M Carling Sends New Letter to LNC Re: Who He Thinks the Correct Officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon Are

here we go again

This letter was sent to the members of the Libertarian National Committee today by M Carling, the current chairman of the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party.

M Carling
Chairman
Libertarian Party Judicial Committee
mcarling@cal.berkeley.edu

Oct 15, 2015

To whom it may concern:

The dispute between factions of the Libertarian Party of Oregon has never been a question of which  organization is the affiliate of the Libertarian National Committee. The question has always been who  are the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. This has been stipulated by both factions during  litigation.

This dispute arose because the group of officers whose terms ended in 2011 refused to hand power to  those who were elected in 2011. The outgoing Chairperson and Treasurer, Messrs. Wagner and  Vetanen, filed false statements with the Secretary of State of Oregon to remain in power.  Determination of the officers of a state affiliate is simple, if not easy. Just as the Libertarian National  Committee did in the case of Oregon in 1995 and 2011, it is a two step process of first reviewing  minutes of conventions to determine the operative bylaws of the affiliate and then reviewing minutes of  conventions and other meetings to determine who was elected in accordance with the bylaws in effect at the time.

The bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, like those of most, if not all, of our state affiliates,
provide that they may be amended only by a vote of the members assembled in convention. The  bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon were amended in 2009 and in 2013. They were not and  could not have been amended in 2011 because the 2011 convention failed to meet the minimum  quorum requirement, which had been made difficult but not impossible to meet by a bylaw amendment written and pushed through by Mr. Wagner.

When the 2011 convention adjourned without having met quorum and thus without having transacted any business, the State Committee met as required by the bylaws and elected Mr. Reeves et al. to fill  the four officer positions, all of which had become vacant upon the expiration of their terms at the close  of convention.

Officers of the national Libertarian Party who empower persons as officers of an affiliate other than  those who were elected by the members of the state affiliate are abridging the autonomy of the state  affiliate in violation of Article 6.5 of the bylaws of the national Libertarian Party.
A simple but painstaking review of the minutes unambiguously shows that Mr. Epstein is the
Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, the very same Libertarian Party of Oregon recognized  by the Secretary State of Oregon as committee ID number 622.

M Carling
Chairman, Judicial Committee of the (US) Libertarian Party


Lars Hedbor, the current chairman of the Libertarian Party of Oregon as recognized by the Secretary of State, responded, and provided a document supporting his view.

This question has already been considered and rejected by the Oregon Secretary of State, more than four years ago (see attached).

As the Libertarian Party of Oregon is an entity of the State of Oregon (and the Libertarian voters of Oregon), and not the LNC, this argument is completely baseless. I ask you to stop wasting everyone’s time by continuing to flog this long-dead horse.

– Lars D. H. Hedbor
Chair, Libertarian Party of Oregon

Libertarian Leadership 2011


Wes Wagner, the immediate past chair of the LPO as recognized by the SOS, provided this document:

Gmail – FW_ Disaffiliation

Much of the background on the latest developments of this saga can be read here .

The writers at IPR will update this story if anything further develops.

46 thoughts on “M Carling Sends New Letter to LNC Re: Who He Thinks the Correct Officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon Are

  1. Chuck Moulton

    Jed Ziggler wrote:

    New rule: you must have a first name at least two letters in length to sit on the judiciary committee.

    I can write up a bylaws amendment to that effect; however, I think the chair of the bylaws committee may oppose it.

  2. Andy

    “Jed Ziggler

    October 15, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    New rule: you must have a first name at least two letters in length to sit on the judiciary committee.”

    LOL!

  3. Matt Hasty

    Seems to me that if the LP is truly a bottom-up organization – then this isn’t really the problem of the LNC. Or it’s judicial committee.

    Perhaps a topless female mud wrestling match to settle it? Racing turtles? Game of Chess? Heck, Dungeons & Dragons??!!!? ANYTHING is better than 4 years of bickering. Although, D&D is pretty close… 😉

    I remember being on our annual cross-country road trip when I was a kid, my little sister in the back seat with me and both of us getting crazy from being cooped up in the car for the 10th hour of the second day…. and we started bickering. My dad would turn around and shout: “Don’t make me stop this car! You two get along or else you’ll both be too sore to sit on yer butts!” It was actually much more tame “fatherly” advice – but we took him serious!

    So as much as I feel bad for the libertarians in Oregon without a unified party to represent them, I support the LNC if they would just say DON’T MAKE US STOP THIS PARTY! GET WITH THE PROGRAM! while they recognize NEITHER party. Hopefully just the threat of that – like my father’s stern advice – will urge the warring factions to UNIFY and move forward.

  4. paulie

    Matt, the problem with that is that the national party is not the parent of the state party. In fact, the national party can disaffiliate the state party, not recognize any new affiliate there, and they would go on nominating and running candidates, having their internal elections, communication channels, outreach efforts, meetings, conventions – none of what they do relies on being affiliated with the national party. The other group for its part would keep doing whatever it is that they do as well. If anyone at the national party thinks they are in the drivers seat and in some position to pull over the car and spank anyone they are mistaken.

  5. Wes Wagner

    “If anyone at the national party thinks they are in the drivers seat and in some position to pull over the car and spank anyone they are mistaken.”

    That was the very large mistake made in 2011

  6. Dave Terry

    steve m
    Oct. 16, 2:52 am

    “Who cares what Carling thinks?”

    More people than those who care what steve m thinks!

    New rule: you must have a LAST name at least two letters in length to post to this list.

  7. paulie

    I sure don’t. That is why I stopped reading his comments a long time ago and repeatedly advise everyone else to do likewise.

  8. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    Mr. Wagner posts an email from Former Dir. of Elections, Steven Trout, saying that the Sec. of State doesn’t care what the LNC does. Mr. Hedbor posts a note saying this was all settled in 2011. Both Mr. Wagner and Mr. Hedbor are offering counter-factual, or at least misleading or incomplete accounts concerning the position of the Secretary of State’s office with respect to the Oregon issue.

    The document we need to look at, previously referred to by Mr. Wagner himself, is the Sept. 29, 2011 letter from Mr. Trout. In it, Trout makes clear that his office was waiting on a ruling from the national Judicial Committee concerning Oregon (not the LNC). Trout knows that it is the Judicial Committee, and not the LNC, which has the final word on matters relating to questions of state party disaffiliation. So whatever Trout ,or then Sec. of State Brown, thinks about the LNC, they clearly will listen to the Judicial Committee.

    As the Sept. 29 letter shows, the Sec. of State ONLY decided to recognize Mr. Wagner’s group after the National Judicial Committee left it to them to decide the matter. Note that the letter makes no comment concerning the legitimacy of Mr. Wagner’s claim to leadership at that time.

    It is also worth underscoring that both Brown and Trout are gone, replaced by people who may look at things differently. Truly, given the new unambiguous ruling from our Judicial Committee, a precedent of heeding Judicial Committee rulings, plus a new Sec. of State and Dir. of Elections, everything can change.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  9. Wes Wagner

    Nothing will change. If it did the SoS would get sued and they would lose. The statutes are quite clear and so is the case law.

  10. Dave Terry

    That is why I stopped reading his comments a long time ago and repeatedly advise everyone else to do likewise.

    Hey, Fat Ass.
    How is it, that you have made the same idiotic statement at least fourteen times, if you never read my comments.

  11. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Yeah, I’d like to wager, too. I would be VERY surprised if the Secretary of State of Oregon changed their records.

  12. Dave Terry

    steve m. Oct. 16

    hey Dead Beat Dave,…was that the most intelligent remark you can make?

    Of course not, but IF I did post something more intelligent, YOU wouldn’t understand it.

    I can’t believe you talk to me that way, after I saved your life!!!

  13. steve m

    Dave,

    “I can’t believe you talk to me that way, after I saved your life!!!”

    you’re delusional

  14. Steve Scheetz

    So a statement that the JC committee chair has been dying to make, has finally been made. Unfortunately for Reeves et al, nobody outside of Reeves et al seems to care.

    All that I am aware of, regarding the LPOR, is that there is a group, who has moved past 2011, and a group who has not. The group that has, is running candidates and trying to make a difference in OR, one which would push the state to become more Libertarian, but the group that has not, has been busy sniping from the sidelines, doing its best to sabotage candidates, efforts, etc…. The side who cannot get past 2011 has gone so far as to keep the LNC in 2011.

    Sorry Mr. Burke, Mr, Reeves, and those who remain on your side, you lost, nobody cares, and this latest round of bullshit will influence nobody other than those who are unaware of the back story about your back biting bullshit. You won’t, but you really should just give up and try something else, like snow boarding. Sabotaging a political party, clearly, is not your forte. Seriously, your efforts are not even entertaining any longer, and they have not been for some years now.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  15. steve m

    Dave,

    “It wasn’t one of my smartest moves. I certainly wouldn’t do it again!!!”

    Delusional Dave

  16. Wang Tang-Fu

    Does anyone have any idea what Dave is talking about (including Dave)? I’m guessing no but just checking just in case.

  17. Losty

    1. I think Steve M, M May be a Middle Initial?

    2. Oh God This Again?

    3. For 1 group that with the Republican Leaders actually Being Nominated (Assuming ghat isn’t the first sign of the Apocalypse), the LP May not Even Get 1% if they Nominate Jesus H. Christ.

    4. In election Law, The Secretary of State in a state wins right? So Someone Sue them if they think they can win (They Probably Can’t)

    5. If the LP wants a Party in Oregon, The SOS recognizes Group A, that have to have Group A until Group B gets SOS Recognition (They Probably Won’t)

    Is the Libertarian Party a Political Party or a Debate Club? This Oregon thing is Perfect for a Debate Club. There may even be minor winning points on either side (Though I am not sure)

    For a Political Party???

  18. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Is the Libertarian Party a Political Party or a Debate Club? ===

    The word “club” is purposefully intended to frame the argument in such a way that any opposing view is wrong by definition. But to get at the heart of what is being said: false dichotomy.

    ==This Oregon thing is Perfect for a Debate Club.==

    It is perfect for Fight Club.

    Wait, I’m not supposed to talk about that.

    === There may even be minor winning points on either side (Though I am not sure)===

    There are. But the LNC has no place to be involved in being the ultimate judge. If the members want the LNC to have that power, they will have to amend the Bylaws.

  19. steve m

    Losty,

    No m is short for Meier. For my first name if anyone wants to search the fec.gov database look for Stephen Meier of Fremont California. I have recently moved to the State of Washington.

    Then look for M. Carling sometimes of Palo Alto Ca. You can also look for Dave Terry but Dave is a dead beat. Dave doesn’t contribute, well Dave bitches but is that a contribution? You could probably also look for Paulie. Paulie also doesn’t contribute in ways tracked by the fec. But Paulie does contribute through his labour. Yes Paulie and I have knocked heads in the past and will again in the future but so be it. Paulie contributes through his labor and I contribute through cash and Dave is a dead beat. For that matter so M. Carling is also a dead beat who hasn’t contributed to a Libertarian Candidate since Bob Barr.

  20. paulie

    Paulie also doesn’t contribute in ways tracked by the fec.

    Apparently, at least some of my contributions have made it into the FEC database. For example, http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?12951880178 notes that I donated $495.00 in 2012. I donated $1,000.00 in 2000 to become a life member. According to Tim Hagan, http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20141209/c1baba51/attachment-0001.pdf page 14 my total to the national party was $595.00 for that year to date and $2,966.00 lifetime total. That does not include state parties or candidates. I don’t make a lot of money so that is not trivial for me.

  21. Fred

    I can’t believe this keeps coming up.

    My disbelief isn’t based on M’s desire to continue to propose that his faction has the power (his faction which was “elected” at the end of a convention that only his faction participated in because no other Libertarians attended –because it had been cancelled)

    That isn’t surprising to me because M (who isn’t registered as a Libertarian in Oregon) doesn’t have much influence in choosing who represents the LPO now that all 18000 registered Libertarians get to decide. M only has influence if he can be one of about a dozen people who give money (but may– like him– not reside in Oregon, or may be registered in a different political party). It benefits M to promote that type of power structure if he wants to have political influence.

    What surprises me is that he still has any voice in an organization that promotes less centralized control.

    I’m not suggesting that the LP takes any authoritarian action against him. That isn’t in the spirit of libertarian philosophy. But the fact that he has any influence, or following within the LP is evidence that the party has serious flaws.

    If M can convince any people that his faction should deprive the Libertarians of Oregon from choosing who represents them in their own state — based on his weak interpretations of Oregon law and insincere and possibly fraudulent adherence to LPO convention rules, then we have little hope of making this party relevant.

    In my opinion, the desire for centralized control and attempts to exclude are what gives statism a stronghold in our government and prevents individuals from living freely.

    It is unfortunate, that M (and others like him) are able to manipulate enough ignorant or power hungry people that they have a foothold in the LP.

  22. Wes Wagner

    “It is unfortunate, that M (and others like him) are able to manipulate enough ignorant or power hungry people that they have a foothold in the LP.”

    And until that changes we do not deserve to win elections and no average person will give a fuck about how we are treated with regards to access or debates.

  23. Wes Wagner

    Btw.. in case there are some people who did not notice .. the Trout email is dated after the ruling letter. Of course things like reality and logic don’t matter to some.

  24. Wes Wagner

    Thinking about it I probably should explain those letters better for people who don’t understand bureaucrat.

    This is the essence of how it went down:

    SoS: Umm do you really want to ask that question?

    LNC/Burke/SMC Crowd: Yes Yes Yes!

    SoS: Ok, well I am not even bothering to talk to the other side because there is only one decision we can make and it will be legally binding when we do so you are stupid for asking it, but here it goes!

    LNC/Burke/SMC Crowd: The lost, but Oh! they recognize the authority of the national judicial committee!

    SoS: Umm we didn’t say that.

  25. Dave Terry

    steve m (as in moron) wrote: “Then look for M. Carling sometimes of Palo Alto Ca. You can also look for Dave Terry but Dave is a dead beat. Dave doesn’t contribute, well Dave bitches but is that a contribution? You could probably also look for Paulie. Paulie also doesn’t contribute in ways tracked by the fec. But Paulie does contribute through his labour”

    Clearly, to mr. m, “contributions” (i.e. $$$$) are an important element in determining the value of a member’s value to the Libertarian Party

    LOL ! How hilariously ironic (or is it iconic?) that ‘mr. m’ doesn’t seem to know WHICH side he is on, OR WHY!

    It is the Burke, Reeves, Epstein faction that emphasizes the importance of membership dues and formally acknowledging the N.A.P as conditions of membership (as outlined in
    the “approved” party bylaws). Whereas, on the other hand, the socialistic egalitarian wing (aka the Wagner, Hedbor faction) ignores the issue of membership dues and gives lip service to the NAP and acquiesces to the Sec’y of State as the primary authority.

    From the website of the Wagner, Hedbor faction; http://lporegon.org/index.php/principles

    “The LPO is solely based on the kindness of volunteers and the generosity of those who donate….there are no dues required to be a voting member of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. So long as you are a registered Libertarian voter in the state of Oregon, your voice is welcome in determining the future of your party and your state.”

  26. Wang Tang-Fu

    So you’re part of a faction that says money is what entitles you to have an opinion but you don’t give any yourself?

  27. Dave Terry

    Wang Tang, F.U.

    How would U possibly know how much I have contributed to the LPO, or to other Libertarian/Constitutionalist organizations. You are, ONCE AGAIN, talking out of
    your anal aperture, while hiding in the darkness of ‘pseudonymia’!

  28. Wang Tang-Fu

    Just going with the information from Mr. Meier, which you did not dispute. And it’s Mr. Wang to you.

  29. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    A few of us give more time than money. If I ever get comfortable with bills, I’ll gladly contribute to the national party. As it is, I owe the IRS a figure that is higher than six figures. I’m lucky to keep the mortgage. paid. I’m also on the NeverRetire plan.

    This is a sensitive topic for me.

  30. paulie

    I contribute a lot more time than money. But I do contribute some money, and some of it is in ways that don’t show up on FEC reports. For example, I’ve lost money every week since I’ve been in Oklahoma (and every day with a small handful of exceptions). So while I am not being a big help to the petition drive, the little bit that I have done has been at a personal cost, which is actually financial as well as time in this case, and that’s not something that will show up on an FEC report. Needless to say my opportunity costs don’t show up on FEC reports either, and there have been plenty of those – far more than actual monetary costs.

  31. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt, Oct. 17,

    A few of us give more time than money. If I ever get comfortable with bills, I’ll gladly contribute to the national party. As it is, I owe the IRS a figure that is higher than six figures. I’m lucky to keep the mortgage. paid. I’m also on the NeverRetire plan.

    This is a sensitive topic for me.

    ME TWO, also! My wife and I are totally dependent on Social Security for our living expenses, mortgage AND “end of life expenses insurance”. Hopefully, with the help
    of the V.A. Hospital, I will manage to get the last item paid off, before I really NEED it!

  32. Fred

    Dave Terry is absolutely correct on several points on his 10/17 12:44 post.
    1. He was correct to say it is the Reeves faction that considers paying dues an important factor on who can join their group and vote to represent the members. This is an important distinction because a political PAC in Oregon has the legal right to use dues to determine who is a member of their organization. A political PARTY, under Oregon election law has specific defined membership criteria that makes everyone who is registered in the party a member who has the right to choose their own leadership.
    **premptively let me explain that, yes this does mean that the state decides the criteria for a political party. But to be fair, the entire election process is the creation of the state and it is a procedure to decide how the state leadership is chosen. If one wants to get away from statist regulations of elections, they probably can’t do that through the state election process**

    2. The statement he listed IS a part of the LPO website and it is an honest representation of the party values. We do believe that the members own the party. The LPO is not owned by a centralized group who has control of who represents the rest of us.
    The statement was also put on the website because Reeves PAC attempted to fool many people into paying dues to their organization by leading them to believe that they could only run for office as a Libertarian or vote in LPO business if they paid dues to Reeve’s PAC. As a PAC they do not have party ballot access.

    3. He was correct to put “approved” in quotation marks when he spoke of the party bylaws. Perhaps the most important reason that we rewrote the party bylaws (and had them approved by the vast majority of responding party members- with the largest participation of any prior LPO election) was because the party didn’t have any valid bylaws. The bylaws that were in place had multiple credible claims about the legitimacy of the process in which they were created and were created using the illegal dues exclusion that Reeve’s PAC promotes.
    The old bylaws were “approved” using the same type of exclusionary and fraudulent techniques that M Carling and the Reeve’s PAC are still attempting to use to gain dominion over every other Libertarian.

    Hopefully, the national party can learn what we learned in Oregon. As Libertarians we don’t agree on every issue, but when we trust each other to act in peace and freedom with each other, we promote those same things in the broader community. The number of active Libertarians grew, more people spent more time and money on political activity, and we had record number of candidates for partisan office.
    These are direct results of inclusive policy. Did this greatly reduce the core message? We don’t find that to be true. Did we have less people who agree with the NAP- after we stopped requiring it? We didn’t find that to be true. In fact we found more of our active members actually tried to practice it with each other.
    People with bad intentions who desire to control others don’t seem to have any problem with signing a pledge that they don’t agree with. But people who need to interact with others to build support through inclusion, discover that the principle behind the NAP is an invaluable part of that equation.

    There is no more war in Oregon about the LPO. Anyone in the Reeve’s faction (if they register as Libertarian in Oregon) can participate in LPO elections and processes. The SOS has clearly stated which group has ballot access as a political party and which is just a PAC. The only war is the one those in the national LP who want to have centralized control are waging on those of us who believe we are their equals.

  33. Wes Wagner

    Fred’s analysis is apt, and likely to be ignored by those who need to understand it the most if they are to save themselves.

  34. paulie

    It starts with “Dave Terry…” so anyone with any sense stops reading immediately at that point, lest they read something Dave Terry said accidentally (it’s irrational to ever read anything Dave Terry said on purpose).

Leave a Reply

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