Open thread for May 2011

Discuss almost whatever you want in the comments here, other than stuff that would get you and/or IPR in legal trouble, or stuff that has already been quarantined in “special” threads.

This can include news items IPR should be covering, as well as just about anything else.

For example, take this latest video from Rap News:

400 thoughts on “Open thread for May 2011

  1. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    Politics May Over whelm Looks,
    Personality in Matters of the Heart
    Wed, May 18, 2011

    WEDNESDAY, May 18 (HealthDay News) — Voter registration cards may offer more insight into who people promise to love and cherish than personality or appearance, new research suggests.

    Most people marry those whose political views align with their own, according to a study from Rice University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

    The study, published recently in the Journal of Politics, examined the physical, personality and behavioral traits of more than 5,000 married couples in the United States.

    The various qualities — including body shape, height, weight, impulsivity, religion and ideology — were scored on a scale of zero to one, with one being a perfect match.

    The only attribute that scored slightly higher than political views was the frequency of church attendance.

    “It turns out that people place more emphasis on finding a mate who is a kindred spirit with regard to politics, religion and social activity than they do on finding someone of like physique or personality,” John Alford,

    “Obviously, parents are very influential in shaping the political beliefs of their children,” John Hibbing, political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and co-author of the study, noted in the news release.

    “If both parents are on the left or on the right, it makes it more difficult for a child to be something different. It may be part of the reason why we see such polarization

    Copyright © 2011HealthDay. All rights reserved.

  2. First LP Presidential Debate

    First Libertarian Presidential Debate
    of the 2012 Election Season

    Manchester, New Hampshire
    June 19, 2011
    The Highlander Inn at Manchester Airport

    R. Lee Wrights vs. Roger V. Gary

    Questions from
    The audience
    The moderator
    The last Republican Presidential debate

    Rules:
    This will be a real debate. All candidates answer all questions.

    Eligibility: To participate, you must:
    1) Have a long-time record of Libertarian Party activism
    2) Have a campaign team.
    3) Have filed with the FEC as a Presidential candidate.

    Format:
    Opening: 3 minutes each. Candidate A, then candidate B.
    Closing: Candidate B, then candidate A

    Questions: 2 minutes each, alternating on who goes first.
    After A and B have both answered, the candidate who went first is asked if he wants another minute for both candidates.

    Admission:
    Half-day (2:00-5:00, dinner, Presidential debate) $50
    Other half day (9:30-11:30, lunch, Judge John Buttrick, Panel) $50
    Full Day $100

    Register at http://www.lpmass.org/Conference
    or at https://secure.donortownsquare.com/SSL/donate.aspx?sgst=0&amt=100&ai=631&qs=87NWV

  3. ipr party over, turn out the lites

    ipr is over
    lp is over
    paulie is over
    war is over

    …turn out the lites

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    How come Bruce Cohen hasn’t posted WAR’s article about his GOP picks? I’d post it, but I know that’s usually something Bruce does.

  5. paulie Post author

    Jill, Go ahead and post….Bruce has told me he has been very busy with work the last few weeks.

  6. Starchild

    These “Rap News” segments are really well-produced! Strong message on this one, and hilarious content! Thanks for sharing, Paulie.

  7. paulie's perv party over, turn out the lites

    So, which of you “brave” bootlickers is responsable for taking down anti WAR comments? Could it be…oh I don’t know…that bootlicking rootlicker PAULIE???? Like I said…party over , turn out the lites….puto…..

  8. Eddie

    San Fernando Valley Greens and Libertarians working to host own debates at local university, with the help of the League of Women’s Voters. If we feel that the League is being detrrimental to the debates, we will do it without them We have enough people to do it on our own, but having the League “sponsoring” or “hosting” the debates legitimizes the debate. I would think so.

  9. George Phillies

    Future of the Libertarian Political Movement
    Conference Schedule
    Highlander Inn at Manchester Airport

    Registration opens — 9 A.M. (Coffee, Pastry)

    9:20 A.M. Welcoming Remarks (Rich Tomasso—LPNH; David Blau— LPMass)
    9:30 Session A Guest of Honor Mary Ruwart “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement”

    10:30 Session A Guest of Honor Ernie Hancock “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement”

    Session B: Outreach to Young People (Alex Peterson, Loren Spivack)
    11:30 Lunch
    (Buffet: Caesar salad, Chicken Piccata or Chicken Saltimbocca, pasta, cookies)

    12:30 Keynote Speaker: Guest of Honor Judge John Buttrick “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement”

    1:30 Invited Speaker Panel “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement” (Ruwart, Hancock, Buttrick, Keaton)

    2:15 Session A Electronic Politics (Bonnie Scott, Mark Edge, Dan Reale, Ernie Hancock)

    Session B Libertarians and GLBT Outreach (Angela Keaton, Carol McMahon)

    3:15 Session A New Hampshire Politics (Seth Cohn, Joel Winter, Rich Tomasso)

    Session B My First Run For Federal Office
    (Joe Kennedy, Bob Clark, Dan Reale)

    4:15 Session A Libertarians and the Antiwar Movement
    (Angela Keaton, Alex Peterson, John Walsh, Will Hopkins)

    Session B Candidate Recruitment (Alwin Hopfmann, Dave Blau, Rich Tomasso)

    5:30 Dinner
    (Buffet: clam chowder, salad, maple glazed pork tenderloin, London broil, rice, seasonal vegetable, dessert)

    6:15 Presidential Candidate Debate: Roger V. Gary, R. Lee Wrights, Moderator: George Phillies)

    7:30 Straw Poll to Award Delegate Votes&
    Reception (LP of New Hampshire)

    9:00 Convention Ends

    Half-Price Convention Special

    As a special service to Libertarians with other morning or evening commitments, we have added half-day for half-price convention memberships:

    Afternoon (2-5 PM, dinner, Presidential debate) $50

    Morning (9-noon, lunch, Judge Buttrick, Panel) $50

    All day remains at $100.

    The afternoon session will feature two full panels of speakers. Lunch and dinner will be full meals, not boxed sandwiches.

    For more information, see the LPNH.org and LPMass.org/ Conference web pages. To register, go to LPNH.org and click on “Register now” .

  10. paulie Post author

    Thanks for posting that paulie…you turned me onto Rap News in the first place and I haven’t seen the new one yet.

    Know any other youtube channels doing anything similar to that?

  11. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    …… Stephanie Pappas, Livescience Senior Writer,

    Sat May 21, :

    Are you relieved or disappointed? [Lake: or merely amused ?????]

    Doomsday came and went without a peep, as May 21 failed to bring about earthquakes, [a couple of minor minor ones on the west coast] a rapture or the mass excavation of all the world’s dead.

    [Lake: some would have settled for the cancellation of existing parking citations.]

    The rumor that May 21 would kick off the end of the world was started and propagated by Harold Camping, the president of the Oakland, Calif.-based Christian radio broadcasting network Family Radio.

    Camping, who also made a failed doomsday prediction in 1994 …………..

    [Lake: 1975 all over again ………]

  12. Team United in 2012

    Team United in 2012!

    No more divisive US Presidential debates needed!

  13. Eddie

    Over 30 people register with the Green Party in local event here in the San Fernando Valley.

  14. LibertarianGirl

    the WAR rap—
    Public Enemy- Dont Beleive the Hype -LG cover–

    WAR-
    Said he was lookin’ for the same thing
    says “It’s a new thing check out how much I bring”
    he say”I roll below my level ‘Cause you-LP be livin’ low
    next to the rest . Hey Im even on the radio”
    –but dont belive the hype-

    to ignore this WAR he say would be so criminal
    and i wondered how some people ever grow
    withSo little truth in flow , lettin true colors show, so
    just dont believe the hype

    The enemy or message guardian?
    Rads arent the hooligans
    we bring the party and
    to Clear all the madness, are we all bad guess?

    dont belive the hype

    WAR-
    we Preach to teach not leach we reach
    for truth ‘Cause ignorance we want to breach
    no Number one, no credit for things weve done
    About the fun…seems were destined to have none
    The minute we speak too clearly
    we are the epitome – the in-house enemy
    they Use, abuse a ruse the clues refuse the dues and eventually they blow a fuse
    They even blame us when they lose
    Don’t believe the hype…

    WAR
    Was the start of my last rhyme
    and yet again cuz once upon a time
    we tried to give you something,
    teach you what you lack , like any newjack
    they said you didnt have our back

    they said debra dont elive the hype

    All the critics , i tried to quiet
    thank god for those that didnt buy it
    i held hope , like every other dope
    to WARS message, they said nope
    we wont belive the hype

    the MILLIONAIRRE REPUBLICAN
    CLAIMING conscience of Libertarian??
    well that never was the plan , and
    even when you hear the man
    dont , belive the hype

    his book and his new LP game
    is nothing but a ploy for big fame
    he trys so hard it just feels lame
    and all his effort , the truth is still the same

    dont belive the hype

    Some want more of War, but theres a different kind
    We’re brothers of the same mind, unblind
    Not in the middle and Not surrenderin’
    dont change the truth just so we can get a win
    and cuz we see right thru the spin
    we dont belive the hype

    Some claim WAR is #1 LP highjack
    Some say he got the decks to stack
    but whats he got ? alot of media
    WARS fake that’s all it is ‘ya, dig me?
    what we got cant be stolen,
    thanks to minds like David Nolan
    so dont sweat this , he’s gonna shoot and miss
    and
    Don’t believe the hype…

  15. libertariangirl

    Mine was a joke.jims serious lol besides I only spit gangsta rhymes.

  16. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    JOHNNY FIDO:

    MIKE BAKER and GARY D. ROBERTSON, Associated Press – Wed May 25:

    RALEIGH, N.C. – The Justice Department plans to bring criminal charges against John Edwards after a two-year investigation into whether the former presidential candidate illegally used money from some of his political backers to cover up his extramarital affair, a person familiar with the case said Wednesday.

    It was not immediately clear what charges prosecutors planned to bring.

    Federal authorities have been investigating the former North Carolina senator’s campaign finances, focusing heavily on money from wealthy supporters that allegedly went to keep mistress Rielle Hunter and her out-of-wedlock baby in hiding in 2007 and 2008 …….

    [Lake: The pitch is in, the pitch is in. Let’s all fix Johnny’s ‘problem”. Tell me again why we don’t trust the Democans and Republicrats?]

  17. J. W. Evans

    The Massachusetts Libertarian Party has a new elected official.
    Jonathan Loya, 20, got elected to the Holliston Planning Board with a 1,388 to 1,051 victory

  18. GreenParty2012activist

    Name people you would like to see be nominated in California for the Green Party ticket, including for governor, mayoral races, and possibly for the presidential run.

  19. Nevada Comes to Oregon

    The meanings and implications of the following, forwarded to me some of my sources on the LNC, will be and by become more clear.

    From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com
    Date: June 2, 2011 3:59:38 AM EDT
    To: LNC Discussion <LNC-Discuss@hq.lp.org
    Subject: [Lnc-discuss] FYI – update from Oregon
    Reply-To: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org

    Colleagues,

    In my capacity as LNC Secretary, I’ve been given some new information
    regarding developments in the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and I can
    give you a quick FYI update on a subject we’ve discussed previously.

    As you already know, rather than simply adjourning their March 2011
    convention, their delegates voted to adjourn to a future date and
    reconvene part 2 of their convention in the same location on May 21,
    2011.

    Then on May 21, 2011, Oregon members arrived at the place and time
    designated by vote of the March 12 convention. But none of the
    officers showed up at part 2 of their convention – not even Chairman
    Wes Wagner, who had made the motion to adjourn to that date and time.

    The Oregon members present selected a chairman pro tem and a secretary
    pro tem, and they proceeded without the officers. As best as they
    could determine in the absence of the Secretary, they did not have
    quorum to continue with the regular business of electing officers, so
    the convention instead adjourned sine die.

    Since the officer terms expire at the end of their conventions, all
    the officer positions became vacant at that point. The remaining
    board members (representatives appointed by the county affiliates) met
    immediately following adjournment of the convention, as required by
    their bylaws. Their board members are empowered to fill officer
    vacancies, so the board was able to elect a new slate of officers to
    serve for the new term, and business can continue with a full board in
    place.

    -Alicia

    _______________________________________________
    Lnc-discuss mailing list
    Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
    http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org

  20. M Carling

    The bylaws of the national Libertarian Party are the contract we all agree to abide by when we join the national party. Our bylaws were adopted by the delegates at successive conventions and place limits on the powers of the LNC, the board of the national party. The key limitation on the power of the LNC is that our bylaws do not give the LNC the power to amend our bylaws, not even by unanimous vote, not even in an emergency, not even if they don’t like them, not even if they are inconvenient.

    What if the LNC were to vote to throw away the bylaws? And then vote to adopt new bylaws, never approved by the delegates to any convention, which extend the terms of the incumbent officers beyond the terms to which they were elected? Unthinkable? The LNC would never dare such an outrageous attempt to usurp power?

    Well, that is exactly what just happened in the Libertarian Party of Oregon. In April, the state committee voted to throw out the bylaws which had been properly adopted by the party members in convention and purportedly adopted new bylaws which extended the terms of the incumbent officers by a year and radically curtailed the rights and powers of the members. Unsurprisingly, when the members showed up at convention on May 21st, they unanimously voted that the terms of the officers end at the close of convention, as specified by the real bylaws, adopted in convention in 2009.

    The real officers of the Oregon party, elected on May 21st in conformance with the bylaws adopted in 2009 by the members in convention, are listed below.

    At the moment, the previous officers still control the party’s website and the previous chair, Wes Wagner, is attempting to bring criminal charges against the legitimate officers.

    I’m sorry to be the bearer of this bad news.

    M Carling
    LSLA Secretary
    LP Oregon Member (and former Judicial Cmte Chair)

    Chair:
    Mr. Tim Reeves, 4278 NE Azaleast, Hillsboro, OR 97124
    503-621-4932 / timothy.reeves@tenthamendmentcenter.com

    Vice Chair:
    Mr. Eric B. Saub, 707 Jackson Street, Oregon City, OR 97045
    503-964-1137 / ericsaub@live.com

    Secretary:
    Ms. Carla J. Pealer, 11734 SW Fairview Lane, Tigard, OR 97223
    503-598-8579 / cpealer99@msn.com

    Treasurer:
    Mr. Gregory Burnett, P.O. Box 219157, Portland, OR 97225
    503-828-1118 / gregburnett@live.com

    Party Contact Information:
    5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 410, Lake Oswego, OR 97035
    http://www.lp.org/states/Oregon
    541-317-3587

  21. Michael H. Wilson

    Back to 1995-96 all over again. Oregon continues to go though these games time and time again. People have just pissed away all the work Tonie Nathan and others did to build a good organization. I see the same hands involved in screwing things up today as I saw in the past.

  22. LibertarianGirl

    MCUnsurprisingly, when the members showed up at convention on May 21st, they unanimously voted that the terms of the officers end at the close of convention, as specified by the real bylaws, adopted in convention in 2009.

    The real officers of the Oregon party, elected on May 21st in conformance with the bylaws adopted in 2009 by the members in convention, are listed below.

    me_ but the “new officers we’re appointed right? not elected by the body of delegates at convention?

  23. M Carling

    The new officers of the Oregon party were elected by the State Committee to fill the vacancies that occurred when the convention adjourned without having elected officers.

  24. Wes Wagner

    M is incorrect in these matters and the attempted coup and registration at the Secretary of State’s office has already been reversed and dealt with. Oregon law supersedes Robert’s and his hand is largely to blame for the necessity of its use.

    The Secretary of State called me after receiving the documents that were submitted with the assistance of national members and asked me if it was legitimate. We advised that it was not.

    The continual involvement of national personalities for the single-handed support of a minority faction in an attempt to commit a coup via bureaucracy, on the other hand, will still be dealt with appropriately.

    It should be no surprise that during all of these altercations involving national party members, they never consider communicating with the existing officers as a first course of action. It is always attempted ambush and political gamesmanship.

    The national party also removed the existing officers from the State Chair’s list without notice or validating that these issues were legal and acted unilaterally in the matter without any communication.

    Apparently some individuals on the LNC believe that they can dispose of a problem with a state that doesn’t agree with them by helping orchestrate a coup.

    Please contact me if you are a state chairperson and care about your state’s sovereignty. The LNC sure doesn’t 😉

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson , Libertarian Party of Oregon,

  25. NewFederalist

    Well, well, well… isn’t this just swell! The LP is already insignificant enough and yet can still find the time to fight themselves rather than the real enemy? That’s why they are called minor parties, folks.

  26. Nevada Comes to Oregon

    @40

    Removing the State Officers from the State Chair’s list can only have been done by the National Staff, which you would hope would have had the brains to check with the National Chair first, given the known record in Oregon.

    Removing the state party officers from the State Chair’s list *is* disaffiliation, just as it was during the 2000 Arizona debacle.

  27. LibertarianGirl

    um yeah , appointing officers instead of electing them is always bad juju , you can count on factionalism not fairness to take the day every single time. So in NV we did not fill our Jud Com positions and now our Chair gets to appont them. Anyone want to bet the spots will be filled with total supporters and not neutral , fair ones??

  28. LibertarianGirl

    Wes , can you counter withan explanation to M’s accusation that you guys threw out your bylaws w/o a delegate vote and adopted new ones on you own?? was this allowed under your bylaws?

  29. M Carling

    No state chair has ever been removed from the state chairs’ discuss list while still a state chair. Wes Wagner’s term as chair ended when the convention adjourned May 21st. He doesn’t have the authority to appoint himself to a new term.

  30. Wes Wagner

    Michael Wilson,

    Richard Burke is very much involved, of course. M is involved and he has always been Burke’s special pocket monster.

    M,

    Who gets to make the decision that someone is not the state chairperson anymore?

    The Oregon Secretary of State and the current sitting State Committee of the Libertarian Party of Oregon seems to disagree with you.

    Hint to other State Chairs out there,… if you are not part of the coalition of the corrupt, national will just attempt to replace you via interference and (in this case failed) coup if you are not towing the party line.

    Further they will do it without bothering to communicate or understand the situation at the state level or communicate with any of the existing officers if they think that somehow your activities will interfere with their personal agendas.

    If there is any question as to who the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon are, here is a link:

    http://oregonvotes.org/doc/polparty.pdf

    Feel free to check out the following pages:

    http://oregonvotes.org/pages/cand/cand_parties.html

    A full explanation of some national representatives involvement in this will be forthcoming to each state chair and financial donor of the party.

    Stay tuned… you will get the whole story. Anyone who knows me knows I have a record of successfully taking down corrupt organizations.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

  31. Michael H. Wilson

    I recognize the same pattern. Go to the Sec of state and the national office and make a claim that the other team is no longer in office. Same pattern and along the way misuse the bylaws and RR to get your way.

    In ’95 I was the state chair they were trying to get rid of and some bastard kept calling my house and hanging up. My wife who is disabled did not need that kind of shit, so I gave up the position.

    Wes bust their nuts!

  32. Bottom Line

    All states require that organizations follow their own bylaws.

    I am not sure exactly what Wagner means by “Oregon law supercedes Robert’s”, but if it’s an excuse for them not following their own bylaws, it’s bogus. SCOTUS in Eu vs. San Francisco Democratic Central Committee ruled that it’s unconstitutional for the state to dictate organization or internal procedure to political parties. It violates their 1st Am free association rites.

    So that leaves the question of what did the bylaws say? Wagner seems to be avoiding answering that.

    Did the Oregon bylaws give the XC the power to throw out the bylaws? who did the bylaws say could amend the bylaws?

  33. George Phillies

    I think it will be of interest to learn who on the Libertarian National Committee directed Wes Benedict and staff to replace Mr. Wagner on the State Chairs list.

    @52 It is my understanding that the Oregon State Committee had authority under state law, which overrides other matters, to do this.

    Here we appear to see a recycle of the LNCs brilliant 2000 handling of Arizona.

  34. LibertarianGirl

    “Did the Oregon bylaws give the XC the power to throw out the bylaws? who did the bylaws say could amend the bylaws?”

    me_ exactly, id like the answer to this? ANYONE??

  35. Tom Knapp

    If I ever want to have a beer with M and Alicia, all I have to do is ask where there’s fuckery afoot in the LP, and drive in that direction.

  36. Robert Milnes

    I guess this is as good a place as any for this.
    There is an LP Conference & Presidential Debate in NH on the 19th. Registration is due by the 14th.
    I would like to go there & explain to a captive audience how I’d like to divert @$35 million from Ron Paul’s campaign & @$300 million from Obama’s campaign & win the election.
    Unfortunately I need some more campaign support to make it there.
    Tom has offered to be media coordinator.
    I need a little more volunteers & contributions.
    Please go to my campaign website. I just renewed it with my maxed out credit card.
    Like I said, with a little more support I can manage to get there.
    Give me Ron Paul’s $35 million, Ralph Nader’s ballot access & a woman radical libertarian vp & I’ll win the election.

  37. George Phillies

    @57

    Let me shorten this discussion. I am repeating what I told you privately. You publicly announced here, so far as I can remember, that you were severing your relationship with my party. That means you are not eligible to participate in our debate.

    George Phillies

  38. Wes Wagner

    I believe the Oregon situation was summed up by party secretary Bruce Knight in the context of the original November issues. He described the national LNC members’ interloping in Oregon affairs then compared to now as such:

    “Originally they poked the hornet’s nest with a stick and didn’t get the reaction they wanted/expected, so they felt that the next reasonable step was to shove their dicks into it.”

    My statements about the situation may not be so colorful but I will not deny that his sentiment truly captures the absurdity of the situation.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

  39. M Carling

    LibertarianGirl asked “Did the Oregon bylaws give the XC the power to throw out the bylaws? who did the bylaws say could amend the bylaws?”

    Of course the state committee didn’t have the power to throw out the bylaws. It is exactly as if the LNC had thrown out the national party bylaws which the national delegates adopted in convention and extended their own terms of office. Here is the relevant article from the LPO bylaws adopted in convention (2009) and which no convention has amended since:

    Article XVI – Amendment Procedures
    SEC. 1. Advance Notification. Proposed amendments to this Constitution and Bylaws shall be entered on the agenda of the next annual convention to be held in an odd numbered year unless the State Committee authorizes a special convention to be held sooner for that purpose. The Secretary shall make the texts of such approved amendments available to each LPO member via written or electronic means, as each member prefers, no fewer than forty five days prior to the opening of said convention. [20030607]
    SEC. 2. Amendment in Convention. Any delegate to an annual convention held in an odd numbered year, or to any special convention held to consider amendments, may propose any amendment to this Constitution and Bylaws if such amendment is presented in writing to the Secretary before that convention finishes considering amendments and if at least ten percent of the delegates present request its consideration. [19990606]
    SEC. 3. Two Thirds Majority Required. These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds majority vote of all votes cast by registered delegates present at an LPO convention,

  40. Steven wilson

    If the LNC is putting states function into peril, does the other state chairs have the power to issue a vote of no confidence or some other measure to end the operation of the LNC and all board members until the convention in 12?

  41. M Carling

    Michael H. Wilson, I’ve been a member of the Oregon LP for many years. I’ve served as chairperson pro-tem of the Oregon party and as chairperson of the Judicial Committee of the Oregon party. I participated in both the March 12th and May 21st meetings of the convention. I have as much right to participate as any other member of the Oregon LP.

  42. Michael H. Wilson

    “I’ve been a member of the Oregon LP for many years.” But do you live there? The last I heard you did not. How many state parties do you belong to?

  43. Robert Milnes

    Come on, George. How many people fade in & out of the party over the years? Memberships lapse. Maybe renewed whenever. To announce or not to announce, that is the question.
    Don’t say anything. You have 5th amendment rights.
    Not everyone can be a party pooping zombie like you.

  44. Robert Milnes

    Didn’t I say something about Mattson being a purgeworthy rightist in IPR comments a couple of times?
    But nobody listens to me.
    No violins on tv?
    Nevermind.

  45. Robert Milnes

    @61, I beg your pardon, George. You did not so specifically say that I was not elegible.
    It doesn’t matter. Let your two guys debate. At the last minute some johnny come lately rightist will swoop in and snatch up your party’s nomination.
    Or Root will get it.
    That will turn the your party’s Crown Jewel into worthless junk.

  46. Robert Milnes

    @58, NF, not all that much, depending.
    Now if I were to have a Class A Superbus like Palin delivered-with driver & cook.
    Or if I could hop in a NJ State Homeland Security helicopter like fatass.
    My Econoline has electrical system charging problems. Computer diagnostic & repairs. Round trip gas money, LP membership renewal & Conference registration-full day $100. New white dress shirt.
    I’d say if 500-1000 showed up mysteriously in my paypal account I could probably make it.
    Except for George’s hard on for me.

  47. Wes Wagner

    @67 M Carling is no longer a member of the Libertarian Part of Oregon. Our bylaws require registration as a libertarian elector in Oregon. If he wishes to purchase a residence and stay at it for 6 months and a day per year and register in this state, he is free to be a member again.

  48. Wes Wagner

    @76 I might further add that he would then have a vote along with the other approximately 13,000 members who will be receiving a mail ballot to determine our candidates, party rules and directors going forward.

  49. M Carling

    Wes Wagner’s assertion that the LPO bylaws require one to be a registered voter is false. He refers to the document he wrote, never adopted by any convention, which are not the lawful bylaws of our party. Only a convention can change the bylaws.

    This former state chair trying to pass off his own document, never adopted by a convention, as the bylaws is shameful, not to mention fraudulent.

  50. Wes Wagner

    @78

    See Oregon Secretary of State:

    http://oregonvotes.org/pages/cand/cand_parties.html

    http://oregonvotes.org/doc/cand/Bylaws,%20Libertarian%20Party%202011.pdf

    http://oregonvotes.org/doc/polparty.pdf

    What is fraudulent is a couple members of the LNC, acting without any internal authorization, attempting to pass itself off as an authoritative organization to the Secretary of State’s office, a claim the Secretary of State has already rebuffed and advised Mr. Burke and Ms. Pealer that they do not have the authority to submit the documents they did.

    Anyone who wants a copy of what was submitted and the response from the Oregon Secretary of State may email me for a copy.

    wes.wagner@gmail.com

    A extremely detailed writeup of this incident will be forthcoming in the following weeks and provided to all State Chairs and major donors of the party with a very compelling invitation.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

  51. Tom Knapp

    GP @ 61,

    Like you, I have explained to Mr. Milnes why it seems extremely unlikely that he’ll be eligible to participate in your organization’s debate.

    Unlike you, I have also explained to him that if he wants to run for the LP’s presidential nomination, he should go to places/events where prospective 2012 LP national convention delegates are likely to be found, and campaign there. The event in question seems to be such a place.

    Finally, I agreed to serve as his interim media coordinator, for a short period of time, if he actually takes the initiative to do as I suggest, instead of remaining plaintively inactive. While I doubt it will get him any closer to the nomination than he is now, it might at least help him get the whole idea out of his system and move on.

    As of this moment, I believe that Mr. Milnes has about as substantial a campaign organization as one Michael Badnarik did on Memorial Day weekend, 2004 (one staffer and a treasurer).

    Absent a time machine, I see no way that he can establish a “record of Libertarian activism” between now and the event, which is why I told him that he could expect to be deemed ineligible to participate in the debate proper.

    I have also advised him to make up his mind whether he’s running for a party’s nomination or as an independent, and if the latter to not expect parties whose nomination he’s not seeking to provide him with a pulpit.

  52. Tom Knapp

    SW@66,

    You write:

    “If the LNC is putting states function into peril, does the other state chairs have the power to issue a vote of no confidence or some other measure to end the operation of the LNC and all board members until the convention in 12?”

    The states don’t have any power over the LNC.

    The converse is also true. If state LPs are unhappy with the LNC, they’re perfectly free to disaffiliate from the LNC and operate independently or form a new umbrella for e.g. presidential nomination purposes.

    Expect to hear differently if it comes to that, of course.

    In late 1999, the LNC disaffiliated the Arizona LP, then whined to beat the band when they found out that the Arizona LP’s ballot access belonged to the Arizona LP, not to the LNC, and that the Arizona LP continued to exist whether the LNC recognized it or not.

    Subsequently, the LNC filed a frivolous trademark application claiming ownership of the name “Libertarian Party.” If it comes down to it, and if they have the money to spare, they might spend it getting laughed out of court in an attempt to enforce the claim.

  53. Milnes Should Ask

    Mr. Milnes should ask Mr. Phillies why Lee Wrights is being allowed to participate in the debate.

    One of the conditions listed above for participation is “3) Have filed with the FEC as a Presidential candidate.”

    Lee Wrights is not an FEC-filed Presidential candidate. If they bend the rules for Mr. Wrights, why not for Mr. Milnes?

  54. Wes Wagner

    TK @81

    Precisely what is about to happen here in Oregon. The current party officers and structure will retain the ballot access. If the LNC wishes to fund a new state affiliate they should budget approximately $500k to obtain ballot access.

    Most of it will get stolen by the people they are working with though. They have a habit of soaking up money without results.

  55. Tom Knapp

    Wes@85,

    As much as I incline, in any situation, toward believing that if there’s a wrong side M and Alicia will find a way to be on that wrong side come hell or high water, I just don’t have the facts yet and so do not necessarily know what is happening in Oregon.

    If what is happening accords with your version, then what LP members should find even more disturbing than the Arizona situation is that this time the LNC wasn’t even honest enough to cast an open disaffiliation vote, but instead just allowed a couple of its members and a staffer to insert a new organization into the affiliate lineup.

    That seems to fit the recent historical record, e.g. the secretary, aligned with the same faction, attempting to just remove and replace an LNC member at will.

    From my outside perspective, though, there’s a sunny side of the street: The clique in question may complete their secondary apparent mission of imploding the LP organizationally before they can complete heir primary apparent mission of destroying the ideological/political value of the word “libertarian.”

  56. Wes Wagner

    TK @86

    I believe that you will not be shocked at all. Drop me an email and I can send you the Oregon Secretary of State packet they submitted.

  57. LibertarianGirl

    Im not gonna be popular for saying this but Wes , you seem to be dodging the question i asked REPEATEDLY. I can only assume you dont want to answer because the answer is something you dont want to say.

    ill ask one more time.. did your bylaws give you permission to change the bylaws w/o a convention delegate vote and/or were you afraid you could not win re-election or change byaws at convention for lack of support..

    M- the bylaws state:unless the State Committee authorizes a special convention to be held sooner for that purpose.

    did the state committee authorize a special convention for the purpose of changing the bylaws?

  58. Wes Wagner

    LG @ 88

    Have you ever noticed that the parliamoontarians of this party will argue whatever side they want at the time? Back in 2007 when we were trying to expose the financial misdeeds of Mr. Burke, M and Starr argued that our treasurer didn’t have to follow the bylaws or state law because state law and federal court cases said they didn’t have to obey them. (go figure)

    Now that Oregon State Law says something they don’t like, they are now arguing the opposite.

    After they and their chicanery tied the LPO so into knots that the members could no longer hold a lawful convention and conduct any business and left the current officers in power as essentially dictators for life (even though M likes to make up provisions for the expiration of their terms that do not exist) … we did what any benevolent dictators would do in such a situation.

    We have punted the party back to the control of the 13,000+ registered libertarian voters in Oregon who are by law defined as the members of our party. (the dues based structure the party did have may have actually been illegal in the first place)

    If someone really wants to take the party back to the broken bylaws that prevent the members from meeting and conducting business, makes officers of the party dictators for life, and numerous other issues that caused M Carling to say “they are by far the worst bylaws I have ever seen” … well they can try.

    I can’t say it will make them very popular with the people in Oregon and they won’t get very far.

    We have 13,000ish members now, they will get to choose the leaders of the party without having to travel to the ends of the earth and learn a secret handshake and get to elect the candidates for our party going forward in the manner that is the custom in this state (mail elections), and it is no longer a private club.

    Deal with it.

  59. whatever

    @62 — How and when was this May 21 meeting “cancelled”?

    If the convention met in March 2011 and voted to adjourn and then reconvene on May 21, what act by who could have superseded that March convention vote to reconvene and “cancel” the May 21 meeting?

  60. Robert Milnes

    @75, correction. Campaign contributions would go to my Donor Town Square account.
    I think that is a weekly snail mail but I’m not sure.

  61. George Phillies

    @82 The requirement is that you have filed by the time of the convention, not that you have filed by today. Mr. Wrights assures me that he will have filed in time. If, for example, Mr. Root were to decide to run, and were by the date of the convention have satisfied the filing and team formation requirements, he would be welcome to participate in the debate.

  62. LibertarianGirl

    Wes , Im on your side as far as being a genuine nice guy and activist who is getting screwed by factionalism , the same shit is going on in NV. BUT , you cant just change the bylaws whenever you see fit, thats not fair , they are supposed to be voted on by delegates . and if you pull chicanery to obtain your goals then what makes you any different than the others pulling chicanery to get theirs?

  63. George Phillies

    @94

    They couldn’t stage a convention, because the bizarre parliamentary interpretation held to be correct made it impossible as a practical matter to assemble a quorum. And, indeed, the alleged 5/21 convention did not have a quorum.

  64. Wes Wagner

    @94

    Attempted that. In November we had the highest attendance of any LPO convention in about a decade. Unfortunately the national party members and a few local regular troublemakers had concerns about what the outcome of that convention might bring so they came in to shut it down with the quorum issue.

    You may recall the various postings around that time in Nov 2010. Ultimately that paliamentary tactic locked the party down to where the members could conduct no business as a whole, no new judicial committee members could be seated going forward nor could officer elections be held.

    The state committee at that point became a politburo of sorts. Given that the 2010 convention, the last time the members met and agreed on intent, passed a reformation plan for the party by a >2/3rds majority that detailed the main elements of structural reformation should be adopted.

    The bylaws originally presented at the November convention that national worked very hard to shut down contained those items (and some additional ones).

    That November convention was the opportunity for everyone to work together to come to a common agreement and understanding. The belligerents shut it down because they were unhappy with what the likely outcome would have been be leveraging Hinkle and Mattsen with the coordination of Dan Karlan to pressure , then Chairperson, Mr Weston. M Carling was of course also present.

    The state committee at the time comprised of county representatives and officers met and with due consideration of the gravity of the situation voted unanimously to adopt a new governing structure for the party since no body of the organization left could act without further interference from national and the outcome being questioned.

    The ultimate bylaws passed were shorter than the ones presented in November and contained less structure and fewer items that were intended to be major points of controversy, and also included all items that were approved in the original resolution from the March 2010 convention that called for party reform.

    Oregon State Law permits what we have done, and Mr. Starr in 2007 paid $10,000 to fund a lawsuit to help establish that the Libertarian Party of Oregon need not follow its own rules when they were taken to court over the party books. (isn’t it nice that our former treasurer helped cover up petty larceny in a state affiliate?)

    The voters of the state of Oregon were also give the ultimate right to ratify or reject these governing documents, and the ability to amend them. Unfortunately state law still has a giant hole you can drive a truck though, so hopefully the 13000ish voters in this state will choose wisely.

    At this point though, they have a choice, which is more than they have had for over 2 decades.

  65. M Carling

    LibertarianGirl wrote @88:
    “M- the bylaws state:unless the State Committee authorizes a special convention to be held sooner for that purpose.

    did the state committee authorize a special convention for the purpose of changing the bylaws?”

    No, Wes Wagner’s claim is that the state committee directly threw out the bylaws and adopted new bylaws. Also, the LPO Constitution permits special conventions only for the purpose of nominating candidates, so the provision of the bylaws allowing for other types of special conventions is invalid.

    Wes Wagner wrote at 89:
    “M and Starr argued that our treasurer didn’t have to follow the bylaws or state law because state law and federal court cases said they didn’t have to obey them.”

    That is absolutely false. I never said any such thing, never heard Starr say any such thing, and don’t believe that Starr ever said any such thing.

    In Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic
    Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989), the SCOTUS said that state party bylaws trump state election law on matters of internal party organization.

    Whatever wrote @90:
    “If the convention met in March 2011 and voted to adjourn and then reconvene on May 21, what act by who could have superseded that March convention vote to reconvene and “cancel” the May 21 meeting?”

    Once the March 12th meeting of the convention adjourned, having set the time to which to adjourn to May21st, absolutely no one could have legally cancelled the May 21st meeting of the convention that was ordered by March 12th meeting of the convention.

    However, Wes Wagner purported that he cancelled it, which is particularly interesting since he was the one who made the motion to set the time to adjourn to May 21st. That motion had the effect of extending from March 12th to May 21st the term of the officers, since the convention ends when its last meeting ends.

    George Phillies wrote @95:
    “They couldn’t stage a convention, because the bizarre parliamentary interpretation held to be correct made it impossible as a practical matter to assemble a quorum.”

    That’s not true. It would have been easy to achieve quorum had the previous officers (Wes Wagner was vice-chairperson at the time) had made an effort to do so. However, the previous term’s officers did just about everything possible to suppress turnout at both the March 12th and May 21st meetings of the convention. There were no speakers, no workshops, no campaign to get people to attend, just minimum required notice.

  66. M Carling

    Wes Wagner wrote @96:
    “In November we had the highest attendance of any LPO convention in about a decade.”

    That’s false. The 2007 convention had about double the attendance of the illegally called November 2010 convention. Why? The 2007 convention had speakers (such as Jim Lark and Mike Jingosian) and workshops on getting Libertarian elected to public office. Had the officers whose terms ended on May 21st done anything similar for the March 12th convention, then we most likely would have met quorum.

    Wes Wagner wrote @96:
    “Oregon State Law permits what we have done”

    False. I’ve read the entirety of Oregon election law and nothing authorizes the state committee, which is subordinate to the pledge-signing, dues-paying members assembled in convention, to throw out the bylaws adopted by the convention and adopted new bylaws. The pledge-signing, dues-paying members are the highest body in the party and only they can amend our bylaws.

  67. Wes Wagner

    @98

    M .. go sell your “I’ve read it” line to the Oregon Secretary of State. See if they bite.

    You might want to actually read it first though.

  68. Pingback: Open Thread for June 2011 | Independent Political Report

  69. Chuck Moulton

    M Carling wrote (@97):

    Also, the LPO Constitution permits special conventions only for the purpose of nominating candidates, so the provision of the bylaws allowing for other types of special conventions is invalid.

    Where in the LPO Constitution do you see that?

    LPO Constitution, Article V. Conventions:

    The LPO shall hold an annual convention to conduct such business as may properly come before it at a time and place set according to the Bylaws and in conformance with this Constitution and Bylaws, and Convention Rules as approved by each annual convention.

    I see no prohibition of special conventions in the Constitution. Nor do I see any authorization of nominating conventions. If I’m missing language somewhere please let me know, but at present I don’t see how the Constitution could be interpreted as authorizing nominating conventions while at the same time prohibiting special conventions.

    Article XI of the LPO Bylaws specifically delineates three different types of conventions: annual conventions (section 4), nominating conventions (section 5), and special conventions (section 6). Under Roberts a nominating convention would be a type of special convention, but even so I don’t see the distinction you mention under the LPO Constitution.

  70. Joker

    Seems to me you all are arguing over Little Rascals “He-Man Woman haters” club rules.

    From my understanding, State Parties are chartered from the respective States that they reside in. And if that is true, then I am guessing that the State Legislators call the shots in respects of who gets to be the ‘Grand Poobah” of the State Party and what conditions and rules have to be followed.

    Some of you are arguing that the parties should be like the Hells Angels or Gypsy Jokers and use biker club rules. Interesting idea, but settling disputes though a knife fight behind the club is not my cup of tea. Scratch that! I will take a knife fight any day rather than have to deal with the calvinball playing Parliamentoonians .

    Joker

  71. Political Party laws in Oregon

    The laws that govern the State Parties are ORS 248, and those are the only laws that the elections office can follow and enforce.

    WARNING: LAWS OF EVERY STATE ARE DIFFERENT FOR POLITICAL PARTIES

    Few gems here:

    248.011 Enforcement of ORS 248.005 or political party rules. Except as expressly required by law, the Secretary of State, a county clerk or any other elections official shall not enforce the provisions of ORS 248.005 or any other rule adopted by a political party. [1995 c.606 §2]

    248.072 Authority of state central committee. The state central committee is the highest party authority in the state and may adopt rules or resolutions for any matter of party government which is not controlled by the laws of this state. [1979 c.190 §84]

    Seems to me that the LPO is perfectly legal to do as they wanted to do, and the authority is granted to them to do it without any ability from its members to submit a grievance.

    I guess the lesion is, if you don’t like how Political parties work, then don’t join one!

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/248.html

  72. LibertarianGirl

    so your employing the “state” to fix your problem instead of the autonomy of your own party rules?

    I understand WHY you are doing it , cant say I wouldt do it myself either , but man is does leave something to be desired …

    we tossed around all kinds of , lets call them “strategies” to fix the wound we we’re dealt in NV…in the end the concensus was we didnt want to play dirty even if they we’re playing filthy.

    we are gonna work the crowd , rally support and beat them next convention

  73. NewFederalist

    Hey LG- are you holding up okay? I never gave you my condolences. I’ve been there. Losing a child is always very tough. Good to see you are keeping on keeping on. That’s what gets you thyough it. Best to you.

  74. Michael H. Wilson

    M Carling @ 98 wrote: “The 2007 convention had speakers (such as Jim Lark and Mike Jingosian) and workshops on getting Libertarian elected to public office. “

    Mr. Carling that was no convention to brag about. It was held at a resort in Bend, Oregon about 200 miles , or more from Portland at an expensive resort that was owed a significant amount of money for some time after the convention was over. Mr. Burke has a habit of picking places away from Portland to hold conventions in order to keep the attendance down.

    There was also a physical altercation between Mr. Burke and a person who had once been his close friend. Burke either was slapped or punched from what was said to me just after it happened.

    At one point a large block of the delegates walked off the floor in protest. Then the second day began with some heated discussion which was carried over from Saturday.

    And I could go on, but this crap has been going on since the early ’90s. Instead of working to improve the party and get the word out as to what ideas are being developed by libertarians this internal fighting has become the order of the day and Mr. Burke, is at the center of virtually all of it. Remember at the Bend convention he stood up and explained all the things he did not do, such as getting out a news letter. That was 1994 all over again. Unfortunately you and a few other keep coming to his defense.

    It seems to me that you are supporting a person who is more interested in being in control than growing the organization.

  75. Wes Wagner

    @104

    Already did that… then they came in and said we couldn’t have a convention because we had too many good people interested in actual change. Of course they made it about “quorum” you know because it had to be about something other than actually saying “we have to stop this meeting because it will empower the rank and file libertarian voters in the state of oregon!” … you will learn eventually that they will force your hands.

    You are not fighting a game where if you win by the rules you win. They will change the rules at that point.

    Consider this practice for the revolution that is coming. Do you think the D’s and R’s will just lay down because at some point we outnumber them?

    When you are done and you have won and they have exhausted all their alliances, burnt all their goodwill and the entirety of the world despises what they are, what they have done and what has passed… don’t just reach your hand out and say, good game, glad we won…

    Plunge the knife into them, because they will do it to you if you don’t.

  76. Marc Montoni

    What is happening in Oregon is a symptom of a very severe disease that has slowly infected the LP for over a decade.

    I once had a lot of respect for Aaron Starr and M Carling, but over time I have watched them again and again attempt to influence the Libertarian Party in a ham-handed and inappropriate manner. M, please. It’s time for you to stop this. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    Any reasonable person who has watched the videos of what went on at the LP of Oregon’s most recent conventions can see that there is way too much chicanery going on. Such reasonable person can also see which people are the core of the problem.

    The party’s most recent bylaws are apparently these:

    LP OR 2009 Bylaws

    Carling claims a “convention” requires a >=50% quorum. He’s flat-out wrong. Read Robert’s but without the factional lenses.

    In the usual meaning of “convention”, elected delegates sent by chapter bodies are sent to a “convention” of the parent body. Under that definition, yes, a 50% quorum is stated in Robert’s.

    However, our state and local conventions are actually “mass meetings”. Mass meetings are where the rank-and-file *elect their delegates* to represent them at the parent body’s convention (thus the quorum requirement — they sought a position on the delegation and if they won it, they should do the job they volunteered for and *show up*).

    I don’t know of any state conventions that are attended by “delegates” in the traditional sense. The Democrats and Republicans do, of course. But we don’t because we’re spread too thin.

    Now, if you look at the requirements in Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Edition, page 334, line 20, it states: “In a mass meeting, the quorum is simply the number of persons present at the time, since they constitute the entire membership at that time.”

    Until we elect delegates to state conventions, they are actually “mass meetings” for the purpose of parliamentary procedure; NOT conventions. Ergo, the oft-cited claim that Robert’s required a 50% of membership quorum, IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.

    Yes — just to satisfy parliamentary nits, all LP groups that refer to “conventions” in their bylaws where they should have “mass meetings” in the Robert’s sense of the word, should probably correct that reference. But only to mollify the parliamentary nits.

    On the other hand, those who use parliamentary nits to obstruct will likely just find some other way to hamstring.

    Anyone who doubts this should read through what Robert’s has to say about quorums in *voluntary* societies (page 335, lines 16-32). What it says is a lot more generous than what has apparently been inflicted upon the LP-OR.

    I must also mention that I most definitely do not agree with Tom Knapp in a couple of areas: a) I believe the national LP has every right to control the use of the name “Libertarian Party” despite what the laws in some states say; and 2) if the national LP goes through the proper procedures and disaffiliates a state party, then the state party should take the honest route and change its name and stop using the proprietary data (membership list, etc) of the parent body. I fully acknowledge Knapp believes otherwise, which is why I wouldn’t vote for him for LNC were he still involved in the LP. That said, I also could not vote for Carling for any position, due to his deleterious meddling here and elsewhere.

  77. Marc Montoni

    M Carling said @ 98:

    The 2007 convention had about double the attendance of the illegally called November 2010 convention.

    Can you please supply a reference as to how the 11/2010 convention was illegal? The only Oregon Bylaws I’ve seen are supposedly these, as I mentioned above, which state:

    “SEC. 6. Special Conventions. Special conventions for a specific purpose may be called by the state committee or the delegates of an annual convention, and no items of business not on the noticed order of business may be considered. The State Committee shall set the time, place, and schedule of events for all special conventions.

    I don’t see *any* requirement that special conventions may only be called for the purpose of nominating candidates.

  78. Aaron Starr

    I have no idea why my name is being dragged into this thread, other than to divert people’s attention.

    I didn’t even attend the convention in Oregon.

  79. Aaron Starr

    Marc @109

    You may want to read pages 5-6 then read pages 526-536. You’ll find that a “mass meeting” is what an unorganized group has BEFORE you have a permanent organization with bylaws.

    If you want to read further in the chapter you’ll find discussion on the meetings required to form a permanent society and adopt bylaws.

    From a parliamentary sense, state parties typically do not hold “conventions” unless local chapters are selecting delegates to attend that event. See page 6-7.

    In the case of most state parties, they typically have in a parliamentary sense — regardless of what name they call the session or the name they give to its participants — a “local assembly of an organized society.” See page 6.

    For a discussion on quorum, first read page 4. Then pages 20-21. Then start reading the pages beginning at 334.

  80. Tom Knapp

    Marc @ 109,

    You write:

    “believe the national LP has every right to control the use of the name ‘Libertarian Party’ despite what the laws in some states say”

    There’s no such thing as “the national LP.” I assume you mean the group which refers to itself as the “Libertarian National Committee.”

    OK, so you believe that the LNC has the right to control the use of the name “Libertarian Party.”

    Whoop de doo. Some people believe the world rests on the back of an elephant, which rests on the back of a turtle. A belief with no basis in reality and $3.49 will get you an iced coffee at McDonald’s.

    The LNC did not originate the term “Libertarian Party.”

    The LNC was not the first entity to use the term “Libertarian Party” in commerce or in politics.

    The LNC made no attempts, for the better part of three decades, to either claim ownership of the name “Libertarian Party,” or to defend any such claim.

    The LNC’s sole case for ownership of the name “Libertarian Party”comes down to the fact that it filed a fraudulent and frivolous trademark application only after the Arizona incident clarified to them that they don’t own it.

    I agree that if a state LP disaffiliates from, or is disaffiliated by, the LNC then any proprietary data, etc. should be returned to its owners.

    But don’t even dare invoke “honesty.” The state LPs own their names and they always have owned their names. They are their state’s Libertarian Parties whether they happen to decide to associate themselves with the LNC gang or not, and it is baseless claims to the contrary which are dishonest.

  81. Aaron Starr

    @114

    Okay, so submitting a fake set of bylaws with your Secretary of State is evidence of what exactly?

    Did your convention adopt those bylaws? No.

    Did you have the board dispense with the old bylaws and purportedly adopt this set and submit them to the Secretary of State without a vote of the convention? Yes.

    Honestly, I have never seen a power grab quite like this.

    I find it interesting how those who believe they could pull off such a stunt are defending it. So far the argument appears to be:

    Other People –> Bad
    Seated Chair –> Good
    Ergo, Declaring Convention Canceled, Extending Term of Office and Adopting Fake Bylaws –> All Good

    I really can’t beat that logic. I wish I had known about this many years ago.

    I just want to know if this is going to be the new standard for deliberative decision making in the LP.

    Having to follow the rules has been awfully inconvenient, and it would make it so much easier for me in the future if I can work under this new and improved paradigm.

  82. Wagner's Rules of Order

    #116 – No kidding! You gotta give Wagner the Oscar for Creative Brilliance.

    Somebody call Hinkle and tell him he doesn’t have to run for re-election. Just declare the convention canceled and he can remain chair another term.

    I feel stupid that I didn’t think of this first!!

  83. Nevada Comes to Oregon

    I am amused to report that the LNC appears to be deciding to recycle their brilliant handling of the Arizona situation in the year 2000. It is perhaps not helpful that one of the factions sees clear evidence that this is an LNC plan to disrupt their state party and install the LNC’s people in control of their state party. At least one of the usual suspects not blamed in the above decided to use Roberts to throw more gasoline on the fire.

  84. Nevada Comes to Oregon

    Indeed, I shall start posting segments from “Funding Liberty” (as the copyright owner). If you can’t wait, you can buy the whole things at http://3mpub.com/phillies but you really can wait; it is not that long:

    Funding Liberty!

    Chapter 17

    Arizona, Land of the Two Libertarian Parties

    We now take an aside from Presidential politics to visit scenic Arizona, land of the two Libertarian Parties. Or perhaps one Libertarian Party. The legal and political situation in Arizona has been, to put it mildly, complex. A full recounting of Arizona events might well consume a full book this size. I am not writing that book, so you shall see here a compressed description of events.

    I begin with the cast of characters. For the past half-decade there have been two organized Libertarian groups in Arizona, one of which regularly sued the other to gain ownership of the Party. Each group has associated with it a series of different geographic and other names. In the Summer of 2000 names and acronyms included Group A and Group B:

    Factions:
    A. Arizona Libertarian Party
    B. Arizona Libertarian Party, Incorporated

    acronym
    A. ALP
    B. ALPI

    noted city
    A. Phoenix
    B. Tucson

    noted county
    A. Maricopa
    B. Pima

    distinguished members
    A. Ernie Hancock, Liz Andreasen, Mike Haggard
    B. Peter Schmerl, John Zajac

    My sources agree that both groups have supporters in both cities. The ALP and ALPI acronyms are very similar; I’ll refer to the two sides as the Phoenix group (ALP) and the Tucson group (ALPI). My friends who have moved to Arizona uniformly speak favorably of most of the people in both groups.

    The Tucson group won the latest round of litigation and is currently recognized by the State as the legal Libertarian Party in Arizona. The Phoenix group has formally dissolved at the moment. The Phoenix group has never filed litigation against the Tucson group, and says it has no intent to litigate at present. It also appears to have little intent of cooperating with or supporting the Tucson group or its candidates. In the absence of third-party litigation that might affect the situation, relationships between the Tucson and Phoenix groups are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

    The two groups are split by many issues. Historically, each side has been willing to lay out its position openly, so I can say with reasonable accuracy what each side says it is fighting about. I have spoken to a reasonable number of Arizona Libertarians, members of the Phoenix and Tucson groups. I certainly have not spoken to all of them. These people didn’t all talk about all the same topics, but—in separate conversations—for the most part they agreed with each other. I should specifically thank Paul Schauble and Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, who assembled time-lines of past events. I should also thank Ernie Hancock, Paul Schauble, and Chris Tavares, who sent corrections to an earlier draft of this chapter.

    For many questions there are subtexts and buried issues. The formal question dividing the two groups is ‘who is the legally-recognized Libertarian Party in Arizona?’ A rational subtext is ‘why does anyone care?’. What do you get out of having state recognition? In fact, there are concrete issues that appear to divide the two organizations.

    A more Libertarian question might be ‘To what extent can the state regulate the organization of a political party?’ The Phoenix group had conducted its activities while not following a variety of State regulations, many of which could be argued to be inconsistent with Eu vs. California, simply by going about its business and ignoring the state. State officials did not attempt to enforce their own statutes. The ultimate litigation between the Phoenix and Tucson groups was filed by the Tucson group, not the state, and was settled not over the state election code but over the technicalities of Roberts’ Rules of Order as several of the most esoteric of those rules pertained to events at a state convention.

    In a traditional detective novel, the hero often makes progress by asking ‘where is the money?’. There are good reasons to suppose that money was a major issue behind the conflict, both at the state level and at the national level.

    Money? Arizona has a so-called ‘Clean Elections’ Law, under which public money goes to funding election campaigns, if the State legislature appropriates the money. A candidate has to raise a modest amount of money, and then receives a very large payment from the state to fund his campaign. The ratio of taxpayer money to money raised from private donors could be as large as ten to one. Possession and use of this money became a substantial political issue. Details of the Clean Election law and its municipal equivalents have been the subject of litigation, and have changed over the course of time.

  85. Wes Wagner

    @116

    The bylaws were voted on by the State Committee who passed them unanimously. Further had the new bylaws not been passed (which they were), and the terms of the existing officers actually expired (which they actually don’t since their successors were not elected), that same committee that passed these bylaws unanimously would have been appointing new officers. Care to take a guess of who would get elected again?

    On the upside the next time that question is asked it will go out to the registered Libertarian voters in Oregon to answer that question.

  86. LibertarianGirl

    AA.S_Aaron Starr // Jun 3, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    I have no idea why my name is being dragged into this thread, other than to divert people’s attention”

    me_ no because you are the cause of everything bad , you have droves of puppets , well robots really that you program and run off site much like the drones the military uses. and just so you know , your evil plan to manufacture weather just befor Nat Con 2012 so you can keep people from coming has been discovered and will be foiled at the last moment.

  87. LibertarianGirl

    Oregon , who’s shitty fucking planning in the 1st place allowed this to happen?

    WHY DIDNT YOU BYLAWS HAVE CLEAR PROTOCOL FOR WHO CAN BE A DELEGATE , HOW THEY ARE CREDENTIALED AND FOR GODS SAKE WHAT WOULD BE A WORKABLE , FEASIBLE QUORUM.

    I understand completely that some people may have used to their advantage the fact that your bylaws we’re a total mess, but thats your bad. You shouldnt have given thm the opportunity to pull shenanigans , legally because you didnt dot your eyes and cross your tees.

    this will not be a popular opinion , ecsp since I am very much on Wagners side inasmuch as I feel for the predicament , but you cant employ bullshit shenanigans to win .It makes us no better.

  88. Michael H. Wilson

    This problem has been percolating for years. Had the national party been concerned about problems 15 or more years ago and taken the steps then to solve the problems this might have been avoided.

  89. Nevada Comes to Oregon

    More on the Arizona event, which we appear to be hard at work recycling:

    Substantial Issues Dividing the Arizona Factions

    What were the two Arizona groups arguing about? Why did they care which of them was the state-recognized Libertarian Party? The substantial benefits of state recognition were rather limited. The largest single benefit is that state parties are entitled to copies of the voter rolls. These rolls reveal Party affiliations of registered voters. Because the Phoenix group viewed their members to be the registered Libertarian voters, this list was their one reliable way of finding their own members.

    In Arizona, state recognition gives a state party very little power. Below the Presidential level, the State Party does not control who gets on the ballot as a Libertarian. In Arizona candidates get on the primary election ballot by collecting signatures, and advance from the primary election to the general election by winning their primary. A State Party organization can refuse to endorse or support candidates who do not support all of its positions, but access to the primary and general election ballots is controlled by the voters, not by the state committee. In Arizona, primaries are open. Independent voters can vote in the Libertarian Party primary election. There is no guarantee that the winner of a Libertarian primary has any support from the state’s 18,000 Libertarians rather than the state’s 350,000 independents. Indeed, in an earlier election cycle the Phoenix group was the legal State Party. It had put forth Tom Rawls as its candidate for governor. An anonymous last moment mailing, accusing Rawls of financial irregularities, led to his defeat in the primary by a candidate supported by the Tucson group.

    The two groups also had different strategies. Interviews with Tucson supporters clarified the Tucson group’s underlying strategy. Their plan was to run paper candidates who would do minimal campaigning for municipal office, raise money to qualify the candidates for Clean Elections money, and accept the Clean Elections money. Clean Elections money would then primarily be used to strengthen the state party by registering additional members of the state party. The difficulty with this approach, which was recognized by the Tucson group, is that a Libertarian registrant who has had no other contact with the party is unlikely to be activated, and will likely just sit there as campaigns swirl around him.

    To overcome this difficulty, the Tucson group put forth a sound strategy emphasizing local organization, based on electing people as Precinct Committeemen. Each committeeman and committeewoman was to do organizing work in his or her own ward and precinct to convert previously-registered voters into reliable activists. The committeeperson approach had the significant challenge that state committeepeople were elected on a rigid timeline fixed by the State of Arizona. Volunteers could only be elected on the state’s schedule. Readers will recognize obvious work-arounds to the State Election code.

    The Phoenix group had not been especially interested in Party registration drives, such as the one launched by the National Committee. In the early 1990s, registration growth was tracking the growth in party activities, and was in fact growing year after year. It was reasonably expected that by 2004 or so the Party would have attained permanent major party status by virtue of having enough registered voters. Some activists, noting the success of the 1994 Buttrick Campaign at bringing in new Libertarians, felt that major party status might be achieved sooner, perhaps by 1998. With enough money, an adequate count of registered voters could be attained earlier than 2004. However, the count of registered voters by itself bought the State Party few particular benefits. The Phoenix group believed that the money spent registering additional Libertarian Party members would better have been spent strengthening the State Party by running better elections and referenda.

    The Phoenix group was as interested in the Clean Elections Act money as the Tucson group, but for an entirely different reason. The Phoenix group viewed acceptance of Clean Elections Act money as a violation of the Party’s principles and By-Laws. They vehemently disapproved of the Tucson group’s decision to accept State Clean Elections Act money, and refused to support any Libertarian party candidate who chose to accept that money. Part of this dispute apparently went away with changes in the state election law. For candidates for statewide office the dispute remains active.

  90. Wes Wagner

    @128

    Small difference though, in Oregon the chairperson of record at the Secretary of State is the one who signs certificates of nomination for all candidates, up through and including president.

  91. Marc Montoni

    M Carling said:

    Unsurprisingly, when the members showed up at convention on May 21st, they unanimously voted that the terms of the officers end at the close of convention, as specified by the real bylaws, adopted in convention in 2009.

    So… M… At that 2009 convention where the quorum requirement was — in your opinion — de facto adopted when the convention adopted RR, did that 2009 convention then instantly have subsequently have your 50%+1 majority quorum? Note RONR page 335-336, lines 34-35, and page 336, lines 1-7.

    There is no question that the entire situation is ridiculous; but it is made more ridiculous by attempting to impose RR. If M is going to try to technicalese the LP of Oregon, then he should be prepared to provide some documentation for the legitimacy of his own position. So here we go:

    1) May 21: Where are the minutes of the May 21 Convention?

    2) County Chairs meeting: Where are the minutes of the meeting held by the “remaining Board members”, as you say (the county affiliates)?

    3) County Chairs meeting: Was written notice sent to either all county affiliate representatives, or better yet the entire state LP membership, of the county affiliate meeting that appointed Tim Reeves and the others?

    4) May 21: Does a sign-in or registration sheet for the May 21 convention exist?

    5) County Chairs meeting: Does a sign-in or registration sheet exist?

    6) May 21: Since the LP-OR bylaws require that “Only LPO members who pay dues and keep them current may hold LPO office and/or participate as voting delegates at LP National conventions and LPO Special or annual business conventions”, where is the sign-in sheet showing who showed up at the May 21 meeting, and since the person you acknowledge as being the legitimate LP-OR Secretary up until that day (Bruce Knight) was not there, how could you determine the membership status of any of the participants at the May 21 meeting?

    7) May 21: If the May 21 ‘convention’ was held despite the chair’s (or the Board’s) cancellation, was a notice sent out to all members announcing the convention?

    8) May 21: Were the sitting officers provided written notice?

    9) May 21: If there was a list of members which was used to check membership status of the people who showed up, who possessed that list, and did they have the authority granted by the LP-OR Board to possess it?

    10) County Chairs meeting: If a meeting was then held to appoint new officers by the remaining members of the state committee, what was the quorum requirement at that meeting? Surely there is a 50%+1 quorum requirement.

    11) County Chairs meeting: Where is the roster of county affiliate representatives? According to Article VI Section 2 on page 6 of the LP-OR bylaws from 1999, each County affiliate gets two votes at the state committee level. Surely there is a roster of these individuals who hold each of the two seats allotted to each affiliated county party.

    12) County Chairs meeting: Where are the prior minutes of each county affiliate board meeting showing when each of the two county representatives was appointed by that affiliate?

    13) Of the individuals mentioned in #5, since Article V Section 2 of those bylaws specify that “All officers and directors shall be members in good standing of the LPO”, and since Article IV Section 1 Part E specifies “Each affiliate organization office holder shall be a member of their affiliate organization, the LPO, and a registered Libertarian elector in the State of Oregon”, and since Article III Section 2 says: “Full voting membership in the LPO shall be open to any individual who submits a completed application to the LPO and pays such dues as may be in effect at the time of application. Dues for membership in the LPO will be equivalent to the Oregon Political Tax Credit as set for an individual. Only LPO members who pay dues and keep them current may hold LPO office and/or participate as voting delegates at LP National conventions and LPO Special or annual business conventions.”, the following conditions must apply to all of the affiliate representatives from each affiliate who participated in the vote:

    – They must have submitted an app to LP OR
    – They must have paid their LP OR dues
    – They must have kept their membership current at least through the day they ‘met’ and appointed Tim Reeves et al (if there were any lapses in their membership, a la your position on Lee Wrights, they would have been ineligible and thus they would not have any vote in the proceedings).
    – They must be current members of their affiliate organization
    – They must be registered to vote
    – They must have been appointed to be one of the two county affiliate’s representatives either by a vote of the county affiliate’s board, or by action of the county chair, depending on the county affiliate’s rules
    – Their appointment as a county representative to the state committtee must be supported by county affiliate meeting minutes showing details of their appointment
    – Their appointment as a county representative to the state committtee must have been communicated to the LP-OR at some point; is a copy of each such notice available?

    I could go on all day, and I’m sure others could as well.

    But that’s not the point.

    Richard Burke and his friends spent many years controlling the state party. They incurred debt and did little to counter the nationwide trend of declining membership. Burke had made many friends into enemies, some quite vocal.

    Time to move on. Burke has had his day. M has had his say. I’ve had mine. This has been going on for the better part of two decades that I’m aware of, and it’s a problem that won’t be solved by parliamentary procedure or opinions from outsiders. Leave Oregon alone and allow them to resolve this among themselves without outside interference.

  92. Nevada Comes to Oregon

    And more from “Funding Liberty”, reprinted with permission. And when you get to the part of this segment about National Committee support, note that we are say my sources in the process of recycling the Arizona event.

    Historical Notes on Arizona Libertarianism

    The Libertarian Party of Arizona was founded in 1975, and put its first candidates on the ballot in 1976. One of these was Michael Emerling (Cloud), who ran for U.S. Congress in Tucson and received 2.4% of the vote. The Party progressed and grew. Its 1989 State Chair was Peter Schmerl, who was a Pima County activist. By 1990, one can identify early strains of the disputes between the Party’s two factions. An article written by Michael Cloud and distributed by the Marrou campaign explained why Party candidates should take matching funds if available. Other Libertarians have expressed the contrary view. The issue refers back to the Non-Initiation of Force statement, which will be discussed in this Chapter’s Appendix.

    The Arizona Party continued to grow. Cloud moved to work for the Marrou for President (Libertarian, 1992) campaign. On September 1, 1991, Cloud appeared in Chicago before the Libertarian National Committee, reiterating the campaign’s desire to work closely with the National Party. In particular, addressing the LNC he indicated that ‘the campaign’s books are open for our (the LNC’s) inspection at any time’ and ‘all new names obtained during the campaign would be considered the co-property of the LNC and would be turned over to both the national and state parties’. In 1992, Cloud and the Marrou campaign went their separate ways.

    By 1996 the Presidential Campaign which Cloud had for a time directed was associated took a different stand. The 2300+ names and addresses of Browne donors cost the Libertarian National Committee more than $58,000 dollars to acquire.

    In 1994, Arizona Libertarian John Buttrick ran for State Governor. He was later a Libertarian National Committee member and in 2001 was appointed as a judge by sitting Republican Governor Jane Hull. The Phoenix Party by this date was vigorous and active. It opened its own office, and covered expenses in part by raffling off a series of assault rifles and other weapons. The choice of raffle items gained significant public attention. The first conflict between the Phoenix and Tucson disputes reportedly happened in late 1994, with a dispute over ownership of a bank account held in the name of the Arizona Libertarian Party. The money eventually returned to the Phoenix group.

    In 1995, the Tucson group invoked their interpretation of the laws covering internal party organization (ARS 16-521 to 525) to form the “Arizona Libertarian Party State Committee” and filed with the Arizona Secretary of State under that name. Arizona does not have laws restricting political parties from using extremely similar names, so there was room to disagree as to whether the ALPSC was the current Arizona Libertarian party, or was a new Party that had a name highly similar to the name of another, older Party. In April 1995, the Libertarian National Committee weighed in with a letter to the Tucson group, demanding that they stop using the name. The Tucson group continued to use the name. The LNC did nothing further to defend control of the name ‘Libertarian’.

    1995 brought the first of a series of Party State Conventions at which disputes over proxies, By-Laws, and Rules of Order became prominent. 1995 also brought the first intervention by the LNC in Arizona State Party affairs, in the form of a proposal by the National Party for a party registration drive. Phoenix group State Chair Tamara Clark sent a letter expressing the State Party’s gratitude for assistance, but expressing concern that the registration drive might not be competently run, in which case the State Party might take the blame. The State Party asked that it have direct control of the effort or that National Party give the State Party a ‘hold harmless’ statement. The Phoenix group did not view a registration campaign as the most effective use of activist efforts at this time.

    Voter registration instead became part of the Kahn for Mayor campaign in Tucson, which by report received $50,000 in state Clean Elections funds, and apparently used the larger part of those funds to register Libertarian voters. The National Party apparently provided manpower for the effort. The Tucson group then launched the first of a series of lawsuits to establish its claim to be the legitimate State Party.

    The National Committee staff was highly responsive to the Tucson group. When in 1998 the leadership of the Tucson group claimed to the National Committee that they had secured control of a merged state party, the name of their claimed state chair immediately appeared on the National Party web site as the true state chair. When the Phoenix group told the National Committee Staff that the National Committee had been misinformed, at that someone else was state chair, the National Committee Staff refused to make the correction or withdraw the name of the listed chair. It continued to list the Tucson group’s state chair on its web pages. Given the dispute, an impartial National Party could have noted on its web pages that there was an internal Party dispute in the state, and then listed either both State Chairs or neither State Chair. The pages instead listed only one State Chair, even after the National Party’s attention was called to the issue. Thus, prior to the LNC action on the affiliation issue the National Party had already intervened in the Libertarian dispute in Arizona, supporting one side over the other.

  93. NewFederalist

    Why no mention of Emil Franzi? Didn’t he play any role in the Arizona fiasco?

  94. George Phillies

    @132

    I do not recall that name as coming up at the time. Writing Funding Liberty was a chore. I have two boxes — the sort that hold 10 reams of paper — filled with documentation and notes. I am occasionally tempted to rewrite the book putting in all the footnotes and publish it as a scholarly work.

    This time the issue is that the person running the State Chairs list, who is the at least former LNC Parliamentarian, has removed Wes Wagner from the State Chairs list and replaced him with however. The National Chair is claiming that the state chairs list is not an LNC list despite the hq.lp.org piece of the address.

    George Phillies

  95. NewFederalist

    I thought Emil was a good buddy of Michael Emerling before he changed to Michael Cloud. I remember him from a few conventions long ago. He was a civil servant in the City of Tucson as I recall. He was a very colorful and animated guy who was really a hoot but probably had a terrific mean streak if appropriately provoked or even properly motivated.

  96. JT

    Montoni: “I must also mention that I most definitely do not agree with Tom Knapp in a couple of areas: a) I believe the national LP has every right to control the use of the name “Libertarian Party” despite what the laws in some states say; and 2) if the national LP goes through the proper procedures and disaffiliates a state party, then the state party should take the honest route and change its name and stop using the proprietary data (membership list, etc) of the parent body.”

    I found this at the United States Patent & Trademark Office:

    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:7f72va.2.1

    You might have to do a new search at the site if the link above doesn’t work anymore.

    Now, it could be that I’m missing something (I’m not an IP expert), but this looks like proof that the LNC does in fact legally own the name “Libertarian Party” (registered originally in 2001 and renewed in 2010). Therefore, any state party that’s disaffiliated and continues to use that name is legally liable. Comments?

    To continue to do so is also a fraud, IMO, because using that name implies to any reasonable person affiliation with the Libertarian Party of the United States, just as the name Republican Party or Democratic Party in any state implies affiliation with the United States Republican Party or the Democratic Party of the United States. Comments?

  97. Tom Knapp

    JT @ 135,

    That link doesn’t work — but I’ve never disputed that the LNC filed a fraudulent trademark application earlier in this decade.

    The key word is fraudulent.

    The Libertarian National Committee claims on its application that it was the first to use the name, and to use it in commerce. It claims that it began doing so in 1972.

    There are two problems with those claims.

    One is that the LNC didn’t even exist in 1972.

    Another is that at least two other organizations (Libertarian Parties in New York and in California) used the name before 1972.

    When you commit fraud, any protective fruits of that fraud are likely to be held null and void when and if you attempt to enforce your fraudulent claim … which is presumably why the LNC has never attempted to do so. The trademark application is only useful to them as a threat against those who don’t know better. If they ever have to back that threat up, they’re screwed.

  98. Steven Wilson

    I believe Thoman Paine and Patrick Henry already covered this problem. I think it went something like, if a governing body has no authority, then there will be no offense against the one.

    A senate of State Chairs and NOTA, a pure democracy format, would end all of this central planning.

    Putting rules in front of people is lame. The LP is about individualism, not procedures.

  99. JT

    Knapp: “That link doesn’t work —”

    I mentioned that might unfortunately be the case. But it’s easy enough for people to find it themselves on the USPTO site if they want to. It took me less than a minute.

    Knapp: “…but I’ve never disputed that the LNC filed a fraudulent trademark application earlier in this decade.”

    It looks like it didn’t just file a trademark application–it looks like the trademark was actually granted in Jan. 2001. The filing apparently happened in March 2000.

    Knapp: “One is that the LNC didn’t even exist in 1972.”

    It didn’t? The LP was founded in Dec. 1971 and held its first national convention in June 1972. There was no LNC all through 1972?

    Knapp: “Another is that at least two other organizations (Libertarian Parties in New York and in California) used the name before 1972.”

    I don’t know the history of that or any legal factors that may have affected the application. As of now, it seems like the LNC has the trademark.

    Knapp: “When you commit fraud, any protective fruits of that fraud are likely to be held null and void when and if you attempt to enforce your fraudulent claim…”

    The only question for a court would be whether the LNC has a legal trademark on the name or not, and therefore can control which organizations can use it. It looks like the LNC does.

    Knapp: “… which is presumably why the LNC has never attempted to do so.”

    Why would it need to? I don’t remember it having a good reason to do so after Jan. 2001.

    Knapp: “The trademark application is only useful to them as a threat against those who don’t know better. If they ever have to back that threat up, they’re screwed.”

    Again, it looks like it’s not an application–it looks like it’s an actual trademark that was renewed in Oct. 2010.

  100. Aaron Starr

    Wes @121:

    The bylaws were voted on by the State Committee who passed them unanimously. Further had the new bylaws not been passed (which they were), and the terms of the existing officers actually expired (which they actually don’t since their successors were not elected), that same committee that passed these bylaws unanimously would have been appointing new officers. Care to take a guess of who would get elected again?

    On the upside the next time that question is asked it will go out to the registered Libertarian voters in Oregon to answer that question.

    Me:

    The problem you have is that your State Committee cannot enact new bylaws any more than the LNC can elect new bylaws for the national party. You seem to want to gloss over that problem.

    The way LPO’s bylaws are written — not the fake set you submitted to the Secretary of State, but rather the one that Marc Montoni provides a link to in Comment #109 — the terms for the officers begin and end at the close of the convention.

    Your bylaws – the real ones – do not have a provision that states you get to remain in office until you are replaced.

    Here is what your bylaws – the real ones – actually state:

    Article V – Officers and Directors
    SEC. 2. Officers and Manner of Elections. The officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon shall consist of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. Terms of office of all elected officers and directors shall begin immediately upon the close of the annual convention. Nominations of all officers and directors elected at the annual convention shall be from the floor, no nominating committees being permitted. [20090314]

    A. Limitations. All officers and directors shall be members in good standing of the LPO. Although state offices or directorships may be combined, no member of the State Committee may cast more than one vote. [19970112]

    B. Vacancy and Succession. In the event of a vacancy in the office of state chairperson, the state vice chairperson shall serve as State Chairperson until the close of the next annual convention. In the event of a vacancy in any other office or in the position of any committee person at large, the State committee may select any LPO member to fill any such vacancy until the next annual convention.

    What you thought you could get away with was a scheme where you made a motion to adjourn the March 12 convention until May 21, knowing that before the second meeting of the convention takes place you would attempt to completely rewrite the bylaws and declare the convention canceled. That takes chutzpah!

    You almost pulled off a bloodless coup. Almost!

    Fortunately, you made a horrible miscalculation.

    What you did not count on was that the Convention delegates would meet anyway – exactly as they voted to do, at the time and place scheduled (in accordance with the motion you made on March 12).

    And when that convention had its final adjournment on May 21, your term as Chair came to a conclusion in accordance with Article V, Section 2. The remaining members of the board – the county selected representatives – met at the close of the convention, just as they are required to do according to Article VI, Section 3. And they filled the vacancies in the officer positions in accordance with Article V, Section 2B.

    Bottom line: The rest of us clearly see that you are no longer Chair of the LPO.

  101. George Phillies

    It appears to me that the conference “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement” http://LPMass.org/Conference
    is going to have some more interesting matters to discuss.

    With respect to LNC, Inc and its National Committee, it appears to me that matters are starting to run away, as they did in 2000, except that this time the dispute unless resolved very quickly and in a positive way is not going to stay confined to Oregon.

    The LP of Oregon State Committee appears to be convinced that the LNC is trying to wreck it, coupled with an apparent Republican Hijacking event.

    As I said in the months before the 2000 event “there appears to be an impending train wreck”.

    The most annoying part of this, to paraphrase the British saw about battles being phenomena that occur where maps intersect, is that this occurs the weekend I was assembling Liberty for America, next issue.

    Let us return to my book “Funding Liberty” http://3mpub.com/phillies with teh aside as a recipient of a considerable number of confidences that I am not breaching, I can assure readers that what is happening has a number of key differences from Arizona.

    “The National Committee Chooses an Affiliated Arizona Party and Experiences the Consequences of Its Actions

    At its August 1999 meeting the Libertarian National Committee entered the fray by invoking its own By-Laws, specifically

    “ARTICLE 8: AFFILIATE PARTIES

    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. 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.”

    After an extremely long meeting and a long series of motions that were defeated or ruled out of order by National Chair David Bergland, the National Committee passed a motion targeting its Arizona affiliate. According to the Minutes of that meeting, “The motion on disaffiliation passed with 14 affirmative votes: Bergland, Bisson, Butler, Dehn, Dixon, Franke, Fylstra, Givot, Hall, Lark, Neale, Ruwart, Schwarz, and Smith. Buttrick and Tuniewicz voted against the motion. Savyon abstained.”

    Having discarded its historic state affiliate, the LNC then voted to poll its Arizona members to determine which state party group should be given affiliation. This innocent-sounding step led to considerable difficulties, because there were three groups involved, namely the Phoenix group, the Tucson group, and the National Party. Membership lists for these three groups were substantially non-overlapping. In particular, the rolls of the National Party included many dues-paying, oath-signing National Party members who were registered to vote as Democrats or Republicans, and who were thus from the point of view of the Phoenix group not Libertarians at all. Furthermore, there were 15,000 registered Libertarians in the state, all members of the Phoenix group, most of whom were not National Party members; these Libertarians were not polled. The National Party’s poll allegedly indicated a preference for the Tucson group, so the National Committee cited the poll as a justification when it made the Tucson group its state affiliate in Arizona.

    Only gradually does the recognition appear to have percolated through the National Committee that the National Party’s actions had had no effect on the Arizona state government, which continued to recognize the Phoenix group as the lawful Libertarian State Party of Arizona.

  102. Wes Wagner

    AS @141

    Were it that all you said were true, though it is not, the alleged meeting of the committee members lacked a quorum. There are 16 counties originally affiliated under the old bylaws and they have never been disaffiliated through the official process. The jud comm has previously ruled on this matter, which means that quorum for a state comm meeting is 8. (20%)

    Two of the representatives at that alleged meeting did not have credentials because they had voluntarily resigned and “closed” their party years ago, and have since had material breaches that cannot be cured under the old bylaws. When I reviewed their minutes there were only 2 old state comm representatives with valid credentials in attendance if applying the old rules.

    Further the officer positions do not expire as you are trying to interpret it under the old rules. The plain text does not state when their term ends which makes it ambiguous. Ambiguities are settled by a process under Robert’s.

    All this is moot, however, because new bylaws were adopted on March 31st.

  103. Aaron Starr

    Wes @ 143

    That’s priceless.

    You write “quorum for a state comm meeting is 8”.

    Okay, I believe you do not understand how quorum is calculated, but for the sake of argument let’s stipulate that you are right and that it requires eight to achieve quorum.

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8655586-oregon-libertarians-reform-state-party-no-joke

    According to the linked article reporting on your alleged adoption of bylaws (in violation of Article XVI for amending the bylaws), you only had seven people present when you voted on the adoption because two people left in protest before the vote took place.

    By your own definition, you did not have a quorum to conduct even legal business, much less illegal business.

  104. Wes Wagner

    @145

    Should probably clarify that the 2 abstentions were Ronald Bream from Multnomah county and Angela Grover from Marion county… reps who were still present (not the ones who left).

  105. Aaron Starr

    The article states:

    “Yesterday’s State Committee vote to adopt the new rules was 7-0 in favor. The meeting opened with 9 members present, but two who were apparently opposed left before the final vote was taken. One of those is reported to have assaulted another member (who then called police), leaving before police could arrive.”

  106. Marc Montoni

    JT, Knapp and Phillies have been arguing that line since 2000; it’s really a waste of breath trying to put facts in the debate. I have reached the point where I will present one or two counterpoints to their opinion in any venue where it comes to my attention that Knapp has dropped his anti-national bombs; but beyond that I eschew debating him simply because the arguments never change.

    As I’ve pointed out in the past, Tom’s argument boils down to this: If you replace “national Libertarian Party” with “Boy Scouts USA”, and “Arizona” with “NAMBLA”, then in Tom’s world, the national Boy Scouts have no right to disaffiliate a state chapter that is controlled by members of NAMBLA and which habitually makes policy statements that conflict with the national organization’s stated aims.

    Frankly, I believe that’s simply a ludicrous position to have.

    What’s most interesting about the above debate is this:

    In Arizona, the deposed faction were republicanesque — their leader was Rick Tompkins, who, while he was LP chair, became the state contact for the RLC — and then denied he was. He sent a letter to registered Libertarians asking them to re-register Republican, which many did — some never to return. It was a radical LNC that voted to disaffiliate the Tompkins faction; and Phillies and Knapp defended them at the time and still do.

    This time in Oregon, it is the non-Republicanesque faction that is being deposed; while the Republicanesque faction is being manueuvered into the state party leadership. It is interesting to see that Knapp and Phillies are again weighing in against national.

    At least Knapp and Phillies are consistent in their dislike of national.

  107. Aaron Starr

    And you still can’t get past the problem that the State Committee had no power under the party’s bylaws to amend the bylaws.

    That authority is a matter decided by the Convention, as specified in Article XVI of the LPO’s bylaws.

  108. Wes Wagner

    AS @147

    Some people arrived late, and some left early. David Long from Washington County arrived late and so did Angela Grover and Orrin Grover from Marion County.

    Mr David Terry and Mr David Long left early.

  109. Aaron Starr

    Wes @143

    And regarding your statement: “the officer positions do not expire as you are trying to interpret it under the old rules. The plain text does not state when their term ends which makes it ambiguous. Ambiguities are settled by a process under Robert’s.”

    If terms only begin and never end, then every person who has ever been elected an officer for the LPO is still an officer to this day. That would be absurd. If officer terms begin at the close of the convention, it’s logical that the previous officers’ terms end at that same point in time.

  110. Wes Wagner

    MM @148

    I have not familiarized myself with the Arizona situation enough… in general I believe national should not interfere in state issues because once you start down that road you have nationalization instead of federation.

    If, in fact, the parties involved in official capacity were actually requesting people to register as another party, however, that is a pretty different kettle of fish.

    We had issues in Oregon with Mr Richard Burke filing documents to place republican candidates on the ballot (fusion nomination) even though he had been sent a letter by then Chairperson Weston stating that it was a violation of party bylaws and that he should not send nomination certificates to the SoS.

    Mr. Burke sent them anyway.

    The possibility of disaffiliation of the Washington County affiliate was discussed privately among the officers as these ideas will typically be raised by someone, but we ultimately decided to not even approach the issue as it quickly became a “no way is this worth it” situation.

    The Washington County affiliate is hopelessly infected by republican sympathizers but they are also outnumbered to the point where they can do no harm.

    This is why they have had to go with their begging bowl to sympathizers at the national level to try to steal them a political party.

    I suspect that under the new rules when elections are held they will probably pickup 2 or 3 of the 9 seats on the new state committee, depending on how popular the “republican-faction” of the LPO really is.

    Most LPO members are more concerned about anti-war, pro-pot, end war on drugs, private property rights, and end corporate personhood sorts, rather than people who are primarily concerned about putting (Libertarian) on a ballot next to some republican candidates and pretending we are somehow relevant.

  111. Wes Wagner

    AS @152

    Roberts states that terms should be explicitly stated as either ending at a set time or be qualified as until their successors are elected.

    In the absence of such language you are right, it could be interpreted three ways.

    1) they expire at the end of the convention
    2) they expire when successors are elected
    3) we have a crapload of officers

    Either way its an issue of interpretation because it is clearly ambiguous. Mr Weston and Mr Carling had conversations about this prior to my becoming chairperson and has correspondence about the issue, but that is also still moot.

    New bylaws were adopted before the regular 2011 convention ended.

  112. Aaron Starr

    Wes @153

    Repetition does not make a false statement true.

    You do not have the authority to amend the bylaws. You are not a higher authority than your own members meeting in convention.

    Do you believe the LNC has the ability to amend the national party’s bylaws? If not, why not?

  113. Wes Wagner

    AS @154

    They might, I am not sure about federal and case law regarding the subject. I would only recommend it if they found themselves in the situation where they have a failed government and popular support requires it even if the law permitted it.

    As it stands in Oregon, Oregon State Law supports what was done, and the Libertarian Party of Oregon is a state chartered domestic non-profit corporation governed by Oregon election and non-profit law.

    Thus far this office has not received a single complaint about the action taken from a member in Oregon.

    I am certain M Carling and Mr Burke would complain if they thought it would do any good and their silence in the matter is simply because they know it will do no good.

    If the national party had so backed itself into a corner that it could no longer conduct business, hold elections, and the entire organization had devolved into a politburo hopelessly mired, I would hope that the leadership in charge, if they had the ability to do something about it, would act and hand the power of the organization back to the people it is supposed to serve.

    In Oregon that is defined under ORS 248.002

  114. Marc Montoni

    Aaron Starr said:

    The article states:

    “Yesterday’s State Committee vote to adopt the new rules was 7-0 in favor. The meeting opened with 9 members present, but two who were apparently opposed left before the final vote was taken. One of those is reported to have assaulted another member (who then called police), leaving before police could arrive.”

    While I wonder at the disparity between the article you cited and what Wes states in #145, I believe it has to be taken into account that Heyoka’s article does not purport to be official minutes. Rather it seems to be just a “report” from an AllVoices contributor (although his past articles suggest Mr Heyoka is an LP OR member as well).

    Speaking of Heyoka’s other articles, I was not aware of the extent to which Burke has been getting in bed with Republicans. Nor did I relaize he was an operative in the Kochtopus/Republican Party’s “Americans for Prosperity” front organization. National LP bylaws don’t make an exception for “fusion” endorsements of Republicans.

    Article 6 Section 4 says: “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election.”

    That is a bylaw I agree with 100%. It is stupid, stupid, stupid for the Libertarian Party to endorse anyone other than Libertarians.

    So where was the LNC when Burke filed the cross-nomination papers with the Oregon Elections Board?

    Yes, I understand fusion won us some “elected Libertarian” chits in the 90’s, with Cal Warburton and the other NH state legislators… But on the other hand, Warburton got his goose cooked by Libertarians when he supported Big Government legislation (new taxes, voted at least once to increase an existing tax, and authored a bill to eliminate a government agency yet establish a similar one) while a “Libertarian”. What do we really win by getting in bed with these people?

  115. Tom Knapp

    JT @ 142,

    Which part of “since the application was falsified/fraudulent, the trademark is invalid” do you not understand?

    If you get a driver’s license under the name Jose Cuervo and your name is not Jose Cuervo, you may get away with it. But if you ever end up in court on a matter relating to that driver’s license, the license is going to be held void because you lied in order to get it.

    You write:

    “Why would it need to [defend the fraudulent trademark claim]? I don’t remember it having a good reason to do so after Jan. 2001.”

    What constitutes a “good reason?” I’m aware of at least one organization/entity which has used the allegedly trademarked term in interstate commerce since 2000, without asking for or receiving the LNC’s permission.

  116. Tom Knapp

    Marc @ 148,

    You write:

    “At least Knapp and Phillies are consistent in their dislike of national.”

    I’ve never “disliked national.”

    I just didn’t believe, when I was an LP member, that the LNC should attempt to steal things that it doesn’t own or attempt to exercise authority that it doesn’t have.

    These days, I don’t give a damn about the outcome, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop introducing fact and reality into discussions, especially when you try to banish them.

  117. Aaron Starr

    Wes @155

    “As it stands in Oregon, Oregon State Law supports what was done, and the Libertarian Party of Oregon is a state chartered domestic non-profit corporation governed by Oregon election and non-profit law.”

    I would be extremely skeptical if you told me that your state’s code for nonprofit corporations gives the directors the authority to amend their bylaws when the corporation’s bylaws reserve that right to the members.

  118. Aaron Starr

    MM @ 156

    I agree with you. And being a stickler for the rules, I have brought up this subject on multiple occasions.

    If my memory serves me correctly, I believe this issue also came up recently in the case of New York, which also allows fusion tickets. One of the tricky parts is how do we define who is a “member” of another political party.

    I know that instances have come up in the past where members of the national committee, including myself, have pointed out this limitation on affiliates in our bylaws. However, it’s difficult to enforce unless 3/4 of the LNC are willing to disaffiliate a state party for doing so, and the votes are simply not there so no one wants to waste the time.

    On a tangentially related topic, one idea being discussed in the bylaws committee is the requirement that a delegate cannot be enrolled as a registered voter with another political party, if enrolling with the Libertarian Party is an option in his or her state. I can’t imagine, say, the Democratic Party allowing a delegate to be a registered voter with the Republican Party. Yet, we allow this sort of nonsense all the time.

  119. Wes Wagner

    MM @156

    RPB is not just an operative, but a paid employee. He also claims that Jeff Kropf personally greenlights his activities in the LPO in an email that he copied to Kropf and Kropf refuses to deny.

    So yes… you do have a conspiracy at national involving M Carling, Alicia Mattson, and Dan Karlan(implicated by Richard Burkes lost notebook) to try to put an AFP paid operative into control of a state affiliate.

    I am not sure how involved Hinkle is. He has attended some of these shenanigans but does not appear to be “with it” or understand what is going on.

  120. Starchild

    Sigh. What a mess.

    The Nevada situation — a clear attempt to make the party more top-down by disempowering grassroots activists — was straightforward compared to this.

    Even the Arizona dispute, with its long history as partially documented in multiple previous posts in this thread by George Phillies, had a clear principle at stake — one faction wanted to accept government funding, and the other did not. It was also clear that one side had basically maneuvered to get the national party to side with them against their less establishment-oriented rivals. Those factors made it pretty easy to guess, with a reasonable amount of certainty, which group was more about radical libertarianism and principles, and which group was more about money, power, and “winning”.

    All right, I guess it’s not *that* tough to make a similarly educated guess about the dispute in Oregon, based on the positions being taken by some of the usual suspects. But I nevertheless am troubled by the extent to which all involved have waded into the legalistic swamp. It’s things like this that make me question the extent to which being a party based on written rules is healthy.

    In theory, written rules (aka the “rule of law”) are what create a level playing field and protect us from the arbitrary and unfair “rule of man” in which those with power just make up the rules as they go.

    In practice however, our rules are often complex enough to generate considerable confusion and uncertainty, which creates an opportunity for those with better knowledge of the rules to step in and engineer particular outcomes.

    This creates a situation where the Libertarian Party is, in a de facto sense, controlled to a large degree by lawyers and those who think like lawyers (whether or not they actually possess law degrees).

    Ironically, the influence of lawyers is a big part of what we are up against in the larger fight for liberty! Here I will insert part of a message I wrote recently on another list on this topic (in response to someone complaining about the influence of Wall Street bankers):

    “I would argue that bankers are not the profession we should be most worried about. The system is much more dominated by people associated with the legal profession than by people associated with the world of finance. One entire branch of government, the judiciary, is expressly run by lawyers — in fact non-lawyers are prohibited by law from holding offices such as judge, attorney general, district attorney, etc. Thus, unlike the Federal Reserve system, the power base of the lawyers is not even nominally accountable to Congress and the president.

    Meanwhile, lawyers have a disproportionate presence in the rest of government as well. According to a Daily Paul post — http://www.dailypaul.com/94514/list-of-lawyers-in-the-111th-congress — 54% of U.S. Senators and 36% of U.S. House members are lawyers. President Barack Obama and VP Joe Biden are both lawyers, as are prominent cabinet officials Hilary Clinton (Secretary of State), Eric Holder (of course, being Attorney General), Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security), and quite possibly others (see http://www.law.louisville.edu/node/2617 ).

    Even aside from their rule of the courts and preponderance among elected officials, attorneys have a huge hand in shaping policy. As an example, Mitt Romney, when asked in 2009 about whether he would need congressional authority to attack Iran, said he would consult his attorneys (see http://2012obama.com/2012-candidate-information/mitt-romney-2012-candidate-information/mitt-romney-wants-lawyers-to-decide-foreign-policy/ ). Of course Romney himself is also a lawyer (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney ), as are numerous other GOP presidential contenders including former Treasury Department attorney Michele Bachmann (see http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/michelebachmann.html ), Tim Pawlenty, who started his career as a labor attorney (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_pawlenty ), and Rick Santorum, who was once represented the World Wrestling Federation — (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum ).

    The crisis posed by the grip that lawyers have on government in the United States is under-recognized, I believe, even within the libertarian movement. The crux of it is that although there are many good individual lawyers who hold pro-freedom ideas and are fighting government abuses, lawyers as a class have a strong incentive to favor big government — because when the law is vast and complex, you need lawyers to help you navigate it. They are trained in law school to appreciate the complexity of the laws and take pride in their knowledge of them.

    Although it is not widely known, there is a law on the books — in fact, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — that if enforced could go a long way toward correcting the problem. That is the so-called “Missing 13th Amendment”, which was passed in 1819 but assumed (incorrectly, as it later turned out) to have been improperly ratified. The apparent intent of this original 13th Amendment (subsequently overwritten by the 13th Amendment now on the books, which is really the 14th Amendment) was not just to prevent lawyers from becoming a legally privileged class able to hold offices which others are not, but to enact an outright prohibition on bar association members serving in the U.S. government. You can read the fascinating history about the missing 13th Amendment here: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/thirteen/thirt01.htm

    We don’t have the equivalent of a 13th Amendment in the LP to keep the lawyers in check. And I’m not suggesting that such a rule would be the solution we need, even if it were clear how this could be effected.

    Stuff like this does, however, make me wonder whether we might be better off getting rid of Robert’s Rules of Order. Yet it’s difficult to see what would replace it, without putting us in danger of abandoning the rule of law.

    One thing that is clear to me, however, is that there comes a point when you have to stop mucking about in the legalistic swamp. As important as the rule of law is, I do not think that an absurdity like having officers whose terms never expire because of badly written bylaws is acceptable (and yes, I realize there is dispute over whether or not this was the case). My point is simply that at some point, you do have to say “to hell with the rules” and just try to come up with a common-sense solution that does not go against libertarian principles.

    Because in the final analysis, advancing the cause of freedom is what matters most. Deviating from the rule of law clearly hurts that cause, and like revolution should not be undertaken for light or transitory reasons, but I can see a strong argument that in certain cases it must be done.

    If it is done, however (and again I realize that the question of whether or not it was done in this case is under dispute), I think those who take such a step have an obligation to bend over backward to avoid gaining any personal advantage from it.

  121. George Phillies

    @148

    I’m sorry, your memory is misleading you. Rick Tompkins ran his Presidential campaign in 1996, not 2000, and later tended to fade from view. The 2000 leadership was Liz Andreasen (chair), Ernie Hancock, Mike Haggard,…

    There was an effort in 1995 to form a second LP in Arizona. The National Party sided with the Tompkins faction.

    http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/lpus/lpaz/turmoil.html

    The 2000 issue was a recycle of the 1996 issue, with a different cast of characters, but Tompkins was not prominent among them. I am quite certain that if the ‘sent letters to registered libertarians’ had been raised by the LNC or whoever in 2000, it would have been mentioned in my book, because that would have been ’cause’, and the actual record shows something extremely different.

  122. Starchild

    Let me restate here one of the main ideas behind my last post, which I see on rereading that I may have failed to clearly spell out:

    We want a Libertarian Party run by activists, by people whose passion is fighting for freedom.

    We do not want a Libertarian Party run by political professionals, by people whose passion is lawyering, or administration, or structure.

    To me the reasons for this are self-evident and should not require any further elaboration, but if anyone disagrees and wishes to debate the issue, I am willing to do so.

    Given the principle stated above, a question we should frequently ask ourselves, when considering the rules, structures, procedures, norms, and culture of our party, is whether a particular way of doing things is more empowering to activists, as a group, or to professionals as a group.

    If the answer is the latter, we should either oppose its implementation, if it is being proposed as a change, or think about ways to get rid of it, if it is already in existence.

  123. Robert Capozzi

    SC, I thought you had a thing about collective nouns. What you mean “we”?

    You personally can decide who passes you “passion” test and who doesn’t, that’s fair.

    But do you advocate a free-for-all with no structure whatsoever? 163 seems to imply so….

  124. Steven Wilson

    Starchild for Chair

    Again, I state clearly as I can, if someone here calls themself a libertarian, but doesn’t understand the theory or application of individualism and free will, then the naming device “libertarian” has no meaning because it now has mutliple meanings.

    You change the rules mid game, you have no game. In cognition, this is a no brainer. Because if you can’t understand the mistake you are making, then you aren’t using your brain.

    The only solution is to form a senate of state chairs with NOTA. That is the only way to avoid nation wide central planning.

    I think starchild is the only one here who understands what this party is for. Since his passing, some of us have been waiting for someone to replace Harry Browne. The costume might be different, but the message is the same.

    And with all the people who read and post here, it is really sad that most know the rules, but don’t know the person.

  125. George Phillies

    @148

    However, in 1991 Tompkins was also the RLC coordinator and may well have been trying to recruit Libertarians to vote Republican.

    Recruiting Libertarians to vote Republican was endemic in the Libertarian Party in 2008, and we took a large ding as a result. In 2008, however, the disease started in the LNC.

  126. Robert Capozzi

    165 sw: …if someone here calls themself a libertarian, but doesn’t understand the theory or application of individualism and free will, then the naming device “libertarian” has no meaning because it now has mutliple meanings. You change the rules mid game, you have no game.

    me: Interesting perspective. “Meaning” is an individual matter, subjectively arrived at, not floating free form “out there.” Baseball’s AL changed the rules rather dramatically, and the DH and the AL continue onward. Football changes the rules nearly every season. So, I guess I don’t agree.

    If someone has a VERY specific idea about what your philosophy is and you want a political party to reflect YOUR philosophy, you might want to look at what the BTP or Objectivist Party have done. It’s a fairly easy thing for you to establish the Wilson Party if that floats your boat, with very specific strictures about members adhering your ideas about “individualism” and “free will.”

    I wish you all the best, if you feel so moved to do so.

  127. Michael H. Wilson

    re WW @ 161. It is also worth remembering that in 1996 Burke tried to stop the nomination of a Libertarian to run in a Congressional race. He stood in front of all the delegates and spoke at a nominating convention suggesting that the LPO not nominate anyone. Interestingly enough the Republican candidate for the office was standing in the room with all the Libertarian delegates.

  128. George Phillies

    And more quotes from my book.

    Note the paragraph on ‘for cause’. I was never able to find any indication that the LNC had a cause, such as the Republican recruiting letters described above. If such letters were concerning any LNC members, I failed to find traces of their concerns.

    “Discrepancies between the National Committee’s actions and the requirements of the Party By-Laws are apparent. The Party By-Laws specify that disaffiliation must be “for cause”. “For cause” is a term of art with a very well understood meaning, namely that the party against which action is being taken must have done something wrong. Furthermore, that wrong has to be specified, so that the accused can have due process by offering a defense.

    What wrong had the ALP committed? The assertion was made in some quarters that the cause was that the LNC could not tell which group was its affiliate. It is not clear how the inability of the LNC to understand what was happening in Arizona could constitute ’cause’ against the Phoenix group. Indeed, on the date of the disaffiliation there was ongoing litigation between the two groups as to which group was the real Libertarian Party in Arizona. The Phoenix group recommended that the National Party should postpone action until the judge ruled; their recommendation was not accepted by the National Committee.

    It is extremely hard to avoid the conclusion that the LNC’s disaffiliation of the Phoenix group violated Party By-Laws, which require that the disaffiliation be ‘for cause’. No rational cause was specified in the motion, nor does such a cause appear to be noted in the LNC Minutes. As was shown at the start of the book when ‘support’ and ‘conflict of interest’ were discussed, the Libertarian National Committee does not appear to have been heavily attached to careful textual analysis of its own By-laws. It is therefore unsurprising that the National Committee’s interpretation of ‘for cause’ was situationally driven.

    It is important to emphasize that the ‘for cause’ issue that was placed before the Libertarian National Committee, and the issues then being litigated in Arizona, are entirely separate. The Arizona State Courts eventually resolved the questions at hand on the basis of the State Party By-Laws and Roberts’ Rules of Order. The National Committee did not hear or review these arguments. To say ‘the National Party did not obey its own by-laws in the decision its made’ does not speak to the question of which group was the legitimate state party in Arizona.

    A variety of other reasons for disaffiliating the Phoenix group have been suggested:

    *There is significant circumstantial evidence that some factions within the Libertarian National Committee were pursuing disaffiliation in order to secure a friendlier state party delegation at the next National Convention.* In 1996, the Arizona Party delegation had been filled with supporters of Rick Tompkins, who was supported by the Phoenix group. There were sound reasons to believe that a delegation to the 2000 Convention from the Tucson group would be more supportive of the Browne faction, while a delegation from the Phoenix group would be more sympathetic to any of Browne’s opponents.

    *By changing its affiliate, the National Committee derived a direct financial benefit.* The Phoenix group wanted to keep state and national party memberships separate. The Tucson group joined the Unified Membership Plan. Under the Unified Membership Plan, the National Party collected all membership dues for state and national groups. What did the LNC do with the money it raised? Under UMP state membership dues are doled out to the state party at the rate of one dollar per month. If you joined your state party in January, part of your state membership dues would not reach your state party until the following New Year. For current members, this delay was cancelled by startup payments, but if party membership grew new member dues reached the state organization well after members actually joined. In Summer 1999, the LNC planned that through Project Archimedes it would experience enormous membership growth.

    The National Party also used the membership renewal letters to ask for additional contributions. State Parties received a very modest part of those contributions, as an increase in the $1 per month they were paid for each member, namely

    Members or contributors who have contributed $100 or more to the national party in the last 12 months, $2/month; $250 or more, $3/month; $500 or more, $4/month; $1000 or more, $5/month.

    Many members make their one extra donation for the year at the same time that they renew their memberships. Under UMP, state contribution fundraising at the time of membership renewals was transferred en bloc to the National Party. Under UMP, the National Party kept all but a pittance of those extra contributions. Thus, *by joining UMP a state was likely to transfer its donors in large part to the National Party*.

    Finally, the National Party *received a financial benefit* [from disaffiliation] because it did not maintain an escrow account for state dues owed under the UMP program. Dues were instead spent more or less when received by the National Party. For new members, UMP states were effectively giving the National Party an interest-free loan averaging half of the year’s state dues. The National Party piously hoped that future income would permit it to make UMP payments to state parties in a timely way, much the way the Federal government piously hopes that future Social Security taxes will allow the Federal government to pay Social Security benefits in a timely way when their recipients expect them. In late 2001, the pious hope came extremely close to expiring. The National Office made an emergency electronic appeal for donations to allow it to cover UMP payments, and then claimed that the appeal permitted the payments to be made. It now appears that the National Office’s initial representation of its financial situation had been disingenuous, and that it would in any event have been able to cover its obligations to the states. The piety of the hope had still been exposed to the membership. ”

    UMP later imploded, with states not being paid on time, but that is another piece of history.

  129. Wes Wagner

    SW@165

    I like the idea of a national organization that is a senate of state chairs for a matter of deciding policy … further if we could settle presidential elections with each state receiving a number of votes that they would otherwise receive in the electoral college system, we would choose candidates that are more likely to perform well under that system rather than the current system of bussing-in, site selection and vote whoring.

    The current national party seems to be so embroiled in depravity and has never been able to jettison their bad actors, so, reform looks… unlikely.

    In theory the current LNC structure sort of gives us a “republic-style” government… the problem it seems is that it was not constitutionally restricted enough and they seem to believe themselves a nationalist organization that owns the state parties, rather than representatives of a confederation of like-minded state parties that agree to a single set of principles.

    I do not have time to get involved in the cluster**** that is the bylaws committee at this time, since I have larger responsibilities but I have a Buddhist friend who pointed out to me recently that pointed out that the national party has gone down the road of trying to put a head on top of your head.

    That typically never works out well.

  130. Starchild

    Robert @165 – My issue isn’t with collective pronouns per se, but with them being used in a way that furthers the ideology of nationalism (e.g. referring to “us” as Americans, the U.S. government as “our” government, etc.)

    Nor am I advocating a “free-for-all with no structure whatsoever” (although I would think that would appeal to your existentialism!) When I wrote @162, “My point is simply that at some point, you do have to say “to hell with the rules” and just try to come up with a common-sense solution that does not go against libertarian principles,”, I meant in the context of a specific situation where the rules have failed us, such as the Oregon Libertarians seem to be dealing with.

    In general I appreciate the rule of law, as I hope the my comment @162 in its entirety made clear. My point is that, as important as the rule of law is, it’s not the *most* important thing.

    There is also a danger in becoming too narrowly focused on particular structure(s) or institution(s) and losing sight of the larger goal of freedom.

    This is why I try to emphasize the importance of identifying with the libertarian movement rather than the Libertarian Party. And why I disagree with Aaron Starr’s comment @160 that “I can’t imagine, say, the Democratic Party allowing a delegate to be a registered voter with the Republican Party. Yet, we allow this sort of nonsense all the time.

    Our primary litmus test in politics should not be whether a person has an “L” next to his or her name, but the extent to which he or she supports and believes in freedom.

    The biggest threat to the Libertarian Party is not that we will be taken over by people who are secretly working for a rival party. A much greater danger is posed by those who fully and unquestioningly belong to our party and want to see it succeed, but whose ideas of “success” have more to do with the LP flourishing as an institution or even in some cases with personal success, than with the ideas of freedom taking root in the world.

    There are some Republicans and Democrats who are more in sync with the libertarian movement than some Libertarians, and unless/until we can truly reform the LP by establishing stronger ideological standards for holding party office or representing the party in public, our party rules should recognize this reality and not shut out good people on technicalities.

    The LP is only a vehicle for freedom, not an end in itself.

  131. Robert Capozzi

    172 sc: The LP is only a vehicle for freedom, not an end in itself.

    me: Agree. Making the vehicle effective in enhancing freedom would seem to require that the institution not be dysfunctional. If the vehicle gets bogged down in ludicrous minutiae, it does not serve its function. Maintaining integrity of process and avoiding free-for-all-ism seems useful to me. Legalistic yammering doesn’t work for me, either, though.

    As for my “existentialism” (technically not accurate, but I’ll roll with it), as individuals we choose which institutions we support on balance, even if we’ve got a quibble here and there. If on balance the institution’s dysfunction becomes unacceptable, we can back off our participation or even resign. That’s a personal decision, and I of course respect anyone else’s decision of whether to continue playing or walk away.

    Making it a federal case seems kinda childish, though….

  132. Michael H. Wilson

    re WW @ 171. Yes the Republican candidate that Mr. Burke was asking the LP to help by not nominating anyone was a supporter of the death penalty for drug dealers.

  133. Starchild

    Steven @166 – Thank you for the vote of confidence — you flatter me. But I am not running for LP chair. I don’t feel ready for it now, if ever, and doubt I would enjoy it very much even if the unthinkable happened and I were elected.

    I have to admit that Harry Browne looks far better in retrospect than he did to me at the time. Back in 1996 I was quite concerned that the Browne campaign, with his “professional” handlers like Perry Willis and Michael Cloud and his patrician style and preference for “business attire” dinners over roll-up-your-sleeves campaigning, was leading the LP away from radicalism. In hindsight, that turned out to have been something like the “Phantom Menace” of Star Wars Episode 1 — the problems in the party were growing, to be sure, but the Browne team wasn’t behind them, and his running twice in a row although not a great success, did not seem to do the LP the damage I feared it might. The rot didn’t truly show itself until 2006 when our platform was gutted at the Portland convention. That loss in turn undoubtedly helped pave the way for the disaster of Barr/Root in 2008, by which time I positively missed Harry’s calm, low-key delivery of radical ideas.

    But there are plenty of people besides me in the LP who understand what our party’s purpose *ought* to be — it’s still stated there right in the preamble to our platform! ( http://www.lp.org/platform ). There are plenty of Libertarians who “get it” that we are reaping the results of our long-term failure to sufficiently inoculate ourselves as a party against the corrupting influences of electoral politics.

    I believe this fight for the heart and soul of the Libertarian Party is winnable, and that the party remains important enough to the movement to be a prize worth fighting for. I think radical libertarians ultimately value the LP more than the GOP-wannabes do, and will have more collective stomach to stick it out. But if I’m wrong, and we lose that battle, the struggle for liberty will continue. We will just find other organizations to carry the torch.

  134. Starchild

    P.S. – Steven, you wrote @166, “The only solution is to form a senate of state chairs with NOTA. That is the only way to avoid nation wide central planning.”

    That sounds like an interesting idea. Could you say more about it?

    I’m inclined to think that having some sort of national operation is a good thing, but I would like to explore ways to make it function in more of a bottom-up manner.

    Have you read my LP Convention Manifesto and LP Office Manifesto?

  135. Michael H. Wilson

    re Steve and Starchild. Some years ago something similar was actually proposed in Oregon only representatives from the county parties or congressional districts would be those holding the reins. Unfortunately the idea never received a hearing at the state convention, but it is an idea that needs to be developed for a number of reasons.

  136. Michael H. Wilson

    Another issue that needs to be dealt with is this idea of people belonging to more than one state party.

    I think you should be able to belong to any state party that will have you, but only one at a time.

    I’m not sure how the delegate numbers will be decided this year ( Guess I could check but I won’t). But assume for a moment that I want the LP to change it platform on abortion. Fact is I have lot of cousins in Boston many are devout believers in ending abortion. We could could all sign up and float between conventions in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and a few other states that are a days driving distance and influence the platforms of all of these state parties. It would not take much.

    Do ya think the chair of the by-laws committee would be open to such a change? I have to wonder.

  137. Chuck Moulton

    Wes Wagner wrote (@143):

    Further the officer positions do not expire as you are trying to interpret it under the old rules. The plain text does not state when their term ends which makes it ambiguous. Ambiguities are settled by a process under Robert’s.

    Aaron Starr wrote (@151):

    If terms only begin and never end, then every person who has ever been elected an officer for the LPO is still an officer to this day. That would be absurd. If officer terms begin at the close of the convention, it’s logical that the previous officers’ terms end at that same point in time.

    Wes Wagner wrote (@153):

    Roberts states that terms should be explicitly stated as either ending at a set time or be qualified as until their successors are elected.

    In the absence of such language you are right, it could be interpreted three ways.

    1) they expire at the end of the convention
    2) they expire when successors are elected
    3) we have a crapload of officers

    I have not looked into Robert’s in detail on this, but tend to initially agree with Wes Wagner that both interpretations 1 & 2 are reasonable. Interpretation 3 is absurd. I have not yet formed an opinion about which interpretation among 1 & 2 is more reasonable.

    However, the bylaws in effect on March 12 are unambiguous about Wes’s own term of office. Wes Wagner was initially the vice-chair, becoming chair when Jeff Weston resigned. His term of office ended when the convention adjourned on May 21.

    LP Oregon Bylaws, Article V, Section 2, Clause B (Vacancy and Succession):

    In the event of a vacancy in the office of state chairperson, the state vice chairperson shall serve as State Chairperson until the close of the next annual convention [emphasis added]. In the event of a vacancy in any other office or in the position of any committee person at large, the State committee may select any LPO member to fill any such vacany until the next annual convention.

  138. Aaron Starr

    Aaron writes to Wes:

    And you still can’t get past the problem that the State Committee had no power under the party’s bylaws to amend the bylaws.

    That authority is a matter decided by the Convention, as specified in Article XVI of the LPO’s bylaws.

    Wes responds:

    As it stands in Oregon, Oregon State Law supports what was done, and the Libertarian Party of Oregon is a state chartered domestic non-profit corporation governed by Oregon election and non-profit law.

    Aaron responds:

    I would be extremely skeptical if you told me that your state’s code for nonprofit corporations gives the directors the authority to amend their bylaws when the corporation’s bylaws reserve that right to the members.

    Aaron’s addendum:

    It’s hard for me to see how what you attempted would be considered anything less than a form of aggression, using the state to override the contract that exists between the organization and its members.

    Your actions suggest that you embrace a philosophy where the end justifies the means and Rule by Law should be replaced by Rule by Men.

    I would be more sympathetic to your position if all you changed in your bylaws was the quorum requirement. That’s not what happened.

    Instead, you used a Rahm “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” Emanuel approach to completely rewrite your bylaws such that many individuals no longer had membership rights in the organization.

    For example, Former National Chairman Jim Lark is a Life Member of the LP of Oregon. He paid dues and has voting rights in the organization.

    It was bad enough when you failed to mail notice to him (and many other members) of an upcoming convention, contributing to your quorum problem. The details of the time and location were not even on the website.

    The bylaws you claim to have enacted under the color of law (in violation of the bylaws) would deprive Dr. Lark of his right to vote in the organization.

    How do you defend that?

  139. George Phillies

    A modest difference between Arizona and Oregon is that in Arizona the ALP faction wanted to be a private organization that owned the party, while the ALPI faction that the LNC installed wanted to run under state law, while in Arizona the Wagner faction is acting under state law, and the faction the LNC is trying to install wants to be a private club. You notice there is some backwardation here.

    In Arizona, the people who wanted to obey state law eventually won their lawsuit. That was the Peter Schmerl (Tucson) faction. It is a reasonable guess that the people who want to follow state law and have a record of continuity in Oregon will win in the courts, should it get there. That’s especially the case when the Republican ties of the club faction are explored, in my humble opinion.

    Here in Massachusetts, we are now firmly on the path that there is a private organization of dues-paying members that does the politics that the members want to do, and in the event that some year there is a Libertarian “Political Party” the people who created it by running for Statewide office get to form a State Committee that must legally be absolutely separate from the private organization.

  140. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@179):

    I have not looked into Robert’s in detail on this, but tend to initially agree with Wes Wagner that both interpretations 1 & 2 are reasonable. Interpretation 3 is absurd. I have not yet formed an opinion about which interpretation among 1 & 2 is more reasonable.

    The bylaws and Robert’s are both ambiguous. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 556, l. 31-35; p. 557, l. 1-7. Robert’s suggests specifying a term of years or a term that ends when successors are elected in the bylaws, but does not specify what happens when the bylaws are silent.

    However, LPO bylaw V.2.B specifies that the term of office for any filled vacancies other than the chair end at the next annual convention (it is ambiguous whether this is at the start or end of that convention) and filled vacancy of chair ends at the end of the next annual convention. In the absence of election of successors, it would be somewhat strange for the terms of all vacancy filled positions to expire while the terms of other state central committee members persisted.

    Therefore in my opinion it is more reasonable to follow the interpretation that all terms expire at the end of the annual convention.

  141. George Phillies

    @179

    You are arguing that State Law is invalid when the organization’s governing board wants to follow it. That law let the governing board fix the Party Bylaws into agreement with state law, which it appears to have done before the alleged late May event.

    You are arguing that the 10,000+ registered Libertarians in Oregon do not own their party.

    Have fun!

  142. Starchild

    Michael @179 – I understand your reason for being tempted to seek a ban on people belonging to multiple state parties simultaneously. In a word — M Carling. 🙂

    I was actually going to write something along the lines of what you said myself, but then I thought better of it. M’s interventions in the affairs of various state parties may have somewhat of a deleterious effect, but at the end of the day he’s just one person, with a limited amount of time.

    Anyone energetic enough to get involved with and pay dues to more than one state affiliate, should be welcomed and encouraged to do so, all else being equal. Many people effectively have multiple residences — students away at college part of the year, for instance. I think it would be a mistake to force such individuals to choose only one branch of the party to which to belong.

    I’m not sure whether he has maintained his California LP membership, but I know that former Libertarian Party of San Francisco chair Chris Maden is active with the LP in New Hamphire, where he moved several years ago, yet still posts occasionally on our San Francisco area list.

    As you note, states are smaller and closer together in some areas such as New England, and it seems like a handful of committed Libertarian activists could be productively involved with multiple affiliates, as you point out, but to the benefit of all.

    Of course if state chapters are having problems with this, e.g. if some outside group is trying to work mischief in multiple states, they should be free to adopt more restrictive policies as needed.

  143. Aaron Starr

    Chuck Moulton @ 182

    Three questions. In your opinion:

    1) Is Wes Wagner the Chair of LPO?

    2) Have you seen anything that leads you to conclude that the Oregon State Committee’s purported adoption of a new set of bylaws is valid?

    3) The members attending the March 12 convention adjourned the convention until May 21. Did the State Committee have the authority to cancel the May 21 meeting?

  144. Michael H. Wilson

    re Starchild @ 184. I tend to agree with you and think we need as few rules as we can get away with, but I also see how this could be used to cause problems and think it should be discussed. If nothing else people should be aware of the situation.

  145. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@185):

    Three questions. In your opinion:

    1) Is Wes Wagner the Chair of LPO?

    In my opinion his term ended at the close of the annual convention on May 21, as did the terms of all officers and at-large.

    I don’t have enough information to know whether the State Committee meeting at which Tim Reeves was selected as chair (to fill the vacancy) was valid or whether some other valid State Committee meeting was held selecting someone else chair (e.g., Wes Wagner). So my opinion can only cover whether Wes Wagner was chair right after the annual convention, not whether he is chair now.

    2) Have you seen anything that leads you to conclude that the Oregon State Committee’s purported adoption of a new set of bylaws is valid?

    No.

    3) The members attending the March 12 convention adjourned the convention until May 21. Did the State Committee have the authority to cancel the May 21 meeting?

    No.

  146. Aaron Starr

    Chuck Moulton @187 writes:

    “I don’t have enough information to know whether the State Committee meeting at which Tim Reeves was selected as chair (to fill the vacancy) was valid or whether some other valid State Committee meeting was held selecting someone else chair (e.g., Wes Wagner). So my opinion can only cover whether Wes Wagner was chair right after the annual convention, not whether he is chair now.”

    What do you need to see to determine whether the decision to fill vacancies at the post-convention State Convention meeting, as mandated by Article VI, Section 3 of LPO’s bylaws, was valid?

  147. Oregon Libertarian

    Am I missing something here?

    From what I understand is:

    1. That the Oregon Party changed its bylaws because the old bylaws prevented them from holding meetings because they could not meet quorum and there was no possiblity of making quorum.

    2. Oregon State law allows the State Commitee to do replace the bylaws.

    3. The LNC has no power in the State of Oregon to reverse this.

    4. The State Of Oregon will not enforce party bylaws or Robertes rules.

    5. There appears to be a quorum issue as well with the supposed 21st meeting as well where the rival group picked new officers.

    6. The old byalws may have had illegal parts of them under State Law.

    Having been on a few Non-Profit boards it is reasonable for the directors to change the bylaws in an emergancy so that they can continue business, and of course to remove byalws that run foul against State Law.

    Replacing the entire byalws is radical though if the membership accepts it, then it is a done deal.

    The place to dispute such things is in a court of law in the State where the issue resides, not on an internet discussion site and not with a National Party who has no power or authority in Oregon.

    To try and settle this outside of a court of law, you need then to convince the people on the current State commitee that they where wrong and offer some solutions. Rignt now all I see is name calling and crying, and that is not going to get any of these people who have the Party in Oregon to listen to you.

  148. Michael H. Wilson

    re Oregon Libertarian @ 190. I don’t know if you are missing something, but something has been missing all the years this has been going on. The party has failed to grow.

    There has been little effort to increase the number of party members and I think the number of registered Libertarians has declined. Then little effort has been made to get the word out as to what the party suggests as alternatives to the present situation. Fifteen or more years of stagnation. I am sure there is at least one man who is proud of his efforts.

  149. Aaron Starr

    Chuck Moulton,

    Two more questions:

    1) Does the convention in the absence of a quorum have the power adjourn sine die?

    2) Concerning the State Committee, LPO’s bylaws state in Article VI, Section 3F: “A quorum shall be 20% of the members of the State Committee.” If there are 11 members and 25 vacancies, is the quorum 20% of 11 or is the quorum 20% of 36?

  150. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@189):

    What do you need to see to determine whether the decision to fill vacancies at the post-convention State Convention meeting, as mandated by Article VI, Section 3 of LPO’s bylaws, was valid?

    LP Oregon bylaw VI.3.1 says a meeting shall be held at the close of the annual convention, so the fact that there was no chair to call the meeting is immaterial. That the annual convention was adjourned until May 21 and that the state committee presumably received adequate notice of the March 12 convention should be sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement of State Committee meetings in bylaw VI.3.2.

    But bylaw VI.3.6 imposes a 20% quorum requirement and Wes Wagner has alleged this quorum was not met.

    Wes Wagner (@143):

    [T]he alleged meeting of the committee members lacked a quorum. There are 16 counties originally affiliated under the old bylaws and they have never been disaffiliated through the official process. The jud comm has previously ruled on this matter, which means that quorum for a state comm meeting is 8. (20%)

    Two of the representatives at that alleged meeting did not have credentials because they had voluntarily resigned and “closed” their party years ago, and have since had material breaches that cannot be cured under the old bylaws. When I reviewed their minutes there were only 2 old state comm representatives with valid credentials in attendance if applying the old rules.

    I am not in a position to evaluate the proper composition of the State Committee at the county level and I will never be in as good a position as native Oregonians to figure that out, so I won’t venture a try. However, if I am given a list of valid board members and a list of board members who attended, I do feel qualified (in part by virtue of my bachelor’s degree in mathematics) to take 20% of the former number and judge if it is greater or less than the latter number.

  151. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@192):

    Two more questions:

    1) Does the convention in the absence of a quorum have the power adjourn sine die?

    Yes.

    2) Concerning the State Committee, LPO’s bylaws state in Article VI, Section 3F: “A quorum shall be 20% of the members of the State Committee.” If there are 11 members and 25 vacancies, is the quorum 20% of 11 or is the quorum 20% of 36?

    20% of 11.

  152. Wes Wagner

    This discussion about quorums and whatnot is really quite interesting, but it avoids the fact that:

    There have already been rulings about quorum of the state committee under the old rules that have been sustained.

    And that the whole discussion is moot, because the bylaws were changed on March 31st and there were intervening appointments prior to May 21st, and that no state committee meeting could have been properly called and held on May 21st under the new rules, and that none of the people present were representatives of the state committee.

    As of March 31st and to date the representatives of the state committee were and are:

    Wes Wagner
    Harry Joe Tabor
    Mark Vetanen
    Ron Bream
    Jim Karlock
    Richard Skyba
    Herb Booth
    Angela Grover
    Joseph Shelley

    None of those individuals were even present on May 21st, so there were 0 representatives present out of 9 for a state committee meeting that had not even been called.

  153. Steven Wilson

    @rc168

    Meaning is not individual within group dynamics. Application is individual. The merit of an act by an individual agent is found in what they applied and how it made them feel. See conformity effect.

    If meaning were individual, then all known language games would end in empty set. Meaning is mutual.

  154. Steven Wilson

    @sc176

    I know Harry Browne was a problem for the fringe. I believed in him because at the time, I heard his message about individualism. At that time, in 1996, I called Browne, a “suit extreme”.

    I don’t get caught up in discussions about paradigms with Greens or Libertarians. I just wanted function. I wanted clarity.

    You need handlers in this game for a campaign. You don’t need handlers for a party of individuals.

    I need to hear your voice on issues. I need to know what you care about. I don’t need to here how “we” should vote to maintain ballot access. “Our” platform says this, “Our” bylaws say that.

    I don’t consider myself a radical, but I can’t help with your naming criteria.

    I am not right or left. I am here.

  155. Robert Capozzi

    196 sw: If meaning were individual, then all known language games would end in empty set. Meaning is mutual.

    me: Individuals interpret meaning individually; we can’t know how another interprets meaning, only what they TELL US what their interpretation is. Language and other “group dynamics” allows us to share as best we can what our individual meaning is. Group rules facilitate sharing and commerce.

    In this sense, I am a radical individualist. I can’t read your mind and you (probably) can’t read mine. Each of us knows this when we venture out into the world, and yet – somehow – enough of us buy into conventions that allow a social order to evolve.

    L as “naming device” has never been precise and likely never will be. We speak in a language where “flammable” and “inflammable” mean the same thing, after all!

    Meaning, then, can’t be “mutual,” but it can be somewhat conventional. The Borg experience mutual meaning, but we don’t.

  156. George Phillies

    It seems that the State Chair list is now under the control of the State Chairs Secretary, Mr. Carling, and not the LNC who houses it on their URL, and herefore it was Carling who switched the State Chair list in accord with his opinion as to whom the State Chair is.

  157. Wes Wagner

    GP @199

    Trying to shut down conversation and prevent people from working with each other is fairly MO for M, given all the events surrounding the November 2010 LPO special convention.

    The national party will forever not be able to get anything done until they can get rid of people who engage in this type of cancerous politics.

    It is incumbent on all of us to take away their toys, ignore them, refuse to work with them, and treat them like the little pocket monsters of manipulators like RPB that they are.

  158. Michael H. Wilson

    One thing about this. I feel like an investor who has put time, money and effort into an investment and who long ago realized that the return was real slim and getting slimmer.

    Now it seems others are interested in my time. I do outreach, petitioning, write letters, do a news letter, send out media releases, have run for office and I have the Campaign 4 Liberty folks trying to get me involved in their work.

    Since I am being recruited by others what shall I do?

  159. George Phillies

    200 Once upon a time, one of the Soviet dictators who was not yet dictator said ‘no you be chair, I’d just like to be the secretary and see that your commands are carried out’. It’s a very clever tactic.

    And if you were at the 2010 convention you may remember which candidate for judicial committee nominated which other candidate for the judicial committee, and expected that we were going to ask why. The candidates in question both met with the enthusiastic support of the delegates, but not enough enthusiasm to be elected.

  160. Marc Montoni

    As things stand, it’s clear that the LP-OR has an intractable problem. I think in order to move along, everyone with a stake in the LP-OR is going to have to take some lumps.

    Some general principles:

    – The national LP has, despite Knapp’s snookery, a right to disaffiliate a state party, and to prevent the disaffiliated state party from using the name “Libertarian”.

    – Decisions by consensus are always better than those made by decree. I believe Ms. Mattson’s recognition of the Burke faction’s officers was premature; RR itself suggests that the best way to handle disputes where emotions run high is to allow THE LARGER BODY to make the decision required. The LNC should have been asked to vote on the matter, or, better yet, to create an arbitration or mediation committee to try to help resolve the dispute.

    I encourage a peace deal between the parties, consisting of several provisions. No, they are not RONR correct, but neither was the garbage going on prior to 2009 that eventually brought the LP-OR to where it is now. The parliamentarians are a bit late to the party. Nor will these provisions make everyone happy — everyone will have to give up some things.

    1) M Carling and Alicia Mattson (as well as the rest of the LNC) agree to drop their claim of recognition of the other officers supposedly elected May 21; and those alleged officers agree to relinquish their claim to office. So far, no documentation has been presented as suggested in my comment #130. If Wes is going to be required to follow the rules, then there should be the same expectation of the opposing camp.

    2) Wes & associates drop their claim of having passed the new bylaws, but agree to remain seated as the LP-OR officers for the moment.

    3) Wes & the current officers authorize a new convention to settle all claims. They will select the day and time, with an eye towards scheduling it on a day that will tend to maximize attendance (eg Saturday).

    4) All sides, including the LNC, agree to ignore the alleged quorum requirement for this meeting. If a dozen people adopted it in 2009, a convention with 30 or so the following year should have been able to either ignore it or repeal it. It has clearly become a stumbling block. No one is going to want to travel 300 miles to attend a convention where it’s almost guaranteed someone is going to invoke the quorum requirement and shut down the meeting ten minutes in. Despite what Carling said in comments 97 & 98 about getting people in the door, if people know they’re going to get shut down, they simply won’t attend.

    5) The convention notice should be mailed by a mailhouse after all three sides are allowed to examine the database that will be provided to the mailhouse for creating the mailing labels.

    It is pretty clear that Richard Burke and his associates could have forestalled a lot of anger and bad karma by some judicious application of openness and transparency. Not to mention common sense: if you continually make decisions that you KNOW will anger a substantial portion of your constituents, you have no expectation of peace in the future. Burke and his supporters largely brought this on themselves. Therefore, AVOID DOING THINGS that will piss people off.

    For example, the cross-endorsements of Republicans.

    It is clear that Burke and his supporters have piled error on top of error. Refusing to “open the books” or not keeping them in some sort of order is a serious offense to the rights of the membership.

    Now in the interests of moving the LP-OR towards re-establishing itself as the voice for liberty in OR, why don’t the warring factions consider the above truce terms?

  161. Marc Montoni

    Phillies at 163 and 170, no I am not incorrect. Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. Your inferences from what I said are your thoughts only.

    Given your behavior between 1996-2004 as one of the alpha libercops who kept fanning the flames in order to inflate your own sense of importance, you in particular are among those who have absolutely no business opining about the situation in Oregon.

  162. Wes Wagner

    MM @205

    Already done. The new bylaws are to be delivered to all 13,000 registered libertarians in Oregon for ratification and amendment.

    They own the party. Not me, not RPB, not national.

    An attempt of theft of a party by bureaucracy will not play well with any judge I know in this state.

    Also, please keep trying to bat that trademark thing around to treat state parties like they are under the thumb of national. It reminds them how angry they should be with how the LNC has entirely attempted to reverse the relationship.

    National is a subordinate organization, whether they like it or not. They have zero legal standing in most states in this country.

    In ORS the national party has only one right… they get to receive our delegation. Heck that doesn’t even sound like a right, it sounds like a responsibility and liability.

    They otherwise have zero legal standing in Oregon except that of a foreign corporation … might as well say the Sierra Club is coming by to disaffiliate us.

    Also, there will be no negotiation. That was the November convention that was shut down by M, Alicia, Hinkle and Burke. That was their last chance to negotiate. They were just too politically amateur to realize it.

  163. Wes Wagner

    MM @207

    Just so there is no misunderstanding… the behavior of that particular faction was so reprehensible over the years that the entire rest of the party felt that complete, total, abject political genocide was in order. Their antics over the November convention sealed their fate.

    At this point the party has actual libertarians in it, people are ready to do good work, new people are showing up and are happy to have all the BS behind us. Out of state interlopers are cut off.

    We are not going back to the dark ages of horribly broken bylaws, stupid antics, republican infiltrators messing with us, state committee reps that haven’t stood for election in over 10 years, and petty whore mongers trying to trade political favors to republicans for personal agendas.

    It just isn’t happening.

  164. Aaron Starr

    Chuck Moulton:

    Several followup questions:

    According to the adopted minutes of the post-convention meeting of the State Committee, the following five individuals were credentialed as members present to vote. David Long (Washington County), Don McDaniel (Clatsop County), Helen McDaniel (Clatsop County), Richard Whitehead (Washington County), Steve Dodds (Yamhill County).

    The following six individuals were also recognized as members but were not present: Ron Bream (Multnomah County), David Terry (Yamhill County), Angela Grover (Marion County), Orrin Grover (Marion County), Lars Hedbor (Clackamas County), and Jim Karlock (Multnomah County).

    By unanimous votes, the individuals present elected officers to fill the vacancies caused by the adjournment of the Convention.

    1) If there are no other members of the State Committee, do the five out of eleven members constitute a 20% quorum under the bylaws?

    2) If per chance there are additional unknown members of the State Committee, would there need to be an additional 15 such members of the board, bringing the total to 26 members, for the five present to not be considered a quorum?

    3) If there is to be a challenge of the credentials of those attending that meeting, which met the notice requirement because its time and place was mandated by the bylaws, when must such a point of order be raised and who has standing to make it? Would the arbiters of such a challenge be the State Committee members assembled on May 21?

    4) Does former Chair Wes Wagner, who was no longer a member of the State Committee, have standing to challenge the credentials of the attendees? If so, when must such a point of order be raised? Would the arbiters of such a challenge be the State Committee members assembled on May 21?

    5) In the absence of any other information presented so far, are the current officers of the LPO the individuals elected at the May 21 post-convention State Committee meeting?

  165. George Phillies

    What Mr. 206 is whining about is that in for 1996-2002 I blew the whistle — with full documentation — on the level of dishonesty associated with several of our Presidential campaigns and their interactions with the national office. You would correctly infer that 206 was attached to one of the less fortunate of those factions.

    You can read the details, false claims about campaign finances, money passed to a member of the National staff from the campaign via a third party, National Committee funding of a nominating campaign via unannounced loans, false claims about third-party vendors, etc. in my book Funding Liberty http://3mpub.com/phillies

    And if 209 does not want people dragging him into the issue perhaps he should reconsider whether he wants to be involved in it.

    Oh, the next issue of Liberty for America is out this week. Some of you may have heard of the way Rachel Hawkridge was harassed by several members of our National Committee, including I am told by our National Chair, with their utterly false and baseless accusations that she was our source on the LNC. They drove another fine female activist out of our party.

    She’s not on the LNC any more.

    Our sources still are.

    As our National Chair wrote

    “Dear LNC,

    We’ve got a new problem.

    We have two factions within the LP of Oregon claiming to be the official Party officers.

    The State Chair’s email list has recognized the “new” officers led by Tim Reeves and removed the “old” officer Wes Wagner… ”

    and enough consequent emails to fill a comment thread here.

    Those of you who want to see what happened last time we had this issue should read Funding Liberty, especially Chapter 17.

  166. Robert Capozzi

    21o gp: …1996-2002 I blew the whistle — with full documentation — on the level of dishonesty associated with several of our Presidential campaigns and their interactions with the national office.

    me: And yet we still are scratching our heads about the partially documented narcing to the FEC you did in 08. I say “partially” because we still haven’t heard a plausible explanation for your motive. Playing Woodward and Bernstein works better when one lives in a house with little glass. Blowing the whistle may have utility, but after a while, it’s time to let it go.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    “we still haven’t heard a plausible explanation for your motive.”

    You got a mouse in your pocket or something? So far as I know, everyone — including you — has heard (although you may still be refusing to listen to) a more than plausible explanation.

    A discrepancy of statements existed such that it appeared that the LNC had spent a considerable sum of money without budgeting it, voting on it or even discussing it.

    When Phillies asked an LNC member to inquire as to whether this was the case or there was some other explanation, that LNC member did so — and instead of getting an answer, she got dragged into a fraudulently convened executive session so that she could be out of sight while being verbally abused for asking the question.

    The apparent discrepancy still existing, and the LNC refusing to address it, left Phillies with limited options. He could just say “fine, it looks like there are thousands of dollars of the members’ money missing, but whatever, it will work itself out,” or he could attempt to compel the LNC to answer the fucking question.

    He chose the latter option.

    Maybe you wouldn’t have.

  168. Marc Montoni

    Phillies bloviates:

    What Mr. 206 is whining about is that in for 1996-2002 I blew the whistle ­ with full documentation ­ on the level of dishonesty associated with several of our Presidential campaigns and their interactions with the national office. You would correctly infer that 206 was attached to one of the less fortunate of those factions.

    Ah, this is the Phillies I know — rather than correcting his error, he compounds it.

    No, George, what you did was to take various facts and present them in a manner designed to leave the reader with the impression that evil lurks. Straight out of “Disinformation 101”.

    You and Hornberger honed that to a fine art. Actually it was mostly Hornberger. You just slurped up every accusation that slipped from his lips, put a new title and paint job on the language, and regurgitated it.

    I think it especially laughable that you think I was part of that faction you hated. See, the problem with you, George, is that you think anyone who isn’t with you, must be part of the evil cabal. Perhaps you should grow up a little and understand that those who disagree with you and your interpretation of events might just be disagreeing with you.

    I still have in my files the rather nasty series of communications I traded with Mssrs Willis and Winter from 95-98.

    Personally, I had no dog in the fight between Hornberger’s merry band of apologists and your “Evil Browne-Headed Hydra” — until in 2001 Hornberger opened up with both barrels on me for something I hadn’t even done. I was then labeled part of the Browne “camp” because Hornberger lumped me in with them. Besides his mistaken accusation, he also assumed I was personal pals with Willis and Winter. However, at the time, I couldn’t stand Perry Willis — I had had more than a couple of run-ins with him myself. I thought him high-handed and haughty. Interestingly, in 1995, Willis also accused me of doing something I didn’t do when I worked for LPHQ between 1989-1993. In short, I was no friend of Perry Willis. I used to run the Richmond Metro Libertarians group — and a couple of times had Hornberger come speak to our group in the period 1995-1999. I liked him. I promoted FFF. But then he went nuts.

    What he unloaded on me was nothing like any disagreements I had with Willis or Winter.

    It was at that point that I started questioning what I’d believed until then about Browne, Willis, and their associates. The more I looked, the more I realized that Hornberger was merely doing what any half-trained hack lawyer does: trying to convince the members of the jury to give him the result he wants, regardless of who he has to walk on to do it. Lawyers are trained to do this without letting on to any of the jurors that if it paid his bill, he would throw every juror into a blender and hit “hamburger” without a second thought.

    In this instance, perhaps what he wanted was the full attention of the LP membership as a way to sell himself to them — perhaps as a presidential candidate, perhaps just to get them to look up FFF. I still don’t know if his Perot-like on-again-off-again campaign for the nomination meant he really wanted the nomination at all, or whether it was simply to get publicity and donations for FFF, the front group that lined his pockets.

    Hornberger ruined himself. He will never again be invited to any event I have a hand in organizing. I will never again promote his organization like I did before that. I have learned to shun misbehaving individuals, and he gets the full dose. He turned himself into a parody; a joke, and I won’t forgive him for doing so. He could have accomplished so much.

    George Phillies, on the other hand, had all of the negative attributes of Hornberger, with few of the redeeming qualities.

    So by all means, Phillies, continue with your fantasies. You will undoubtedly take them to your grave, never having tasted the truth.

    Your epitaph should probably be: “Here lies George Phillies, in both senses of the word. Introspection was never my strong point.”

  169. Robert Capozzi

    212 tk, yes, plausibility is in the eye of the beholder. I’d say RP’s explanation of NewsletterGate is slightly more plausible than GP’s “I felt I had no other options than to narc to the FEC on the LNC” explanation.

    And, yes, I certainly would not have done what GP did.

    I think it’s great that we have Ls who are watching party officials from the outside to ensure ethical behavior. I support ethical behavior.

    It does to me seem that GP is not well positioned to be that watchdog, in light of his runs for high positions in the LP. It raises red flags for me when he turns around after losing the nomination and narcs to the FEC. If he’d asked me at the time, I’d-a said, “Bad idea. You have many other options.” And I say this as one who very often agrees with GP’s policy views.

    The main point of my comment, however, is that dredging up minor indiscretions over a decade ago by players long gone serves no useful purpose. What happened in the 90s matters not at all, near as I can tell. I’ve gotten over 1983, when the LP consciously IMO chose to stay and play on the fringes! IMO!

    I – and I think most onlookers – would have to wonder what was going on in GP’s mind when he narced to the Feds. As we’ve discussed before, it seems obvious that he had MANY other options to redress his grievances. Based on the facts we know, it seemed at most to be an accounting technicality.

    What outcome GP wanted also seems – umm – puzzling. Did he want to destroy the LP in order to save it? Did he want LP officials to serve jail time over a relatively small amount of money, money that was being used to advance liberty, not personal gain?

    Shoestring operations moving fast will make mistakes. Can’t we be just a bit more forgiving when mistakes SEEM to be being made? If we’re to learn anything from NarcGate, perhaps we can learn that we shouldn’t jump to the worst conclusions about others, including our rivals!

    As for “fraudulently” and “verbally abused,” those are serious charges. When this came up before, I don’t recall any evidence coming forth to support such a charge.

  170. Starchild

    Michael @202 – I’d say do whatever seems best for the libertarian cause of worldwide freedom, taking into consideration your personal enjoyment and satisfaction, since if you’re not having fun or deriving satisfaction from something, it is less likely to be sustainable (i.e. won’t cause you to burn out).

    That being said, I don’t see any reason why you should feel like an investor whose commitment to the Libertarian Party must be all or nothing. In practical terms, my advice is by all means go ahead and work with Campaign for Liberty or any other vehicle that appears to offer you the best opportunity to advance freedom at any given point in time — but try to maintain your LP membership, attend LP conventions as much as possible so that your vote and voice can be heard, and keep an eye out for opportunities to revitalize the local party where you live.

    The LP remains unique in the United States as a nationally-organized, mass-participation, bottom-up (at least to some extent) group that is broadly correct on the issues (i.e. strong on both personal and economic liberties) while being independent of the two-party establishment cartel.

    These qualities make the party worth fighting to save, imho, as absurd and disheartening as we know the fight can sometimes be.

    Power to the People, Freedom For All!

  171. Robert Capozzi

    213 mm: Your epitaph should probably be: “Here lies George Phillies, in both senses of the word. Introspection was never my strong point.”

    me: Shifting gears here, but this really seems unnecessary. To me, GP is obviously a very introspective person, but, like all of us, he seems to have his blind spots.

  172. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc @ 213,

    You write:

    “The more I looked, the more I realized that Hornberger was merely doing what any half-trained hack lawyer does: trying to convince the members of the jury to give him the result he wants, regardless of who he has to walk on to do it.”

    Hornberger did make some false, even ridiculous, allegations.

    On the other hand, ultimately he didn’t have to convince the jury to give him what he wanted, because the defendant, Perry Willis, publicly confessed to the primary allegation: That while working as LPHQ’s national director, he intentionally and successfully stole the 1996 LP presidential nomination for Harry Browne.

    The sad thing is, Harry would probably have won that nomination fair and square. But Willis didn’t think so, so he just rigged the game.

    As far as Phillies merely recapitulating Hornberger’s allegations, that’s complete and utter bullshit.

    Hornberger made a number of allegations, some of which overlapped with those made by Phillies, some of which didn’t.

    Hornberger advanced his allegations with a series of “open letters,” some with evidence included, some consisting merely of speculation.

    Phillies wrote an entire book on the Browne campaigns. That book is extensively documented. Phillies goes to great length to actually prove his allegations, and in my informed opinion (I worked as a proofreader and fact-checker on the book) does in fact prove most of them (in one particular case, I disagreed with both the veracity of an allegation and with the idea that the book met the burden of proof — George disagreed with me and the allegation remained).

    It may be that your opinion that George merely recapitulated Hornberger is based on ignorance, e.g. you haven’t read the book. But if you are ignorant and know you’re ignorant, the burden of informing yourself is on you, not on everyone else.

  173. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 214,

    “The main point of my comment, however, is that dredging up minor indiscretions over a decade ago by players long gone serves no useful purpose.”

    That may be your “main point,” but you seem to be addicted to “dredging up” the Phillies/FEC affair every month or so, pretending that you don’t understand it, making me explain it again, and then trying to get away from the fact that you know damn well what happened and why, and that however distasteful you may find the action, its explanation is one thousand percent plausible.

    Supposedly I’m the absolutist and you’re the big-tenter here.

    On those grounds, one would expect me to be the one saying that consulting a state agency on a matter should be either the absolute last recourse or possibly even completely off-limits, and for you to be the one acknowledging that when a range of options are available and at least some of them have been exhausted, it’s not necessarily un-libertarian to call the police when you believe your house is being burglarized and you’ve asked the burglars to desist and been told to piss off, instead of limiting one’s self to walking the neighborhood and asking the neighbors to shun the burglar.

    As to “minor indiscretions of over a decade ago,” the LP is young as organizations go, and when facially similar situations arise only ~25% apart in the span of such a short history, it’s not unreasonable to compare those situations.

    Please note the “facially.” The Arizona and Oregon situations are obviously not identical, and I suspect a largely different set of players is involved (maybe some overlap, but not a lot). That doesn’t mean no one should say “there are similarities, and given that the last situation had some bad fallout, it might be a good idea to compare the two and see if there are any learnable lessons from the first to apply to the second.”

    Personally, in terms of trends, I see the last two years or so as more indicative of the particular problem:

    To the extent that an identifiable group/faction/cabal/whatever was involved in the Wrights affair and the Oregon affair, it seems that that group/faction/cabal/whatever believes they’ve found an organizational Achilles’ heel which allows them to have their way on things:

    Get one party official or bureaucrat to deem something so, then exploit the inertia of and divisions within the LNC to keep it so, blowing off some RONR chaff and flares as necessary to sow confusion and protect the deed.

    Tolerating that is a bad habit for an organization to get into — even if the “something deemed” is something desirable this time, and even if the official/bureaucrat taking that shortcut this time is the most sincere fellow in the world.

  174. Robert Milnes

    @61 & 92 George seems to put the final nail in as to my participation in the debate.
    However, I’m not necessarily dead in the water, to mix a couple of metaphors.
    Please do not let any of this dissuade anyone from supporting me. Presently I’m planning to try to attend the conference. The debate is scheduled at the end of the day. If I get there early I can spend the whole day there campaigning. A reversal of the decision to barr me from the debate might happen.
    Wrights is a radical. I have no problem with his participation with or without the last minute promised FEC filing. However George says if Root were to file etc he could participate.
    Now THAT I object to. IF the Original Nolan Resolution were put in effect over the Amended i.e. reversed in meaning & adopted one, Root would be barred as not a libertarian.
    I have stated I am not a libertarian also. But rather a left anarchist/progressive(for practical reasons). Therefore I should be allowed by reason of anarchists should get a pass also progressives should be allowed for practical reasons. Rightists like Root, Barr, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson et al etc., should be barred from participation in the LP as party officials and/or candidates.
    George hold up that Ron Paul would be excluded under his rules. Actually I would welcome debating Ron Paul. I have some choice words for him. 72% of libertarians support Ron Paul. This is a huge problem.
    Also, I am specifically running Independent because I do not want to be eliminated simply because the LP-or GP- are unreliable in their nominating process as seen evidence of the 2008 campaigns & nominations.
    Nader proved-as has precious few have-that an Independent could possibly get on enough ballots to get elected and/or a minor party might give its ballot access.
    Ron Paul 2008 proved The Libertarian Vote/Cato AND the anti-war/libertarian movement is capable of @35 million campaign contributions. Belying the sputter & spatter of contributions to the rest of the field in 2008 & previous years. He also proved he cannot win a single primary despite HUGE support.
    If my campaign gets some traction I believe I can get that 35 million before he does. Also about 300 million of Obama’s expecte4d 1 Billion with a B.
    So don’t count me out.

  175. Robert Capozzi

    218 tk, oh, I’m pretty sure it’s been way more than a month!

    Just as it’s not plausible to me that RP doesn’t know and apparently didn’t ask who wrote those passages, it’s not plausible to me that GP doesn’t see that what he did when he narced to the Feds was a reckless, disproportionate act. It IS plausible that he was angry at the time and wasn’t thinking straight when he did it.

    Perhaps the word “credible” is better than “plausible.” His credibility was severely damaged – at least for me — by his refusing to acknowledge IN RETROSPECT that he had other options. Leaving this blot on his credibility would make me and probably most people hesitant to do business with GP, knowing that his apparent anger can lead to his narcing people out based only on a suspicion.

    The Wrights Affair hurt other people’s credibility, too. I’d prefer to see people “man up” and acknowledge that that situation was poorly handled.

    Unfortunately, people expend IMO ridiculous amounts of effort covering up their small errors and making them bigger ones, IMO. This isn’t just a L problem, it’s a cultural one.

    All GP would need to do would be to say, “Ya know, if I had it to do over again, I would not have narced. I acted hastily. I apologize. Thankfully, nothing bad came from my misstep.” Or something. Just as those who were responsible for the Wrights situation should, too.

    Stonewalling or covering up is what the Rs and Ds do. Remember when W said he couldn’t think of ONE THING he’d do differently? That, IMO, is the position of a child.

    Adults take responsibility for their errors.

    At least on Planet Capozzi…when I’m in my right mind! 😉 There, confession actually is good for the soul.

  176. George Phillies

    Contining with Arizona and the similarities and differences:

    The Phoenix group did not avail itself of its opportunity under the By-Laws to appeal the disaffiliation decision to the Party Judicial Committee, so after the statutory 30 days the disaffiliation became final. It appears that the bulk of the National Committee misunderstood the implications of these events. The National Committee appears to have believed that the Phoenix group had accepted the validity of the disaffiliation decision and had therefore agreed that the Tucson group was now the state party that the Phoenix group should support. The Phoenix group had in fact concluded that Libertarian National Committee, Inc., had the privilege of choosing its own affiliates, had willingly and voluntarily chosen the Tucson group as its affiliate, and that the Phoenix group was no longer responsible for the actions of LNC, Inc. or the Tucson group. In particular, Libertarian National Committee, Inc. and its chosen affiliate now had the privilege of getting their Presidential candidate on the Arizona ballot.

    The National Committee also appears to have assumed that the State Party was legally required to run the Presidential candidate chosen at the National Committee’s national convention. Apparently a telephone call was made to an official in the Arizona State government, asking whether such an obligation existed. The answer was in the affirmative. It was clearly not recognized that this is a highly esoteric legal question, referring to an issue that may well not have arisen before in the history of Arizona, and that a credible answer required a written inquiry and extensive research by the Arizona state government. The minor detail that, while the Tucson group was willing to put Browne on the ballot, it did not have ballot access, was ignored. Also, once the Phoenix Group had been disaffiliated, it is not clear why it was being assumed by the National Committee that the Phoenix group would honor the nominating convention of the Libertarian Party of the United States and not, say, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, since the Phoenix group, by the choice of the LNC, had no further affiliation with Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

    Based on my conversations with its members, the Phoenix group did not view itself as being bound by decisions of political parties with which it was not affiliated, including the Revolutionary Socialists, the Democrats,…or the Libertarian Party of the United States. They emphasized to me that the LNC disaffiliated them, not the other way around, so National Party members had no legitimate complaint when the Phoenix Group accepted the validity of the National Committee’s action. The National Committee had the idea that it could simply send the Phoenix group on its way, and had done so. Seemingly, the National Committee had assumed that without National Party affiliation the Phoenix group would roll over and die. This assumption proved to be invalid.

  177. JT

    Montoni: “JT, Knapp and Phillies have been arguing that line since 2000; it’s really a waste of breath trying to put facts in the debate.”

    Are you referring to me? I agreed with you on this thread. I’ve never argued a line since 2000. I don’t understand.

  178. JT

    Oh wait, Marc…I see you were addressing me by mentioning my name, not including me with Knapp and Phillies. Sorry, I read that wrong.

  179. George Phillies

    and turning to another section of the same book, whether others felt that matters were minor indiscretions, let’s consider what the LNC did itself in 2001.

    This is from Chapter 23 of “Funding Liberty”, and we will by and by get to the full LNC resolutions.

    Chapter 23

    The LNC Executive Committee Acts on the Browne Scandal

    Within a month of Famularo’s revelation, Perry Willis published his long defense of his interactions with the Browne Campaign. It might have been possible for a determined National Committee to ignore the Willis Invoice as presented by John Famularo. After all, that Invoice was printed from an electronic file that lacked even a digital signature. These was no direct evidence produced by Famularo that the invoice had been sent, let alone that the Browne campaign had paid for Willis’s services. The National Committee could have proclaimed that the electronic file was not credible, because it bore no direct evidence of its authenticity. They would then have had to cope with Famularo’s full timeline and this book—which I had already started to write—but the Willis Invoice might not have been make or break evidence. Willis’s statement removed all doubt about part of his involvement in the matter. Willis’s statement made continued National Committee inaction indefensible, if it had ever been contemplated.

    The May 2, 2001 LNC Executive Committee teleconference took note of the Famularo document. Major events in that meeting are summarized by its minutes available at archive.lp.org. Present in the meeting were ExComm members James Lark, Deryl Martin, Steve Givot, Ken Bisson, Joe Dehn (CA), and Michael “MG” Gilson de Lemos, as well as LNC members Lois Kaneshiki, Dan Wisnosky, Sara Chambers, and Richard Schwarz, and National Director Steve Dasbach.

    As part of a discussion of a proposed lawsuit against the FEC, National Secretary Steve Givot identified as an issue ‘whether or not Perry Willis violated LNC policy in working for the Browne campaign in February 1996 and other months’. Givot gave his interpretation of the policy in place at that time, namely that it ‘required Willis to have prior approval of any such employment’. Readers of earlier Chapters will recall that this was also my reading of the policy resolutions in question. Givot appears to have been one of very few participants in this debate to have given careful attention to the actual LNC policy in place at the time. Givot went on to say that ‘he understands that no such approval was granted’. According to the same Minutes, Dasbach said that, ‘based on his recent contact with Willis, we should proceed under the assumption that Willis did work for the Browne campaign during that time period in violation of LNC policy.’ Dasbach did not actually confirm that Givot’s understanding about the lack of approval was correct.

    On May 23, 2001 the LNC ExComm again met by teleconference. ExComm members present were James Lark, Dan Fylstra, Deryl Martin, Steve Givot, Ken Bisson, and Joe Dehn. Other LNC Members present included Lois Kaneshiki, Mark Nelson, Dan Wisnosky, Ben Scherrey, and Richard Schwarz, as well as Steff Members Steve Dasbach, Ron Crickenberger, and Bill Hall,

    Dehn moved (and Bisson seconded) a resolution, which after modest changes in language became:

    “In light of information recently made available concerning violation of LNC policy by Perry Willis and the possible concealment of information about this violation by other persons associated with the Harry Browne campaign, the Executive Committee hereby

    1) Recommends that no action be taken to involve the Libertarian Party in the lawsuit against the FEC proposed by Browne and Willis, or any other project proposed or managed by them, until all related questions have been answered to the satisfaction of the full LNC.

    2) Directs the national staff, until such time as the matter can be addressed by the full LNC, to not enter into any business relationships, including but not limited to rentals of the LP mailing list or advertising in LP News, with Browne or Willis or any entity of which either of them is an officer, director, or employee, without prior approval of the Executive Committee.

    3) Expresses its appreciation to those individuals who have been willing to assist the LNC by bringing forward information about this matter and requests that anyone else who may have relevant information make it available to the LNC without delay.”

    Speaking of his own resolution, Dehn is summarized by the Minutes as saying ‘it is also important to make it clear that any other business dealings with these people should be postponed until this matter has been fully addressed by the LNC.’

    In response to a question from Steve Dasbach as to whether ‘adoption of the resolution would prohibit purchasing additional copies of Browne’s book Why Government Doesn’t Work from Liam Works, given that neither Browne nor Willis has a financial interest in the company’, Steve Givot expressed the belief ‘that the resolution would direct staff to avoid any transaction which might give rise to the impression that the LP was doing business with Willis, Browne, or any organization they control’ .

    Dasbach asked that the record show that, except for ‘accepting LP News ads from these people or purchasing Browne’s book’ ‘he had already implemented a policy of not engaging in any such business relationships (ex: renting the LP mailing list) without first getting Executive Committee approval’.

    With respect to the proposed LNC Lawsuit, Givot said ‘he could no longer support LNC participation in the proposed FEC lawsuit if Willis has any involvement whatsoever with any organization which is a party to or otherwise involved in the lawsuit’; Martin said ‘he had voted in favor of the motion to participate in the lawsuit and that he is currently “uncomfortable with that vote.” ‘, and Bisson said that ‘he agrees with Givot and Martin but feels that no further action is required at the present time.’ Fylstra expressed concern that ‘it is our job to move the Party forward—to make progress’ and that ‘the Party is spending energy and time spinning its wheels investigating allegations about what has taken place in the past.’

    With some further discussion, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 0. Fylstra and Lark abstained.

    The record at this point is clear. The Executive Committee voted that the National Staff was not to enter into business relationships with Browne, Willis, or any entity of which they were officer, director, or employee, without prior approval of the Executive Committee. The record does not clarify whether ‘director’ was to be broadly or narrowly construed.

    The Executive Committee further voted a “recommendation” that no action be taken to involve the Libertarian Party in any other project proposed or managed by Browne or Willis, until the full LNC had acted. Dehn as author of the resolution placed into the record of the meeting what his own motion meant: ‘it is also important to make it clear that any other business dealings with these people should be postponed until this matter has been fully addressed by the LNC.’ No member of the Executive Committee demurred from Dehn’s statement about his own motion. Steve Givot, speaking on the motion for which he later voted, said ‘in his view, the right thing is doing no business with these people’.

    Under the resolution, the staff was to refer proposed LNC involvements to the Executive Committee, an absolute majority of which had just recommended that no action—an ExComm vote is an action—be taken until the full LNC was satisfied with the situation. One could consider to what extent the ExComm Resolution bound the National Chair as Party CEO. However, when you ‘recommend’ to yourself what is to be done, unless you have a difficulty with split personality you have said what you are going to do. Until reversed, the ExComm “recommendation” appears to close the door on ExComm approvals of business dealings prior to the next LNC meeting.

    nd now we reach the next ExComm Meeting. On May 30, 2001, the LNC Executive Committee Meeting held another teleconference, on very short notice, to re-examine their resolution. LNC ExComm members present were James Lark, Dan Fylstra, Deryl Martin, Steve Givot, Ken Bisson, Joe Dehn, and Michael “MG” Gilson de Lemos (MG joined the teleconference after it had started)

    LNC members who listened in on the call were Lois Kaneshiki (PA), At Large Representative; Mike Dixon (IL), Region 1 Representative; Ben Scherrey (GA), Region 4 Alternate (joined the meeting at 1:00 PM); and Richard Schwarz (PA), Region 5 Representative. Staff members present were Steve Dasbach, National Director and Bill Hall, General Counsel.

    Fylstra moved (and Bisson seconded) a resolution which after several friendly amendments read:

    “To clarify the intent of, and expand upon its resolution of May 23 2001, the Executive Committee hereby
    1) Recommends that the LNC censure Perry Willis for his acknowledged violation of LNC policy in 1995-96 in working for the Browne campaign while being employed by the LNC.
    2) Recognizes that while Harry Browne was the head of the campaign, it is presently unclear to what extent he or others were involved in Willis’ actions or decisions.
    3) Requests that Harry Browne provide a public statement to the LNC to clarify the circumstances surrounding Willis’ actions, and any lessons that may be learned therefrom.
    4) Requests that all persons having any information relating to Willis’ actions, or any other intentional violation of LNC policy by other persons, provide that information to the LNC Chair no later than August 18, 2001.
    5) Clarifies that its resolution of 23 May 2001 requires the national staff to seek Executive Committee approval before entering into new business dealings with Willis or Browne, but is not per se a blanket prohibition against such dealings.
    6) Sets a goal that any and all questions related to these matters be resolved to the satisfaction of LNC members by the time of, and be reflected in the minutes of the LNC’s August meeting, and asks all LNC members and other persons to work together to achieve resolution by that date.”

    According to the ExComm Minutes, Fylstra advanced several reasons for proposing his resolution, notably his belief “that the previously-adopted resolution has left many people with the impression that there is a blanket prohibition against doing business with Willis or Browne.” Clarifying on this point, National Director Dasbach expressed doubts ‘as to what extent the resolution applied to persons other than Willis or Browne’. Dasbach also summarized his conversations with various Executive Committee members, saying that he found ‘there was a lack of clear consensus regarding which requests for list rental, running ads in LP News, or other transactions would require prior approval from the Executive Committee.’

    The motion was divided. The first part of the divided motion—to adopt points (1), (3), (4), (5), and (6)—passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The second part of the divided motion—to adopt point (2)—passed by a vote of 3 to 2. Bisson, Givot, and Martin voted for the motion. Dehn and MG voted against the motion.

    Fylstra’s discussion only makes sense if ‘new business dealings’ might now possibly be approved by the ExComm, contrary to the prior resolution’s recommendation that ‘no action be taken to involve the party’ prior to action of the full LNC. There have since been claims by LNC members that the second resolution did not invert a ban present in the first. Readers may judge for themselves what the record shows about this question.

    The second resolution also asserted that it was ‘unclear’ to what extent Browne or others ‘were involved in Willis’s actions or decisions’. The reader will recognize that invoices do not commonly pay themselves. If Willis had in fact received payment for the Invoice, as he claimed, it was extremely clear that someone was involved in agreeing to the February Contract and paying the invoice.

    My contacts associated with the Browne campaign report that Browne was a truly excellent small-business manager. He was closely aware of all the details of his campaign’s activities. Could he have been unaware of events? Why was there an interest in suggesting that Browne might be absolved of responsibility, in the absence of a denial from Browne that he had been aware of events, and an explanation as to how he could have remained unaware?

    Under the second resolution the penalties against Browne and Willis were apparently reduced. Under the May 23 resolution, it was recommended that Browne, Willis, and their associated organizations could not rent the LPUS mailing list or advertise in LP News until the full National Committee had acted . “recommended” may sound unclear, but Dehn’s words in the Minutes indicate what his fellow LNC members had heard him say as the motion’s author. Under the May 30 resolution, Browne, Willis, and their entities only needed permission of the Party Executive Committee to establish such business relationships.

  180. Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks Starchild, but that was more of a rhetorical question than anything else.

    There are a number of problems in the LP that are not being addressed. The biggest one is this constant internal bickering that results in little or no growth. Another problem is the lack of turnover on some committees. There are enough people that we should be able to find members willing to work on the various committees without appointing people to more than one committee at a time. If someone with bad work habits is on one committee and they get appointed to another committee then those same bad work habits are going to go with them to their new position. For evidence of those bad work habits all we have to do is read this morning’s postings on this thread.

    Additionally we need some fresh blood on these committees. How about term limits?

    Management needs to solve the problems!

  181. Robert Capozzi

    218 tk: That doesn’t mean no one should say “there are similarities, and given that the last situation had some bad fallout, it might be a good idea to compare the two and see if there are any learnable lessons from the first to apply to the second.”

    me: That being, what lesson? And are there OTHER lessons to be learned about stonewalling, deflecting, and disclaiming responsibility for dysfunctional actions?

  182. LibertarianGirl

    MM_So where was the LNC when Burke filed the cross-nomination papers with the Oregon Elections Board?

    me_ they were republicanesque so no biggie , if it had been a leftie , and im just guessin here , the National would have been all over it

    Aa.S_Aaron Starr // Jun 5, 2011 at 1:22 am

    MM @ 156

    I agree with you. And being a stickler for the rules, I have brought up this subject on multiple occasions.

    If my memory serves me correctly, I believe this issue also came up recently in the case of New York, which also allows fusion tickets. One of the tricky parts is how do we define who is a “member” of another political party.

    I know that instances have come up in the past where members of the national committee, including myself, have pointed out this limitation on affiliates in our bylaws. However, it’s difficult to enforce unless 3/4 of the LNC are willing to disaffiliate a state party for doing so, and the votes are simply not there so no one wants to waste the time.

    me_ but apparently it wasnt a waste of time to try and purge a LNC member for wearing a BTP t-shirt…no fingers pointing just saying

    the ridiculous bullshit ABOUNDS ON BOTH SIDES

  183. Robert Capozzi

    lg: the ridiculous bullshit ABOUNDS ON BOTH SIDES

    me: Amen! All sides, actually.

  184. Michael H. Wilson

    I’m going to piss off some people. I have seen a number of people in the LP who have had very successful lives. We then turn to these same people for their management skills and in many cases they don’t have any of those skills.

    Knowing how to work with a group of 200 people who are all volunteers is entirely different than being a successful trial lawyer, doctor or someone who sat behind a computer all day designing million dollar games.

  185. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, who’d be “pissed off” by that? Division of labor seems kinda basic.

  186. Robert Capozzi

    225 gp, I only see one name in these passages you cite that is still in a leadership position.

  187. Steven Wilson

    @mhw226

    You mention that management should solve these problems.

    Would you let a known drunk drive drunk to rehab?

    The foot soldier on the ground must change things. Starting with removing many if not all powers of finance and bylaws from the national.

    A strong state chair operating within a senate could “manage” in efficient and effective ways due to point of contact and line of sight. The state chair could only get away with what the respective state voters would allow.

    Protecting the laws over the individual is not management, it is control.

  188. Robert Capozzi

    233 sw: Would you let a known drunk drive drunk to rehab?

    me: I might. Grabbing the wheel from the passenger seat seems MORE dangerous to me.

  189. George Phillies

    Continuing with Arizona:

    The Incoming Train Wreck

    In 1999 it was already obvious that to a fair number of people that the split between the two Arizona Libertarian Parties might well cause problems with ballot access in Arizona. Phoenix group members attending the Summer 1999 LNC meeting specifically raised the issue. LNC member and Arizona resident John Buttrick raised it again at the November LNC meeting. In December 1999, Libertarian Bob Hunt raised the issue to a wider Libertarian audience via email lists. In Spring 2000, ballot access expert Richard Winger yet again raised this issue with the Libertarian body politic. No action was taken by any group, during the statutory petitioning period, to put a national candidate on the ballot in Arizona as an independent.

    Prior to the National Convention I sent a memo to a variety of Libertarian lists, pointing out the issues and the alternatives—none of which looked very promising at the time. That memo, which had nothing to do with my campaign for National Chair, came after a bit of discussion on the Presidential nomination issue. Here’s what I reported in early Summer 2000:

    “In Arizona, there appear to be only two points at which being the state- recognized party actually has material consequences:

    1) The major party is given the list of registered voters.

    (2) The major party appoints Presidential Electors and determines whose name will appear on the election Ballot. There are also points where being the state-recognized Party has political significance but does not inhibit freedom of action.

    The first point affects how people run for office in Arizona. The second point matters for the rest of us. The core issue is that the Phoenix group agrees that the LNC has chosen the Tucson group as its affiliate. This means, in the Phoenix group’s opinion, that the Tucson group has the privilege and duty of getting the LNC’s Presidential candidate on the ballot.

    I will again avoid names, but it’s even money that the candidate we choose in Anaheim will not be the Arizona Party’s choice. If the choices differ, the LPUS Presidential candidate will not be on the ballot in a simple way in all 50 states.

    How can Libertarians outside of Arizona get around this? I now list alternatives. I’m not saying which one I support. I’m not saying each one is a good idea.

    Alternatives

    We have several choices of action here as ways of dealing with the issue. I first note several solutions which would work if they succeeded, but which are not obviously likely to succeed.

    1) Nominate a mutually acceptable candidate. This requires that there is a mutually acceptable candidate.

    2) Put our candidate on the Arizona ballot by petition. This requires nine and a half thousand signatures (reports Richard Winger) due by June 14. [June 29 was the date under the pre-1999 law.] Winger noted this option on the lpus lists several weeks ago. Almost no one bought into it. Given available time, the logistics approach the impossible. Also, the petition must name the candidate. We can’t, e.g., petition for Hess and then try to substitute Gorman or Browne after the convention.

    I am reasonably certain that no current Presidential candidate has the resources to do his own petitioning. If the LNC runs a drive for one of our candidates, that drive must be done in advance of the convention, and must specify the candidate by name. A candidate with ballot access in Arizona would have a real leg up on getting the nomination, a leg up courtesy of the LNC. I report with absolute certainty that such an action by the LNC would have very severe internal repercussions within the Libertarian Party. (I have no evidence that anyone is trying to do this, and it is probably too late now.)

    3) Sue the Arizona group. Make them run our candidate. My good legal sources say this approach will fail badly, either in the State Courts or the Federal Courts. Also, this approach will permanently poison relations between LPUS and the Phoenix group.

    4) Post convention, the Libertarian National Committee could announce that it had reconsidered. For example, it could decide that the Bylaws require removals to be for cause, and it did not have adequate cause to strip the Phoenix group of affiliation. If the Phoenix group accepted re-affiliation, our candidate would go on the ballot. However, my sources on the National Committee say that current LNC members will not vote for this approach. If you want to try this, at Anaheim you need to replace a majority of the National Committee.

    There are also paths that do not solve the problem in 2000, but could solve the problem by 2004.

    5) Ignore it. Hope the issue goes away. It’s worked for other parties. Richard Winger has listed major-party examples in the 20th century where this approach was followed. A State Party did not run the national candidate in one election. They did in the next. If enough personalities turn over on both sides, many things become possible.

    6) Get ballot access for the group the LNC recognizes. This approach requires a modest change of name for the Tucson group—not a problem; Al Gore’s party is not the “Democratic” in one state—and registering a large number of people into that party.

    7) Start from the beginning. Get state recognition under some name for a third Libertarian group, one that does not presently exist, does not have a long list of feuds, does not allow for some period the principals of the first two groups to serve as its statewide officers, and which has as a membership condition for those principals that they may not resort to litigation against any of the (now three) Libertarian groups in Arizona.

    Finally, there’s a chance to beat up on a government agency through the court system:

    8) Sue Arizona. Insist we are Constitutionally entitled to be able to petition for ballot status for our candidate after our National Convention, which is not unreasonably late in the year. This approach, says my good legal sources, is reasonably promising. [[GP: Indeed, this is what we did, and it eventually worked.]]

    I’m not sure that’s all the choices that exist, but it’s all the ones I’ve heard.

    Listening to Arizona

    I called people in the Phoenix group. They’re the ones with ballot access. I am reporting what is perceived and stated, as I understood it from members of the Phoenix group. Remember “X is not true” is independent of “group A believes that X is not true”.

    1) Does the ALP want its affiliation back? So far as I can tell, many of them aren’t very interested. They are planning on recruiting, running candidates, supporting or opposing referenda,…not on arguing with LNC. Their position, so far as I can tell, is ‘the LNC chose its affiliate. The LNC gets to live with its decision.’

    2) Did the ALP ask the LNC to decide which group was the real Libertarian party in Arizona? The position I was given was that ALP members urged the LNC to make no decision until the judge made his decision. The LNC, says the ALP, didn’t wait. LPUS affiliated one group; the judge gave state recognition to the other group.

    3) What about the disaffiliation process? ALP members note that the LPUS Bylaws provide that affiliation can only be removed “for cause”. “for cause” is not an idle phrase; it means that the group being disaffiliated must have done something wrong, and must be given reasonable due process to defend themselves against accusations. The ALP group denies that a “cause” was ever specified to them. They were therefore unable to defend themselves against implicit accusations that they had created a cause.

    4) Why was there a Casa Grande mediation? [This was representatives of the two groups meeting with an LNC representative, at a point midway between Phoenix and Tucson.] The position I am given from the ALP side is that the ALP was asked to indicate people who would be unacceptable as mediators, and was then informed that mediation was occurring. The ALP—say most ALP activists—did not ask the LNC for mediation. They were, however, prepared to be civil to people visiting the state. So far as I can determine, there is a substantial ALP group saying that it should not pursue affiliation ever again, and another group willing to try to repair relations between the ALP and the LNC.

    5) What happened at Casa Grande? While some ALP members say they were sworn to secrecy, others say that the mediator—our National Chair—only wanted to discuss ballot access for the Presidential candidate, and did not appear to be interested in the other issues separating the two groups. I am repeatedly told that at this meeting both sides repeated their public positions without significant variation. So far as I can determine, the perception from the meeting is that each group wanted the other to dissolve and assume a completely subservient position in the other.

    6) What are the underlying fundamental issues? To my ear, the disagreements I heard from the Arizona people go back to our Party Platform. To what extent can a State regulate the structure of a political party? To what extent should Libertarian candidates for office accept matching funds or other taxpayer subsidies of their campaigns? These are substantial issues. The ALP maintains that political parties are basically private groups, and condemns accepting money from the government for political purposes.

    7) What is the contest about? Could the two groups live and let live? There are issues that are difficult, and issues that are impossible. Impossible to compromise: Only one group can control appointment of Presidential electors and the name on the ballot. Only one group can receive the lists of registered voters from the state.

    Below the Presidential level, candidates are determined by primary, based on petitioning for ballot access. Thus, both groups could run candidates in the Libertarian primary by petitioning. They did it in 1998. Candidates either do or do not take matching funds. That’s an individual decision, candidate by candidate, not a Party decision. So far as I can determine, nothing in State Law precludes a situation in which some candidates accept matching funds, while other candidates reject them. Some people in Arizona will not like this situation, and will not endorse candidates if they take matching funds, but non-endorsement is not an insuperable obstacle. On the other hand, Arizona has an active referendum system. The groups differ on several issues, so if both groups were active the party would not speak with one voice.

    8) Is there energy wasted in lawsuits? The ALP members flatly maintain they have never sued the ALPI. They claim that they have been sued by the ALPI, and have always won. The ALP or its members have, however, sued the state of Arizona with some frequency about state ballot laws.

    Having said this, various ALP members noted two complications that might lead people to think they had sued the other group: [If you don’t like legal fine print, skip ahead]

    (a) A suit against the state by the ALP had a significant effect on the other group and one of our Presidential candidates. An Arizona legal process then gave the other group and the candidate entrance into the suit, because the topics being adjudicated could affect the other group and the candidate substantially.

    (b) A county official, to perform her legal duties, needed a legal ruling as to which group was the Libertarian Party recognized by Arizona. The official sued, so the courts would tell her what to do. Meanwhile, the ALP with the support of the Democratic and Republican parties was suing the state, over issues that affected every political party in the state. The judicial system merged the two cases, leaving opponents of the law on one side, and supporters on the other. The two Arizona groups were now in the same suit on opposite sides, but that was the judge carrying out Arizona legal procedure. The contest was over the constitutionality of a state law; the two groups were not suing each other. The two state government groups involved then bowed out, leaving our two Arizona groups as active litigators. By standard legal policy, the side opposing the law was termed the “plaintiff”, that being the ALP, the other side being the “defendant”, that being the Tucson group, but the suit was over the law not against the other side.

    9) What does the ALP want at this point? The message I think they heard is that they want to be left alone to do activism. They view their methods as being more guerrilla or theatrical than the methods used by other parties. For example, on one occasion they raffled off an AK47 as the fundraiser. However, the ALP has accepted the LNC’s decision that they are cast out from the Libertarian Party. They will therefore run the Presidential candidate that they like and can support, and expect our affiliate to do the same.

    From the people I have listened to, accusations against the ALP of vindictiveness or spite do not sound to be generally correct. The ALP people view ‘You get to live with your decisions’ as being fundamental to a working Libertarian society. People who complain about the consequence of their decision, namely that it is somehow the fault of the Phoenix group that the LNC has the wrong affiliate, after they urged the LNC not to strip their ballot status, are viewed as showing their lack of belief in Libertarian Principles. The ALP is very strong on our being the Party of Principle.”

    That’s what I learned at the time, in Summer 2000.

  190. Thomas L. Knapp

    “it’s not plausible to me that GP doesn’t see that what he did when he narced to the Feds was a reckless, disproportionate act.”

    And it’s not plausible to me that there’s any way a reasonable person COULD see it as a reckless, disproportionate act.

    Let us analogize:

    – You are a member of a group which keeps a large amount of money in a safe, to be disbursed only under specific circumstances.

    – A member of another group which your group could reasonably be expected to financially support under those specific circumstances, that a significant sum of said money was so disbursed; BUT

    – Your organization’s books reflect no such disbursement, nor do the minutes of your organization’s board meeting reflect fulfillment of the required circumstances for disbursement.

    – You ask a member of the board to inquire as to the situation. Was the money disbursed, or wasn’t it? If so, were the requirements for that disbursement fulfilled or not?

    – That member of the board attends the next board meeting and asks those questions. Instead of an answer, she gets an executive session in which she is verbally abused for having had the gall and temerity to ask it.

    – You now have options, the two chief of which are:

    1) Approach other members of the organization and ask them to help you prevail upon the board to answer the question — even though you know from immediate past history that the board has a habit of dragging such matters out by first denying that the membership is asking any such thing, then studiously ignoring the membership when said denials don’t work; or

    2) Asking the organization’s designated auditors, with whom they file the books which contain the apparent discrepancy, to look into the matter.

    I don’t see a moral problem with either of these options, and the latter is more practical both

    a) from the standpoint of getting an actual answer; and

    b) from the standpoint of minimizing undue negative attention on the organization (routine FEC matters of this type relating to third parties normally attract little or no attention from anyone– internal blowups attract at the very least a lot of negative movement attention).

    Granted, the auditors in question are a state agency. But the LNC knew that when they decided to be part of that system, and LNC officials routinely use FEC reporting requirements as a crutch when doing so is convenient for THEIR purposes (e.g. citing “FEC uncertainty” to avoid selling LP News ads or renting the LNC list to presidential candidates they don’t like, then suddenly becoming very certain, and in a very positive way, about FEC requirements once a candidate they do like shows up).

    So, do you take the route that is most effective at resolving the matter and least likely to damage the party, even though it’s a good bet that Bob Capozzi will spend the next two years pretending to be too goddamn obtuse to understand that?

    Or do you take the route that is least effective at resolving the matter and most likely to damage the party, so that Bob Capozzi can savage you for that?

  191. George Phillies

    @235 And the LNC is now considering recycling the issues described here. Mary Ruwart to her great credit has attempted to remind the LNC as to which party group is in control of ballot access. She has not yet reminded them than ballot access in Oregon will cost $300,000-$500,000 to replace.

  192. Steven Wilson

    As much time that has been spent on this Matlock-Wonka type of circus, are any of you REALLY surprised that a human with access to power/authority took advantage of it?

    Amateur hour

    If a partner within a company took funds and did not explain why or even prove through other means about how it was spent, not one of you with half a brain would tolerate it either.

    Phillies has many problems, but asking a question as a libertarian can’t be one of them.

    How he dealt with it was hall monitor, but what else could’ve resolved the issue?

    If someone enters your house illegally, then you call the police. If someone enters your locker at work without permission, you call your supervisor.

    Who is the watcher of the Parties within America? Is there a social contract that explains operation and procedure?

    If a set structure has a contract explaining conduct, then those agents that do not adhere to the contract are not part of the structure.

  193. Robert Capozzi

    237 tk, I’ve too much respect for you to not offer a more IMO meaningful deconstruction. It’ll be truncated for the sake of space:

    Tk: a large amount of money in a safe

    Me: No, not large at all. Small as a percentage and certainly in absolute dollars. I concede that IN GP’s probably livid mind, a penny might be a large amount of money.

    Tk: – Your organization’s books reflect no such disbursement, nor do the minutes of your organization’s board meeting reflect fulfillment of the required circumstances for disbursement.

    Me: Having been an investor relations executive for publicly traded companies, I appreciate that public accounting has lag times and bizarre quirks. GP may read raw data without any understanding, and I appreciate that. Leaping to conclusions of malfeasance? Not justified, IMO.

    Tk: – That member of the board attends the next board meeting and asks those questions. Instead of an answer, she gets an executive session in which she is verbally abused for having had the gall and temerity to ask it.

    Me: This sort of victimology seems beneath you, Thomas. If Hawkridge asked about the expenditure, and others “verbally abused” her, do you really expect us to buy this? If the question exposed an illegal act, do you expect us to buy that people like Ruwart would just sit there? Really?

    Tk: Approach other members of the organization and ask them to help you prevail upon the board to answer the question — even though you know from immediate past history that the board has a habit of dragging such matters out by first denying that the membership is asking any such thing, then studiously ignoring the membership when said denials don’t work; or

    Me: Sorry, that’s wasn’t the only option. State chairs was an option. Other prominent Ls was an option. More importantly, surely GP knows that campaigns are Lucy in the Chocolate Factory. Why not let the dust settle and wait? Was someone being mugged? Was the house on fire? Why the panic?

    Tk: Asking the organization’s designated auditors, with whom they file the books which contain the apparent discrepancy, to look into the matter.

    Me: Maybe after the campaign. Maybe after other options were exhausted, yes. Why the high time preference? Why the panic? Even IF wrongdoing was being done, why did a single LP member feel he must play the Man from La Mancha over mouse nuts money? Was Shane Corey about to buy plane tickets to Tahiti with this “stash”? Was Aaron Starr about put a downpayment on a villa in Barcelona? Was Bill Redpath stuffing satchels on this way to Dulles? No.

    tk: ….LNC officials routinely use FEC reporting requirements as a crutch when doing so is convenient for THEIR purposes (e.g. citing “FEC uncertainty” to avoid selling LP News ads or renting the LNC list to presidential candidates theydon’t like, then suddenly becoming very certain, and in a very positive way, about FEC requirements once a candidate they do like shows up).

    Me: I don’t know what you’re referring to here, although it sounds like you’re accusing either Redpath or Starr of something.

    Tk: So, do you take the route that is most effective at resolving the matter and least likely to damage the party…

    Me: Wow. Is that what was going on in GP’s head at the time of the narcing? Really? Has he told you that? And you BELIEVE that?

    Tk: …even though it’s a good bet that Bob Capozzi will spend the next two years pretending to be too goddamn obtuse to understand that?

    Me: While GP met me once prior to his narcing, I severely doubt I was at all part of his calculation of whether to narc or not. I assume you’re kidding here.

    Tk: Or do you take the route that is least effective at resolving the matter and most likely to damage the party, so that Bob Capozzi can savage you for that?

    Me: As you know, I’m pretty pro-GP on a lot of stuff. Heck, I’ve defended him on this thread, see 216. You can take my word for it or not that IF he’d shared his concerns about financial flows of money with other LPers, I’d not “savage” him. I admit that I’m deeply disappointed that a fellow centrist, pretty moderate L would (a) do what GP did and (b) then stonewall and obfuscate about it. He could answer these most basic questions, contritely, and I would be more than satisfied, being a forgiving sort. People make mistakes, sometimes in anger/confusion. I know I have.

  194. Robert Capozzi

    239 sw: …are any of you REALLY surprised that a human with access to power/authority took advantage of it?

    me: Actually, I assume it. I assume parties and campaigns make mistakes in the heat of the moment. Sometimes, they even steal, hopefully rarely. This is also the case with companies we invest in.

    Unfortunately, information flow is imperfect. So is public reporting. Sometimes, when a person doesn’t know accounting, and they THINK they do, they leap to the worst-case conclusion in a paranoid state.

  195. LibertyDave

    So what’s a new Libertarian Activist to do in Oregon? There appears to be two Libertarian Parties of Oregon, one recognized by the state and the other being backed by the national party. So let’s take a look at the actions of both groups.
    In May 2010 at the annual convention Mr. Weston and Mr. Wagner presented a reform proposal to the members where they were elected chair and vice chair so that they could implement their proposal.
    They came up with a new set of bylaws and called a special convention in November to let the members vote on changing the bylaws. Mr. Burke and his group, upset that Mr. Weston wouldn’t let them nominate a republican over a libertarian and not having enough votes to prevent the new bylaws from being passed decide to use parliamentary rules to prevent the member from voting on the new bylaws.
    Here is the bylaw from 2009 that is causing the quorum problem:

    Article XVII – Parliamentary Authority
    SEC. 1. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall
    govern the LPO in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with
    the LPO Constitution and these bylaws and any special rules of order the LPO may adopt.

    As it was explained to me the problem with this bylaw is the word “and” in the phrase “in which they are not inconsistent with the LPO Constitution AND these bylaws AND any special rules of order the LPO may adopt” meaning that Robert’s Rules of Order has to be inconsistent with all 3 documents to in order to be not applicable. This put this bylaw in direct conflict with several other bylaws, including the bylaws on how a convention is run. If the word “and” was replaced with the word “or” in the above phrase then there would be no quorum problem. This doesn’t mean that there are no other problems with how the bylaws were written in 2009; this just addresses the quorum problem.

    So Mr. Weston and Mr. Wagner decide to try again to present their proposal at the annual convention in March of 2011, and again the convention is shut down and postponed to May 21 without the party being able to conduct any business.
    So Mr. Wagner calls a state committee on March 31 to address the quorum problems. So rather than waste any more time and money trying to hold a convention that will get shut down again the state committee voted to replace the bylaws and appoint new state officers and let the registered Libertarians in Oregon either approve or reject the action of the state committee by a mail vote. The members of the state committee that support Mr. Burke’s group get mad and storm out of the meeting, then knowing that Mr. Wagner’s group won’t be at the May 21 convention because it was canceled, conspired with members of the National Committee to take over the LPO.
    They do this by showing up to a convention that had been canceled and claim that because quorum no business can be done the adjourn the convention and claim that the terms of the current officers are ended then proceed to appoint a new state committee with members of their group and attempt to have Mr. Wagner’s group disaffiliated.

    Both groups are using are using state committee authority to justify their actions.

    Mr. Burke’s group’s actions show that they want to marginalize the Libertarian Party of Oregon and use us to support republicans. Mr. Wagner’s group wants to grow the Libertarian Party of Oregon and get more registered Libertarians active in the Party.
    So I am back to the question at the beginning, what’s a new libertarian activist to do? Listen to Mr. Burke’s group and go home and vote republican just because Mr. Burke’s group puts the Libertarian label next to the republican candidate or listen to Mr. Wagner’s group and get active and actually promote Liberty.

  196. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 242 Liberty Dave as; “…, what’s a new libertarian activist to do?”

    I have no idea where you live, but if you are in the Portland area I suggest getting in touch with Jim Karlock who runs the Multnomah County group. Jim is one of the best activist in the nation. He has pretty much done it all and he’s giving some of the politicians in the area a headache.

  197. MarcMontoni

    Phillies said:

    You can read the details, false claims about campaign finances, money passed to a member of the National staff from the campaign via a third party, National Committee funding of a nominating campaign via unannounced loans, false claims about third-party vendors, etc. in my book Funding Liberty http://3mpub.com/phillies

    You want me to pay you for the privilege of reading your trash?

    Knapp said:

    It may be that your opinion that George merely recapitulated Hornberger is based on ignorance, e.g. you haven’t read the book. But if you are ignorant and know you’re ignorant, the burden of informing yourself is on you, not on everyone else.

    You want me to pay George Phillies for the privilege of reading his trash?

    In both cases, my answer is:

    If I ever go dumpster diving and find a hardcopy, I might read it before using it for spare paper for the outhouse at camp.

    OK, OK, I confess. I was sent a copy many years ago, unsolicited, and — much to my shame — it still sits on my bookshelf. Yes, I read it. Tom, you can accuse me of being “ignorant” all you want (for sure an accusation like that says much more about you than it does me), but Phillies’ presentation didn’t change my opinion.

    … of Phillies.

    I believe — as I did ten years ago — that 95% of the hate campaign against the Browne/Willis “faction” was smoke and BS. I also believe — as I did ten years ago — that people became “part” of the Browne/Willis “faction” just for the “offense” of refusing to swallow the whole campaign by Phillies, Moore, Cisewski, or that hack lawyer from Loudoun County.

  198. George Phillies

    More form my book:

    In 2000, the Phoenix group did vote that if the LNC restored its affiliation that their governing body was required to put the National Party’s Presidential candidate on the Arizona ballot. At the 2000 National Convention, the National Committee proposed an agreement between the two Arizona groups and National. The Phoenix group asked for an explanation of certain language, or so I was told, and then signed the original form of the document. The Tucson group declined to sign the unamended document, and instead signed a document that they had amended.

    The Phoenix group then invited Harry Browne to come to Arizona and explain why he should be the Arizona LP’s candidate, even though the Phoenix group was no longer part of the Party that had nominated Browne. Browne did not accept the invitation. With Browne absent, the Phoenix group as the legally- recognized Arizona Libertarian Party would put the best available Libertarian candidate on the ballot. In the end, the Arizona State Party chose to run L. Neil Smith as their 2000 candidate for President.

    The National Party petitioned to put Harry Browne on the state ballot as an independent. The 2000 report of the LPUS Political Director describes these efforts to petition for Harry Browne in Arizona after the National Convention. The National Party eventually spent more than $63,000 on petitioning and legal efforts. The petitioning, done after the legal deadline, collected enough signatures and led to a lawsuit which at latest report (at the time the book was written) is still being litigated.

    Writing of support from the Tucson group, the LPUS Political Director said in his annual report “The onsite management from Peter Schmerl and Alexis Thompson did not materialize. Schmerl took almost two weeks to come up with the slate of independent electors and to draft the petition….When I arrived we had less than 3,000 signatures…I managed to organize the collection of some 19,000 signatures in 8 days.”

    At the time of this writing, in late 2001, the Tucson group is running a State Party, and the Phoenix group is working on alternatives, notably local elections and guerrilla theater leafletting attacking the Homeland Security Office, with leaflets being distributed in airports.

  199. Robert Milnes

    When are you people going to stop pissing around & start helping me win?
    I’ll see Wrights’ 10% & raise him 5%.
    So what is 15% of $335 million?

  200. Robert Milnes

    DWP, thank you for asking.
    I have a paypal account for personal donations to me directly. On my domain name website.
    On my campaign website it is an official presidential contributions account hosted by Donor Town Square.
    I believe a libertarian owns that.

  201. Darryl W. Perry

    You my want to check the link, it’s taking me to the homepage for Donor Town Square and not a page where one makes a donation to your campaign

  202. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 240,

    You write:

    “Maybe after the campaign. Maybe after other options were exhausted, yes. Why the high time preference? Why the panic?”

    Maybe after you put the crack pipe down.

    The FEC complaint was filed nearly a year after the campaign ended, and after months of trying to get the questions answered.

    “Sorry, that’s wasn’t the only option.”

    Of course it isn’t. That’s why I said there were options and described two of them without in any way implying that others might not exist.

  203. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc @ 246,

    You write:

    “Yes, I read it. Tom, you can accuse me of being ‘ignorant’ all you want”

    I wasn’t “accusing” you of being ignorant. I was attempting to give you an out — ignorance as an excuse, the only alternative being that you’re just a liar. You’ve settled that question now.

  204. Darryl W. Perry

    Ignorant does not mean stupid, it means uninformed of a particular set of facts/ideas.

    I’m ignorant of quantum physics, the inner workings of the Socialist Workers Party and many other things (as are most people I know); and I’m far from being stupid!

  205. Robert Capozzi

    255 tk: …after months of trying to get the questions answered.

    me: Yes, this is the relevant point. Waiting months before deciding to file a complaint with the FEC over a minor matter that COULD have SEVERELY damaged the LP is reckless and disproportionate, IMO.

  206. Robert Milnes

    DWP @254, evidently my domain name paypal button is working.
    http://www.robertwmilnes.com
    & this is quicker & more direct & relevent anyway-electronic transfer as opposed to weekly snail mail check. I’ve been self financing my meager campaign while doing without many things from the aforementioned auto repairs to e.g. legal assistance.
    Clearly the hoped for $335 million should go via official presidential contributions format though.

  207. MarcMontoni

    Knapp said:

    Marc @ 246,

    You write: “Yes, I read it. Tom, you can accuse me of being ‘ignorant’ all you want”

    I wasn’t “accusing” you of being ignorant. I was attempting to give you an out ­ ignorance as an excuse, the only alternative being that you’re just a liar. You’ve settled that question now.

    What am I lying about, Knapp?

    Am I lying when I tell you it’s a lie when George says: “You would correctly infer that 206 was attached to one of the less fortunate of those factions”?

    Am I lying when I tell you that Phillies’ book, writing, and his general behavior and demeanor tell me a lot more about *Phillies* than about his targets?

    Am I lying when I tell you that I invited Hornberger to the Richmond LP meetings I organized, and was otherwise an enthusiastic fan of his speaking and written articles?

    Am I lying when I say I wasn’t part of any faction until Hornberger turned on me?

    Am I lying when I say that Phillies has a greater interest in promoting Phillies than actually building a larger LP?

    If I am a liar in your world, Knapp, I am satisfied that — were you still “involved in the LP” — I wouldn’t vote for you for any position of leadership. And I say that even though you and I are usually on the same side of current events (such as the purge campaigns against Keaton, Wrights, Labianca; or the 2008 platform effort, Oregon, etc). Your blind spot about what happened a decade ago is big enough that I would have too many doubts about whether you would do the right things when it counted, in the future.

    So whether you call me a liar or ignorant, that’s OK with me, Knapp. You have enough problems of your own.

  208. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc @ 261,

    I apologize. I understand that after a decade of lying to yourself, you may not recognize that you’re lying to others as well — and “liar” implies intent.

    “What am I lying about, Knapp?”

    Your claim that Phillies’s account of the “Willis Affair” is merely a recapitulation of Hornberger’s allegations and evidentiary claims is quite simply factually false. There’s no way to put the two sets of allegations and evidentiary claims side by side and make that claim honestly, or even with a straight face.

    I tried to give you an out by suggesting that perhaps you were merely ignorant of, rather than intentionally dishonest about, the extent and content of Phillies’s writing on the matter.

    You’re the one who decided not to take that out, and instead stick to your false factual claims.

    “Your blind spot about what happened a decade ago is big enough that I would have too many doubts about whether you would do the right things when it counted, in the future.”

    About which thing that happened a decade ago?

    I don’t know how many of my writings on those topics are still extant, but:

    – I was not on the LNC at the time of the Arizona disaffiliation discussion (late 1999).

    AT THAT TIME, however, I publicly urged the LNC to either follow the bylaws and show cause for disaffiliation, or not disaffiliate. Do you disagree with that position?

    Also AT THAT TIME, I publicly predicted (with others) that the LNC would find its ass in a ballot access crack in Arizona if it disaffiliated the Arizona LP. You don’t have to agree or disagree with that one — there’s no question whatsoever that I was right.

    – At the time that the Willis Affair came before the LNC (2001), I was an alternate.

    I supported, and publicly defended, the chair’s measured approach in investigating/evaluating the situation (I believe that the point I mentioned earlier where I disagreed with Phillies’s book had to do with that). Do you believe that I should have urged the chair to breathe fire and kick asses instead? Or to just blithely ignore publicly circulating evidence of malfeasance? He probably didn’t have the choice of the latter.

    My recollection here may be self-servingly reconstructed from memory, but I think I suggested wording to the final motions on the whole thing which reduced, rather than increased, those motions’ negative impact on Harry Browne, Perry Willis, etc. Do you think I should have been more Jacobin about it?

    “were you still ‘involved in the LP’ — I wouldn’t vote for you for any position of leadership.”

    That may be the nicest thing anyone’s said to me all week.

  209. June 19 Conference

    Continuing on Chapter 17. And we have reached the end of the Arizona foolishness, the lesson for these who can’t see it being that if you recognize the people who do not have ballot access, you had better be prepared to do the work to get them that access, which in the Oregon case will be something in the range $300,000-$500,000.

    Appendix

    The Non-Initiation Oath

    A significant part of the Arizona debate has referred back to the non-initiation of force Oath, which the National Party and some, but not all, state parties require of their members. The Oath, which dates back to the founding days of the Libertarian Party, is an agreement that Party members will not support the initiation of force to resolve social or political issues.

    The difficulty is that there is a lack of unanimity, to put it mildly, as to what this statement means. During my last National Chair campaign, I listened to many Libertarians as they explained their interpretation of the Oath to me.

    The author of the statement is the Party’s Founder, David Nolan. Nolan has repeatedly said publicly that the oath is an agreement that we are a political party, and we are out to attain change through the peaceful use of orthodox political processes. No more grandiose interpretation was intended. In understanding the oath, one was supposed to recall the context of the times in which they were written. In 1972, left-wing anti-war activists were planting bombs, several each day, in government offices and other places across the United States. The Capitol Building itself was repeatedly attacked. The intent of the oath was to make clear that the Libertarian Party was not associated with the radical left revolutionaries of that period.

    Within the Libertarian Party, one readily encounters a second interpretation of the Oath, namely that the Oath requires one to oppose any political action that could be termed ‘initiation of force’, with this phrase being very broadly interpreted. In particular, after an extensive exegesis, ‘opposition to initiation of force’ is taken to require one to oppose taxation and the products of taxation. Indeed, some Party members who support this interpretation claim that one can logically derive all moral conclusions from the non-initiation principle, a matter discussed in the Appendix to the Appendix.

    A significant complication is that phrases very much like those in the Oath are attributed to the writings of Ayn Rand, where precisely these interpretations are invoked. Rand—a mid-twentieth century author and philosopher —was an active opponent of the Libertarian Party who condemned involvement in the Libertarian Party by her followers. It is my understanding that Nolan maintains he was not thinking of her words when he wrote the Oath, and therefore that her phrasings do not inform the meaning of the Oath that he wrote.

    Within the Libertarian Party one also encounters many Libertarians who take an third interpretation of the Oath, an interpretation that precisely contradicts the second interpretation. In the third interpretation, it remains the specific duty of government to prevent the initiation of force, and therefore Libertarians mandatorily must support collection of taxes to maintain a justice system, a constabulary, and a military. If the second interpretation borders on support for anarchism, the third interpretation holds that anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with Libertarian beliefs. It is my impression that the three sides are similar in level of support within the LP, but not equally bellicose in expressing their faiths.

    Under unfavorable circumstances, discussions between Libertarians who believe these interpretations can consume all the time of a Libertarian group, leaving absolutely no time for political activity. The National Party faced up to this question once. At an early National Convention delegates subscribed to the ‘Dallas Accords’, which in essence said that: We are so far from needing to settle the question that we shouldn’t argue about it. Partisans of the two sides agree not to use their statements to shut the other side out of the Party.

  210. June 19 Conference

    To which I would add that large numbers of libertarians are happy to add that believers of other alternatives of the loyalty oath are damned heretics who are exiled to the outer darkness, etc. etc. etc.

  211. June 19 Conference

    @246

    …pay for…

    TANSTAAFL

    Of course, you could show those other libertarian credentials by emulating the title of the book of noted Worcester activist Abbie Hoffman (yes, he was from here at one time, along with Emma Goldberg, not to mention the judge who admitted sending Sacco and Venzetti to the chair in the absence of appropriate evidence, was miffed when his Harvard Law professor blew the whistle on him for inappropriate conduct following a golf course confession, and had Worcester anarchists of the old fashioned variety try to blow up his house three times, never getting farther than wrecking the porches).

  212. Robert Milnes

    DWP @254, ok, the link is fixed.
    Now, everyone, here is the idea.
    If you plan to support Ron Paul for 2012, please do not. Support my candidacy or the LP or GP instead.
    If you plan to support Obama for 2012, please do not. Support my candidacy or the LP or GP instead.
    Hopefully this will divert @$35 million from Paul’s campaign and @300 million from Obama’s campaign. To either my campaign or to the LP or GP. Additionally I propose to donate 15% for party ballot access, which would compare to that by Wrights.
    Likewise I ask for campaign staff and volunteers also, and of course, everyone’s vote.

  213. Andy

    “She has not yet reminded them than ballot access in Oregon will cost $300,000-$500,000 to replace.”

    Oregon requires about 21,000 and something valid petition signatures for ballot access. It wouldn’t be as expensive to regain ballot access in Oregon as you are saying. It would probably cost around $70,000-$100,000. Obviously it would be preferable if the party remains in tact there and we don’t have to do a ballot access drive in that state.

  214. Steven Wilson

    @RM266

    I know you don’t understand fusion model in game theory, and I also know you don’t understand C4L. But why would someone just vote for you because you want to divert money from one person unto another?

    So far, you have admitted to being a Anarchist/Left. So are openly asking for Green party support as well as Libertarian support.

    You may have many mental problems, and I am not making fun of that, but you thinking that telling people to carry you for no reason isn’t even a joke. It is frightening.

    Could you get twenty-five people from New Jersey to give testimonials about what you have done there in New Jersey for other people?

    Have you marched for equal rights?
    Red light cameras?
    Gay marriage?
    Gun control laws?
    End the Fed?

    I went to your website, and all I take from it is that you do not understand fusion model. Revisiting TR gives you no valid reason for calling people here out.

    I knew what Harry Browne stood for. I know what Ron Paul stands for. I know what Cisse Spragins stands for.

    You are a libertarian Green Anarchist and you are standing behind yourself. I have no idea what you believe, and have no reason to think you could solve one problem, let alone a country in crisis.

    Anyone here can support you. But they will not be able to tell me or anyone else what you stand for. Other than you are lonely.

  215. New Presidential Candidate

    I am pleased to report that newly-announced Presidential candidate Carl Person of New York meets the eligibility requirements and will participate in the first Libertarian Presidential debate, to be held at the conference “Future of the Libertarian Political Movement” at the Highlander Inn, Manchester NH Airport, on June 19.

    The registration deadline for the conference is June 14.

    Incidentally, if there are any videographers who would like to help record the event — internet bandwidth is uncertain — please contact me.

  216. Robert Milnes

    DWP @268 LOL!
    So you contributed to Ron Paul 2012? Then sent me 5x that?
    Got it. thanks, but that wasn’t the point. You were supposed to send RP $0.00.
    Just out of curiousity, did you contribute to RP 2008?

  217. Robert Milnes

    @269 Steven Wilson, thanks for the thoughtful comment.
    I did most of my activism in Boulder from about 1973-1982.
    I actually managed to hang out with the 2 top @s there at the time, Dr. McFarland & John Davenport.
    I did all kinds of stuff.
    Volunteered at the @ bookstore.
    Attended MANY marches demos etc. often by the socialists. Red & black flag contingent.
    Colorado is an Initiative state. Many petitions/signatures. e.g. Edward Teller wanted to nuke the shale oil out.
    One time I was walking near Regents Hall & a bomb went off. I knew a campus cop so I called him & when he called in about it he told me they said we were just about to call you.!
    He asked me later about it-was I involved? He knew I wasn’t but had to ask. I said no. He said who do you think did it. I said Chicano nationalists. One of their bombs went off in a car killing a couple of activists including a young woman exchange student from Scandinavia. The detective knew I knew what I was talking about.
    I have a lot of such stories. Dr McF & John were great guys.
    McF introduced me to Reich by giving me a book. The Sexual Revolution.
    He was the jail doctor. That’s where I met him.
    He thought Pearl Harbor smelled fishy. Kinda like 9/11. Died a couple of years ago from stomach cancer.
    I think he ran for Congress as a Green. He lost.
    John was just about the most real, human person I ever met. He was a gay activist. Ran for City Council. Lost. Extremely scholarly. Prolific, incredible writer.Bad health-this was before AIDS.
    Wound up committing suicide in the Canary Islands.
    Did I answer any of your questions?

  218. Thomas L. Knapp

    RM @274,

    You write:

    “You were supposed to send RP $0.00.”

    No. He was supposed to send as much or as little as he damn well pleased, to whomever he damn well pleased, for whatever reasons damn well pleased him.

  219. Steven Wilson

    @RM275

    Very little. You have life experience decades old. It is a different world now. In your post, you admit to being dormant for about three decades. I still have no clue as to how you are qualified to operate at that level.

    I take it you have never served before. Except time. Being a convict is not a positive or negative, but you still have no clear plan, besides you illusions on fusion model.

    If you had family and friends helping you at home in New Jersey, that would mean something. If you had run a company and created a product and jobs, that would mean something. If you had a PHD or professional degree or even a certification like CPA, that would mean something.

    You prove only, that you can disappear for a very long time. You prove that you don’t understand many things like strategy.

    JJ myers has a small business and helps grow Texas. Cisse Sprgains operates a small business in KC and is now Chair of the Missouri LP. Harry Browne worked the market for several years and could afford many things. Kubby has operated a business and promoted legalization forever. Russo was a succeessful film producer and went after the government arm…IRS.

    I know you can’t see your shortcomings, and again, I am not trying to make fun of you, but how can you compete with this kind of past?

    Libertarians might have issues with the rest of the world, but the ones who chose to lead could prove they had done it before.

    We cannot continue to have pretenders at the helm on ballot day. No more constitutional teachers or former congressman who can’t play with the elephants anymore.

    A president is a leader of action, not just theory.

    If I am the HR manager and this is your application, all I can say is…you don’t have it.

  220. Robert Milnes

    Tom @276, right. Everybody has all these rights.
    In 2008 all the lemming libertarians lined up to exercise their right to contribute their $ to Ron Paul. Who anyone with any sense knew could not win. Even if he did, he’s a REPUBLICAN! & you of all people know he’s got his schtick down enough to cover the fact that he’s a counterrevolutionary. Dixiecrat conservative. Theocratic nationalistic states rights constitutionalist. He’s NOT a libertarian!
    Let’s go back to the Civil War Era. Maybe even refight it.
    Let’s have anarchy NOW! Dammit. We have rights!
    _I_say don’t send the SOB a dime!

  221. Robert Milnes

    Wilson @277, all those people you mentioned-all those accomplishments-amount to little-when compared to whether they won or lost ELECTIONS.
    McF & John D LOST ELECTIONS & are now dust.
    I went home after Boulder for @30 years. Broke & depressed & accomplished little. I was burned & I don’t like being burned. But I did not die & I did put a LOT of thought into the ELECTION fix we’re all in.
    TR came VERY close to radically changing the ELECTION situation. I thought about that & came up with my proposals.
    All I’m saying is give it a try.
    Or continue to LOSE.

  222. Thomas L. Knapp

    RM @ 278,

    You write:

    “In 2008 all the lemming libertarians lined up to exercise their right to contribute their $ to Ron Paul. Who anyone with any sense knew could not win.”

    And this year you want them all to line up and exercise their right to contribute to you — who anyone with any sense knows cannot win.

    @280,

    “all those people you mentioned-all those accomplishments-amount to little-when compared to whether they won or lost ELECTIONS.”

    Good point. What was the last election you won, again?

  223. Robert Milnes

    It is not too late to help me get to the conference on the morning of the 19th.
    Whether I get into the debate would be decided by the beginning of the debate late in the day.

  224. Robert Milnes

    Tom @281, unfair.
    What was the last election won by a lib or green or Ind.?-other than fake Independents like Lieberman.
    Very few & far between & low level.

  225. Steven Wilson

    @RM280

    You think you can win. OK.

    What do you think a seasoned reporter will do with your past?
    What do you think that reporter will do when it is acknowledged that you suffer from depression?

    Comparison rationale is often used by voters. So, how will your total lack of success in commerce or academia measure against the other candidates?

    Ron Paul gets roasted on a daily basis by conservative media. How will you get treated when you admit using the fusion model?

    Your depression proves you have no coping skills. How will you survive open floor beatings by media? You cannot run a campaign from IPR.

    How does an anarchist speak for green party soldiers?

    We go from Bob Barr to Robert Milnes.

    OK

    Wayne Root is a Libertarian.
    Robert Milnes can be President.

    Language game disavow.

  226. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    “unfair”

    Hey, I’m not the one who brought up winning elections as a criterion this time, you are.

    If it’s fair to disparage JJ Myers, Cisse Spragins, Harry Browne, Steve Kubby and Aaron Russo — every last one of whom has come closer to winning elections than you ever have — for not winning elections, it’s entirely fair to hold you to the same standard.

    “What was the last election won by a lib or green or Ind.?’

    Good question — one YOU should answer, since YOU are the one claiming to be different from all those losers.

  227. Robert Milnes

    Tom, in the USA elections are winner takes all.
    I didn’t make the rules. I just think I may have figured out a strategy that just might win by playing by the rules. It should get the benefit of the doubt & a fair try.
    The aforementioned ran campaigns & lost. If I get on a ballot & campaign in my living room at my computer on IPR & twiddle my thumbs & lose, I did just as well as they did.

  228. JT

    Steven: “Your depression proves you have no coping skills.”

    You obviously know nothing about neuroscience.

  229. June 19 is Approaching

    Some readers may recall that IPR is for sale.
    I suggest that this sort of debate, in which Tom Knapp is being extremely reasonable, is not raising the value of the site.

  230. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 287,

    You write:

    “I just think I may have figured out a strategy that just might win by playing by the rules. It should get the benefit of the doubt & a fair try.”

    It’s received more than one fair try. The most recent prominent example I can think of is Kevin Zeese, the Libertarian, Green and Populist nominee for US Senate from Maryland in 2006. 1.5%.

  231. Thomas L. Knapp

    RM @ 293,

    Yeah, Zeese just “accidentally” got the nominations of three separate political parties, including the two whom your strategy calls upon to co-nominate.

    That election was a fully elaborated instance of PLAS, and it produced about the results that the numbers — using real math and not your fantasy variant — would have predicted.

    Frankly, you’re short on steak. That means you have to sell sizzle instead — make a case that Robert Milnes alone has the qualities which will allow him to succeed where all others who’ve pursued his strategy have failed.

  232. Robert Milnes

    NF, because it wasn’t organized or coordinated or deliberate.
    & it wasn’t followed through by educating the voters of what a unique opportunity it was to take voters from the dem AND rep & add the green & lib & IND/populist vote.
    & it was the only ballot involved. We need all or as many as possible ballots to be deliberately set up to be either lib or green on every possible ballot.

  233. NewFederalist

    How would that differ from your effort if you run independent? There would not be any down ballot races for anyone to coordinate.

  234. Robert Milnes

    Darryl, its ok. I was just curious.
    My hope is to minimize Paul’s & Obama’s contributions by getting through to potential contributors/donors of the shortcomings of these 2 v. the possibilities of my campaign.
    Obama having 700 million v me having 300 million is much more competitive than me having to catch up to his 1 billion.

  235. Robert Milnes

    NF, very astute. That was one of Nader’s mistakes.
    My campaign would have to take up the slack which probably occur by coordinating the downticket endorsements in each state. Unless the LP & GP get with the program.

  236. JT

    Milnes: “NF, because it wasn’t organized or coordinated or deliberate.”

    What do you mean? It was totally organized, coordinated, and deliberate. That was the whole strategy pursued by the Zeese campaign. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Milnes: “& it wasn’t followed through by educating the voters of what a unique opportunity it was to take voters from the dem AND rep & add the green & lib & IND/populist vote.”

    Yes, it was. Again, that was the whole idea. I don’t think you have any clue about what went on there and are just making things up.

    Milnes: “& it was the only ballot involved.:”

    So what? If PLAS would produce great results nationally, why wouldn’t it produce at least better results in one state?

  237. JT

    To be clear, I should amend my last post to say that the Zeese campaign did what it could to educate voters about that opportunity given the resources it had.

  238. Robert Milnes

    JT, right. It didn’t have enough… oomph.
    One ballot isn’t enough because of the magnitude of the problem.
    It is going to take a national effort on every possible ballot involving directly every candidate & activist & effectively educating the 40% of voters who are possibly reachable to fundamentally change their voting tendencies.
    TR managed to reach 27%.

  239. Robert Milnes

    JT, just for my own clarification about you.
    You claim to be a libertarian, right?
    You come off to me as rightist.
    Are you among the 40% who might be reachable to support such a national effort of such magnitude?

  240. Robert Milnes

    Or am I just wasting my time with you because you are a dime a dozen rightist?
    I’ll grant that I didn’t study the Zeese campaign as closely as I could have & should have.
    To me it was just a brief blip on my radar & was gone.
    I can only hope Zeese didn’t go through the crap that I have.

  241. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@209):

    1) If there are no other members of the State Committee, do the five out of eleven members constitute a 20% quorum under the bylaws?

    Yes.

    Aaron Starr wrote (@209):

    2) If per chance there are additional unknown members of the State Committee, would there need to be an additional 15 such members of the board, bringing the total to 26 members, for the five present to not be considered a quorum?

    Yes.

    Aaron Starr wrote (@209):

    3) If there is to be a challenge of the credentials of those attending that meeting, which met the notice requirement because its time and place was mandated by the bylaws, when must such a point of order be raised and who has standing to make it? Would the arbiters of such a challenge be the State Committee members assembled on May 21?

    This is a complicated question. The answer under parliamentary procedure may be different from the answer under corporate law. I am not going to attempt to research court cases and respond as a lawyer (although I am an attorney, I am not admitted to practice in the state of Oregon). So this is not legal advice.

    Robert’s discusses credentials reports and credentials challenges in the context of conventions rather than of boards. For a board credentials are handled by the secretary rather than a credentials committee and the check of credentials is generally pro forma.

    The state committee members assembled would be the only ones with standing under parliamentary procedure to challenge credentials and that challenge should be made contemporaneously. The state committee members (i.e., the county representatives because their terms had not expired) would be the arbiters of the challenge.

    However, Robert’s makes clear that even though quorum challenges generally can’t affect prior action, with clear and convincing evidence it can.

    RONR (10th ed.), p. 338, l. 22-28:

    Because of the difficulty likely to be encountered in determining exactly how long the meeting has been without a quorum in such cases, a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal.

    Although I have not researched court cases on this point, I suspect courts are likely to extend standing to a broader class than just state committee members. I also suspect that courts are likely to consider overturning action taken by people without proper credentials or action taken without a quorum, using a public policy justification and citing the Robert’s passage above as parliamentary cover.

    Let me provide a hypothetical to demonstrate why this would be a good thing. Suppose all factions discussed intended to attend the May 21 Oregon LP convention; however, there was a freak blizzard that left 6 feet of snow on the ground. Practically no one was physically able to attend. 5 rabble rousers had arrived at the hotel a week early. They held the convention themselves, adjourning it immediately for lack of a quorum. Then they held the post-convention state committee meeting mentioned in the bylaws. None of these people were on the state committee (none were county representatives, none were officers, none were at-large), but they read a credentials report declaring they were valid representatives and declared they had met the quorum requirement. They then proceeded to do many far reaching things at the limit of the state committee’s authority while not exceeding it. Could their action not be challenged simply because they were the arbiters of their own action? I find such a position difficult to support.

    Aaron Starr wrote (@209):

    4) Does former Chair Wes Wagner, who was no longer a member of the State Committee, have standing to challenge the credentials of the attendees? If so, when must such a point of order be raised? Would the arbiters of such a challenge be the State Committee members assembled on May 21?

    My answer is the same as above. Under Robert’s because Wes Wagner’s term as chair had ended, he would not have standing to challenge then by virtue of his old position. If he also represented a county, then he would have standing by virtue of that position. Only state committee members would have standing to challenge the credentials report.

    Under Robert’s the challenge to credentials should be made contemporaneously to the reading of the credentials report. The arbiters of the challenge would be the state committee members assembled May 21, with any challenged member ineligible to vote on challenges to his own credentials.

    But again, I believe a court of law would allow a broader class of people to challenge standing and would allow that review after the fact, though with a presumption that the adopted credentials report was valid. I have not researched corporate law court cases in Oregon or elsewhere on this point — this is just my intuition as a legal scholar. This is not legal advice.

    Aaron Starr wrote (@209):

    5) In the absence of any other information presented so far, are the current officers of the LPO the individuals elected at the May 21 post-convention State Committee meeting?

    In my opinion as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian the slate of LPO officers selected at the May 21 post-convention State Committee meeting to fill vacancies have a stronger case for recognition than Wes Wagner’s slate of officers.

    I believe there are genuine issues of law and material fact to be litigated though. Wes’s allegations about improper credentials and lack of a quorum could potentially overturn action taken at that meeting if a court of law grants him standing, rules that a challenge to credentials and a point of order about lack of a quorum can have retrospective effect, and finds that Wes Wagner proves that 1 or less of the people listed were properly credentialed. I find it very unlikely any court would accept Wagner’s quorum definition though… if even 2 of those present were valid state committee members, Wes Wagner would probably lose a challenge to quorum.

    Of course the new bylaws purported to be passed by the state committee in April are another monkey wrench entirely. I don’t know how a court will deal with those. In an ideal world state corporate law ought to treat such a passage as invalid, but unfortunately state law can deviate substantially from parliamentary procedure.

  242. JT

    Milnes: “JT, just for my own clarification about you. You claim to be a libertarian, right?”

    Yeah.

    Milnes: “You come off to me as rightist.”

    What have I said that makes me seem like a “rightist” to you?

    Milnes: “I can only hope Zeese didn’t go through the crap that I have.”

    I’m sure he didn’t. He’s not a buddy of mine, but I think he’s a pretty proactive guy.

    Milnes: “JT, do you think $335 million could provide enough …oomph?”

    $335 million? Why not $335 billion?

  243. Robert Milnes

    JT, ok, maybe freak accident is not accurate.
    Maybe-unexpected, extraordinary, an anomoly.
    The voters didn’t get with the program.

  244. Robert Milnes

    Everybody, I’ve been offline.
    I got an update from Clear 4G Wimax. I amost didn’t download it. Why fix something that isn’t bwoke?
    Well, it goofed up my service. Took me all this time to fix it.

  245. Robert Milnes

    Darryl, I was just about to reply to your 310.
    Short said, I’m being serious as a heart attack. A concerted effort early on i.e. yesterday, could divert @300 million. IMO.

  246. Robert Milnes

    JT, I also was about to respond to your 301.
    I have a proposal for you, Tom, CT, NF, Darryl etc.
    We try the Zeese/ TR Centennial/PLAS campaign in as many ballots as possible in 2011.
    Then every special election before Nov 2012.
    Then 2012.
    If we give it a fair try & still get negligible change in results, I’ll be willing to call it a fair try & not do-able.
    The most important thing is educate the voters of what we are trying to do & what we are asking them to do.
    What say you all?

  247. NewFederalist

    Bob- You asked to to reply to this proposal. Just what is it you are asking of me? I have never said that I agreed with your strategy. Quite the contrary, I have said that I disagree with your basic premise (the TR vote in 1912 having any validity to the world of politics today for example) but what I have consistently said is that I admire your tenacity in the pursuit of your idea. I fully support you getting a chance to see if it works and as I have said before I believe the champion of your message should be someone who is already a known quantity in alternative politics. That is one reason I encouraged you to keep after Nader. So, once again, just what is it you are asking of me?

  248. JT

    Milnes: “JT, I also was about to respond to your 301.”

    That’s nice of you. How about responding to my question in post 309? If you make a statement, back it up with something.

  249. Robert Milnes

    NF, I admit that I did not give the Zeese campaign its due consideration.
    Tom brought it up as a tried and failed PLAS attempt.
    JT hollers at me about it,
    So, I’m asking anyone who has a positive position about the Zeese campaign to try it again. Only bigger & better.
    I do not know who your designated champion might be other than me.
    However I am willing to act as a stand in until such person is found.
    & I’m serious. I’ve said many times I’m willing to step down on the condition that I be taken in as special advisor to this person.
    e.g. If Nader says he’ll try it & listen to me, I’m down.
    We need to get as many candidates to try a Zeese type campaign.
    Ideally the LP & GP should get involved in some capacity as in Zeese, but it could be done without them.

  250. Robert Milnes

    JT, you asked 2 questions in 309.
    You being a rightist is just an impression I got over the YEARS considering many comments. Including your knee jerk support for Ron Paul.
    But a lot of libs have a misguided support for Ron Paul, so that’s not a concrete thing.
    If you are into the Zeese campaign, how about trying it bigger & better & see if it affects the polling &/or results?

  251. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You should probably drop the “TR Centennial” angle, unless you have a former Republican president who’s interested in running for another term as a conservative progressive on a single third-party ticket (the only one living who’s eligible is Bush the Elder; I suppose you could try to have a talk with him about it). TR has nothing whatsoever to do with PLAS.

    Attempting PLAS in special elections between now and November 2012 is actually a good idea. It gives the parties you’re asking to “share ballot access” a chance to do so in limited fashion, so that they (and onlooking parties) can decide whether it works and whether they should throw in for The Big One.

    The obvious start point for that is to round up information on upcoming special elections so that you can approach the parties in those districts about PLAS.

  252. Thomas L. Knapp

    Milnes @ 319,

    Zeese was a reasonably credible candidate — an attorney with a background in public policy issues and political campaigns. His anti-drug-war background and anti-war stand in particular made for good “bridges” between the Libertarian and Green Parties.

    He was nominated by three parties, and since the state only allowed him to appear on one party’s ballot, the other two endorsed and then refrained from filling their ballot lines. CLASSIC PLAS.

    Zeese ran an active campaign, and participated in three of the four candidate debates (he was not invited to the on eon Meet The Press).

    Results: He raised (including from a national fundraising campaign) and spent about $70k, polled as high as 4%, and got 1.5% on election day.

  253. Robert Milnes

    NF, what do you think of the general observation that as leftist radicalism rose in Europe particularly in Russia, rightist radicalism, libertarianism/progressivism was rising in America. The Progressive Era.
    Russian Revolution 1917/Bull Moose Party 1912.
    &is it coincidence that Fascist Germany & fascist Japan arose in the 1930’s?
    Even today Germany & Japan are G8.
    The present day left/right great adversaries seem to be USA/China.
    To me, an inclusive progressive movement which would include a progressive party-or a left & a right(libertarian) combo, is the answer to the dem/trep duopoly stranglehold.

  254. Robert Milnes

    Tom, according to Wikipedia, Zeese was also against corporate welfare which also a good “bridge” issue.
    Agreed, the sequence of events-support by multiple parties, appearing on only one ballot & other parties DELIBERATELY not putting another candidate on that ballot-classic PLAS.
    So you are saying all that going for him produced negligibly better results in polling, fundraising and results than the usual or expected?
    JT said voter education was not so good.

  255. Robert Milnes

    We can set up a candidate perfectly like Zeese & if the average voter doesn’t know about it or doesn’t understand the opportunity, then they are going to vote/support as usual.

  256. NewFederalist

    Bob @323, I have no clue what you are driving at. I guess I don’t see the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in anything close to the same light as the Populist/Progressive era in the US. I guess I also don’t see the world in the left vs right paradigm. To me that is how the media and political historians see it and foist it upon us. I see the world in a more government vs less government paradigm. To me a “left libertarian” or a “right libertarian” is meaningless unless one is focusing on issues that appear to be held in common with liberals and conservatives. If a libertarian is a libertarian then he/she is neither liberal nor conservative or both liberal and conservative. To me the right or left prefix only shows whch issues are most important to the individual libertarian. For that reason I don’t see libertarians working with progressives any differently than libertarians working with any other group on the left-right spectrum. There… now you have it. The world according to NewFederalist!

  257. Robert Milnes

    NF, ok.
    Are you in to try Zeese type campaigns for the Nov 2011 elections then in special elections> Nov 2012 then The big One Nov 2012?

  258. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 324,

    You write:

    “So you are saying all that going for him produced negligibly better results in polling, fundraising and results than the usual or expected?”

    That’s what I’ve been saying about PLAS for seven years or so now.

    “Do you agree that voter education about such party cooperation is crucial?”

    I’ve never seen any evidence that voter education actually results in educated voters.

    Voters who want to be educated educate themselves.

    Voters who don’t want to be educated respond to marketing.

    Every dollar spent on “voter education” that doesn’t work is a dollar that could have been spent on marketing that might work.

  259. Catholic Trotskyist

    I’m in, but I do believe we should try to include the Constitution Party and moderate Perot style independents. That would make this a little closer to the TR 2012 campaign anyway.

  260. Catholic Trotskyist

    If Anthony Weiner resigns, there will be a special election in parts of New York City, with a very weak Republican candidate and a Democrat who will have to overcome Weiner’s scandal. It could be perfect.

  261. JT

    Milnes: “You being a rightist is just an impression I got over the YEARS considering many comments.”

    I don’t know what “many comments” gave you that impression. I’m not a “right-libertarian” or a “left-libertarian.” I’m just a libertarian. I don’t have any more sympathy for the left or the right. In fact, if you’ve been following my comments on this site so well, you’d have seen the many posts in which I criticized Wayne Root for identifying himself as a “libertarian-conservative” and his myopic approach to outreach.

    Milnes: “Including your knee jerk support for Ron Paul.”

    I support Ron Paul, but it’s not “knee-jerk.” It’s based on the undeniable facts that his voting record is far and away the most libertarian in Congress, he speaks out on the issues I consider the most important, and he has a platform from which to do so and network of support that’s unrivaled by anyone in the LP. I view any disagreements I have with him–and there are a few significant ones–within the context of his overall political record.

    Milnes: “If you are into the Zeese campaign, how about trying it bigger & better & see if it affects the polling &/or results?”

    I’m not “into” it. I was just pointing out facts about it.

    Milnes: “JT said voter education was not so good.”

    I never did that, so I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t ascribe that to me.

  262. Robert Milnes

    CT @334, yes, we can do bigger & better in a Weiner special election.
    But the latest I heard is he is in Congress like Flynn & is not pulling out.

  263. Robert Milnes

    George, I’m pleasantly surprised to see you comment here.
    Tom seems to have forsaken the Nov 2011 elections. In favor of trying special elections after that to try Zeese type interparty vote cooperation. That’s 5 months wasted.
    Do you have any ideas on how to Zeese Nov 2011?

  264. Robert Milnes

    I personally believe in PLAS and the TR Centennial concept for my campaign.
    However I think the Zeese type campaign has a lot of potential and would be willing to help in that wherever.
    You know, if I was able, I wanted to come up to Mass towing my tagalong with a campaign sign on the side for the Joe Kennedy special election.
    Do you think you could have talked Kennedy into a Zeese type campaign? I certainly could not have.

  265. JT

    Milnes: “JT, ok, it is not EXACTLY what you said in 302. re: voter education.”

    It isn’t ANYTHING like what I said in post 302. I said the Zeese campaign did what it could to educate people given the resources it had. How is that anything like saying voter education isn’t so good?? You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skill if you think those two statements are similar.

  266. Robert Milnes

    JT, how would you like to debate this?
    In the least one could glean pessimism from “did what it could”.
    In hindsight it clearly was not good enough. What should have worked, was well set up, good candidate, endorsements, no third party/independent competitors etc., did not work. Something is wrong somewhere.

  267. Robert Milnes

    The something wrong is how powerfully entrenched the dem/rep duopoly is.
    In 322 Tom said Zeese raised & spent $70k.
    Tom is a walking, talking Wikipedia in all things-esp political.
    So we know 70k is not enough.
    I wonder what 35 million can do.

  268. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 341,

    You write:

    “Tom seems to have forsaken the Nov 2011 elections. In favor of trying special elections after that to try Zeese type interparty vote cooperation.”

    What November 2011 elections are you talking about?

    There are no regular US House or Senate elections in odd-numbered years.

    My recollection is that there may be a handful of state-level elections, and if you’re going to pursue the strategy you’re talking about, of course those may be worth looking into if the filing dates, etc., aren’t already past, which may well be the case.

    I’m in no position to “forsake” anything. My only interest in electoral politics at this point is money or lulz. I don’t see much prospect of the former here, but I’m willing to be along for the latter, to a degree.

  269. Robert Milnes

    We need to divert the @35 million Ron Paul can/will/ get, not to mention @300 million Obama can/will get, for ballot access then election marketing/voter education.

  270. NewFederalist

    Geez Bob… what’s the plan to “divert” all this money from Ron Paul and President Obama? If you have a plan that is rock solid I would bet Mitt Romney would find a very high paying campaign job for you.

  271. Robert Milnes

    NF, 2008 proved the libertarian/liberty/anti-war movement could contribute at least 35 million to presidential politics.
    The big problem is it went to Ron Paul, GOP/counterrevolutionary instead of the LP/real libertarian candidates.
    So we need some way to convince these people to contribute this to the LP/real libertarian/anti-war candidates INSTEAD of Ron Paul for 2012.
    Maybe I personally don’t have much chance for that. But I think I have an excellent chance to divert @300 million from Obama’s campaign.

  272. Robert Milnes

    If I can emerge as the only viable progressive against Obama, I can divert a large portion of progressive support from Obama’s campaign. I guesstimate @300 million.
    As soon as I add a libertarian woman to the ticket, I can add 35 million.

  273. NewFederalist

    Why not Rep. Dennis Kuchinch? He has name recognition, a beautiful wife, lots of experience and is a proven vote getter. Have you presented your idea to him?

  274. Robert Milnes

    NF, LOL! No, I haven’t.
    You can if you want.
    Now the IPR slummer, Gravel campaign manager, democrat Skyler McKinley might have by now.

  275. NewFederalist

    Was the shot at #359 aimed at me? If so, how would you conclude I am a Ron Paul supporter?

  276. Robert Milnes

    I’m against all democrats & republicans unless they renounce their party.
    Let me know when Kucinich does that.
    & that is why I am at least open to Nader.
    True, I could take my ideas to Kucinich & others. & ask them to renounce their party.
    Nah.

  277. Catholic Trotskyist

    The only state governor elections in 2011 are in Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana. Not really the best PLAS states. A lot of local elections though; those could be better.

  278. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 351,

    You write:

    “Tom, to you am I talking about 35 million + 300 million dollars or lulz?”

    Given the choice between moonbeam fantasies and lulz, I’ll go with lulz.

  279. Robert Milnes

    What we could do is flood the governor election states with activists to knock on doors with materials for education simultaneous to marketing.

  280. Steven Wilson

    @RM

    You keep ripping on Ron Paul. You have every right to do that, but how you argue your point is almost childish. You talk as if those people just gave it away. As if Ron Paul himself was just a void cardboard cutout of a human.

    Obama was a known variable in the Midwest. He was a senator and school reformer with contacts in almost every state in the midwest. He is thick in union cover and has almost the entire black population vote.

    You can’t even get a van started.

    I fully support freedom of speech, but as much as IPR is for entertainment, this show is getting old.

    You are so hateful toward anyone who has done anything with their life. Ron Paul served in the Military, is a medical doctor, and won several elections.

    Barack Obama is a lawyer. He organized several greens and democrats to help reform metro schools. He gave speeches about montessori and european models.

    Robert Milnes, this is too important for this to continue. Run local. March for families with no food. Fight for fair wage laws. Write letters to the editor about the wars. Something.

    For one day, just try to encourage someone to do something for someone else. No negatives. Nothing mean.

  281. Catholic Trotskyist

    NF, I think a good PLAS state is one where there are a lot of both liberals and libertarians. I agree with Robert that KY is the best out of those three. After all, Rand Paul was elected there, proving that there are some libertarians, despite their misuse on the Rand Paul campaign. And the governor is a fairly liberal Dem.

  282. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 368, CT @ 371,

    I suspect that of the three states named, Louisiana is the best bet, for several reasons (easier ballot access requirements, some real left-populist history, etc.).

    Keep in mind, too, that those elections are now less than five months away. Candidates may already have been nominated by the parties you’re going to be asking to co-nominate, it may be too late to get on the ballot with an independent, and you’re running about a year behind on marketing. Nothing against trying, but even an anti-PLAS type like me would agree that this would not constitute a “fair try” of PLAS.

    The nice thing about special elections is that they pop up unpredicted and EVERYONE has a relatively short campaign cycle. You can get in, work it, see what happens. The established parties have an infrastructure/history advantage, but they’re at least starting from the same place you are.

  283. Robert Milnes

    @370, (anonymous) Steven Wilson, whatever your name,
    I beg your pardon. I do not have a new limo w/driver like just about all politicians. Nor do I have a Class A motorhome for campaign vehicle. I have TWO 1980’s vintage Econolines so that hopefully WHEN one breaks down, I can use the other. I personally have put in several clutches into the one van. Not to mention starters, alternators, voltage regulators, solenoids, batteries, drive shaft universals etc.
    Barack Obama is a lawyer. Yo, what is the difference between a lawyer and a mosquito?
    One is a blood sucking parasite. The other is an insect.
    Obama has the backing of the democratic party machine. AT LEAST since 2004 he was set up for the 2008 run with his Keynote speech. He was endorsed by Massachusetts mischief maker Edward Kennedy. The democratic party has always had almost the entire black vote.

  284. Robert Milnes

    Dr. McFarland was in the military also. Navy. Got his medical degree there. Green. Therefore he lost elections.
    I did stuff like demonstrations, strikes, petitions, letters to editor, anarchist bookstore volunteer etc. Decades ago.
    I paid my dues. I did my time. I did my homework. Decades ago.
    Now- I -have something to say.

  285. Robert Milnes

    Recently IPR posted an article about AFL-CIO President Trumka & his grumblings about the democratic party. I may be able to sway his support.
    If I can get some support.

  286. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 374,

    You write:

    “I do not have a new limo w/driver like just about all politicians.”

    That statement is a good indicator of precisely how you do not live in the real world.

    “Just about all politicians” do not have limos and drivers.

    Some of the top elected leaders have cars and drivers at their disposal at taxpayer expense.

    A few of the richest politicians own limos and keep drivers on staff.

    Most politicians own normal — perhaps slightly upscale, but not Rolls Royce type — vehicles, drive themselves to the grocery store, and perhaps have a campaign staffer drive them when campaigning (because the candidate should have his nose buried in briefing papers or be doing a radio interview on the phone whenever possible).

    Like a high school boy on prom night, your average politician MIGHT hire a limo for a special event … because chicks and voters dig limos.

  287. Robert Milnes

    Thane, did this sentence really need nitpicking?
    Maybe it is not totally accurate.
    It is clearly exaggeration for effect or to make a point.
    He spins it into an indication that I do not live in the real world which is itself not accurate & exaggeration for effect or to make a point.
    & by doing this he is taking the side of the rich & reactionary, decadent politicians at my expense.
    What does that accomplish?

  288. Robert Milnes

    There are seven candidates in NH for this debate.
    The LP debate will have 2, -could’ve been at least 3, should be more-6 days later; long after the media with their pens & cameras & laptops have left.
    What a debacle. Who engineered this?

  289. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Over the years, you have begged me, numerous times, to work on your putative campaign, with the implication that payment will follow.

    So no, I’m not being paid to nitpick. I’m doing it on spec. If you don’t like my advice, don’t follow it. If you don’t want my advice, quit asking for it.

    I did NOT spin it into an indication that you do not live in the real world. I noted that it is an indication of HOW you do not live in the real world.

    With respect to cars, there are two kinds of politicians:

    1) Politicians who drive whatever car they happen to have, whether that be a beat-up pickup truck or a limo with driver.

    2) Politicians who, sometimes or all the time, use their car to tell a story, true or false.

    In every election cycle, you’ll see newspaper stories scattered around the country about congressional candidates — including some incumbents — who, for example “drives the district in the same 1970 Ford Ranger that he used back when he spent his days repairing the fences on the family farm instead of making policy in Washington” or “stores his campaign material in the same station wagon he uses during the week to chauffeur prospective homebuyers around to the properties he lists as a local realtor,” or whatever.

    In 2000, Orrin Hatch drove a van around Iowa. Every day he took a different reporter with him. His campaign fell flat, but he did get good early press coverage from reporters who were impressed that he was driving a fucking Ford Aerostar through blizzards in the middle of nowhere like a regular guy.

    Real candidates find a way to campaign instead of making up excuses for not campaigning. My advice to you, on spec, is to either start campaigning or quit pretending you want to.

  290. Robert Milnes

    Tom, if you are interested in $, why are you dogging me, discouraging any possible contributors?
    Did the USMC teach you how to shoot yourself in the foot?

  291. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 386,

    The only way you’re going to get any “possible contributors” here at IPR is to stop moaning and start campaigning. Nothing I say here “discourages” anyone from doing what they’ve chosen not to do for several years now.

    The USMC taught me not to humor malingerers and goldbricks.

  292. NewFederalist

    “Did the USMC teach you how to shoot yourself in the foot?”

    I don’t believe that is part of the Parris Island curriculum. Perhaps MCRD San Diego…

  293. Robert Milnes

    Tom, I’m aware of various campaigns and their vehicles & associated stories.
    Seemingly I would have an advantage with tiny NJ with all its highways & refineries.
    But no, I can’t do it-under these circumstances.
    Very little support. e.g. I can’t be driving my rickety van to NH just to get a cold shoulder from Prof. Moneybags.
    I’ve had to forego any trip to CA. Which I have done several times. High gas prices. My rent doubled. I’m here by myself with numerous problems.
    No, if you people out there in reactionary dominated America want me to win the frickin election, you better start supporting me.

  294. Robert Milnes

    My campaign i.e. me, has one foot in a hospital, mental hospital, prison or morgue & one foot in my dilapidated trailer on a bananna peel.

  295. Thane Eichenauer

    @389
    “No, if you people out there in reactionary dominated America want me to win the frickin election, you better start supporting me.”
    I’ll stick to supporting Steven Colbert for President for now. At least when he wags his finger he manages to amuse and often inform.

    Perhaps you should pursue a job with his production company?

  296. NewFederalist

    Geez Bob… lighten up! You won’t get any support by sounding so heavy and burdened. Make light of your situation. Thane has a point. Try to amuse as well as inform. It would have to work better than what you’re doing now. If you half tried you could make a pretty damn good comedy routine about your present circumstances and that might make people really take notice in a positive way. Frankly, it sounds like things are so bad that you have to reach up to touch bottom! Take it from there…

  297. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 389,

    It’s probably too late to get to New Hampshire in time for that event using the mode of transportation I’ve repeatedly recommended.

    It’s nowhere near too late for you to be well on your way to California, and well into southern climates conducive to winter travel on foot, though.

    Your rent doubled? All the more reason to go … but you should start keeping a list of your excuses so I don’t catch you giving conflicting ones again (last month your excuse was that you had signed a new lease, which would have set your rent rate for 12 months).

  298. NewFederalist

    (In my best Bob Milnes voice) Yeah but the new lease was for double the previous amount. See… no conflict there. So why did I agree to it you say? Because my landlord is a reactionary pig and he told me that if I didn’t sign he would tow one of my inoperative Econolines off his propoerty and I need them both for spare parts to fix the other. What’s that you say? Did I try and negotiate a better deal? Sure I did but he didn’t believe me when I told him I was running for president and was planning to nab a cool $35 million from Ron Paul supporters and another cool $300 million from Barack Obama supporters. That is when he quadrupled my rent. I told him I would only pay half that much. He agreed. So you see, Donald Trump could learn a lot about how to negotiate from me!

  299. Steven Wilson

    @NF

    Robert Milnes only has the idea of running for office. I wouldn’t normally rip into someone for the sake of pushing them into something, but I am tired of people who look at elections as a means of something different. Milnes is an anarchist and I once marched with the greens in Tennessee and they won’t carry anything for the black flag.

    So far, of the people that I have heard and follow, Lee Wrights is a good Libertarian candidate. His curb appeal is about void, but his message is clear and he can stay focused at the podium.

    He went to Arkansas and tried to rally support for getting on the ballot. I think southern states might be a strength for him.

    From what I know, Texas will have a couple of candidates. I hope Root stays on tour and forgets the convention. LOL.

  300. Robert Milnes

    NF, not bad! Your New Joisey accent needs some ,,,refinement, though!
    What actually happened was after the fire, my sister scared the bejezus out of my father & took over his finances screwing me out of buying the house & engineering me into the trailer park.
    There were 2 empty lots & by sheer luck I moved next door to one. I had too much stuff for the trailer & too many vehicles for my lot-2 are allowed. I had 5 including my 66 TBird.
    So I asked the landlord to rent the lot next door. He said no because my trailer was messed up & then he’d have 2 messed up trailers/lots. No, 2 more storage sheds for my stuff was the solution to my messed up situation. Me & this prick argued about this for 5 years. Finally I think his partner realized I was right & talked him into it. A few months later he croaked. A few months after that, I rented the lot so my rent doubled. But my situation has changed-for the worse so I am having difficulty getting another trailer & cleaning & fixing up old trailer to rent it out. My uncle/roommate moved. Maxed out credit cards etc.
    So, here I am.

  301. Robert Milnes

    2012 libs are going to lose-as usual.
    Unless you help me win. I can get you about 50% of what you want. Then proceed from there.
    Deal with it.

  302. Robert Milnes

    Tom, You dog me about how little I campaigned in 2008.
    I did several interviews, 4 websites, 1 debate. & some other stuff.
    I think I did about as well as I could under the circumstances.
    But in my estimation I’m worse off now.
    So how can I do even more?
    Malingering does not apply to depression,
    Goldbrick? I don’t think so.

Leave a Reply

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