The Libertarian Party of Nevada Announces New Administration and the Decision to Strengthen the State Party By Centralizing Its Leadership

Written by LPNevada News on 11 May 2011.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Libertarian Party of Nevada announces the results from Executive Committee meeting.

LAS VEGAS, Nevada, May 10, 2011 ― The Libertarian Party of Nevada (LPNevada), the Libertarian Party is America’s third-largest political party who believes in minimum government and maximum freedom, announced the results of its May 5, 2011 Executive Committee meeting.

The LPNevada Executive Committee (ExCom) had its regularly scheduled meeting held telephonically on May 5, 2011 at 8:00PM PST. The agenda included the Treasurer’s report, establishing state levels of donor contributions (memberships), authorization of spending funds and, most notably, a motion to unite the state’s leadership. Other issues discussed were the addition of the new LPNevada website (www.LPNevada.org), LPNevada Logo, engagement of social media activities and the introduction of contributors to the LPNevada blog.

A far-reaching motion spearheaded by Joseph P. Silvestri, the state Chairman, and made by Irv Hopkins, the At-Large Representative, to consolidate its leadership and party platform on a state level. The ExCom voted in favor (6-to-2) of de-affiliating all the county organizations with the intent to consolidate the LPNevada into one centralized state party.

The board members voting in favor of this change want to state that our primary reason for this change was to more effectively pursue Libertarian goals of identifying and electing qualified Libertarian candidates statewide by creating a single source of a unified, positive message of freedom and responsibility. When the LPNevada is compared to other LP state affiliates on a per-capita basis, we do well for the population base we have. But in raw numbers, we have few activists who are spread too thin across our organizational structure. Without adequate coordination, the voting public is getting mixed messages from different parts of the LPNevada as county affiliates often focus on issues of little importance to mainstream voters. Once the LPNevada has grown to a size to adequately support a multi-level structure, we hope then to be able to rebuild county affiliates.

“Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, the LPNevada ExCom believes the current system design of individual county organizations is both inefficient and counterproductive,” said Joseph P. Silvestri, LPNevada Chairman. “While Chairman of the Clark County affiliate, I saw firsthand the difficulties in maintaining an effective affiliate organization. This decision was long overdue.”

Silvestri continued, “While this decision was not taken lightly, there was strong consensus that this change was absolutely necessary. I am very pleased with the direction the LPNevada is now heading, which will also create uniform membership criteria statewide. I encourage other Libertarian Party leaders of small affiliates to consider reviewing their organizational structure and adopt positive changes like we did here in Nevada.”

98 thoughts on “The Libertarian Party of Nevada Announces New Administration and the Decision to Strengthen the State Party By Centralizing Its Leadership

  1. Kimberly Wilder

    I hope that the Nevada LP leadership is joking. Their press release sounds like the (ill-advised) mantra of failed leftists: Unity. One message.

    It should not be the job of a state party to stifle “mixed messages” and “issues of little importance” that other candidates or groups decide to pursue.

    This decision of the Nevada leadership stinks.

    It is like the worst decisions that the “national organization” or “state organization” of any party or movement ever make. It often comes from some control freaks, or people greedy for power, at the top, trying to see how much of the resources and hard work they can scoop up from the people beneath them.

    I am so glad that many Libertarians, and especially the commenters at IPR, have been on to them.

    Good luck to the grassroots, Nevada Libertarians to set this matter right.

    Disaffiliating locals is such a big decision. My first reaction would be that someone should try to question the decision, the process, the quorum, or the meeting that produced this decision. (And, if I had a local, I would keep meeting!)

  2. Kimberly Wilder

    A PS…

    I guess this situation bothers me so much, because it is like stuff that used to happen to me in the state and national Green Party (before I quit, for a variety of reasons, including cr-p like this.)

    One assumption of this statement made by the Nevada LP leadership is about volunteers. They seem to think that volunteers are spread thin, and volunteers are wasting their time on local campaigns with messages that are not helping with the state’s vision.

    Well, people are not formulas.

    And, people in third parties – parties whose themes are empowerment and freedom – are not likely to move around like pawns on a chess board when the leaders tell them what to do.

    So, the presumption that if the state kills the locals and/or local campaigns, that there will be more volunteers for state projects, or to spread state messages, is idiotic. It does not work that way.

    People who gathered together under the Libertarian message in various places, at various levels, agreed on projects and issues they liked to work on. They have their own desires, motivations, goals, incentives, and cultures. The state can’t “take that away”, directly “funnel it in a different direction”, or “steal it for themselves” with a restructuring decision.

    It is naive to think that human beings can be harnessed in that method.

    Having state or national organizations dictate to locals, or erase locals, is a strategy that has been poison to groups such as NOW and the NAACP as well. People are best organized from the ground up. And, groups of people cannot thrive when the people who “rise to the top” in an organization keep interfering and/or stealing from the people underneath them.

  3. Neocons Unite!

    When you promote One Message, the question is … WHOSE message?

    The Reform faction wants to purge radicals, so the LP will only promote a Republican Lite/Neocon message.

    Can’t offend the folks at Fox News.

  4. LibertarianGirl

    well that was nice , now when every member voting to de-affiliate sends their OWN REASONS IN WRITING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNT EXCOMS , they might actually be following bylaws. Until that happens , THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEM , and thus every single county is moving forward, and if and when they bring the litigation , well simply alter our name and continue forward. The Clark County Libertarians will be electing officers shortly and we already have a banner and supplies ordered and will be setting up shop at the next gun show so…..

  5. LibertarianGirl

    by issues of little importance , they mean little importance to say a Presidential voter or a congreassional one. The Capitol affiliate has been on top of un-libertarian bills and sending our calls to call or write your legislator , like the anti-helmet bill , guns on campuses bills and keeping their focus local. Nye county has done the same thing , they work very closely with the Town Board , of and the Chair of the NYE County LP and the Pahrump Town Board are the same person , Mike Darby , an elected Libertarian. theyfocus on issues directly affecting Nye county residents , not too shiny or romantic , but necessary and exactly what we should be doing on a county , local level.

    this makes no sense because they have made it much harder to nominate candidates and have made sure that the few folks in Clark will be deciding who gets to run for the entire state and made it a burden to have to get to the state convention to do so.

  6. LibertarianGirl

    to clarify they are on top of unlibertarian bills and also libertarian hopeful bills like the ones i mentioned. if joe silvestri took the time to even attempt to get to know his count affililiate members instead of ignoring them and writing them off , he’d know this. Im actually pretty sure he doesnt know any of the success and accomplishments attained by both Nye and Capitol. Now Clark has been a basket case since kris McKister took on the job as Chair beause he was told to do so. he planned not 1 event , held not 1 real excom meeting , and ignored EVERY SINGLE EMAIL FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS ASKING TO PLAN EVENTS AND ASKING WHY HE DONT ANSWER. we know why now , he knew this was coming

  7. Nicholas Sarwark

    Shorter NVLP: we had to destroy all active affiliates to “strengthen” the party.

    We’ll see if that Vietnam logic works better here than it did in that war.

    Hearts and minds, baby.

  8. LibertarianGirl

    oh god the outright lies abound. first of all the plan was executed lightly. secondly , activists are not spread thin , every county has their own group of at least 10-15 with Nye having over 25-30.

  9. LibertarianGirl

    you know what decision was long over due , my decision to stand up to Joe Silvestri , my dear old friend. This hurts me, but it had to be this way . he had to get rid of myself and Tim Hagan because we NEVER WOULD HAVE WENT ALONG WITH THIS AND HE KNEW IT.
    In fact , its strange how long we remained friends as you can ask anyone , we fought at more business meetings than we didnt. more than a few times , because of howd Id voted he tell me” your out next year ” LOL

    anyways i miss my friend , but this jack-ass he is now ate him. ask anyone and theyll tell you he was an entirely different animal some time ago . hell we often had less activity when he was county chair and he was an awesome county chair because he kept us going even when it was bleak until we looked good again . he never gave up , he never wanted to de-affiliate.

    I got an email from the Keaton wondering if this was the same Joe Silvestri that used to call porc-fest —- fascist-fest?? i wonder the same thing he used to be so much more flamboyant and fun and loving and now he’s bordering on not saying anyting thatll offend the “mainstream”

    Joe , if your reading this , the mainstream never accomplished anything. you were my mentor , you were the reason i ever came back to a 2nd meeting , you schooled me , the 1st book you ever gave me was Mary Ruwarts “healing our world” , you have gone an entirely differnent path than the one u used to follow and i miss you.

  10. George Phillies

    LG: The real leadership, the folks in the Counties , are being decentralized, your state committee hopes. They are being decentralized by being blown to figurative smithereens by decree of WAR and friends.

    Some wag will by and by suggest an appropriate logo for announcing that you will strengthen a state party by eliminating its local affiliates

    MINI
    TRU

    Black is white
    Peace is war
    Tru is fals

  11. LibertarianGirl

    we aint going nowhere , we are already planning events in Clark whereas there had been nil activity under Kris McKinster. The other 2 counties are carrying on with the things they had been doing. next thing will be to start raising money to get people dues payed and credential freindly and raise monies to pay what will be inevitably a very high door fee for the next convention. and ill be calling on EVERYONE to help with that.

  12. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Thanks to whoever fixed the title for me. I posted the article, quickly, before I went to bed–clearly I shouldn’t do that again.

    This article strikes me as disingenuous at best, or made up after the fact. I’m glad I’m not in Nevada.

  13. Josh

    Didn’t the state Central Committee elect your EXCOM? Maybe you should vote them out.

  14. Leif Kvalheim

    Having lived in Nevada the past 3 years before re-enlisting in the Army, I’ve been following (and catching up!) on this story intently.

    Am I right in agreeing with LibertarianGirl that this doesn’t count quite conform to the bylaws? I feel like the Excom is going to try and argue that it is.

  15. David Colborne

    Am I right in agreeing with LibertarianGirl that this doesn’t count quite conform to the bylaws? I feel like the Excom is going to try and argue that it is.

    Correct. According to the LP Nevada bylaws, namely Article VII, Section B:

    The Executive Committee shall have the power to revoke affiliate status if two-thirds of the Executive Committee shall so vote. Members voting to revoke affiliate status must state their reasons in writing.

    So far, we have one written statement, or two if you count Root’s e-mail to Rowan or his recent comment on IPR. Everyone else has been quiet. Of course, there is no deadline for when their reasons must be submitted, nor are there any guidelines regarding how in depth those reasons must be when written. Realistically, if all six of them respond with, “Purple minotaur goat feces – that’s why” six months from now, that would technically satisfy the bylaws and the affiliates would be formally disaffiliated.

    Having noted that, intent does matter, at least in jurisdictions that observe common law, and I guarantee you nobody intended to give the LPNV Executive Committee the power to disband all county affiliates. The intention of allowing disaffiliation was a bookkeeping/CYA issue. Basically, if an affiliate either withers into complete inactivity or starts violating the LPUSA bylaws (i.e. openly supporting non-LP candidates), that clause gives the LPNV Executive Committee the power to deal with that and, just as importantly, explain why they’re dealing with that and what they’re dealing with, exactly. It was never intended to grant the LPNV Executive Committee the power to abolish all county affiliates entirely. Heck, nearly half (8646 of the 20805 characters in the bylaws, for those keeping track at home) of the LPNV bylaws address affiliates or mention affiliates in some way – why write all that if you’re planning on eliminating them?

  16. whatever

    WAYNE ROOT ANNOUNCES MORE CHOCOLATE RATIONS.

    Glorious Leader WAR announced today that chocolate rations in Nevada have been raised to four grams from five grams.

    [more…]

  17. wolfefan

    Whatever the merits of the decision, what would trouble me the most based on the discussion that I’ve seen is that it appears a majority of the committee got together in some sort of unofficial executive session. These kinds of meetings are regularly prohibited in governments; we don’t want a majority of the town council meeting at someones house to decide how to vote and then conduct a sham vote at the official meeting – that makes the official meeting a sham. That’s pretty much what happened here, right?

  18. Jim Duensing

    @17 – Members voting (present participle) must state their reasons in writing. My reading of the clause – and I wrote it – is that members who vote to revoke affiliate status must state their reasons for so voting in writing as they are voting. If a “no” vote is not accompanied by this written explanation than it is invalid. There is no provision allowing them to go back in 6 months and rectify their error.

    They could, of course, re-vote and submit those reasons while voting. However, since those reasons were not submitted before or concurrent with the vote, the minutes should not be approved at the next meeting.

    @ 20 – you hit the nail on the head with that one. If the agoraphobic caucus honestly believed they were doing a good thing, they might have informed all the counties beforehand of their “centralization for individual liberty” plan.

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim

  19. LibertarianGirl

    the written reasons are starting to trickle in and its just the same paragraph , so far Silvestri and Irv have posted. Michael MCauliffe has expressed regret and while that makes me glad , one does wonder if its opportunistic as he needs Capitol Libertarians to help get his Med Pot dispensary off the ground in the North

  20. David Colborne

    Responses are starting to trickle in. Here’s the first:

    Irv Hopkins, At-Large Representative

    The following constitutes my reasons for deaffiliation:

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, I believe that the current system of individual county organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As a duly elected leader of the state party, I believe the best way for the party to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks warrant it, the I have voted to de-affiliate the county organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect Libertarian candidates.

    Irv Hopkins
    LP Nevada At Large Representative

  21. David Colborne

    Second one:

    Joe Silvestri, Chair

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee believes that the current system of individual county organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As the duly elected leaders of the state party, we believe the best way for the party to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks warrant it, the Executive Committee has voted to de-affiliate the county organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect Libertarian candidates.

    Joseph P. Silvestri
    LPNevada – Chair
    http://www.LPNevada.org

    Look familiar?

  22. David Colborne

    Those who voted against are also recording responses:

    Sandi Darby, Central Regional Representative

    I voted against deaffiliation. My reason is: Nye County Libertarian party is growing. We are politically active. It will be hard to keep this activity going without local leadership. We have been making great strides with moving the libertarian party forward in our county. People in the county have taken notice; this will die without the ability to work on our own and having to wait on the state to make decisions. We should be many small affiliations working towards a common goal, from the bottom up, not a huge top working down.

    Sincerely,

    Sandi Darby
    Central Rep, Nevada State Libertarian Party
    Secretary, Nye County Libertarian Party

  23. David Colborne

    Following her lead, I decided it was my turn…

    David Colborne, Northern Regional Representative

    I’ll start by quoting a letter I received from Nik York, my predecessor as Northern Regional Representative and as Chair of the Nevada Capital Libertarian Party:

    David et al,

    I hope it is clear to everyone involved that the below short paragraph is not sufficient for forced disaffiliation of all regional clubs.

    Please press Joe for quantifiable evidence–e.g. examples– of the affiliates being both “counterproductive” and “inefficient.” Then the question needs to be evaluated: “how does the disaffiliation change this?” What type of membership growth is Joe and the ExComm forecasting? Again, if you’re going to disaffiliate the entire Nevada LP, there had better be some good reasons and some goals defined.

    What Joe wrote below is grossly insufficient for the drastic measures he’s calling for.

    Thanks,
    Nik

    This letter strikes to the core of my issue regarding this vote for disaffiliation. I’m not going to lie – I do believe this is a strategic and tactical mistake on the part of the LPNV Executive Committee. Every successful political party in this country, LP or otherwise, functions from a bottom-up approach. When the Nevada GOP, led by Sue Lowden, attempted to impose a top-down solution on the Ron Paul delegation in 2008, it ultimately set the stage for a Tea Party Express-led defeat of Ms. Lowden in the primary, the successful election of Sharron Angle in the primary, and ultimately the defeat of the GOP in the 2010 Senate race against Harry Reid. In short, the single imposition of a top-down solution by the State Central Committee against the GOP set the stage two years later for the most important defeat of the GOP in Nevada. That’s a long tail of consequences that follows a single mistake, and I sincerely hope the LPNV Executive Committee’s choice in this matter doesn’t cause our efforts to suffer a similar fate. However, none of that is as important or as galling to me as the complete lack of communication from the LPNV Executive Committee on this matter before, during, or after this vote.

    What appalls me the most is that I know some of you were aware of this plan going into the LPNV Convention and chose to keep the plan to yourselves. At no point did any of you publicly come forward and say, “My plan is to grow membership in the LPNV by consolidating operations at the state level and temporarily abolishing the existence of county affiliates”, then let the membership decide whether or not your plan had merit. Instead, each of you ran on a promise to grow membership by installing a “team” with a “plan”, while refusing to divulge any specifics of this plan. For example, the Clark County LP elected Kris McKinster as their Chair without a clue that he would use his election in that position to transfer as much money from the CCLP to the LPNV as possible, refuse to organize events, barely meet CCLP bylaw requirements regarding meeting frequency, and ultimately vote to dissolve the local affiliate that he was entrusted with. Why? Well, he apparently knew something the rest of Clark County didn’t – the plan called for him to get elected, do as little as possible once elected to demonstrate the “failure” of the current system, and to prepare the CCLP for immediate dissolution. Would he have won election as Chair of the CCLP if his former constituents knew what he was going to do in that position? I highly doubt it.

    But here we are, with a motion that was not defended when it was put on the floor, yet passed with a 2/3 majority, followed by reasons for the vote that basically copy and paste excerpts from the press release issued by the LPNV Communications Director yesterday, at least when they’re not just copying and pasting each other, with no goals defined for what constitutes a success of this plan. Will success by defined by 100% growth in state memberships? I hope not – “state” memberships currently only constitute 1776 Brigade members and those that have paid state dues in the past month, which I suspect would be fewer than 20 people, and certainly less than 30. “100% growth” in this context would be 40 people, which would still be 20 fewer than the number of credentialed delegates at our last convention. That would only be a success if you relied on political math, where a $500 decrease in a $1000 spending increase is counted as a “50% cut in spending”. How many members will we need in a county before they can reconstitute their local affiliate? Apparently the 40 members in Clark County were insufficient. Or were they just the wrong 40? How will we know when we get the right 40 there? How many candidates will we need to put on the ballot in 2012 to count this as a success, and what percentage of the vote will they need to receive? How many electoral victories do we plan on enjoying now that we’ve enacted this bold new plan? When and how will we know that this plan is working?

    In related news, I plan on improving the synergies of the libertarian paradigm in the Northern Region in order to increase the cohesiveness of the consolidated political feature set. This will actualize functionality and serve as a value-add to the reinvention of our political-holistic cross-media vertical, which, in turn, will maximize membership and improve dynamic political scaling.

    My plan speaks for itself.

  24. LibertarianGirl

    DC_”In related news, I plan on improving the synergies of the libertarian paradigm in the Northern Region in order to increase the cohesiveness of the consolidated political feature set. This will actualize functionality and serve as a value-add to the reinvention of our political-holistic cross-media vertical, which, in turn, will maximize membership and improve dynamic political scaling”

    me_ ROFLMAO , for anyone that knows David , this was his idea of a final funny reply to a bullshit release and i literally LOL’ed .well said David

  25. Darryl W. Perry

    LG – I invite you, Jim Duensing & all members of the LP in Nevada that have been “disaffiliated” to join the BTP if you support the platform & wish to join! We would welcome you with open arms!

  26. Michael H. Wilson

    Reading the comments regarding the disaffiliation above I am seeing Oregon some years ago all over. And the same folks are probably behind the scenes today pulling the puppet strings.

  27. LibertarianGirl

    Here is my written statement as required:

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee believes that the current system of individual county organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As the duly elected leaders of the state party, we believe the best way for the party to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks warrant it, the Executive Committee has voted to de-affiliate the county organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect Libertarian candidates.

    Chris Roberts
    Southern Nevada Representative
    Libertarian Party of Nevada

  28. Cody Quirk

    To all you Nevada Libertarians out there that feel cheated and marginalized by the recent events, I have a solution for you that would serve as a successful and more productive alternative…

    http://WWW.IAPN.ORG

  29. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Does it seem to anyone else that copying the same explanati0n by the people who voted for the
    disaffiliation is rather cowardly? It certainly does to me.

  30. LibertarianGirl

    brad barnhill of the CC IAP posted an invite to watch Atlas Shrugged , and also decried the celebrating of Osamas death , the man is looking pretty good

  31. LibertarianGirl

    cowardly with a capital C , lets see if Wayne has more balls… it’s just their attempt to make us more angry and say something stupid they think they can use against us, but its just gonna make them look retarded ,and we’ve got more than a few folk that supported them last time that have stated no fucking way this next time. sayonara !!!

  32. JT

    Jill: “Does it seem to anyone else that copying the same explanati0n by the people who voted for the disaffiliation is rather cowardly? It certainly does to me.”

    Not if they share the same reasoning for voting as they did. I suppose each person could just change most of the words, but it would add up to the same argument. It’s like the Supreme Court–one justice may write why the majority came to the opinion they did, if their reasoning is the same, while others may write their own dissenting opinions.

  33. LibertarianGirl

    lets discuss this disclaimer–

    “This e-mail, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.”

    does this or does this not give me permission to post? I think so because it says:
    “may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed.”
    thats me..and it also says…

    “If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.”

    me_ doesnt that mean may be disseminated , distributed or copied by the recipient?

    Wayne thinks he can sue over my posting his email here , what do you guys think?

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

    LibGrrl: I know of no recognized culture, community or nation where the message to some one is any thing but THE PERSONAL PROPERTY of the recipient after entrance into the information flow, especially upon receipt by the addressee.

    Just another scare tactic by folks not smart enuf to pass the bar exam (like Citizens For A Better Veterans Home co – founder John Dennis Coffey). Just dental work from toothless pussy cats.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG @ 42,

    You write:

    “Wayne thinks he can sue over my posting his email here , what do you guys think?”

    Anyone can sue over anything. Whether they can win or not is a different question.

    Disclaimer or not, correspondence between a political party official and a party member in which the party official attempts to justify his official acts is not the kind of thing that enjoys any reasonable expectation of privacy.

    If Wayne’s stupid enough to threaten to sue, let’s hope IPR straps on its balls and says “go for it.”

    Not only will he lose, and not only will he likely be ordered to pay IPR’s expenses over the frivolous nature of the litigation, but regardless of the outcome he’ll be publicly making an ass of himself and pretty much demanding to be ridiculed. What kind of idiot “media magnet” goes to court to STOP people from hearing what he has to say?

  36. LibertarianGirl

    ” and may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed. ”

    me _ thats me and Rowan

    “If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. ”

    me_ that menas the recipient CAN disseminate , distribute and copy, correct?

    if wayne thinks this disclaimer prohibits people from sharing his email , he needs to take some reality meds and get a new lawyer to rewrite it.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Wayne Allyn Root:

    “Thomas Knapp has publicly stated I’m some kind of thief and conman on multiple occasions”

    If that has happened on multiple occasions, I’m sure he can cite at least one.

    Please, nobody hold your breath.

    Every factual claim I’ve ever made about Wayne Allyn Root has been extensively documented.

    Opinions are protected speech — but even in that area, I don’t ever recall my speech extending to calling Wayne a “thief.”

    Got the cojones to put your litigation where your mouth is, Wayne?

    Diversity of jurisdiction — I’m in one state, Wayne’s in another, and IPR’s servers are almost certainly in a third — means it’s a federal matter.

    The lower end of demonstrable damage for bringing a federal defamation case is $80k.

    I’ll let you look up the definition of “public figure” and its relevance to defamation claims yourself.

    Bring it on if you like, Wayne. The discovery stage should be friggin’ awesome — I have one of those 6-volt lanterns just waiting to shine up your ass.

    Or you could grow up and wear a goddamn cup.

  38. LibertarianGirl

    and he’s a liar , I published exactly 1 email , he states “on several occasions”

    oh yeah and at the LPNevada convention he said and I quote , he spends thousands of hours a month working for the LP. ROFL he is obviously not a math major either. He cannot dispute this , ITS ON VIDEO.

    his new name is Captain Exaggerator

  39. LibertarianGirl

    AHAHAHAHAHAAA , next step , people saying mean things cant post here. how funny he is , and sensitive too . Ive already talked to a lawyer AND HE HAS NO LEG TO STAND ON.

    wayne if you really want your emails private you’d better get a different lawyer to rewrite your disclaimer , the one you have PREVENTS NOTHING . LOLOLOL

  40. LibertarianGirl

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and
    current membership totals, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive
    Committee believes that the current system of individual county
    organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As the duly
    elected leaders of the state party, we believe the best way for the party
    to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a
    state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks
    warrant it, the Executive Committee has voted to de-affiliate the county
    organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state
    party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect
    Libertarian candidates.

    Kris McKinster
    Secretary
    kris@lpnv.o

  41. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wayne is a whiny baby. He keeps saying he’s a politician–he needs to act like one and grow some thick skin.

    Oh, Wayne, I’m a small business owner (just like you, remember?) People threaten to sue me all the time. It doesn’t scare me at all.

    You wrote those letters, and you’re embarassed because they make you look like a jerk. The operative words are: You wrote those letters.

    Now, I have work to do for the LP, my family, my child headed for a university, and my business. I don’t have time for this silliness.

    Also, Wayne, you’re welcome to call me or write me anytime. My husband or Savva can give you my contact information. I’m easy to find, and I’d be happy to talk to you.

  42. LibertarianGirl

    I now right , he scolded me saying I made him look bad , rofl , no he made himself look bad. for christs sake. he tells me he’s offended i made him look bad, i told him i was offended he commpared a dying child to a dying party , i mean who does that?

    does he ever slowdown enuf to think about what he’s saying? did he not think that would hurt me to say what he did by donating money and what he did de-affiliating were connected? i was flabbergasted that any human could be so insensitive to what the other person will think of their words? did he think id be persuaded by that? **sigh** he’s a lucky man , all his children are healthy…

  43. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    He keeps telling you he’s a good person, Debra, but good people don’t have to tell everyone they’re a good person. Actions and words speak loudly.

  44. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TK @ 44: “What kind of idiot “media magnet” goes to court to STOP people from hearing what he has to say?”

    This reminds me of a local story a few years ago where Barbra Streisand sued a helicopter guy because he took an aerial photo of her house. Turns out the photo was one of many taken for an environmental study, and the photographer had no idea and didn’t care whose houses they were. Of course, because of her lawsuit, the picture was published everywhere.

  45. David Colborne

    Back to the subject at hand…

    Mike McAuliffe, Treasurer

    Casting a vote to de-affiliate local third party political organizations is a difficult decision to make in our two party system of political football. On the one hand, grassroots activism provides the passion and energy with which to achieve a critical mass of action, as we are seeing recently in the TEA Party. On the other hand, mixed messages and fierce infighting can paralyze a nascent movement and destroy all chances at actually achieving results.

    In the case of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, I have returned to the party after an absence of some years, during which time I have been waging a battle of Constitutional activism against a resistant legislature. The primary reason for my return to the party germinated in a Libertarian event during which I personally witnessed a former state chair acting in a completely reprehensible fashion, embarrassing not only himself, but the entire assembled group of Libertarians in front of our guest, a nationally recognized speaker. I could not believe that this person was trying to be a representative face of Nevada Libertarianism. Furthermore, one of the attorneys I work with, a former Libertarian national ticket candidate who strongly believes in our principles left the party because of perceived racism and other bad faith acts by another former state chair. I determined that the only way to move the party forward was to get involved and to help clean house of those who drive more voters away than they attract.

    As such, I supported Joe Silvestri for State Party Chair along with his slate of officers. I very reluctantly agreed to run for Treasurer, because it is a position I have always avoided in any organization or board that I have served on. Nonetheless, after determining the former State Treasurer was ready for a break, I allowed myself to be drafted.

    I take my role seriously. Upon reviewing the dismal state of finances in the state party I knew that, based on membership levels, many of these county organizations were ineffective at best and more likely draining state efforts. One of the biggest problems is that there are different membership criteria in different counties, which manifested an unworkable situation for the state party. I saw a need to re-establish a consistent set of by-laws enacted at the state level to which county organizations wishing to affiliate must adhere in order to form a more perfect union, with the ultimate goal of winning elections.

    Secondarily, in reviewing the actual numbers of members of the Nevada Libertarian Party who are part of the national party, I find a compelling argument for de-affiliation. Of a dismal total of 204 national party members from the state of Nevada, 56.4% of them are located in Clark County and 22.1% of them are located in Washoe County. The other nine counties have a total of 44 national party members, or an average of 4.88 members per county. In my professional opinion, it is a waste of party resources to spend any time or treasure on such completely ineffective chapters.

    My third reason for de-affiliation involves a bit of realpolitik. During the course of my legislative activities this session, I have come to the realization that a goodly number of our Republican legislators beyond Clark County are very libertarian leaning. Some of them are unhappy with the current state of the Republican Party, but really have no other option. Our state Libertarian organization is woefully inadequate at this point in time to entice them away from the unhappy marriage they find themselves in. Nonetheless, many of them will vote with libertarian goals in mind. Couple this with the fact that 77% of the state’s population lives in Clark County and it becomes clear that in order to achieve our ends, the primary focus of Libertarian Party activities in Nevada must be focused in Clark County. This situation is not unique to the LP. There has been tension for years between downstate and upstate interests in Nevada, where downstate provides much of the funds while upstate wields much of the administrative power. We in the state LP do not have the money or manpower to fritter away in squabbles of that nature or in counties with only a handful of members.

    I believe that the party must focus on establishing an effective organization in Clark County. Given that three quarters of our ExComm members reside in the county, it will give us the ability to be very hands on in developing a template which we can then export to the rest of the state.

    My vote to de-affiliate is not based upon the personality differences which have hampered party efforts thus far. Rather, based upon the reasons stated above I believe that my vote made in good faith represents the best interests of the state party, giving us the opportunity to rectify past mistakes and build a slate of viable candidates for the 2012 election cycle. There are many disaffected voters on both the left and the right, and an intelligent, coherent message from our party will provide them with a timely alternative.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Michael McAuliffe
    Libertarian Party of Nevada
    State Treasurer

    To Mike’s credit, he actually provided an honest and insightful reason for his vote for disaffiliation. I don’t agree with his reasoning, mind you, but I think I’m beginning to understand the motivation here.

  46. Wayne Root

    OK…here we go again. Debra, I never said what I wrote made me look bad. Because it didn’t.

    I said you purposely released a private conversation, without my permission. That is a violation of private property rights- something all Libertarians should take seriously.

    I also said your release of a private letter was wrong because no one on the IPR end sees the CONTEXT of the letter.

    So you can in fact make someone look bad, by leaving out the rest of the conversation. And that is morally wrong.

    Did you mention publicly on IPR what you wrote to me? Of course not. I donated to your ill cousin I believe about one year ago. It was NEVER mentioned anywhere, anytime by me. I do not discuss private matters, nor charity. Ever. In this case, I only brought up the donation because you wrote about it in your very first sentence to me.

    DidI mention it in the past year? To you? To anyone? When you needed me I was there for you. I asked for nothing in return. Never have, never will.

    But then you released only my end of the email…and made it look like I was bringing it up for no reason…or perhaps asking for something. That’s morally wrong. Thats outrageous. And it didn’t happen that way.

    By the way, I respect private property right so much, I have never to this day released the emails either you…or Rowan sent to me…even after you released mine without asking me.

    I still chose NOT to violate your private property rights.

    The email correspondence of others is private property. We all should have that expectation.

    It’s not just me who thinks so. Rowan said in print on IPR…something to the effect of “I’m sorry to have to release a private and confidential letter from Wayne.” So obviously she understand the significance of what she did. A complete violation of my private property.

    Sorry but everything isn’t OK in a political disagreement. If someone doesn’t like the way you vote, then out-work them, out-hustle them, and beat them in 2 years. That’s fine. But please stop with the outlandish behavior if you don’t like a vote.

    And rationalizing poor behavior doesn’t make it right.

    This is exactly what chases people away from the LP.

    Debra you asked me privately why I voted yes on that resolution. I responded like a gentleman. Then you responded by:

    A) Releasing my letter without my permission.

    and B) By denigrating me in print at IPR again and again.

    Whereas I continued to treat you nicely and with manners in writing…despite the nonstop insults. Let me ask you publicly…did I say anything mean spirited or slanderous about you? Publicly? How about privately? Have you ever heard that I’ve ever denigrated you? Perhaps I didn’t like some of your votes. Did I respond by calling you names publicly? No of course not. By calling you a terrible person?

    Does Rowan have a right to publicly say Wayne is a liar and cheat? What? Based on what? I still haven’t a clue what she’s talking about. Not a clue. Because a person votes “yes” on a vote you don’t like that makes them a liar and cheater. Really? So if Rowan votes a way I don’t like, that makes her a liar and cheater? Slanderous words and completely morally wrong.

    Do you see the lesson here? No good person will ever choose to respond to you again. You have damaged the opportunity for dialogue…not with me…with anyone who now knows that if they respond to you privately…it will be released to the public…and they’ll be ridiculed.

    So who would respond to you in the future? Do you now see the problem?

    Rowan…same thing. You emailed me. I emailed you back. That’s a good thing. I’m responsive to my friends. Thats how you keep lines of communication open. Thats how we start a dialogue. That could be how we solve this a week, a month, or a year from now.

    But releasing emails that are private property is teaching all of us a bad lesson. No one is going to ever answer your calls or emails again.

    Is that the effect you all wanted?

    Someone said here at IPR that Wayne was made to look bad my the release of my emails. Really? Did I badmouth a single person in those emails? Didn’t I say “I should be angry at Rowan for her actions at the Nevada convention, but I’m not…wink wink.” Or words to that effect. I was forgiving and nice. As I always am.

    Didn’t I say “David Cobourne is a gentleman and I like him” in my private email response to Rowan. Knowing and expecting those emails were private, I still treated all of you with respect and kindness. As I always do.

    David Cobourne gets it. He has corresponded with me. Lines of communication are open between David and me. I hope we can mend fences soon. David made sure to say “nothing you say will be released publicly. You have my word.” So I felt comfortable talking to him.

    That’s how gentlemen and ladies have a conversation. Without the expectation of privacy, this becomes a horrible world. And no one will ever respond to you…if they get vilified for their response.

    All is NOT fair in love, war and politics. I’ve treated all of you with respect from the first day I met you. You all know that to be true. And you now have a disagreement on one vote. Should that cause you to forget civility? Should that force you to violate property rights? Those notes are my private property. They are only for the eyes of the person I’m sending them to.

    If you disagree Debra or Rowan or anyone else…Congratulations, how clever of you. So what you have done is made sure I will never answer a private email again from any critic. Wow, you’ve won. Feel good? That’s what you call a hollow victory.

    You not only haven’t won. We’ve all lost. Society has lost if no one respects private property or confidential conversations.

    My question is…is that your goal, or would you rather rebuild our relationship, and try to sit down together like ladies and gentleman and try to bridge the gap?

    Thats my point. Stop trying to denigrate, or “win.” Lets all try to ratchet back the public discourse and try to find a compromise. You may lose today…but win down the road.

    I’m am a strong believer in compromise. Are you? Or do you really want to end relationships and end conversation…thereby ending a chance for a future resolution?

    I vote for treating ALL of us with respect and civility.

    Because slander and denigrating people is wrong. And releasing private conversations and then denying there was anything legally wrong with that is wrong. How about morally? Do Libertarians care about moral wrongs? I thought it was very important to them. I know it is to me. There is the letter of the law and then there is what you know in your heart is right.

    I always try my best. If one vote that I felt in my heart was the way to achieve progress in Nevada…causes you to treat me so rudely publicly…then the LP is the loser. No one on the outside will ever want to join the party and be subjected to this.

    I am still offering the olive branch. Lets see if you accept.

    Best,

    Wayne

  47. LibertarianGirl

    i sure did tell everyone what you did when you donated , both here and on my Face book , i sang the praises of every single person who donated and as for you not saying that i made you look bad heres the excerpt “By twisting the story out of context to make me look like a bad person…”

  48. LibertarianGirl

    i twisted nothing i used your own words , your analogy was so beyond offensive to me Wayne , did you think Id be ok with you comparing a dying child to a dying party, gimme a fucking break , thats far more offensive than ANYTHING ive ever done. and if you think giving some money to candlelighters means i owe you something then youve missed the point of doing kid things..

  49. LibertarianGirl

    and Wayne the day you asked me to clarify , I came here and posted my email to you and also said you didnt pull the analogy out ofyour ass , that you wouldnt have mentioned it if i hadnt 1st…so… i did what you asked to be fair

  50. LibertarianGirl

    when you unaffiliated my county , you spat upon everything ive done for ten years. you didnt respect me why should I resect you. what you guys did was wrong , please feel free to forward or reprint anything ive written. and for the last time , i never said you were a bad person but i do think your a bad libertarian . noone i know would have decimated 3 active counties with good hardworking activists. I do not belive your reasoning , this was about control and personalities , not principles which I always try an stand by. I dont want to work on a team with people that would do what you all have done. and in my email i apologized ahead of time for the battle i was going to start , well finish because you guys started it.it was a real bitch move for me to publish your email , and the 1st time Ive ever done that , EVER , but it was a real asshole move you guys did. I dont buy the bullshit reasoning and i guess we will let time tell , when the convention rolls around , how many new members and money you all have made, not including the money you all are stealing from Clark County

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    @55,

    Well, I guess we know where Root stands on the subject of intellectual “property” now, anyway: Anything he writes remains under his perpetual control, any specific conveyances therein to the other person of a right to use it (“may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed”) notwithstanding.

  52. David Colborne

    Regarding Wayne’s e-mail, I’ll be brief – I’m a private person who speaks openly (perhaps too much so) when I think I’m having a private conversation, and I’d be more than a little upset if I suddenly discovered that my private conversation wasn’t so private. Consequently, I’m definitely sympathetic to Wayne’s position on this matter, even though I found the information contained in his e-mails to Rowan and LG to be useful and informative. Heck, I wouldn’t have even recorded the last Executive Committee teleconference if I didn’t believe (rightfully so, it turned out) that the combined labors of myself and everyone in my affiliate were on the line.

    Regarding Wayne’s post, yes, we’ve talked. Even when I strongly disagree with someone’s actions, like Wayne’s vote, I do what I can sooner or later to talk to the person who made that action to better understand why they did what they did. Between his e-mail to me, the e-mails posted here, and Mike’s reasoning as expressed to the Ex Comm, a picture is starting to emerge in my mind of how this happened.

    The second paragraph of Mike’s written explanation, I think, was the most telling, especially during this part:

    The primary reason for my return to the party germinated in a Libertarian event during which I personally witnessed a former state chair acting in a completely reprehensible fashion, embarrassing not only himself, but the entire assembled group of Libertarians in front of our guest, a nationally recognized speaker. I could not believe that this person was trying to be a representative face of Nevada Libertarianism. Furthermore, one of the attorneys I work with, a former Libertarian national ticket candidate who strongly believes in our principles left the party because of perceived racism and other bad faith acts by another former state chair.

    For the past couple of years, I’ve received word that several Clark County LP events were, for lack of a better word, invaded and overrun by Truthers, Birthers, and other conspiracy nuts that believe in things that have, at most, a tangential relation to the platform of the Libertarian Party. I’ve personally heard from more than a few people that were initially turned off against the LPNV because they attended what they thought was a “libertarian” event, only to discover it was a viewing of a 9/11 Truther movie or something similar. If this was happening in my affiliate day after day, month after month, year after year, I’d seriously consider becoming quiet, paranoid, and bitter myself.

    But I’d talk myself out of it.

    Here’s the thing, at least in my view: I don’t agree with *thers. For starters, conspiracy theories are incompatible with how I view the nature of government. In my mind, it’s impossible for an omnipotently evil government to exist because that would imply that government can, in fact, be omnipotent. I’m a libertarian because I believe government, especially democratic government, is the least efficient means of providing any good or service to an individual, due to incomplete information in the government and inherent communication-related inefficiencies in the governing process. Simply put, everyone wants a word on how their government is run and how it does anything, regardless of whether or not they’re actually qualified to give an intelligent opinion on the matter. Market-driven companies can ill afford such busybodies – they’d bring the company to its knees in minutes. Governments, on the other hand, not only tolerate such interference in its day to day functioning, it must actively encourage it to retain the legitimacy of the people it chooses to represent. Therefore, government is inherently too incompetent to throw together a good conspiracy theory. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have libertarians because the people behind dictatorial communism would’ve been right and placed us under their government-run omnipotence years ago.

    Having said all that, in the rare moments when I’ve dealt with *thers here in Reno, I’ve found them to be surprisingly easy to deal with. Smile, nod, then politely but firmly change the subject. If they bring friends, make sure you bring more friends. Most people won’t try to have a conversation if they think they’re outnumbered 5-to-1, and the rare ones that might push the issue certainly won’t push it for long against seemingly insurmountable odds. This is the same tactic that Democrats use to keep ELF/Greenpeace/communists/etc. from taking over their events and the same tactic used by Republicans to keep Birthers/Birchers/etc. from taking over GOP events.

    As Wayne himself put it…

    If someone doesn’t like the way you vote, then out-work them, out-hustle them, and beat them in 2 years.

    If you want fewer crazies at your event, the solution is to host big enough events where it’s impossible for the crazies to take over. Instead, however, the NVLP Ex Comm decided the solution was “addition by subtraction”, where they try to purge the crazies and hope the collateral damage necessary to pull it off doesn’t turn everyone else off. Consequently, instead of it taking 4-5 crazies to derail a 30 person Clark County event, it’ll only take one or two crazies to overwhelm the 5-10 people in Clark that are still willing to put up with the LPNV’s crap. It just pulls us further in the wrong direction. Worse yet, since it’s increasingly apparent what the LPNV was attempting to do, it just unwittingly labeled 40+ formerly active members as “one of the crazies”.

    Feels great, let me tell you what.

  53. Boilerplate form letters rejected by the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party

    Based upon a review of the past week’s lack of integrity and ethics and testicular shrinkage, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee is believed to have no brains, balls, spines, or guts, is corrupt, inefficient, and counterproductive. As an outside observer who knows damned well that centralized operations in any state political party is a recipe for guaranteed disaster and failure, it is believed that the best way for the party to move forward is to throw the Executive Committee out on its centralized collective statist ear and re-establish the previous arrangement that actually was working in spite of the Executive Committee. Therefore, until such time as the restoration of integrity and ethics and respective body parts warrant it, these boilerplate form letters and their respective votes are rejected by the county organizations as illegitimate, and they will continue to pursue their own development in the most effective manner they can, which is by local grassroots politics and growth and to hell with the Executive Committee.

    Ima Activist
    Libertarian Representative
    Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party

  54. Boilerplate form letters rejected by the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party

    BTW, there’s more than just national membership numbers to consider. There’s also state membership numbers, voter registration numbers, and above all, candidate vote totals.

    An accurate statement about lack of growth takes all of those into account and presents actual numbers to back up the claims instead of relying on hyperbole. California LP members saw that in one of the reports at their convention.

    In the absence of those numbers, the reasoning is bullshit.

    BTW, Wayne Root, because you are an elected political official, your expectation of privacy is diminished as a public figure. LG has every right, as the intended recipient of that email, to publish it. Therefore not only do you not have a leg to stand on, but your lack of understanding of your own email trailer makes you look royally foolish and devoid of what pico-integrity you had left.

  55. LibertarianGirl

    “If someone doesn’t like the way you vote, then out-work them, out-hustle them, and beat them in 2 years”

    me_ they why Wayne didnt you out-work people here instead of kicking them to the curb…

  56. whatever

    they attended what they thought was a “libertarian” event, only to discover it was a viewing of a 9/11 Truther movie or something similar. If this was happening in my affiliate day after day, month after month, year after year, I’d seriously consider becoming quiet, paranoid, and bitter myself.

    “Paranoid and bitter” is a good description of the typical 9/11 Liar. I hadn’t considered that this Stalinist-style purge was the work of paranoid 9/11 Liars, but now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense.

    Good post.

  57. LibertarianGirl

    Jim had a few 9-11 events a few too many if you ask me , I do not get along with the man and even I would not purge 3 counties over it. The Nye county and the Capitol affililiate had 0 9-11 or birther events 0. There may well have been people that belived those things at the meetings but who cares , the plan cant possibly be to rid the party entirely of opposing views.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    If the Troofers were the putative problem, county disaffiliation doesn’t seem like much of a solution.

    Disaffiliation gives the state party LESS (actually NO), not MORE control of the county parties.

    Really, the only thing the state excom might have done to be productive on that subject would have been to pass a resolution noting that evidenceless fantasies about 9/11, etc., are not part of the LP’s platform, program or policy positions, and that those who promulgate them do not represent the LP when they do so.

  59. whatever

    That would been counterproductive as well.

    Allying the LP with the radical pro-government 42% who believe the government’s evidenceless fantasies about 9/11 is not a good way to build an anti-government party.

  60. LibertarianGirl

    I wouldnt purge , or try an silence anyone who has ‘their ‘issue , meaning i wouldnt try and stop Jim from talking about 9-11 anymre than he would try and stop me from talking about the drug war

  61. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If the Nevada disaffiliation was done to take Jim Duensing out of the limelight, which I think is possible, then that’s definitely an example of “cutting off the nose to spite the face”.

    Whatever @ 71: I agree with you.

    Any embarrassment Wayne might have over any Truther discussions in the LP can’t possibly be greater than my embarrassment at his involvement with the birthers, FWIW.

  62. Pray for you Debra

    I am sorry that some people here, Debra for example has obviously suffered from forms of emotional and possibly physical abuse in a dysfunctional situation that bring about why her personality is needed to bring attention to her, something that she is craving very badly. What she doesn’t realize, she is very self destructive to herself.

    Maybe one day she might see the light.

  63. Nicholas Sarwark

    I’m not aware of any jurisdiction that recognizes a private property right in personal email correspondence, but if someone has an example, I’d be interested to see it. My understanding is that once you send it, it’s not yours anymore.

    I’m not saying that there’s no expectation that people won’t pass on your email, and you may change who and how you correspond after someone passes it on. However, I was always told not to put in writing anything you would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times.

  64. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    A law professor on my Facebook page says that Wayne does not have a case.

  65. Don't count on it.

    Posting Private Emails and Messages Without the Author’s Permission – link to this guideline
    This is an invasion of privacy, possibly unlawful, and members who violate this will be subject to the disciplinary actions.

    The same thing as posting someone else private nude pictures.

    Of course, do you read at the bottom of Wayne Email that specifically has instructions that talks about privacy. Better read that carefully.

  66. Jill Pyeatt

    DCOI: I did read Wayne’s disclaimer carefully, and posted the letters anyway. Mr. Root has no power over me.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    @84,

    You might want to read those instructions carefully yourself.

    Let’s assume, for the moment, that they’re binding, even though that’s very much open to question.

    Those instructions say that the message “may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed.”

    If something may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed, then it may be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed.

    Wayne’s message to LG was addressed to LG.

    QED, LG is free to use it.

  68. Don't count on it.

    It is not ok to post this if this was a private email to begin with. Unless Wayne Root put it on the public domain himself then it is public domain, however the person he sends this private email, it is not ok to post it without his permission. Libertarian Girl or anyone else has NOT been given permission to post private emails.

  69. LibertarianGirl

    sing a song learn to read ,it might have been a bitch move but it was not illegal based on Roots own disclaimer. If he wants his emails gauranteed private he needs to write a different disclaimer. your wrong , get over it

  70. LibertarianGirl

    Tim,

    As I stated in my announcement to the entire LPCC business list, the
    action taken by the LPNevada Excomm on May 5 effectively disbanded the
    LPCC. As the outgoing Chair, I directed the outgoing Treasurer to close
    all accounts and forward all funds to the LPNevada Treasurer. I saw that
    as the last remaining appropriate action for a dissolved affiliate to
    take.

    That is not debatable, Tim. If a LPNevada bylaw is unclear, than it is up
    to the LPNevada to interpret its own bylaws (see Robert’s Rules page 570)
    and not us. The relevant section of the LPNevada bylaws regarding the
    revoked affiliation status is as follows:

    b. REVOCATION OF AFFILIATE STATUS
    i. The Executive Committee shall have the power to revoke affiliate status
    if two-thirds of the Executive Committee shall so vote. Members voting to
    revoke affiliate status must state their reasons in writing.
    c. AFFILIATE DEFINED
    i. An Affiliate is a creation of the LPN over some territory in Nevada and
    exists at the discretion of the LPN and subject to the other provisions
    and protections of these bylaws.

    So maybe I’m not sure what other advice or direction you’re looking for,
    or who you’re trying to get it from, especially after the LPCC Excomm
    voted to give the Chair the ability to allocate any LPCC funds to the
    State LP for outreach and fundraising.

    Thanks for your service, as always Tim. I look forward to continuing to
    work toward liberty with you.

    Sincerely,
    Kris McKinster

    On Sun, May 8, 2011 7:03 pm, Tim Hagan wrote:

    > I have seen litigation in this party before. There is a question
    > whether revoking the motion has passed yet in accordance with the LPN
    > Bylaws, which require members voting to revoke affiliate status must
    > state their reasons in writing. I’m concerned that I’m at risk no matter
    > what I do. Therefore, I do not want to act unilaterally and am asking
    > advise how you want me to proceed.
    >
    > My preference would be for the LPN ExCom not have the reasons for
    > revoking affiliation at their next meeting, and so declare that the vote at
    > the last meeting did not pass in accordance with the Bylaws. Barring
    > that, the LPCC ExCom should get notice of the revoking along with the
    > reasons in writing from each LPN ExCom member voting to revoke, and
    > afterward the LPCC ExCom votes for the Treasurer to close all LPCC
    > accounts and what to do with the remaining funds. I have no control over
    > either of these scenarios, so please reply with your views.
    >
    > Trying to cover my ass,
    > Tim Hagan
    >
    >
    > On 5/5/2011 8:29 PM, Kris McKinster wrote:
    >
    >> The LPNevada Executive Committee has voted to revoke our affiliate
    >> status, effectively disbanding our organization. The Treasurer will
    >> close all LPCC accounts and forward all funds to the LPNevada Treasurer.
    >> All assets
    >> will be dispensed to the LPNevada.
    >>
    >> This email list is now closed to new posts.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Kris McKinster

  71. Your going to find out the hard way

    Libertarian Girl, so far everything you touch has turned to dust and will continue to do so. Your own karma is catching up with you.

  72. whatever

    Why doesn’t Wayne Root respect the private property rights to email that is sitting in the IN box of other Libertarians? Does Wayne think he has the right to raid the physical mailboxes of others and take out letters he doesn’t like? Sounds like communism to me…

  73. @93

    Clearly, “whatever” you do not understand intellectual property law. Under the law, the author of intellectual property owns the rights to that work. Prior to a couple of years or so ago, you had to formally register the work with the Library of Congress to ensure that you got the rights, but that has been changed and now as soon as you write an original work, the rights are yours.

    When WAR or anyone else writes something original (and his letters, essays, or emails are examples of this), he owns the rights. By stipulating the use of that work, he sets the boundaries of use for that work.

    Just because you have something in your indox, you do not necessarily have any rights to that something. For example, if a friend sends you a pirated copy of a video, that video does NOT become your property simply because it is in your inbox.

    You may not like this, it may not seem “fair”, right or just to you, but that’s too bad, and what you want is completely irrelevant here. What counts is the law, and you are wrong.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    @93,

    “Under the law, the author of intellectual property owns the rights to that work.”

    Correct.

    But, even assuming that the law is not an ass on the subject, “ownership” obviously includes the ability to convey those rights to others, as Wayne clearly did in his disclaimer.

  75. Cody Quirk

    Chelene was one of the best performing AIP candidates last November and you need to get over that and get over her, period, you toilet-paper wrapping stalker.

    And the Montana CP has re-affiliated with the national CP- eat your heart out, dumb fuck.

Leave a Reply

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