn,

    I’ve started getting you documentation. The first part was RONR on “rescind”. More coming.

    Richard

  100. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard,

    ==I’ve started getting you documentation. The first part was RONR on “rescind”. More coming.==

    I meant on your elections. That is what we were talking about last time.

  101. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard,

    ==I think the Dallas Accord has pretty much bought the farm. There was never much follow through on it.===

    And I disagree, but that is not a subject for here. Thank you for reminding me of our polar opposite ideological views.

  102. Wes Wagner

    Yes Richard, please provide all the minutes, elections, etc of all your alleged state committee members when they allegedly appointed people to allegedly vacant offices under your allegedly operative rules which could not be produced during depositions (and other documents were produced to the contrary by the actual officials of those county affiliates)… I would love to see them, even if – as a matter of legal fact – they can’t be considered in any possible litigation on this matter anymore.

  103. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    And Richard, if you win in Court, I will be fully behind the requirement that your group should be the legitimate officers.

    My position regarding the illegitimate coup has not changed.

  104. Jill Pyeatt

    If you win in court, Burke, then will just re-file the same lawsuit to litigate the same thing as before? Or, will you sue the Secretary of State to accept the JC’s ruling? It all gets so confusing–

  105. Wes Wagner

    I received some guidance. Appeals court decisions are released on Wednesdays. Our case will not be published this Wednesday. On Tuesdays they publish the list of cases that will have rulings published.

    If the case is affirmed without opinion we will likely see it in the next couple weeks. If an opinion will be issued (which of could either be an affirmation with opinion, or some combination of reversals, affirmations, orders for reconsideration, etc etc) that could take months to years depending on the complexity.

    tl;dr — If we don’t get a ruling in the next couple weeks, be ready for a long wait

  106. Richard P. Burke

    Caryn,

    I wasn’t around at the time of the Dallas Accords. I don’t have a good understanding of them, so I’m not sure how deeply in ideological opposition this puts us.

    We produced what records we could in the depositions, and people (some of them elderly) struggled with their memories. Records were hard to find in the disarray that resulted from the closure of two offices, subsequent sloppy record preservation and the like, and at least one hard drive owned by the party had been corrupted. But some files were subsequently found that the Wagner group had custody of which were rotting in Orrin Grover’s spider-infested garage. These records may not be usable in court anymore, but they should be somewhat revealing to party members.

    I’ll get what I can to you, but I’ve been swamped until recently and I’ve had to downgrade the priority of IPR.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  107. Wes Wagner

    No, we received records in deposition, and they were recent, in good order, from the individuals who were last known to be the officers of the various organizations, and those records indicated that 4 of the 5 people at your state committee meeting were not the representatives from those counties. Those county records were always held by locals in those counties, not in a central office and were in remarkably good condition.

  108. Wes Wagner

    It was from the files of one alleged Washington County representative that we actually received a copy of your plan to illegally change the bylaws with coordinated support from members of the national party. It is really good stuff 🙂

    That is also where we found innumerable emails that all of the plaintiffs claimed were “deleted” many of which were post dated after the filing of the lawsuit, almost all after the point in time they started talking about filing a lawsuit, so we have serious issues with destruction of evidence that is proven prima facie.

  109. Wes Wagner

    (You should also stop defaming (or implying defamation against) people for merely being elderly… the Casterlines were quite competent and their documentation was in very good order, you fucking corrupt lying sack of shit jackass)

  110. George Phillies

    The Great Phillies predicts that the Sarwark statement may get taken to the Judicial Committee, namely the Reeves faction will claim that Sarwark’s actions are substantive disaffiliation.

  111. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard,

    Take your time.

    Skipping the part about the Dallas Accord as it is off topic and this post seems in contradiction to your last one. Perhaps some other time.

    If you want to know how I think we are ideologically opposite you can email… I might be wrong, but these seems like more of a personal interest between us rather than a public IOR thing – I probably should have said nothing.

  112. Dave Terry

    Why did the JC come into existence?

    It’s pretty normal for organizations to have an internal dispute resolution mechanism.

    Can anyone envision the “governing body” of the United State existing without a
    Judicial branch to offset the Executive and Legislative. Of course those ‘anachists’
    among us simply won’t get it!

  113. Richard P. Burke

    Caryn,

    I will be interested in your thoughts of my post of 1:33 and 1:43 pm today. Nobody has really addressed it yet. I find it ironic that you oppose the Wagner coup on 3/31/11 while you support every move taken which props it up. This is doubly ironic now that a national chair with no unilateral policy making authority is defying a directive of the LNC and a Judicial Committee ruling. I have no doubt that had Mark Hinkle or Geoff Neale had done likewise, that most of the people here on IPR would have screamed bloody murder.

    Rich

  114. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard,

    I did address them by saying I am going in a certain order, and will get to them after I pursue the line I am interested in taking.

    You once again are mischaracterizing my position and focus. You are stuck in a narrative I refuse.

    == I find it ironic that you oppose the Wagner coup on 3/31/11 while you support every move taken which props it up.==

    False. I have said repeatedly it is outside my scope. Oregon is Oregon’s business. My interest is in National and the goings on there, as I am a member. And you fail to recognize that I do not recognize (told you that I would examine whatever you send me) that the board elected by your group is valid either. I have always suggested that it may either be impossible to determine now who it should be, or if there were someway to untangle the web of subjunctive possibilities if we reset the Board back to one second before the coup and pretended everyone was evaporated. Who would be the Board and how can we get back to that? etc. Sorry, I am not going to be pushed into the Oregon battle narrative.

    ==This is doubly ironic now that a national chair with no unilateral policy making authority is defying a directive of the LNC and a Judicial Committee ruling. ===

    Again a mischaracterization, but I am going to take that up at a further time. And I do not presume to speak for Nick, and am not going to now go off into your grand drama based upon one email that is sure to be part of a long and persuasive dialog between elected LNC members.

    == I have no doubt that had Mark Hinkle or Geoff Neale had done likewise, that most of the people here on IPR would have screamed bloody murder.===

    Yet you are talking to me. I have a proven track record and reputation.of not following factional lines, so I am unimpressed with this. You can save that for whoever you think it applies to.

  115. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ;tldr…. frankly I think both factions were planning the game of thrones, and when you play, you win or you die. Your group figuratively died. I do not approve of the coup. I also do not approve of the utter horse hockey that seems to have been played by both sides here. While I can point to that specific board meeting and the actions taken there as wrong, that is an isolated moment in time. When you pull the focus out, there are no innocents here… even though in that specific act, I do categorically state it was wrong, and state that my sympathies are with the former member class… the pledge-affirming Libertarians who are the victims here.

  116. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    “;tldr…. frankly I think both factions were planning the game of thrones, and when you play, you win or you die.”

    this is perhaps the most accurate outside read on the situation yet to date.

  117. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Dan Wiener posted this to the LNC Votes list, and there are some good points and some terribly flawed ones that repeat the errors of 2011. I don’t have time to address it now but I think I will go out of turn and end up doing this sooner rather than later, at least as far as my concerns with the whole thing… which stem back to the illegitimate breaching of the autonomy of the affiliate that was the first cause (I REPEAT ONCE AGAIN THAT I SEE THE REASONS WHY THE LNC DID WHAT IT DID, I JUST THINK IT WAS WRONG…BUT I DO NOT ALLEGE BAD FAITH):

    ===Having read the recent Judicial Committee decision regarding Oregon, and Nick Sarwark’s response, I have several comments to make:

    1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    The fundamental dispute in 2011 was over the LNC Executive Committee’s motions which (1) recognized that the state Bylaws in effect since March 15, 2009 were in fact the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon; and (2) that based on those Bylaws and the available evidence, the slate of officers led by Tim Reeves were in fact the officers of the LPO. It was the position of the LNC that no disaffiliation had taken place; the LPO remained the state affiliate, and the LNC was simply identifying who the legitimate officers were. The Judicial Committee (including as one of its members Nick Sarwark) instead ruled by a 4-3 vote that the LNC had “constructively disaffiliated” the LPO, and that the state affiliate was whoever the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as the state affiliate.

    The Oregon Secretary of State’s office understandably did not want to be caught in the middle of an intra-party dispute. The SoS’s default position was that it recognized whoever the last known Chair of the LPO reported to them to be the current or new Chair. When that failed to resolve matters, the SoS issued a brief letter on September 29, 2011 (see attached) which said “We understand that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.” On that basis, the SoS continued its default position of recognizing Wagner as the Chair of the LPO.

    The Judicial Committee has now rescinded the Judicial Committee decisions of August 25, 2011 and September 23, 2011, and ruled that “Rescinding our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Those decisions found that on May 21, 2011, Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.”

    2. POTENTIAL PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

    Nick claimed: “There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior decision four years after the fact, etc. Any one or more of those would make the decision we received invalid.”

    My response: Although Nick does not spell out details of those claimed defects, I’m sure there will be considerable argument by people on both sides as to whether they exist. Similarly, back in 2011 there was a great deal of criticism (some of it from me) regarding procedural defects in the original Judicial Committee’s actions. In fact the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution by a 12-5 vote on November 21, 2011 in which it expressed the “sense of the Libertarian National Committee that the decision by four members of the Judicial Committee in its 4-3 declaration regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon constituted a violation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and that the Judicial Committed has acted outside of its limited authority, which is clearly and explicitly defined in the Libertarian Party Bylaws”. The entire text of that resolution is attached.

    Notwithstanding those procedural defects in the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling and the LNC’s strong disagreement with the Judicial Committee’s actions, the LNC nonetheless abided by that decision. The LP’s web site lists the Wagner group’s web site under its Oregon page, and they have been receiving data dumps from national. I personally have supported that position, and I also authored a resolution immediately after the last national convention which tried to tamp down the controversy over the credentialing of delegates in the Oregon delegation by expressing the “sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey its regrets to Libertarian Party of Oregon.” The entire text of that resolution is also attached. It required a lot of wordsmithing and compromising to come up with language which could obtain a majority, but in the end I managed to get a 9-7 vote in its favor.

    Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, the LNC needs to abide by the Judicial Committee’s decisions. Under our Bylaws there is no higher body to appeal to, other than the next national convention which has the power to alter the Bylaws and elect a new Judicial Committee.

    3. DIRECT EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE’S DECISION

    As noted above, the Judicial Committee specifically stated that its rescission “leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. That means that there was no “constructive disaffiliation” and that the LPO Chair at that time was Tim Reeves, not Wes Wagner. It also voids the Judicial Committee’s finding in 2011 that “the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state, in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon.” And it voids the JC’s 2011 assertion that “the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s secretary of state, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6 disaffiliation power to do otherwise.”

    So where does that leave us now? Based on the JC’s latest decision, Lars Hedbor is not currently the Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, since he has not been elected under the rules and procedures of the LPO Bylaws which the LNC Executive Committee’s motion recognizes as being in effect. And Tim Reeves no longer is the LPO Chair.

    The Judicial Committee’s current decision suggests that “common sense would indicate that any process that respects the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the March 2009 Bylaws until March 9, 2013 and the March 2013 Bylaws thereafter) should produce a legitimate successor to Tim Reeves as Chairperson.” And that may well be “common sense”. But note that the Judicial Committee carefully refrained from identifying who that “legitimate successor” is. Maybe it’s Ira Epstein, if indeed he was elected Chair according to the LPO Bylaws currently and legally in effect. It’s an internal matter for the Libertarian Party of Oregon to determine, and the only way it would reach the LNC is if that determination is seriously called into question. In that case the LNC will have to identify the correct LPO officers and web site for the purposes of sending data dumps and listing the LPO web site on the national page. (As the JC noted, Bylaws Articles 6, 8, 11, and 12 also contain provisions which require such identification.)

    The immediate actions which I believe should be taken are as follows:
    The Secretary of the Libertarian Party should convey the information to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office that the Judicial Committee has rescinded the previous decision that “has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”
    The national office should delete http://www.lporegon.org/ from its http://www.lp.org/state/oregon page, and cease sending data dumps to the individuals listed at http://www.lporegon.org/index.php/state-committee.
    Let’s remember that there was a third motion in 2011: “The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to resolve their disagreements.” How about if we make one more stab at implementing that? Maybe we can find one or more people to serve as neutral arbitrators or facilitators, who would be acceptable to both factions (I can think of some possibilities). There’s a huge amount of bad blood and personality conflicts on both sides, so it would probably be best not to include Tim Reeves, Wes Wagner, Richard Burke, and perhaps others who I’m not familiar with in the negotiations. To the extent that the LNC will be involved, we should also exclude Nick Sarwark and Alicia Mattson.

    4. CONCLUSION

    We are all sick and tired of dealing with the Oregon dispute, and wish it would just go away. But it isn’t going away. I don’t hold out a lot of hope that further negotiations or arbitration can produce an acceptable solution, but I think it’s at least worth another shot.

    Daniel Wiener===

    I will note very briefly, as I said this before but might have been buried, I think there is a good faith position to be had that there was no constructive disaffiliation in 2011 and that *THAT* JC decision was wrong. I come down (but not with a huge margin) on the side that there was a constructive disaffiliation… but again I see the good faith reason to disagree. But it all stems back to the original wrong act to me… which was the initial LNC decision. And I think it exposed a big flaw in our bylaws.

    This is not however analogous to what is going on now as Dan alleges. I hope to post more thoughts on that.

    None of the prior acts as I have said raise the “pitchforks and fire” standard to me.

    The thing to me now which stinks and to which I do not view with good faith is the present JC decision. It wasn’t the right thing to do, I deny they had the authority, and most of all, I see it as naked disgusting political gamesmanship NOT in the best interest of the party. To the extent that anyone on the LNC agitated for this move by the JC, yes then I would impute the same to them, but that is all speculation, and I don’t wish to speculate. I am not speaking of anyone who simply happens to agree with the decision but of actively agitating for this behind the scenes. (sarcasm) Thanks for messing up the Party even more. (/sarcasm)

    And Dan’s suggestion of inserting the LNC into the present lawsuit by taking a side and writing the SoS is so wrong on multiple levels. I do not consent to you playing with my donor money in that way LNC. I do not consent AT ALL.

  118. Wes Wagner

    Caryn,

    You only don’t allege bad faith because you have not been around long enough to know all the actors, their MOs and everything they are guilty of in the past and will do in the future. 🙂 Give it time.

  119. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I don’t allege bad faith because I don’t do that lightly. To anyone. I see plenty of room in a lot of happened for good faith people to disagree.

    Whoever plotted this latest bullshit… this is not in the best interest of the Party… and certainly not the membership who wanted nothing more to do with this.

  120. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Just for everyone’s ease of reference, here again are our bylaws:

    ===2. 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).===

    There is no stretch of the imagination, and no RONR fantasies to override this explicit statement, that gives the JC authority to reconsider its prior decisions.

    I understand the reasoning that the 2011 JC was wrong… that there wasn’t a constructive disaffiliation… but at whether or not there was a proper disaffiliation IS within their authority. I agree there is some room for good faith disagreement there…. I disagree but okay…

    But there is no room here. Gaming the RONR has no place in the Libertarian Party as far as this dues-paying and monthly (small) contributor is concerned.

  121. Wes Wagner

    “Whoever plotted this latest bullshit… this is not in the best interest of the Party… and certainly not the membership who wanted nothing more to do with this.”

    There is never a year that goes by that they don’t plot some similar type of bullshit … a long patter of abuses is difficult to overlook as good faith.

  122. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    And to add, besides it being blatantly against our bylaws AFAIC, I maintain it is against RONR as well….

    ==When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that it is impossible to undo.====

    What has been done is that the LNC recognized as officers in all of its actions and by the notice it allowed to be given to the SoS that it was not going to rule, and the investment of a very significant amount of money on both sides to litigate…. as they had been instructed to do (or resolve it peacefully which they were unable to do)…. none of this can be undone.

    I know the idea of fiduciary is not terribly popular here (and I do have great respect and a ton of agreement for Starchild’s view on that ), this is clearly against the duty the JC/LNC etc owe to the party and us members. Never mind its duty to its affiliates to be able to have something adjudicated as important as identification of the affiliate and recognition of its officers.

  123. Wes Wagner

    There is always bullcrap like this:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/libertarian-candidate-in-oregon-receives-letter-from-richard-burke-recommending-he-vote-for-republican-competitor/

    Major Bullcrap like this:

    http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2009/06/lp-judicial-committee-opinions.html

    Silly bullcrap like this:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/07/ca-lnc-alternate-rep-suggests-johnson-campaign-should-sacrifice-ballot-access-to-unseat-wagner/

  124. George Phillies

    LNC members who disagree with the chair’s position should offer a motion or shut up. Members of the ExComm who support the Chair’s position should offer up a motion rescinding the prior ExComm position. Ditto, those who agree or oppose.

    On the other hand, given Sarwark’s position, Epstein has perhaps a legitimate case that his appeal is no longer moot.

  125. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    Those links are very interesting, thank you. Did I mention how much I hate Republican interference in our Party? Or any attempts to Republicanize it? If I haven’t, consider it mentioned.

  126. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George,

    ==LNC members who disagree with the chair’s position should offer a motion or shut up. ===

    I think they believe they don’t have to.

    ==Members of the ExComm who support the Chair’s position should offer up a motion rescinding the prior ExComm position===

    Yes.

    ==On the other hand, given Sarwark’s position, Epstein has perhaps a legitimate case that his appeal is no longer moot.==

    Explain?

    I ask because first, a statement by any one LNC member, even the Chair, isn’t binding at this point.

  127. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I will note very briefly, as I said this before but might have been buried, I think there is a good faith position to be had that there was no constructive disaffiliation in 2011 and that *THAT* JC decision was wrong.”

    The executive committee did not “constructively” disaffiliate LPO in 2011. The executive committee “illegally” disaffiliated LPO in 2011, and lied about what it was doing.

    No, there is no “good faith” position to the contrary. Anyone who claims that anything else happened is either lying like a rug or doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

  128. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Tom,

    I will try to explain as I go on (I did before, but again it was somewhat of a side note) why I think there was an argument to be made otherwise, but like I said, I come down on the side of what the JC said in 2011. Now it is entirely possible that I am wrong… (or lacking in some knowledge… this whole thing has been a learning experience) but so far I don’t think so. But we don’t ultimately disagree on the conclusion, but on whether there was malice in a differing opinion. I just don’t think so.

    Bill Hall’s comments on this were persuasive to me. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kallLM0x1ZVFLMW8/view?usp=sharing

    But the LNC memo on that their rationale for saying the identity of the entity is distinct from the identity of its officers isn’t crazy.

    But I find that the *same* argument that the LNC used to argue what Wagner did is the same one that supports the finding of a constructive disaffiliation and thus is a snake eating its own tail, to wit, from the LNC response to the JC decision, page 3:

    “the Appellant attempted to create a successor organization and absorb the assets of the predecessor organization without the consent of those in the previous organization empowered to make such a decision.”

    The LNC in determining who the officers were, in contravention of the SoS or legal identity, attempted to do the same thing.

    And today most definitely the JC is attempting to do the same thing.

    I will always bend over backwards to not find any bad faith. It is just how I am wired.

    My big thing is and will remain, my firm belief that the LNC overstepped its bounds and breach the autonomy of the affiliate. Anything that followed from there, ultimately, is irrelevant to me…. the fruit of the poisonous tree.

  129. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I do have to admit that I am having to suppress a bit of anger (from coming out in what I try to be calm reasoned posts) from that letter Burke wrote telling people to vote for the Republican instead of the Libertarian while chairing a county party and that the RPO was involved in this suit. …. my visceral reaction is deep and intense.

  130. Wes Wagner

    “But the LNC memo on that their rationale for saying the identity of the entity is distinct from the identity of its officers isn’t crazy.”

    It becomes crazy the moment you need to legally interact with the entity. Let’s say the LPO had an office, and outside the office we left a piece of trash in a negligent manner and someone tripped on it, fell and hurt themselves… who would they serve papers to in order to state a valid claim?

    What would happen if they served the LNC recognized officers instead of the state recognized ones and those people failed to respond and default judgment was given? What would happen when they tried to collect on the default judgment and the actual agents of the entity received a writ of garnishment?

    This is why the LNC, Burke, et.al. can’t create the fantasy worlds they want to create and try to get others to buy into – they don’t actually exist outside the cult of the LP.

  131. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    wes,

    ==It becomes crazy the moment you need to legally interact with the entity. Let’s say the LPO had an office, and outside the office we left a piece of trash in a negligent manner and someone tripped on it, fell and hurt themselves… who would they serve papers to in order to state a valid claim?===

    The registered agent.

    ==What would happen if they served the LNC recognized officers instead of the state recognized ones and those people failed to respond and default judgment was given? What would happen when they tried to collect on the default judgment and the actual agents of the entity received a writ of garnishment?==

    Bad argument, they have to serve the registered agent.

    My issue is, and has always been, the breaching of the autonomy of the affiliate.

  132. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    60.121¹
    Service on corporation
    (1) The registered agent appointed by a corporation shall be an agent of the corporation upon whom any process, notice or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon the corporation may be served.

    I agree with your ultimate point, just that your argument about service of process is really bad.

  133. Wes Wagner

    “the Appellant attempted to create a successor organization and absorb the assets of the predecessor organization without the consent of those in the previous organization empowered to make such a decision.”

    Even if this were true, and it is not, we would have had the legal right to do so as the state committee of the same organization that had been duly elected to dispose of such property as we deemed fit up to and including bequeathing them to a successor (so long as that successor was another PAC, political party or non-profit under Oregon law).

  134. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    But I really do not want to go down the service of process road. I think I covered this point when I talked about how the LNC/JC intends upon seizing the property of the LPO… if they had some Libertarian heavies lined up for this if Oregon doesn’t cooperate.

  135. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    The registered agents of a political party in Oregon is… (drumroll) any officer of the party as recognized by the state, since they are handled by the elections office rather than the corporate division and that is what the law says regarding service of political parties/PACs.

  136. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Here we go:

    ==had been duly elected to dispose of such property ==

    Your group was not duly elected to do what it did.

    But that was not for the LNC to decree.

    This is, and has always been, my position and focus.

  137. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    ==The registered agents of a political party in Oregon is… (drumroll) any officer of the party as recognized by the state, since they are handled by the elections office rather than the corporate division and that is what the law says regarding service of political parties/PACs.===

    I really do not want to go down the service of process of road since your point I already stated before.

    I do not work in OR and am not familiar (admittedly) with service of process rules in OR. I already agreed with the ultimate premise.

  138. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Let me give you though the better service of process argument…. a litigant could serve the SoS… who do they notify?

    Anyways…. done with the LP for today… going to have a drink and go to bed (I told you that you were driving me to drink Wes)

  139. Wes Wagner

    The simple point is that the LNC can’t declare another group of people the officers of an affiliate even if they theoretically could breach that autonomy… it would be a null act (and well a constructive disaffiliation if you suddenly refused to actually interact with the real agents of that organization you once had a relationship with).

    You can’t declare one set of bylaws valid because they are required to be on file with the secretary of state’s office… and such registration is what makes them the operative rules of the organization. Declaring one set of rules valid is also a legally null act because it changes nothing inside the borders of Oregon.

    For a party of people who allegedly have so many objectivists rolling around in it, they sure do spend alot of time on a deserted island wishing a rock would transmogrify into a loaf of bread.

  140. Wes Wagner

    “==had been duly elected to dispose of such property ==

    Your group was not duly elected to do what it did.

    But that was not for the LNC to decree.

    This is, and has always been, my position and focus.”

    The rules and laws of Oregon would say otherwise. On 3/31/2015 there was no dispute over who the governing officers and members of the state committee were. Amendment of party bylaws is fully within the legal capabilities of that body. That body did it.

    You can argue about whether it was right or not until the cows come home, but it was actually legal … and that is the crux of playing the game of thrones and why no court will grant relief. You will figure this out when you read the court filings – eventually.

  141. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    ==The simple point is that the LNC can’t declare another group of people the officers of an affiliate even if they theoretically could breach that autonomy… it would be a null act (and well a constructive disaffiliation if you suddenly refused to actually interact with the real agents of that organization you once had a relationship with).==

    I ultimately agree with the JC ruling but if you are trying to convince me that in no possible universe there is no counter-argument, I don’t agree. I already agree. If you want to me to be a True Zealot for that position, sorry.

    ==You can’t declare one set of bylaws valid because they are required to be on file with the secretary of state’s office… and such registration is what makes them the operative rules of the organization. Declaring one set of rules valid is also a legally null act because it changes nothing inside the borders of Oregon.==

    And the same argument was made by the LNC that filing with them meant there was some kind of agreement for they to be interpreted.

    I disagree with the LNC ultimately but that is part of their argument.

    ==For a party of people who allegedly have so many objectivists rolling around in it, they sure do spend alot of time on a deserted island wishing a rock would transmogrify into a loaf of bread.==

    Have no idea what you are talking about since I am not an objectivist….. but these random general comments seem to be par for course for any discussion involving OR.

  142. George Phillies

    Caryn writes: “=LNC members who disagree with the chair’s position should offer a motion or shut up. ===

    I think they believe they don’t have to.”

    Many LNC members seem to be unable to conceive of the idea that they should shut up or actually do something.

    The chair appears to have given a directive to staff that the Wagner group is still the affiliate. That’s de facto binding until the LNC, ExComm, or JC does something specific to change matters.

    Now Epstein has a JC decision that could be read as saying he is the OR party, a new chair and hence LNC act decision that he is not the OR party, and therefore has grounds to complain. The facts have changed in important ways.

    You might say that if Epstein is not the affiliate chair that he lacks standing to complain. There is an interesting analogy here with the Dred Scott decision. in order for Scott to petition the court, he had to be a citizen. If he was not a citizen, then there was no valid petition, and the Supreme Court ad no basis to do anything, including deciding whether or not he was a citizen. The solution is described by the historian Potter; see, e.g., The impending Crisis. The Supreme Court first ruled that Scott was not a citizen, leading to the conclusion that he had no standing, but they had to settle the citizenship question before they could decide if the suit had been properly brought. They decided, the wrong way.

  143. Wes Wagner

    “You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.”

    (From Galt’s speech)

  144. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    Now you are entering the land of utter bullshit.

    ==The rules and laws of Oregon would say otherwise. On 3/31/2015 there was no dispute over who the governing officers and members of the state committee were. Amendment of party bylaws is fully within the legal capabilities of that body. That body did it.===

    Not in accordance with your own bylaws. Sorry Wes, that’s the facts. I

    ==You can argue about whether it was right or not until the cows come home, but it was actually legal … and that is the crux of playing the game of thrones and why no court will grant relief. You will figure this out when you read the court filings – eventually.==

    My standard for right and wrong and legality are separate– they most often coincide, but never always… . I simply do not believe the LNC had this authority and this is my concern.

    The written word is so easily misunderstood…. the eventually seemed snide. I daresay I have invested more time and effort into actually learning this dispute than most newcomers. If you want to disparage me for spending time, oh, on my job and family first… okay.

    If taking over an affiliate is “legal” then the law is immoral. Big surprise. The state is immoral. That is not news to me. No one has to convince me the state is a baddie.

    I am not an OR Libertarian. My concern is the National party.

  145. Wes Wagner

    The eventually was not meant to be snide, it was intended as an honest view of priorities and the sheer volume of the material… but the answers as to why there is no violation of rules are actually in there.

  146. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Alicia has posted her response to the LNC-votes list:

    ==My opinion on this subject has been on the record and well known since 2011.

    I do want to make a point about the following statement by the Chair:

    NS: “It is important to understand what a motion to rescind can and cannot do to understand the effect of the Judicial Committee ruling. Under Robert’s, motions to rescind cannot undo what has been done.”

    This is not an accurate representation of what Robert’s says, as it leaves out a really important qualification. Let’s take a look at the verbatim wording from Robert’s (11th ed, p. 308) (underline/bold added by me for emphasis):

    “ACTIONS THAT CANNOT BE RESCINDED OR AMENDED. The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order under the following circumstances:

    a) …

    b) When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo. (The unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded or amended.)

    …”

    The only thing that was required to recognize the Wagner group following the 2011 JC ruling was to change a link on our website and start emailing monthly data dumps to a different email address. Those same steps would be taken to comply with this new JC ruling.

    Which of those two things is allegedly impossible to undo? We can’t change the links on our website or send future emails to a different email address? Obviously these are rhetorical questions, as we can do both of those things easily.

    -Alicia==

    And my initial brief thoughts. First of all, I maintain solidly that this gaming of the RONR is outside the explicit bounds of the JC.

    But second, no, it is hopelessly reductionistic to represent that ALL that was done was to change a website link and the address to be emailing data dumps. Decisions of bodies affect their constituents and their affiliates. What cannot be undone is the direction that the LNC gave to its Oregon affiliate— to engage in other dispute resolution to solve their problem (which is actually the right decision) that has now costs, from what I understand, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for which, someone in our JC is a named party. That bell cannot be unrung. Candidates have built resumes and experience and ran elections under the leadership of the LPO. Volunteers have given time. People have donated.

    To call this simply a matter of changing the website and sending a data dump elsewhere boggles my mind frankly.

    Has the LNC become an ivory tower that really is so out of touch with the intense loathing of the membership to have this drag on further?

    How loud do we have to shout “we do not consent”?

    As any who read this whole discussion, my criticism here is as “pure” as it can be as I bear none of the ill will towards Alicia that some here have expressed. She and I have always had a good relationship and do to this day, and I have found her carrying out of her duties in helping member inquires to be above the call of duty. I simply disagree here in the strongest possible terms and urge her to put the party and its members first here.

    The minute any of this becomes personal, I will stop writing.

    If the LNC wants to be able to have a limited authoritative power to breach the autonomy of its affiliate by being the final arbiter of its officers, amend the bylaws. I actually don’t think it is a terrible idea, and I think what happened here exposed a big hole in our bylaws.

  147. paulie

    The remarkable thing here is that I don’t have to say anything because Caryn has pretty much exactly said what I would throughout the thread.

  148. Wes Wagner

    “If the LNC wants to be able to have a limited authoritative power to breach the autonomy of its affiliate by being the final arbiter of its officers, amend the bylaws. I actually don’t think it is a terrible idea, and I think what happened here exposed a big hole in our bylaws.”

    I think you would probably see several states (maybe even as much as a dozen) leave the party if that were to pass.

  149. George Phillies

    Perhaps some of the LNC people will make a motion rather than complaining. With respect to irreversible, the LNC cannot change who its affiliate was last year, but they can choose who their affiliate is next year.

  150. Bruce Alexander Knight

    The LNC Judicial Committee’s attempted rescission of the 2011 JudCom ruling will have no more practical effect than a fart in the wind. They might as well have ruled that pi=3.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon, organized under Oregon law, pre-existed the LNC and is not subordinate to it. I expect the LPO will still be around when the current LNC is gone and forgotten.

    The politicized JudCom thinks it can turn the clock back by 4 years? Dream on, kids. Here in Oregon no one but Burke and his apologists think the LNC has any authority whatsoever over our state party.

    Our reformed bylaws were ratified by 97% of members (defined as registered Libertarian voters under Oregon law) voting in a statewide referendum. Since then we’ve held regular biennial primaries and party elections, and we’ve put record numbers of LPO candidates on general election ballots, despite the rump faction’s futile efforts to undermine us.

    Carling’s JudCom thinks we should stop? Not gonna happen, M.

    The LNC can disaffiliate us if they want, saving us the trouble of doing it ourselves and proving their own irrelevance.

  151. Wes Wagner

    Wish you had more time to rejoin the revolt here Bruce 🙂 — or at least stop by for a visit.

  152. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes, you are probably right, though I think that clever minds could word something unobjectionable. I am not that clever.

  153. Wes Wagner

    You could possibly get away with something along the lines of if all parties agree to this alternate dispute resolution … but then what is the point? The LNC has no legal capacity for enforcement so it would just get gamed and used by the corrupt as well I won so I won… but if I lost I will ignore my loss and try to find another authority to back me.

    That is just what they do.

  154. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    All parties can *already* agree to ADR.

    I agree the LNC was in a bind here. How to fix it I don’t know (and I am not interested in the JUST DESTROY THE LNC AND LP solution you are). I am interested in how those of us who remain committed to this enterprise can be part of the solution in fixing it.

  155. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    You have to learn how to identify and purge the bad actors. Sorry, but that is just the reality of it.

    People who will break and exploit the rules to the detriment of others in order to self-empower will eat the organization out from the inside. (self motivated)

    People who will abide all the rules will generally create a stable organization, but will often fall victim and be exploited by the people in the category above, get angry, storm off, and the organization declines. (motivated to support the organization – joiners/belongers/whatever group dynamic term you care to use)

    People who abide the rules but will break them when necessary to protect others or to create justice instead of law-abidance will create conflicts with the first group, and generally live in peace with the second in the absence of the first, but when both the first and third group exist you will have incredible conflict. (other motivated)

    Groups 2 and 3 can live together in peace… but no permutation of the three above can include the first group and have peace.

    Group 2 typically does not have the emotional appetite or skills to dispose of group 1 and finds group 3’s methods for dealing with group 1 distasteful.

    That is the crux of the problem with creating a stable culture in the LP. For the LP to exist the way group 2 wants it to you have to at a minimum eliminate group 1, elimination of group 3 is an option but not entirely necessary, but if you were overly paranoid you would get rid of the too (but of course that means you are completely on your own in defending yourselves from new group 1 people)

  156. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    I know your philosophy but I don’t buy it. You have, however, ironically (considering your view on the state) made the minarchist/statist case against anarchy quite well.

    One reason I don’t buy it.

  157. Wes Wagner

    I really haven’t… just because there exists a problem does not mean it must be solved by creating an immoral entity that alleges it seeks moral ends.

    The fact that people are not mature enough to live without a state does not mean that they are mature enough to live with one.

    It takes a few fallacies to get to the minarchist/statist solution from the problem statement.

  158. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    LOL Wes, I am just tweaking you a bit, but you actually could easily take your words and put them in the mouth of a minarchist.

    But shrug, that isn’t the debate here.

    I reject your plan.

  159. Wes Wagner

    You could put them in the mouth of a minarchist for sure… and to that point I was discussing how people operate inside the national LP which is a form of minarchist structure (in theory) … once you have chosen to go that route, you have a more specific incarnation of moral hazard in the society as it is defined.

    I am not suggesting my categorization is universal and to be applied to all social structure. The form of the problem changes depending on the structure chosen.

    I also understand that in my theoretical organization of the dynamics going on, you are in group 2, and are a pacifist to the point where you would prefer sociopaths in group 1 to predate you instead of defending yourself (as you have stated in the past). Not all members of group 2 have the same feelings about self defense and vary to the degree they are willing to reciprocate force. You have also said in the past that you respect their right to do so, but will not engage in it.

    There are also people in groups 2 or 3 who will reciprocate force against members of group 1 who are attempting to predate you whether you want them to or not because they believe in defending the natural order of society and not just necessarily you and won’t ask your consent on such matters.

  160. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    ==I am not suggesting my categorization is universal and to be applied to all social structure. The form of the problem changes depending on the structure chosen.==

    That’s awful convenient.

    But okay. I reject it. And yes I am a pacifist. On religious grounds, not libertarian ones. All of my arguments here (and in this case) are not based on my personal choices in religion but libertarianism.

    BTW, you may not have encountered my kind of pacifism. I would shoot someone to save an innocent person who wanted such assistance to save their life. I just wouldn’t do it to save my own. Again, it is a religious position, not a libertarian one.

  161. Wes Wagner

    “==I am not suggesting my categorization is universal and to be applied to all social structure. The form of the problem changes depending on the structure chosen.==

    That’s awful convenient.”

    Dealing with specifics is one of the key methods in philosophy…so in that yes it is convenient, but it is also likewise considered bad form under the rules of rhetoric to increase scope in order to argue against a point that was made in a specific scope.

  162. Bryan G. Jensen

    Richard P. Burke, where do you get off signing everything Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon? I am a member of LPO, I have neighbors and friends of LPO…. none of us recognize you as the secretary and as hard as we try, can’t find anyone who does.

  163. jim

    Bryan G Jensen: “hell, as hard as we have tried, we can’t even figure out how to become a member of your group….. not that we would.”

    That’s a very appropriate, and extremely important observation. Presumably Burke and his cronies don’t advertise, if for no other reason than they want to keep control of their side.

  164. Wes Wagner

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Ian Epstein
    Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:30 AM
    Subject: Letter to the LNC from Ian Epstein, Chair, Libertarian Party of Oregon
    To:

    Dear Members of the LNC,

    As you are aware, the national Judicial Committee rescinded it’s
    ruling of 2011. In doing so it reinstated the 2011 resolutions passed
    by the LNC. My fellow officers and I are proud to be properly
    recognized as the leadership of LNC’s Oregon affiliate.

    We look forward to once again receiving data dumps, being placed on
    the State Chair discussion list, and having all references to the
    LNC’s Oregon affiliate be directed to our website (www.lporegon.net)
    and email addresses (we encourage you to check out our website).

    We request that you direct the LNC Secretary to notify the Secretary
    of State of the Judicial Committee’s ruling. The previously split
    decision between the LNC and the Judicial Committee caused the
    Secretary of State to take no action to update the records as to the
    legitimate officers.

    I am optimistic that, as LNC members did in 2011 regardless of their
    personal opinions, LNC members and Chair Sarwark will abide by the
    Judicial Committee ruling of 2015 in accordance with our national
    bylaws.

    While I have been a registered Libertarian for many years, I became
    active early this year motivated by a desire to lead the LPO as an
    organization run by members who have signed a non-aggression pledge.

    I have no personal animosity against those in the other group. While
    I believe what they did on March 31, 2011 was unacceptable, I am
    confident that they thought they were doing the right thing.

    My goals in the coming year will be to heal the rifts that exist
    between Libertarians in Oregon, heal the rifts that exist between the
    LNC and some Oregon Libertarians, and build a culture of principled
    success here in Oregon. Because I am relatively new to the LPO, have
    a short track record with it’s members, and have animosity toward
    noone, I believe I am the right person to accomplish these goals.
    Toward those ends, I promise the following:

    1. The LPO will fully and constructively participate in the 2016
    Orlando convention. We will seat any Oregon members who show up,
    regardless of faction, until our allotment of seats is full. All
    votes within our delegation will be respected, regardless of faction.
    Once we secure control of Oregon’s ballot line, which we believe will
    happen shortly after the Sec. of State hears about the Judicial
    Committee ruling from our national Secretary, we will guarantee that
    whoever is nominated for president and vice-president at the Orlando
    convention will appear on the Oregon ballot.

    2. We will encourage LPO members to join and donate to the LNC in
    order to strengthen the organization. We will encourage LPO members
    to attend the 2016 national convention. We will ask national party
    figures and candidates for national office to visit Oregon so we can
    find ways to help each other.

    3. According to our bylaws, all registered Libertarians in Oregon are
    already considered “registered members” of the LPO who can vote to
    nominate candidates for public office or be candidates themselves. We
    will reach out to as many of these Libertarians as we can to
    participate in the LPO. We will take a positive tone and will not
    attempt to cast blame on the other group.

    You may not be aware that our group has continuously functioned as if
    nothing was wrong in Oregon. We have held State Committee meetings
    almost monthly, we have held annual business conventions, have run
    campaigns for local non-partisan offices (and had one contested
    victory), have held candidate nominating conventions, have maintained
    active Facebook and web pages, have sent delegations to our national
    conventions, and more.

    We have had success in the Oregon legislature. The LPO actively
    lobbied for and was recognized by Portland’s Cascade Policy Institute
    and State Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D) as being part of a coalition which
    worked to pass HB2300 into law. This bill legalized recreational
    marijuana in Oregon, and our effort was endorsed by Gov. Gary
    Johnson’s Our America Initiative organization.

    We are also taking point on a ballot measure that would enhance voter
    privacy by making it illegal for county elections to disclose whether
    voters have voted or not before Election Day, LPO member Richard
    Whitehead is the Chief petitioner of the “Voter Privacy Act,”
    initiative #50, which is getting it’s initial 1,000 signatures.

    My point is that, even against the tremendous headwinds we have faced
    because of infighting in Oregon, our group has continued to be active
    as a political party and will be able to offer and accommodate
    opportunities for involvement to all LPO members regardless of
    faction. You have my word.

    I have read about how tired all of you are of dealing with the Oregon
    problem. I give you my word that I will be a constructive partner in
    solving it and knitting the Oregon party together again.

    My only interests are to: 1) Ensure that LPO governing documents are
    amended only in accordance with amendment processes outlined within
    those documents and, 2) Ensure that internal party decisions are made
    exclusively by those who have opted-in to the LPO and subscribe to a
    NAP – just as is the case with the national party. Beyond that, I am
    willing to compromise with any and all factions and do what I can to
    make our national and state parties better and stronger. Thank you.

    Yours in Liberty,

    Ian Epstein, State Chair

  165. George Phillies

    Note also from the LPOR on their web pages, a message from Ws Wagner:

    I have been sending the following message to Libertarian Presidential Candidates – if you know of any reply and list their names below if they are in fact announced candidates. I was only able to find 7 but I have heard there are over a dozen.

    Dear Libertarian Presidential Candidate,

    As you may or may not be aware, the National Judicial Committee has just ruled that the organization that has existed since 1971, The Libertarian Party of Oregon, is no longer an affiliate of the Libertarian National Committee. This has been a long standing scandal involving elements of the Oregon Republican Party working in concert with both local and national agents to suppress libertarians in Oregon and has had regular material support from disloyal elements of the Libertarian National Committee. I will not belabor you with the details, but if you are curious they can be found at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com

    The important matter is that since our delegations were tampered with in 2012 and 2014, our party has issued a boycott for the Orlando 2016 convention, and further this disaffiliation by the national judicial committee has an impact for your campaign on ballot access in Oregon for 2016.

    I represent the actual legal entity recognized by the Oregon Secretary of State Elections division and am the chairperson of the Candidate Recruitment and Retention Committee. I am reaching out to you in my capacity as such to advise you that you will likely need to campaign separately in Oregon to obtain ballot access in our state. The Libertarian Party of Oregon has single signature ballot access without any need to petition for all partisan offices. We will continue to control the Libertarian presidential ballot line and ballot access in Oregon regardless of the actions of the national LP and its various committees and apparatus. The process to petition independently or to start another political party to gain access would cost in excess of $100,000 and may or may not be successful. Given their current cash flow issues and budgeting constraints, they will likely require that undertaking to be funded by your campaign, if it happens at all.

    Although we have not yet set rules for our 2016 primary, our election year primary involves mailing ballots to approximately 18000 members and runs at the same time as the major party primaries. We anticipate adopting rules to permit LP Presidential Candidates to have their name listed on our ballot and include a candidate statement. I will also be asking the committee to provide voter lists to campaigns who would like to send additional materials by mail to promote their candidacy.

    If this is the course we take, the winner of our primary will be the listed presidential candidate for 2016 regardless of the outcome of the Orlando 2016 convention.

    We regret that this has become necessary, but the insistence of the national party in attempting to install republican-backed interlopers as our leadership against the will of our voting electorate (who included republican party members and an individual who was just recently arrested for murder) and their continuance to attempt to do so has made this an unfortunate reality.

    Our primary process will likely conclude prior to the Orlando Convention, so the winner would have the opportunity to share the results of our process and advise the delegates there that they already secured ballot access in Oregon. It is generally the goal of any presidential campaign to achieve ballot access in all 50 states and D.C., and I have my doubts that if the delegates at the Orlando Convention were to nominate anyone other than the candidate who won the Libertarian Party of Oregon Primary that it would be possible for that candidate to actually achieve that result.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon has been the most successful state affiliate for the past 2 major elections cycles, nominating more candidates per-capita than any other state affiliate and the participation in our primary elections has been growing a rapid pace. There are plenty of individuals in the national party leadership who attempt to characterize things in our state as a deep factional battle between two equally matched sides. This cannot be further from the truth. The other side of this altercation is about 5-6 people plus a republican lawyer who is the vice chair of the Oregon Republican Party, and their republican-aligned allies within the national party who are attempting to suppress the registered libertarians of Oregon who have been fielding record numbers of candidates (30+). We have been accused of causing multiple republican campaigns to fail and blamed for the loss of seats in the state legislature.

    My opinion on the matter is that to become the second largest political party in Oregon, we have to destroy the Republican party (the current second largest party) and take their place before we can start aiming for #1. This has obviously caused us to accumulate some very motivated enemies.

    I would therefor ask that you do not allow them to win and not to allow their plot to undermine us through disloyal elements of the national party to succeed, and prepare to run a strong campaign here in Oregon, promote a full Libertarian platform and agenda, win our primary and likewise carry that through the to the national convention and win a victory for a real Libertarian candidate and platform there as well – and attempt to run the most successfully presidential campaign ever.

    Thank you for your time and I will be in touch in the future with additional communications that will be purely administrative in nature.

    Sincerely,

    Wes Wagner

    Chair of the Candidate Recruitment and Retention Committee for the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Former Chairperson 2011-2014, Current Board of Directors Member.

  166. Jill Pyeatt

    Epstein said: “My goals in the coming year will be to heal the rifts that exist
    between Libertarians in Oregon, heal the rifts that exist between the
    LNC and some Oregon Libertarians, and build a culture of principled
    success here in Oregon. Because I am relatively new to the LPO, have
    a short track record with it’s members, and have animosity toward
    noone,”

    I’m sure the Libertarians in the state of Oregon will welcome you with open arms!

    Oh, and Santa Claus is real, too!

  167. Chuck Moulton

    Richard P. Burke (ghostwriting for Ian Epstein) wrote:

    We are also taking point on a ballot measure that would enhance voter privacy by making it illegal for county elections to disclose whether voters have voted or not before Election Day, LPO member Richard Whitehead is the Chief petitioner of the “Voter Privacy Act,”
    initiative #50, which is getting it’s initial 1,000 signatures.

    As I’m sure anyone following this saga is aware, Richard Burke does not understand the difference between “it’s” and “its”, which most of us learned in middle school — if not earlier. With that in mind, the last sentence of this quoted paragraph makes it abundantly clear who wrote this letter purported to be sent from Ian Epstein.

    I don’t find the fake rump group’s letter conciliatory at all. They are trying to seize the national convention delegation away from the Libertarian Party of Oregon yet again and use the levers of the Libertarian National Committee to subvert the will of Libertarians in Oregon and the law as settled by the secretary of state and court decisions. It is disgusting.

    If LNC secretary Alicia Mattson takes any action (e.g. a letter to the Oregon secretary of state) under color of office without explicit authority from the LNC, I encourage them to remove her for cause. As the second place finisher for LNC secretary, I am prepared to seek appointment to fill that vacancy. Let’s hope none of this comes to pass… but realistically we’ve seen repeated pleas for her to send such a letter and we all know the personalities involved.

  168. Chuck Moulton

    Richard P. Burke (ghostwriting for Ian Epstein) wrote:

    My goals in the coming year will be to heal the rifts that exist
    between Libertarians in Oregon, heal the rifts that exist between the
    LNC and some Oregon Libertarians, and build a culture of principled
    success here in Oregon. Because I am relatively new to the LPO, have
    a short track record with it’s members, and have animosity toward noone.

    Oh, look: another “it’s”!!

    Thanks for bringing that paragraph to my attention in the comment above mine, Jill.

  169. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I find that to be a very politically targeted email from Epstein —— nice touch about the non-aggression pledge to appeal to a certain segment, those such as myself not at all pleased that pledge-affirming Libertarians were disenfranchised. And though I had ambitions to go through in detail the current JC decision I have rethought that as the only issue at this point I think worth focusing on is whether they had a right to make a decision to begin with (regardless of whether one agrees with the decision made). And if they did not have have a right, what the LNC should do.

    My position, as detailed before, is that there was no right to make this decision firstly under our bylaws and secondly under RONR. The only option to remediate is for the LNC to refuse to recognize it, which is apparently the stand that Chair Sarwark is taking, and which I thus far, support. If the membership believes then the LNC was wrong in refusing to recognize (or alternatively wrongly recognizes it) then the option of going through the process of overturning an LNC decision must be gone through. And that will lead to one side having an unsatisfactory conclusion, but that is the procedure and risks of our voluntary association. Depending upon the outcome of that, members will have to decide where they stand and if they wish to continue to voluntarily associate. This is of course simplistic, but it seems to boil things down to the essence.

    In my view, the unsatisfactory conclusion would be that the LNC decides to accept this decision as legitimate and recognizes the Burke faction. If that happens, I would support a membership appeal. If the membership appeal lost, I would move on to try to fix whatever issues there were that led to this sort of thing. I am never going to be part of the pitchfork and mayhem “destroy the LNC and the LP” crowd. We follow our voluntary association procedures, and decide for ourselves if whatever deviations are fatal to our involvement or whether change and accountability are the paths we prefer to take. Those are the paths I choose to take. The LP is worth it to me, but everyone has their own decisions to make.

    I keep having to bring this up, but I want to be perfectly clear as new persons keep reading this conversation (some of them get in touch with me). My issue has always been the original 2011 LNC/EC decision which I believe breached the autonomy of the affiliate. I believe that the LNC/EC came to the right conclusions about what the Wagner group did… I just do not believe they had the by-laws authority to come to those conclusions. I know some people are willing to overlook that for principles of equity because they think the conclusion was valid. I have to say I find that troubling because Wagner’s reasons for doing what he did, though against the rules, were for reasons of equity and defense. Voluntary associations cannot work like that. I am being brutally consistent here. I understand that the 2011 LNC felt that the 2011 JC did not have the authority to hear the case then and that they could have refused to honour it, just as some in the LNC are considering to refuse to honour this current decision. Frankly, if that is what they felt, they should have refused to honour it in 2011, and let it go to the membership appeal process. To say because they chose to submit, that this LNC should also choose to submit is not an argument. If I were on the 2011 LNC and believed the body had such authority and the JC didn’t, I would have taken a stand against submitting.

    I think the November meeting will be pivotal, and I plan to listen in.

  170. Richard S

    Ultimately, the “winner” of this Oregon infighting will be determined by the courts, and then only after all possible appeals are worked through. The courts are going to follow Oregon law and precedent, not the ruling of the LNC judicial committee (seriously, why would someone believe this?). As an Oregon libertarian, I wish the national party would stay out of our affairs. It has only exasperated the infighting and made it harder for us to heal.

  171. Chuck Moulton

    Unfortunately the November LNC meeting is scheduled for one of the busiest weekends of the year for me (Cato monetary conference on Thursday, Federalist Society national lawyers convention — for all my CLE requirements — on Friday and Saturday), so I will not be able to listen to or live blog the LNC meeting.

    I’ll be in Orlando on Sunday for the bylaws committee meeting, which is also very inconveniently timed but I feel obliged to attend as I made a commitment by seeking that appointment. If the LNC meeting runs into Sunday morning I may be able to live blog that part on site.

  172. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard S,

    ==Ultimately, the “winner” of this Oregon infighting will be determined by the courts, and then only after all possible appeals are worked through. The courts are going to follow Oregon law and precedent, not the ruling of the LNC judicial committee (seriously, why would someone believe this?). As an Oregon libertarian, I wish the national party would stay out of our affairs. It has only exasperated the infighting and made it harder for us to heal.===

    I agree with you. This is and has always been an Oregon matter.

  173. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Chuck,

    ==so I will not be able to listen to or live blog the LNC meeting.==

    I plan on listening, but I am not going to be in front of a computer the whole time and do not not know what my work schedule will be yet that weekend. I can always keep the audio going in the background while working but not with enough attention to commit to live blog, though if it turns out I can take a shift, I will do so.

  174. Dave Terry

    Chuck Moulton; Sept.18, wrote;

    “Richard P. Burke (ghostwriting for Ian Epstein) wrote”

    1. Cheap Shot!
    2. Could have easily been coincidental because
    3. Many if not most, Americans have problems with
    punctuation.

    Tell us Chuck, when should we use a ‘semi-colon’
    instead of ‘colon’; and WHAT does either have to
    do with a colonoscopy?

  175. jim

    Wes Wagner, quoting Ian Epstein:
    “As you are aware, the national Judicial Committee rescinded it’s
    ruling of 2011. In doing so it reinstated the 2011 resolutions passed
    by the LNC. My fellow officers and I are proud to be properly
    recognized as the leadership of LNC’s Oregon affiliate.”

    I notice Ian Epstein seems to be making an error, in the second sentence. I am aware, for example, that in US Federal law, and in most, or perhaps all state law, the repeal of a repealing statute does not, thereby, reinstate the law originally repealed. I suggest that you Google-search “repeal of a repealing” for examples, including the name of the relevant state (Oregon) if you’d like. One result snippet that is commonly found: “The repeal of a repealing act shall not revive the oriignal act”.

    Note: I am not suggesting such a principle NECESSARILY rules, for example from Oregon state law. Instead, I propose that this is clearly a very-longstanding general rule, which when respected would prevent the Judiciary committee from implicitly reviving LNC’s position in regards to the Burke cabal merely by declaring the national Judicial Committee’s recinding of the LNC’s actions of 2011.
    I think it’s clear that Ian Epstein is drawing an undefendable conclusion (” In doing so it reinstated the 2011 resolutions passed by the LNC.”) in a way intended to trick people not familiar with law.

  176. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt; Sept.18,
    > “Oh, and Santa Claus is real, too!”

    Your ‘cynicism’ is NOT flattering……..
    ….neither is your bias in favor of Wagner & Co.

  177. paulie

    Once again Caryn is exactly correct on all points.

    I generally don’t read Dave Terry’s comments, but did read one by accident just now. I wish Mr. Terry good luck on his upcoming colonoscopy; maybe it will help him think more clearly in the future.

    If Wes Wagner lets us know which candidates he contacted, I can try to make his list more complete.

  178. Chuck Moulton

    Dave Terry wrote:

    1. Cheap Shot!
    2. Could have easily been coincidental because
    3. Many if not most, Americans have problems with punctuation.

    Cheap shot? I simply wanted to demonstrate that this letter which claims to be from new blood who says he has the background and desire to mend fences is in fact a lie: it is reverse plagiarism — this was really written by someone with a long documented history of divisiveness, gamesmanship, and Machiavellian manipulation. I fear some on the LNC will be duped when Burke keeps finding puppets to borrow names from, as his is forever tarnished.

    Read the letter again bearing in mind that Burke wrote it and imagine how it would be perceived differently by some with its true author identified.

    Richard P. Burke wrote:

    My goals in the coming year will be to heal the rifts that exist between Libertarians in Oregon, heal the rifts that exist between the LNC and some Oregon Libertarians, and build a culture of principled success here in Oregon. Because I am relatively new to the LPO, have a short track record with it’s members, and have animosity toward noone, I believe I am the right person to accomplish these goals.

    BULLSHIT!

    Sorry, lying is a pet peeve of mine. So is terrible grammar and usage.

    A lot of people have intermittent problems with punctuation. Few are consistently and predictably wrong in practically every instance even after others repeatedly try to teach them proper grammar and usage.

    Come on, have you not been reading Burke all these years?

    Joseph Buchman wrote:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/libertarian-candidate-in-oregon-receives-letter-from-richard-burke-recommending-he-vote-for-republican-competitor/#comment-955362

    This is, I believe, the first document where Mr. Burke has not misspelled the possessive form of its as “it’s.”

    Richard Burke wrote:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/06/oregons-burke-helping-other-3rd-parties-benefits-lp/

    If at any time OIA changes it’s mind on this, my offer stands.

    I could quote pretty much everything Burke has ever written, but that would be tedious and a waste of my time. Like I said, everyone who has been following this at all knows Burke’s lack of ability to use the possessive “its” is both a signature that identifies his writings and a running joke.

    I’m offended by this naked gamesmanship. I’m saddened that it will probably work on a lot of LNC members, because most of them don’t pay close attention.

  179. Chuck Moulton

    Ruchard P. Burke (ghostwriting for Ian Epstein) wrote:

    “As you are aware, the national Judicial Committee rescinded it’s ruling of 2011. In doing so it reinstated the 2011 resolutions passed
    by the LNC. My fellow officers and I are proud to be properly recognized as the leadership of LNC’s Oregon affiliate.

    Another wrong “it’s”!! They just keep coming and coming.

    Thanks to Jim in the comment above for quoting another example.

  180. Richard P. Burke

    Chuck,

    I did not ghostwrite Mr. Epstien’s letter to the LNC. Most of the writing is his. I and the other LPO officers looked at it and offered some material. Some of our offerings were included in Mr. Epstien’s letter, many were not. And, FYI, I’m not the only one who uses “its” and “it’s” improperly.

    Bryan,

    I sign many of my posts as the “Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Oregon” because I was elected to the position at our March convention in Pendleton. I recognize that you, the people in Mr. Wagner’s group (for lack of a better name) and many others on this email list do not recognize me as such, but these are things I cannot control.

    But the LPO as organized by bylaws approved by members in properly noticed conventions, and by extension, my position as Secretary, has been recognized by LPO members assembled in convention, the LPO Executive Committee, the full LNC, the LP Judicial Committee, and the LPO Judicial Committee. Additionally, the delegates we sent to the 2012 and 2014 national conventions were sat instead of or in addition to the Wagner delegates against objections made by the Wagner group, by the delegates assembled. I think that is a pretty good chain of legitimacy, and is how I “get off” on signing my posts as the “LPO Secretary.”

    You may agree with his reasons, but the fact is that LNC Chair Nick Sarwark, who has no unilateral policy making authority on behalf of the LNC according to our bylaws, is now in violation of LNC resolutions and the national Judicial Committee.

    It is true that Wagner’s group still has control of the ballot line, but this is a separate question. As was seen in Arizona, and I believe other states, the state recognized organization and the one affiliated by the LNC do not necessarily have to be the same.

    Even as it is, the only reason Wagner’s group currently has the ballot line is because of an unwritten policy the Sec. of State adopted based only on the fact that the 2011 Judicial Committee kicked the question of who to recognize to them. If the Sec. of State’s letter of Sept. 29, 2011 is to be believed, they will abide by an unambiguous determination by the national party.

    It should also be remembered that Wagner’s entire organization is based on governing documents they themselves admit were purportedly adopted in violation of the bylaws in force at that time, and these bylaws were supposedly ratified by an election not authorized by our bylaws in which we did not take part by people who had not signed the non-aggression pledge. That election was very similar to the one held in Crimea by separatists, but without the guns. The Wagner group also attempted to legitimize their coup by misapplying a statute which relates exclusively to major parties.

    That is a very thin line of legitimacy. Mr. Wagner’s group is effectively attempting to co-opt the force of the state to achieve legitimacy, and that doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

    Bryan… We should meet sometime. I am not “evil” as often portrayed on this list, and you may be interested to hear the other side. If you are willing, let me know. I assume you won’t bite, and neither will I.

    Regards,

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  181. paulie

    Even as it is, the only reason Wagner’s group currently has the ballot line is because of an unwritten policy the Sec. of State adopted based only on the fact that the 2011 Judicial Committee kicked the question of who to recognize to them. If the Sec. of State’s letter of Sept. 29, 2011 is to be believed, they will abide by an unambiguous determination by the national party.

    I’m sure I’m not the first person to tell you that is a misinterpretation of what the SOS letter said. I’m willing to bet real money they will not switch the ballot line to your group due only to anything the LNC or LNJC does. Wanna bet?

    Bryan… We should meet sometime. I am not “evil” as often portrayed on this list, and you may be interested to hear the other side. If you are willing, let me know. I assume you won’t bite, and neither will I.

    From the times we have met, I can confirm that you appear normal and reasonable in person. If there are times when you aren’t, I have not been there to see them. I did have one young woman tell me you sexually harassed her, but I have only her word for that and since neither myself nor, at least based on name, Bryan are female, that would not be a problem for us.

  182. jim

    George Phillies: I didn’t try to claim that JC’s recission of its decision was identical to, nor precisely equivalent to, repealing a law. But with a 4 year period having passed between 2011 and 2015, to assume that the LNC’s position automatically is renewed amounts to mere wishful thinking. It may be more accurately seen as an invitation to the LNC to “try again”, to decide again based on current facts.

  183. Paul Duke

    Mr. Burke,

    I still have not, as of yet, heard your explanation about why you sent out a letter endorsing a republican candidate over a libertarian one. To me this is very troubling, regardless of what is going on in Oregon. You have been working very hard to be in control of the LPO but you have been working against libertarians, of which you claim to be one.

    In my personal opinion, you sir, are no better than any of the politicians that are currently sitting in Washington D.C. You have no loyalties, save only to your own personal agenda. It appears you will sell out to whomever will aid you in the advance of that agenda, whatever it might be. That is not the kind of leadership that I would want as an Oregonian, and especially not as a libertarian. There is already too much of that in the Democrat and Republican parties.

    I am glad that you are not in Clatsop County.

  184. Chuck Moulton

    Richard P. Burke wrote:

    Chuck,

    I did not ghostwrite Mr. Epstien’s letter to the LNC.

    Consider me skeptical.

    Richard P. Burke wrote:

    Most of the writing is his. I and the other LPO officers looked at it and offered some material. Some of our offerings were included in Mr. Epstien’s letter, many were not. And, FYI, I’m not the only one who uses “its” and “it’s” improperly.

    Okay, this is simple enough to settle then: just post as a comment on IPR all email correspondence between Epstein and other “LPO” officers (including yourself) relating to the composition of this letter. Readers can decide for themselves to what extent you wrote the letter and to what extent Epstein wrote the letter.

  185. paulie

    Chuck’s probably right, but I don’t think it will matter. The letter will most likely be accepted by a lot of people at face value and go a long way towards achieving its intended purpose regardless of who really wrote it.

  186. George Phillies

    This time I agree with jim. the LNC should take a prompt fresh prompt look at the situation, before Epstein et al work out that between the JC and Sarwark their appeal is no longer moot.

  187. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Jim,

    I am not sure what you are talking about but it doesn’t reflect what the JC understood itself to be doing. And I quote:

    ==Rescinding our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Those decisions foundvi that on May 21, 2011, Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.vii Therefore, common sense would indicate that any process that respects the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the March 2009 Bylaws until March 9, 2013 and the March 2013 Bylaws thereafter) should produce a legitimate successor to Tim Reeves as Chairperson.==

    So while the term “renewed” is problematic… it definitely reinstated it.

    I understand that it is Chair Sarwark’s position that he doesn’t recognize the authority of this JC to rescind. I agree with his position. He doesn’t have the authority on his own (that I can see) other than state his personal opinion. It seems like the LNC will have to decide that it doesn’t recognize the decision or it stands.

    The next critical time horizon is likely the LNC convention this November. And this is the directly pertinent bylaws provision:

    ===Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it shall be declared null and void.===

    In context, this appears to be the delegates from the last Convention…

    How this happens…. I do not know, and perhaps someone else does. It would certainly eliminate my participation as I was not a Libertarian at the time of last Convention.

    For those of us not part of the qualified group to appeal, our only power (unless someone decides they are not going to be part of the LP any longer) is to keep this mind as we make decisions next convention. How much weight (if any and on what side of the issue) will vary for everyone.

  188. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Chuck said,

    ==Okay, this is simple enough to settle then: just post as a comment on IPR all email correspondence between Epstein and other “LPO” officers (including yourself) relating to the composition of this letter. Readers can decide for themselves to what extent you wrote the letter and to what extent Epstein wrote the letter.
    ==

    Now that would be interesting.

    Me personally I could not care who wrote it. Some people are terrible writers and have others help. I care if the sentiment and meaning belong to the signatory.

    But now that Richard has voluntarily represented its origins and creations, that starts a claim that I would be interested in whether it was true.

  189. Richard S

    I will respectfully disagree with the following statement. ” the only reason Wagner’s group currently has the ballot line is because of an unwritten policy the Sec. of State adopted based only on the fact that the 2011 Judicial Committee kicked the question of who to recognize to them.” Please provide evidence of this “unwritten policy” the Sec. of State follows. I could be wrong but I believe that the Sec. of State observes succession hand-offs for that respective organization per directive of that organizations established officials (and not newly created ones with similar names -regardless of national input).

    I also respectfully disagree with the statement that “Mr. Wagner’s group is effectively attempting to co-opt the force of the state to achieve legitimacy”. Since the prior bylaws prevented any meeting to conduct business from happening via the observed quorum issue (exasperated by the national party), it seems logical to reboot with new functional bylaws and then put those bylaws to a vote to all Oregon libertarians for approval as they are ultimately the responsible stakeholders. Based on my research, there was 97% approval of the common sense bylaws, ~30% gain in registered Libertarians in Oregon as well as record numbers of candidates on the ballot which provides evidence of legitimacy by Oregon individuals. To say that the “force of the state” is how legitimacy has been attained when Oregon libertarians and candidates have flocked to the party after ratifying new bylaws in a statewide ballot sent to ALL registered Oregon libertarians is again, something I respectfully disagree with.

    I recognize that this dispute is too personal for us to resolve NOW. I am looking forward to the time after the court proceedings are done so that we can move ahead.

  190. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard S,

    ==I also respectfully disagree with the statement that “Mr. Wagner’s group is effectively attempting to co-opt the force of the state to achieve legitimacy”. Since the prior bylaws prevented any meeting to conduct business from happening via the observed quorum issue (exasperated by the national party), it seems logical to reboot with new functional bylaws====

    Absolutely NOT. It was logical to solve the quorum issue in the least intrusive and ham-handed way possible.

    == and then put those bylaws to a vote to all Oregon libertarians for approval as they are ultimately the responsible stakeholders.====

    No… it was a voluntary association in which the membership class, agreed to and understood by everyone in this VOLUNTARY group, was defined. You do not, upon excuse of a quorum issue, decide to unilaterally disenfranchise dues-paying, pledge-affirming Libertarians— never mind whole-sale changing the rules and installing a preferred clique into power. There is no justification. Certainly not a libertarian one.

    The ends DO NOT justify the means… and I dispute any end that disenfranchises the prior member class.

    If the ends DO justify the means, then hats off to the 2011 LNC who came to the right conclusion that this was a coup.

    But I submit they did not have the authority to do so…. the ends do not justify the means in voluntary associations.

  191. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George,

    I think the LNC *should* take a fresh look… but they are not required to as per the JC ruling except perhaps to further continue intruding into an affiliate’s affairs by determination what the “proper” succession would have been.

  192. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Paulie,

    ==Chuck’s probably right, but I don’t think it will matter. The letter will most likely be accepted by a lot of people at face value and go a long way towards achieving its intended purpose regardless of who really wrote it.===

    Disclaimer: I know squat about OR law or this area of law. But just logically, the SoS has no say here any longer, it is in the Courts…. an appellate Court which typically is not going to look at new determinations, it is reviewing the record.

    Again, someone more knowledgeable about these specific can jump in but that seems to be a general logical position.

  193. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Paulie,

    ==Oregon courts much like Oregon SOS will not care what LNC or LNJC thinks.==

    Not at this point. Despite Alicia’s assertion that this is just a matter of a website line item and mailing address label change.

  194. Wes Wagner

    Ian E. took the position of Burke’s meat puppet without ever once contacting anyone in our party to understand what the source of the disagreement might be.

    He will never be trusted in the future by anyone in the actual LPO as a result because it is obvious that he is predisposed to be a co-dependent insecure stooge like all of the other meat puppets Burke digs up.

    I have honestly to date yet to have a single person new to the conflict who ever spoke with us actually join them.

  195. Wes Wagner

    (In general, Burke exploits people who suffer from abnormal psychology, it is very predatory and unfortunate)

  196. Richard S

    Caryn,

    ==No… it was a voluntary association in which the membership class, agreed to and understood by everyone in this VOLUNTARY group, was defined. You do not, upon excuse of a quorum issue, decide to unilaterally disenfranchise dues-paying, pledge-affirming Libertarians— never mind whole-sale changing the rules and installing a preferred clique into power. There is no justification. Certainly not a libertarian one.==

    As a voluntary dues paying member of the LPO at the time, I obviously came to a different conclusion regarding the issue. The poorly written bylaws and the quorum issue were preventing the organization from conducting any business at all. We had a situation that essentially locked the existing officers in for as long as they wanted at the time as business couldn’t be conducted since we could not even convene a meeting. How long should we allow that to continue? The 2 years that it went on? 10 years? A preferred clique was NOT installed into power as you state – a group was already there and wanted to change it so that this would not continue.

    A change had to be made so that the existing group could NOT stay in power at their leisure. My conclusion was that the old bylaws prevented the LPO from being a libertarian organization at that point. I share your rationale but came to a 180 degree different conclusion.

    I would like to see proof that the “old bylaws” LPO has reached quorum over these last few years to conduct business under the old set of bylaws. I looked and can’t find any documentation at all. If the “old bylaws” LPO has achieved quorum including lifetime members, then it would go a long way towards establishing their credibility.

    Caryn, I am sincerely interested in what you think would have been an appropriate response to the situation and what should be done now? I appreciate your perspective.

    Thanks

  197. Richard P. Burke

    Richard S,

    ON THE UNWRITTEN POLICY

    On 9/29/11, after the national Judicial Committee deferred the decision of who the legitimate Oregon LNC affiliate was to the Secretary of State, the Sec. of State’s office wrote:

    “We understand that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. While we have attempted to stay out of your internal party processes, it is clear that we will have to make a decision so that the voters affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be able to have a candidate for the Special Election in the 1st Congressional District.”

    On that basis, they recognized Wagner because he was the “Chair of Record” on 3/31/11 when the split occurred. This is their unwritten policy; that in such cases as these they will default to whomever the “Chair of Record” is. They went with this standard because they didn’t have another which fit our situation and because they are properly barred from interfering with the internal governance of political parties. Their decision was based on that, not an evaluation of the merits of the Wagner group or our group, which they have never commented on.

    In any case, because they came to this decision due to an ambiguous Judicial Committee decision after waiting for their ruling, and because they have deferred to our national party in the past on other issues, we believe it is probable that they will respond to the unambiguous 2015 Judicial Committee ruling once it is implemented. The ruling makes legitimate the 2013 LPO Judicial Committee ruling, and the Sec. of State will not want to stand alone with Wagner against every other party institution – especially when Wagner himself admits that they broke our own rules on 3/31/11.

    ON CO-OPTING THE FORCE OF THE STATE TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL GOAL

    According to the minutes of the March 31, 2011 State Committee meeting when Mr. Wagner and his supporters attempted their coup, Fred Jabin pointed out that statute allowed the State Committee to change our governing documents despite the fact that doing so violated LPO governing documents. Later discussion, to be found elsewhere on this site, revealed the statute to be ORS 248.072 which says a party’s State Committee is it’s ultimate authority. Unfortunately they did not read ORS 248.007, which says that all statutes from 248.012 though 248.315 only apply to major political parties. In any case, the minutes make clear that Wagner and his supporters attempted to use state law to usurp the member-approved bylaws.

    RATIFICATION ELECTION

    The legitimate bylaws had no provisions for amending the LPO governing documents by means of a mail ballot. They say our governing documents can only be amended at properly noticed conventions attended by members who subscribed to the NAP and had paid dues. For this reason we did not participate in the ballot. Naturally it was approved. The election was an attempt to whitewash the 3/31/11 coup.

    LARGE CANDIDATE SLATE

    Wagner’s group got a lot of candidates on his slate. They are to be commended for that, and it may be worth adopting a version of their mail ballot idea. But Wagner does not advertise the fact that about one-third of his candidates were registered Republicans. I have no problem with fusion nominations, but that is pretty ridiculous. It should also be remembered that very few of the Libertarian-registered candidates ran active campaigns. Many of them didn’t have Voter Pamphlet statements. It is debatable whether these are the kinds of slates we want to field.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  198. Dave Terry

    WW; “I have honestly to date yet to have a single person new to the conflict
    who ever spoke with us actually join them.

    “Consider me skeptical”

    ,

  199. Dave Terry

    Caryn wrote: September 18, 2015

    “No… it was a voluntary association in which the membership class, agreed to and understood by everyone in this VOLUNTARY group, was defined. You do not, upon excuse of a quorum issue, decide to unilaterally disenfranchise dues-paying, pledge-affirming Libertarians— never mind whole-sale changing the rules and installing a preferred clique into power. There is no justification. Certainly not a libertarian one.

    The ends DO NOT justify the means… and I dispute any end that disenfranchises the prior member class.

    If the ends DO justify the means, then hats off to the 2011 LNC who came to the right conclusion that this was a coup.”

    Hallelujah!!!! and Amen!!
    There is LIGHT, once again, falling on the LP

  200. George Phillies

    The Massachusetts Party will be having a live Presidential debate on October 17, as part of our state convention. The convention will be in Worcester, Massachusetts; the debate will be at 11AM. Candidates who are eligible to be nominated (must be a national party member and constitutionally eligible) are invited to attend. The debate will be video recorded. It may be live-broadcast. Presidential candidates are invited to contact me directly 508 754 1859. Candidates are responsible for all their own travel expenses.

  201. Richard P. Burke

    Chuck,

    No, I am not going to compile and post a bunch of rough drafts for people to comb through for factional ammo. I wouldn’t do it without everyone’s permission anyway. Sorry.

    Paul,

    I sent the letter you refer to because: 1) Since the Markleys were not nominated in accordance with processes outlined in the governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions, I did not believe them to be legitimate nominees, 2) The Markleys knew that the governing documents they were working under were purportedly adopted in violation of pre-existing bylaws – and supported them anyway. In my mind, if they could not respect and uphold our voluntarily adopted rules, how could I trust them to respect and uphold their Oaths of Office had they somehow won. On top of that, my wife and I were personal friends of the GOP nominee who seemed (and has been) eager to listen to libertarian perspectives on issues. As a political consultant I have never worked against a legitimately nominated Libertarian candidate.

    You might do well to ask Mr. Wagner why he, Lars Hedbor, and a few of their supporters spent $12,000 to support an unsuccessful attempt by Lars Hedbor to seat me from public office when a Democrat they could have campaigned against ran for re-election unopposed. To anyone’s knowledge, it was the first time ever that a Libertarian challenger sought to unseat a Libertarian incumbent.

    Paulie,

    In 2004 when my marriage was breaking down, while I was the LPO’s hired Executive Director, I had inappropriate relationships with two LPO officers. While that was wrong and I offer no excuse for it, by definition it could not have been sexual harassment as I was the subordinate and they were my superiors. Since that time I have apologized, made amends, and am now on very good terms with each of them.

    Richard P. Burke

  202. Richard P. Burke

    Richard S.,

    We did indeed establish quorum in 2013. It was not easy. We surveyed the membership. We found deaths. We had a phone campaign where we asked members who could not attend the convention to voluntarily resign their memberships in order to lower the quorum bar going all the way back to Dr. Paul Smith, who some may remember. A LOT of memberships expired for lack of dues renewals.

    At the March 12, 2011 convention, Mr. Wagner moved to adjourn to a meeting ostensibly so both sides could work together to achieve quorum at the proposed May 21, 2011 meeting. Had we actually followed through and tried, I think we could have done it. At least most of those voting for Wagner’s motion thought so. It should not be surprising, then, that we would make quorum with some effort after two additional years of membership erosion caused by infighting.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  203. Wes Wagner

    Yeah they achieved quorum after deleting lifetime members for saying bad things about them .. claiming people who didn’t exist who were still on the voter registrarion list .. yup that is how they got quroum allegedly.

  204. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard S,

    ==As a voluntary dues paying member of the LPO at the time, I obviously came to a different conclusion regarding the issue.==

    But part of the voluntary arrangement is that you do not have the authority to come to this conclusion on behalf of everyone else. I am treading very lightly here because this is an Oregon issue. My business is the national LP of which of I am a dues-paying (and above and over that contributor) and though not relevant here, of my own affiliate, that of CO.

    == The poorly written bylaws and the quorum issue were preventing the organization from conducting any business at all. ==

    The quorum issue might have been. I do not believe that the bylaws were preventing *any business* at all. And these are the bylaws agreed upon by the members. However they get amended, somehow it has to be worked out without unilaterally redefining the member class. I would submit that doing so is a species of aggression against them.

    ==We had a situation that essentially locked the existing officers in for as long as they wanted at the time as business couldn’t be conducted since we could not even convene a meeting. How long should we allow that to continue? The 2 years that it went on? 10 years? ==

    No one forced these bylaws upon the existing member class. If convening a meeting was impossible, then you solve that narrow issue with the least intrusive means possible. And there was means under the law to get court involvement to solve this. And Richard did offer some ways to solve this. I am sure other ways could be come up with other than the drastic action in one meeting, redefining the member class, replacing the bylaws, and installing officers. Not to mention that I find it incredibly problematic that an agreement was had (do agreements not mean anything?) to reconvene at a later date, and that was unilaterally cancelled to do this.

    ===A preferred clique was NOT installed into power as you state – a group was already there and wanted to change it so that this would not continue.===

    The preferred clique unilaterally cancelled an agreed upon meeting date and installed themselves into power and redefined the member class. A member class who did not agree to this according to the voluntary association agreement.

    ==A change had to be made so that the existing group could NOT stay in power at their leisure. ===

    This is no different than saying the LNC had to bend their bylaws to remediate a coup. I don’t buy that for them. I don’t buy it for any voluntary association. Worse come to worse, you dissolve. Yes, that is a nuclear option. But that is what I said for the LNC… they only had the nuclear option by own agreement. I cannot have differing weights and measure here.

    ==My conclusion was that the old bylaws prevented the LPO from being a libertarian organization at that point. I share your rationale but came to a 180 degree different conclusion.===

    When a voluntary organization makes its bed, it must lie in it. That is the conclusion I come to with the LNC.

    ==I would like to see proof that the “old bylaws” LPO has reached quorum over these last few years to conduct business under the old set of bylaws. I looked and can’t find any documentation at all. If the “old bylaws” LPO has achieved quorum including lifetime members, then it would go a long way towards establishing their credibility.==

    Here is why I don’t have an issue with simply changing to solve the quorum issue. I do not believe that there was full knowledge and consent to this quorum requirement by the voluntary association. It was a technicality in the RONR that was not fully understood and thus not consented to in any meaningful way.

    ==Caryn, I am sincerely interested in what you think would have been an appropriate response to the situation and what should be done now? I appreciate your perspective.==

    I hope you don’t find my response judgmental to you– I don’t intend it that way. You have an interest, and even moreso being a member of the former member class. The appropriate response would have been the least minimally invasive and violative response to get the prior member class to be able to decide and if that was impossible, court intervention or even the nuclear option of dissolution. Richard offered some ways that it could have been solved, and if I were intimately familiar with the old bylaws (I am not), I am sure that creative means could have been had even if it involved personally sending people to actually visit or call the members and implore them to solve this. The group belonged just as much to them….

    The means has to be the most respectful and least violative of the prior due-paying, pledge affirming class.

    Note, I have no opinion on whether the Burke faction had a proper election. I am of the present opinion that they did not, but I invited Richard to provide me proof.

    What should be done now to correct what I see as the wrong done? I honestly don’t know… and as an non-Oregonian, it isn’t my place. It is likely too late.

    At this point, it is done, and it is for the Courts to decide. It isn’t the LNC’s business unless they were to decide that the violations were too great and ethically they needed to disaffiliate. That is the only option they have as per our bylaws.

  205. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    ==Yeah they achieved quorum after deleting lifetime members for saying bad things about them .. claiming people who didn’t exist who were still on the voter registrarion list .. yup that is how they got quroum allegedly.
    ==

    I am sorry Wes but my irony meter broke if you are all of a sudden an advocate for lifetime members. Seriously?

  206. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard,

    ==No, I am not going to compile and post a bunch of rough drafts for people to comb through for factional ammo. I wouldn’t do it without everyone’s permission anyway. Sorry.==

    Have you asked their permission? Some would use it for factional ammo perhaps. I have a proven track record of not following factional lines.

  207. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ==Ian E. took the position of Burke’s meat puppet without ever once contacting anyone in our party to understand what the source of the disagreement might be.===

    I invite Ian to contact me for his perspective.

  208. Chuck Moulton

    Richard P. Burke wrote (@ 6:14 pm):

    Later discussion, to be found elsewhere on this site, revealed the statute to be ORS 248.072 which says a party’s State Committee is it’s ultimate authority

    its

  209. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/d62.html

    🙂

    ==What is the difference between its and it’s?

    Its is the possessive form of ‘it’. It’s is a contraction of ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. Examples: It’s a common mistake. / The boat has a hole in its hull. The confusion arises from the dual function of the ‘s ending, which can indicate either possession or contraction, as in: Joe’s hamburgers are the best = The hamburgers which are Joe’s – that is, in that he makes them – are the best. / Joe’s going to have to buy some more patties soon = Joe is going to have to buy some more patties soon. However, ‘s is never used to indicate possession in pronouns. We do not write hi’s (instead of his), for example. Here is a test you can perform to determine whether to use it’s or its: Replace it with his and see if the sentence still makes (grammatical) sense. “His a common mistake” does not make sense. However, “The boat has a hole in his hull” does make sense – at least grammatically (of course boats are not boys, but we can pretend that they are for the sake of improving our spelling). The rule to apply, then, is this: If the sentence makes sense with his, which does not have an apostrophe, it is safe to replace it with its, which also does not have an apostrophe.==

  210. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    If I ever tried to write anything long for anyone else, my Britishisms would give me away.

  211. Jill Pyeatt

    Burke said: “I sent the letter you refer to because: 1) Since the Markleys were not nominated in accordance with processes outlined in the governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions, I did not believe them to be legitimate nominees, 2) The Markleys knew that the governing documents they were working under were purportedly adopted in violation of pre-existing bylaws – and supported them anyway. In my mind, if they could not respect and uphold our voluntarily adopted rules, how could I trust them to respect and uphold their Oaths of Office had they somehow won. On top of that, my wife and I were personal friends of the GOP nominee who seemed (and has been) eager to listen to libertarian perspectives on issues. As a political consultant I have never worked against a legitimately nominated Libertarian candidate.”

    These are weak and flimsy excuses. You should NOT have sent that letter if you really cared about the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    You can’t just say stuff and expect all of us to believe you.

  212. Paul Duke

    I don’t have a problem with libertarians running against other libertarians in an election. That is a good problem to have. Actually endorsing someone from another party entirely when you are allegedly a board member of an opposing party, regardless of your perceived circumstances, is inexcusable.

    Republicans are always eager to listen to libertarian perspectives on issues during election cycles, if they believe it will garner votes from the libertarians. Just look at Rand Paul’s campaign trying to get the libertarians on his side. Libertarian votes you attempted to hand your friend on a silver platter, in a childish attempt to get even against the Wagner group.

    This is how it looks to me.

  213. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Being an officer of a Libertarian Party and actively endorsing a Republican over a Libertarian is a massive breach to me.

  214. George Phillies

    Readers should note two circumstances: 1) State has fusion. Same person is the candidate of several parties. You can do this in Massachusetts, but not very easily.
    2) I am a Libertarian. I am running against a Revolutionary Vegetarian. My state chair endorses the Revolutionary Vegetarian.

  215. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George,

    Yes I know they have fusion, and I can’t stand fusion.. but I understand it is allowable in some ares. I see a big distinction in having a fusion candidate and in endorsing a Republican over a Libertarian. Or a Revolutionary Vegetarian… but particularly a Republican considering the crap the RP pulls on the LP.

  216. Wes Wagner

    I am not trying to stick up for lifetime members.. but it is amazing how many members disappeared at the last moment before their high desert convention where they radically rewrote their bylaws and it was just enough members who went POOF under indefensible curcumstances to allow them to miraculously reach quorum.

  217. Nicholas Sarwark

    I understand that it is Chair Sarwark’s position that he doesn’t recognize the authority of this JC to rescind. I agree with his position. He doesn’t have the authority on his own (that I can see) other than state his personal opinion. It seems like the LNC will have to decide that it doesn’t recognize the decision or it stands.

    You misunderstand my position. Even assuming that the Judicial Committee can rescind the previous Judicial Committee decision from 2011, that reinstates opinions of the Executive Committee of the LNC that “Based on the available evidence…” back in 2011, they thought a certain group of people were the proper officers under the proper bylaws back in 2011.

    After those decisions, one of the groups sought relief in Oregon state court before a neutral judge to gain control of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. This was with due process, extensive discovery, and the opportunity for both sides to be heard. The plaintiffs had their case dismissed at summary judgment, meaning they could not proceed even when all of the facts they alleged were assumed true. There is now a binding court decision under Oregon law about who the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon are.

    There was not a binding Oregon court decision resolving the dispute over the rightful officers in 2011, but there is now. The Libertarian Party of Oregon as a political party is our affiliate. If the current LNC believes that the Oregon courts have made the wrong decision and that the officers of that political party should not be the officers of our affiliate, they need to disaffiliate that political party, but who is in charge of that political party is a legal question and it has been resolved subsequent to 2011.

    Rescinding a decision makes a statement about whether that decision was the right one, but it doesn’t undo subsequent elections, legal decisions, or other actions taken in reliance on the original decision.

  218. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Nick,

    Those are excellent points. I could be wrong, but I suspect many people here without a legal background do not understand a summary judgment. The SoS is not going to go against a court judgment and the LNC/JC has no authority to overrule it.

    Again, this just underscores the folly of reductionistically stating that if tge LP just switches the website and mailing address – all is well.

  219. paulie

    In 2004 when my marriage was breaking down, while I was the LPO’s hired Executive Director, I had inappropriate relationships with two LPO officers. While that was wrong and I offer no excuse for it, by definition it could not have been sexual harassment as I was the subordinate and they were my superiors. Since that time I have apologized, made amends, and am now on very good terms with each of them.

    I don’t know how long you have been on your present marriage, if your wife may read these comments, if you would guess who I am talking about and create more problems for her, or even if she told me the truth. But just to be clear the alleged incidents were much more recent than 2004 and according to my source did not actually involve sex, just repeated and “creepy” (her words) unwelcome advances which did not stop, she says, after she made it clear she was not interested. I believe she said you were married at the time, but I don’t know if it was to your present wife. I don’t want to be more specific for the reasons stated. I’m not trying to make problems either for you or for her and I don’t know for that matter if she made the whole thing up. I do know a lot of other people have been on previous IPR comments talking about how you were into porn and strippers (I am too, so I’m not saying that is a bad thing or anything if true).

  220. Wes Wagner

    Burke was married while the accusations of sexual harassment were made during the Johnson campaign.

  221. Richard Burke

    Married, but separated at the time. I had my own apartment since 2002 on 172nd in Beaverton. We did not divorce until years later because we had disputes over equity in the home and decided to maintain a holding pattern rather than go to war in the courts and see lawyers bleed us dry. We eventually came to an arrangement, filed, and were divorced three weeks later. I don’t know what my ex-wife told anyone, but public records exist that people can find to support what I write here.

    Richard P. Burke

  222. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner, Sept19

    “Burke was married while the accusations of sexual harassment were made during the Johnson campaign.”

    Wes; Richard admitted to “inappropriate” relations. That ISN’T the same as sexual harassment.
    Can you provide evidence that anyone “accused” him of ‘sexual harassment’

    How about YOURSELF? Have you lived an “immaculate” life? I haven’t!!!

  223. Jill Pyeatt

    I know the young lady we’re talking about. I don’t believe it would be giving away her identity to say this happened around the time of the 2012 campaign.

    She is a person who is not given to dramatics, and I believe her.

  224. Wes Wagner

    Most familiar with the story would say that he just wanted to stick his penis (attached to his self-alleged non-functional testicles) inside her.

    Not sure about that other stuff Daniel.

  225. Wes Wagner

    No.. honestly Burke’s conduct over the years has been so shameful it should be mentioned in every conversation and forum until he gets a clue and goes into hiding in a dark cave to die alone.

  226. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner, September 19, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    > No.. honestly Burke’s conduct over the years has been so shameful it should be mentioned in every conversation and forum until he gets a clue and goes into hiding in a dark cave to die alone.,<

    Which is STILL preferable to spending time in a statecom meeting with YOU!

  227. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Richard, I would like you to continue (if not here, please feel free to write me personally…. with the understanding that relevant — not personal — things will be posted here).

    I think everyone is done on that tangent… it is why I said something.

    Please do consider staying. I will respect your personal space. I always have.

  228. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    Just so you know (in case you didn’t), facilitating the ability for a sociopath to compartmentalize is enablement.

  229. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    And Wes, just so that you know. repeating accusations that are not formal charges in an unrelated discussion is called gossip. And I want no part. And you can rest assured, I would never do it to you or anyone else.

    IF this were an entire discussion on that topic that would different. But of all of this is supremely unrelated to this discussion. You do NOT have the consent of any spouses/partner here (such accusations affect them too…. consent is a big deal to me) and you haven’t been asked to be an arbiter here….. nor a judge on multiple other people’s sexual habits and tastes, *some* of which, truly, even if true, are the private arrangements of adults in a libertarian worldview and are not your business. Or mine.

    I don’t gossip. And I try not to…. we all fail, I suppose.

    None of this is related to this topic.

    With that, I will ignore anything further on this topic. I said what I wish, and others will do as they wish.

  230. Wes Wagner

    When someone is suing to gain control of a public trust, past incident where they were predatory towards others are quite germane.

  231. paulie

    I think the point has been made and no one is changing anyone’s mind on any aspect of it. Does anyone wish to discuss any other aspect of the prior related discussions or of the ongoing LPOR struggles?

  232. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie,

    ==Does anyone wish to discuss any other aspect of the prior related discussions or of the ongoing LPOR struggles?===

    Probably when another round of LNC emails comes out:) It seems to be a “wait and see” thing.

    I have gotten a few communications (apparently I am getting a reputation with some as the person who knows about “that Oregon thing”) asking about it… and I am basically like, we have to wait and see precisely what is going to happen, and I recommend they get on the LNC-vote mirror list to observe.

  233. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Richard has gotten in touch with me regarding the information he is getting together for me regarding whether or not his group had valid 2011 elections. He has given some background, but I am not posting it yet as he has said it is incomplete but he just wanted to update me.

    This information is relevant (to me— it will have differing relevances to people from other perspectives) only to the extent of my personal opinion on what should have happened in OR — to the extent that an outsider can have an opinion.

    As far as what the LNC should have done, it isn’t relevant because my position against their decision already concedes they were right about Wagner’s group,but didn’t have the authority to do what they did… even if they came to absolutely the right conclusion (right now I only have a firm opinion on half of their opinion…)

  234. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner, Sept 8, wrote;

    “Ian E. took the position of Burke’s meat puppet without ever once contacting
    anyone in our party to understand what the source of the disagreement might be.”

    I see. So there is NO PERSON in “your” party that could ‘possibly’ have spoken
    to someone who asked ‘what’s up’ with TWO libertarian parties and NOT HAVE
    REPORTED IT TO YOU!

    Well, Sieg Heil, Herr Wagner; you REALLY run a tight ship! Or is it a U-BOAT?

  235. Wes Wagner

    I would know about it because we are very transparent and collaborative. You would think that if the other side were so principled there would be at least one person who said.. you know what thos guys are right..I am joining them.

    That speaks volumes for whi they really are.

  236. Dave Terry

    Preaching to the choir again, Herr Wagner?

    You are, of course clairvoyant and know that not one of your cadre has defected.
    Perhaps, to be safe, you should check all of the cells to make sure no prisoners
    have escaped.

  237. Ken Moellman

    I’ll just point out that this whole mess continues to successfully wasted a bunch of volunteer resources. I’d post more, but then I’d be wasting my resources, too.

  238. jim

    I have a question about this brain-dead system, IPR: Why is it that that this box that I am typing into is labelled “Leave a Reply to xxxxxxxxx”, yet my reply isn’t LABELLED as being to xxxxxxxx when it appears?
    “Not ready for prime time”, children.

  239. wolfefan

    The box I am typing in doesn’t say anything about “to xxxxx” – just leaving the reply, which I presume is a reply to the original post.

  240. wolfefan

    I figured that, but there is no “to” or name of any kind on mine – just the words “leave a reply.” Sorry if I am being obtuse or missing something….

  241. paulie

    I have a question about this brain-dead system, IPR:

    You are addresing it to the wrong place. No one that regularly comments here has any control over any “system.” The most any of us can do is monitor/moderate comments and post and edit articles. Try wredlich@gmail.com, and you would probably have to explain what you mean better than you have.

    Why is it that that this box that I am typing into is labelled “Leave a Reply to xxxxxxxxx”,

    No idea where or why you would be seeing any box like that. You’re not in dashboard since you are not an IPR writer/editor. Our regular comment threads just have a box at the bottom that says reply and does not say anything about who you are replying to. If you want your comment to say who you are replying to you need to include that in the comment.

  242. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Daniel,

    I don’t find these OR threads useless. And judging from the contacts I have made outside IPR from people reading them, a lot of people don’t. The amount of feedback I receive from these is quite a surprise to me.

  243. LibertyDave

    Caryn

    You stated the following about the LPO.

    “No… it was a voluntary association in which the membership class, agreed to and understood by everyone in this VOLUNTARY group, was defined. You do not, upon excuse of a quorum issue, decide to unilaterally disenfranchise dues-paying, pledge-affirming Libertarians— never mind whole-sale changing the rules and installing a preferred clique into power. There is no justification. Certainly not a libertarian one.”

    You claim that the LPO disenfranchise dues-paying, pledge-affirming Libertarians.

    Please explain how making it easier to be a member, by removing the dues paying and pledge singing requirements is disenfranchising members.

    If you’re talking about the new requirement that to be a voting member you have to register to vote as a libertarian. Again this is making it easier to join the party, not harder. Before the change, in order to join the party you had to go to a libertarian meeting, if you could find one in your area, to get an application to join the party. At the time of this change the only meetings that were being held were around the Portland area, if you didn’t live in or around Portland you had to take a long trip or you were out of luck. With the change, now it doesn’t matter where you live in Oregon it is as easy to join the party, as it is as easy to register to vote.

    Before Wes took over as chair of the LPO, the LPO’s website hadn’t been updated in about 3 or 4 years and didn’t have a link to the application to join the party that you could download, and the website didn’t have a current address to send it to.

    The only people that got disenfranchised were people that don’t live in Oregon or refused to register to vote as libertarian.

    For those people that don’t live in Oregon, what make you think you have the right to vote on who represents the members in the LPO or who is a libertarian candidate when you aren’t affected by the consequences of your vote.

    And for those people that refuse to register libertarian, it shows that you either don’t want to be affiliated with any political party or are affiliated with another political party. Either way why should you be allowed to vote to select Libertarian candidates or LPO leaders?

    As far as getting rid of the NAP pledge, we didn’t get rid of the “Non-Aggression Principle”. It is still part of our bylaws and prominently displayed on our website. All we did was we got rid of a pledge that was unenforceable. Just because someone signs a pledge or says an oath doesn’t mean that is what they believe or what they will do. Just look at the actions of Richard Burke or M. Carling who both signed the NAP pledge and who both broke their pledge.

  244. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    LibertyDave,

    ===Please explain how making it easier to be a member, by removing the dues paying and pledge singing requirements is disenfranchising members.==

    Enfranchisement in a voluntary association has nothing to do with “easy” but about agreements, and you answer this yourself later.

    ==If you’re talking about the new requirement that to be a voting member you have to register to vote as a libertarian. Again this is making it easier to join the party, not harder.===

    See what I said above. Adding requirements that the former class did not agree to pursuant to the methodology for agreement in their voluntary association is illegitimate.

    == Before the change, in order to join the party you had to go to a libertarian meeting, if you could find one in your area, to get an application to join the party. At the time of this change the only meetings that were being held were around the Portland area, if you didn’t live in or around Portland you had to take a long trip or you were out of luck. With the change, now it doesn’t matter where you live in Oregon it is as easy to join the party, as it is as easy to register to vote.===

    See what I said above. If the voluntary association requirement was that you had to wear a clown suit and stand on your head, that is their agreement.

    ==Before Wes took over as chair of the LPO, the LPO’s website hadn’t been updated in about 3 or 4 years and didn’t have a link to the application to join the party that you could download, and the website didn’t have a current address to send it to. ==

    That is the responsibility of the group to handle, not someone to simply take over. Voluntary associations have the right to be ran badly.

    ==The only people that got disenfranchised were people that don’t live in Oregon or refused to register to vote as libertarian. ===

    Once again, there were lifetime members that had every reason to believe that “lifetime” meant just that… and people who for whatever reason had an expectation to trust that the member class would be what it was unless changed pursuant to voluntary association rules.

    ==For those people that don’t live in Oregon, what make you think you have the right to vote on who represents the members in the LPO or who is a libertarian candidate when you aren’t affected by the consequences of your vote. ===

    Because it is a voluntary association who can choose that whether you think it is dumb or not. And there are people with solid libertarian reasons to choose not to register to vote and still wish to work towards liberty with the LP and those who have criminal records.

    ===And for those people that refuse to register libertarian, it shows that you either don’t want to be affiliated with any political party or are affiliated with another political party. Either way why should you be allowed to vote to select Libertarian candidates or LPO leaders?===

    Because that is what the voluntary association chose to do.

    ==As far as getting rid of the NAP pledge, we didn’t get rid of the “Non-Aggression Principle”. It is still part of our bylaws and prominently displayed on our website. All we did was we got rid of a pledge that was unenforceable.===

    If I am part of a voluntary association that said all members will rub their belly before they go to bed and certify that, I have every right to expect that pledge to remain in place no matter how “enforceable.” The group having a rule on what to pledge is different than rules enforcing it.

    === Just because someone signs a pledge or says an oath doesn’t mean that is what they believe or what they will do. Just look at the actions of Richard Burke or M. Carling who both signed the NAP pledge and who both broke their pledge.===

    See above. Violating the enfranchisement rules of a group of people that paid money into such an arrangement is IMHO a NAP violation (using the paid part since nearly everyone understands money…. the trust and other subjective values that they were enticed into placing is also an issue, but more ephemeral), so I do not see you arguing on the side of angels here.

  245. LibertyDave

    Caryn

    You stated;

    “Once again, there were lifetime members that had every reason to believe that “lifetime” meant just that… and people who for whatever reason had an expectation to trust that the member class would be what it was unless changed pursuant to voluntary association rules.”

    There is only one life members that I have heard of that is complaining about being disenfranchised are the same ones who’s initiation of force is primarily responsible for the bylaws being change the way they were.

    You also stated;

    “See above. Violating the enfranchisement rules of a group of people that paid money into such an arrangement is IMHO a NAP violation (using the paid part since nearly everyone understands money…. the trust and other subjective values that they were enticed into placing is also an issue, but more ephemeral), so I do not see you arguing on the side of angels here.”

    The changing of the bylaws was in response to interference of members of the LNC in the business of LPO. Wes Wagner group tried to change the bylaws by following the rules by calling a special convention in November of 2010. This is when members of the LNC twisting the rules of RONR and using the threat of disaffiliation, tried to prevent this from happening. The NAP states that we won’t initiate force, not that we won’t use force in self-defense. Wagners group was trying to save the LPO from being taken over by republican operatives. Self-defense is not a violation of the NAP, so I don’t see you arguing on the side of angels here either.

  246. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    LibertyDave,

    ==There is only one life members that I have heard of that is complaining about being disenfranchised are the same ones who’s initiation of force is primarily responsible for the bylaws being change the way they were.==

    That made no sense… I don’t mean logically.. I mean linguistically. But if no life members (and they are not the only ones I referred to btw) don’t object… then their consent should be easily obtained– the consent required to modify the member class by the former member class… if this is so wonderful and for everyone’s good should be proven. Including deletion of the NAP pledge too… mustn’t forget that.

    ==The changing of the bylaws was in response to interference of members of the LNC in the business of LPO. ===

    No, the LNC didn’t do a thing to mess up the LPO’s bylaws. And it was up to the voluntary members then to change them if they were unhappy with the implications that the LNC found.

    BTW, I personally think that any individual LNC members should have kept their nose out of OR’s business if they were not members of the LPO. That is something to be dealt with in LNC elections and by publicizing the influence.

    ===Wes Wagner group tried to change the bylaws by following the rules by calling a special convention in November of 2010. This is when members of the LNC twisting the rules of RONR and using the threat of disaffiliation, tried to prevent this from happening.===

    The LNC has no power over OR, and disaffiliation is for cause. There are voluntary rules to follow that were agreed upon. The rules you are referring to have to do with quorum. That could have been dealt with in numerous other ways. I have spoken about the quorum issue above at length.

    == The NAP states that we won’t initiate force, not that we won’t use force in self-defense.===

    The ones who had a right to defense are the members. Not other unilaterally taking that power away from them.

    == Wagners group was trying to save the LPO from being taken over by republican operatives. ==

    See above. That is the role of the membership not a self-designated saviour.

    ==Self-defense is not a violation of the NAP, so I don’t see you arguing on the side of angels here either.==

    You are free to your opinion. I am arguing the rules of voluntary association. For everyone. The same standard I am applying to the LNC decision.

    Unilaterally redefining a member class is a violation of the grossest kind in a voluntary association. Ahh but it was for the greater “good” and to stop the evil Republicans and if the prior member class wouldn’t do it, well we’ll do it for them! We know what’s best (seems to me I hear the statists say that all the time)

    The minute we start doing that we can justify all manner of unlibertarian expediency.

    No thanks.

  247. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I would add to the above, which keeps getting glossed over… there was a properly noticed meeting that was cancelled in an illegitimate manner to pull this off. And just like the said the LNC had a nuclear option… if an organization under its voluntary rules cannot fix itself… (it has the right to be run badly) then it disbands… you don’t grossly violate the association. Or go the properly noticed legal route to get things changed arguing actual impossibility to function. If it seems the ONLY route is some kind of unilateral action you do the absolute minimum possible to get it so that the organization can make the change or not. The absolute minimum here would have been to fix the quorum issue to what was the intent before the RONR issue was found. I have argued before that I think a very good case could be argued that there wasn’t actual real consent to this problem found by the LNC reps… that the LPO had been functioning with a certain quorum understanding (and it was a change initiated by Wes btw that changed things so that the quorum issue was inadvertently created) and that is the one that should prevail.

  248. Wake Up

    DONALD TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT NOW !!!

    Why to wait till 2016 when we can get DONALD THE GREAT appointed as new president today(IMPEACH Obama already and start early elections) !!!

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Trump-for-President-Now/941140989257946

    Don’t take Donald Trump for granted !!! Pray for him !!! Pray for him !!! The more you pray for him, the more power he will have !!! The more power he will have, the more he will be able to act independently from Washington(what we all want) !!!

    No candidate comes even close to the one and only DONALD TRUMP !!!

  249. George Phillies

    Dear Wake Up.

    You appear to have misinterpreted the Libertarian Party platform. We are urging that all drugs be legalized, not that you should take them all, at the same time.

    Sorry for our lack of clarity on this point.

    Yours for Liberty!

  250. Wes Wagner

    The official appeals court list of cases they will issue decisions on tomorrow does not include this case.

    If we don’t see anything in the next 2 weeks, we have a long wait ahead of us more than likely.

  251. Wes Wagner

    To some degree we were anticipating a confirmed without opinion. There is an outside chance that they will take significant time on our cross appeal regarding attorney’s fees. Judge Breithaupt sat on that for about 5 weeks after the hearing before deciding against attorney’s fees (he gave it a very long hard look) I suspect it to be a somewhat rare probability, but they could always decide to reverse that given the very serious claim and issue preclusion arguments of the case.

    There were multiple reasons why this case should have been dismissed technically… they might reverse the 1st amendment dismissal and choose one of the others.

    Who knows… there are alot of options other than affirmed without opinion if they decide to go down the opinion route.

  252. Richard P. Burke

    Whether the court grants our appeal or not, none of the rulings issued so far has any bearing on the merits of our case or represent any judicial determination about who is properly the LPO leadership. Too often the court rulings which have come down thus far have been misrepresented as, “The case was dismissed; the judge sided for us and we win.”

    Thus far, our case was dismissed on 1st Amendment technical grounds. The merits have not been considered and the rulings issued so far would not preclude the Secretary of State changing their stance and recognizing us.

    Richard P. Burke

  253. Paul Duke

    So basically you will keep ignoring the courts until you find one that sides with you to force the SoS to change their mind, and in the process drag Oregon and the NLP through the muck until you get your way, even if it takes another decade. If you truly cared about the LPO (regardless of who is running it) you would let it go and work with people. It is obvious to me that all you care about, once again, is your own ego typical of most slimeball politicians.

  254. Mark Vetanen

    Mr. Burke is confused by the very law suit he has filed. He is suing the LPO to revert back to the 2009 bylaws, and have a Judge replace the existing LPO board members with the plaintiffs. Nothing in the any of the legal filings is asking the Court to direct the SOS to do anything at all. Even if he wins the appeals, he still can lose the case, and even then end up with an empty suit of a party in the end.

    The First Amendment chiefly protect political speech. A political party is about as high as you can get with political speech, and for the Government to muck with how a political party operates internally does indeed violate the First Amendment. Mr. Burke’s current appeal is simply asking for the courts to overturn the First Amendment.

    If anything, the Oregon Issue has shown us exactly who Mr. Burke and his supporters are, and in my opinion, they are not the people you want anywhere near the leadership of the Libertarian Party.

  255. Paul Duke

    Mark Vetanen wrote:

    “If anything, the Oregon Issue has shown us exactly who Mr. Burke and his supporters are, and in my opinion, they are not the people you want anywhere near the leadership of the Libertarian Party.”

    Mark I couldn’t agree more.

  256. Richard P. Burke

    Both Paul and Mark fail to understand the lawsuit’s objectives and meanings. They both fail to understand our motives. Our case is not seeking to overturn the First Amendment and I think Mr. Vetanen knows that.

    Richard P. Burke

  257. Paul Duke

    I understand your motive perfectly. Power. To say your motivation is anything else is disingenuous. As a politician, I wouldn’t expect you to admit it.

  258. Wes Wagner

    You may not say you want to overturn the 1st amendment, but to get the relief you are asking for you must do so.

    That type of deconstruction and compartmentalization does not work with judges.

  259. Wes Wagner

    The problem is that the courts can’t and never could give you the relief you were asking for… only the members of the party can do that. You didn’t take your case to them — you instead tried to get the government to place them under your vassalage again by judicial fiat when LNC fiat failed.

    They don’t want you as their ruler. They don’t want your feudalistic cabal as their protectorate. They don’t want you, and after everything the LNC did they don’t want the national party anymore either.

  260. Richard P. Burke

    Wes,

    Seriously… dude: Listen to yourself… “feudalistic cabal”… “vassalage”… “protectorate”…

    Sounds pretty kooky. Even people aligned with your objectives think so. The LPO, I thought at least, was a voluntary organization that doesn’t have access to the instruments of force which would make such terms applicable.

    Also, I have no doubt that the people you work with don’t want to be ruled by me. Thankfully. I doubt if they, or the people I work with, want to be ruled by anyone. Fortunately I can accommodate them as I have no desire to rule at all. If I had, I imagine that it would be hard to rule anyone in a voluntary organization that doesn’t have access to instruments of force.

    You guys fell into the “Ends Justify the Means” trap when, in your frustration in getting what you wanted through our political process, caused you to be filled with righteous indignation that you believed gave you license to seek a way around our member-approved governing documents and co-opt the force of the state to do it. Not libertarian at all.

    You guys have some relevant points concerning the LPO. And not all of your frustrations were unreasonable; in fact, we shared some of them. But your methods! Had we done what you tried to do, you would have howled in fury. Nope. Fortunately, many of our shared frustrations (though not all) were addressed in the 2013 bylaw amendments. Even now I believe we can work together, but not on the terms of the “Ends Justify the Means.”

    Richard P. Burke

  261. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    == only the members of the party can do that===

    And only the members of the LPO (you know, that pesky original member class I keep harping about) could have done what you did…. so while I in theory agree, this is a glass houses thing….

    ==. You didn’t take your case to them====

    The dissonance… it hurts.

    == they don’t want the national party anymore either.===

    For the love of God then, disaffiliate already and save the rest of us the drama. It is a voluntary affiliation…. the LPO has every right to disaffiliate. Which if that is an accurate summary of the group’s feelings, it should do.

  262. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    Richard doesn’t even have anywhere close to the majority support of the old member class — so yes I know what I am talking about.

  263. Daniel Hayes

    Caryn
    You sound like me in my first month of my term “on” the LNC. I wrote Wes and those guys and told them take their ball and go home. Stop threatening to disaffiliate and just do it. They won’t. He wants the LNC to disaffiliate them so he can claim the victim. These guys have been threatening to leave for YEARS. But here they sit..WHY? Cause their goal is discord, with the further goal of killing the National Party.

  264. Daniel Hayes

    On some other notes. IF you are going to be an actual political party in a state that recognizes party affiliation officially by the “man”, part of your membership requirements should be that you are a registered Libertarian voter in that state. It’s the least expensive way for people to show support for the party. You still should have some way to OPT in to the membership of the Party with dues or just a no charge Party registration form. This will help prevent the Party from a membership size that keeps the Party from getting quorum,etc.
    Of course HOW Wes and the gang got to that point where voter registration was required was highly flawed, to say the least.

  265. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Paulie,

    They want to disaffiliate without disaffiliating it appears. They certainly have given the LNC cause to disaffiliate, and at this point, I would support an actual disaffiliation vote. And the LNC has certainly given the LPO cause to disaffiliate… which they should actually do if that is what they want rather than just threatening.

    This reminds of a FB discussion where I was being very critical of our candidates (and right now I am pretty critical of most of them, it is the time for it… it is the examination phase) where I was possibly misunderstood as threatening to leave the Party if we nominated a candidate I didn’t like. I made it clear that I meant no such thing… and that I wouldn’t threaten. If I ever got to the point where I would “threaten” to leave, I would leave. I don’t threaten to quit jobs either. If I have gotten to that point, I just get a new job.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em328ua_Lo8

  266. Daniel Hayes

    Paulie,
    All they are doing is trying to create reasons for the LNC to disaffiliate them. What they said was not a disaffiliation on their part, it was simply provocation and “CA– USE” for the LNC to disaffiliate them. I don’t think the LNC should disaffiliate the Wagner LPO at the present time. We need to let them sit right where they are.

  267. jim

    Sorry, Daniel, but I am a relatively local observer to the problem. I have lived in Vancouver, Washington, for 28 years (with some notable absences), but I was previously a Beaverton Oregon resident for 7. (but I didn’t attend any libertarian meetings during those 7 years; I began attending LPO meetings after I’d moved to Vancouver, just across the Columbia river from Portland.)
    I can assure you that Burke was a jerk even 20 years ago. He was obviously a Republican plant, and he was trying to take over the local Oregon libertarians even in 1995 with the assistance of his cronies. Unless you have some information from closer contacts, don’t suggest that he isn’t the bad guy here.

  268. Paul Duke

    Actually, from what I can understand, there was a vote by the LPO (as currently recognized in Oregon) to boycott Orlando because they felt that they would not be able to seat delegates without having other people determine who those delegates should be. It happened during the last two conventions and they had no reason to expect any change this year. It was compounded by the fact that the JC was reconsidering the previous ruling at the time.

    If the LPO were able to have their own delegates seated unmolested by the factions outside of it, there wouldn’t be a lot of this recent vitriol.

    I’m sure I’m oversimplifying things a bit, but it was never a vote to disassociate from the NLP, just a boycott of the convention.

    Am I wrong Wes?

  269. Daniel Hayes

    Have Yall missed that Wes said OFTEN that he wishes to destroy the NLP? Forget Burke. I often do. Wes seeks to destroy the National LP. I say leave LPO alone.

  270. paulie

    …that we shall not be bound by the Convention’s Presidential nomination;

    What else does the national party get from the state party by way of affiliation? I understand what the state party gets from national, which is a separate issue, but what else would the state party have to do to disaffiliate other than use that word?

  271. Wes Wagner

    Paul

    You are correct. We voted to boycott the convention.. the bylaws give the board the authority to set the delegation and conduct the business of the LPO.

    There is broad consensus on the board that an actual vote for disaffiliation needs to come from the membership even though it is not entirely clear who and in what authority began the relationship.

  272. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Paulie,

    ==What else does the national party get from the state party by way of affiliation? I understand what the state party gets from national, which is a separate issue, but what else would the state party have to do to disaffiliate other than use that word?==

    You raise a really interesting point. Are the LPO’s actions *constructive disaffiliation*? I suppose that could be argued… particularly if one is going to agree with the 2011 JC rationale. Particularly since they have announced they will not run the Party’s candidate’s as selected by the delegates as well.

    This is another area where our bylaws are not giving guidance as to procedure. I would suppose an affiliate would just have to give “notice” and this arguably could be notice. I would have to think about it more.

  273. Steve M

    To put it simply… Oregon law requires that the people who identify themselves as libertarians have the final say in how their party should be run. Oregon law doesn’t require a fee to be payed it requires that the box marked libertarian on the registration form be checked. Appealing to the LNC, appealing to the jc of lp, appealing to the Oregon courts…. are all the wrong people to be appealing too.

    http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/SEL500.pdf

  274. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Steve,

    Oregon law can allegedly require that all it wants (it was on the books since the 1970s and not “enforced’) but the voluntary organization was not set up that way and it is up to the members to decide if they will comply or not (and risk any possible consequences) not Wes.

  275. Daniel Hayes

    Ian Epstein just wrote the following letter to the Wagner faction and CCed the LNC.

    “Dear Friend of Liberty,
    Hello. My name is Ian Epstein. I am the state chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, the organization you may know as “The Reeves Group.” I was elected to my position by LPO members at the March 2015 LPO Annual Business Convention held in Pendleton.
    I’m writing you because of the recent ruling about the Oregon issue which came down from the Libertarian Party national Judicial Committee. While people have different opinions about it, I think the ruling offers clarity and creates an opportunity to heal the breach between our groups.
    Both of our groups have done positive things. Your group has nominated large numbers of candidates, ran some quality campaigns, and scheduled regular social events. Our group has done good work in the Oregon legislature, has also run candidates for office, and is now active in ballot measure politics. We have a social event scheduled for October 11th to which you are invited (more details to come). Both groups are holding regular meetings and conventions.
    Our organization and yours have been unnecessarily working against each for over four years. I am sending this email to you because I think it is time to end this and re-unite our party on the principled foundation of an LPO which has existed and evolved continuously and proudly since 1971.
    Though a longtime libertarian, I was not around when the split in our party took place in March 2011. Like many of you who are also new, I am not marked by the factional battles that have taken place. I am not a party to the court case currently under appeal. I don’t carry the baggage of years of factional fighting, and I am guessing that most of you don’t either.
    I have read and operate under what were called the “Compromise Bylaws” the LPO passed in 2013 after finally making quorum. From what I can see, these “Compromise Bylaws” address many of the legitimate problems people in your group complained about including the quorum problem itself, explicit recognition of registered Libertarian voters as members, issues about county State Committee representatives, “surprise” bylaw changes resulting from attempts from both sides to pack conventions, and other issues. You can read these bylaws by going to http://www.lporegon.net/bylaws.pdf
    In fact, there were only two major divisive issues I see that were not addressed by the “Compromise Bylaws.” Here they are:
    1. The “Compromise Bylaws” retained the Non-Aggression Pledge (NAP) as a membership requirement for those who want to have a voice in the governance of our internal organization and,
    2. The “Compromise Bylaws” grandfathered in the lifetime memberships of people who had paid for them and expected them to be honored.
    I know there are probably other issues, but I believe we can work through them. I would like to explore your vote-by-mail system. Maybe we can persuade members at the next convention to compromise on dues. There is more we can do if we all put our egos aside and come back together.
    Please understand that I agreed to serve as LPO Chair despite the current circumstances because I believe in the principle that our party’s governing documents should only be changed according to whatever amendment processes are laid out in those documents. I also believe that registered Libertarians who wish to have a voice in the governance of our party should have to do something tangible to opt-in to our organization and affirm a non-aggression pledge. Perhaps we disagree on these issues, but we agree on so many other things.
    I’ve studied the history of what caused the split in our party and what happened after. I did this by reviewing writings, documents, statements, and videos created by people from both sides. Mostly, I was impressed with the passion exhibited by people on both sides to do what they thought was right, whether I agreed with what they did or not.
    It comes down to this. We can be stronger and more effective bringing about a free society by working together. Respectfully, I invite you to re-join the Libertarian Party of Oregon and let us combine the best of what we are. I invite you to bring your ideas and become a part of our team. Thank you.
    Ian Epstein, Chair
    Libertarian Party of Oregon”

  276. Caryn Ann Harlos

    The parties need to find some peace. Work it out.

    That last part about “re-joining” was in very bad form – but work it out people. Is this about liberty or personalities?

  277. Daniel Hayes

    And Wes Wagner’s response:

    “Ian,

    You are sadly mistaken if you think this letter is anything but the more grievous of insults to the libertarian voters of Oregon. Go fuck yourself and die in a fire – you will be persona non grata in this state amongst libertarians in this state for the balance of your life. You joined a battle on a side that made you chair because they needed yet another puppet to wage abuses against the voters of this state and you did it for your own reasons and your own ego.

    You have no home here, nor can you broker any peace.

    The first we hear from you is a letter after you abused processes to go to authorities that have no authority over us, claim a victory and then think you bargain from a position of power. You are a very very small and pathetic man.

    I will have no further parlay with you.

    Do not email me again.

    -Wes”

  278. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Does anyone have a good contact for Ian? I would like to reach out to him.

    Wes, is there any hope of compromise here?

    If there is anything I can do to facilitate, let me know,

  279. Daniel Hayes

    I have to admit though. If Epstein really thinks his letter was anything but inflammatory, he’s an idiot. Otherwise, he’s just an asshole. Either way, it reflects poorly on him.

  280. Daniel Hayes

    Wes,

    Actually, under your bylaws isn’t he automatically a member of your party if he is a registered Libertarian? I don’t think you can really refuse him writing you with you being a member of your board.

  281. Daniel Hayes

    Caryn,
    Wes doesn’t want peace. He wants the destruction of the National Libertarian Party.
    Sometimes as a parent you need to stop trying to make rules and let your kids go.
    We should let the Wagnerian LPO do whatever it wants to do. IF they disaffiliate from the NLP, big deal? They will still run candidates as L’s. The L gets seen in Oregon. The movement grows.
    We DO NOT need to disaffiliate them. We need to leave that up to them(The Libertarians of Oregon.) and the courts.

  282. Wes Wagner

    “Daniel Hayes
    September 22, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    Wes,

    Actually, under your bylaws isn’t he automatically a member of your party if he is a registered Libertarian? I don’t think you can really refuse him writing you with you being a member of your board.

    He may send correspondence regarding party matters through the Secretary and I will review them with the board and cast my votes accordingly. Or he can show up at a meeting.

  283. paulie

    Go fuck yourself and die in a fire

    until he gets a clue and goes into hiding in a dark cave to die alone.

    Love him or hate him, you gotta admit Wes Wagner has a certain … way with words.

  284. Wes Wagner

    I think there are already more likes on my reply in our facebook discussion group than they have members in their entire organization and it has only been a few minutes.

  285. jim

    (Note: This note is NOT to “Daniel Hayes”. Once again, this system IPR may have screwed up.)

    Classic Burkeian bullshit by Ian Epstein:

    “Respectfully, I invite you to re-join the Libertarian Party of Oregon and let us combine the best of what we are. I invite you to bring your ideas and become a part of our team. Thank you.
    Ian Epstein, Chair
    Libertarian Party of Oregon””

    Who, are you suggesting, somehow “unjoined” the “Libertarian Party of Oregon”? What is the basis for your apparent belief that they “unjoined”?

    Another insult: “And become a part of our team”. Oho! It’s YOUR team, huh?

  286. Wes Wagner

    Jim

    They unjoined by not paying dues 🙂 didn’t you hear… but if we all want to come back and be led by these wonderful people… all it will cost is the low low price of $50 per year.. and.. whatever scrap of dignity you had left.

    Ian paid it.. and look where he is now!

  287. Dave Terry

    “Love him or hate him, you gotta admit Wes Wagner has a certain … way with words.”

    Yeah, the most articulate writer since Attila, the Hun

  288. jim

    Wes, I don’t know if I am even qualified to be a member of LPO, since I am a Washington state resident. Though, I am a registered Libertarian here, in Clark County, and a member of the local libertarian organization. I’d gladly join, if it would do some good, but at the moment that seems doubtful.

  289. Steve M

    Caryn,

    A minor political party may nominate candidates for
    any partisan office within the electoral district in
    which the party is established for the general
    election immediately following formation.

    However, in order to nominate candidates to
    partisan office at subsequent general elections the
    minor political party must maintain its status by
    achieving either of the following:

    Registered Members Equal to at Least: .5% of all registered
    voters in Oregon

    or

    Registered Members Equal to at Least: .1% of all votes cast for Governor in the electoral district formed in

    and

    Candidate Vote Totals Equal to at Least: At least once in a 4 year period 1% of all votes cast for US President, US Senator, Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer or Attorney General in the electoral district formed in

    The denying this ownership to the registered libertarian voters is where Wess is absolutely right about one side thinking that there exists a group of people who are special and that the mere common registered members are inferior. Thus the common registered libertarians are vassels to the party rather then the party representing the registered voters.

    Well like I tell Republicans who think that Libertarian Candidates are stealing their voters, the voters don’t belong to you, and the party can’t run candidates without them.

  290. Steve M

    Daniel,

    I am pretty sure kicking someone in the balls is a violation of the NAP. Other then that, if Ian is a registered libertarian voter then he should be allowed to participate in all party activities. On emailing a particular member, I don’t see how Wess can stop Ian from emailing him. Wess can certainly put implace a filter that tosses Ian’s emails into dev/null (the trash can).

    The right to free speach doesn’t guarentee an audience, if people chose not to listen to you, that is their right.

  291. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve,

    I have posted quite a bit on the registered voters things- not going to rehash it again.

  292. paulie

    (Note: This note is NOT to “Daniel Hayes”. Once again, this system IPR may have screwed up.)

    WTF are you talking about? What is this “system” that no one except you can see? If you had not included that note there would be nothing saying who you are replying to, and there is never anything saying who you are replying to in any IPR comment unless you type it out yourself. Besides which we have already been over this several times and you have yet to explain WTF you are talking about….?

  293. paulie

    I don’t know if I am even qualified to be a member of LPO, since I am a Washington state resident.

    I didn’t see Wagner asking you to join his LPO. You would have to be registered to vote in Oregon. If nothing has changed, you are eligible to join the other organization that thinks it’s the LPO, but that doesn’t say anything about why you or anyone else would want to.

  294. paulie

    in order to nominate candidates to
    partisan office at subsequent general elections the
    minor political party must maintain its status by
    achieving either of the following:

    Registered Members Equal to at Least: .5% of all registered
    voters in Oregon

    or

    Registered Members Equal to at Least: .1% of all votes cast for Governor in the electoral district formed in

    and

    Candidate Vote Totals Equal to at Least: At least once in a 4 year period 1% of all votes cast for US President, US Senator, Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer or Attorney General in the electoral district formed in

    The denying this ownership to the registered libertarian voters is where Wess is absolutely right about one side thinking that there exists a group of people who are special and that the mere common registered members are inferior. Thus the common registered libertarians are vassels to the party rather then the party representing the registered voters.

    Well like I tell Republicans who think that Libertarian Candidates are stealing their voters, the voters don’t belong to you, and the party can’t run candidates without them.

    Wes Wagner didn’t answer this question (possibly above, or in another thread) so maybe you can.

    If the fact that that maintaining a level of voter registration grants ballot status in Oregon means that the LPOR registered voters automatically have to be the new membership class, does it follow that in states where the LP has to repeatedly petition to be on the ballot, the signers of the ballot access petitions become the new membership class? Someone please answer and explain the logic here.

  295. paulie

    I am pretty sure kicking someone in the balls is a violation of the NAP.

    Unless it’s responsive force, or by request, yes.

    Wess

    I normally ignore typos, since I make so many myself, but on the third instance in a short period of time I should point out it’s Wes with one s, not two.

  296. paulie

    I have posted quite a bit on the registered voters things- not going to rehash it again.

    That’s one problem with long threads that go on for many days and hundreds of comments, it’s easy to forget and hard to check whether that thread has already covered a given subject.

  297. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie,

    (LOL my phone changed your name to Pauline but I caught it)- I meant just wrt the LPO registered Libertarians and member class not the broader issues you brought up.

    The short version is that an affiliate can be run badly and screw up all manner of things if that is what the members of the voluntary association wish.

  298. paulie

    Well, maybe Steve M or anyone else who holds that view on why membership has to be defined that way can answer if Wes W won’t.

  299. Wes Wagner

    We reject the concept that one class of membership is special because its members have paid dues and gone through some farcical ceremony and that doing so gives it the right to set the manners and methods the other class will be ruled.

    You will not get a satisfactory answer to your question because we have different alignments and ideologies about egalitarianism.

    However, the system resulted in what such a system typically results in — a revolt. The wanna-be aristocrats lost. They petitioned foreign aristocracies to come to their aid .. and it is ending badly for them too.

  300. Wes Wagner

    George,

    Perhaps… but we also did it with a plan that would permit a smooth transition, had the buy-in of all the current board members, had already sought the consent of the membership for the plan in a previous convention, and it was generally desired by the vast majority of the then current membership and was only being stymied in its implementation by known malefactors.

    That is why it was successful and yielded a rejuvenation of the LPO rather than decline.

  301. paulie

    We reject the concept that one class of membership is special because its members have paid dues and gone through some farcical ceremony and that doing so gives it the right to set the manners and methods the other class will be ruled.

    Dues and ceremony created the thing that you are claiming others have a right to be members of, and did the work to get them an option to check a box on a form. Checking a box on a form is less work than signing a petition. You still haven’t explained why petition signers should not become the new entitled member class in states where the LP gets on the ballot that way according to your theory of who the owners of the party are or should be.

    You will not get a satisfactory answer to your question because we have different alignments and ideologies about egalitarianism.

    I’m taking your system at face value and asking why it would not apply to ballot access petition signers just as it applies to registered LP voters, since in some states one system is how the LP gets on the ballot and in other states the other. You and Steve M have both provided this as the reason why the registered voter class displaces the prior existing definition of party membership which pre-dated the registered voter class and allowed the registered LP voter class to come to be.

  302. paulie

    Amusingly, Carla Howell and Eli Israel pulled the same stunt in Massachusetts that Wagner is accused of doing in Oregon.

    My understanding is that Mass was somewhat different, but I can see the similarities.

  303. Wes Wagner

    “You still haven’t explained why petition signers should not become the new entitled member class in states where the LP gets on the ballot that way according to your theory of who the owners of the party are or should be. ”

    Because signing a petition does not create a membership class… registering as a member of a political party recognized under state charter does.

  304. Steve M

    “I have posted quite a bit on the registered voters things- not going to rehash it again.”

    It is an issue where under Oregon law you are flat out wrong.

    A group can either be a political party under Oregon law or it can be a private club. It can not be both.

    Paulie,

    The membership class is created by the Oregon state law. Other states may have different laws.

    248.002

    “Member means an individual who is registered as being affiliated with the political party.”

    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.

    But, in my opinion, the reality is that the group that is needed to maintain ballot status had better be represented in the party. Failure to do so, risks loss of ballot access.”

  305. George Phillies

    Unlike Massachusetts under Israel and Howell, no one is trying to keep the Burke faction from organizing as a private club, having their PACs, doing politics, and encouraging people to run for office.

  306. Steve M

    Washington State law says..

    “Each political party organization may adopt rules governing its own organization and the nonstatutory functions of that organization.”

  307. Steve M

    In Oregon the state demands the party rules must be fair and open to the members. Whom in Oregon are those people who are registered voters and have selected the political party affiliation.

    In Washington, a political party can limit participation in anyway it sees fit.

  308. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Steve,

    And…. that was previously addressed in several threads. Arguments do not get better simply because they are repeated.

  309. Wes Wagner

    The plain and simple matter is that people who sign on as a member of the libertarian party of oregon by filling out their voter registration card are not signing up under the understanding that there is a special class of elite members who control the party and that to join that special class they need to pay dues, say catechisms, have their butts sniffed, and in order to get real representation go through arcane processes (of coopted/corrupted) of organizing county structures, etc.

    This is not The Church of Scientology.

  310. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    And that once again ignores the point that there were members summarily disenfranchised… and that this supposed requirement was in place since the late 1970s, never enforced, and that the members class who paid money etc. had a right to expect things would be what they agreed to, and if it were brought before them that the party would have to make a choice here (they could choose to dissolve), that is their decision to make.

    Further, the State of Florida has a similar requirement, and the NAP pledge was retained… voted on by their members.

  311. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Steve, I never claimed it did. Obvious you never read my points.

    (btw, if you are a registered Libertarian in CO, you are a member of the Party… you are thinking I object to that scheme… I don’t, I object to the summary redefinition of a voluntary association that could choose— we are libertarians after all— to say screw the law or dissolve or any number of options that they did not get to choose to do)

  312. Paul Duke

    “In Washington, a political party can limit participation in anyway it sees fit.”

    This doesn’t surprise me, considering the Libertarian Party had a very strong campaign there in 2004. Right after that the Democrats and Republicans pushed the “top two” initiative to make sure 2004 wouldn’t happen again.

    The GOP in the Tri-Cities made sure that the Ron Paul delegates couldn’t caucus (when he was running as a Republican in 2008,) citing fire code limiting the number of people in the building (the convention center designed to handle large crowds) and that they didn’t know he would have as much support as he got at the time.

    All because “a political party can limit participation any way it sees fit.”

  313. Wes Wagner

    Fuck the NAP.. most those who proclaim its adherence the loudest violate it the most. It has been perverted by the LP to be used as a tool by its resident sociopaths to hide behind and good people don’t need it anyway.

  314. Wes Wagner

    (and by NAP I mean “pledge” not “principle” … pledges are things you say, principles are things you do)

  315. Steve M

    Caryn,

    Any of your points, which argue that the clause doesn’t apply to minor parties or that a party can ignore it because they did in the past are wrong. Any point that tries to redefine the word “interested” as meaning anything other then wanting to participate is also wrong.

  316. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Steve.

    And… I didn’t argue any of that.

    Feel free to argue with yourself.

  317. Steve M

    The members of a private club were disenfranchised by state law when they decided to become a political party under oregon law.

    The members of a private club are not the same as members of a political party under oregon law.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  318. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    They were a political party first. The founding of the LPO was prior.

    And then it is their decision to remain a political party and comply…. illegally declare they still are… dissolve… any number of options (this is taking your argument as true for the sake of argument that the law is to be interpreted that way… I have no idea). It is *their* decision to make. Not yours. Not Wes.

  319. Steve M

    A political party controls the ballot access and the political party must adhear to the laws of the state or get the laws changed.

    If you think that by waving a magic wand you will be able to return to the old system of a private club with different membership rules controling the ballot access, I ensure you that there will be a challenge filed in court to force you to behave under Oregon laws.

  320. Wes Wagner

    When you steal something that already belongs to you, it is not a crime.

    When the people who it belongs to go through the process legitimately, but are stymied by illegitimate actions, bad actors, and a corrupt system, you get revolts.

    Deal with it .. that is what happens when the rules pervert themselves.

  321. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I am sure this will go round and round. Pending new information from the LNC (or if Richard sends me anything — discussed in the past — we are presently having a discussion about the National Bylaws which I will request his permission to post here), I have some other projects to concentrate on.

    My main interest remains the LNC and what it does. And I do not believe it had the authority to judge here.

  322. paulie

    I am sure this will go round and round. Pending new information from the LNC (or if Richard sends me anything), I have some other projects to concentrate on.

    My main interest remains the LNC and what it does. And I do not believe it had the authority to judge here.

    Same here. Trying to control my responditis.

  323. Steve M

    Actually “they” (dues paying members) would have had to make a decision to not be a political party, before the law came into effect. After the law came into effect the decision would have had to have been made by the registered libertaian party members.

  324. Wes Wagner

    Steve

    They were a “political party” initially… but when they petitioned for permanent ballot access and voter registrations they became something else. They became a Minor Political Party governed by the laws of Oregon. When they did that they forked the membership … pretending that their political club membership was superior to the new membership class that became created by the act of petitioning the state.

    There is a natural consequence to non-egalitarian systems — especially those put in place in a group of people who will have a greater than normal affinity to the concepts of the age of reason.

    Those consequences played out because a small number of people who did not support re-establishing equity and egalitarianism were willing to do anything they could to block the process in spite of it having a majority of support in both classes of membership.

    Because the LNC intervened for the benefit of that minority, the LNC took on moral ownership for the abuses those people had engaged in. That is a simple political consequence that also can’t be undone.

    Now anyone who is actively trying to reverse what was done is attempting to re-institute a morally broken system — that does not work politically either.

    Is it any wonder why the national LP can’t make any progress? (they are grossly incompetent at politics, even within their own party where they should have home field advantage)

  325. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Oh boy…

    ==Actually “they” (dues paying members) would have had to make a decision to not be a political party, before the law came into effect. After the law came into effect the decision would have had to have been made by the registered libertaian party members.==

    Only if you are willing to invalidate every decision made since then for willful non-compliance. And fraudulent inducement for members who joined after… and … and….

    The voluntary association is controlled by its bylaws (and constitution if applicable). State law can void it, it cannot summarily change it. There is a difference. And a libertarian idea of voluntary association requires consent. Your bylaws and constitution do not grant consent to summarily change them because the state changes something.

    And this of course is granting for the sake of argument (and I am not actually granting it) that the prior member class would necessarily have had to been disenfranchised… such as life members, non registered members, etc.

    Continue on alone.

  326. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wes,

    ==They were a “political party” initially… but when they petitioned for permanent ballot access and voter registrations they became something else. They became a Minor Political Party governed by the laws of Oregon.==

    This is actually the best argument… but… you would have to show consent to that requirement and then why they willfully noncomplied. The argument could just as easily be made that this petitioning was void ab anititio.

    In the precise same way… when you agitated for that change that change the quorum requirements that really was never consented to… I argued the same thing. No consent which is why I am not bothered by the idea of a quorum change to what was the spirit of the understanding.

  327. Wes Wagner

    Actually the lifetime member thing is even more complicated. An old bylaws change that Burke stumped for eliminated them by changing the dues to be equal to the political tax credit and required annual payment.

    That eliminated any previous policies where the dues were set by a schedule determined by the state committee.

    It was brought to the judicial committee and they made a ruling that violated the plain letters of the bylaws (which honestly, Roberts says that things which can’t possibly be misinterpreted are not subject to appeal)… and that is just one of a dozen other messes due to gamesmanship.

    As a matter of actual real rules and law, there were no lifetime members anymore. In crazy cloud cuckoo land there were.

  328. Chuck Moulton

    Caryn,

    How would the Libertarian Party of Oregon dissolve? They couldn’t reach a quorum. Could they dissolve and organize from scratch without reaching a quorum? If they did dissolve without a quorum, could a handful of people stick around and claim the LPO hadn’t dissolved and the handful of people were now in charge of the abandoned organization? Isn’t that pretty much what happened?

  329. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Chuck, I have argued before there was no consent for this newfound quorum requirement. They could have done so by petitioning the courts. I do not know every procedure.

  330. Wes Wagner

    “Caryn Ann Harlos Post author
    September 23, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    Chuck, I have argued before there was no consent for this newfound quorum requirement. They could have done so by petitioning the courts. I do not know every procedure.

    The same body of law that makes petitioning a court for a waiver of this requirement is the same body of law that says unilateral amendment by the committee/board is lawful.

  331. Steve M

    The fact that the LPO continued to fraudulently sell a privilege in violation of Oregon Law does not give the victims of the fraud special privileges in violation of Oregon Law.

    Any actions taken by the LPO using rules in violation of State law are certainly open to challenge under state law.

    As I said early just because you have ignored the law in the past, is not justification for continuing to ignore it.

    If a group of people doesn’t want to be follow the law required for being a political party they can reform themselves as a private club. But that does not give them the right to disenfranchise all the registered voters they were previously affiliated with. They certainly cannot continue to be a political party and as such they cannot submit lists of candidates to the Secretary of State. They cannot represent the registered libertarian voters in Oregon unless they conform to the law.

    So political party or private club?

  332. George Phillies

    I m amused to report that the monthly list of state chairs contacts just came out. It lists Lars Hedbor as State Chair. The Judicial Committee ruling has created no change.

  333. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    A bit of clarity here, especially for Steve M.

    The LPO has, and has always had, two levels of membership.

    The first level, now referred to as “Registered Members” in our bylaws, includes anyone who has registered as a Libertarian voter in Oregon. These members could participate in candidate nominating conventions as candidates, delegates or both. They also have other privileges such as observing State Committee meetings and business conventions. No dues are, or have ever been, required to be a “Registered Member.”

    The second level of membership, now referred to as “Regular Members” or “Honorary Lifetime Members,” may participate in the internal governance of the party’s organization as delegates to business conventions and, if they are also “Registered Members,” may hold party office. To be a Regular Member, they must pay dues ($50) and subscribe to some form of the NAP. Dues are not required for Honorary Lifetime Memberships, who have already paid for lifetime memberships.

    The requirement of dues has been controversial, but only within our own membership. It has been consistently retained by members for two reasons: 1) The Oregon Political Tax Credit provides a way for members to divert funds to the LPO which would otherwise go to the state. The dues level was set to match the political tax credit. By using the tax credit, effective dues are $0, the operations of the LPO are funded, and the state is deprived of those funds and, 2) Dues provide a way for members to opt-in substantively and have an investment in the organization. Reducing dues to $0 would have the practical effect of making it impossible for the LPO to provide a way for members to divert funds that would otherwise go to the state.

    Steve, you have cited ORS 248.005. You have not cited 248.011 which says, “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.”

    It is this statute which nullifies 248.005 for the purposes of preventing the LPO from requiring opt-in provisions such as dues. It also has been cited as the statute which prevents the Secretary of State from enforcing the 2009 bylaws which were violated by Mr. Wagner’s group on 3/31/11. Although we believe there are other statutes the Sec. of State could use to reject Mr. Wagner’s fraudulent bylaws, it is this particular statute which prevents the Sec. of State from taking any clear position on the matter.

    Official complaints were made regarding LPO dues in 1994 and 1995. In both cases the Secretary of State said that dues did not create a barrier to “fair and wide” participation as described in 248.005. I suppose if the LPO charged dues in excess of the maximum value of the Oregon Political Tax Credit, the Secretary of State would look at it more closely.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  334. Beyond Disgusted

    While you all are busy rehashing for the umpteenth time the Oregon version of How Many Bickerson Libertarians Can Dance on the Head of a Pin, the rest of us just shake our heads on disgust at the useless freak show.

    The solution is simple: LNC disafilliates BOTH groups, then lets the Oregon Voters That Are Registered As Libertarian decide it in a mail election paid for by the LNC. The winners are the new board, complete with the ballot access (which is the real reason this mess started), the LNC affiliates that group and notifies the Oregon SoS of the new board, and move forward.

    Or else simply follow the damn law and recognize the Wagner group since they have the ballot access and the state party assets while the Burke group doesn’t.

    Their choice. But this is beyond old and not conducive to advancing Liberty in the slightest.

  335. Wes Wagner

    The bullshit is strong on that one. Voluntary donations qualify for tax credits … the letters in question actually said that dues are illegal but there is no way to enforce the illegality and it would not be a reason for candidates to be kept off the ballot. The two classes of membership did not exist since the beginning because the LPO did not have voter registration in the beginning … that came later.

    Also the concept of “dues are free” violates so much TANSTAAFL in so many ways… you could donate to another group, you might not have a tax credit because you have no taxable income (retired people, unemployed people, homeless people, voluntary ascetics, clergy who have vowed poverty… etc etc.)

    Burke just likes the idea of forcing people to buy in with money for reasons that anyone who has come to know him are quite obvious. It also gives the people in power the capacity to exploit the record keeping for their own purposes, which of course has happened in the past.

    Also dues have not been consistently maintained… they were set to $0 for a period of time … there was also a resolution in 2010 that was passed which set a future date for reconstitution of the party in convention that outlined several bullet points that were stipulated as key to such a reconstitution. The elimination of dues was one of them.

    Burke attempts to distort reality – as usual.

  336. Wes Wagner

    “The solution is simple: LNC disafilliates BOTH groups, then lets the Oregon Voters That Are Registered As Libertarian decide it in a mail election paid for by the LNC. The winners are the new board, complete with the ballot access (which is the real reason this mess started), the LNC affiliates that group and notifies the Oregon SoS of the new board, and move forward.”

    this won’t work … the LNC has no authority in Oregon or over the disposition of LPO assets.

    On the other hand there was a mail ballot sent to every registered libertarian in Oregon. They voted 97% to approve of the new bylaws and structure.

  337. Richard P. Burke

    Beyond Disgusted,

    You are not alone. I am beyond disgusted that a few people in violation of state party bylaws can circumvent the will of members expressed in convention for over 40 years and that our 2011 Judicial Committee compounded this problem by punting the question of who our leaders are to the state, an act which should be anathema to Libertarians.

    The Sec. of State has only recognized Mr. Wagner because the 2011 Judicial Committee punted the question to them, and since it is not a question law allows them to adjudicate, they recognized Wagner because of an unwritten policy to recognize whoever the “Chair of Record” was at the time of the split. The Sec. of State never made a ruling on the merits of the case.

    But now, with an unambiguous Judicial Committee ruling rescinding the power the 2011 Judicial Committee extended to the state to determine who our leaders are, we believe the State will relent once the LNC complies with the ruling. To do anything else, in light of the new Judicial Committee ruling, would in fact constitute a disaffiliation of the legitimate Oregon affiliate of the LNC.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  338. Richard P. Burke

    Wes,

    You know full well that the mail ballot used to “approve” your bylaws and structure did not involve our participation because it was an illegal ballot according to the bylaws approved by members in properly noticed conventions. I’m sure if we had conducted a ballot in which you did not participate, we would have obtained a similar result. Absolutely disingenuous, and the mail ballot was nothing more than an attempt to whitewash our coup of 3/31/11..

    Richard

  339. Jill Pyeatt

    Burke said: “But now, with an unambiguous Judicial Committee ruling rescinding the power the 2011 Judicial Committee extended to the state to determine who our leaders are, we believe the State will relent once the LNC complies with the ruling. To do anything else, in light of the new Judicial Committee ruling, would in fact constitute a disaffiliation of the legitimate Oregon affiliate of the LNC.”

    “Unambiguous”? Yeah, right. And, if the LNC doesn’t act as you wish, are you saying the Reeves group (since you’re still saying they are the “legimate” Oregon LP) will be disaffiliated?

    If it’s really going to be that easy to get rid of you, why didn’t you say so sooner?

  340. Richard P. Burke

    Ms. Pyeatt,

    I am talking about what the Secretary of State will recognize. Unless the 2016 national convention overrules the Judicial Committee, our group is and will remain the Oregon affiliate of the LNC. The question of who the LNC Oregon affiliate is and who the Sec. of State confers ballot lines to are different questions.

    Nick Sarwark, as he has no unilateral policy making authority under our bylaws, is acting in violation of LNC resolutions and Judicial Committee rulings. This may be the least of his worries, given the finances of the national party.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  341. George Phillies

    Readers will note that the JC has recognized the right of the LNC ExComm to choose an affiliate in Oregon, and therefore the Excomm may do something.

    One point on which Mr Burke and Mr Wagner appear to be in complete agreement is that the LNC’s finances are not in good shape.

  342. George Phillies

    ” LNC disafilliates BOTH groups, then lets the Oregon Voters That Are Registered As Libertarian decide it in a mail election paid for by the LNC. ” There is no solution here. The groups do not agree on who the affiliate is. However, your solution shows that you are smarter than the 2000 LNC, which staged a referendum among people that neither side thought were their constituents.

  343. Nicholas Sarwark

    One point on which Mr Burke and Mr Wagner appear to be in complete agreement is that the LNC’s finances are not in good shape.

    As of the end of July, the LNC had an approximately $212K operating surplus over the budgeted amount for 2015. This is due to approximately $100K more support and revenue than budgeted, approximately $50K less cost of support and revenue than budgeted, and approximately $63K less cost of program expense than budgeted.

    When revenues are $100K over budget for the first seven months of the year and expenses are $113K under budget, that seems like good shape.

  344. Steve M

    Richard,

    248.011

    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 or any other rule adopted by a political party.

    Does not excuse a political party from not following the 248.005 and it does not protect a political party from being sued by a party member as defined by the law. It does not prevent a judge from making a political party obey. 248.011 just says that state officials will not intiate enforcement.

  345. Wes Wagner

    Steve is correct… though Eu v San Francisco says that the courts will not interfere unless there is a compelling state interest. Specifically the state has no interest in protecting a political party from its own lack of integrity… but they might take a state interest in voter enfranchisement. That has not been thoroughly tested.

  346. Richard P. Burke

    Steve M,

    It is debatable whether it is fair or not to require dues and stated support of an NAP to participate in party governance. I think it is perfectly fair, especially given the Oregon Political Tax Credit. Presumably you disagree.

    It is possible for someone believing a practice to be unfair to complain using 248.005 without necessarily being right.

    In their letter, the Sec. of State noted that we never charged dues or required anything else in order for people to be able to participate in candidate nominating convention. The Sec. of State also said that the dues charged did not constitute an undue barrier.

    So if you’re going to turn to the state for relief, you have to accept what they say. No breach of 248.005, enforcable or not, was ever determined to have taken place. The documents are all public record from 1994 and 1995.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  347. Richard P. Burke

    I’ll wait for the audit committee report before making a final determination of my own regarding LNC finances.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  348. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Everyone, Richard and I have been having an off-list discussion the National bylaws which he has kindly given me permission to repost here, which I will do once I have time. I am committed to help man an LP Outreach booth (out of local town) this weekend, starting Friday and will be very scarce and need to catch up on my other volunteer obligations with FB prior to leaving.

  349. George Phillies

    @4:46PM. I did not say they were right. Curiously, the last LNC member with whom I discussed the question was also somewhat disturbed, though based on full-year plans.

  350. Nicholas Sarwark

    I’ll wait for the audit committee report before making a final determination of my own regarding LNC finances.

    Given the membership of that committee, I trust you’re better informed about what the contents of that report will be than I am.

  351. Richard P. Burke

    Nick,

    Actually, I don’t know a thing about what the report say, for that matter, anything about LNC finances. Since you know the state of the LNC’s finances on a day-to-day basis, you should already have a good idea what will be in it.

    Richard

  352. Steve Scheetz

    Richard, you could have stopped after the 4th word in your statement and have been just as accurate.

    I have found it amazing to read your comments as they twist everything around to make whatever news appear to be the victory you have been looking for all of these years. I have heard this statement, and while it has been attributed to many individuals throughout history, it not only stands on its own, (no matter who the original author was) it is applicable here…

    If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to accept it as truth, and the bigger the lie happens to be, the more likely people will be willing to accept it.

    All of this discussion is based on two groups that had no business meddling in Oregon’s Libertarian Party’s being. From the very beginning when people from national went to Oregon to explain, to Oregon Libertarians, that they did not know or understand how to run their own party. Adding insult to this, Some members of LNC EC made a decision that it would recognize group A as its group.

    The JC, at that time, determined that any recognition by National was out of order, and Group B would be the group that was recognized. Years went by, the LNC kept poking Oregon Libertarians with a stick, and now, with members of a specific faction, having placed themselves into key positions within the LNC and the JC during the 2014 convention, some of these individuals have determined, all by themselves, that they were the ones to change what happened in the past when the Reeves Group was unrecognized in favor of the Wagner Group.

    In the mean time, the State of Oregon, within the court system, has maintained that the group of record was Group, the Wagner Group, and by your own admission, Richard, your group has been more of a political Club, or a PAC, NOT a political party since you are not recognized as such, by anyone, let alone the state.

    We have had the LP Chairman, state, CLEARLY, that the 2015 JC decision was actually meaningless. HOWEVER, he did say that if anyone on the LNC wished to make a motion to do something about the LNC decision he would entertain such a motion should it be seconded. According to the 2015 JC decision, the LNC Executive Committee can declare that a state party is a state party, and because it is the LNCEC, it must be so…

    I truly cannot fathom from what universe one must come from to see what happened as anything other than a group of individuals making a joke of the Libertarian Party.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  353. George Phillies

    Richard, I was referring to your statement

    “Nick Sarwark, as he has no unilateral policy making authority under our bylaws, is acting in violation of LNC resolutions and Judicial Committee rulings. *This may be the least of his worries, given the finances of the national party.*

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon”

    Emphasis perhaps added by me, though I can’t tell until I post. I took the closing sentence to reflect some level of pessimism.

    Also, you are perhaps expecting the Audit Committee to do different things than I would. However, I am prepared to be surprised, hopefully pleasantly.

    In other news, there has been an exchange between the two groups about a perhaps-new set of Oregon Bylaws that someone in the Reeves group has offered up.

  354. paulie

    Congrats to Caryn for entering the top 15 most commented on stories club. This post is climbing the charts fast and will no doubt be in the top ten before long.

  355. Jill Pyeatt

    Steve, well said. It’s amazing that the Reeves people interpret the same written documents so differently than everyone else. I should be used to it by now, but it still astounds me.

  356. Wes Wagner

    Email response to Ian Epstein from Lars Hedbor, Chair of the LPO:

    Mr. Epstein –

    While I do not endorse my colleague Mr. Wagner’s rhetoric, I agree with the essential thrust of his comments; there is no “compromise” possible between our groups.

    The Libertarian Part of Oregon is, both morally and legally, the property of the registered Libertarian voters of Oregon.

    When the LPO’s bylaws were found to be unworkable due to unattainable quorum requirements (it was not even possible for new officer elections to be held!), the officers left in limbo by that situation reluctantly undertook the extraordinary measure of creating new bylaws, and sending them to the registered Libertarian voters of the state for ratification.

    The founders of the dissident faction you now represent opted to simply ignore the inconvenient parts of the prior bylaws (specifically, the parts that governed quorum, membership, and credentialing requirements), pretended that they were operating under the old system, and elected themselves as the new officers.

    When their actions were not recognized by the Secretary of State or the Libertarian National Committee, they turned to the Republican Party of Oregon for assistance in filing a lawsuit, with the expressed intent of running the legitimate LPO out of money through court expenses.

    Subsequently, they engineered the replacement of our delegations to national Libertarian Party conventions with their own favored delegations, and fraudulently used the name of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to raise funds for their own activities.

    For supposed adherents to the NAP, the use of the courts to intentionally drain our resources, and the defrauding of our donors are pretty unambiguous aggression.

    The registered Oregon Libertarian members of your group have been, and remain, welcome to participate in the Libertarian Party of Oregon, by voting in our elections, running your own candidates for the board, and attending our business and social meetings. The registered Republicans and out-of-state meddlers in your group should never have had a seat at the table, and will not be permitted to decide the future of our party.

    We have work to do, huge opportunities available to us, and substantial external challenges before us. This ego-driven conflict has impaired our ability to meet these challenges, has sapped our resources, and has emboldened the enemies of freedom, both in Oregon and nationally.

    If you want to serve the cause of liberty, please do so by getting the hell out of the way of those of us who are working for it.

    – Lars D. H. Hedbor
    Chair, Libertarian Party of Oregon

  357. Wes Wagner

    Reply to Mr. Epstein’s email form Kyle Markley, Vice Chair of the LPO:

    Mr. Epstein,

    Thank you for reaching out. My name is Kyle Markley. I am presently the Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the political party). Like you, I was also not involved with the Party at the time of Our Great Rift, but became active a few months later. I also do not carry the baggage of the previous years. I am also a bit less fire-and-brimstoney than some of my colleagues.

    However, I will confess that the following came to my mind upon reading your message (and I trust that you’ll understand the reference):

    “We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.”

    That is true. We hold the ballot line in Oregon, and nothing from National can or will change that, as we are not a subordinate entity.

    I know that your message was heartfelt, but it failed to make a value proposition. In concrete and practical terms, how does unification under your bylaws benefit Libertarian voters and Libertarian political success in Oregon? Why should we care?

    Under our bylaws and without your group’s help, the Libertarian Party of Oregon has flourished over the past few years. We’ve nominated record numbers of candidates, had solid increases in voter registration, and some of the best electoral results for 3-way state legislative races in the nation.

    I credit our bylaws for much of that success. In particular, the vote-by-mail primary is essential to getting the membership involvement needed to field such a large slate of candidates. People will write themselves in as a candidate who are otherwise uninvolved in the activity of the Party, and become activists. An in-person convention gets attendance from tens of people; a vote-by-mail primary election gets participation from a thousand. A thousand respondents is a fertile field for activists to grow from. A convention will be attended by very few but the current activists.

    I cannot support a course of action that would threaten our vote-by-mail primary election. That would strangle the Party’s momentum. An invitation to operate under bylaws that prohibit a vote-by-mail primary election offers a negative value for the practical success of the Party. I suspect that your bylaws provisions related to preventing “surprise” changes actually make it more difficult to adopt our method of election.

    Furthermore, I am determined to keep the ballot line in the hands of the Libertarian wing of the Libertarian party, and not hand it over to Republican wolves in sheeps’ clothing. This is the stewardship of the Party that our registered voters rightly expect. (What office does your attorney hold, again? Oh, right, he is my counterpart in the Oregon Republican Party.)

    Having educated myself about the conflict, especially by reading the legal filings, I do find things to fault on all sides. There is plenty of bad to go around. I do not recognize either side as being “wholly in the right” (nor do I see equal culpability). But I am quite confident that the ballot line is presently in the hands of the group that will do the better job of promoting Libertarian success.

    I agree that the infighting has wasted tremendous resources (time, financial, and emotional) that could have been better directed toward Libertarian politics. The most straightforward path to resolution that frees up those resources as soon as possible is for your organization to give up, stop fighting, accept defeat, and to help us be more successful.

    There was a revolution. It was not orderly. Your side lost. I know that second sentence bothers some people, and for some good reasons, but the first and third sentences are actually more important, now.

  358. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Kyle Markley’s response was the most sensible of them all for potential resolution.

  359. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I have time to post the exchanges I promised

    ************
    Caryn,

    Greetings to you. I hope you are well.

    Something has not been mentioned much that you may or may not have considered with respect to our national bylaws. While I believe the LNC had the right to determine the legitimacy of our Bylaws and those of Wagner back in 2011 based on the relationship between the LNC and it’s affiliates, there is another connection.

    ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5 – NATIONAL BYLAWS

    “The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these Bylaws.” [underline added]

    The underlined portion of this article makes clear that the autonomy of state affiliates is not absolute; the LNC may in fact abridge the autonomy of state affiliates as our bylaws provide for. Now consider the following:

    ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3 – NATIONAL BYLAWS

    “There shall be no more than one state-level affiliate party in any one state. Each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” [underline added, the word “Shall” emphasized]

    Under Section 3 of Article V, the LNC has the authority, and because the word “shall” is used, the responsibility to determine whether or not documents purporting to be a state affiliate’s bylaws are legitimate, at least for the purpose of determining whether or not delegates sent to national conventions were legitimately selected.

    In our particular circumstance, this is directly applicable.

    According to Wagner’s Constitution and Bylaws, used in violation of our 2009 documents by their own admission, their Board of Directors is solely empowered to select delegates to LNC National Conventions.

    SECTION 3 OF THE WAGNER BYLAWS/CONSTITUTION

    The board shall be limited to the following duties:

    * Transact all business of the LPO between conventions.
    * Elect a chairperson and vice chairperson from among the board of directors.
    * Appoint or hire a secretary and treasurer.
    * Appoint delegates to the National Libertarian Party conventions.
    * Define policy for the operation of the LPO.
    * Perform other such duties defined in the LPO Constitution and Bylaws or as directed at convention.

    Looking at their document, there also seem to be no clear eligibility requirements related to who can serve as a national convention delegate. It might have been assumed that national convention delegates need to be an LPO “members,” but it isn’t so stated anywhere in their document. This matter would then fall under the authority of eligibility requirements found in our national bylaws.

    In contrast, according to the 2009 LPO Bylaws and the subordinate 2005 LPO Convention Rules, national convention delegates are selected at state conventions. Delegates must all be dues-paying members of the LPO and the national party.

    2009 LPO BYLAWS – Article XI, “Conventions”

    Section 2. “Convention rules shall be adopted and/or amended at any duly constituted state convention by a simple majority vote of the delegates attending.”

    Section 7. “All members and alternates of an LPO delegation to a
    national convention shall be members of both the LPO and the national Libertarian Party whose dues to both are paid-up at the time of their selection and at the time of the national convention.”

    2005 LPO CONVENTION RULES – Article III , “Convention Agenda”

    “Convention activities shall be conducted in the following order: call to order; officers’ reports, staff reports and other reports; Constitution and Bylaws; elections — LPO positions, national convention delegates; nominations for candidates to public office; endorsements for public office; platform; resolutions an other business.” [emphasis added]

    Our 2013 bylaws move closer to Wagner’s in that the State Committee is empowered to select national convention delegates. But there are still clear eligibility requirements which differ from those which apparently do not exist in the Wagner document.

    2013 LPO BYLAWS – Section XV, “National Convention Delegates”

    Sec. 1. Delegates and alternates to a national convention of the Libertarian Party shall be selected by the Executive Committee from among individuals who are:

    (a) a regular member of the LPO;
    (b) a sustaining member of the national Libertarian Party; and
    (c) not registered to vote as an affiliate of any party other than the Libertarian Party.

    Sec. 2. In the event that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in either of the two immediately preceding presidential elections qualified for taxpayer subsidies by virtue of his or her vote total in the general election, the only persons eligible to be delegates or alternates to a national convention or to participate in their selection shall be those who, in addition to meeting the eligibility requirements in Sec. 1 of this Article, have for at least four years been:

    (a) a regular member of the LPO; or
    (b) a sustaining member of the national Libertarian Party.

    Truly, Caryn, it is not reasonable to expect the national party to accept delegations sent to them by mechanisms acknowledged by those who use them to have been adopted in violation of member-approved bylaws. It not only speaks to common sense, but would also seem to be the point of using the word “shall” in Article VI, Section 3 of our national bylaws. The actions taken by those assembled at the 2012 and 2014 national conventions, while not the actions of the LNC, were consistent with what the LNC is empowered to do under this clause.

    Perhaps it could be argued that if the two processes used to select national convention delegates were identical, national party bylaws might not offer any other justification for the LNC to be involved in determining the legitimacy of state bylaws. I don’t know, I’d have to look more closely at it. But that is not the case here. This is at least one instance where the door is opened.

    ************

    Hi Richard, I am heading out in a little bit for some more CO activities…. sitting by a fire pit and having some cognac, but I wanted to acknowledge your email and thank you for the time you put into it.

    As you may know (though I will not say who), a lot of people have been in touch with me over this time, and this argument has been presented to me before. In fact, it was laid out in the LNC’s objection to the 2011 ruling. However, I think you laid it out more clearly than they did. I still though disagree, though I will have lay out my reasoning in another email.

    I think also though you are under the impression that I had an opinion (or even said one) about what happened at the 2012 and 2014 conventions.. I haven’t ever spoken to that, since to me, this present controversy and issue is the 2011 LNC and now the JC revisiting.

  360. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Continued…

    ^^^^^^^^^^

    Caryn,

    Thank you for your kind words. I always thought the argument I laid out, though it wasn’t central, had been botched in 2011. I can understand that people might disagree with the interpretation, but I think ours was a reasonable one.

    I don’t see the point in having any kind of national association if the common body, in this case the national LP, can do nothing to assure the integrity of it’s component parts short of disaffiliation – Particularly given that delegates from those parts set the organization’s direction as they do at our national conventions.

    I think our bylaws provisions for doing this are weak, but they exist and their existance (abstractly at least) has been affirmed by our JudComm. Right or wrong, it should be respected until our convention overturns it in Orlando, if it does.

    BTE, I don’t think I can recall you expressing any thoughts about our 2012, 2013, or 2014 conventions, though I can tell you that our bylaws were followed.

    ***********

    Hi Richard, I have a bit of time now to try to explain why I do not ultimately find those points convincing as it pertains to the LNC bylaws and why I maintain my position that it did not have this authority.

    Autonomy: I work in insurance defense law (though not an attorney). I do not know if you are familiar with the idea of an “All Risk” policy. In general, it is a type of property casualty homeowners policy that covers everything unless it is specifically excepted and those exceptions are narrowly construed— of course the attorneys hash out precisely what that means constantly, but that is a general idea. This is the approach I take to our bylaws. It is an “All Autonomy” policy in which autonomy is respected unless it is specifically excepted and those exceptions are narrowly construed. I believe this is the intent of that provision which states, “The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these Bylaws.”

    There are various exceptions in the bylaws (before getting to the one you argue). Disaffiliation is obviously the one nuclear exception (actually it is both an exception and the biggest way to honour affiliation— disassociation is sometimes the highest respect one can pay to freedom and autonomy). Another would be that the affiliate has to adopt the Statement of Principles. There are several others not particularly relevant, but they are very narrow. Autonomy means nothing if it is not narrowly construed.

    You quote the next section as support, “Each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.”

    The word “shall” there is an instruction as to how the affiliate shall designate its delegates. in accordance with its own Bylaws. It does not at all grant the LNC to authority to rule on what the affiliate’s bylaws say or are in a way that binds the affiliate in anything other than this specific issue of delegates at the convention (if even that). Now what if the Credentials Committee has a question about whether the State’s bylaws have been followed? Our bylaws do not give guidance other than that the autonomy of the affiliate is not to be breached. We could have laid out a procedure, and we did not. One thing that is clear to me, we certainly do not have the authority to tell the affiliate that THESE are their bylaws and THESE are your officers when those facts are under dispute. At most this allows the CC to look at undisputed bylaws and make an informed opinion for its good faith process in seating delegates but it has no more authority other than that. If the bylaws themselves are in question, it has no guidance.

    Our bylaws, quite simply are deficient here if the LNC wishes to have more control. The Dasbach LNC acknowledged that the bylaws provide no guidance on how to choose between competing sets of delegates, certainly they didn’t believe a right to authoritatively interpret the affiliate’s bylaws—that LNC said there was no guidance even if the bylaws were not under dispute. Even in its decision that the recall election was properly ruled invalid… it did not authoritatively rule so, the LNC stated its opinion and urged the LPO to work it out through their own procedures or other dispute resolutions.

    I didn’t get into the Wagner v. Burke (using your name for simplicity) bylaws issues because my concern really is the LNC, and if we don’t get past the LNC issues, the rest is not relevant.

    I think you can see that my consistent principle is the honoring of the terms of voluntary associations. And I think the terms of the LNC voluntary association were not followed in 2011.

    As far as honouring the 2015 JC decision, no I believe the LNC should repudiate it. Because I think it violative of the voluntary association. And if the 2011 LNC really believed that as well for their JC, they should have repudiated it.

    I thank you for your continued communications with me.

    I would like to post this back and forth on the IPR thread…. do I have your permission? [I am going to omit the small back and forth we had where I made sure I had permission]

  361. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Continued

    *********

    Caryn,

    It does not at all grant the LNC to authority to rule on what the affiliate’s bylaws say or are in a way that binds the affiliate in anything other than this specific issue of delegates at the convention (if even that). Now what if the Credentials Committee has a question about whether the State’s bylaws have been followed? Our bylaws do not give guidance other than that the autonomy of the affiliate is not to be breached.

    Perhaps you disagree, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the authority of determining whether delegates were chosen in accordance with the bylaws of a state affiliates rests with the LNC simply because of the requirement itself. The LNC and it’s subordinate organs have mechanisms to make such determinations by RONR. On it’s face, it makes no sense to require that state bylaws be followed if it is impossible to determine if this has happened or not.

    You then write,

    “As far as honouring the 2015 JC decision, no I believe the LNC should repudiate it. Because I think it violative of the voluntary association.”

    The LNC can come out against it, but they don’t have the authority to overturn it under our bylaws. Such was the case in 2011 when the Judicial Committee ruled and the 2011 LNC passed a resolution condemning the ruling. But the LNC did not attempt to overturn it. Our bylaws say that our Judicial Committee is the highest authority between conventions, and the LNC and Nick Sarwark need to accede to that if they are to follow the rules of our voluntary association.

    *****

    Richard,

    The Dasbach LNC disagreed and that is precedent. And if you were to limit it to simply credentialling delegates, I think that is reasonable if the set of bylaws themselves are not in dispute (though again the Dasbach LNC came to a different conclusion). As far as RONR, I would have to see the items myself, but my opinion of the way RONR is gamed and used to buffalo people in a voluntary association is not something I have any sympathy for. There is no association without consent, and it is ridiculous on sheer logical and further libertarian grounds to create a de facto ruling class of “parliamentarians.” I reject that, and it isn’t what I signed up for.

    re: the LNC and 2015 JC decision: Actually I think it has the authority to repudiate based on lack of bylaws authority for it in the first place, which is what I believe the LNC should do and will support them doing. Please do not make this about Chair Sarwark. I happen to agree with him here, but he will tell you that he and I often disagree on issues—and that is something I highly appreciate and respect about him (the ability to disagree agreeably and willingness to interact). I do not follow factional lines. I believe Chair Sarwark is correct in this instance.

    ^^^^^

    Caryn,

    The Dasbach letter provides a precedent only to a point. But even to that point, it works in our favor. Dasbach wrote, “Thus it appears to the LNC, based on the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, that as of December 10, 1995, that none of the members of the State Committee have been recalled.” [underline added] “Appears to the LNC, based on the Constitution and Bylaws of the LPO” is an explicit statement expressing an evaluation of LPO bylaws made by the LNC. We’ll take that to the bank.

    But beyond that point, the Dasbach letter offers no precedent. There are important differences. In 1995, there were no disputes over what the legitimate bylaws were; two groups of officers were claiming to be legitimate under the same set of bylaws. Dasbach did not have the challenge of determining which bylaws were legitimate and determining who was following them. In this respect, the 2015 Judicial Committee covered new ground.

    In matters where state bylaws are at issue, RONR allows LNC deliberative bodies to pass resolutions or take actions which express whether or not they think rules were complied with. I know you don’t like RONR, but until another standard is adopted, that is what we have voluntarily agreed to use through adoption of our bylaws.

    Even if Sarwark were right about all this, he simply does not have unilateral policy making authority which would allow him to defy Judicial Committee rulings and LNC resolutions. Our bylaws make their authority superior to his in terms of making policy and interpreting our governing documents as they apply to our activities. If he cannot abide by our bylaws out of conscience, he should comply under protest or resign. As you have said, this is a voluntary organization and even if people disagree with the things our bylaws force or enable us to do, they are bound by those bylaws.

    If you believe RONR should be tossed because you don’t like the way they are used, or if you think that an LNC Chair has the right to exceed his authority because he doesn’t like what superior authorities in our party did, you are falling into the same “Ends Justifies the Means” trap that Wagner did.

  362. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    That is where we left off. I owe a response about the Dasbach LNC decision which is something I posted on quite a bit in the other Oregon thread but I believe Richard has misconstrued its significance. (as I believe the 2015 JC did)

  363. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George,

    ==In other news, there has been an exchange between the two groups about a perhaps-new set of Oregon Bylaws that someone in the Reeves group has offered up.==

    That would be progress indeed.

  364. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Paulie,

    ==Congrats to Caryn for entering the top 15 most commented on stories club. This post is climbing the charts fast and will no doubt be in the top ten before long.===

    LOL.

  365. Wes Wagner

    Yeah… the exchange was our current chair and vice chair telling them to go fuck themselves in more polite language. The “thrust” of my first inflammatory missive was essentially unchanged. 😛

  366. Jeff Davidson

    Once again, Caryn has drawn out more information through patient, careful and respectful responses than anyone that I have seen in all the years I have followed this dispute on IPR. It appears that she has posted more information here on IPR regarding this dispute, and better arguments from both sides, than either of the Judicial Committee decisions had available to them at the time. Well done, Caryn, and thank you.

  367. Wes Wagner

    Richard generally believes that any power where he has friends in that position has the ultimate authority. When he had a puppet chair he told that chair they had the power of God over the organization … when it was a chair he didn’t like, oh no you are bound by all these rules.

    Same old same old.

  368. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I had time to respond to Richard’s latest email to me, and here it is (I will gone starting tonight… going a bit out of town to work an Outreach booth with LPCO)

    Richard (or do you prefer Rich?),

    I do believe you have misconstrued the significance of the Dasbach letter… or at least my position on it which could be due to the fact that my position isn’t the typical one expressed. Most people seem to fall either on “The LNC had every right to do what it did” or “The LNC could not say a thing about this.” My position is neither, and the Dasbach letter is a good demonstration.

    In that circumstance the LNC was presented with two different sets of officers based upon a disputed recall election. They did feel that they had the authority to decide which set was rightful in order to carry out their duties in ensuring there was only one affiliate in OR but stressed that they must not violate the autonomy of the affiliate. Here is where I think the various analyses go off the rails. One side seems to be arguing that if they come to a conclusion at all that violates the autonomy of the affiliate, and the other side seems to say if they come to an opinion that means they can enforce that opinion without violating the autonomy of the affiliate. But the Dasbach LNC trod very carefully between these two lines. They came to an opinion (opinions do not violate autonomy) and issued it as a “To Whom It May Concern” as an advisory of their opinion. There was no authoritative ruling, in fact, everything is couched in deferential words such as “appears” and “urges” and points to the affiliate’s own methods for resolving disputes. It acknowledges that the OR affiliate may not take the LNC’s word as Gospel by the fact that it brings up the possibility that they may end up having the disputing parties holding two state conventions and sending two sets of delegates for which the LNC said it had no guidance on how to resolve. It does not appeal to itself as the final arbiter here. This controversy ended there so we do not know what may have happened next if OR did not internally resolve this. What would have happened if the two sets of officers continued to war? Would the Dasbach LNC have just declared the others absolutely illegitimate and went on carrying on business with the ones they determined? We do not know, but from the tone of the letter and the possibilities raised, I believe not. I believe that LNC would have been placed in the position of considering disaffiliation. Unfortunately they never raised the issue of where mailings or data (they didn’t have electronic dumps or a website then) would be handled. Presumably they sent it to the “business address” on file with the OR SoS but we do not know if this was ever an issue.

    It is true that the bylaws themselves were not under dispute, but it seems clear to me that no binding authority was claimed upon the affiliate, and that if we were to follow precedent (which I do understand is of only a certain value since it was not challenged at the time), this would mean that the LNC could make a determination but not force it upon the affiliate. If the affiliate could not work it out after this, the LNC would have to decide what to do, and the Dasbach LNC acknowledged (at least with regard to convention credentials) that there was no such clear guidance…. but one thing was crystal clear… they must not violate the autonomy of the affiliate. That is the one thing that rings clear as a bell.

    To be very upfront, I find this an interesting example, but only interesting. I feel it supports my position but it isn’t binding, our bylaws are. I don’t base my opinion on that circumstance. If I am wrong about my interpretation, it wouldn’t change my opinion on the bylaws, I would just think two LNCs were wrong, but right now I find my interpretation compelling.

    Now as far as the RONR, as I said previously I would have to see the specific portions as I did with the rescinding authority… which I found to be wanting. Further, the RONR cannot override the directives of our bylaws…. and the autonomy of the affiliate is a bylaws directive. I also do not dispute that the LNC can for its own advice and counsel and as an advisory to others make determinations. They cannot enforce those on the affiliates, but certainly that would even be part of a case to disaffiliate for cause.

    I do not want to go too far into a rabbit trail on how the RONR is gamed, but our bylaws are superior to the RONR, and as I have argued in several other issues, a big portion of voluntary associations is actual consent, and something that only a parliamentary alchemist can understand and impose on others is not something meaningfully consented to. But that hasn’t become an issue yet in this dispute because even with the RONR used to justify the 2015 JC decision, I believe it doesn’t fly (this action cannot be meaningfully undone), and further, the RONR cannot grant additional powers to the JC when the bylaws limit them. So I am not going to pursue further at this point the way the RONR is used by a few to bludgeon the many.

    You once again appear to be targeting Chair Sarwark, and he actually isn’t the only one who expressed this opinion. I believe Alternate Hays joined in his opinion (though obviously Alternate Hays has no vote unless his Regional Representative is not present etc). The LNC as a Body and as individuals do have the responsibility to ignore a JC decision that was made outside the bounds of its authority— if they are overruled by the rest of the LNC that is where things might change. As of right now he has stated his opinion and that is where it is at. You are magnifying it into something that has not yet happened. I am waiting to see what happens next. I happen to think his opinion is right, and I came to this opinion independent of him.

    PS: While I do harp on Wes quite a bit about the changing of the member class etc and imposing his will upon them, the 2011 LNC did the same thing. It was up to that member class to defend their rights, and the LNC did not attempt to take any vote or survey of that member class to find out how they felt either. Just as an aside. They could just have easily decided to ratify after the fact. We don’t know. This further goes on to highlight that this is an OR and not an LNC matter unless they felt it was so egregious and unethical that they had to disaffiliate.

    PSS: You posted about there always been two levels of members that included the registered Libertarians. Can you please explain that further?

    For everyone’s reference again, here is the Dasbach letter
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kWXFJbHpfY1g2M2M/view?usp=sharing

  369. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Just now:

    Caryn,

    Unfortunately, you don’t have all of the information. The bylaw provisions in dispute in 1994/95, which were the subject of correspondence between LPO members and the LNC leading up to the Dasbach letter, concerned whether State Committee members were recalled merely upon the presentation of a recall petition or not recalled until the conclusion of a recall election as provided for in LPO bylaws. While not mentioned in the Dasback letter, these provisions were the center of the dispute.

    In 1994, the LPO State Committee was about to spend over $1,000 on a radio ad campaign for the LPO. Some members, led by Dan Vander Ploege, thought this was a poor expenditure of funds. During a State Committee meeting, he and others presented recall petitions purportedly signed by the requisite number of LPO members required to launch a recall election. Vander Ploeg and his supporters contended that State Committee members were recalled on the mere presentation of a recall petition. Others concluded that the signatures needed to be validated and that a recall election needed to be held before anyone was removed from office.

    The Vander Ploeg people held a recall election they consucted themselves, not held by the State Committee as required, and concluded that all persons in question were recalled. This went to JudComm. JudComm said that this was an improper election and that the State Committee needed to hold one. It did, and nobody was recalled.

    The LNC looked at all of this leading up to Dasbach’s letter. Unfortunately, it was not all reflected in the Dasbach letter except in the “it appears to the LNC,,,” section. I have a document retrieved from the “Orrin Grover Memorial Trash Pile” about two inches thick with this information.

    Point is, the LNC went over our bylaws in this case and made a determination. Whether or not doing so abridged the automony LPO, it was regarded to be justified by the “as provided for” clause of the bylaws within the context of determining who the Oregon affiliate of the LNC was.

    Rich

    ********************
    Rich,

    I do not see how that impacts my points. When I said the bylaws were not in dispute, I was referring to the actual whole set.. there were not competing sets of bylaws. There was a dispute over the interpretation of an acknowledged provision (or provisions). I understood more of the background than you are aware (remember I have been in correspondences with others on this), but it was not relevant to my point. The LNC obviously made a determination. They did not authoritatively push that on OR.. and we do not know what would have happened if OR did not resolve it. The Dasbach letter affirmed there would be no guidance if two sets of delegates were presented at convention. I am sorry Rich but that makes no sense in your narrative and perfect sense in mine.

  370. Richard P. Burke

    Caryn,

    You write,

    “They did feel that they had the authority to decide which set was rightful in order to carry out their duties in ensuring there was only one affiliate in OR but stressed that they must not violate the autonomy of the affiliate.”

    You understand, of course, that according to the standards set by Wagner and his supporters, claiming to have “authority to decided which set was rightful” is itself a violation of autonomy.

    It is important to remember that the national party is NOT barred from abridging a state affiliate’s autonomy. It is just barred from abridging their autonomy in a manner not provided for by other sections of the national bylaws. That is the question, and Dasbach refers to one area where this was provided for. Determining who are rightly selected to be national convention delegates is another.

    Rich

  371. Richard P. Burke

    George,

    The bylaws referred to Ian Epstein as “The Compromise Bylaws” are not a new set. They are the set adopted at the 2013 LPO Annual Business Convention. Where the LPO finally made quorum.

    Richard P. Burke

  372. Joe

    So where are the Oregon courts in this now, I wonder?

    And given this strategy — of having each convention’s JC now (apparently) authorized to bounce this around like a Pong game (depending on the makeup of each post-convention JC) — wouldn’t it have been cheaper (and perhaps more effective) to have just made sure the JC was stacked in this way a couple of conventions ago rather than throw $100K plus into filing the complaint(s) in court?

  373. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Rich,

    This post and your email (slightly different information) I will respond to upon my return from the Outreach weekend. I have to catch up on other obligations (including if I have time, actually posting new articles here too. Knowing how busy you can be too, I know you will understand.

  374. Richard P. Burke

    Caryn,

    It’s OK. Not in a rush. None of this is our decision anyway, we are mostly just ping-ponging arguments on this thread for our own benefit. Don’t worry about it… low priority.

    Rich

  375. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Thank you Rich… and I like to think it is also for the benefit of others… perhaps that is what you meant by “our.”

    But yes, it is somewhat an exercise in navel-gazing but I find it educational.

  376. Richard P. Burke

    ARTICLE VII, SECTION # 3 OF OUR BYLAWS SAY…

    “The Chair shall preside at all Conventions and all meetings of the National Committee. The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, *= subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds =*.

    The 2011 resolutions passed by the LNC concerning the LPO, brought back into force by the Judicial Committee, is now the policy of the LNC. Sarwark, I would submit, is now in violation of our bylaws because he is defying the LNC.

    I understand that there are disagreements as to whether or not the LNC acted properly in passing their 2011 resolutions, and that you have your own opinion about it. but the Judicial Committee has spoken on the matter.

    You have been critical of Wes because he acted in violation of our governing documents on 3/31/11. You have consistently said that we go by the rules of our voluntarily adopted guidelines, even if they don’t result is outcomes some people desire. I respectfully submit that if you support Sarwark now, you are acting inconsistently given your opposition to Mr. Wagner’s actions.

    Mr. Sarwark has no unilateral policy making authority. He has authority to direct staff, but this authority is subject to LNC directives. He is defying them. I submit he should either comply with LNC resolutions, under protest if he wishes, or resign if he feels he cannot do so.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  377. Paul Duke

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don’t alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

  378. Paul Duke

    Everybody because they all want to be on the winning side of this. All of the wrangling of bylaws and opinions and reading into decisions is all bullshit because everyone is trying to find the superior position over someone else. End this. Now. The elections are next year and we should be focused on getting people motivated to run, instead of this meniacal trip into the depths of madness.

  379. Wes Wagner

    I am fairly certain we will run even more candidates in 2016 than we did in 2014 – despite the attempts of others to get in the way.

  380. Richard P. Burke

    Paul,

    You didn’t answer my question. What facts and views are not being altered by those in the thick of the Oregon dispute?

    One fact, admitted by the Wagner group: The bylaws they purportedly adopted on 3/31/11 were not adopted in accordance with the rules adopted by members in properly noticed conventions. Instead, they were changed on the perceived authority of misapplied statutes which only applie to major parties, not minor ones.

    Another fact, also admitted to by the Wagner group: Their attempt to cancel the convention session of May 21, 2011 was also in violation of bylaws because the session was called by another convention session (moved by Wagner himself), and the State Committee is subordinate to convention.

    Paul, Mr. Wagner has created a situation whereby one person, whoever the “Chair of Record” is, can sit at his or her kitchen table, re-write our governing bylaws, and have them be accepted by the Secretary of State. This being the case, memberships can be extended or withdrawn for any reason. The rights and responsibilities of members can be changed for any reason. The composition of the membership can be changed arbitrarily.

    Most people who are not belligerents in this factional fight have withdrawn their time, talent, and money for an organization that can do a 180 degree turn on the whim of the “Chair of Record.” Makes sense. Wagner’s bylaws revoked the memberships of people, some of whom paid for lifetime memberships (might be a class action suit there). This fact, plus the Wagner bylaws themselves, also make it difficult to build an organization capable of supporting the campaigns of nominated candidates. Who wants to invest in a foundation of sand?

    Yes, the Wagner mail ballot system facilitates digging up a lot of candidates. But candidates alone does not a party make, and it should not be considered a big accomplishment if you send out 15,000 ballots to get only 30-40 candidates, especially when one-third of the candidates are Republicans and few of the others follow up writing in their own name with an active campaign. This is a ticket to nowhere.

    Richard P. Burke

  381. Paul Duke

    Richard, at this point I don’t care what you say or what Wes says or anyone else for that matter. I am a registered Libertarian voter in the State of Oregon. Before that I was a member of the Libertarian party in the State of Washington. I am also a lifetime member of the NLP. I am caught in the middle of this whole mess, and I’m not the only one.

    As a registered voter I’m going to vote on whichever ballot shows up in the mail. What I will not do is pay for the right to vote, nor pay for the right to run as a Libertarian (which apparently is what you have said is required for anything past being a registered voter with your group,) should I ever decide to seek office.

    Everyone in this mess screwed up. I think everyone here recognizes this. I’m not going to go through things point by point. There has been quite enough of that in this thread and others past.

    Grow up.

  382. Wes Wagner

    ^ This … the current LPO board only has 1 person on it who was present for and party to the bylaws change on 3/31/11…. the world has moved on. We have had a ratification vote and 2 primaries sent to every registered voter in the state, 2 board elections sent by mail ballot.

    The world has moved on and no one will move it back. This is about as silly as conservatives trying to reverse gay marriage. But then again wanting the world to roll backwards is a conservative ideology … and Burke seems to be in tight with them so I guess it makes sense.

  383. Richard P. Burke

    Wes,

    The Judicial Committee has ruled 4-2-1 as recently as a month ago. The organization based on governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions has been operating continuously since this started. National conventions have taken our side concerning the seating of delegates. We have active litigation. The world has clearly not moved on as you suggest. But if I were you, I’d probably promote that theme too.

    Paul,

    You are misinformed. As a registered LP voter who does not pay dues you may not only be a delegate at candidate nominating conventions, you may also be nominated for any partisan race in the State Of Oregon.

    Richard P. Burke

  384. Wes Wagner

    Richard,

    Let me know how that 4-2-1 ruling works out for you… the actual universe that matters will be ignoring you and it and proceeding forward.

  385. Paul Duke

    Richard,

    So what does $50 in dues get someone, which is double what the national party requests?

  386. Wes Wagner

    I think the national party probably loses money on the $25 dues given the newsletter and all the staff and production time to run them, managing the memberships, renewal appeals, etc as well as other things. They survive on donations rather than dues from what I can see.

  387. Richard P. Burke

    Paul,

    Given the Oregon Political Tax Credit, the $50 dues makes it possible for people to divert funds that would otherwise go to the state to the LPO. After taking the political tax credit, effective dues rate is $0. The money typically goes to pay for party operations including business conventions and other routine expenses. For a long time it went to a mailed newsletter, which we would like to re-start. As for the Judicial Committee ruling, we shall see.

    Wes,

    Of course the party needs contributions, but dues are a significant revenue center.

    Richard

  388. Paul Duke

    Richard,

    So either the state gets the tax or your PAC does. It’s a tax either way in my opinion. I just am granted a little leeway in where it goes.

    So do the board members of your PAC receive any renumeration for their time serving in the board?

  389. George Phillies

    The 2011 resolutions were not passed by the LNC. They were passed by the ExComm. Also, they declare that the valid affiliate is the one chaired by Mr Reeves, and no such affiliate exists.

    In any event, this is and should be a political issue, to be decided on the political merits.

  390. Steve Scheetz

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Having read the majority of most of these threads, I was reminded of a Facebook Meme that is very applicable here… To paraphrase, arguing with Burke et al is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good the argument, the pigeon will knock over all of the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like it won.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  391. Dave Terry

    And what doe the pigeon do, AFTER he Scheetz on the chess board,
    and dances around as if he had actually made a rational and salient point!

  392. Wes Wagner

    David is just like Burke. After he was caught engaging in gross plagiarism.. or assaulting a party member … instead of going away to hide in shame in a dark hole to die .. he keeps sticking around so he can be a dick.

    The fact that he woild stick aroind where he is despised and his character is well known only shows what a sad pathetic old man he is.

  393. Dave Terry

    A scum sucking pig wrote….”he keeps sticking around so he can be a dick.”

    Someone HAS to stand up & be a dick, since YOU and your close circle jerkoffs
    fail the anatomical test so abysmally!

    Just out curiosity, just HOW OLD do you think I am. WOULD YOU LIKE TO FIND OUT?

  394. Paul Duke

    Richard,

    So dues aren’t required to run for office, but it is required to be In leadership or participate as a delegate.

    From your website:

    “Dues paying, or “regular” members of the LPO can serve in LPO leadership and may participate as a delegate at LPO Annual Business Conventions. These members, through their dues, also support the LPO financially”

    Pay to play. Doesn’t sound like it is voluntary if you want to get anywhere inside your PAC.

  395. paulie

    Quick update on the stats: we have now entered the top ten most commented articles in IPR history. The leaderboard currently is:

    1. LP Judicial Committee Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior JC Decision re Oregon Affiliate; Carling Will Not Recuse Himself
    Jill Pyeatt 2015/08/14 1160 comments

    2. Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29
    Jill Pyeatt 2014/06/26 1064 comments

    3. LNC Elections Thread
    Paulie 2012/05/06 1034 comments

    4. Angela Keaton resigning from LNC
    G.E. 2008/12/08 734 comments

    5. Libertarian Party vs Constitution Party: An Analysis
    Krzysztof Lesiak 2013/03/26 664 comments

    6. LNC Meeting Mar 28-29, 2015 Phoenix (Updated)
    Paulie 2015/03/29 654 comments

    7. California LP Judicial Committee overturns member’s suspension on appeal
    Thomas L. Knapp 2010/01/29 583 comments

    8. Coverage of LNC meeting 12/14-15/13
    Paulie 2013/12/14 528 comments

    9. What’s Going On with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania?
    Jill Pyeatt 2013/01/28 502 comments

    And now… .

    This article – 486 and counting if nothing else posted here while I was typing this.

  396. Steve M

    “I am fairly certain we will run even more candidates in 2016 than we did in 2014 – despite the attempts of others to get in the way.”

    Like

  397. Steve M

    Paul,

    under the Burk system what you can’t do if you don’t pay the Burk tax is decide whom your party officers are.

    This may seem like a minor issue but given “Eu v San Francisco” these party leaders may exercise their free speach by deciding who gets to be a Libertarian candidate for office.

    have fun

  398. paulie

    I think the national party probably loses money on the $25 dues

    Most people end up contributing more. Zero dues was a big flop in 2006. We had free memberships before, during and since, but about a third of the paid memberships departed during those few months and never came back.

  399. Wes Wagner

    Paulie

    I think the national dues system makes sense for national (as much as I am opposed to dues) and the reasons it works:

    1) national has no other real method to keep an interested member list that makes sense
    2) they provide services
    3) you don’t have to pay them to vote at a convention or gain the right to petition for redress

    A person can opt out of paying dues and still exercise their ability to vote in all matters.

    There are the small nits about serving as party representatives and officers that would make no real material difference if changed.

  400. paulie

    A person can opt out of paying dues and still exercise their ability to vote in all matters.

    Except in years we get mandatory poll taxes (floor fees), such as 2012. Hopefully that won’t happen again.

  401. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner, 10/23; “(and by NAP I mean “pledge” not “principle” …
    pledges are things you say, principles are things you do)”

    Stated as only a certified ‘sociopath’ could. Anyone who considers
    ‘pledges’ and ‘principles’ fundamentally antithetical, clearly cannot
    be trusted in ANY position of trust or power.

  402. jim

    Dave Terry: You said, “Wes Wagner, 10/23; “(and by NAP I mean “pledge” not “principle” …
    pledges are things you say, principles are things you do)”
    “Stated as only a certified ‘sociopath’ could. Anyone who considers
    ‘pledges’ and ‘principles’ fundamentally antithetical, clearly cannot
    be trusted in ANY position of trust or power.”

    I can’t see where Wes Wagner said (or even implied) that ‘pledges’ and ‘principles’ are antithetical.
    This is what I found on a search for a definition of “antithetical”:

    “directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.
    “people whose religious beliefs are antithetical to mine”
    synonyms: (directly) opposed to, contrasting with, contrary to, contradictory to, conflicting with, incompatible with, irreconcilable with, inconsistent with, at variance with, at odds with
    “your theories are antithetical to mine”
    [end of quote]

    Wes Wagner properly distinguished the definitions of “pledges” and “principles”, but not in any way which makes them “antithetical”. Think about it.

  403. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Wow, a lot to read. Back from Outreach which reminds me of the point of this all.

  404. Richard P. Burke

    Paul,

    You write, “So either the state gets the tax or your PAC does. It’s a tax either way in my opinion. I just am granted a little leeway in where it goes.” Paying dues is not a tax because, unlike filing a tax return, becoming a dues paying member of the LPO is not compulsory and there is no police force to make people pay.

    You go on to ask,” So do the board members of your PAC receive any renumeration for their time serving in the board?” No.

    It is refreshing to see that some of the regulars on this blog don’t see dues as a bad thing. Their comments seem to contradict the theory that contributions will rise if dues go away – looks great on paper, but doesn’t really work. Apart from belligerents in this factional divide paying for lawyers and other things, contributions to Mr. Wagner’s group have not been impressive since their coup.

    Of course, it is worth repeating that dues are not required to be a nominated Libertarian candidate or participate in candidate nominating convention. As some folks on the other side of the Oregon conflict believe the LPO should be little more than a vehicle to run candidates, they are getting a lot of what they want under our bylaws. If that is most of what they care about, I think we could come to some sort of accommodation.

    Joe – Thank you for the it’s. The two of us who work on the website, Nick Hazelton and I, are both guilty of that error. We will correct. Thank you.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  405. Joseph Buchman

    Richard P. Burke @ September 27, 2015 at 11:39 am wrote:

    “Joe – Thank you for the it’s. The two of us who work on the website, Nick Hazelton and I, are both guilty of that error. We will correct. Thank you.”

    Richard,

    You’re welcome. Always happy to do my part to help advance the cause of Liberty although I’d be sad to see that unique quirk of your group disappear. Has a certain charm.

    Joe

  406. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ September 27, 2015 at 11:49 am

    “Tenth IPR post to break 500 comments…”

    It’s because it’s is misused for its. Its liberty isn’t what it’s about. . .So blame it on the it’ses.

    🙂

    joe

  407. Paul Duke

    Richard,

    I wrote, “So either the state gets the tax or your PAC does. It’s a tax either way in my opinion. I just am granted a little leeway in where it goes.”

    You replied “Paying dues is not a tax because, unlike filing a tax return, becoming a dues paying member of the LPO is not compulsory and there is no police force to make people pay.”

    You totally missed my point. I am under compulsion in the State of Oregon to pay taxes. I am allowed to redirect $50 towards a political entity within the state. Whether I pay that $50 in taxes to the state, or to your PAC, I am still out that $50. The state is forcing me to pay it regardless of where it ends up. There very much indeed is a police force making people pay.

    Also, as of this post currently you have not responded to my comment, with a quote taken from your website, that unless you are a dues paying member one cannot hold a leadership position nor be recognized as a delegate within your PAC.

    Dues may not be compulsory, but you are limited in the scope of participation within your PAC if you don’t pay. Once again the “Pay to Play” mentality that has been the bane of politics which I detest.

    In reality the point is moot, for myself at least, because I will never ever be a part of your organization. If by some miracle your group prevails in Oregon, I will be changing my registered affiliation accordingly. I do thank you for making me aware of the tax code, however. I’ll make sure that $50 gets into the right hands.

    Paul

  408. Paul Duke

    Joseph,

    Haha! I was thinking along those same lines only with the TV show “Better Call Saul.”

  409. Wes Wagner

    We collect as much in funds as is necessary to run the operations of the party. We don’t ask people for extra to just piss it away on McDonalds and Starbucks.

  410. Wes Wagner

    (As opposed to say the PAC that calls itself the Libertarian Party of Oregon which has spent the bulk of its funds on just paying Lori Piercy (Republican) who does their campaign finance filings)

  411. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I am back to start answering those several points Richard brought up to me. After being out in the streets again though, as usual, they give me the perspective that this online arguing is not that relevant.

    But, from the email that Richard sent:

    ==I didn’t think you would see the relevance. Dasbach tread lightly, but they made an evaluation. You can be quite confident that had they come to a different conclusion, treading just as lightly, their evaluation would have been touted by the other side.==

    You keep trying to point to other people and say “well they would have been upset if such and such…” that is not my concern. I am not interested so much in “sides” here.

    ==In any case, I see this as creating a dillema for you. If the LNC decision in 1995 is to be construed as simply an opinion, then there is little precedent value here. If it is to be regarded as more than an opinion, it can only be regarded as an instance where the LNC may evaluate state affiliate bylaws.===

    No… that doesn’t follow at all. IF the LNC decision was just an opinion, it IS precedent that although they came to a conclusion, they still valued the autonomy of the affiliate to such an extent that they didn’t decree this result… because they didn’t have the authority. It is a precedent on limitation of authority in a much clearer situation than we have now.

  412. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Rich,

    ==It is refreshing to see that some of the regulars on this blog don’t see dues as a bad thing. ==

    I certainly do not. It takes money to do work. I would prefer to see though hours volunteered be given as credit for those who can do that but not the other.

  413. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Rich,

    ==You have been critical of Wes because he acted in violation of our governing documents on 3/31/11. You have consistently said that we go by the rules of our voluntarily adopted guidelines, even if they don’t result is outcomes some people desire. I respectfully submit that if you support Sarwark now, you are acting inconsistently given your opposition to Mr. Wagner’s actions.

    Mr. Sarwark has no unilateral policy making authority. He has authority to direct staff, but this authority is subject to LNC directives. He is defying them. I submit he should either comply with LNC resolutions, under protest if he wishes, or resign if he feels he cannot do so.==

    I sense a divide and conquer… and I don’t like that tactic. Please stop trying to use it with me, I get resentful when I think that is going on.

    Chair Sarwark did not unilaterally do anything he is not entitled to do… state his opinion and intentions. And LNC members do have the right to refuse decisions made by any committee that are outside their scope and authority. Which is what the JC did.

    I am really tired of Oregon issues being used to tear our party apart. You are being just as destructive as Wes openly says he is with these not-so-vague posts about pushing an issue for Chair Sarwark to resign or be censured.

    You will not have my support there I can assure you.

  414. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Rich,

    I believe this is the last unaddressed post:

    ==You understand, of course, that according to the standards set by Wagner and his supporters, claiming to have “authority to decided which set was rightful” is itself a violation of autonomy.==

    And once again, you keep trying to making this almost like a sibling rivalry… pointing to Wes and saying.. but but he [insert whatever].

    That is irrelevant to my opinion. They would have had to determine that if they were making a case for disaffiliation for cause.

    ==It is important to remember that the national party is NOT barred from abridging a state affiliate’s autonomy. It is just barred from abridging their autonomy in a manner not provided for by other sections of the national bylaws. That is the question, and Dasbach refers to one area where this was provided for. Determining who are rightly selected to be national convention delegates is another.==

    Actually, the Dasbach letter explicitly said there was NO guidance on what to do if two conflicting sets of delegates were presented.

    I am disappointed that this hole in the bylaws was left unaddressed since 1995.

  415. George Phillies

    Paulie,

    Once upon a time my parents visited Greece. My gather’s parents were from the country, so he visited. They were staying in an Athens hotel, and on came in Greek (which my mother does not know) the old and by modern standards extremely tame American soap opera “Peyton Place”. My father broke into hysterical laughter. Eventually he recovered enough to tell my mother what was so funny. Peyton Place had been renamed by Greek television. It was now

    Village

    of the

    DAMNED!

  416. Joseph Buchman

    Caryn Ann Harlos September 27, 2015 at 1:47 pm wrote:

    “You are being just as destructive as Wes openly says he is ”

    1) Don’t underestimate Wes.

    2) There is also a distinction between nihilistic destruction and focused refiner’s fire.

    For what it’s worth, I see Wes and his team as the latter.

    As in learning basic calculus, one must master differentiation (tearing things apart) before being able to understand how to best integrate.

    Or so it seems to me.

  417. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Joseph,

    I don’t “underestimate” his goal. I repudiate them. Just as I repudiate Burke’s not-so-transparent goal to attack our current Chair.

  418. Joseph Buchman

    Caryn Ann Harlos Post author September 27, 2015 at 7:18 pm wrote

    “I don’t “underestimate” his goal. I repudiate them.”

    If you are equivocating Wes and Richard, IMO you are underestimating.

    But that doesn’t matter so much as asking you Caryn, are you committed to advancing Liberty? Or are you for defending the LNC?

    Like Starchild’s potential conflict-of-interest disclosure at every LNC meeting, I am for doing whatever advances Liberty/slows her destruction. I do not see the LNC as perfectly aligned with that. The destruction of those areas where it is not aligned advances Liberty, is not IMO “destructive.”

    My sense is that you see any work to destroy what is not working as something to be opposed.

    Did I miss something here?

    Because the logical consistent conclusion to the “unfairness” in Oregon would lead to an apology toward Great Britain for our illegal and deceptive acts in opposition of their organized system for non-violent change, yes?

    Advancing the cause of Liberty does not, should not, must not be aligned with the “rules” imposed by a corrupt state, or for that matter by any prior corrupt organization.

    It’s like telling the unjustly imprisoned to only fight within the limits of their chains and to condemn those who would break the chains, kill the guards and tear the bricks out of the walls.

  419. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I have laid out my reasons and case in such excruciating detail that I see no sense in repeating it.

    Two words: voluntary association.

    And if you don’t see how that applies, nothing I say will change that.

    Once again, I love Outreach weekends for putting things in perspective.

  420. Wes Wagner

    Political parties are not the same as the rotary club. They are not entirely voluntary associations in the same manner. If you don’t comprehend that … more study of electoral law and history is required.

  421. Steve M

    I could be wrong, and probably am, but I think Caryn is favor of having an elitest class rueling the Oregon Libertarian Party in violation of at least the spirit of Oregon state election law.

  422. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wow …. If you came to that conclusion. First, my concern isn’t OR, it is the LNC, and any OR issue is simply to further understand the LNC.

    I think somewhere you missed the fact that I reject the 2011 LNC decision as having no authority. OR only entered into it because IF they had the authority, I believe they came to the right conclusion regarding what Wagner did but have not been convinced that they did regarding the Burke group. Which ultimately is irrelevant since they did not have that authority.

    Who ends up in control in OR is no concern of mine.

  423. Wes Wagner

    The appeal decision is not on the list of decisions to be issued tomorrow.

    We could be in for a long wait. My personal attorney just recently received an appeal he won on a different matter. It took a year.

  424. Wes Wagner

    Reversals of summary judgment in Oregon are exceedingly rare… and the appellants did not actually offer up any substantive new arguments in their appeal … we were concerned though that the novelty of the case might cause our exceedingly pro-democratic appeals court judges to wish to opine.

    The concept of asking them to overturn an egalitarian pro-democratic structure in favor of a more closed system that has a membership basis that violates law probably raised a few eyebrows. It raises serious legal questions such as: is there a compelling state interest in willfully subverting democracy? or Should a court order something that is illegal for the court to order if a political party requests it?

    I doubt we will see any major groundbreaking changes in the stance of the court on such matters… but we might get opinions.

  425. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am just very interested in laying this to rest via the means that keeps it in OR and out of the LNC.

  426. Wes Wagner

    The only thing the LNC needed to do to keep it out of the LNC was:

    1) To not have rogue officers show up in the first place to disrupt a highly volatile process and take things from the realm of diplomacy to the realm of war
    2) After they did to not take a position on what happened next
    3) To not have messed with our delegations (twice)
    4) To have not elected people involved in the matter to the jud comm
    5) For the jud comm to not drag it all up again
    etc. etc. etc.

  427. Dave Terry

    Joseph Buchman,

    “if you are equivocating Wes and Richard, IMO you are underestimating.”

    Actually, Caryn is not “equivocating”, YOU ARE!
    Caryn is “EQUATING”

    “But that doesn’t matter so much as asking you Caryn, are you committed to advancing Liberty? Or are you for defending the LNC?”

    Are you implying that she couldn’t do both?
    Are you implying that the LNC can not be
    “advancing Liberty?

  428. paulie

    The Epstein group now has the LNC chair not sending them data, suggesting that their original appeal has been unmooted.

    The saga continues…

  429. Dave Terry

    Joseph Buchman,
    “My sense is that you see any work to destroy what is not working as something to be opposed.

    Did I miss something here?

    BOY, DID YOU!!!!

    Have you even considered the possibility of FIXING something that isn’t working.
    If you ran out of gas in your car, would you walk to a gas station and then pour the
    gas ON the car rather than IN the car (ie. gas tank)

    You think and act as a TRUE anarchist would!

  430. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes,

    ==1) To not have rogue officers show up in the first place to disrupt a highly volatile process and take things from the realm of diplomacy to the realm of war===

    Rogue is not the right word, there was no rule against it. But I do find it very unwise and conducive to at a minimum giving the appearance of undue influence and should have been avoided. But this might be a hindsight 20/20 thing.

    ==2) After they did to not take a position on what happened next==

    Nuanced agreement. I believe they could take a position… but could not authoritatively enforce it in any way other than disaffiliation.

    ==3) To not have messed with our delegations (twice)==

    Actually I think the Dasback letter gives precedent to seat none from OR.

    ==4) To have not elected people involved in the matter to the jud comm==

    Those are the members, and it is their right to elect whom they wish. Believe it or not, OR is not the center of the rest of the LP’s world.

    ==5) For the jud comm to not drag it all up again==

    Absolutely agreed.

Leave a Reply

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