Reeves: Wes Wagner Threatens Gary Johnson Ballot Access Unless Campaign Intervenes in Lawsuit

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGON

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – MAY 20, 2012

Legitimate officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) led by Tim Reeves have learned from a representative of the Gary Johnson campaign that Wes Wagner threatened to refuse placing the Johnson/Gray ticket on the Oregon general election ballot if the campaign does not intercede in the pending lawsuit over control over the LPO.

In contrast, LPO Chair Tim Reeves has said that he and the other rightful LPO officers are prepared to uphold the decision of the national convention and place the Johnson/Gray ticket on the Oregon ballot – without conditions – once they have the power to do so.  Members of the Reeves group believe that Wagner’s threat suggests he does not think he can win his case on the merits and is now resorting to blackmailing the Johnson/Gray campaign using his momentary control over ballot status.

In the meantime, “Everyone knows that Gary Johnson and Jim Gray were decisively nominated at our national convention,” Reeves said.  “If Mr. Wagner still lays any claim to being a Libertarian, he must act immediately to assure that the Johnson/Gray ticket will be on the Oregon general election ballot.”

A court hearing on procedural motions related to the case is scheduled for June 14.  Events at the recent national Libertarian Party convention held in Las Vegas, including the seating of the Reeves delegates and the refusal of delegates to even seat Wagner as a delegate could impact that case.

Plaintiffs are committed to pursuing this case to its conclusion so the rights of LP members and the legitimate governing documents approved by members in convention can be restored.

# # #

Contact:  LPO Chair Tim Reeves,             503-307-1624

210 thoughts on “Reeves: Wes Wagner Threatens Gary Johnson Ballot Access Unless Campaign Intervenes in Lawsuit

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    “Legitimate officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) led by Tim Reeves”.

    Either that is fact, or Mr. Starr is editorializing. According to the judicial committee of the Libertarian National Committee, Reeves is NOT an officer of the “legitimate” officer of the LPO.”

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    I would like to see proof that Wagner is doing this, Aaron. He has been saying the opposite on Facebook.

  3. Aaron Starr

    Assuming the allegation in the press release is true, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe this as extortion, rather than blackmail.

  4. Trent Hill

    Aaron–perhaps preface the press release, so we know it isn’t editorial. I knew, but when there is confusion–better safe than sorry.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    I would really like to see proof of this. Anyone can write a press release.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    I didn’t catch that it was a press release, sorry. I still think that this article needs to be backed up by proof, however. I still find it amazing that the Reeves group says they’re the “legitimate” LPO. Or, is that just a play on words? Does the other group call themselves “Oregon Libertarian Party”, or something besides LPO?

  7. paulie

    Aaron – why all caps?

    Jill – Aaron is not editorializing, he is quoting a press release. An introductory blurb explaining the controversy over who or what is the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” would be good if it can be done in what passes for an objective matter.

    I have been in on some conversations with WW in my capacity as a Johnson volunteer and I don’t remember what I am allowed to repeat here,

    I’ll let Wes and his other folks respond directly for now.

  8. Stephen VanDyke

    It’s a shame how all these petty power struggles get in the way of you know.. libertarians actually gaining power.

    My take is I trust what this guy says:

    I write this as a newcomer to the Oregon party who then went to the convention, sat with both factions at different points, and had virtually everyone he spoke to ask him, “Which side are you on?”

    Short answer: It is a mess. Both sides are wrong and the whole affair has become this obsession that makes us look bad in front of the state and the entire national party.

    Long answer: The story depends on who you speak with. I’m paraphrasing but according to the Wagner faction (who owns this website), Burke and co. abused their privileges as party officers, ran up thousands of dollars in debt, railroaded a convention to pass some bylaw changes that then made it impossible to get a quorum for future conventions, and is now appealing the courts to overturn the Oregon Secretary of State who grants ballot access to the Wagner faction. According to the Burke faction, Wagner and co. threw out the rules, screwed up a convention or two by changing the dates or just making them not happen, took over the party, corrupted the Judicial Committee at the national level, and frivolously delayed the court proceedings.

    My answer: “I wasn’t here during the whole Burke/Wagner affair, I didn’t witness what actually happened, and I don’t really care. I am here to promote liberty and win elections and I will work with whoever I need to work with in order to do that.” I recommend sticking with this answer, Jesse. It was a hit at the convention. Anything else just gets you stuck in someone’s unhealthy obsession about who has wronged them and a desire to assert their ego.

    And now this press release is more fuel on the fire, chock full of insults.

    Stop trading black eyes and work together you knuckleheads.

  9. paulie

    Jill – the other group uses that exact same name.

    Given that I don’t know whether I am allowed to talk about the substance of my conversations with Mr. Wagner I’ll just say that press releases do not have to be backed up by proof. The claims in the release are those of those who put out the release, not Aaron or IPR. Aaron is just reporting that they put it out. A short preface making that clear to all readers would be appreciated.

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    I apologize to Aaron. I was so stunned by this article that I didn’t realize it was a press release. I find the fact that this is a press release even more stunning, however. So much for the good will many of us left the convention with, as far as furthering the best interest of the Libertarian Party.

  11. Aaron Starr

    Jill, it’s perfectly fine for you to be skeptical of someone’s press release. If you want to do some investigative reporting, call the Johnson campaign.

  12. Aaron Starr

    Paulie,

    You make it sound like you know something here. Do you know whether the substance of the allegation is true or false?

  13. paulie

    The headline should maybe make clear that it is a statement by the Reeves group? Not sure how to do that without making it too long off hand tho.

  14. paulie

    You make it sound like you know something here. Do you know whether the substance of the allegation is true or false?

    I do, but I promised my conversation was not for publication on IPR, so I’m not sure whether it is OK for me to answer. I am not withholding info necessarily, just giving Wagner and his friends first crack at addressing it in a manner of their choice.

    The last I heard from my campaign contacts was that Forest Baker (sp?) would go to Oregon to help resolve the matter. Wagner’s statements to me on the phone are confidential until he lets me know what I am OK to reveal. I suspect – just a guess only – his side will have a press release or at a minimum IPR comments up some point this calendar day.

  15. just editing

    The screaming caps on THREATS makes it sound violent.

    Maybe title the post/story :

    “Oregon LP said to withhold ballot access Gary Johnson in power struggle”

    . . . and include the sensationalist p/r hed in the body of the post

  16. just editing

    “Oregon LP said to withhold ballot access from Gary Johnson in power struggle”

  17. Aaron Starr

    Jill @ 11

    I’m stunned by the allegation, too. I’m not particularly shocked that a press release was used to shed light on the matter; that’s what organizations often do to tell their side of the story.

  18. Steve M

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – MAY 20, 2012

    A PARTY IN A LAW SUIT HAS RELEASED A STATEMENT TO THE PRESS CLAIMING THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS ENGAGED IN NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES.

    I personally would like to thank Aaron Starr for taking his valuable time to keep us informed about this worthless and probably dishonest activity of the Reese faction.

  19. Aaron Starr

    Paulie @ 15

    Your comments worry me.

    Wes Wagner could send a letter today to the Secretary of State to inform her who are our nominees.

    If it’s true that Forest Baker (the Director of the Western Region for the Johnson campaign) is traveling presumably at campaign cost “to Oregon to help resolve the matter,” than that gives us reason to believe that the Reeves press release may have substance to it.

  20. Steve M

    @12 Aaron, your the one who posted this trash. What did the Johnson Campaign staff tell you when you called them?

    Or are you just an old gossip?

  21. Aaron Starr Post author

    Steve M @ 23,

    We writers here at IPR are volunteers. We make our living doing other things. We do not claim to be acting as investigative journalists.

  22. paulie

    Aaron

    My conversation with Wes did not lead me to believe that he was about to take any immediate action on certifying or not certifying any nominees.

    I may have misunderstood about Mr. Baker doing any in person travel. He may just have been handling everything over the phone.

    I will say this though, my understanding from talking to a number of people is that Wagner et al will in fact continue to have control over who the LP nominees on the Oregon ballot will be and that injunctive relief in time for Reeves et al to wrest that way from them through the courts is highly unlikely.

    Given that as a presumptive or likely fact, is it in our best interest, or yours, to provoke them further?

    Consider that they may still not have fully decided and that this, or subsequent words or actions by Reeves et al, could push them towards withholding ballot access from the national ticket.

  23. Jill Pyeatt

    In the interest of the Libertarian Party moving forward, the Oregon debacle really needs some resolution. I certainly don’t know how to make that happen. All I can do is my best as an individual to not be divisive, which is difficult, but I’m trying.

    It appears to me that this press release did NOT come from the Johnson campaign. I might have taken it more seriously if it had come from them.

  24. Aaron Starr Post author

    Paulie @ 25,

    Your comments are actually quite revealing.

    My guess is that no other state affiliate with ballot access is contemplating whether or not our party’s nominees should go on the ballot.

    If the Wagner group wants to make the Reeves group look foolish, they could put out a press release on Monday announcing that they have proudly submitted the names of Johnson/Gray to the Oregon Secretary of State and include all sorts of wonderful accolades about our party’s nominees and why Libertarians are the best choice for voters in November.

    If they send me that press release, I will gladly post it on IPR.

  25. Aaron Starr Post author

    Jill @ 26

    Here’s how you can help.

    Ask Wes Wagner whether there is any reason he might delay submitting the names of Johnson/Gray to the Oregon Secretary of State and then report back to us what he tells you.

    The ideal answer you want from him is “We already submitted the names of Johnson/Gray to the SOS and the Reeves group has either misunderstood what they have heard or they are making stuff up.”

    On the other hand, if the answer you get is more like “We will submit the names to the SOS only if the Reeves group drops their lawsuit” or any thing else that indicates they are delaying, than you will have gained some insight into Wes Wagner’s thinking.

  26. Steve M

    Aaron, paid or volunteer you still made a decision to publish this unsubstantiated gossip.

  27. paulie

    My guess is that no other state affiliate with ballot access is contemplating whether or not our party’s nominees should go on the ballot.

    No other state affiliate was voted from being in charge of their national convention delegation either. If you read past articles about this you’ll see that Wagner et al said that if they were in charge of the Oregon delegation they would put the national party’s candidates on the ballot, and if they weren’t, it was TBD. I also do not know of any other state party that is currently being sued by a different faction to replace them. Maybe I’m just not aware of another one?

    I will sum up my conversations with them before, during and after the convention: the more they are pushed away the more they respond by pushing back. The same seems true of the other side, although I haven’t really spoken to them nearly as much.

    If your top goal is to see who can be made to look foolish – by all means keep stirring their hornets nest. I’m sure there will be a great deal of back and forth drama which will be good for IPR “ratings.” That is the route that seems to me to be least likely to put Johnson on the ballot, especially without an expensive and uncertain petition drive.

    If your top goal is to get Johnson on the ballot as quickly, easily and certainly as possible, it may be better to meet their terms for doing so and if you still want to fight after the election resume fighting then.

    You may also consider that under the Wagner rules, as I have been given to understand them, 100 or 130 OR reg libs can overturn the leadership. I realize that would be playing by rules you don’t see as legitimate but it’s way less expensive than lawsuits and petition drives.

  28. Steve M

    You seem to have plenty of time to speculate about the motives and actions of the Wagner faction, with respect to this press release from the Reeves faction. But no time to try to confirm it? You are over paid.

  29. Joe Buchman

    It’s my understanding that the earliest date for reporting to the SOS of Oregon is May 30th.

    I suggest no useful purpose is served by throwing fuel on this fire at this time.

    (Aaron it’s also “then” not “than” in the last two places you used “than” above.)

    I’ve had several conversations with Mr. Wagner on behalf of the campaign. At no time did he make any threats about ballot access or anything else.

    I’d suggest no useful purpose is served by that press release, or by this thread, or by the false appearance of objectivity by those directly involved in the lawsuit posting here.

    So many agendas at work here.

    Mine? I’d like to see the Gary Johnson ticket win as many votes as possible.

    I don’t see any further discussion here of the issues identified in the 29 comments above as at all useful to that end.

    Joe

  30. Steve M

    http://www.lporegon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:14-oregon-libertarians-on-june-primary-ballot&catid=40:internalnews

    “The party’s nominees for US President and Vice President, former New Mexico Governor ”

    https://www.lporegon.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=11&id=235&limit=6&limitstart=6&Itemid=107

    “We are working out legal issues to the ballot access with the LNC and the Johnson campaign at this time. It is our hope that Gary Johnson can be placed on the ballot without incident.”

    http://www.lporegon.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=13&id=265&Itemid=107

    “Re: Burke Is Garry Johnson’s State Director for Oregon”

    “Correct and he has been for quite some time.

    I raised this issue with the Johnson campaign that they had someone in their employ who was currently litigating against us.

    Forest Baker expressed a lack of concern about the matter. ”

    To me it looks like the Wess faction is fine with Johnson except that Johnson is using a member of the Reese faction as their contact in Oregon. And the member Burke is a party to the law suit against the Wagner faction.

    Now am I supposed to believe that Aaron Starr didn’t know this little fact?

  31. Joe Buchman

    Paulie @31,

    “If your top goal is to see who can be made to look foolish – by all means keep stirring their hornets nest. I’m sure there will be a great deal of back and forth drama which will be good for IPR “ratings.” That is the route that seems to me to be least likely to put Johnson on the ballot,”

    Looks like we were writing about the same thing, at about the same time.

    Nothing useful is served by this. Those with nihilistic desires likely will not accept this request to:

    Please. Stop this thread here.

  32. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Aaron Starr: “Assuming the allegation in the press release is true, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe this as … [demanding that Johnson do the right thing.]

    Not an unreasonable demand.

    Wes Wagner’s offer (if true) is actually immensely generous, both to Johnson and to the LP.

    I wouldn’t blame Wagner if the LPO refused to certify Johnson under any circumstances. It would send a needed message to the LNC (present and future) that it does not own or control the state parties.

    The LPO could instead certify Ron Paul. Not that Paul would win the presidency, but Paul would get more votes for the LPO than any other candidate could.

  33. Jill Pyeatt

    I also see no good coming from this press release, except that the people who looked petty and ridiculous before look even more petty and ridiculous now.

    Whoever wrote this press release should be ashamed. I have a feeling it was written without Gary Johnson’s approval. I don’t know that, but Johnson has seemed fair to this point, and I just can’t see him sanctioning this.

  34. George Phillies

    Paulie,

    At this date, most readers know who the principals are in the dispute.

    A headline closer to

    More on LP-Oregon Ballot Access

    Opener: Reeves faction issues press release attacking Wagner faction.

    might be more credible for IPR.

  35. John Wayne Smith

    I have no reason to trust the Reeves Faction or the Johnson Campaign.
    The Johnson Campaign tried to throw this past convention by its interference in the party elections. They lost and lost big. That will not stop the reform caucus from trying to retake control. This is just a small part of the reform efforts.
    As hard nosed as I am, I would take a different tact than what Wagner is taking but I understand why he is doing so. Come hell or high water I will continue to stand with the Wagner faction as the legitimate OLP.

  36. paulie

    I suggest no useful purpose is served by throwing fuel on this fire at this time.

    My point exactly.

    I’ve had several conversations with Mr. Wagner on behalf of the campaign. At no time did he make any threats about ballot access or anything else.

    I will confirm that he has not made any definitive threats or promises, only indicated what is or is not likely to happen based on changing circumstances. Fuel on the fire is exactly what we do not need if the goal is ballot access, which is my goal.

    I’d suggest no useful purpose is served by that press release, or by this thread, or by the false appearance of objectivity by those directly involved in the lawsuit posting here.

    That depends on whether their goal is actually to have Johnson placed on the ballot. If it is they are clearly acting in a way that is counter to their goal, whether they realize it or not. If their goal is further advancing brinksmanship, they are serving that goal just fine; we can disagree with them that such a purpose is useful.

    So many agendas at work here.

    Mine? I’d like to see the Gary Johnson ticket win as many votes as possible.

    I’m with you on that one. And that is all I was trying to convey. I think you did a better job of it than I did though.

  37. paulie

    Now am I supposed to believe that Aaron Starr didn’t know this little fact?

    Who said you were supposed to believe or not believe that?

  38. paulie

    The LPO could instead certify Ron Paul.

    Depends on state law. In some states they would have to have his permission. Any question of his loyalty to the Republicans right now would not serve Ron Paul’s agenda.

  39. paulie

    I have a feeling it was written without Gary Johnson’s approval. I don’t know that, but Johnson has seemed fair to this point, and I just can’t see him sanctioning this.

    I seriously doubt that Gary Johnson is pre-clearing Reeves faction press releases. That would be a grossly bad waste of his time.

  40. paulie

    At this date, most readers know who the principals are in the dispute.

    Commenters =/= readers. We have many casual readers that don’t leave comments who have varying degrees of familiarity with that. I suspect there are some who have none.

    A headline closer to

    More on LP-Oregon Ballot Access

    Opener: Reeves faction issues press release attacking Wagner faction.

    might be more credible for IPR.

    I agree, but I am not sure why you address that to me. You may want to address that to Trent (IPR editor), Aaron (article author) or IPR writers as a group.

    My suggestions remain

    1) The IPR headline should not be the unedited headline of the press release. It should make it clear who issued the PR. Right now I am thinking it should be something along the lines of “Reeves Group: Wagner Group Will Withhold Ballot Access Unless Campaign Intervenes in Lawsuit.” I am not very eager to change other people’s headlines, but I may do that if there is a working consensus on that.

    2) All caps is not appropriate in IPR headlines.

    3) In addition to the headline, there should be an intro blurb that makes it clear that it is a press release from one of the competing factions and not an IPR editorial.

    My first preference is not to fix it myself, but I am not saying that I won’t.

  41. Oranje Mike

    How long has this b.s. been going on in Oregon? According to a member of the OR delegation I spoke to in Vegas it’s been going on for over a decade. Both parties must take blame in this idiocy. Don’t sabotage your state ballot over a power struggle between a few.

  42. wolfefan

    I don’t know Aaron Starr, and I have no opinion as to the merits of the Oregon dispute. That said, he has got to be the most passive-aggressive guy in the world, based on this discussion. That headline is ridiculous. He does seem to like caps for some reason – he always puts ROOT: in caps too.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    1) The headline is definitely editorializing. Telling a candidate that he needs to decide whether he’s with the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon / the state-recognized Libertarian Party of Oregon (a/k/a “the Wagner faction”) or with some other party so that everyone involved can act accordingly with respect to ballot access is not a “threat.”

    2) Labeling the press release as being from the Libertarian Party of Oregon without clarifying that that title is purely speculative and notional — the “Reeves faction” aspires to be both the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon and the state-recognized Libertarian Party in Oregon, but at this time is neither — is also biased and inherently untruthful reporting.

  44. Steve M

    Paulie, @41

    >> Now am I supposed to believe that Aaron Starr didn’t know this little fact?

    >Who said you were supposed to believe or not believe that?

    My point is that Aaron published this press release as a thread, claimed he did it word for word and then accused the Wagner faction of extortion all while likely withholding information that would explain the dispute.

    @3 “Assuming the allegation in the press release is true, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe this as extortion, rather than blackmail.”

    I believe that Burke as the representative of the Johnson team was told by the Johnson team that the Wagner faction objected to his being their contact for Oregon. Thus the Reeve’s faction released this Press release and sent a copy to Aaron who then published it and accused the Wagner faction of extortion all as a means of furthering the Reeve’s faction in the on going power struggle.

    The smart thing given the situation in Oregon would be fore the Johnson organization to use a person who is neutral to the dispute as their contact in Oregon. Not one of the main players in the on going power struggle.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    Also any article about this press release should clarify that IPR has not verified the “Reeves faction’s” claim that it “has learned” something.

  46. George Phillies

    If Johnson were interested in neutrality in this sort of question, he would not have nominated Wayne Root for LNC. There are sources indicating that he will pay for that action by shrinking his donor pool.

  47. Steven Wilson

    I will tell you this. Because politics is a battle and someone must win. If I were a strategist for the other parties I would let this ride out.

    The reason for this is ballot fraud or coercion. And anyone of those is grounds for a lawsuit or a FEC investigation. The SOS of Oregon owes nothing to the LP.

    I would wait until October, around time for the debate crap problems from third parties and let everyone know how the LP handles it’s own affairs.

    I would send the reporters to for the fluff and vanilla Root and Wrights, but I would also send them to Milnes and Burns for the deliverables. Jilted candidates for a party of mess. Just when Johnson makes his argument for debate access, I show MIlnes for 20 minutes talking about TR, PLAS, and his convictions for news shows.

    I end the story with libertarians talking about a party of principle and then move into campaign mode and discover Johnson pursuit of matching funds. “Party of Individual sovereignty searching out welfare for campaigns”. Hypocrisy at eleven. Great lead story.

    Politics is a battle. I am sorry, but this kind of stuff is so lame.

    1. Disavow the state affiliate of the LP in Oregon.

    2. Remove ballot access for the 2012 cycle.

    3. Have a cooling off period of six months.

    4. Allow libertarians in Oregon to form a new state party with votes and consent, and let them file the necessary paper work to be an affiliate.

    If you have rules then follow them. If your not going to follow them or make exceptions for friends and family, don’t get angry when someone calls you out.

    Liberty is dying and this is what you focus in on.

  48. Brian Holtz

    the “Reeves faction” aspires to be both the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon and the state-recognized Libertarian Party in Oregon, but at this time is neither

    This isn’t about which Libertarian party in Oregon is the LNC affiliate. It’s about who are the legitimate officers of that affiliate.

    Neither the OR SoS nor the LPUS Judicial Committee has evaluated the merits of either side’s claims. The former merely declines to get involved, and the latter deferred to the bureaucratic inertia of the former.

    Meanwhile, a majority of the immediate past LNC argued that the Reeves officers are the legitimate ones. Both the Credentials Committee and the convention as a whole seemed to agree.

    I predict the Wagner team will put Johnson on the ballot, rather than declare war on the national Libertarian Party.

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    Unless things have gone bad Aaron Starr has a history of supporting Richard Burke, one of the plaintiffs in this case, and continues to do so. With that history in mind Aaron’s actions in publishing this are questionable.

  50. George Phillies

    “…Allow libertarians in Oregon…” This is a recycle of the 1999-2000 Arizona error, namely there is not agreement this time, either, as to which people are the libertarians.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@53,

    —–
    This isn’t about which Libertarian party in Oregon is the LNC affiliate. It’s about who are the legitimate officers of that affiliate.

    Neither the OR SoS nor the LPUS Judicial Committee has evaluated the merits of either side’s claims.
    —–

    Nor does the Judicial Committee (or the LNC) have the authority to “evaluate the merits of either side’s claims.”

    LNC bylaws Article 6, Section 5:

    The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the
    National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these
    Bylaws.

    The bylaws do not provide for appointment of affiliate officers by the LNC or the Judicial Committee. The affiliate gets to decide who its officers are.

  52. Curt Boyd

    Has Jim Duensing or Darryl Perry been in touch with one of the factions to try and get the BTP on the ballot? One faction nominates Johnson/Gray, and the other nominates Duensing/Barrack. Problem solved?

  53. Robert Capozzi

    Threats? Really? What’s next, “I’m taking my football home!”?

  54. Jill Pyeatt

    If no other changes are made to the title and the intro of the article, I’d suggest at least changing the caps. They jump out at the reader, and make it look like this is the most important story on IPR. In my view, it isn’t.

  55. paulie

    All IPR writers, as far as I know, have an equal right to edit each other’s articles. I generally try not to make substantive changes without the author’s permission, but I think taking out all caps and clarifying that this is an outside press release and not an IPR editorial is in bounds. As previously stated I agree with Jill about the all caps :

    1) The IPR headline should not be the unedited headline of the press release. It should make it clear who issued the PR. Right now I am thinking it should be something along the lines of “Reeves Group: Wagner Group Will Withhold Ballot Access Unless Campaign Intervenes in Lawsuit.” I am not very eager to change other people’s headlines, but I may do that if there is a working consensus on that.

    2) All caps is not appropriate in IPR headlines.

    3) In addition to the headline, there should be an intro blurb that makes it clear that it is a press release from one of the competing factions and not an IPR editorial.

  56. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Maybe Starr hopes that “Wes Wagner Threatens Gary Johnson” will show up on search engines?

    Do IPR writers ever compose titles with search engines in mind?

  57. Jill Pyeatt

    Is it possible there are legal issues regarding this, where Wes isn’t able to comment without jeopardizing the lawsuit? That certainly seems possible, likely even.

  58. paulie

    And in more bad ballot access news for Johnson

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/05/21/marylands-highest-state-court-construes-law-on-petition-checking-in-an-unfavorable-manner/

    On May 21, the highest state court in Maryland, the State Court of Appeals, interpreted Maryland election law to mean that signatures on petitions are invalid if there is no exact match in the name on the voter registration record, and the name on the petition. As a result, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party do not have enough valid signatures on their petitions for 2012, and must now get more before the August 6 deadline. Here is the 36-page unanimous decision, which is called Maryland State Board of Elections v Libertarian Party of Maryland, 11-79.

    The Court also construed the law to mean that if a voter signs the petition the first time using a nickname or other variant of the name that doesn’t match, that voter is not then free to re-sign another sheet of the petition with the precisely correct name.

    Maryland requires 10,000 signatures for ballot access for new parties. The Libertarian Party is now deemed to have only 6,583 valid signatures, and the Green Party now has only 5,919 valid signatures.

    The Court took pains to say that it is not deciding whether the strict standard is constitutional or not. It says it cannot decide that question because the case was not presented to it as a constitutional question. Reading between the lines, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Court decided this case in this hostile manner because the judges are not sympathetic to various referenda petitions being circulated. The judges probably believe that the Libertarian and Green Parties, and other minor parties, will be able to qualify despite the ruling, because the number of valid signatures they still need is a small number. The real impact of this decision will be to make it virtually impossible for referendum petitions to succeed, including one that would put same-sex marriage to a popular vote. Referendum petitions covering statewide issues need hundreds of thousands of valid signatures.

    That increases the number of states the LP will need to petition for Presidential ballot access, as will the Oregon situation if it is not resolved.

    In light of this, is pouring more gasoline on the flames by Reeves et al something that Johnson campaign should dissociate from? I would think for practical reasons it should be.

  59. Jill Pyeatt

    RTAA @ 62: “Do IPR writers ever compose titles with search engines in mind?”

    I never have. After the article that I posted in April about WAR suggesting to his radio audience they should vote for Romney
    went viral (in a third-party way) and my title was picked up by many other news outlets, Mr. Starr tried to get the writers to get me to change the title, which was “Wayne Allyn Root Tells His Radio Audience to Vote for Romney”. I recall that his main objection was to the word “tells”. I’m sure that had to do with search engines. I chose not to change it, and most everyone asked about it agreed I could keep it.

    Here’s the article: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=tells+radio+audience

  60. Kleptocracy And You

    LOL – A shot at sending the Clark/Koch number to second place FINALLY ! And just more BULL5#1T. Can you honestly question agent provacuteurs among us. ???

    These proven LOSERS who “help” oversee a political party in an almost tailspin , I mean my god open your eyes people. Steps were begun in Vegas to correct this problem. The rest must be weeded out in the days and weeks ahead. If you aren’t helping the LP to grow you must GO !!! (from any type leadership/office. Screw your bloated egos.) GROW the LP or GO !

    Be thankful we are a peaceful group. Some of you if discovered for what you really are, if within other political parties would be taken out and shot in the back of the head !

    Readers of IPR need to remember there are all sorts allowed to post, hence post headlines. Understand some belong to factions which may be pissed at recent results or actions.

    Gary Johnson’s Campaign and the LPUS need to continue to recognize the OR faction that currently holds Ballot Access. There are much bigger fish to fry than a local squabble that can be settled NEXT year. Gary Johnson is too busy campaigning, as he should be , to be worrying who stole whose marbles (football, dump truck,…) in the OR sandbox !!!

    –> *Gov. Johnson is a two-term Governor of New Mexico.

    –> *Gov. Johnson Left over a Billion dollar $urplus when he left office.

    –> *Gov. Johnson has the most executive experience of any candidate in the race.

    –> *Gov. Johnson is [was] the most fiscally conservative Governor in the country.

    –> *Gov. Johnson vetoed more bills than his contemporary 49 Governors combined.

    –> *During his time, Gov. Johnson was one of only 4 Governors to leave their state with a balanced budget. (A surplus in his case)

    –> *Gov. Johnson cut taxes 14 times.

    –> *Gov. Johnson has the best record on jobs growth of any official presidential candidate, according to a National Review report.

    –> *According to a Public Policy Poll, Gov. Johnson is [was] the only Republican presidential candidate who is still popular in his home state, which also happens to be 2-1 Democrat.

    –> *Gov. Johnson has the record and the serious policy proposals needed to bring common sense back to Washington and put our country back on the right track.

    Gary Johnson 2012: Don’t Get Fooled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNXdoeF3KaM&NR=1

    Send the man a few buck$, a campaign’s fuel is CA$h ! YES Even $25 Can Help Get This Message To The Masses! Help Gary Spead the Message of Peace and Prosperity! Donate to the Campaign Today! – https://donate.garyjohnson2012.com/

    Thanks!

    YES Even $17.76 Can Help Get This Message To The Masses! Help Gary Spead the Message of Peace and Prosperity! Donate to the Campaign Today! – Thanks!

    Max OUT @ $5,000, $10,000 couple ! Oh I love you Understanding Libertarians. They don’t even bury you in shoes friends. Use your money for the BEST GOOD now while you can, support the LP and her candidates!

    THE R{3VO|}UTION CONTINUES – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5V4vbL_WE&feature=related

  61. Thomas L. Knapp

    @66,

    Even setting aside the core issue in that ballot access, that court needs to be spanked on its inconsistency.

    “If they signed with the wrong name, it’s not valid. But if they sign later with the right name, that’s not valid, either.”

    Bullshit. Either accept nicknames, etc., or throw them out, but don’t throw them out for one purpose (signature validity) and accept them for another purpose (disputing validity of later signatures).

  62. zapper

    Paulie. You are correct, the headline should be changed. The all caps jump out at me, as did the confusion over who was even issuing the press release. Maybe the release was from Wagner, although further reading helped to clear up the matter.

    Try this one:

    “Reeves Group claims Wagner Group will withhold Ballot Access for Johnson in Oregon unless Campaign Intervenes in Lawsuit.”

  63. paulie

    That would be fine. I’m just not sure I should jump the gun on that. I wish some of the other IPR writers would take the initiative this time if it is the consensus, as the early results seem to indicate.

  64. Jill Pyeatt

    I won’t change it, since Aaron respected my headline enough not to change it. I’ll give him the same respect. I hope he’ll at least remove the caps.

  65. Brian Holtz

    @56 The LNC indeed has the authority to evaluate the claims of people purporting to represent an LNC affiliate. What the LNC lacks is the authority to make anyone back in the affilate’s state agree with the LNC’s evaluation of those claims.

    Ditto for the LP National Convention: it exercised its authority to decide which delegation represented the LPOR, but nobody could seriously claim that the convention therefore tried to impose a set of officers on the LPOR.

  66. paulie

    Who — specifically — wrote this article? I don’t mean whose name is on it, I mean who ghost-wrote it?

    Press release from the Reeves group. Actual author(s) not identified. Nominal author is Reeves, but you know how press release writing goes. Reeves may or may not have actually written it himself.

  67. paulie

    I fixed the all-caps and prefixed it with “Reeves: ” since the story has only a single and non-neutral source.

    That fixes the two biggest issues.

  68. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    @76: >LP National Convention … exercised its authority to decide which delegation represented the LPOR,

    If the LP decided that the Wagner faction did not represent the LPOR, then the LP can’t reasonably expect the Wagner faction to certify the LP’s candidate.

    LP to Wagner: You do not represent the LPOR. But you must act as though you are and certify our candidate.

  69. Jeremy C. Young

    In my view, there is no problem whatsoever with Aaron Starr posting this press release. His personal views on the dispute aside, this release is news and should be posted on IPR. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue further. Thanks, Aaron!

  70. Robert Capozzi

    79 teeth: LP to Wagner: You do not represent the LPOR. But you must act as though you are and certify our candidate.

    me: Must? No. I would hope that – regardless of way inside baseball matters – it’s in everyone’s interest for GJ/JG appear on the OR ballot in Nov. Advancing Liberty should be the primary consideration….

  71. Dave

    They could put Ron Pauls name on the ballot. Remember the Montana CP waited until the last day to submit the elector paperwork in 2008 and made Paul their MT nominee, without his permission, it was later found out.

  72. George Phillies

    I seem to recall seeing the claim of the hypothetical Johnson campaign person being made here, weeks and weeks before the National convention. I even recall distinguished libertarians from around the country saying that this would be the right course, weeks and weeks before the convention. The relationship of that to the current situation is obscure. The lack of a date, time, place, etc. for either of the claims made in the first paragraph is perhaps notable.

  73. paulie

    In my view, there is no problem whatsoever with Aaron Starr posting this press release. His personal views on the dispute aside, this release is news and should be posted on IPR. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue further. Thanks, Aaron!

    No problem with posting it at all. There were issues with using the press release’s headline as IPR’s headline, which Brian fixed, and not having an intro blurb to make it clear that it was an outside press release and not an original IPR article. I knew that from the format, but I’m used to seeing press releases all the time so I can see where people were confused.

    There is a problem with Reeves et al feeling that this was the appropriate response.

    If their goal really is ballot access for Johnson, given that they are unlikely to win their legal case in time for them to be in charge of the ballot line, they should have instead agreed to drop the lawsuit – after all, at least as far as I know, they can file it again after the election – or at least rejected any offer that may have made its ways to them quietly.

    LP to Wagner: You do not represent the LPOR. But you must act as though you are and certify our candidate.

    That approach did not work with Arizona in 2000. What makes people think it will work this time?

    Must? No. I would hope that – regardless of way inside baseball matters – it’s in everyone’s interest for GJ/JG appear on the OR ballot in Nov. Advancing Liberty should be the primary consideration….

    If so, maybe Reeves et al can lead by example, providing putting Johnson on the ballot is more important to them than the lawsuit/power struggle.

    It becomes harder for Wagner et al to do the right thing when they are being sued by a group that includes the state director for Johnson, when press releases like this are being issued, etc.

    Not to say anyone is in the right or wrong necessarily, but both sides keep playing a game of chicken that may end up costing ballot access.

    They could put Ron Pauls name on the ballot. Remember the Montana CP waited until the last day to submit the elector paperwork in 2008 and made Paul their MT nominee, without his permission, it was later found out.

    That may or may not be legal in Oregon. State laws vary. Also, I don’t think putting a candidate on the ballot who will not be on the ballot in enough states to win the election even in theory is their best possible move, nor is putting an unwilling candidate on the ballot.

    It’s also not good for Ron Paul to bring up anything that might cause the media and Republicans to question his loyalty to their party, especially before their convention.

    BTW, contrary to my expectation, Wagner et al have declined to comment on this.

  74. Brian Holtz

    If Wagner thinks that the LPOR ballot line might be a useful hostage, then it’s smart for Reeves to indicate that Wagner’s bluff would be snap-called.

    If instead Wagner has no intention of holding the LPOR ballot line hostage, then immediately saying so would make Reeves look somewhat foolish.

    Wagner et al have declined to comment on this

    And that speaks volumes.

    Complaining of constructive disaffiliation was one thing. Constructively disaffiliating yourself would be quite another. Wagner is too smart for that. What we’re learning now is whether he is petulant enough to toy with that option.

  75. George Phillies

    @84 Wagner is silent? There is litigation. Ignoring questions as to whether or not Paul is even a mildly rational choice, he was on the Republican ballot, and there may be legal issues.

  76. paulie

    Honestly I don’t know that it’s a bluff, if such a “bluff” exists (I may know, but if so I promised I wouldn’t go on the record, and I can’t keep lines of communication open if I violate such promises).

    Reeves and co say they want ballot access for Johnson, but they don’t control the line, Wagner and co do; that looks to be unlikely to change in time to get Johnson on. The best thing they can do, if ballot access is being threatened, is to suspend the lawsuit until after the election is over, suspend Burke as the state director for Johnson, or meet whatever other demands are being issued if any are being issued.

    Of course, they don’t have to do that either, but then again ballot access for Johnson may not be a bigger priority for them than their power struggle.

    If so, is it hypocritical of them to blame Wagner and co for taking the same approach to their own priorities?

    Now, maybe they could make a temporary truce until after the election. If not, why not?

  77. paulie

    @86 Litigation is not why I was told there would be no comment. Maybe it was and I just wasn’t given that reason, along with another that I was told.

    I presume I can’t say what reason I was given since that would in effect be them commenting through me.

  78. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    @ 85:If instead Wagner has no intention of holding the LPOR ballot line hostage, then immediately saying so would make Reeves look somewhat foolish.

    Or it might make look Reeves look like a hero for pressuring Wagner to certify Johnson.

  79. paulie

    Both sides will have to choose whether making the other look foolish or putting Johnson on the ballot is their highest priority.

    If one of them doesn’t blink first, ballot access may well suffer.

  80. Jill Pyeatt

    I also understand that there are legitimate reasons for Mr. Wagner not to comment. Given the lack of proof from the Reeves group that Wes really is obstructing, such as quotes or correspondence, I see this press release only as an attempt to embarrass Mr. Wagner. It’s only been a couple weeks since Johnson became the candidate.

  81. Nick Kruse

    There should be an amendment to the national LP’s bylaws stating that the official party affiliate is the one with control over ballot access.

    The only reason ballot access in Oregon is threatened is because the Credentials committee sided with Reeves who has no authority with the Oregon Secretary of State to place candidates on the ballot.

  82. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    I’m guessing that the Credentials Committee sided with the Reeves delegates, because the CC/LNC wanted to be certain that Johnson would beat Wrights.

    Since Johnson would have beaten Wrights anyway, it appears that the CC/LNC overplayed their hand, engaging in more dirty tricks than was necessary.

  83. Don

    I registered in Oregon as a Libertarian a year or two ago and never heard of Reeves until recently. I was aware of a rift and got a letter from someone wanting money to sue the party but I thought it was a scam so I ignored it. If you go to the national party website and click on the link to the state party it goes to where all the officials are listed and Reeves is not listed there. “Legitimate” is a funny word with lots of emotive meaning but it is clear to me who the official chair is. I bet that the national party has an organization chart somewhere and lists the LPO chair. This is a question that should not be resolved through press releases and a public relations campaign it should be resolved through facts and a determination of the facts by the national party. I am very happy to support Johnson and will be glad to support his ballot access in all 50 states including Oregon.

  84. Robert Capozzi

    93 teeth: I’m guessing that the Credentials Committee sided with the Reeves delegates, because the CC/LNC wanted to be certain that Johnson would beat Wrights.

    me: Possible that you can read multiple minds with great facility. But, yes, that may have been a motive. Another motive might have been that they knew that the Convention trumps the JudCom, and they wanted the “less unrightful” OR delegates to be seated because a) it was appropriate and/or b) to set precedent.

    Yes, though, it does seem like a potentially overplayed game of chicken.

  85. paulie

    There should be an amendment to the national LP’s bylaws stating that the official party affiliate is the one with control over ballot access.

    The only reason ballot access in Oregon is threatened is because the Credentials committee sided with Reeves who has no authority with the Oregon Secretary of State to place candidates on the ballot.

    It was not just the credentials committee, it was the delegates too.

  86. paulie

    I’m guessing that the Credentials Committee sided with the Reeves delegates, because the CC/LNC wanted to be certain that Johnson would beat Wrights.

    Since Johnson would have beaten Wrights anyway, it appears that the CC/LNC overplayed their hand, engaging in more dirty tricks than was necessary.

    Everyone knew that. But the race for LNC chair was close. There were other considerations.

  87. paulie

    Other considerations may include

    …doing the right things as they perceive it (shocking, I know)

    …some of them are parties to the lawsuit or Reeves group members

    …?

  88. Don

    The national party is recognizing the state party as official by linking to it. If they did not want to recognize it at the convention then they should link to the party they do recognize.

  89. paulie

    Don,

    LNC is under JC constraints. Credentials should have been as well, imo, but wasn’t. Delegates are not.

  90. George Phillies

    @92 This amendment would create difficulties if there were a hostile takeover of the state committee by, for example, the Revolutionary Fascist Vegetarians. Fortunately, in my state so long as we are a minor party there is no collective control over ballot access.

    Mind you, the two times this has come up the LNC has been run by guiding geniuses who appear to have made the wrong decision.

  91. Don

    Seems to me this should be looked at from the customer’s point of view. I register as a Libertarian so I go to the national web site to find out how to contact my state LPO. They tell me to go to an organization chaired by Wes. It is as simple as that.

  92. Brian Holtz

    Paulie: Both sides will have to choose whether making the other look foolish or putting Johnson on the ballot is their highest priority.

    Only one side has said it would put the Libertarian nominee on the ballot unconditionally. QED.

    When Libertarian ballot access becomes a hostage, then shame on both the hostage-takers and on those who advocate giving in to the hostage-takers’ demands.

  93. Nicholas Sarwark

    Only one side has said it would put the Libertarian nominee on the ballot unconditionally. QED.

    That would be the side that can’t and has no realistic possibility of being able to.

    Given Burke’s being party to a lawsuit against Wagner and Burke’s very visible and vocal lobbying for Reeves and against Wagner both online and on the floor of the national convention, it would probably be a good idea for the Johnson campaign to select a different Oregon state director.

  94. George Phillies

    @103 You are completely wrong. No side has said that.

    The Reeves people announced the condition ‘once they had the power to do so’. Wagner has ignored this nonsense.

    @104 I would not hold my breath on that. Johnson was able to win based on his resume, but his dealing with internal political issues in the LP has been inauspicious, starting with nominating Root for LNC At-large.

  95. Brian Holtz

    Don@94: it should be resolved through facts and a determination of the facts by the national party

    The LPUS doesn’t have the authority to tell Oregon Libertarians what officers/bylaws they should recognize as legitimate, but it does have the authority to make up its own mind about who it recognizes. So the LNC in 2011 made such a “determination of the facts”, and the first four pages here are undisputed as a narrative of what happened (except for a sentence or two of editorializing). The LPUS Judicial Committee then ruled that such fact-finding by the LNC is trumped by Oregon government records about who leads the LPOR. However, the Oregon government admits that it won’t record incoming leaders as inaugurated unless the outgoing leaders agree to it — or a court orders it. Hence the lawsuit currently underway.

    Since the JudCom’s ruling, the recent NatCon’s Credentials Committee and then the convention itself both chose to recognize the Reeves group over the still-listed-by-the-Oregon-government Wagner group. I don’t know how closely the Credentials Committee looked at the facts, but the convention as a whole pretty much just deferred to their finding.

  96. Nicholas Sarwark

    @106: The Credentials Committee vote was close and was reportedly influenced by the fact that only a representative of the Reeves group (Burke, I think) addressed the committee at their meeting the day prior to the convention starting.

    Additionally, Mr. Carling, one of the people aggrieved by Wagner’s group, cast the deciding vote on the question of which delegates from Oregon to seat.

  97. Brian Holtz

    One side has said that they would not bargain Johnson’s ballot access for some advantage in LPOR infighting.

    George doesn’t have to like it, but it’s nevertheless a fact.

    If the only defense of Wagnerian hostage-taking is the metaphysical possibility that Reeves might do it too if he could, then that’s no defense at all.

    We still don’t know if the Reeves allegation of hostage-taking is true, but we’re still not hearing any denials from Wagner or his defenders.

  98. Brian Holtz

    @107 I recall that Burke only addressed CredCom for a few minutes. I would hope that the CredCom members did their homework ahead of time. When the Wagner case came before JudCom, we’d already read the 100+ pages of briefs, and were presumably not influenced by the non-recusal (and deciding vote) of the JudCom member who one side claimed had a conflict of interest. He and Carling are both men of principle who would voted the same way regardless of their personal situations.

  99. NewFederalist

    “George doesn’t have to like it, but it’s nevertheless a fact.”

    Ouch! Why is any of this important to Americans? Rodney King had it right. “Why can’t we all just get along?”

  100. Nicholas Sarwark

    @109: I just wanted to lay out the facts surrounds the Credentials Committee decision so people know what weight (or lack thereof) to give it.

    And as a matter of political prudence, if your access to the Oregon ballot is uncertain, it’s foolish to have your Oregon director be someone so obviously partisan against the group that has ballot access. An unforced error.

  101. Brian Holtz

    If “your access to the Oregon ballot is uncertain” because it’s in the hands of a hostage-taker, then it might be prudent to minimize the returns to hostage-taking.

    Memo to future state LP chairs: Want to rewrite your bylaws outside of any convention? Want to extend your term as Chair without the hassle of delegates electing you? Want to dissolve your Judicial Committee, but are worried that a government court might enforce the bylaws you shredded? Then be sure to do all these things only when a presidential election is looming, to increase your bargaining power.

  102. Steve M

    Brian,

    Are you arguing that the National Party has the right to decide who represents the Local Party during the selection of the National Candidate.

    The local party is obligated to use their ballot status to then promote the National Parties candidate even though they were not allowed to participate in that candidates selection?

    What was that saying in the colonies circa late 1700’s no taxation without representation?

    My take is the the unless the courts of Oregon decide otherwise that the Wagner faction which was pushed aside at the National Convention has no obligation to do what the National Party wants.

    If they do great, but don’t piss upon someone and then demand that they to be gracious.

  103. Steve M

    I am with Pauli, but I might go a step further

    The Reeves faction could also demonstrate good will by having Richard Burke step down as the Johnson coordinator for Oregon. This is something that is within their power. So rather then just stating what they would do with a power they don’t currently have, do something positive with a power that they have.

  104. Don

    @106 thanks for the info. Still you shouldn’t have one part of the party (like the CC) say one thing and another say something else. If this was already hashed out and a determination was made to recognize a faction and link to it through the LP website then hashing it out a second time at the convention is wrong. We are a party of principle? What principle might that be? It sounds to me that at least for the time being, the official party is chaired by Wes. Anyone who wants to change that needs to focus on changing the party’s rules not a public relations campaign. I am a Oregon Libertarian because I registered as one. I would not have the slightest idea how to contact the Reese group or know when and where any of their meetings are. I have never gotten any information except through the Wagner group. If the Reese group is or wants to be the official LPO they are not doing a very good job of representing me very well. If I write a check to the LPO does the Reese group get to cash it? Does the Reese group send financial reports to the national party outlining who contributed and how the money was spent? This is not party infighting this may very well be felonious imo. I think the party needs to take a very clear stand and if fraud is being committed call it out. I suppose eventually if nothing is done there will be elections?

  105. Brian Holtz

    I’m arguing that the convention gets to — indeed has to — decide when two delegations claim to be from the same state. If you have a better alternative, we should tell the Bylaws Committee about it.

    The LPOR was represented at NatCon. Regarding “taxation without representation”, Wagner is the one whose rewritten bylaws dilutes by 99% the voting power of dues-paying LPOR members.

    I didn’t say that the Wagner group doesn’t have the right to constructively disaffiliate itself from the LPUS (by not certifying the national ticket). I just said I think they’re smarter than that. They know that Oregon’s 13,000 registered Libertarians want to be able to vote for the Libertarian ticket.

    do something positive with a power that they have

    Rewarding hostage-takers isn’t positive.

  106. Brian Holtz

    Don @115 If this was already hashed out and a determination was made to recognize a faction and link to it through the LP website then hashing it out a second time at the convention is wrong

    The LNC hashed it out the zeroth time, and I agree it was ill-advised for the JudCom to reverse the LNC’s call on the field in order to defer to the inertia of the records of the Oregon government. But it was within JudCom’s authority to void that LNC call. And it was within the convention’s authority to decide for itself between the competing delegations from Oregon.

    We are a party of principle? What principle might that be?

    Following voluntary contracts, especially the ones called “bylaws”.

    Anyone who wants to change that needs to focus on changing the party’s rules

    The focus is on restoring the rules that Wagner re-wrote.

    I have never gotten any information except through the Wagner group.

    Yes, and hijacked passengers only hear what the hijackers tell them. But this hijacking isn’t over yet. Stay tuned.

    if fraud is being committed call it out

    That’s what I’m doing.

    I suppose eventually if nothing is done there will be elections?

    The court case will presumably decide whether future LPOR elections are held under the un-shredded bylaws or the rewritten bylaws.

  107. paulie

    Seems to me this should be looked at from the customer’s point of view. I register as a Libertarian so I go to the national web site to find out how to contact my state LPO. They tell me to go to an organization chaired by Wes. It is as simple as that.

    I wish it was that simple, but it’s not. I can certainly see why you would think it is, though.

  108. paulie

    Only one side has said it would put the Libertarian nominee on the ballot unconditionally

    Yes, the one that can’t do so.

    When Libertarian ballot access becomes a hostage, then shame on both the hostage-takers and on those who advocate giving in to the hostage-takers’ demands.

    When you don’t give in to hostage takers demands the hostage is more likely to die.

    You can hold it out as a position that it is more important to not give in to their demands (speaking hypothetically – I’m not confirming that such demands exist) than to save the hostage’s life. For me the latter is more important.

    If the Reeves faction wants to get Johnson on the ballot it seems that the best thing they can do at this time is drop or suspend the lawsuit. Anything else that they might do for that cause is rhetorical and ineffective, or counter-productive. This indicates to me that getting Johnson on the ballot is just a rhetorical ploy, not a prime goal for them that takes precedence over their lawsuit. If so, fine, own that and admit that is the case, and stop calling out Wagner and them for doing the same thing.

    It’s all fun and games til someone loses ballot access.

    Both sides say they want Johnson on the ballot, yet neither side is willing to compromise to make that assured.

    Why can’t the lawsuit wait until after the election?

  109. Steve M

    I believe, that the National Party does have the power to determine which groups of delegates get seated. But the states have the power to decide which group controls the resources of a local party.

    I think it is premature to override the Oregon SOS and the Oregon courts. Until the courts agree with you Brian then as far as Oregon goes it is the Wagner faction that is currently recognized. The Reeves faction and Richard Burke in particular will have little work to do for Johnson if they fail to get Johnson on the ballot.

    I don’t see this as hostage situation I see this as a legal dispute over property. And I believe, you are arguing that the national party should have the right to seize the property of a local party.

    Brian stated “Memo to future state LP chairs: Want to rewrite your bylaws outside of any convention? Want to extend your term as Chair without the hassle of delegates electing you? Want to dissolve your Judicial Committee, but are worried that a government court might enforce the bylaws you shredded? Then be sure to do all these things only when a presidential election is looming, to increase your bargaining power.”

    But of course this dispute has been going on since May of 2011? Just when does looming begin? 1.5 years before the election? This grandstanding language i.e. blackmail, extortion, hostage…. just adding gasoline to the fire….

  110. paulie

    Given Burke’s being party to a lawsuit against Wagner and Burke’s very visible and vocal lobbying for Reeves and against Wagner both online and on the floor of the national convention, it would probably be a good idea for the Johnson campaign to select a different Oregon state director.

    I hope I’m not revealing confidential info – I’ve received word that Burke either already has or soon will step down in his official capacity with the campaign, although he will continue working as a volunteer and/or in support of the campaign with the national LP.

    My apologies if I let the cat out of the bag.

  111. paulie

    One side has said that they would not bargain Johnson’s ballot access for some advantage in LPOR infighting.

    Actions speak louder than words. They are already doing that if the Wagner group is doing what they say they are doing.

    They could then have ballot access for Johnson if they would wait on the lawsuit til after the election. Or even until after he is certified for the ballot?

    But they are (or at least may be) in effect holding that hostage to the continuing their lawsuit, which amounts to holding it hostage to advantage in LPO infighting.

    It’s only that, because they don’t actually have ballot access, they can say that if they did they would put Johnson on unconditionally, and there is no way to prove or disprove that since they don’t have the ballot access. And even if it’s true, right now they don’t and thus the best thing they can actually do in real life to ensure ballot access they are not actually willing to do.

  112. Don

    If I were running an organization I would probably want some kind of a judcom to make a final ruling when necessary. It does not make sense to me to have the CC not honor that ruling. The bylaws that are not being obeyed in my view are the ones that concede to the secretary of state. It is those national party rules that need to be changed in order to get what you want not any local Oregon rules. I think if I were running a national organization I would have a little more control over a franchise. I would be telling the secretary of state who is chair not the other way around. But I understand why they chose to not do it that way I am just saying THEN DON’T DO IT THAT WAY. Its like you have a rule but when you don’t like the results of the rule you just want to ignore the rule and not change it. If you are supposed to concede to the secretary of state then concede to the secretary of state. Anyway I am a newcomer and you folks know a heck of lot more than I. Politics bores me to death. Let me know when you get it all straightened out. Thanks for all your help I will make sure to read that doc you linked to.

  113. paulie

    I am with Pauli,

    Paul, or Paulie. The i and the e are a package deal.

    but I might go a step further

    The Reeves faction could also demonstrate good will by having Richard Burke step down as the Johnson coordinator for Oregon.

    Actually I did already say that, and if my info is correct the campaign and Mr. Burke himself have arrived at the same conclusion.

    It is possible that the lawsuit continuing may still be a deal breaker.

  114. Steve M

    Brian states “Wagner is the one whose rewritten bylaws dilutes by 99% the voting power of dues-paying LPOR members.”

    By making Oregon voters who are registered as Libertarians eligible to participate in the LPOR conventions.

    What an evil concept!

  115. paulie

    I have another proposed solution since there seems to be a stalemate for practical purposes.

    I have a way out.

    Ballot access for Johnson is more important to me than which side wins control of the Oregon LP. Too bad “both” sides of the dispute feel the opposite way on that.

    As a practical matter, regardless of whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing, the Wagner group bylaws are in effect and likely to remain in effect for the purpose of controlling the ballot line until after the ballot access window is closed.

    The Reeves group can’t acknowledge that those bylaws are in effect thus will not use provisions in those bylaws to remedy anything.

    A third group, if one could be found, could get signatures of 100 or 130 registered libertarians in the state (out of 13k) and force a vote on who the leaders of the party are. They would then send a mail ballot to the 13k and could replace the Wagner group under its own rules and get Johnson ballot access in time.

    Granted this would not be easy, but a 20k valid signature drive is even harder.

    It’s too bad if no one does this, which I do not think they will.

    The other options I know of:

    1) If the Wagner group has any conditions, the Reeves group meets them and Johnson gets ballot access. Probably won’t happen if those conditions exist.

    2) The courts give Reeves group ballot access in time. Also probably won’t happen.

    3) Wagner et al put Johnson on the ballot even if any conditions they have are not met. Seems unlikely as well.

    4) A petition drive gets Johnson on the ballot. Expensive and may fail.

    5) Nobody gets Johnson on the ballot because they all consider it more important to keep fighting each other. Unfortunate but may be increasingly likely.

  116. Toby Knight

    I don’t see anyone, including myself, worried about Johnson’s ballot access as much as they are concerned with defaming Aaron Starr, Wes Wagner, Forest Baker, Johnson, Reeves, etc… or making some other point.

    I might suggest this: Wait and see, if you are not in Oregon, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Stop giving either side energy. IMHO it reinforces destructive behavior and distracts us from our own important work. The Johnson campaign is only in Limbo because you are all feeding the people who are using him as a fulcrum.

    Having an interest in what Oregon may make you an interested party – it does NOT make you a principle. So my advice is: Butt out.

    Personally:

    I will not try and leverage the Johnson campaign; I will not try and leverage the membership of Oregon and the misery they have to be going through; nor will I try and project fraudulent motivations on authors or commentators to try and validate my own schizoid perceptions.

    I will ask that those LP members in Oregon consider how their behavior is affecting other people. I will watch what happens with great interest. If Johnson’s national campaign is sunk in Oregon, I will hold both sides (and anyone who gave the gambit energy) accountable by reserving my trust in them. Easy… Done… and all within my authority.

    BTW: The all-caps title in the original post is the standard format for a press release. It is unheard of except in robo-posting-press-release-regurgitation sites to have it posted raw like that.

    Most news outlets will use only parts of a press release in a larger story that has relevance to their audience and then reformat it into their own style; that is why they hire editors after all.

  117. paulie

    I don’t see anyone, including myself, worried about Johnson’s ballot access as much as they are concerned with defaming Aaron Starr, Wes Wagner, Forest Baker, Johnson, Reeves, etc… or making some other point.

    I am. If I am not conveying that correctly, my apologies. I have no interest in defaming any of them. I only want ballot access in as many states as possible. All of them would be ideally awesome.

    if you are not in Oregon, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

    Ballot access nationwide is my business, both literally and metaphorically. However, if anyone is tempted to interpret that statement cynically, my narrow self interest would be for the ballot drive to happen, even though I would not want to work on it, because it would tend to bid up nationwide petition prices by placing more demands on supply. As a supporter of the LP and Johnson/Gray, I place my broader self-interest above my narrow self-interest.

    BTW: The all-caps title in the original post is the standard format for a press release. It is unheard of except in robo-posting-press-release-regurgitation sites to have it posted raw like that.

    Correct. Thanks again to Brian for fixing it.

    Most news outlets will use only parts of a press release in a larger story that has relevance to their audience and then reformat it into their own style; that is why they hire editors after all.

    We don’t hire editors or writers. We have one editor and editing IPR is only a tiny part of his paying job. IPR authors are volunteers who blog on their own free time, so holding IPR to professional news outlet standards is not a valid comparison.

    When you or anyone else are prepared to hire me or someone else to do this full time let me know.

  118. Brian Holtz

    P: Both sides say they want Johnson on the ballot, yet neither side is willing to compromise to make that assured.

    Both the hostage-takers and the hostage’s family say they want the hostage to live, yet neither side is willing to compromise by respectively a) releasing the hostage or b) paying the ransom. Thus both are equally responsible for the hostage’s death.

    Why can’t the lawsuit wait until after the election?

    The lawsuit won’t finish before the election. Lawsuits don’t have a pause button. Why would Wagner want the lawsuit merely paused, anyway? He wants it permanently withdrawn.

    Steve M: you are arguing that the national party should have the right to seize the property of a local party

    Huh? I’ve never argued that at all.

    My “hostage” rhetoric is about Wagner seizing the ballot-access property of the LPOR — which the real LPOR would use to certify Johnson.

    it is premature to override the Oregon SOS and the Oregon courts

    It’s not only premature, it’s impossible. It’s not “overriding” anything to ask that Wagner place the LP presidential nominee on the LPOR ballot line.

    Just when does looming begin?

    Election day minus the expected length of time it takes to enforce LPOR bylaws in an Oregon court. So yes, well before May 2011.

    making Oregon voters who are registered as Libertarians eligible to participate in the LPOR conventions. What an evil concept!

    I support that end. I just don’t think that end justifies Wagner’s means.

    For the record, what Wagner did was to admit on tape that he didn’t have sufficient member support for his new bylaws, even as his group

    • dissolved the Judicial Committee;
    • appointed themselves to new terms;
    • banished a category of dues-paying members that conveniently included political enemies;
    • diluted by 99% the voting power of remaining members by declaring as members thousands of people who had never subscribed to the Statement of Principles, had never attended a Party meeting, and had never paid dues;
    • invoked the State as their authority to do all this;
    • denied that the State’s courts could review any of it;
    • and (allegedly) held LP POTUS ballot access hostage to avoid court challenge.

    Don: The bylaws that are not being obeyed in my view are the ones that concede to the secretary of state

    The Judicial Committee created that rule without any textual basis in the byalws.

  119. paulie

    P: Both sides say they want Johnson on the ballot, yet neither side is willing to compromise to make that assured.

    B: Both the hostage-takers and the hostage’s family say they want the hostage to live, yet neither side is willing to compromise by respectively a) releasing the hostage or b) paying the ransom. Thus both are equally responsible for the hostage’s death

    P2: My point exactly. Yet even if we deem the Reeves group to be the hostage’s family here – a real stretch but let’s go with it for the sake of argument – they are not admitting any share of potential responsibility in case the hostage dies; instead they are trying to goad the possible hostage takers to anger by waving a red flag (this press release) which tries to make it 100% the hostage takers fault if the hypothetical hostage dies.

    P: Why can’t the lawsuit wait until after the election?

    B: The lawsuit won’t finish before the election. Lawsuits don’t have a pause button. Why would Wagner want the lawsuit merely paused, anyway? He wants it permanently withdrawn.

    P2: It can be withdrawn and filed again, no? That would be a pause in effect, wouldn’t it? Now true, Wagner wants it permanently withdrawn, but once Johnson has ballot access – or the hostage is released to use your terminology – what is to stop Reeves and them from filing another lawsuit? Even if Reeves makes a legally binding promise not to file one someone else could, right?

  120. Steve M

    Brian,

    >Steve M: you are arguing that the national party should have the >right to seize the property of a local party

    >Huh? I’ve never argued that at all.

    But you accuse, the current LPO as recognized by the Oregon SOS of deciding how their own property is used, that being ballot access for Oregon. Sorry but that seems to be you advocating an attempt to seize the property that belongs to another.

    Must be my confusion of what you are advocating. So do you believe that the National Party’s candidate should be automatically granted access to the ballot of a state in which the local party as recognized by its state has been dis-enfranchised by the national parties convention?

    Put simply, should the desires of the national party convention override and have automatic use of the property of the local party?

  121. paulie

    Anyone want to talk about real world solutions that could actually happen and how to make them happen in this case?

  122. Steve M

    Paulie,

    I think you have that covered.

    My take is the Reeves faction should withdraw Richard Burke as the Johnson 2012 coordinator for Oregon, that the Wagner faction should acknowledge the desire to have Johnson as the LP Presidential candidate and nominate Gary Johnson as the the LPO candidate for president. That the Johnson 2012 organization should solicit nominations from both sides for their state wide coordinator and pick one that is on both lists. It is probably better to have NOTA then to have one affiliated with either faction.

    The law suite should be set aside (as a waist of money) but…. a deal needs to be reached to have county or regional conventions and those counties that do to elect their officers and send delegates to a statewide convention.

    The statewide convention must amend the the bylaws and elect officers.

    A time table needs to be set.

    If a reasonable time table and set of rules isn’t agreed upon. Then the national party should dis-enfranchise the LPO. And ask for the libertarians of Oregon to create a new party and start all over.

  123. Brian Holtz

    P@130: My point exactly.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone bite so hard on a reductio ad absurdam. I rest that part of my case.

    It can be withdrawn and filed again, no?

    No, I don’t think judges like their time being wasted. At all.

    Even if Reeves makes a legally binding promise not to file one someone else could, right?

    No, you have to get all the right parties joined to the suit. That in fact is an issue that has already delayed the suit.

    Steve M: do you believe that the National Party’s candidate should be automatically granted access to the ballot of a state that X

    There’s no such rule, and I’ve never advocated any such rule. I trust affiliates to do the right thing — and I trust the LNC to use its disaffiliation power appropriately if affiliates behave badly enough.

    So I’m not saying that Wagner taking ballot access as his hostage would break any rule (other than the LPOR rules that he’s already breaking). I’m just saying that doing so would be so profoundly harmful to the Libertarian cause that I predict he won’t do it. As misguided as he has been about means and ends, he’s still a Libertarian and still wants the Libertarian cause to succeed.

  124. Steve M

    I can’t count how many times I told my two kids… solve your dispute without me. Because I guarantee, that if I have to decide… neither one of you will be happy!

    It is hard being an anarchist and a parent!

    I believe that their should be a contract between the national organization and the state franchises that sets minimum level bylaw requirements and following the bylaws… but the punishment should not be picking wining factions but of dis-enfranchisement non-seating of all delegates to national conventions.

  125. Steve M

    Brian, “So I’m not saying that Wagner taking ballot access as his hostage would break any rule (other than the LPOR rules that he’s already breaking). I’m just saying that doing so would be so profoundly harmful to the Libertarian cause that I predict he won’t do it. As misguided as he has been about means and ends, he’s still a Libertarian and still wants the Libertarian cause to succeed.”

    And I am disputing your use of the word hostage.

    The ballot access is a privilege that belongs to the LPO. How they use it is their business. That the national party decided to favor the other faction was an act of deciding that access to the Oregon Ballot wasn’t as important as deciding who could participate in officer elections for the national party.

    A faction of the national party has gambled losing access to the Oregon Ballot for their gain within the party. Which looks like it backfired.

    The National Party would have been better served if it told the two lists from Oregon to get together and create a fusion list or go home.

  126. Steve M

    Paulie, I saw 121. And I think that is the correct move for the Reeves faction. Far better then their press release.

  127. paulie

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone bite so hard on a reductio ad absurdam.

    Yeah, well, I don’t think it was absurd. Of course the terms were loaded to start, too.

  128. Brian Holtz

    The ballot access is a privilege that belongs to the LPO. How they use it is their business.

    If they use it to declare war on the rest of the Libertarian Party, that is indeed their choice. Calling that choice “their business” doesn’t make every such choice equally right or smart or consequence-free.

    I am disputing your use of the word hostage. The ballot access is a privilege that belongs to the LPO.

    And this kitty belongs to me. If you say it’s not a hostage, I will blend it. So I ask: is it magically not a hostage just because it belongs to me?

  129. paulie

    I guess no one wants to actually say anything to actually help resolve this in the real world? Sad. I’ll do my best to be done with it now until/unless I have something to add that can make a real difference in the real world.

  130. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, it would help if more people said that those who control the Oregon Libertarian ballot line should just put the LP ticket on it, period.

    Instead, you’re encouraging those who control it to treat it like some kind of hostage or bargaining chip.

    That is indeed profoundly sad.

  131. Steve M

    So if you have what I think is a really nice tomato, but you want to blend it then it is a hostage because I desire it? Even if it is your property?

  132. Steve M

    Brian, what is sad is that the national party intervened in a state parties business. In a really predictably stupid way. And then act shocked that the people who’s toes they stepped upon shove back!

  133. Brian Holtz

    If somebody does to the LPCA what Wagner did to the LPOR, then I sure hope that the LPUS — its national committee, its judicial committee, its credentials committee, and especially its convention — doesn’t just roll over and accept the coup as a fact of life. They wouldn’t have the power to reverse it, but they darn sure could refuse to recognize its legitimacy.

    P.S. It’s fascinating that I’m the only person here questioning whether Wagner is making the threats that Reeves claims he is. Is there no behavior that Wagner’s partisans won’t excuse? Steve/Paulie/et al., do you have a position on the 6 other things listed @129 that Wagner did?

  134. paulie

    BH 146 Already tried that; now it would help if I could figure out a way to make sure it actually happens. I am not encouraging anything, I already told WW straight up my #1 priority in having anything to do with the conversation is to see that Johnson gets on the ballot. I have said the same here. I have laid out how and why it may happen and how and why it may not happen. At the moment I believe I have said all I have to say about it. WW et al will do what they want to do regardless of my advice. See @126 for my summary of the possible outcomes and what I think the likelihood of each one is. If I said Wagner should put Johnson on the ballot with no conditions that would make it neither more nor less likely to happen in my estimation. Either he already plans to or he wouldn’t listen to me. So I am proposing all the ways I can think of around that being that my #1 priority is the end result and anything else is a distant second. I don’t know what else I can say that I haven’t already said.

    BH 149 Tired of the subject to be honest with you – I need a break from it until further notice.

  135. Steve M

    “only the tomatoes that are prized by the people to whom the owner is making his blending threat.”

    The owner is presumably the person who owns the tomato.

    Another person desires the tomato.

    The owner of the tomato threatens to blend it if he doesn’t get the price he wants.

    This isn’t a hostage situation this is a negotiation for the use of property. You think that LPO should give access to Oregon Ballot access no matter what the National Party and their candidate does.

    I think, that if the national party or its candidate does something rude and stupid that getting access is not a given. I think the situation is fixable! but using words like extortion, blackmail and hostage are heading the wrong direction. Or to use my weighted words. heading a “stupid” direction.

    For example…. lets say you were running for congress and you stopped by my house and you said Steve… You %$#@, Put my sign on your lawn. And I said not until you apologize. You would then claim I was holding my lawn hostage for not letting you put your sign up.

    The person who wants to blend the tomato is the own of the tomato.

  136. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, your theory appears to be that what is said here can influence Reeves but can’t influence Wagner.

    That’s a pretty convenient theory for a Wagner apologist. 🙂

    I don’t think either would be influenced by what is said here. They both know that Johnson will be on the ballot in Oregon, and that the Oregon courts will have the final word.

    (I’m assuming that Wagner doesn’t care enough about me that he’d spoil my prediction out of spite. I assume he has better things to do with his time/attention/legacy.)

  137. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Capozzi: ‘Possible that you can read multiple minds with great facility.”

    Everyone speculates about people’s motives, based on their past statements and behavior. It’s what normal human beings do.

    So by your twisted (dishonest?) logic, Capozzi, you’re accusing everyone of being a mind reader.

    Rather, silly, yes?

    Tell you what. You want to play mind reader, go ahead. But the rest of us human beings will simply go on speculating about other’s motives. Which is what human beings do.

  138. Brian Holtz

    You think that LPO should give access to Oregon Ballot access no matter what the National Party and their candidate does.

    You can keep saying that’s my position, but it never has been and never will be.

    My position is that 1) those who control the LPOR ballot line should give it to the candidate that Oregon Libertarians want to vote for, and 2) Oregon Libertarians want to vote for Gary Johnson.

    Your position seems to be that those who control the LPOR ballot line should not be ashamed to use it to avenge whatever slights they’ve suffered from the LPUS delegates who chose Gary Johnson.

    I disagree with that position.

  139. paulie

    BH 152 Nope, that’s not my theory at all. If you have misunderstood my theory that fundamentally after all this repetitive yakking I doubt I could ever make you understand.

    Now I am going to go to sleep and if I wake up and see my name or any of my comment numbers or quotes in this thread addressed again I will blend your kitten, eat the evidence, and then blend myself.

    It will all be y’all fault too. How will you ever live with the guilt and shame?!

    For the love of kittens and kitten lovers everywhere, stop dragging me into this thing – I need a nice long break from it for real. @126 Has what suggestions I have and it will have to be either self explanatory, or not. I can’t think of any way to improve on it.

  140. Steve M

    Brian, I have no idea if the LPO is going put Johnson on the ballot or not. No evidence has been provided that they wont.

    Just an accusation and heated words such as blackmail, extortion and hostage.

    I am happy to let the Oregon courts decide how correct is the governance of an Oregon organization. Arguing their bylaws and amendments is their business and it is up to the courts to settle it.

    But, I think the two sides being so incompetent as to not be able to find away for the Oregon Libertarian members/registered voters to resolve this outside of the courts is also pretty damming of both sides.

    Put me down for all members who initiated the law suite and all current officers and board members should agree not to stand for officers at the state or county level for at least 4 years and then hold a convention to sort out the other issues.

    As I said before… if I have to settle an issue… no one will be happy.

  141. Brian Holtz

    BH: your theory appears to be that what is said here can influence Reeves but can’t influence Wagner

    P: Nope, that’s not my theory at all.

    Huh?

    @126 you list options that include Reeves caving in to Wagner’s alleged use of the ballot line as a hostage/bargaining-chip.

    @140 you said that Reeves should drop the lawsuit permanently and just accept Wagner’s sham bylaws.

    @144 you said it’s “sad” that nobody else is saying anything to help resolve this situation “in the real world”.

    But then @150 you wrote off the prospect of Wagner listening to us.

    I haven’t seen you write off the prospect of Reeves listening to us.

    So either you think A) only Reeves might listen to us, or you think B) it’s sad that nobody else is saying things that both Reeves and Wagner will ignore anyway.

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt and attributed (A) to you.

    Where did I go wrong here?

  142. Brian Holtz

    Steve M, my kids know that the one who gets in the most trouble is the one who decides to retaliate rather than take their case to the relevant authority.

    All that is necessary for the triumph of injustice is that that those who value justice do nothing.

  143. Steve M

    Don’t feel sorry for my kids Brian… they know better then to retaliate or initiate. What they are looking for is a finding of fact. Who was using what first or who’s turn it was. Much like the two factions of the LPO… both sides want the game decided in their favor. My kids have learned to compromise and work out disputes before they even consider taking it to a parental authority. Skills that will probably help them in the real world far better.

  144. Brian Holtz

    Yes, in a world where actual justice is the exception rather than the rule, the Nash equilibrium is to grab everything you can, knowing you’ll have to give only half of it back.

    Much like the two factions of the LPO… both sides want the game decided in their favor.

    You seem to assume without argument that both sides have roughly equal claims to legitimacy. If so, that would be a fact about your level of interest, not a fact about the dispute in Oregon.

  145. Steve M

    Last time I talked with a lawyer about a contract dispute… the lawyer pointed out that the legal fees could easily exceed $100K. So hire a lawyer or get 200 register libertarians to sign a petition calling for special convention (need 1% of the registered libertarians) then send a letter to all registered libertarians 45 days in advance of the special convention. So you need to go to the county registrars offices or maybe the sos office and get the names and addresses of the registered libertarians. 13,000 of them send them a letter. Costs… hire a lawyer to write up what the special convention is going to cover $5K… bylaws and officer election…. get 200 signatures say $10 each or $2k get the address of the registered voters… $10k as a guess. send them a letter $26K rent the convention space $5k total cost $43K….

    I think Paulie has the right idea. $100k and will drag on for a long long time of $50k and will be settled within a specific time period.

  146. Steve M

    @160 and you seem to have appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner. where as I have decided that the members should decide the issue and not outsiders who are promoting their own interests.

  147. Brian Holtz

    So you’re OK with leaving the items listed @129 as precedents? (Are you ever going to address them, or are they not as interesting as tomatoes?)

    Why would Reeves finance an attempt to rewrite the bylaws under a process that tacitly endorses Wagner’s power to simply rewrite bylaws he doesn’t like?

  148. Brian Holtz

    @162 I was elected to the LPUS JudCom after waving a copy of the bylaws at the delegates and saying: “If you don’t like these rules, you still have time to change them. But if you want them enforced as they are written, then consider electing me to the Judicial Committee.”

    I’ve always said that the fate of the LPOR will have to be decided by the actions of Libertarians in Oregon. However, that doesn’t mean that the LPUS doesn’t get to make up its own mind when different groups approach it claiming to be legitimate representatives of the LPOR.

  149. Steve M

    Why should I have to address your accusations as if they were or weren’t facts?

    If I were Reeves I would a cost v benefit analysis and pick a method that had the greatest chance of success at the lowest cost.

    My experience is that law suites are a last course alternative. Better to find a way that resolves the issue with the cooperation of the other parties.

  150. Steve M

    Sure the LPUS gets to decide which group of delegates it seats… but if it picks the group that isn’t recognized by the states sos then it does so at the risk of not having its candidate on that states ballot.

    So the LPUS made a decision to seat one faction for whatever reason and might end up paying a price for doing so. But they knew this ahead of time. Crying foul now (and using heated words like…..) is just foolish… working out the issues isn’t

  151. Brian Holtz

    When you do what’s right, knowing someone might do something shameful in response does not cede your right to call shame upon that response.

    You might consider Wagner shameless, but I don’t.

    You might not care whether or not the LPOR was in fact hijacked, but I do.

    I’m in this conversation to stand up for what’s right. I wonder what cost-benefit analysis is keeping you here.

    Why should I have to address your accusations as if they were or weren’t facts?

    Are you conceding they would be shameful if they were facts? (If you’re so unfamiliar with what happened in Oregon as to question whether those are facts, that explains a lot.)

  152. Nicholas Sarwark

    @166: I made this argument to the Credentials Committee and the delegates on the floor of the convention.

    The only arbiter that can resolve the status of the Libertarian Party of Oregon is an Oregon court. Not the Credentials Committee or the delegates at convention. It’s quixotic for them to choose to make a symbolic statement about who they think is legitimate when that statement won’t effect a real world outcome, and when that statement will endanger a real world outcome that they want.

    But never let it be said that Libertarians aren’t often quixotic.

  153. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@160,

    “You seem to assume without argument that both sides have roughly equal claims to legitimacy.”

    The claims of both sides to authority have legitimacy problems.

    One side (the Wagner faction) continued in power when it should not have, and rewrote dysfunctional bylaws which made it impossible to do business so that the organization could actually operate and so that Oregon’s 13k registered Libertarians would be given a real stake in their party.

    The other side (the Reeves faction) appointed itself to power after leveraging the dysfunctional bylaws to keep the organization from actually operating, and now says that if its seizure of power is affirmed, it may consider allowing the dysfunctional bylaws to be reconsidered — so long as those bylaws keep the organization a private club when it wants to be a private club, and only a “political party” when it wants something from Oregon’s government.

    One side (the Wagner faction) is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, and at this time the state-recognized authority for matters pertaining to the Libertarian Party in Oregon.

    The other side (the Reeves faction) is, at this time, neither.

    Would Oregon’s Libertarians be best served by their party’s governing authority giving its presidential ballot line to the LNC’s nominee? Probably. Heck, almost certainly?

    But that’s up to the Oregon LP to decide. The delegates to the 2012 Libertarian National Convention gave up any say in that matter when they decided to seat an impostor delegation rather than the delegation submitted by the LNC affiliate/Libertarian Party of Oregon.

  154. Brian Holtz

    @168 Libertarians have a quirky habit of standing up for what’s right, even if there is very little prospect that doing so will make a difference. We’re funny that way.

    @169 the Reeves faction appointed itself to power after leveraging the dysfunctional bylaws to keep the organization from actually operating

    I’ve seen no evidence that the Reeves faction did this. However, I’ve seen a video recording of the Wagner faction rejecting the idea that their Bylaws rewrite should simply fix the quorum problem.

    The delegates to the 2012 Libertarian National Convention gave up any say in that matter when they decided to seat an impostor delegation

    They decided to seat the hijackees rather than the hijackers. They apparently were not as impressed as anarchist Knapp is by the Oregon government’s records about who currently has locked himself in the cockpit.

    I love how Knapp, no longer even a member of the LP, says in back-to-back paragraphs that 1) the Oregon LP ballot line should be given to Johnson and 2) Libertarians outside Oregon are not allowed to say (1). Self-PWN!

  155. Steve M

    “Are you conceding they would be shameful if they were facts? (If you’re so unfamiliar with what happened in Oregon as to question whether those are facts, that explains a lot.)”

    I believe I have a reasonable understanding of what happened in Oregon. I think it is dysfunctional top to bottom. I think you are backing one side of a dysfunctional group against another side. I believe that there have been shameful acts on both sides and on the LNC’s side. I am arguing that we on the outside can’t fix it nor should we try. We do have a right to decide whether to affiliate with them.

  156. Brian Holtz

    Thanks for again evading the simple question of whether the acts listed @129 could ever be excusable.

    I am indeed backing the side that tried to follow the rules, and I’m opposing the side that admitted on camera that it needed to shred the rules because the existing membership would never agree to that side’s proposed new rules.

    I’ve never claimed that Libertarians outside Oregon can fix the LPOR. I’ve just said we shouldn’t pretend a hijacking hasn’t occurred.

    This reminds me of when Homer said to Bart: “We could argue about who forgot to pick up who from school until the cows come home. So let’s just say we’re both wrong and leave it at that.”

  157. Nicholas Sarwark

    Let’s say that the Wagner group places Johnson on the Oregon ballot. And let’s say that someone from the Reeves group files a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of that placement of Johnson on the ballot.

    What happens then? Does the Reeves group become the hostage taker? Should the Wagner group have to pay to defend that lawsuit? The LNC? The Johnson campaign?

  158. Michael H. Wilson

    BH @ 172 writes; I am indeed backing the side that tried to follow the rules…

    I am not going to rehash everything that has been written so far, but this mess is significantly more twisted than you seem to understand. There are serious questions concerning the delegates to the so called Reeves faction convention. That is not to say that there are not a number of other issues that should be worked through as well.

  159. Robert Capozzi

    174 mhw: serious questions concerning the delegates…

    me: What are those questions? To be seated in convention, I thought the only standard is whether they are members or not.

    “Brother-in-law is a convicted felon and is known to consort with Republicans” doesn’t disallow one to sit in a state delegation, does it?

  160. Toby Knight

    By-laws are not dysfunctional. People are dysfunctional. That the laws are not clear or did not cover every eventuality, unfortunate, but the only dysfunction here is that people chose to try and leverage the party with them.

    There are no innocents, no heroes, and no wise observers in any of this. If you have wisdom, sit back, relax, and catalog the names of those who do not have the moral grounding to treat their own allies with respect.

    It may sound strange to do in politics: To not try and wrest control from others. Consider this: Politics is more than self destructive control games. It is about moving the hearts, minds and hands of people. Nothing going on in this thread or in Oregon has anything to do with politics. It has everything to do with why the LP is anemic and small and stinks like a NeoCon’s unwashed underwear.

    The solution? Dis-empower those who play these awful, coalition destroying games. The villains are those who start these gambits, play them, and perpetuate them as “legitimate” in our minds. This thread, one of their tools… think about it…

  161. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@172,

    To the best of my recollection, I was not the one you were addressing your questions regarding your list @129 to, but I’ll take a stab at it. Could it ever be excusable to:

    – dissolved the Judicial Committee;

    That is bound up in the question of whether or not the old, dysfunctional bylaws had to be thrown out and replaced with new ones in a procedure not applicable under those old bylaws.

    If the answer to that question is “yes” (and both sides agree that it is, although the Reeves faction hides that agreement by just ignoring the old bylaws instead of openly replacing them), then the question of what, if any, judicial/review authority goes into the new bylaws is an open one. I would certainly RECOMMEND that any organization have SOME kind of judicial/review authority.

    – appointed themselves to new terms;

    A bad thing.

    But not as bad as holding a “state committee meeting” in which at least some voters are ineligible to vote due to not being members of the state committee, and in at least one case apparently being a member of another party’s apparatus, and pretending that you’ve been elected “according to the bylaws.”

    Both factions did bad things that they claimed were necessary. The Wagner faction explained what they were doing and openly overthrew the old bylaws. The Reeves faction lied about what it was doing and pretended to be following the old bylaws.

    – banished a category of dues-paying members that conveniently included political enemies;

    That is, in fact, inexcusable.

    – diluted by 99% the voting power of remaining members by declaring as members thousands of people who had never subscribed to the Statement of Principles, had never attended a Party meeting, and had never paid dues;

    That goes to the difference between being an actual political party (which is an organization structured pursuant to state election laws and intended to include all who affiliate with that party by registering in its name and/or voting in its primaries) and being a private club that just masquerades as a political party when it wants to participate in state functions.

    The latter is more concisely referred to as a “fraud” or “con game.”

    The former isn’t a case of diluting the votes of the private club apparatchiks. It’s a case of giving the power in the party to its actual members after years of apparatchik monopoly on that power.

    – invoked the State as their authority to do all this;

    The state is the only authority TO invoke in the case of operations of organs of the state — and that’s what political parties are.

    – denied that the State’s courts could review any of it;

    Details, please?

    – and (allegedly) held LP POTUS ballot access hostage to avoid court challenge.

    It’s impossible to “hold hostage” something which you already own.

    At this time, the Wagner faction IS the leadership/authority of the Oregon Libertarian Party. Their ballot line is THEIRS to dispose of in any way they please.

    The Wagner faction was also the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon but was denied its due representation at the LNC’s presidential nominating convention.

    It’s a two-way street: If an affiliate receives its due representation in nomination proceedings, it is bound by the outcomes of those proceedings. If it doesn’t, it isn’t.

    Should the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s leadership forgive the Libertarian National Convention for denying them what they were due as an affiliate party, given that the culprits in engineering that outcome appear to have been, for the most part, deposed?

    Should they place the Libertarian National Convention’s presidential ticket on their ballot line both as a gesture of good will toward a new LNC which seems indisposed to continue trying to steal their organization and the things to which they are entitled to, and as the best way to serve the interests of their 13k+ newly empowered members?

    I think they should.

    Do they owe that to the LNC, or to the 49 other state affiliates whose delegations voted to deny them representation in the selection of that presidential ticket? Not only no, but fuck no.

  162. Robert Capozzi

    tk, your questions are fine ones, but the bigger question is to ask what is the best thing to do to advance liberty? Making it about petty institutional matters seems small-minded to me.

  163. Michael H. Wilson

    re RC @ 175 I wrote I am not going to rehash everything that has been written so far, but this mess is significantly more twisted than you seem to understand.

    If you don’t understand what I meant when I wrote the above then I have no pity for you.

  164. Robert Capozzi

    179 mhw, thanks for your concern, but I feel I DO understand that sentence.

    What I don’t understand is your VAGUE claim about “serious questions” about the OR delegation that was seated. Casting aspersions may be sufficient for you, but it’s not for me.

    Heck, if I’d been there, I’d probably have voted to seat Team Wagner, despite the flaming middle finger and all that suggests.

    But the convention looked at the situation, presumably saw that the Reeves delegation were all party members, and went that way.

    They probably didn’t find ancient mid-90s grievances to be especially relevant, and on that score, I think they are also correct.

  165. Nicholas Sarwark

    @180:

    What I don’t understand is your VAGUE claim about “serious questions” about the OR delegation that was seated. Casting aspersions may be sufficient for you, but it’s not for me.

    I think you are misreading the original comment. The serious questions are with regard to the delegates at the Reeves meeting that appointed new officers of that group, not the delegates at the national convention.

  166. Steve M

    Brian,

    Are you claiming that the Reeves faction in its attempts to wrestle control of the LPO away from the Wagner faction has conducted its operations in completely faithful, ethical, transparent and honest means?

  167. zapper

    There are too many comments on this thread.

    Too much time is being wasted – including mine, and I don’t know why I’m so stupid as to be involved, even if I do care, since few are listening, while many are shouting.

    Paulie – i and e – hope I’ve never forgotten – has made many wise comments on this matter. Probably becuase he’s not on either side in this expensive and ridiculous war of the roses.

    There’s an old saw: “Lead, follow or get out of the way.”

    Both sides need to get out of the way.

    Here’s what should happen.

    The Wagner group should just put Johnson on the ballot, make sure to meet all the legal requirements. Just do it guys. No demands. Be heros.

    A new group of OR Libertarians should be found to be appointed to replace the current leadership with people from neither of the fighting factions.

    The Wagner group then declares a moral victory, appoints the new group to replace itself, turns over all assets and property of the LP to the new group and resigns.

    The Reeves group declares victory, drops all legal action, turns over all assets and property to the new group and resigns.

    The new group runs the show. Calls a new convention at an appropriate time and we proceed into the future.

    Both the Wagner group and the Reeves group members agree not to seek any postion in the State LP leadership for 4 years.

    and the rest of us can get this behind us and get back to work on promoting Liberty.

  168. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@178,

    “tk, your questions are fine ones, but the bigger question is to ask what is the best thing to do to advance liberty? Making it about petty institutional matters seems small-minded to me.”

    I agree 100%, and thought I had made that clear.

    If I were Wes Wagner (or. to put it a different way, if I was an LNC affiliate official who believed that electoral politics could advance liberty and that the Libertarian Party is an instrument for doing so), I would urge the Oregon Libertarian Party’s state committee to place the LNC’s presidential slate on the Oregon ballot without precondition, absent a superior libertarian alternative (with “superior” defined contextually in terms of the advantage of 50-state presence, etc., not just “who’s the more libertarian guy?”).

    However, that same course ALSO would constitute a positive response to “petty institutional matters,” insofar as it would be a gesture of good will toward the newly re-constituted LNC and a probably desired service to Oregon’s 13k registered Libertarian voters.

    But also to be considered on the “petty institutional matters” side of the ledger is that neither the board of the LNC nor the LNC affiliate delegates who recently convened to nominate a presidential slate are owed, or have any reasonable grounds upon which to demand, that. Their preferences with respect to the matter are relevant only insofar as the Oregon LP graciously decides to deem them relevant. If they wanted the Oregon LP to be in any way obligated to run their slate, they should have seated the Oregon LP’s delegation at their convention and allowed them to participate in choosing that slate.

  169. Joe Buchman

    If Wes is as good at withholding the submission of the LP candidates for President and Vice-President with the Oregon Secretary of State’s office, as he has been in withholding his comments about (what I imagine, at least he would see as) slanderous remarks here, we might actually be in trouble.

    As this cyber-poke-in-the-eye failed to generate a response, I’m also wondering what the next move will be by the Starr/Carling/Reeves/Burke guys.

    I hope they also decide this forum is not the best field for their battles.

    Joe

  170. Toby Knight

    Robert Capozzi @176 & Thomas Knapp @184:

    The question: “what is the best thing to do to advance liberty?” has only one valid answer: There is no one valid answer.

    The best thing to do to advance Liberty, from my point of view, is to create a paradigm in which people can coexist without force or fraud being tools of coercion. To take those lessons and provide examples to the rest of society that our philosophy is real and sustainable.

    This situation is a complete and abject denial of that ethic. Fraud is rampant on every side as they try and prove their points. As the situation escalates the use of untrue and unfair rhetoric is becoming and will become more and more pronounced.

    Force is involved in two ways we tend to forget to factor in: The State’s power over us, is introduced and elevated in both the law suits and the certification argument.

    Both sides, fighting for the state’s approval are leveraging the force of the state for their gain. Both sides engaging in a law suit are inviting the state into party business as an authority capable of leveraging state’s violence to resolve the problem.

    The entire situation is adverse to advancing Liberty and everyone contributing to its creation and prolonging its pain, especially those seeking to use and leverage the situation and the chaos around it, are leveraging both force and fraud.

    In this matter, a depraved anti-liberty gestalt is building among those charged with advancing Liberty. We need to put away this notion that there is some one faction or answer to “advancing Liberty”. It is a fraudulent position to start from and it leads to more force and fraud no matter which faction you support.

  171. Robert Capozzi

    184 tk: If they wanted the Oregon LP to be in any way obligated to run their slate, they should have seated the Oregon LP’s delegation at their convention and allowed them to participate in choosing that slate.

    me: Yes, I don’t see any holes in your reasoning here. Knowing that Team Wagner has the official ballot access for at least the time being, the convention took what looks like a calculated risk and turned its back on that particular shared obligation between all the state LPs.

    No Konkinite myself, I hope they place GJ/JG on their state ballot, as it seems better for advancing liberty, ATC.

    186 (the other) TK: This situation is a complete and abject denial of that ethic. Fraud is rampant on every side as they try and prove their points.

    me: Hmm, that wording it quite a bit more strongly than I would, but I do see your point. I doubt many outside the LP are aware of this intra-party squabble, so while I do agree that the way to peace is to be peaceful, this temper tantrum seems like a minor thing in the grand scheme. Hopefully it stays that way!

  172. Dan Reale

    Tomas Knapp – you wrote in regards to the Wagner faction:

    “Do they owe that to the LNC, or to the 49 other state affiliates whose delegations voted to deny them representation in the selection of that presidential ticket? Not only no, but fuck no.”

    As chair of the LPCt, I will remind people that we passed a resolution stating that the national convention should honor the decisions of the judicial committee regarding whether or not any delegation should be seated.

    While I think it would be wrong for the Wagner faction not to put Johnson on the tiket, it was very wrong for the Reeves faction to even file suit in the first place at the time it did. Both sides knew a lawsuit would be a lose/lose situation. One side gets it. The Plaintiffs do not.

  173. George Phillies

    @183 You know people who are willing to do a lot of work and spend a lot of money for the party do not exactly grow on trees. I suspect they are all already involved in the LPO, one way or another.

    There is a complete disagreement at the moment between the two groups as to who the party’s members are, or what the correct way of consulting them is, a convention for 13,000 people being inconvenient to arrange, so ‘call a convention’ actually presupposes that one side is right.

  174. fred

    I am a registered Libertarian voter in Oregon and familiar with both sides of the conflict. It is easy to make a judgement if you have already chosen who you do or don’t believe, but the situation has a lot of complexity and nuances and both sides seem to be trying to back the other into a corner.
    There have been subtle political maneuverings that have severe legal consequences involved. Both groups seem to be utilizing these tactics to gain support for their sides of the lawsuit that the Reeves faction initiated.
    However, one group of people own the ballot access for Oregon. Its the registered Libertarians in Oregon. The national party does not own the rights to who we put on the ballot.
    I strongly advocate for putting Gary Johnson on the ballot in Oregon–but the decision is not mine alone to make. It is the decision of all the registered voters in Oregon.
    Currently the “Wagner faction” is recognized by Oregon’s SOS as the group that represents Oregon’s registered Libertarian voters. Who the national party does or does not recognize is irrelevant.
    If any of you from outside of Oregon believe that you have a right to decide who we put on our ballot-I would suggest that you should rethink your position.

  175. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dan @188,

    I apologize for not breaking out the delegate vote on seating by state. I suspect that Connecticut was not the only state affiliate which supported seating the actual affiliate’s delegation. My statement should have read something more like:

    “Do they owe that to the LNC, or to a convention which voted away their representation in the selection of that presidential ticket?”

    And the answer remains “no.”

    However, as Fred notes @190, the Oregon LP’s primary obligation is not to the LNC or the convention anyay. It is to its members, the registered Libertarian voters of Oregon. And of those members who care one way or another, I suspect a super-majority would if consulted support putting the same presidential ticket on the Oregon ballot as will appear on most other state ballots this November.

  176. Carol Moore

    I gave up reading 1/2 way through since no one brought up the most obvious issue: why in the world would the Johnson campaign LET a representative shoot their mouth off to someone in Oregon, even if there was an extremely explicit threat?? (Which I doubt there was.) Johnson is too smart a politician. And if some unauthorized minor person did it, it would seem he would squash the rumor, at least internally in the LP, since the media doubtless will ignore such a silly and unsubstantiated minor inter-party squabble.

  177. Ad Hoc

    Sorry, what are you talking about Ms. Moore? What campaign representative shooting mouth off to whom….? Andy why would Johnson personally be dealing with it?

    A candidate’s job in a campaign is doing media, public speaking, some thanking/encouraging donors and volunteers, signing papers that require the candidate’s signature.

    If the Johnson campaign is being well run this would never reach his desk, so how smart of a politician he is matters here…why?

  178. Carol Moore

    @194: Any candidate not in charge of his campaign doesn’t know if people are stealing money from him, writing crazy stuff and putting it out under his name, or anonymously trashing people for their own good, even if it hurts the campaign. Someone should talk to Johnson directly about this. There’s always the next town hall! I asked about some psychopaths representing their own narrow special interests trashing Judge Gray last time and while he didn’t exactly address the concept of “trashing” he did give us important campaign details related to the issue Gray is being trashed about. So ask him: How can you keep the Oregon squabble from hurting ballot access and support for your campaign in Oregon??

  179. George Phillies

    @194 is out of touch with the reality of Libertarian-scale Presidential campaigns, when competently managed. Candidates who ignore what their campaign apparatus is going are disasters waiting to happen. Sometimes it does happen, as a perusal of the history of our party will reveal.

  180. Ad Hoc

    The Johnson campaign is not being operated with the assumption that it will be at such a small scale, from what I’ve seen. That may well be a mistake, but they are working on the assumption that they will be much bigger than that.

  181. Be Rational

    Setting up a campaign with high overhead expenses from the outset can saddle the campaign with such high costs that it is impossible for the campaign to spread its message and actually grow to become a large campaign.

    Witness the Barr 2008 campaign which spent far too much for setting up and outfitting office space for a major campaign. What did they put into media? Did they grow the campaign?

    LP Presidential campaigns should start out with overhead as low as possible – find a shoe box to operate from, little to no paid staff, get your money out on campaign building, organizing, TV and ballot access first.

  182. Ad Hoc

    I agree.

    Johnson’s campaign seems to be repeating some of Barr’s mistakes in that regard.

    Their messaging is better, but their operations could stand to improve.

  183. George Phillies

    @200 That was the defense offered after the election by the Badnarik Congressional campaign.

    @203 On the other hand, it will be clear after the election how Johnson did, and who supported him before the election.

  184. Robert Capozzi

    203 cm, GJ IMO should definitely NOT get into the muck of internal LP squabbles. He’s on stage now. He needs to focus.

  185. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@205,

    I guess it depends on what you mean by “into the muck.”

    If I was Johnson, I’d spend about ten minutes on an open letter to the two factions in Oregon, along the following lines:

    —–
    As a presidential candidate, my job is to offer Oregon’s voters a viable Libertarian alternative to the major party nominees, not to take sides in internal party disputes.

    I’m aware that both sides in the dispute in Oregon claim to represent the Libertarian Party in that state, and to act on behalf of the Libertarian voters of that state.

    I humbly submit to both factions that supporting my campaign, including placing my name on the Oregon ballot in November, is in the best interests of the Libertarian Party and of Oregon’s Libertarian voters, and that this remains true regardless of the merits of the factions’ rival claims. I hope both factions will do the right thing on that subject, for the party and for their constituents, their other disagreements notwithstanding.
    —–

    Or something to that effect.

  186. JT

    Holtz: “This reminds me of when Homer said to Bart: “We could argue about who forgot to pick up who from school until the cows come home. So let’s just say we’re both wrong and leave it at that.”

    Haha! Agreed, Brian.

Leave a Reply

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