LP OR: Reeves Group Sues Wagner Group

 

Tim Reeves, David Terry, M Carling, Greg Burnett and Richard Burke have filed a lawsuit against Wes Wagner and Libertarian Party of Oregon over the legal officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

Below is the actual filing in the Oregon law suit.  This document is public record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 thoughts on “LP OR: Reeves Group Sues Wagner Group

  1. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Isn’t the pro-Reeves faction composed of people who have, in the past, expressed disapproval about suing the LP in a State court?

    I don’t mind using State courts to sue the LP when it does wrong. But I vaguely recall pro-Reeves people expressing disapproval of going to the State.

  2. George Phillies

    Readers may find of some interest that the Attorneys for Plaintiffs listed on this document are a firm that was recently paid close to $4000 by Libertarian National Committee, Inc., for legal advice related to the same matter, or so say the lnc-discuss list as forwarded to me, and the November FEC filings of the LNC. Readers who are dues-paying members of the National Party and whose dues payments are current may wonder whether the LNC has properly voted to release its attorneys from conflict of interest obligations, given that LNC, Inc., given the ruling of its judicial committee, would appear to be obliged to participate in the litigation if at all as a supporter of its affiliate, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, chair. Finally, readers may want to remember, or so I have been told, that actually suing someone is like starting a war with another country. You can start the suit voluntarily, but once the filings have taken place you can’t simply walk away from it.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    I see the plaintiffs threw in the LNC’s bogus trademark claim.

    If LPO has a legal defense fund, I’m good for a few bucks (a very few, but I’ll ask others to help as well) if for no other reason than to get a precedent on record dismissing that particular bit of nonsense.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Also interesting — when the Reeves people thought they had LNC affiliate status in their pocket, that was what defined LPO.

    Now that they’re not the LNC affiliate, they want a court to decide what LPO is.

    But still, for some reason, they cite the affiliation authority of LNC, the body which has (albeit only under order of its judicial committee) recognized the defendants, rather than them, as LPO.

  5. Wes Wagner

    TK@6

    There is a donation link on http://www.lporegon.org

    Anyone who wants to donate money to the party for its legal defense in this matter can do so on the website through the donate button and put comments in the additional comment field that it is a dedicated contribution for legal expenses related to this action.

    I will be retaining separate counsel from the party since I was named individually as well.

  6. Marc Montoni

    I disagree with Knapp. I don’t think the trademark will be thrown out. I believe the trademark claim by the national LP is entirely legitimate.

    It won’t be an issue because the national LP cannot state that the Wagner faction is not its recognized affiliate. That issue was settled by the Judicial Committee.

    It surprises me (a little) that the Reeves faction is attempting to use that argument, as I think it will lead to trouble for them. Wagner can bring in a deposition from the Judicial Committee chair testifying to the Committee’s ruling, as well as a copy of the national LP bylaws, to prove to the court that the Wagner faction is the recognized affiliate and thus entitled to use the trademarked name.

    … and the Reeves faction is NOT.

    I agree with Phillies (one of those rare occasions when he seems to have come to a correct conclusion) when he points out the law firm has a conflict of interest.

    It’s unfortunate that we have this distraction during the election year; it would have been far better for Carling and company to move on to other projects and simply wait out Wagner and company.

  7. Marc Montoni

    The Reeves faction is also going to have a tough time proving that the later meeting that supposedly elected Reeves was legitimate.

    All the Wagner faction has to do there is collect copies of the bylaws of the affiliates of the purported county chairs who elected Reeves et al, and show that some of those chairs were elected by members of their local affiliate many years ago, and that the affiliates were essentially defunct or otherwise in continuing breach of their own rules by not having held their required elections within their bylaws-specified windows.

    For instance, if Larry Libertarian was elected to chair the Hooch County LP at its meeting of January 21, 2002, and the Hooch bylaws specified elections were supposed to take place every year during January, and chairman Larry Lib fails to even bother calling the meeting, and now, ten years later, he alleges he is still the duly-elected chair of an organized chapter, well… an argument can be made that he is so far outside of compliance in his duties that he is NOT.

    I doubt Wagner’s lawyer will fail to persuade the judge to dismiss. There’s a good chance that the court will look at the paperwork failures on the Reeves side, and say (essentially) “you guys need get your act together regarding your own bylaws, before presuming to judge those of your opponents. Re-file this once you have your own house in order.”

    I suppose the antidote for the Reeves faction would simply be to come up with “minutes of meetings” for those local affiliates, showing election meetings were indeed held, their membership was indeed provided proper & timely notice of the meetings, and that therefore they were all duly elected. However, then the fight will start over testimony given under oath, with questions as to when such documentation was created and whether it was ever provided to the state party before now.

    In any case, this won’t end well — not for either side.

  8. Steve M

    Given that if the trade mark is owned by the LNC and that if the LNC actions have been restrained by ithe Libertarian Party Judicial Committee, that unless the LNC is a party to this law suite then the trade mark issue will get tossed.

    I believe that no one has standing to defend the trade mark of an absent third party.

    If the LNC jumps into this then I am game to help fund a suit by the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee against the LNC’s involvement.

    Personally, I think the people up in Oregon should negotiate a settlement that uses democratic means to settle the problems and quite annoying the rest of us.

  9. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Most trademarks are limited in scope. Limited to a specific product and/or geographical area. Very few trademarks are exclusive worldwide to one owner.

    This is especially true when the word has a meaning (as opposed to, say, Exxon, which means nothing other than the company brand).

    Even if the LP owns the trademark to “Libertarian Party,” that would not give it any rights to the name “Libertarian Party of Oregon.”

    Nor would the LP be able to forbid any startups like “Libertarian Freedom Party” or “Libertarian Patriot’s Party” or whatever else.

    Many party names include the word “Socialist.” The LP’s trademark does not prevent other parties from including the word “Libertarian” so long as used in a slightly different manner.

    It’s too bad the LNC is so anti-free market. That it fears competition and doesn’t trust people to choose the better Libertarian Party should others decide to compete for the freedom vote.

    Some say the freedom movement is too small to split up. But that’s for the people to decide, with their votes and dues money.

    The LNC imagines that it owns the freedom movement. Like the Communists imagining that they own the working class. A very authoritarian mindset.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc,

    I don’t necessarily think that the trademark will be thrown out, primarily because I don’t think it will feature in the case as relevant or applicable.

    But one can always hope.

  11. Steve M

    I also think the rest of us outside of Oregon should get out of their state parties business.

  12. Marc Montoni

    Steve M I basically agree. I am not attempting to interfere; just discussing my take on likely outcomes.

    I do find some annoyance that people who do not live there are actively involved in the lawsuit. State LP’s might consider tightening up their rules so that those who aren’t residents don’t get to vote at conventions, and can only observe with the permission of the members who are residents.

  13. Steve M

    @4

    $4000 is like 1 week some 40 hours of a competent law firm’s time. That money is spent. And yes the LNC should think what the donors would think about how they (the LNC) handle the funds that are entrusted to them and not presume that they will get further donations if they act irresponsible.

  14. Michael H. Wilson

    re # 13 RTAA’s comments have been argued in the Oregon courts some years ago and RTAA must have been there because the outcome was that more than one group could use the same wording but in a different arrangement and I paraphrase. Cheezus this is a stupid waste of time and money.

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    There’s so much crap going on nationally, serious things that threaten our liberty forever. I’m disappointed and dismayed that this brouhaha continues. I sure wonder what the Reeves gang really hope to accomplish by continuing this drama.

  16. Steve M

    what standing does “M Carling”{ who has functioned as a “Parliamentarian” ) have in this issue other then to demonstrate how neutral he can possibly not be?

  17. Here's a radical idea

    Why doesn’t Wagner group call for a Oregon State Convention? Call for a vote of new officers and see how if falls out. Or, will there ever be a Oregon State Convention, with the bylaws they have?

  18. George Phillies

    @22 At last report the LPO is proceeding toward a vote of the registered Libertarian voters in Oregon, in favor or against the bylaws, as part of the Libertarian Party primary.

  19. Rondo aka Ron Boozell

    I am horrified, and a little ashamed, at my own reaction to this. I have never before seen anyone set himself on fire like this. Many times in the past I have witnessed Burke steal and lie, mostly in dimly-lit spaces. It will be my guilty pleasure to watch as Mr. Burke keeps us entertained, while at the same time staying warm for the rest of his political life…

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP@24,

    “This is an Oregon State Court, so it might be inferred that the validity of the trademark cannot be settled here.”

    Well, like I said, I doubt it will actually be brought up, since if it’s valid it militates against the plaintiffs’ case — the “Wagner faction” is the LNC-recognized affiliate, so if the trademark does apply, it applies on the Wagner faction’s behalf.

    That said, I suspect that if it came up, a state court would consider it within its own competence to take notice of the fact that a fraudulent trademark application, filed in the 21st century, doesn’t trump the state’s recognition of an entity whose existence and use of the name long pre-dates said application.

  21. Brian Holtz

    @7 @10 The suit’s citation of the LNC and its affiliation power is just to point out that there can only be one LP affiliate for the state of Oregon.

    No party to this dispute has ever argued that the LPUS has the authority to order the sort of relief sought in this suit, viz. ordering a defendant “to turn over possession and control of all LPO property, tangible and intangible, including websites and passwords”.

  22. bill nh

    haha, this is funny.. whining and hypocrisy. Complaining to the government to resolve an issue within the libertarian party. Wes was a bad boy, i’m tellin mommy. Do they ever expect anyone to follow their lead again?

  23. George Phillies

    Are they arguing about who the LP affiliate is, or who is the organization recognized by the State of Oregon?

    And who will be the final parties to the suit? The presence of an attorney recently paid by LNC, Inc on this issue and the lack of a subsequent action by the LNC or its ExComm to release that attorney form his obligations to them might suggest that the LNC may be more directly involved than it at first appears.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@27,

    “The suit’s citation of the LNC and its affiliation power is just to point out that there can only be one LP affiliate for the state of Oregon.”

    Well, there can be only one Libertarian National Committee affiliate for the state of Oregon.

    And there can be only one Libertarian Party for the state of Oregon.

    But any argument that if an organization is the first of these things it is necessarily also the second currently cuts in favor of the Wagner faction, not the Reeves faction. That’s why I’m surprised that any reference at all to LNC was included in the complaint.

    “No party to this dispute has ever argued that the LPUS has the authority to order the sort of relief sought in this suit, viz. ordering a defendant ‘to turn over possession and control of all LPO property, tangible and intangible, including websites and passwords’.”

    There’s no such thing as “LPUS.” I assume you’re referring to the Libertarian National Committee?

    Are you saying that none of the plaintiffs in this dispute have previously demanded such relief from the Wagner faction on the basis of the LNC executive committee resolution of July 18th, 2011 and/or the demand letter sent to Wagner by LNC counsel Gary Sinawski on or about July 23rd, 2011?

  25. Brian Holtz

    any argument that if an organization is the first of these things it is necessarily also the second

    I saw no such argument in the suit.

    There’s no such thing as “LPUS.”

    The LPUS is the organization that convenes and elects the LNC.

    Are you saying that none of the plaintiffs in this dispute have previously demanded such relief from the Wagner faction

    I repeat: “No party to this dispute has ever argued that the LPUS has the authority to order the sort of relief sought in this suit…”. Of course, the Reeves group has surely hoped that findings about affiliation by various LPUS organs (LNC, JudCom) would persuade the Wagner group to reverse its course, but I don’t see in this suit the sort of inconsistency you seem to find @7.

  26. Brian Holtz

    Are they arguing about who the LP affiliate is, or who is the organization recognized by the State of Oregon?

    The suit argues that the Wagner group is “operating from an invalid set of bylaws that was not properly adopted, and is therefore null and invalid and correspondingly they have no authority to act on behalf of the organization.”

  27. Brian Holtz

    @32 Yes, that’s what I was referring to @27. But I still see no argument there that “if an organization is the first of these things it is necessarily also the second”. The suit never uses the words “first” or “second” in such a context.

    In this latest instance of Tom’s game of please-oh-please-ask-me-what-my-cryptosnark-means, I decline to buy a vowel.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@34,

    No crypto-snark intended. I’m just wondering why the complaint includes information that, if treated as relevant to the case, scores points for the defendant rather than for the plaintiff. It seems like a bad idea.

    @31,

    A demand letter from an attorney is not “persuasion,” it’s a demand (hence the name) implicitly backed by the threat of legal force.

    I suppose it’s possible that none of the plaintiffs in the case argued that the executive committee action and the demand letter were a valid basis for expecting, rather than hoping, for LPO to act as desired, but that seems a bit of a stretch insofar as the demand letter had the LNC/EC implicitly acting, to a non-trivial extent, as agents of the Reeves faction.

  29. Chuck Moulton

    This lawsuit has been the logical next step since the Judicial Committee ruled against the Reeves faction. The hand-wringing and name-calling that followed instead were petty and pointless.

    In my opinion the Reeves faction ought to win this lawsuit, which hopefully would result in the Secretary of State recognizing the Reeves faction and thus (by the Judicial Committee’s opinion) the national LP recognizing the Reeves faction.

    I supported the Judicial Committee opinion (particularly the clarifying remarks of Bill Hall afterward) though I believe the Reeves faction has the better parliamentary and legal case and ought to win this lawsuit. I don’t see any contradiction in those opinions.

    That said, the LNC should not be funding this lawsuit (on either side). Oregon LP members should be funding it. I don’t know whether the LNC is actually funding the lawsuit.

  30. Brian Holtz

    The only sense I can make of your first/second remark is that you’re hypothesizing that the 2009 LPOR was at some point disaffiliated. However, all parties agree disaffiliation never happened.

    The C&D letter vaguely demanded that the Wagner group cease and desist from any actions “inconsistent with” the two ExCom resolutions recognizing the 2009 Bylaws and the Reeves group. The senders of the letter knew better than to claim that the LNC had the authority to control the disposition of LPOR assets.

  31. M Carling

    The fundamental issue behind all of this is the non-initiation of force pledge. Wes Wagner spent years unsuccessfully trying to amend our bylaws to get rid of the pledge and the members wanted to keep it. So, Wagner hijacked the party and illegally submitted fake bylaws, never adopted in convention, without the non-initiation of force pledge to the Oregon Secretary of State.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@38,

    “The only sense I can make of your first/second remark is that you’re hypothesizing that the 2009 LPOR was at some point disaffiliated.”

    It’s not that complicated, Brian. The LNC has the authority to recognize affiliates, as the complaint states.

    The affiliate the LNC DOES recognize — if only under the duress of a Judicial Committee ruling — is the Wagner faction.

    So if I were suing to get control of LPO from the Wagner faction, the fact that LNC recognizes affiliates is something I wouldn’t bring up, since doing so makes it a bullet point in favor of the defendant rather than in my own favor.

    That’s all I was saying. It’s like suing for return of stolen merchandise and mentioning that the manufacturer maintains warranty registrations — when I know that if the matter is gone into any further, it will be the name of the guy I’m suing, not my own name, ON the registration for the merchandise in question.

    “The senders of the letter knew better than to claim that the LNC had the authority to control the disposition of LPOR assets.”

    Right. So instead of claiming that, they just treated as a matter settled in the affirmative.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    39 mc: Wes Wagner spent years unsuccessfully trying to amend our bylaws to get rid of the pledge and the members wanted to keep it.

    me: Based on his postings, I got the sense the WW is deranged. So much for perceptions vs. reality!

    Pledges and simplistic nostrums are for obscure clubs, not political parties, so perhaps WW is actually Lao Tzu, reincarnated….

  34. Brian Holtz

    I suspect that the mention of affiliate exclusivity is to pre-empt a question like: why not just have two LPORs and let the market decide?

    You read into the C&D letter a demand that Wagner turn over LPOR assets. Somebody else read into it a demand that Wagner not appeal to JudCom. All it actually said was “actions or ommissions inconsistent with” the ExCom resolutions. It was Rorschach Test across Wagner’s bow, and it didn’t work.

  35. Bob Tiernan

    M Carling said: “Wes Wagner spent years unsuccessfully trying to amend our bylaws to get rid of the pledge

    Burke also wanted to do that — for years.

    No surprise that since 1990 or so Burke has been a champ at the use of force (aggression) against people in the LPO who did not agree that Burke is the greatest libertarian super hero in the world.

    So, Wagner hijacked the party…”

    Burke has been in a perpetual hijacking of the LPO since about 1990. Why do you still associate with such a dishonest, sociopathic, patholigically lying piece of shit?

    B. Tiernan

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@42,

    “I suspect that the mention of affiliate exclusivity is to pre-empt a question like: why not just have two LPORs and let the market decide?”

    OK, that sounds reasonable. It never occurred to me that that kind of question would ever be raised in a court proceeding, since its implicit in the fact of the proceeding occurring.

    I think my interpretation of the demand letter ink blot makes more sense than the other one you mention, but that may just be me.

  37. M Carling

    In answer to Bob Tiernan @ 43:

    Serious academic studies show that nearly everybody lies about something at sometime, so I would not be shocked if Richard Burke had lied about something once upon a time. However, I’ve never caught him lying about anything.

    IF Burke would like to eliminate the non-initiation of force pledge, I’ve never heard him express it. When I was campaigning (unsuccessfully) to amend the national LP bylaws to make the non-initiation of force pledge a requirement to be a national convention delegate, Burke didn’t try to talk me out of it. When I campaigned (successfully) to amend the LPO bylaws to make signing the non-initiation of force pledge a requirement to be a delegate from Oregon to a national convention, Burke voted in favor.

    The key difference here is that when Burke wants to change something in the bylaws, he tries to convince people, mounts a GOTV effort to get Libertarians to convention, and accepts defeat when he can’t win. Wagner, on the other hand, threatens people, mounts an effort to minimize convention attendance, and then claims that the bylaws were changed when they weren’t.

  38. David Colborne

    Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion both parties are going to lose this one. Bylaws are only supposed to be adopted or edited by a quorum of the membership at large – that’s just basic RRoR tight there. Neither side achieved said quorum – consequently, neither side gets to edit bylaws until they achieve it. Trouble is, it’s no more possible for either faction to achieve quorum now than it was when this whole mess started, which means that, unless something fundamentally changes, the LPO will ne stuck with the 2009 bylaws and the inability to hold a convention until the organization disaffiliates itself. Which, to add insult to injury, might not be possible without achieving quorum first. Can the State Executive Committee vote the organization out of existence by itself?

    God, what a mess.

  39. Rondo aka Ron Boozell

    M Carling has no credibility,
    or at least as much as Burke.

    Burke divided and hijacked the LPO, and did so with his MLC clan of republican refugees.

    Together they have played every trick in the book, and still failed to keep the reins of the LPO because they betrayed so many of their own inner circle.

    To accuse Wagner of anything besides representing the libertarian wing of the LP is intentional LIE and FRAUD, which is their MO.

    I THANK WAGNER for doing what he had to do to neuter the Burkes and the COXs and the Carlings, and now they themselves open themselves to greater exposure.

  40. Bruce Alexander Knight

    The Burke/Reeves/Carling/LNC(?) lawsuit is wrong on many counts. Worse, it is a mistake.

    They are trying desperately to wrest control of the state party from over 13,000 current members, back to the hundred or so the Reeves committee claims are members.

    All they will accomplish is to demonstrate their own incompetence and petty power-lust.

  41. Bob Tiernan

    Serious academic studies show that nearly everybody lies about something at sometime, so I would not be shocked if Richard Burke had lied about something once upon a time.

    Oh what a hoot! With Burke, the exception is when he tells the truth!

    However, I’ve never caught him lying about anything.

    You’re either ignorant, or you’re lying. Burke has lied to every single person he’s ever met.

    IF Burke would like to eliminate the non-initiation of force pledge, I’ve never heard him express it.

    You weren’t here at the time. Apparently he hasn’t been completely honest with you on this subject.

    When I was campaigning (unsuccessfully) to amend the national LP bylaws to make the non-initiation of force pledge a requirement to be a national convention delegate, Burke didn’t try to talk me out of it. When I campaigned (successfully) to amend the LPO bylaws to make signing the non-initiation of force pledge a requirement to be a delegate from Oregon to a national convention, Burke voted in favor.

    So? In another few years he might be back to wanting to get rid of it, like he wanted before you got here.

    The key difference here is that when Burke wants to change something in the bylaws, he tries to convince people

    With lots of disinformation for starters. There’s a long, long history of this from long before you got here. There are more ex-members than I can recall who walked away from the party because of the dishonesty of the scalawag you are now defending. You weren’t there, so you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    mounts a GOTV effort to get Libertarians to convention

    Such as when he and friends scheduled a convention in Bend in order to minimize the attendance of the many low income Multnomah County members with no wheels (as Burke ally Christiana Mayer said to Bend area LPO member Curt Waggoner – he’ll tell you this — “That’s the idea”). Or when he and friends scheduled a convention in February on the other side of the Blue Mountains which would once again make it difficult, due to potential bad weather, for many Multnomah County members to get there, and once there he had the numbers to lock out a member from the all-day convention even though he was at the door earlier and found no one there so went to get something to eat — at lunch break he and friends whad the numbers to prevent the traditional credentialing of those late members waiting for the second half of the convention. Also, in 1996 when he and friends realized they screwed up the timing of the May 16 convention, based on their mistaken belief that members with “May 12” expiration dates due to their dues payments logged in the previous May 12 (close to 60 people or so, all opponents of his), even though the Bylaws clearly stated that membership ENDED a year after the first of the month following payment of dues, i.e. in this case June 1, 1996 (which is why the membership list was loaded with exp dates of Jan 1, Feb 1, March 1, April 1 and so on — the only reason May 12 was listed was because Steve Dodds, the brain-dead keeper of the roster for years, listed May 12, and May 11 for Burke people, in 1995 to show that those people paid in time to participate in the June 11, 1995 convention which required payment of dues “30 days before” — the actual expiration date for all these members was June 1 and Dodds should have listed that, but he’s brain dead anyway). Burke counted on lots of the May 12 members to not renew at the new rate of $25. When he realized that those members were going to convention because they were still members until June 1 (we pointed this out, and even his close ally Paul Bonneau said “We blew it”), Burke and friends whipped up some bogus invention of a “member not in good standing” which to them was someone who was in the bried period between anniversary of payment of dues, and the next first of the month when the person was still a member, but “in arrears” regarding dues and because of that could not vote in convention. No one but a first class criminal liar would have whipped up that one, and we had to spend 2-1/2 hours of convention time just to get past this, thanks to us having just enough people to do so. Anyone with a conscience would have defected from Burke over that, and I feel that you would have stuck with him because you’re just as much a lying crimial as he is so long as you associate with him.

    and accepts defeat when he can’t win.

    No, he never does that. He didn’t accept the recall results when his people were ousted; he didn’t accept the plain facts of the actual expiration date rules, and so on. He’s used the JudCom so many times to get his way I lost count, and this is why he was always packing the Jud Com with his dishonest friends.

    Wagner, on the other hand, threatens people, mounts an effort to minimize convention attendance, and then claims that the bylaws were changed when they weren’t.

    I have no idea about this, but what I have noticed over the years is that like with defeating fascism, people have to get pretty nasty themselves to fight back.

    I’ve also seen in a letter I received today from Reeves that you guys are allegedly outraged over the fact that out-of-state members who had paid lifetime dues were stricken from the roster. That’s a laugh — Burke is the one who did that first when he crammed the now-defunct and stupid UMP changes on us at the 1999 convention. We had some Lifetime Members who had moved across the river into Washington and they wewre instantly wiped off the list and Burke didn’t care at all.

    Screw you, Carling. Now go over to Burke’s place and have some fun downloading porn. Just don’t do it on the LPO computer.

    B. Tiernan

  42. Bob Tiernan

    Let’s not forget that Burke uttered the classic line of the decade for the 90s.

    In 1996 he and his fiends conspired to squash the candidacy of a libertarian to run in Oregon’s US Congressional District One, so they got a dozen or so registered Republicans (who had already voted in their own party’s primary) to re-register as Libertarian and vote for “None of the Above” in an LPO nominating convention that May. NOTA got the most votes, and the skunks immediately departed.

    The State Com wanted a nominee and scheduled another convention for August. The same person seeking the nomination in May wanted to run, and the race for votes was on. In the end we set an attendance record by having 96 people in the meeting room at Stark St Pizza, plus at least ten or so observers (we may have violated the fire code for capacity).

    Burke’s so-called reasoning for preventing an LPO candidate for CD-1 was that by not running someone we allow the Repub to win, and will thus have influence with him. Thus he got in front of the large crowd and said, “We have already shown that we can run candidates. Now let’s show that we cannot”.

    Brilliant.

    We have the whole thing on tape, too.

    B. Tiernan

  43. Dan Reale

    @George Phillies #4 –

    You are correct. It is EXACTLY like starting war in a foriegn country. I was hoping for some resolution in Oregon that did not involve a lawsuit during 2012 (of all election seasons).

    I also 100% agree with the conflict of interest is that actually is the case. If it is, that set of attorneys ought to be bar grieved back to the Stone Age.

    I agree with Marc Montoni on the trademark issue. I will further suggest that the inclusion in the complaint was purposeful by counsel, devious and indeed designed to involuntarily assert a federal claim that could create diversity jurisdiction while summoning in the LNC -involuntarily if need be. More unfortunately, the Secretary of State can also be brought in (or may even appear) as a co-defendant.

    @Marc Montoni #11 –

    Motions to dismiss are usually denied when filed at the onset. A motion to dismiss only tests subject matter jurisdiction. It assumes the facts in the complaint are well pleaded and true for the purpose of that test. As long as it’s a controversy and the elements of subject matter jurisdiction are met (namely that whatever is alleged happened in the court’s territorial jurisdiction and its a controversy the court has authority to hear), the case will move forward.

    @David Colburn #47 –

    Exactly, this is a lose/lose for everyone.

    @M Carling #39 –

    I tried my best to bring your respective factions to the table, and fortunately, there was some limited dialogue. Both sides agree on the issues.

    Unfortunately, the timing of this suit assures that the LPO will be obliterated for the purpose of ballot access and nominations.

    I do not know what your attorney told you, but I can most assuredly tell you that Court is NOT fast. If anything, it is slow. Moreover, it is a slow turning series of knives that one party must drag the other through to prevail. Merits of this suit aside, please be aware (and painfully aware) that the courts are jammed with tons of foreclosures and victimless revenue enhancement offenses. Your case is also behind every grandma on life support, everyone with a habeas petition, and damn near all things seeking emergency (as in immediate threat to life, limb or property )injunctive relief.

    You would be lucky to get this cleared up in the trial Court by May even if it WERE NOT opposed. You have four or five parties with standing here, interests of all not necessarily being amicable. Even if you get it out of the trial court with the original two, you’ve still got the potential for others to intervene as appellants or during the trial. And that doesn’t matter who wins at trial or appeals it… and I’m damn certain that either side would appeal it should this go to trial.

    So I’ll be blunt. Your lawyer brought a suitcase nuke to a knife fight, and everyone is handcuffed to it. Your lawyer is the only one standing outside the blast radius.

  44. George Phillies

    I have learned that the LPOregon — the LNC affiliate — has retained the distinguished law firm of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick to handle the issues of Reeves, et.al. and the LNC Inc.

    http://www.harrang.com/attorney_bios/c_robert_steringer.asp

    The attorney will according to my sources be Bob Steringer.

    I imagine that we will eventually hear that the suit — on the basis of no information, I would not be surprised to learn that there will also be a counter suit for costs, which will be large — has reached discovery.

  45. Pingback: Oregon LP: Response to Lawsuit to Wagner Group from the Reeves Group | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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