Libertarian National Committee Disbands Judicial Committee; Cites FEC Recognition as its Authority to Act

In an emergency meeting of the Libertarian National Committee’s Executive Committee yesterday, of which six of the seven members were invited, the following resolution was adopted unanimously.

Whereas, today’s ruling of the Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee finds that Government is the final arbiter as to which organization shall be recognized as a political party,

Whereas, the Judicial Committee’s conclusion is that adherence to bylaws is no longer a relevant factor in party governance, and

Whereas, the Federal Elections Commission recognizes the Libertarian National Committee as the national committee of the Libertarian Party [see 2 U.S.C. §§431(14); 11 CFR 100.13] and as such “is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the political party at the national level,” such recognition being ongoing since the FEC issued its Advisory Opinion 1975-129,

Therefore be it resolved, the Libertarian National Committee hereby suspends its Bylaws until new ones can be appropriately crafted by the Committee, disbands the Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee, cancels the upcoming regular convention and declares that it is the sole authority for all matters involving the party, including the selection of its nominee for President, so long as Advisory Opinion 1975-129 is in force.

In an official statement, Chairman Mark Hinkle stated, “There was a time when we believed that the Bylaws were the authority under which we operated. Imagine our surprise when we discovered we were so wrong about something so fundamental.

“We wish to thank the majority of the Judicial Committee and the Libertarian Party of Oregon for setting us straight. Through our suspension of the Bylaws and decision to acknowledge Government as our sole authority to act, rather than the membership, we enter a new dawn where we can without hindrance expand upon liberty and restore the rule of law in this country.”

When questioned about the decision, Former Judicial Committee member Nicholas Sarwark replied, “Uh…oh. We didn’t anticipate that. We would consider an appeal of the decision by the membership, if we still existed.”

Former Judicial Committee member R. Lee Wrights declared, “Rules for thee, but not for me. Only we members of the Judicial Committee are entitled to violate our bylaws.”

[I reserve the right to modify the above spoof to increase its amusement quotient. Suggestions to improve upon the parody are welcome.]

96 thoughts on “Libertarian National Committee Disbands Judicial Committee; Cites FEC Recognition as its Authority to Act

  1. 24/7 the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    Very poor taste friend! It’s not April 1, far from it. Such tactics as this doesn’t help in anyway and should be removed. As in DELETED ! You didn’t even sign a byline to let us know your name.

    Just because your side may have LOST this vote, GROW up and move on !! Your county needs LP activity YESTERDAY !

    “I am only one. I can not do everything, but I can do something, and because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do. What I can do, I should do, and what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.” — Edward Everett Hale

    9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

    You pick the ONE precinct at a time !

    To build the libertarian movement to a point of change for the better, it must be done one precinct @ a time. With warm weather it is a great time to do some local politicking and walk some precincts. The good news is you can pick the precincts !
    Some items that can help…

    Help FIND the LIBERTARIANS in your area WITH the QUIZ ACROSS AMERICA: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/quiz-across-america-door-hangers-5-per-100

    Become a LP ACTIVIST where you live, SPREAD THE MESSAGE: http://www.lp.org/take-a-look

    Libertarian Products and Supplies make GREAT GIFTS too: http://www.LPSTUFF.COM/shop

    Have a great late Summer and Autumn in 2011 and ENJOY spreading the word ONE precinct at a time !

    Thanks !

  2. George Phillies

    The original post is smarter than the actual LNC response, which so far has been to run in circles, scream and shout (that’s a literary reference) rather than to ask the Judicial Committee, politely, for purposes of future planning what they meant.

  3. Dan Karlan

    The decision of the Judicial Committee is a monstrously, insanely, bad decision, verging on evil.

    The JC has just undermined — no, REVERSED — the fundamental principle on which membership in the LP is based: “Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

    Because that is practically what the Wagner gang have done: they have perpetrated a fraud on the office of the Secretary of State (fraud == force by most legal standards), then used that fraud-based initiation of force to achieve a political goal, to wit, the corruption of the both the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    And the Judicial Committee has sanctioned that madness against the protests of the LNC.

  4. Brian Holtz

    Dan, since I wasn’t in the JudCom majority, I perhaps have more lattitude than they to explain/defend their opinion. The most charitable reading of their opinion has it saying: in an affiliate credentials dispute where the LNC disagrees with a state government’s records about who leads the LP affiliate there, then the LNC has to formally disaffiliate. The most charitable reading of the opinion does not have the majority accepting the logic that if what the EC attempted was disaffiliation on July 18, then Wagner et al must have on the merits been considered the legitimate affiliate on July 17. The most charitable reading of the opinion has the majority using the current records of the Oregon government as a rationale for ignoring the merits of the Wagner/Reeves dispute.

  5. Nicholas Sarwark

    The decision of the Judicial Committee is a monstrously, insanely, bad decision, verging on evil.

    Most of us like to kick puppies too. Maybe that can get us over the hump from verging on evil to just plain evil.

  6. Chuck Moulton

    Dan Karlan wrote (@3):

    The decision of the Judicial Committee is a monstrously, insanely, bad decision, verging on evil.

    Personally I think Bill Hall’s framework makes a lot of sense.

    Bill Hall (@40 in another post):
    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/08/libertarian-judicial-committee-voids-executive-committee-action-in-oregon-credentials-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-560498

    4. For me, some of the most important indicia of who the LP?s current affiliate is in Oregon, pending future negotiation or litigation among LPO members, are:

    (a) Which group is recognized by the State as having ballot access. (Wagner?s group)
    (b) Which group has possession of the property of the LPO (funds, websites, state mailing list). (Wagner?s group)
    (c) Which group in a more general sense (campaign finance filings, contracts, etc.) is the LPO under State law. (Wagner?s group)

    While the wording of Gray’s main opinion and Holtz’s dissent left me shocked that the majority of the JC was applying a bright line test letting the Secretary of State unilaterally dictate who the correct affiliate was by default, Hall’s opinion in contrast suggests a multi-factor test to determine which affiliate is the default affiliate (ballot access, party property, contracts). These all seem very reasonable to me.

    Though as a parliamentarian I believe the Reeves faction has a stronger case under Robert’s Rules and as an attorney I believe the Reeves faction has a stronger case if this were fully litigated in a court of law, looking at the matter from the perspective of the rule of law with clear rules and procedures for the orderly administration of justice I believe it is perfectly reasonable to apply the presumption that the faction satisfying the factors Bill Hall lays out is the default affiliate. The LNC can follow the clear procedures set out in the LP’s bylaws (disaffiliation / re-affiliation) to bring the situation from its default status to one that matches what many of us think is fair and right, namely recognizing the Reeves faction.

    In the rule of law, just solutions usually don’t happen suddenly by magic. You need to follow an appropriate procedure giving due process to all who deserve it. The JC has not said the LNC can’t recognize the Reeves faction. It has simply said in order to recognize the Reeves faction it needs to follow a given procedure set out in the LP’s bylaws. The LNC cannot (through the EC or the LNC Secretaty) short circuit this procedure.

    (I realize that Bill Hall’s opinion is even less than dicta because it wasn’t included in the JC decision. This is unfortunate. I believe it is clearer and more reasonable than the main opinion. Given that Bill Hall signed the main opinion, perhaps it can be charitably interpreted in light of Hall’s logic.)

  7. Michael H. Wilson

    Mr. Starr you attempt at humor falls far short. It is this sort of internal bickering which has gone on in Oregon since the early ’90s that has driven so many people away.

    While some people find it more important to bicker, they actually seem to enjoy it like pigs rolling in stink, others are walking away.

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    Aaron, I also don’t find this funny. You are way underestimating the level of disgust many of us have with the hijinx of the National committee. Many of us, myself included, are ready to bolt at any time if this continues. The Libertarian brand seems to get dirtied more and more each day.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    My comment @ 13 about some of us being ready to bolt from the party: I recognize that this might be the desire of the LNC.

  10. Here's a suggestion...

    Suggestions to improve… are welcome.

    Here’s a suggestion Aaron Starr, go F*CK yourself!

  11. paulie

    It’s not April 1, far from it.

    I agree that satirical posts should be confined to April 1. On all other days, please only post news if it is accurate to the best of your knowledge.

    This last April 1 we actually got some complaints about even doing it then, though I plan to continue our tradition of April 1st posts unless the chief editor tells me to stop.

    Such tactics as this doesn’t help in anyway and should be removed. As in DELETED !

    That would be up to Trent or the author of the post.

    You didn’t even sign a byline to let us know your name.

    All posts have a byline that is visible on the front page, but not on the post itself. I have told IPR’s owners a simple and easy way to fix the fact that the bylines don’t appear within the post, but I’ve been ignored.

    9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

    Please stop posting the kind of stuff as you put below that line all over the place.

  12. paulie

    The most charitable reading of their opinion has it saying: in an affiliate credentials dispute where the LNC disagrees with a state government’s records about who leads the LP affiliate there, then the LNC has to formally disaffiliate

    That’s what I think it means. I wish someone on the JC majority would either confirm or correct that.

  13. paulie

    The JC has not said the LNC can’t recognize the Reeves faction. It has simply said in order to recognize the Reeves faction it needs to follow a given procedure set out in the LP’s bylaws. The LNC cannot (through the EC or the LNC Secretaty) short circuit this procedure.

    Given that it appears that the LNC majority has over 3/4 in support of recognizing the Reeves faction, I don’t understand why this would be such a huge problem for them.

    All it means is that they have to spend a little more time and have a vote of the full committee rather than just the EC. Is that really that big a deal?

  14. paulie

    I thought IPR articles weren’t supposed to editorialize.

    That is correct. We have asked all our writers not to do that.

    All IPR editorials are supposed to be approved by the whole group without objection.

    This rule is mainly up to each writer to self-enforce, although IPR’s editor (Trent) can step in if he feels he needs to.

    The justification for this rule used to be that if we had too many editorials we would get kicked off google news. However, we got kicked off google news for another reason, and it appears we will remain kicked off. Furthermore, there are other sites on google news which editorialize frequently. So, I don’t know if this rule should remain in effect. I’ve brought up the question of doing away with it, but no one responded.

    Since the rule remains in place, at least for now, I would ask that all IPR writers follow it, or else that the rule be done away with completely – not ignored on an ad hoc basis.

  15. paulie

    Thank good individuals are allowed opinion(s)

    Of course individuals are allowed opinions – that’s the purpose of comment sections.

    The question is whether individuals are allowed opinions in IPR articles. Unless there’s an announcement I missed, the answer is no.

  16. Aaron Starr Post author

    Jill @ 15

    I don’t know anyone on the LNC who advocates that you leave the party. In fact, you may recall that I twisted your arm pretty hard to convince you to stay when you last spoke about leaving the party.

  17. George Phillies

    @19

    Amplifications

    #1) One reason to push for EC action is that you know you don’t have 14 votes on the LNC. Some number of people will agreeably sign a brief supporting friends, but will make clear that they will not themselves vote to disaffiliate.

    #2) It is possible that the people driving the EC action (a) wanted to get it over and done with, (b) did not anticipate Wes would appeal, or assumed they could claim successfully his appeal was invalid, and/or (c) did not anticipate they would lose the appeal.

    If the motive was (a), and favorable outcomes for (b) and (c) were anticipated, well, it did advance the time cycle a bit.

    There are now several clear alternatives for the Reeves supporters on the LNC:

    (a) Give it up
    (b) Go for a mail ballot to disaffiliate Wagner et al
    (c) Wait for the next LNC meeting
    (d) Litigate, though that does not affect who is the affiliate.

  18. Jill Pyeatt

    Aaron @ 23: Thanks, Aaron, for the personal comment. I mean me as a radical–we seem to be in disfavor at this time. I think much of the LNC would rather not deal with us, or at least that’s my perception.

  19. Aaron Starr Post author

    Jill @ 25

    I agree that the radical point of view has been steadily going out of favor in this party. I first concluded that there was a change in trend back around 1996 with the deletion of the Children’s Rights plank. The movement in my direction reached a watershed moment in Portland in 2006 with the deletion of much of the old Platform and it has only gained strength since then.

  20. LP Purges

    Starr: I agree that the radical point of view has been steadily going out of favor in this party.

    Not so much “going out of favor,” as purged or bullied or harassed out of favor.

    Such as the disempowering of the Nevada LP’s county parties.

    Or the LNC’s attempt to cherry pick the Oregon LP’s leadership.

    Done (some believe) to stuff the next national convention with reform/anti-radical Root delegates.

    The reformers (for lack of a better name) aren’t “growing the party.” They’re driving off members with their “backroom politics” antics.

  21. Aaron Starr Post author

    @29

    Chairman Mark Hinkle has been an enthusiastic supporter of the LNC’s recent actions.

    Do you really believe it is credible to conclude that Mark Hinkle — along with 13 other LNC members — is attempting to purge radicals from the LP?

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    I agree with LP Purges at 29. I’d include “ridiculed” in the list.

    I don’t understand Mark Hinkle, actually. He does some things so very well, especially the releases he and Wes Benedict have been issuing lately. He does such weird stuff, too, like the Nevada and Oregon messes. I don’t know him well enough to know what’s going on. I’ve sent him a couple emails, and he never responds. He needs to man up and discipline Root, however, when Root misrepresents the LP. I won’t even go there with you, though, Aaron. That’s old news, and it certainly looks like
    Root’s been making his home with the Tea Party lately, anyway.

  23. Michael H. Wilson

    Aaron from what I read it sounds like you approve of the present platform. Let me introduce you to a serious error in the present platform.

    Under Health care we have this sentence; ”We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.”

    That sentence is historically inaccurate. I think I can say I brought this to the attention of two members of the platform committee and was ignored. We have never had a free market in Health care in this country, so it would be rather difficult to restore such a thing.

    I could take the time to go through the platform and find other problems, but I have other work to do. And btw I have had more than one person tell me that they are leaving or have left because of the watered down platform.

    With the membership being down it is probably a good indication our product lacks appeal, but when the product was a bit more radical we had more members. Is there a link?

  24. Kevin Knedler

    I find this post in extreme bad taste!
    Especially since I am on the EC of the LNC.

    L,G.& B on both sides of this issue. Jezz, grow up.

  25. paulie

    L,G.& B

    lesbian, gay and bi?

    libertarian, greens and boston tea party?

    latin kings, gang disciples, bloods?

    lettuce, garlic, beets?

  26. Brian Holtz

    MW) I think I can say I brought this to the attention of two members of the platform committee and was ignored. (MW

    This is a misleading claim about PlatCom responsiveness. When you complained about this langauge in May 2010, I responded:

    The committee is not proposing to make any change to the language you quote, which has been in the platform since 1994. Not a single complaint about it was among the 1,406 comments the PlatCom received from the 2008 membership survey about the Platform. Among the 3869 responses we got to the 2010 survey, 86% approved of the healthcare plank’s language. Of the 746 comments on the healthcare plank, only four mentioned the “restoring and reviving” language. Three of those supported it, and only one objected to it. Since you were signatory #25 on the Restore04 petition to restore the 2004 platform that included that language, I’ll defer to you to defend it.

    And when you complained earlier in Feb 2010, I responded:

    I published my list [of Platform repair priorities] before PlatCom’s December meeting, and none of the feedback mentioned the language that is now such an emergency for you. Nor did you or anyone else ever complain about it to the PlatformFeedback@lp.org list that’s been available for the last three years.

    I’m always on the lookout for fat to trim from the Platform, so I’m including this among the changes I’ll be proposing on the 2012 PlatCom:

    http://libertarianmajority.net/2012-lp-platform-proposal

  27. Michael H. Wilson

    Nice work Brian. But you missed one point. I spoke personally to someone about this and that person was on the committee.

    Don’t get too sensitive I won’t do you any good.

    And that sentence is still incorrect. My failure to complain or others not bringing it up does not make it correct!

  28. Brian Holtz

    My point is this: you avoided every opportunity to raise this issue with any PlatCom until after the latest PlatCom adopted its report, then you twice had discussions with the PlatCom Vice Chair (me) about this issue, and then you wrote:

    MW) I think I can say I brought this to the attention of two members of the platform committee and was ignored. (MW

    It appears that you are deliberately misleading this audience about the responsiveness of PlatCom.

    Don’t mislead people it won’t do you any good.

  29. paulie

    I thought 34 was referring to the post, not to 33. And as for the “guess on romantic” thing…I don’t know what that is. If 34 was @33, and if LG & B was my first guess @ 35, two of the three people you mentioned are bi, and one is as far as I know straight, but what in the world would that have to do with anything? If 34 was @ the post, I have no idea what my first guess would have to do with that at all. And I actually still have no idea what Kevin meant by LG & B. Latin, Greek and British? Lemons, Grapes and Blueberries? I have no idea…

  30. Brian Holtz

    MW@39: How was it that I avoided every opportunity?

    BH@36: Of the 746 comments on the healthcare plank, only four mentioned the “restoring and reviving” language. Three of those supported it, and only one objected to it. […] Nor did you or anyone else ever complain about it to the PlatformFeedback@lp.org list that’s been available for the last three years.

  31. Michael H. Wilson

    Damn Brian I don’t think I ever heard of that site. Maybe I was too busy with my private life to find it, or I didn’t read closely. The nuns used to say I didn’t pay attention. Maybe they were right. Did someone write about that site in the national news letter? Or put info on it on the front page of the web site?

    And if it will improve things I will take full responsibility for that error being in the platform since whenever, like 1994.

    But please fix it!

    May I suggest reading The Social Transformation of American Medicine by Paul Starr to get a good picture of the history of medicine in the nation.

  32. Kevin Knedler

    a common expression I use in Ohio. It has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. It has everything to do with behavior as a supposed adult and professionalism.

  33. Michael H. Wilson

    Okay Brian I admit to the failure to be responsible and I can’t follow the rules. But can that one sentence be corrected? This remind me of Catch-22 or something out of Kafka.

  34. Darryl W. Perry

    @Brian – your comments that “no one said anything” reminds me of a situation involving the States of Georgia & Tennessee – it ws recently discovered that the State line (which is supposed to be the 35th) is off by roughly 1 mile… surveyors now say you can’t move it because the issue wasn’t brought up sooner… courts have said similar things about the legality (whether properly ratified) of the 14th, 15th & 16th amendments

  35. Darryl W. Perry

    I will again propose the following replace the entire platform (except the statement of principles):
    “Libertarians believe that each of us has a natural right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property; and that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. And that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to individual liberty, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

  36. Robert Capozzi

    Bh, most of your tweaks look good. I thought you had a new neo-Geoist plank, though.

    This sentence doesn’t quite work: “We support a free market in energy to induce consumers to conserve and to spur producers to innovate.” The words “induce” and “spur” could be read that the government, not the invisible hand, should manipulate supply and demand. Perhaps: “We support a free market in energy, which allows consumers to use and suppliers to offer the development, distribution and consumption of safe, sustainable, innovative energy sources, free of government and special-interest manipulation.”

    Of course, I’d love to see the SoP revised/deleted, especially of the atomistic extremism! Yes, I know it’s sacrilegious to even suggest that! 😉

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@58,

    No, it’s not sacrilegious at all.

    Quite the opposite, in fact — it’s a demonstration of your devotion to your religion.

    The Statement of Principles is, apart from a few phrasings that could be improved, pretty much a common sense summation of fact and reality.

    It takes a religious impulse — belief, to some degree or another, in the Miracle of the Transubstantiation of the Ski Mask — to regard it as anything else.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    61 tk: The Statement of Principles is, apart from a few phrasings that could be improved, pretty much a common sense summation of fact and reality.

    me: You neglected to qualify this by saying “IMO,” yes?

    My guess is one would more likely hear the words “cult of the omnipotent state” INSIDE the asylum rather than coming from the lips of the every day sane folks strolling down the street.

    Of course, it IS possible that the loonies are the sane ones, and those on the outside — who care not about cults or omnipotent states — are daft. But, then, I’m more open-minded than most…

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@62,

    “You neglected to qualify this by saying ‘IMO,’ yes?”

    I believe I’ve stipulated on the close order of a bajillion times now that EVERYTHING I write is IMO.

    I’m a lot more likely to hear “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti” said by a priest inside a church than outside on the sidewalk.

    That doesn’t mean that a large percentage of the people outside on the sidewalk aren’t Catholics.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    63 tk, excellent analogy. While the Church may still use Latin in some circumstances, they generally translate their message when doing missionary work.

    “Cult of the omnipotent state” is IMO reverse missionary work, an excellent way to repel.

  41. Robert Capozzi

    Yes, Darryl, it’s very popular with Opus Dei types.

    Why the LP continues to have retro, obscure, stylistically LaRouche-ian dogma right up front for all to see and be turned off by remains one of the great mysteries of the world for me.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@67,

    “Why the LP continues to have retro, obscure, stylistically LaRouche-ian dogma right up front for all to see and be turned off by remains one of the great mysteries of the world for me.”

    I can solve that mystery for you: Because it takes a 7/8ths vote of national convention delegates to change it.

    For whatever reason, the founders of the LP believed that the Statement of Principles expressed verities so important and perpetual that there should be a very high bar for tinkering with them.

    What remains a great mystery to me is why those who disagree with those alleged verities, consider them a political handicap, continually piss and moan about them, and can’t muster the 7/8ths vote to change them, remain in the organization based on them instead of forming an organization based on the principles they prefer.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    69 tk, it was tried in Portland, got 3/4s, not enough to end the madness, alas.

    It’s not so much pissing and moaning for me. I’m one accepting dude. It is, however, highly self-limiting to take extreme atomistic stances as a matter of political advocacy, IMO. And that’s disappointing for me, since I happen to think liberty is a pretty darned cool idea.

    Life, of course, is almost always a series of options that present themselves and which are invariably sub-optimal. Rare is it that we get that pure 10 moment. I could stand of string of 8s right about now. This 5/4, 4/3, 3/2 thing is getting rather old.

    It was indicated for YOU to start your own political party…ya gave it a shot…and it didn’t seem to’ve worked out entirely to your satisfaction. It’s not indicated for me, at least not at this time and likely never. Politics is a numbers game, and I’m just a lonely commenter on an obscure blog, having fun, sharing ideas, with no expectations.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@70,

    “It was indicated for YOU to start your own political party…ya gave it a shot…and it didn’t seem to’ve worked out entirely to your satisfaction.”

    Actually it did work out entirely to my satisfaction — but that’s because my goals and expectations were narrow, specific, and not particularly concerned with winning elections and such.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    71 tk, excellent. I’m happy for you. You are the rare individual who achieves complete satisfaction.

  46. LibertarianGirl

    lighten up guys it was amusing..
    Starr says_o you really believe it is credible to conclude that Mark Hinkle — along with 13 other LNC members — is attempting to purge radicals

    me_ he’s right Hinkle votes and supports based on the rules , hi understanding and fairplay .dont forget Nolan nominated him .

    Jill the fact that u say he does some things rigt and some strange or wrong just proves he is beholden to noone and calls it like he sees it regardless of who it offends…i know for a fact he isnt purging radicals , quite the opposite , hes just fair

  47. LibertarianGirl

    look being on the losing side in NV , even i can say , thers nothing Hinkle or the LNC could do…they mayhave been dirty and fucked us up , but make no mistake , THEY WON FAIR AND SQARE , THEY VIOLATED NO BYLAWS AND WERE BETTER PREPARED .. what would be the point of losing then crying for a higher authorty to step in and makethem be nice..i spoke wth mark at freedom fest , he was also unpopular for his JC vote in Cali over the Barnes and Cohen petitions for removal . He said he would have but the complaintants didnt prove their case , he had t rule on the evidence. he also said he sympathized with us in NV , he disagreed with the actions strongly and even offered advice for us to take . long story short, try harder and win next time ….Hinkle is a good man

  48. paulie

    lighten up guys it was amusing..

    Yes, but more people read our headlines than full stories and comments. We owe our readers truthful headlines, IMO.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    59 dwp, btw, I don’t find the words “nor advocate the initiation of force” to be a poison pill per se. As a moderate, lessarchist L, I’d down with that IF that means that I advocate less government over time, as I do.

    IF, OTOH, that means that I must always advocate statelessness to be L, I’m not down with that. Apparently, most “anarchists” don’t advocate statelessness with every single utterance. Even they recognize that instant statelessness could be even more dysfunctional than the current state of affairs, and that “transitions” are practical and necessary.

    I no longer understand (if I ever did) the semantical need for some to make obscure, theoretical points about what constitutes force initiation and what is “L,” and therefore OK. Why not leave it that coercive government is way too big, counterproductive, and needing unwinding with all deliberate speed?

  50. Nicholas Sarwark

    @73: That’s a question best directed to either the Executive Director or LNC Chair, and probably best asked by the leadership of the affected state affiliate.

  51. Nicholas Sarwark

    @78: Agreed. It should clearly be labeled “satire” in the headline or pulled entirely.

    Of course if Aaron doesn’t agree, there’s not a lot that will happen, since IPR seems to have gone into “inmates running the asylum” mode.

  52. paulie

    I don’t think it should be pulled entirely at this point since it has received a lot of comments. The headline should say it is satire, IMO.

  53. paulie

    @85

    PRESS RELEASE

    RUPERT FOR GOVERNOR
    http://www.RupertForGoveror.com

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Sean Shepard
    email: sshepard@RupertForGovernor.com
    phone: 317-643-2012

    Rupert Boneham to Hold Press Conference Regarding Gubernatorial Committee Formation

    Community activist, entrepreneur and former Survivor contestant Rupert Boneham has scheduled a press conference for 4:00 PM on Wednesday, August 31 at 251 East Ohio Street in the first floor conference room.

    Rupert will elaborate on his decision to form an exploratory committee regarding his interest in being the 2012 Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Indiana and will take questions from the media.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    p, sorry, that was accusatory…not my practice. An “n” was dropped in the link, perhaps someone should fix it…

  55. paulie

    Or will the critique be “LNC Defies Bylaws, Judicial Committee?”

    Is there a bylaw that requires a link to each party website? Did the judicial committee address the issue of website links? AFAIK, no.

    You pointed out, either on this thread or the open thread from August or September, that LP.org links to all the other state LP sites which exist. Brian countered that the Oregon site does not link to LP.org but does prominently carry a negative article about the LNC. Do any other state LP sites do that?

    But…

    It may not even be that. I know that HQ staff will often not make those changes unless the state chair alerts them to it (or in the case of the link being removed, the LNC alerted them). Perhaps they would put the link back up if Wagner asked them to, and he hasn’t done so?

    It’s even possible that they simply didn’t remember, and would put it back up if you asked LPHQ directly. Have you written Wes about this, and if so, did he respond?

  56. LNC Defies Judicial Committee

    @92 Oh, yes, they were reminded.

    And they pulled the link at the time of the disaffiliation.

    The Judicial Committee ordered that the disaffiliation was invalid. That includes all the constructive acts the LNC took.

    On the other hand, congratulations to Aaron for predicting this one fairly close. Predicting the future is hard, especially that parts that haven’t happened yet.

    However:

    This time, not a satire.

    It is now nine days since the National Party Judicial Committee ruled that our Oregon Affiliate is the group headed by Wes Wagner.

    They continue to treat the Wagner affiliate as though it were still disaffiliated.

    They have indeed been reminded of the situation by an LNC member.

    It is inescapable. The LNC is defying its own Judicial Committee.

    So, Dear LNC:

    Hey guys, thinks for the LFA Full-Page Headline, and I get to use Second Coming Gothic type if I want.

    At least one of you was around when my last magazine reported that the LNC had funded part of the Harry Browne 2000 nominating campaign via a loan as correctly reported to the FEC. Perhaps that one should try reminding your fellow committee members of what happened next.

    Remember, Oregon affiliate views the LNC has having declared war on our own affiliate. They have already sent you a photo just to prove that they do have political nuclear weapons that actually detonate.

    I said well in advance that the LNC seemed bound and determined to copy their AD 2000 actions with respect to Arizona. It now appears that the LNC is planning on improving on the effort.

    George

  57. Brian Holtz

    At least one member of the JudCom majority expressed the opinion that, until 3/4 of the LNC formally exercises its affiliation-changing power, affiliate representatives with colorable claims to legitimacy should be treated the same by the LPUS. That seems to be what is happening.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@94,

    Interesting take.

    If we’re talking about the same thing, then my take is that the chair has sent out (to the LNC) the email equivalent of a Bush “signing statement” to the effect that he’s going to treat the Judicial Committee ruling as saying the opposite of what it actually said.

  59. Pingback: Oregon Update: Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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