Ian Epstein of Libertarian Party of Oregon PAC Asks for Clarification of August’s Judicial Committee Ruling

It appears that the PAC called the Libertarian Party of Oregon still wants to become the Libertarian Party of Oregon political party affiliate as opposed to being a PAC.

The following letter has been sent to M Carling:

memorandumJudComm Clarification Request (1)

Carling promises a response, and we will update the article when we receive that response. Here is Carling’s letter to his group:

Fellow members of the Judicial Committee,

I’ve just received and read this. I have not yet referenced our bylaws or RONR with regard to this request or given it any deep thought. I will do so tomorrow, but I wanted to share this with all of you immediately. I do note there is precedent. Four years ago, Mr. Wagner requested and received a “clarification” to the Judicial Committee’s ruling.

I wish you all a Happy New Year, though I imagine all of us would probably be happier not having received this.

M

This follow’s Epstein’s cover letter:

Hello !

Attached to this email you will find a request for clarification of our standing to the LNC, for the purposes of establishing our position in Oregon. I thank you for receiving this and continuing to act in the best interests of due process.

Yours in Liberty,
Ian Epstein

The history of the JC ruling, along with links to this whole long saga, can be found in these IPR articles .

As mentioned previously, this article will be updated as appropriate.

155 thoughts on “Ian Epstein of Libertarian Party of Oregon PAC Asks for Clarification of August’s Judicial Committee Ruling

  1. Jay R North

    How does Nicholas Sarwark “continues to recognize the coup leaders”? That is as vague as vague can be. Ian should explain how Nicholas Sarwark ‘recognizing the coup leaders’.

  2. Paul Duke

    The language is inflammatory. Just trying to stir the pot again. It isn’t going to change things in Oregon and there’s still the decision from the Oregon courts pending.

  3. Dave Terry

    Chuck Moulton, Dec. 31, 2015 at 13:17
    “I’m sure this all will be resolved by the end of 2015.”

    This HAS TO BE a typo! Don’t you mean by the end of 2025???

    btw; the political party heretofore, known as the “Feral Cat Coalition”
    is now called “Cats Without Catboxes”

  4. Stewart Flood

    He probably meant 2105. 2015 and 2025 both seem a bit quick to resolve this massive of an ego conflict between the two sides…

  5. georgephillies

    The original finding says that the valid faction is the one led by Reeves. No faction currently has Reeves as leader. The LNC discussed the issue, and decided to do nothing at all.

  6. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Numbers 5 and 6 make me so angry. Two words. Affiliate. Autonomy.

    Something Carling needs to learn that the LNC nor they have the right to abrogate.

  7. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m actually a little confused on 5 and 6. Why is Epstein asking about the leadership and bylaws of the PAC? This whole thing has been about the party affiliate. The PAC is what the Reeves group had to call themselves in order to stay compliant with funding, if I recall correctly. It’s the “booby prize”, if you will.

  8. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m also highly amused that Carling is trying to make it look like this letter is some unpleasantness he has to deal with that he didn’t expect. Yeah, right. I’m willing to bet the little money I have left after paying my PIT that Carling called up Epstein and said: “Here’s an idea…”

  9. Sharon Durbin

    The PAC is just trying to make trouble. They have lost in court twice so far and will probably lose their appeal. The individuals who are registered Libertarians have the same rights and opportunities in the current party as all other registered Libertarians and are offered primary ballot space at no charge (same as everyone else) and would be placed on the State ballot if they won the primary. They seem to mostly want the right to demand dues (last I heard it was $50) to be a participating member and, that, if you pay the dues, you don’t even have to be a registered Libertarian to participate. I, personally, do not want registered Republicans choosing my candidates for election.

  10. georgephillies

    In Massachusetts we expect voting members to pay dues, because LAMA is a private association. If someone gets 3% of the vote for a statewide office, “Libertarian” will be a political party, and the committee that supported the candidate, say “Massachusetts for Kerbel”, will become the Party State Committee until a State Committee is elected at the next Presidential Primary or if sooner Political Party status goes away.

  11. Kyle Markley

    George,

    In Oregon, political parties are not quite private associations, because we can’t exclude anyone — state law defines membership based on voter registration (ORS 248.002(4)) and requires “the widest and fairest representation” of members in party activities (ORS 248.005). Many here believe that this means we are prohibited from requiring anything beyond membership (such as dues) in order to vote in our primary or at our convention — those are fundamental aspects of membership.

    We do, however, require returning a ballot in the primary to be eligible to vote for party leadership. (A participation requirement is fair.)

    The LPO currently qualifies for automatic ballot access based on its number of members, and the only real authority of the party is that two signatures (the candidate’s plus the Chair’s) are sufficient to put someone on the ballot.

  12. georgephillies

    Kyle,

    If, hypothetically, “Libertarian” became a political (major) party in MA, we would gain a party structure sort of like yours, chosen by the enrolled Libertarian voters. That structure would be parallel to the LAMA organization that I chair. However, we would not be suing each other.

    George

  13. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Requiring membership dues is completely fair. While right now certain state laws define membership in some states (like my own, CO), I deny the right of the State to do so.

    We do not have paid memberships in CO btw.

  14. Dave Terry

    Sharon Durbin; “They seem to mostly want the right to demand dues (last I heard it was $50) to be a participating member and, that, if you pay the dues, you don’t even have to be a registered Libertarian to participate.”

    You don’t have to be a “registered” Libertarian, to VOTE for a Libertarian candidate. Do you have a problem with that too?

    S.D.> “I, personally, do not want registered Republicans choosing my candidates for election.”

    Do you also, NOT WANT registered Democrats choosing our candidates?

    Seriously!!! Is a person who registers as a Libertarian but does not participate in the day to day
    operations or work to promote the Party or it’s candidates and principles, “better” than someone
    “registered” in another party, but who contributes cash AND labor to elect Libertarians to office!

  15. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave asked: “Seriously!!! Is a person who registers as a Libertarian but does not participate in the day to day operations or work to promote the Party or it’s candidates and principles, “better” than someone “registered” in another party, but who contributes cash AND labor to elect Libertarians to office!”

    YES. I don’t trust Republicans. Why would they be involved in Libertarian business? Their goal would be to disrupt the functions of the LP. A perfect example of that is what happened in Oregon.

  16. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Phillies said: “LAMA has a modest number of members enrolled as Democrats or Republicans, or more often as Unenrolled (independent).”

    Perhaps you do have people registered in another party for whatever reason. I imagine a big state like CA does, too. Dave’s question is whether someone registered Libertarian but isn’t active is better that someone registered elsewhere, and, in my opinion, my answer would be yes.

  17. Dave Terry

    Jill wrote; “YES. I don’t trust Republicans. Why would they be involved in Libertarian business? Their goal would be to disrupt the functions of the LP. A perfect example of that is what happened in Oregon.

    1. First, you answered the same question twice (with opposite answers). I clearly wrote, ” but who contributes cash AND labor to elect Libertarians to office!” It is obvious that if they are helping “to elect Libertarians to office” you comment about “not trusting Republicans” is moot.

    2. Incidentallly, if the question were about registered (d)emocrats would the answer be any different.

    What you are overlooking is that “party registration” is NOT the whole issue. Many people are registered with another party out of habit, or family tradition or even because of business connections.

  18. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave made two points in his response to me.

    1. I don’t understand the first sentence. Also, you said ” It is obvious that if they are helping “to elect Libertarians to office” you comment about “not trusting Republicans” is moot.”

    It might be obvious to you, but it isn’t to me. Therefore, my opinion is not “moot”..

    2. My answer would be the same if you were talking about Democrats. I trust the person who believes in my party enough to register in it. I will say, though, that I can’t remember when I’ve seen a Democrat post their nonsense on a Libertarian FB page, assuming we agree with them like Republicans do (almost always regarding “illegal aliens”, a term I can’t stand, or regarding hating Muslims).

    Please remember that I was a lifelong Republican until Dubya, when I was in my forties and had to flee the party. The company I work for plus my family is overwhelmingly Republican. Perhaps I’m more sensitive to bad GOP behavior because they disappointed me down so much. I administer several LP FB pages, and I see obnoxious Republican postings all the time. It drives me crazy.

  19. Dave Terry

    steve m > Dec 31, 2015

    The horse is already dead!

    Are you sure you are looking at the right “end” of the horse?

  20. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt ,Dec 31,
    “you said ” It is obvious that if they are helping “to elect Libertarians to office” your comment about “not trusting Republicans” is moot.”
    It might be obvious to you, but it isn’t to me. Therefore, my opinion is not “moot”..

    Are you actually saying that a registered Libertarian who does not contribute either time or money to help elect Libertarians to office is MORE valuable to us than a registered Republican OR Democrat who opens doors for us and contributes either money OR letters to the editor or even introductions to OTHER ‘non-libertarian registered but sympathetic voters????

    I certainly HOPE not!!!!!!!

  21. steve m

    Dave,

    Both ends of this horse are equally dead no mater which end you continue to flog.

  22. paulie

    Jill,

    As mentioned previously, this article will be updated as appropriate.

    It would be better if you put up a new one when there are new developments. If you change the month on an article that changes its URL, and if I am not mistaken that causes any links it received prior to the change – such as on social media sites – to go to an error page.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    With permission, I would like to extend the query to the Judicial Committee by one question:

    7. Is the purpose of all this fuckery by the impostor organization in Oregon in collusion with the Judicial Committee a) to keep the Oregon LP from running candidates in 2016, or b) merely to keep the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate off the Oregon ballot in 2016?

    If the former, it’s unlikely to succeed, since the Libertarian Party of Oregon will continue to control ballot access in Oregon regardless of anything the impostor organization, the Judicial Committee, and the LNC do.

    If the latter, it’s likely to succeed. If the Libertarian Party of Oregon is disaffiliated in favor of the impostor organization, it will have neither any obligation, nor likely any desire, to give its ballot line to the candidate of those other organizations.

  24. paulie

    If the latter, it’s likely to succeed. If the Libertarian Party of Oregon is disaffiliated in favor of the impostor organization, it will have neither any obligation, nor likely any desire, to give its ballot line to the candidate of those other organizations.

    Wagner, Hedbor et al have already said that they don’t consider themselves to be under any such obligation even without that.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    Not exactly. What they’ve said is that if the impostor organization’s delegates are seated at the convention over the objections of the real Libertarian Party of Oregon’s delegates, it is the impostor organization, not the real Libertarian Party of Oregon’s, obligation to provide ballot access for that convention’s nominee.

    And they’re right.

  26. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    I thought they said already they were boycotting the convention. So there will be no delegates from the LPO.

    FWIW if they put it to the vote again, I would be against seating any from the PAC

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    That’s interesting, but it leaves the real LPO room to choose to run the Libertarian National Convention’s candidate.

    If the national convention honors the fact that the real LPO is not sending a delegation by NOT SEATING a delegation, I suspect LPO will run the convention’s nominee.

    If the national convention seats an impostor delegation, I suspect LPO will either leave the Libertarian ballot line blank or choose its own slate.

  28. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I suspect you are right. But you mentioned not seating them. If they don’t show then it is certain they will not be seated.

  29. Dave Terry

    CH> “FWIW if they put it to the vote again, I would be against seating any from the PAC

    What is your reasoning for that choice?

  30. Dave Terry

    TK> “7. Is the purpose of all this fuckery by the impostor organization in Oregon in collusion with the Judicial Committee a) to keep the Oregon LP from running candidates in 2016, or b) merely to keep the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate off the Oregon ballot in 2016?”

    If you had even half of an open mind, you MIGHT consider that the entity which you claim is the
    “Oregon LP” is actually attempting to dictate to those you consider “the imposter organization”
    AS WELL AS the Judicial Committee.

  31. steve m

    DT. I would consider the pac delegation sitting in as the LPO delegation a form of trespassing, a violation of the NAP and those helping them do so would also be violating the NAP.

  32. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Because they are illegitimate and would only be seated because the LNC has overstepped its bounds.

  33. Caryn Ann Harlos

    The PAC will send a delegation. They likely will be seated. I would not approve. But the LPO is virtually assuring this with their tactic of boycotting the convention, a move of which I also heartily disapprove.

  34. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Think this through, Caryn. Florida is quite far away from Oregon. The expense to travel there will be high, whether driving or flying. Why would a delegate spend the money to go there without being assured they’ll be respected and seated? The delegation has been disrespected the past two years.

    I don’t blame them at all for deciding not to go.

  35. Dave Terry

    CAH> ”
    “Because they are illegitimate and would only be seated because the LNC has overstepped its bounds.”

    Are you ALSO suggesting a coup d’etat to overrule the LNC? Ironically this where we came in!!

    I, of course, can’t speak for everyone in our faction, but MY parents were lawfully married when I was born, Ergo; your claim of ‘illegitimacy’ does not stand alone. It is doubly ironic that those
    whom YOU consider the rightful LPO committed a coup against those of us who were legally in control under the terms of Party Bi-laws, in effect at the time.

  36. steve m

    Caryn,

    The past history has been that if the LPO shows up, the convention votes to have the pac take over the Oregon delegation. And you are admitting that would be the likely outcome if the LPO sent a delegation this year. So what benefit does the LPO derive and at what cost?

  37. steve m

    DT,

    Not according to the Oregon Law as decide by an Oregon court… their ya go and beating that dead horse again.

  38. Dave Terry

    JP> “The delegation has been disrespected the past two years.”

    LOL! And those of us on the other side have been ‘disrespected’
    for even longer. But, unlike, the ‘cry babies’, we have not ‘caved-in’
    and resorted to melodrama.

  39. Dave Terry

    Well steve, you certainly have a thing for ‘dead horses’!
    Were you ‘bucked’ off as a child? :>)

  40. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I feel like groundhog day, and forgive me if I don’t feel like repeating what I have said in hundreds, LITERALLY, of prior posts.

  41. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve,

    ==Caryn,

    The past history has been that if the LPO shows up, the convention votes to have the pac take over the Oregon delegation. And you are admitting that would be the likely outcome if the LPO sent a delegation this year. So what benefit does the LPO derive and at what cost?==

    Then go ahead and disaffiliate already.

    If the LPO came, I would support them over the PAC. I have engaged in an information campaign when the subject comes up to encourage others to do the same.

    HOWEVER, you guys either want to be an affiliate or NOT. I don’t care one way or another.. but if you want to be, sending a delegation is part of your responsibilities. I will not at all be sympathetic to the drama if you don’t, and in fact, would be highly in favour of National disaffiliating for cause.

  42. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Are you ALSO suggesting a coup d’etat to overrule the LNC? Ironically this where we came in!!==

    They had no authority to begin with. Go settle your own disputes.

    Wait, you tried, and the Courts and Oregonian Libertarians do not agree.

    Too bad.

  43. Dave Terry

    CAH> “Wait, you tried, and the Courts and Oregonian Libertarians do not agree.

    BS! The Court resigned its’ responsibility and ‘deferred to the Sec’y of State
    (a Democrat); who, in turn, made a politically expedient AND ARBITRARY
    deferral to “the chair of record’

    Do you really propose to speak for Oregon Libertarians?

  44. Dave Terry

    steve m. Jan 1, 2016

    I would consider the pac delegation sitting in as the LPO delegation a form of trespassing, a violation of the NAP and those helping them do so would also be violating the NAP.

    “trespassing”? Against whom?

    I, otoh, would consider ANY action by ANY individual or group, to interfere with the seating of a lawful delegation (AS DETERMINED BY THE LP CONVENTION) to be an act of aggression and will respond as necessary!!!

  45. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    DT said: ‘LOL! And those of us on the other side have been ‘disrespected’
    for even longer. But, unlike, the ‘cry babies’, we have not ‘caved-in’
    and resorted to melodrama.’

    APRIL FOOLS!

    Wait–wrong holiday–

  46. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Dave,

    They have spoken for themselves. And the PAC is not favoured. And will not have my support at Convention if the delegates are given that opportunity.

  47. Dave Terry

    “THEY” have spoken for themselves.”

    WHO are “they” and WHAT did they say, and WHEN?

  48. steve m

    Caryn,

    “Then go ahead and disaffiliate already.”

    Why?

    DT, you would be trespassing against the members of Libertarian Party of Oregon and miss using their property without their authorization, even if they chose not to use it themselves. You lost that battle. The horse you continue to beat is dead.

    This isn’t to say you couldn’t or shouldn’t attend the convention under the invitation of any other state party that will have you. But using property that doesn’t belong to you against the desires of those whom it does belong to is trespassing in no uncertain terms.

    Your willing to do so makes me question your commitment to the NAP.

  49. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Because by these actions the LPO is showing itself unwilling to participate in the life of the Party and simply causing trouble which the rest of the affiliates are not particularly interested being drawn into.

    The LNC wronged you. I get it. I agree. No one is forcing you to stay.

  50. steve m

    Not me Caryn. I am just an observer.

    And no one is forcing the LPO to come ether. They don’t owe it to the National Party. There has to be mutual respect and in the absence of that mutual respect why should they spend their time and treasure for the sake of more abuse?

    Demanding that they come won’t work. So find another solution.

  51. Richard P. Burke

    Everyone here is operating on some false premises as are some members of the LNC.

    There are not two organizations competing for affiliate status with the LNC. There never were. There is one organization. The only questions in dispute are who the legitimate officers are and which set of bylaws is in force. For this reason, the purported “constructive disaffiliation” by the LNC’s 2011 resolutions (still in force) never took place as was determined by the September 2015 national Judicial Committee’s decision to rescind it’s 2011 ruling.

    Added to this is the fact that Wagner’s group has repeatedly stipulated that it’s officers were not elected and it’s bylaws were not adopted in accordance with the governing documents on file with the Sec. of State and the LNC and acknowledged by all to in force prior to March 31, 2011 (something that gets constantly glossed over), that is pretty much that.

    The formation of a Miscellaneous PAC, which some saw as the establishment of an alternate organization, is only a device allowing the legitimate LPO officers to function as such without violating the law until such time as this issue can properly be resolved and control of the other PAC, (PAC# 622) is properly restored.

    Nick Sarwark, in failing to comply with the Judicial Committee ruling, is operating in defiance of the September 2015 Judicial Committee rulings and the 2011 LNC resolutions, still in force. Whether you believe his actions are right or wrong, a lot of delegates may see this defiance to be indicative of a national chair prepared to go rogue on issues and exceed his powers when the moment suits him.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  52. Chuck Moulton

    steve m wrote:

    Is there a list of members of the 2016 Libertarian Party Credentials Committee?

    http://www.lp.org/leadership/bylaws-mandated-committees

    Credentials Committee
    Emily Salvette (interim)
    Vicki Kirkland
    Gary Johnson
    Mike Kane
    Beth Duensing
    TBD (CA)
    TBD (OH)
    Carla Pealer (TX)
    Ben Bachrach (FL)
    Juanita Billings (VA)
    Steve Linnabary (alternate)

    Carla Pealer (a party to the lawsuit) moved from Oregon to Texas and got appointed as the Texas representative.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Starr or Carling got the California spot somehow. We’ll see.

  53. Dave Terry

    Kyle M wrote: “The LPO currently qualifies for automatic ballot access based on its number of members, and the only real authority of the party is that two signatures (the candidate’s plus the Chair’s) are sufficient to put someone on the ballot.”

    So, the Chair of the Party has absolute ‘veto power over ANY potential candidate?
    How ‘libertarian’ is THAT???

  54. georgephillies

    Of the Oregon Party sends no delegation at all, the relevant rules change a bit, namely addition to the delegation is not operational.

    “– 7 —
    d. Failure to submit a listing of delegate/alternate names and addresses, as prescr
    ibed within these Bylaws, shall cause no delegation to be registered from that affiliate party.
    e. By seven-eighths vote, the Convention may approve additional delegates and alternates whose names and addresses are submitted to the Credentials Committee during the
    Convention. “

  55. Dave Terry

    steve m> Jan 1, 2016
    “you would be trespassing against the members of Libertarian Party of Oregon and miss using their property without their authorization, even if they chose not to use it themselves. You lost that battle.”

    Nonsense! The seats at the convention do NOT belong to ANY member or delegation to the convention. ONLY delegates recognized by the LP Convention Committee have those ‘rights’.
    If YOU are recognized as a representative, and I’m NOT; my attempt to access a seat would be a violation of the NAP. But ONLY then!

    IF, however the reverse applies; that I am recognized as a rep and irrespective of whether YOU are or aren’t, I would seriously advise you NOT to attempt to deny my seating.

  56. steve m

    DT,

    Wrong! The National Bylaws say who is entitled to those delegates and they explicitly state that the Affiliate Parties are entitled to them.

    4. Affiliate Party Delegate Entitlements:
    Each affiliate party shall be entitled to send delegates to each Regular Convention on the
    following basis:
    a. One delegate for each 0.14 percent, or fraction thereof, of the total Party
    sustaining membership in that affiliate; provided that at least one such delegate
    must be a resident of that State or District.
    b. One delegate for each 0.35 percent, or fraction thereof, of the votes cast
    nationwide for the Libertarian Party candidate in the most recent presidential
    election, cast in that affiliate’s state.

    and the bylaws explicitly state what an affiliate party is

    ARTICLE 6: AFFILIATE PARTIES

    and they explicitly state protections for these affiliate parties.

    5. 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.

    and the only way around that would be to

    6. The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party,
    for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee. A motion to revoke the
    status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.
    The affiliate party may challenge the revocation of its status by written appeal to the
    Judicial Committee within 30 days of receipt of notice of such revocation. Failure to
    appeal within 30 days shall confirm the revocation and bar any later challenge or appeal.
    The National Committee shall not revoke the status of any affiliate party within six months
    prior to a Regular Convention. The Judicial Committee shall set a date for hearing the
    appeal within 20 to 40 days of receipt of the appeal and shall notify all interested persons,
    which persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument. At the
    hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee
    shall either affirm the National Committee’s revocation of affiliate party status or order
    reinstatement of the affiliate party. The Judicial Committee shall issue its ruling within 30
    days of the hearing and in no case later than 90 days prior to a Regular Convention.
    Failure of the Judicial Committee to rule within 30 days shall constitute an affirmation of
    the National Committee’s revocation of affiliate party status except when the last day of
    the 30 day period falls within 90 days prior to a Regular Convention, in which case the
    Judicial Committee’s non-action shall result in reinstatement of affiliate party status.

  57. Dave Terry

    “The National Committee shall not revoke the status of any affiliate party within six months
    prior to a Regular Convention.”

    This simply begs the question; who are the legitimate representatives of the “affilliate party”.

    If two delegations show up at a national convention, both claiming to represent an affiliate
    party; WHO decides which group is seated? OR what other formula is use in its stead?

  58. steve m

    DT> This simply begs the question; who are the legitimate representatives of the “affilliate party”.

    It certainly does. And those two or more competing groups are swearing they have the authority to act on behalf of their state party and can carry out the decision as to whom the candidate will be.

    In Oregon, only one group can make that promise, any other groups would be lying. And engaged in a swindle. A violation of the NAP.

    Dave Terry, if you go the 2016 National Libertarian Party Convention and claim to be the legitimate representative of the Oregon Libertarian Party, are you willing to promise that your state committee and its chairman are recognized by the Oregon Department of Elections as having the authority to put the Nominated Candidate on the Oregon ballot?

  59. Kyle Markley

    Dave Terry,

    “Kyle M wrote: “The LPO currently qualifies for automatic ballot access based on its number of members, and the only real authority of the party is that two signatures (the candidate’s plus the Chair’s) are sufficient to put someone on the ballot.”

    So, the Chair of the Party has absolute ‘veto power over ANY potential candidate?
    How ‘libertarian’ is THAT???”

    You’ve jumped to a conclusion. I merely meant that the Chair’s signature is required on the SEL110 nomination form. Upon closer inspection, I see that any officer’s signature is sufficient. But even if specifically the Chair’s was required, that doesn’t effectively give them veto power, because (under our bylaws) the Chair can be replaced by vote of the board.

  60. Kyle Markley

    Caryn,

    Hypothetically, if you were a member of the LPO, how would you want the LPO to react to the shenanigans with our delegations at the last two national conventions? Here you have written that you think we should send a delegation to the convention. But that would mean letting the national party get away with twice violating our autonomy with no real consequences. We did pass a censure resolution, but those are just words. Do you think any reaction stronger than words is appropriate? A boycott seems like a middle ground between letting them get away with it, and disaffiliating over it.

    I personally cannot go to the convention due to family obligations, but even if I were available, I would have serious doubts. It would mean spending a gob of money to travel across the country with no assurance that our delegation would be seated properly, and indeed an expectation of more shenanigans. Why put myself through that? Looks wasteful and futile. And with a disclaimer like that, I don’t see how we could get others to volunteer to go, either.

    Things would be different if we had a credible assurance from national that there would be no shenanigans, this time. But we don’t have that. What we do have is the LNC passing an insulting we’re-sorry-you-think-something-bad-happened resolution instead of the genuine apology, which was voted down.

  61. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve,

    ==Oh really even if the convention voted for CO to seat some?==

    Yes really, our bylaws prohibit out-of-state delegates.

  62. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Kyle, if your conscience is so grieved by National, disaffiliate. Likewise to National, if their conscience is so grieved by what Wagner did, disaffiliate.

    I agree what the LNC did and the current JC did was wrong. That was never in dispute with me.

  63. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Not me Caryn. I am just an observer.

    And no one is forcing the LPO to come ether. They don’t owe it to the National Party.===

    If they wish to be an affiliate they do… and to the other affiliates.

    ==Demanding that they come won’t work. So find another solution.==

    National if they want this course of action should disaffiliate.

  64. steve m

    Caryn,

    No where in the National Libertarian Bylaws is there a rule saying that affiliates must send a delegation.

    National certainly can disaffiliate. Then the Oregon Libertarian Party will have little reason to use its ballot access on behalf of the national party candidate.

    I suggest you start looking for less authoritarian solutions.

    I would suggest that if the Libertarian Party of Oregon doesn’t attend that you leave their spots empty and carry on your business then after the convention has selected the National Candidate the LNC chair sends a polite letter telling them they were missed. Include the vote totals showing no votes from Oregon and asking them to consider using their ballot access to place the National Candidate on the Oregon ballot. I would also suggest that anyone who wants the label as the Libertarian Candidate for President of the US make a couple of trips up to Oregon before the convention and meet with as many Oregon Libertarians as you can, then after getting the nomination go back and ask them to support you.

    State Bylaws doesn’t seem to impede the national convention from trespassing into state parties delegate slots. They should, but the past indicates that at the convention the delegates can foist others into what should be state party decisions.

    Those state bylaws might make it difficult for you to invite them though.

  65. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve,

    ===No where in the National Libertarian Bylaws is there a rule saying that affiliates must send a delegation.===

    No it doesn’t. But that is certainly a function of affiliation and LPO doesn’t want to participate, they should do the rest of us a favour and go their own way in peace.

    ==National certainly can disaffiliate. Then the Oregon Libertarian Party will have little reason to use its ballot access on behalf of the national party candidate.==

    They already said they won’t. They can do what they wish. They have already given cause for disaffiliation and I have suggest that is precisely what National should do.

    ==I suggest you start looking for less authoritarian solutions.==

    I suggest that the rest of the affiliates are tired of the BS and would rather the LPO just go their own way at this point.

    ==I would suggest that if the Libertarian Party of Oregon doesn’t attend that you leave their spots empty===

    That is how I would vote.

    ==State Bylaws doesn’t seem to impede the national convention from trespassing into state parties delegate slots. They should, but the past indicates that at the convention the delegates can foist others into what should be state party decisions.==

    That has nothing to do with whether CO will seat out of staters. We won’t.

    ==Those state bylaws might make it difficult for you to invite them though.==

    We don’t seat out of staters. And I reviewed a few other states bylaws which have similar restrictions.

  66. steve m

    SM> National certainly can disaffiliate. Then the Oregon Libertarian Party will have little reason to use its ballot access on behalf of the national party candidate.==

    CH> They already said they won’t. They can do what they wish. They have already given cause for disaffiliation and I have suggest that is precisely what National should do.

    What they said was they “shall not be bound by the Convention’s Presidential nomination”

    Which is different then they would not put that candidate on the ballot.

    Really I am amazed at how dictatorial your stance is. If the National Party does what you suggest they do the Libertarian Candidate will not be on the ballot.

    Which would really be another dumb move by the national party.

    “Be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of Oregon shall boycott the Orlando 2016 National Convention; that we shall not be bound by the Convention’s Presidential nomination; that if any delegation presents itself as the Oregon delegation, they shall be disclaimed.”

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You seem to be missing the point about “seating out of staters.”

    With the 2012 and 2014 precedents, the national convention delegates have said “fuck your state affiliate bylaws; you don’t get to choose your delegates, WE get to choose your delegates.”

  68. Dave Terry

    With the 2012 and 2014 precedents, the national convention delegates have said “fuck your state affiliate bylaws; you don’t get to choose your delegates, WE get to choose your delegates.”

    Wrong! What the national convention delegates have “said” is; “if you CAN’T follow your own state bylaws in choosing delegates, we will choose your delegates for you!!!

    ….and I agree!

  69. Stewart Flood

    Sigh…I think both sides are wrong. Let’s have them duel it out on the convention floor. Cross bows at 10 paces…

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    Impostor organizations don’t get to dictate to the real organizations what the real organizations’ bylaws are. Nor does the LNC or its convention delegates get to dictate to the real state affiliates in contravention of the LNC bylaws. Not even if they can infiltrate and subvert the Judicial Committee and get it to assert jurisdiction it does not have.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    A duel of any sort would be out of line. The impostor organization, having already initiated force and evincing an intent to continue to do so, is liable, should the real LPO choose to defend itself with force, to summary surprise executions. They don’t rate the privilege of duels.

    But I would recommend against that as well. It would be messy, the state tends to intervene in such things (presumably, in this case, on behalf of the evildoers), and it runs the risk of making Terry et. al look like martyrs rather than like the lying sacks of shit they are.

  72. Stewart Flood

    The side that fires first obviously being the loser for violating the NAP. 🙂

  73. Stewart Flood

    I’m not really sure who initiated force in the first place. This goes back years, and both sides have taken stupid and illegal (per bylaws) actions.

    I’m sick of it. If it comes to a floor vote, I am going to be asking my state’s delegation to walk out in protest and will be encouraging others to join us. Try holding a vote with no quorum. I don’t care which side you’re on, you won’t win.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    Now that’s an interesting proposition. At least one past national convention — Anaheim, 2000 — was adjourned sine die for lack of a quorum, but that was after, not before, the presidential nomination had been conferred. I could be wrong, but I think that may have been the current chair’s first national convention as a delegate.

  75. georgephillies

    Stewart,
    In order for this to work, there has to be an extensive publicity campaign in advance. If you get up and announce South Carolina is walking out, many people will not hear you clearly, and others will have no idea what is going on or why they should join you.
    George

  76. Stewart Flood

    Not hear me? George…you know how loud I can get. Add that to a microphone and you will NOT fail to hear me.

    Unfortunately, most delegates won’t even know what the issues are. Remember, I voted on the LNC in favor of the resolution. I believe there was a coup. Wagner even ADMITTED that it was a coup (afterwards).

    The answer to this kind of party take over is to get your supporters and “join” the group in power and get your people elected back into office. But that wasn’t done. Three convention cycles later the civil war in Oregon is still going on and they keep asking us to vote.

    Even if the “Reeves” faction is seated by the convention, and seated again in 2018 and 2020 and 2022…Wagner’s group may still be the official party according to their state government.

    Fight the war in Oregon. Don’t bring it to Orlando!

  77. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Stewart,

    ==Fight the war in Oregon. Don’t bring it to Orlando!==

    Yep.

    FWIW I also believe there was a coup. I have always said so. I just don’t believe it was within our bylaws to get involved.

    I am looking forward to seeing how loud you can get:)

  78. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==You seem to be missing the point about “seating out of staters.”==

    I don’t think so but having not been at a convention yet feel free to give me further information.

    Say we get (I forget the exact number… forty delegates for CO) and send only 25. Our bylaws do not allow us to seat out-of-states who just show up and ask to be part in Orlando. Are you saying we will be forced to?

  79. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Our bylaws do not allow us to seat out-of-states who just show up and ask to be part in Orlando. Are you saying we will be forced to?”

    If some impostors show up with friends on the credentials committee who recommend that the impostors be seated, and if the delegates vote in favor of seating the impostors, yes.

  80. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve,

    ==What they said was they “shall not be bound by the Convention’s Presidential nomination”==

    Then get out of the voluntary national affiliation scheme. That is cause for disaffiliation.

    ===Really I am amazed at how dictatorial your stance is. If the National Party does what you suggest they do the Libertarian Candidate will not be on the ballot.==

    Correct. But that is the only option they have if Oregon thinks it is going to just be a general and perpetual pain in the patookey for everyone else. The nuclear option is the only one the bylaws grant it.

    The rest of the nation is sick and tired of this.

  81. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==If some impostors show up with friends on the credentials committee who recommend that the impostors be seated, and if the delegates vote in favor of seating the impostors, yes.==

    As Colorado delegates? I really doubt that.

  82. M. H. Wilson

    I lived in Oregon from 1989 until 2006 and was active in the LP during all of that time. We actually had people show up at conventions in an attempt to keep Libertarians off the ballot. Mr. Burke also tried on more than one occasion to keep Libertarians off the ballot. Ringer have been used to put it bluntly.

  83. georgephillies

    ” Are you saying we will be forced to?” It might be more precise to say that you will be informed that they are being seated and, by the way, the National Secretary is letting them elect a new delegation chair form among their number,as happened in 2014.

  84. steve m

    Caryn,

    It wasn’t the current leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon that imposed the LNC on Oregon. It wasn’t the current leadership of Libertarian Party of Oregon that initiated the lawsuit in Oregon. It wasn’t the current leadership of Libertarian Party of Oregon that refused to seat the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s delegates in 2012. It wasn’t the current leadership of Libertarian Party of Oregon that forced those that did initiate the lawsuit into the Oregon delegation in 2014.

    I am very sure the current leadership of Libertarian Party of Oregon is much more sick of the National Party then any of the other affiliates is sick of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    The group that needs to offer the peace branch isn’t the repeated victims of aggression by the national party and other delegates to the national convention. The past aggressors need to offer the peace branch first. And I don’t that they should cut off an olive branch and whack the LPO again!

  85. steve m

    Caryn,

    By the way if you voted to seat the Reaves faction in 2012 or 2014 then you violated the NAP.

  86. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve, you are not reading what I said.

    I have specifically said I would not vote to seat anyone on the PAC.

    I wasn’t a Libertarian in 2012 or until September 2014 and thus was not at any prior convention.

    If Oregon is waiting for an apology for the LNC overreach it isn’t ever going to happen. At this point, you either suck it up and move on for liberty or disaffiliate. Sorry but that’s the cold hard facts.

    I oppose any further monkeying around in OR by National.

  87. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom and George,

    I think we are speaking past each other (or I am being confusing having never been at a convention before)

    Are you saying that National would say such and such will be part of YOUR (meaning CO’s) delegation? Or that they are saying such and such will be considered Oregon’s delegation.

    I am well aware of the latter. It is the former I am denying.

  88. steve m

    “Are you saying that National would say such and such will be part of YOUR (meaning CO’s) delegation”

    That is what they did to the Oregon Delegation in 2014. The first time 2012 they just told the Oregon delegation to go home and replaced their entire delegation. The other convention delegates have that power. A power that they have exercised twice in two conventions against the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    So Oregon is saying why waste their time and money coming a 3rd time to get raped again?

    This is why and I hope you can convince enough others that if Oregon doesn’t show that no one is seated in the Oregon delegation and that the national party then asks the Libertarian Party for their help.

    This year a team is down in Oklahoma trying to get the Libertarian Party on the ballot. It is the major hurdle to getting on in all 50 states and Washington DC. To facilitate this one individual has donated $30,000 several others of us have donated at least another $20,000. I am in it for $1600 this is why I take the issue of really stupid rude internal politics that could cost us an easy state so personally.

  89. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Yes they did that to Oregon. That is not the same as telling another state, with whom there has been no prior history of that kind of dispute, that they are going to add people to their delegation. Which was the context of my statement.

    If Oregon is convinced they are going to be abused, they should leave the abusive relationship.

    And yes, if the LPO does not show, I will be supportive of seating no one in OR’s seats.

  90. Kyle Markley

    Caryn,

    If you are saying that the convention probably will not stuff CO’s delegation, I agree. If you are saying that the convention does not have the authority to stuff any affiliate’s delegation, I agree. But that hasn’t stopped them in the past. Maybe a bylaws change is needed to make it overwhelmingly obvious to even the least informed delegates that they cannot do that.

  91. georgephillies

    Am I saying that the National Convention would say that these people will be part of YOUR (meaning CO’s) delegation?

    That was what happened in 2014. Furthermore, the people the convention added claimed that they were entitled to elect a new delegation head and did so.

  92. Caryn Ann Harlos

    It happened to Oregon for a reason though (I am not saying the reason was legitimate– only that there was one). There is no dispute between National and CO. Our bylaws nor delegates are not (anticipating that will be the case) in dispute, so I just do not follow the logic here.

  93. steve m

    Imposing unwanted delegates is much less likely to happen to CO if the delegates from CO vote for it not to happen to other states.

  94. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    You’re right that we’re talking past each other.

    I agree that it is unlikely that, in 2016, a cabal influencing the national convention will attempt to get that national convention to alter or replace the composition of the Colorado Libertarian Party’s convention delegation. I agree for precisely the reason you specify: At this point, the Colorado LP is not the object of a hostile takeover attempt, with assistance from bad actors on the LNC and from other states, like the Oregon LP has been for some years.

    On the other hand, it’s short-sighted to assume that that can’t happen because Colorado’s bylaws don’t allow out-of-staters, etc. to be part of your delegation. The national convention has now twice voted affirmatively on the proposition “screw what the actual affiliate wants, WE will decide who their delegates are” with respect to Oregon. There’s no reason to believe it would not do likewise if the state in question at some later date is Colorado.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon has clearly and unequivocally stated that it will not be sending a delegation and that anyone claiming to be an Oregon delegate is an impostor. That’s well within the LPO’s rights as an affiliate to do. They have no OBLIGATION to send a delegation, nor does the LNC or the convention have any right to create/seat an impostor delegation in their name.

    Now, to the other half of the equation: LPO’s statement that it recognizes no obligation to put the national convention’s presidential ticket on its ballot line.

    Well, if it’s an affiliate, it DOES have such an obligation.

    How should that be handled?

    The way that makes the most sense to me is for the LNC and national convention to do the right thing by not seating an impostor delegation, then go and ASK NICELY for that ballot line, with having done the right thing as evidence that the “national LP” has changed its ways and doesn’t want to continue the war it started on its Oregon affiliate.

    But there’s another way:

    The LPO could disaffiliate itself from the LNC. If it did so, there would be no question that it was entitled to run any slate it wanted to run on the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon. And there would also be no question that, UNLESS the LNC recognized a new Oregon affiliate, there would be no “Oregon delegation” to the national convention.

    Now, re-read that last paragraph and ask yourself some questions about what the best timing would be for the course mentioned in the paragraph above.

  95. Richard P. Burke

    I repeat…

    Everyone here is operating on some false premises as are some members of the LNC.

    There are not two organizations competing for affiliate status with the LNC. There never were. There is one organization. The only questions in dispute are who the legitimate officers are and which set of bylaws is in force. For this reason, the purported “constructive disaffiliation” by the LNC’s 2011 resolutions (still in force) never took place as was determined by the September 2015 national Judicial Committee’s decision to rescind it’s 2011 ruling.

    Added to this is the fact that Wagner’s group has repeatedly stipulated that it’s officers were not elected and it’s bylaws were not adopted in accordance with the governing documents on file with the Sec. of State and the LNC and acknowledged by all to in force prior to March 31, 2011 (something that gets constantly glossed over), that is pretty much that.

    The formation of a Miscellaneous PAC, which some saw as the establishment of an alternate organization, is only a device allowing the legitimate LPO officers to function as such without violating the law until such time as this issue can properly be resolved and control of the other PAC, (PAC# 622) is properly restored.

    Nick Sarwark, in failing to comply with the Judicial Committee ruling, is operating in defiance of the September 2015 Judicial Committee rulings and the 2011 LNC resolutions, still in force. Whether you believe his actions are right or wrong, a lot of delegates may see this defiance to be indicative of a national chair prepared to go rogue on issues and exceed his powers when the moment suits him.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

    PS: Another false premise everyone is operating under is that the courts have decided that Wagner is right. In fact, the courts have never ruled on the merits of the case and dismissed it on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. This is what is being appealed. Nevertheless, there has never been a court ruling on the merits of the case.

    PPS: Another false premise is that the Oregon Sec. of State has decided in Wagner’s favor. On the contrary, the Sec. of State has repeatedly said they would not adjudicate this matter. They only recognize Wagner on the grounds that he was the Chair of Record at the time of the split. Correspondence shows that they have waited for our national party to speak with one voice on the Oregon issue. Only on this thin tenuous thread does Wagner’s group hold any claim.

  96. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    You can repeat yourself all you want, Richard, but that won’t change the fact that some of us simply don’t believe what you say. The more time goes on, the more I wonder how much of the “prize” is even still available. It’s a shame there’s nothing more positive you can do for the state party. I would think this long-time yearning for something most of us think you won’t get would be wearing you down by now.. I just think most people in the country consider things settled and are on to other things.

    “Only on this thin tenuous thread does Wagner’s group hold any claim.” Wow. I think you really believe this.

  97. Thomas L. Knapp

    Burke,

    You can repeat that line and the associated falsehoods all you like. They will never fly with anyone who is paying attention.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon (a political party) and your PAC are two different organizations now. You COULD have remained part of the real LPO and tried to take it over by running candidates for its officer positions. You CHOSE to found a competing organization and have the LNC try to pull your coup for you. So far you’ve failed and will continue to fail at your claimed objective (taking over the LPO) while continuing to succeed at your obvious true objective (damaging the LP in Oregon and nationally).

  98. steve m

    Richard,

    You side should get your stories straight.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/01/reeves-oregon-group-explains-their-decision-to-incorporate/

    Tim Reeves states

    “The Oregon Secretary of State has decided that it can’t legally enter the
    fray and will only recognize a new set of officers if the outgoing Chair
    (Wagner) signs paperwork acknowledging the new officers or if there is a
    court order. Obviously, the normal course is not available to us, so
    regretfully we are going to court to seek remedy.”

    now you claim

    “PPS: Another false premise is that the Oregon Sec. of State has decided in Wagner’s favor. On the contrary, the Sec. of State has repeatedly said they would not adjudicate this matter. They only recognize Wagner on the grounds that he was the Chair of Record at the time of the split. Correspondence shows that they have waited for our national party to speak with one voice on the Oregon issue. Only on this thin tenuous thread does Wagner’s group hold any claim.”

  99. steve m

    Correspondence between Oregon Elections official and wagner

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/220880737/Trout-Email-Regarding-Lnc-Powers-Over-Oregon

    Tyler,

    To confirm our conversation this morning, there is no requirement that a state political party beaffiliated with a national party. If the LNC disaffiliates the LPO there will be no change of statusin Oregon. The LPO will still be an official political party in the state. The only way we canremove the qualification of the LPO is if we were presented with a valid Oregon court order stating that the LPO can no longer exist because the LNC will not allow their use of the nameLibertarian. In that instance all voters currently affiliated with the LPO would be placed in theregistration category of “Other” and they would be treated as non-affiliated voters unless anduntil they re-register with a qualified party. Any new Libertarian Party headed by the LNC or others would need to qualify as a new minor party pursuant to ORS 248.008. Let me know if you have any further questions.

    Stephen N. Trout
    Director of Elections
    Oregon Secretary of State

  100. Richard P. Burke

    Steve M,

    My “story” *-is-* straight. Your set of facts are incomplete. The Secretary of State took the position Tim described as a consequence of the national party giving them no clear direction on what to do. You will recall that the LNC said our group of officers were legitimate while the 2011 National Judicial Committee, which did not confer legitimacy on any group of officers, punted the question to the Sec. of State which had already said that they would not adjudicate the question. It was in these circumstances that they said they would stick with the status quo short of a letter from Wes Wagner or a court order.

    With clear direction, the Sec. of State will comply. Actually, they have to. They cannot and do not want to be in a position of appearing to select party officers, they have acknowledged that the LNC is the LPO’s parent body, and Wagner’s group has repeatedly stipulated that they took power through means which violate the bylaws which were on file with the Sec. of State at that time.

    I notice, however, that you ignored the rest of my post, as did everyone else on this blog. Inconvenient truths. Still a couple of people “sort of” replied, branding my post as some sort of lie (thought they did not say what the “lie” was). Examples:

    Jill says that people will never believe what I say. Everything in my post concerning the 2015 Judicial Committee and the Sec. of State is public record, so what part do you not believe?

    Thomas says my post was full of “lies and falsehoods.” What were the lies and falsehoods?

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

    Jill,

  101. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    “Jill says that people will never believe what I say”. No, I didn’t say that. You really do read and just decide things mean what you want them to mean.

    This is what I said: “You can repeat yourself all you want, Richard, but that won’t change the fact that some of us simply don’t believe what you say.”

  102. steve m

    The court did rule against Burke et al and denied every one of their requests including setting aside the new bylaws and imposing the old ones.

    So, to become the Libertarian Party of Oregon leadership Burke had to win the lawsuit or get Wagoner to send a letter to the SOS. Of which Wagoner isn’t going to do.

    All the LNC can do is disaffiliate the current Libertarian Party of Oregon. And then affiliate with a new state party. The New state party won’t be able to call themselves the Libertarian Party of Oregon and probably won’t be able to use the term Libertarian on the ballot.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145016427/Ruling-in-Favor-of-Defendants-Summary-Judgment

  103. steve m

    Richard,

    Your story conflicts with your partners story.

    You claim other correspondence has changes the situation please show it to us.

  104. Dave Terry

    Steve M.

    Have you never heard the expression, “benign neglect”?
    1.an attitude or policy of noninterference or neglect of a situation, which one believes may have a more beneficial effect than assuming responsibility; well-intentioned neglect.

    2. “pocket veto”; a legislative maneuver that allows a president or other official with veto power to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action (instead of affirmatively vetoing it).

    3. decision by indecision

  105. Dave Terry

    Richard wrote: “Jill says that people will never believe what I say”.

    Jill wrote: “You can repeat yourself all you want, Richard, but that won’t change the fact that some of us simply don’t believe what you say.”

    Well, I’m glad you cleared THAT up, HUH?

  106. Joe

    Clearly Carling wrote the letter sent to Carling for Carling to respond to. Clearly that response was already written before the letter that Carling wrote was sent to Carling.

    This is Kabuki theater designed, apparently, to destroy the Libertarian Party from within.

    The curative is for the LNC to apologize to the legitimate Libertarians in Oregon — the ones who have voted with their feet, who have run campaigns, who have worked to advance liberty there and to repudiate those who, based on results, are engaged in nihilism

    From their website that is very infrequently updated (currently promoting their October “pre-Holiday” event):

    “The leadership of the LPO and the governing documents governing it’s (sic) operation are in dispute. The Libertarian National Committee, delegates assembled at the 2012 and 2014 Libertarian National Conventions, the national Libertarian Judicial Committee, and the Oregon LP Judicial Committee recognizes (sic) the leadership and governing documents associated with organization sponsoring this website. The Oregon Secretary of State is barred from taking a position, and has for the moment defaulted to recognizing an alternate organization because it is supported by the most recent “Chair of Record.” This is being contested in a variety of venues and we expect the situation will be resolved soon.”

    I was promised “before August 2012.” I was ridiculed for questioning that level of what? optimism? overconfidence? deceit?

    I hope they will put Gary Johnson’s name on the ballot in time for 2012

    Chuck Moulton @ December 31, 2015 wrote:

    “I’m sure this all will be resolved by the end of 2015.”

    Thanks Chuck for the first laugh out loud at my screen of 2016.

    I predict there will be no delegation from the current LP of Oregon. I predict the PAC will send a couple of people. I predict they will be seated as the Oregon delegation. I predict one or more states will walk out of the convention. And I predict one result will be the loss of Oregon and perhaps a few other states for ballot access for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 Presidential Candidate.

    It seems there are those whose actions are designed to cause the events above. I suspect they are being funded by Republicans.

    I KNOW there are those who find the LNCs actions regarding the above so corrupt that they now desire to destroy it with the intention of replacing it with something more Liberty-advancing than the current largely ineffective, wasteful mess that the national party is and/or is at risk of becoming by June 2016.

    In that sense . . . for that goal — each side of Oregon can fairly be seen as being on the same team. One who caused the war, the other victimized by the lack of integrity/principle by the organization that was wounded in the initial attack, and both sides now out to kill it.

    It’s World War I, or the Star Wars Episodes I, II, II all over again. There are forces afoot who desire war and who create both the cause for it AND the armies and weapons that each side uses. They gain from the mutual destruction involved.

    I think it would serve us all to look beyond casting blame on one side or the other in Oregon, and look at who actually benefits from this mess as the likely cause of it.

    It would also serve for those on the LNC to actually stand for advancing Liberty rather than the narrow focus on how to make this fair, or follow the exacting standards of Roberts. For the latter, I refer to this analysis by Dr. Ruwart.

    http://marketliberal.org/LP/JudCom/2011Wagner/2011-07-27%20Ruwart%20brief.pdf

  107. Richard P. Burke

    Steve…

    My goodness. Don’t you see that disaffiliation is not an issue here? While it is true that it is possible for one entity to be recognized by the state and another by the LNC (which itself makes Sarwark’s current stand untenable given the LNC’s 2011 resolutions and the 2015 JudComm ruling), affiliation or disaffiliation is not an issue here. Why?

    The 2011 Judicial Committee contended that the LNC’s resolutions recognizing the correct officers constituted a “constructive affiliation,” but this was rescinded by the 2015 Judicial Committee. Hence, no disaffiliation constructive or otherwise took place.

    What we are left with is the fact that there is but one organization, with the only questions being who the proper officers and what the proper governing documents are. Issues related to disaffiliation are no longer relevant, so the Sec. of State’s comments on that subject are moot. Were Wagner’s group to declare a disaffiliation, it would be an empty gesture – as the LNC and the Judicial Committee have ruled that they are not the proper officers, they would have no authority to disaffiliate.

    On the other hand, the Sec. of State has repeatedly looked for guidance from the national party over which groups of officers are legitimate and only took their current stance after receiving mixed signals from the national party (see the 10/29/11 letter from the Sec. of State, often cited on this site). When this changes, their stance will also change. There was a similar dust up in 1995, and the Sec. of State followed the LNC’s lead. Fortunately there was no rogue chair in 1995. Again – the question is not which group is the LNC Oregon affiliate, a question in which the Sec. of State has not interest. The question is which group of officers is legitimate.

    In disputes over whom the proper officer and bylaws are, the LNC has an interest in making a determination regarding who is legitmate, at the very least, in order to determine who is authorized to conduct the process of naming delegates to national conventions. And in two consecutive conventions, delegates chose not to seat delegations named by “officers” who by their own admission attempted to seize power in violation of party bylaws.

    Two conventions, a Judicial Committee ruling, and multiple LNC resolutions speak against them and for us. The only thread the Wagner group has left is a rogue chair who is preventing the LNC from speaking with one voice, the voice which the Sec. of State will heed.

    Richard P. Burke, Secretary
    Libertarian Party of Oregon

  108. steve m

    Richard,

    Looking at the published letters and emails from the sos and director of elections both from Oregon, it would take a court order for them to change their recognition from the Wagner faction to your faction. That a court order with regards to the LNC would only cause the Libertarian Party of Oregon to lose its name.

    ‘In that instance all voters currently affiliated with the LPO would be placed in the registration category of “Other” and they would be treated as non-affiliated voters unless and until they re-register with a qualified party.’

    So the SOS will not rule in your favor for the existing organization. Disaffiliation is your only option and then winning a trade mark lawsuit (which prior use will prevent).

    You lost the court case and the SOS will not change its position on the existing Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    So lets go back to an edited version of Knapp’s question

    7. Is the purpose of your factions actions in Oregon in collusion with the Judicial Committee

    a) to keep the Oregon LP from running candidates in 2016, or

    b) merely to keep the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate off the Oregon ballot in 2016?

  109. Dave Terry

    steve m, Jan 2, 2016
    “So what? care to explain the relevance?”

    First, you quote Tim Reeves;

    “The Oregon Secretary of State has decided that it can’t {or won’t} legally enter the
    fray and will only recognize a new set of officers if the outgoing Chair (Wagner)
    signs paperwork acknowledging the new officers…..”

    Then you quote Burke;

    “Another false premise is that the Oregon Sec. of State has decided in Wagner’s favor. On the contrary, the Sec. of State has repeatedly said they would not adjudicate this matter. They only recognize Wagner on the grounds that he was the Chair of Record at the time of the split.”

    THERE IS NO CONFLICT HERE, WHATSOEVER!!!!

  110. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==You’re right that we’re talking past each other.==

    Okay because I was really getting confused.

    ==I agree that it is unlikely that, in 2016, a cabal influencing the national convention will attempt to get that national convention to alter or replace the composition of the Colorado Libertarian Party’s convention delegation. I agree for precisely the reason you specify: At this point, the Colorado LP is not the object of a hostile takeover attempt, with assistance from bad actors on the LNC and from other states, like the Oregon LP has been for some years.==

    We are on the same page there. That is why I was so confused that you *seemed* to be saying the integrity of the CO delegation this May was at risk of being forced to seat out-of-staters.

    ==On the other hand, it’s short-sighted to assume that that can’t happen because Colorado’s bylaws don’t allow out-of-staters, etc. to be part of your delegation. The national convention has now twice voted affirmatively on the proposition “screw what the actual affiliate wants, WE will decide who their delegates are” with respect to Oregon. There’s no reason to believe it would not do likewise if the state in question at some later date is Colorado.==

    I never said that… but I think you see that now. I was referring to this May. Of course I know if the LNC can violate the autonomy of any affiliate, it can do so to CO. That is one reason for my interest in this whole thing.

    ==The Libertarian Party of Oregon has clearly and unequivocally stated that it will not be sending a delegation and that anyone claiming to be an Oregon delegate is an impostor. That’s well within the LPO’s rights as an affiliate to do. They have no OBLIGATION to send a delegation, nor does the LNC or the convention have any right to create/seat an impostor delegation in their name.==

    They do not have an enforceable obligation. But here is where I think there are certain good faith unenforceable obligations between the affiliates, and one of them, is to expect the others to show and participate.

    ==Now, to the other half of the equation: LPO’s statement that it recognizes no obligation to put the national convention’s presidential ticket on its ballot line.

    Well, if it’s an affiliate, it DOES have such an obligation.==

    Is that an enforceable obligation?

    ==How should that be handled?

    The way that makes the most sense to me is for the LNC and national convention to do the right thing by not seating an impostor delegation, then go and ASK NICELY for that ballot line, with having done the right thing as evidence that the “national LP” has changed its ways and doesn’t want to continue the war it started on its Oregon affiliate.==

    And you know this won’t happen. If wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets, the LNC is never going to apologize or ask nicely.

    ==The LPO could disaffiliate itself from the LNC. If it did so, there would be no question that it was entitled to run any slate it wanted to run on the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon. And there would also be no question that, UNLESS the LNC recognized a new Oregon affiliate, there would be no “Oregon delegation” to the national convention.

    Now, re-read that last paragraph and ask yourself some questions about what the best timing would be for the course mentioned in the paragraph above.==

    I am not a strategist, I have no stomach for it. If not for my love of Liberty, I would have ran away from the LP drama right after I got a peek at reality. But alas, I actually believe this stuff, but that doesn’t make me a politico.

  111. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steve that is an interesting exchange with the SoS. That is getting saved in my Oregon docs, thank you.

  112. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Joe,

    OMG, I never saw that document from Dr. Ruwart before, and I am so encouraged. She precisely states that same conclusion and arguments I have made since I came to understand what is going on here. It reaffirms that my position is on the right track.

  113. steve m

    Dave,

    So you are claiming that this statement?

    “The Oregon Secretary of State has decided that it can’t legally enter the
    fray and will only recognize a new set of officers if the outgoing Chair
    (Wagner) signs paperwork acknowledging the new officers or if there is a
    court order. Obviously, the normal course is not available to us, so
    regretfully we are going to court to seek remedy.”

    is the same as this statement?

    Correspondence shows that they have waited for our national party to speak with one voice on the Oregon issue.

    I think you are silly.

  114. Dave Terry

    I, in turn, think you are deceitful, dishonest, and contemptible!

    I made NO REFERENCE to the second statement that you provided.
    NEITHER DID MR REEVES!

    I am not privy to the so-called “Correspondence” and did NOT address
    it in my remarks. I have no idea what Mr. Burke meant by the term “correspondence’,
    and I’m sure Mr. Reeves doesn’t either. It was written much later and had ABSOLUTELY
    NOTHING to do with my remarks.

    I do not correspond with dishonest people, so I will NOT be responding to your vitreol !!!

  115. steve m

    Dave,

    Tim Reeves states

    “The Oregon Secretary of State has decided that it can’t legally enter the
    fray and will only recognize a new set of officers if the outgoing Chair
    (Wagner) signs paperwork acknowledging the new officers or if there is a
    court order. Obviously, the normal course is not available to us, so
    regretfully we are going to court to seek remedy.”

    Richard Burke Stated “Correspondence shows that they have waited for our national party to speak with one voice on the Oregon issue.”

    and You stated “THERE IS NO CONFLICT HERE, WHATSOEVER!!!!”

    I think your side changes its story every time you hit a brick wall.

    Is there any chance you can put a coherent argument together to explain the discrepancy?

    Well then I leave it up others who is being deceitful, dishonest and self serving.

  116. steve m

    Richard and Dave,

    Let me show you how irrational this new concept is.

    If all your side ever needed was for the LNC and the Judicial Committee of the LNC to tell the Oregon Secretary of State that your side was the real leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon,

    drum roll please?

    why did you waste all that money and time on the lawsuit?

  117. paulie

    If it’s Dave Terry, I do not read his comments, and generally don’t mention him except to pass on my recommendation that others not waste their time reading them either. If you do read them, please do not respond to them – just ignore him and pretend he does not even exist at all.

  118. steve m

    Paulie,

    So you don’t think Dave Terry is Richard Burke’s most articulate and thoughtful proponent?

  119. Wes Wagner

    The same pride and willful ignorance that prevents the LNC and its supporters from doing the right things are the same issues that make the same unfit and unworthy of the trust to disassemble the apparatus of the state.

    I see little to no potential for actual loss of anything of real value should it choose suicide.

  120. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Wes,

    I am glad you dropped by. Any further word on the suit? I meant to PM you but I figured everyone here would want to know.

    And I don’t know what you mean by “its supporters,” I have already said I would not seat anyone from the PAC if it was put to my vote.

  121. Wes Wagner

    Caryn

    You are outnumbered as past results indicate.

    No update on lawsuit. Might be a year or more before we get an opinion.

  122. paulie

    Caryn,

    And I don’t know what you mean by “its supporters,” I have already said I would not seat anyone from the PAC if it was put to my vote.

    Note that WW said “the LNC and its supporters”, not “the PAC and its supporters”.

    steve m,

    So you don’t think Dave Terry is Richard Burke’s most articulate and thoughtful proponent?

    I think that question answers itself.

Leave a Reply

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