Wes Wagner Launches Alternative Libertarian State Chairs Group

Via George Phillies at Gold USA Group and Wes Wagner at Third Party Report:

Oregon State Chair Wes Wagner has sent an electronic letter to his fellow state chairs, saying:

Dear State Chairs,

I am writing you because of the issues that have been facing the LSLA. You may recall the resignation of previous LSLA chair Michael Johnston due to issues he had cited with the LSLA leadership. You may or may not be aware (as referenced in his letter) that I was removed from the state chairs mailing list by M Carling in 2011 and since then Mr. Starr has not added me back. I am the Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon according to the Oregon Secretary of State, the National LP (you will note they link the official LP Oregon website). This is of course not without controversy, but that controversy was started by Richard Burke, M Carling, and funded by Aaron Starr in an attempt to place a puppet regime into control of a state affiliate. I can provide this link if you really want to use it as a jumping off point to detail the entire Oregon affair so you can understand how deep the rabbit hole goes but that is not the core issue of this email, it is only the impetus for it.

Mr. Johnston’s resignation came amid a flurry of different controversial items. In my opinion it takes a very special and talented set of people to take an organization whose charter is seemingly so benign and create so much controversy with it. Given that the organization has seemingly become a platform for the political ambitions of some of its principals as well as apparently the economic interests of some of their personal contacts, I believe it is important to do two things so that the purpose the LSLA once represented can be fulfilled:

1) A new mailing list with all participants is created and administered fairly
2) A group of state chairs should create a new organization to fulfill the original purpose of the LSLA

I am already doing #1 (lpchairs@googlegroups.com) , and will pass control of it to whoever performs task #2. Anyone willing to do #2 and has assembled a small team to organize and call the state chairs conference for 2013 (sic), please contact me so I can discuss your budgetary needs for bootstrapping the organization. If you can provide the time, energy and honest intent, I will get you the resources you need to bootstrap it.

Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

64 thoughts on “Wes Wagner Launches Alternative Libertarian State Chairs Group

  1. Chuck Moulton

    There were a flurry of response emails among state chairs when this was initially sent out (November 10).

    The gist was pretty much all state chairs said they don’t have time for this bickering. About half the responses were not fans of Wagner. The other half wanted Wagner to be added to the existing state chairs’ list in the interest of fairness. (Burke is currently on the state chairs list and Wagner is not even though Wagner is recognized by the Judicial Committee, the LNC, and LP staff.) I fall in the latter category myself.

    There was also a poor woman who kept pointing out a wrong email address got put on Wagner’s email blast (she wasn’t a Libertarian and doesn’t live in the U.S.), begging people to stop replying to all. And one state chair only found out there is a state chairs list and a LSLA organization because Wagner emailed about it.

    Anyway, as far as I know there isn’t much traffic so far. I see 3 messages on the list itself — all from November 10-11.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/lpchairs

    A bunch of state chairs asked the LSLA leadership to add Wagner to the state chairs list, and they completely ignored the request. It wasn’t even put on the agenda of their regular conference calls — let alone discussed or decided on.

    I’m very skeptical that the LSLA board actually represents the group that it claims to (state chairs). We can all clean house at the next state chairs conference if they continue to ignore the state chairs though.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for the update, Chuck. It’s beyond me why everyone just doesn’t accept that the Oregon thing seems to be pretty much over, accept it, and get on with things. I do believe the Reeves lawsuit is still going on, though. I suppose they can drag it out for years if they want to.

  3. Wes Wagner

    JP @6

    We may get an initial trial date set sometime mid to late 2013… in theory. Depositions are starting soon.

    CM @5

    Regarding the person who was pleading about not being a state chair, that was a mistake in the national contact list. I have notified HQ.

    Further I believe my original point of the message was proven by the actions of the LSLA leadership.

  4. Mark Axinn

    Wes and Chuck are correct.

    I am one of the many state chairs who (1) never, ever, ever wants to hear about the Oregon dispute again, and (2) believes that representatives from both sides in the Oregon dispute should be added to the LSLA list as an interim action. Accordingly, I wrote to the LSLA Secretary urging such action forthwith.

  5. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    The Oregon matter is finally at issue in the courts and is not “pretty much over” as asserted in #6. All of the motions to dismiss the case brought by the Wagner side – and there were many – have been rejected by the courts. While Wagner’s side may have a few delay options left to them, their strategy of delay and attrition has failed and will fail.

    To refresh, the Wagner side:

    1. Attempted to unilaterally replace the LPO governing documents approved by members in conventions with ones they write themselves at a state committee meeting, not a convention as required (with no member notice).

    2. Elect themselves to office under their new documents, and,

    3. Cancel a session of convention called by delegates in convention, proposed by Wagner himself.

    Nobody denies any of these facts, and that is the core of our legal complaint. Nobody, even on this website, has asserted that it would be OK of the LNC took such actions at a normal LNC meeting, nor have they asserted that it would be OK if similar actions were taken in their state.

    After this, the matter was brought to the LNC. The LNC executive committee and the full LNC voted (12-5) to recognize the LPO as organized by members in convention as legitimate (never reversed), and Wagner (after literally flipping off the LNC via email) made appeal to the national Judicial Committee. Judcomm, contrary to what Wagner’s side would have you believe, did not say that Wagner’s side was right or legitimate. Instead, they (amazingly) said that the LNC should defer to the state with regard to determining who our leaders are.

    The state, for it’s part, while recognizing Wagner’s side as legitimate for the moment, realizes that the matter is in dispute and has said that they will look to the courts for a final determination. In the meantime, they have not stopped the legitimate LPO State Committee under Tim Reeves from functioning as such despite several harassing official complaints and allegations from the Wagner side.

    In any case, if the courts decide in our favor, the Secretary of State will follow the courts and the LNC would be forced to follow suit because of the Judicial Committee ruling which said the LNC should defer to the state.

    So, although it has taken a lot of time, things are going our way thus far in the big picture. Our side has been blamed for wasting time and money on this dispute, but it should be remembered that the coup was initiated by Wagner’s crew, not LPO members or any of our people.

    Nobody can guarantee a specific trial date, but this IS coming to trial and there will be a resolution based on the facts, not the passion. That Wagner’s side is trying to create “facts on the ground” by holding meetings and such will not matter. It will be decided on the facts.

    Recent legal tactics used by the Wagner side seem to suggest that they know that their coup is in trouble and that they, as a backup plan, will attack the legitimacy of the required State Committee meeting held after the legitimate convention adjourned on May 21, 2011. Again, it was Wagner himself who proposed the May 21st session which was approved by members assembled in convention on March 12, 2011.

    Regarding the LSLA. All should be reminded that the LSLA is independent of the LNC and the national Judicial Committee. LSLA can make their own determinations regarding who is legitimate. In Oregon’s case the LSLA have taken actions consistent with recognizing the legitimate bylaws adopted by LPO members in convention and leaders elected according to processes outlined in those documents.

    In contrast, the LNC is functioning as the Judicial Committee has directed to despite the resolutions it passed in opposition to Wagner. I don’t blame them for that, even though the 4-3 Judicial Committee decision was decided by Lee Wrights who had two conflicts of interest (as a presidential candidate who could be impacted by who might send delegations and as a live-in partner of the woman who argued in favor of Wagner’s side).

    The good news is that the Judicial Committee ruling is structured in such a way that when the courts rule in our favor, the LNC will be obliged to recognize the Reeves group and all of Wagner’s machinations during the almost two years past will be moot. Including his idea for an alternate state chair list.

    At that point, if Wagner’s people want to change the LPO’s governance or have a say in who gets elected to party office, they will have to organize support at an LPO convention, rather than try to pull a coup within State Committee, just like all other LPO members.

    Richard P. Burke, Libertarian Party of Oregon
    Chair, Libertarian Party of Washington County
    LPWC State Committee Representative

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    Mr. Burke, what do you say about the vote that was in August or September, where something like 96 % of the respondees okayed the by-law changes put forth by the Wagner group? Also, didn’t the Wagner group put over 30 people on the ballot, compared to the four your group had ready to run for office, some of whom had dubious allegiance to the LP? Doesn’t that indicate to you that the Libertarians in Oregon have made their decision?

  7. Richard P. Burke

    #10,

    If this was a dead horse, it would have been dismissed in court. The horse is very much alive.

    #11,

    The vote only took place after only one side of the arguement had been put forth by those on the Wagner side. Wagner did put over 30 people on the ballot, but many of them were not registered Libetarians – they were cross nominated. Under the legitimate bylaws, even more candidates were nominated who were registered Libertarian electors in previous elections. Naturally, given the state of affairs, nothing is happening as usual.

    Richard P. Burke

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    Oh, cool, Richard, I’ll go to the Secretary of State’s site and see how far they go back. I’m curious about the amount of candidates from the past few years. I plan to look into it this week.

  9. Oregon Libertarian

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Reeves group, the one that Richard Burke claims is the legitimate party, nominated only 3 candidates in their supposed nomination convention – two of which are Republican and one Libertarian…And I heard that the Libertarian did not even know he was nominated too.

    Jill, I did vote in Oregon and know that you will find that Richard Burke is out right lying and only posting such lies to evoke and emotional response from Wes Wagner. In most forums such a post is called “trolling” and is grounds for banishment.

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    I amended my comment so that I wouldn’t call Mr. Burke a liar without proof, but I suspect he isn’t being truthful and a little bit of detective work should prove it. I can’t do it tonight because we’re about to go to a late movie, but I’ll report here in the next few days with what I find.

  11. Marc Montoni

    I’ve said all this before. You never did answer:

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

    There is no question that the entire situation is ridiculous; but it is made more ridiculous by attempting to impose RR. You got M to hamstring the LP of Oregon with bureaucratese, so have him provide some documentation for the legitimacy of his own position. So here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – They must have submitted an app to LP OR

    – They must have paid their LP OR dues

    – They must have kept their membership current at least through the day they ‘met’ and appointed Tim Reeves et al (if there were any lapses in their membership, a la your position on Lee Wrights, they would have been ineligible and thus they would not have any vote in the proceedings).

    – They must be current members of their affiliate organization

    – They must be registered to vote

    – They must have been appointed to be one of the two county affiliate’s representatives either by a vote of the county affiliate’s board, or by action of the county chair, depending on the county affiliate’s rules

    – Their appointment as a county representative to the state committtee must be supported by county affiliate meeting minutes showing details of their appointment

    – Their appointment as a county representative to the state committtee must have been communicated to the LP-OR at some point; is a copy of each such notice available?

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

    But that’s not the point.

    Burke, you and friends spent many years controlling the state party. You incurred debt and did little to counter the nationwide trend of declining membership. Your own actions turned many people who had been your friends into enemies — some quite vocal.

    Why don’t you just move on?

    Burke, you’ve had your day. M has had his say. I’ve had mine. This has been going on for the better part of two decades that I’m aware of, and you have been at the center of it for years.

  12. From Der Sidelines

    @12:

    Sometimes it takes a long time for the flogger to realize the horse is dead while others watch in bemusement as the flogger mistakes the impacts for life motions…

  13. Richard P. Burke

    #16,

    What does “just grow up” mean to you in this context?

    #15,

    The 2004 and 2006 elections showed the LPO at it’s height, with the most partisan candidates who were registered Libertarians in party history. Because some of them ran as partisan candidates for county commissioner, they won’t all show up on the Sec. of state’s website. But most of them will.

    All of you… these are sideline issues. None of this disputes the fact that Mr. Wagner’s coup was wrong or that similar actions would be accepted from the LNC or in your states.

    Richard P. Burke

  14. Pojunis resigns from LPNV State Committee

    @19 Thank you for this most excellent summary of issues.

    It is extremely unfortunate that when Carling and Mattson showed up in Oregon that Weston did not tell them to take a hike, and let the state convention vote on whether or not he was right. However, Weston did what he felt was right so we have the current issues.

    At some point, there will be advance to the litigation over discovery. Goddess willing, I may even live the needed number of decades.

  15. Marc Montoni

    Hmmmm…. “Libertarian Party of Washington County”.

    When was the Washington County convention that elected you?

    Are the minutes available on the Washington County LP’s website?

    How about the Bylaws?

    Who’s the Secretary who signed off on those Minutes?

    What are the names of the rest of the officers?

    Was the state party sent copies of the minutes of said convention?

    When was the Libertarian Party of Washington County formed?

    Who was the previous chair?

    Oh, and is RR the parliamentary authority for the Libertarian Party of Washington County? If so, what’s quorum for a convention/general membership meeting?

    What’s quorum for the county committee meetings?

    Oh, of course — you have all this ready for court.

  16. Be Rational

    Burke, you are power mad, you are emotionally overwrought, you are trying to prove yourself and redeem yourself – and whatever the decision in any court at this point you will still lose in the eyes of the interested observer , so you can never achieve this goal, and you have obstructed and impeded the LP in OR and nationwide to a lesser degree for many long years … and it is time for you to give up, drop your suit and allow the LP OR and the LP nationwide to move ahead without you.

    What you need to do for the LP is get out of the way. Let the OR LP and the rest of us move on. If you wish to contribute time and money and actually advance the cause of liberty, you can do so as a volunteer at the very local level, but you should never again take on any leadership role – you do not have the personal attributes required.

    Everything in your LP participation to date clearly indicates that the only goals you have concern satisfying your own personality needs and recovery from personality defects through public power seeking in this very small venue.

    On the personal level, you should seek professional counseling and help with your issues instead of self-medicating through public forums and the legal system.

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    RDB: “None of this disputes the fact that Mr. Wagner’s coup was wrong or that similar actions would be accepted from the LNC or in your states.”

    I do not agree with you that Wagner’s coup was wrong. Many people do not agree with you. Perhaps you haven’t grasped that fact.

  18. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Martoni,

    Regarding the May 21st session of the LPO convention, the minutes, sign-in sheets, official LPO membership lists, and other records you seek have already been provided to the Wagner side, the LNC, the Oregon Secretary of State, and will no doubt come up in court. You are not the one I need to convince.

    County level documents are being likewise provided.

    It is ironic that I have been accused of a power grab given that it is Mr. Wagner’s side which purportedly re-wrote LPO bylaws outside of a convention without notice to the members, attempted to elect themselves to office under the bylaws they wrote, and then attempted to cancel a session of convention set by LPO members in convention.

    Nobody disputes those facts. It’s on video. Isn’t that the very definition of a power grab? If not, how does one square that?

    Jill @26 is correct in her response to my assertion given how I worded it (badly), but I meant to say (as I have before) that I have not heard anyone say they would accept similar actions if they were taken by the LNC.

    In contrast to the Wagner side, I do not seek any officer position and support LPO governing documents approved by members in convention over many years. I have been active in the LPO and even worked for the LPO. But I haven’t held an officer position on the State Committee for over eleven years. I too would like to see changes to the LPO’s legitimate governing documents, but will only pursue them in accordance with our party’s bylaws as I always have.

    So who is guilty of a power grab here? Delegates at our national convention clearly made their choice, when the matter came to the floor, as did the national Credentials Committee and the LNC itself. The Judicial Committee didn’t even say that Wagner was right, but deferred to the state elections office to tell us who our leaders are (!) which has said that they will wait for the court to decide. And they will.

    Wagner’s side is strutting pretty large and trying to create facts on the ground, but the ice is melting under their feet. I think they know it.

    I actually applaud the desire and basic impulse of Wagner and others to make the LPO better even though their methods are as un-libertarian as anything I’ve ever seen. And despite my obvious frustration with their methods, I wish them no personal ill will. I just want to affirm the legitimacy of the LPO as organized by it’s members in properly called conventions. We can fight about who the leaders should be later. If it is Wagner, fine. But I doubt he’ll get the chance again after this. He ticked off more people than I could ever dream ticking off. Wes’ 9 votes for LNC chair offers a taste of that.

    If Wagner’s actions are allowed to stand, any future group could do the same thing Wagner’s group did. There would never be stability within the organization, and the rights and privileges of members would only exist by the whims of whichever group is in power. That doesn’t reflect any form of libertarianism I care to be associated with, and I would hope most of the people on this blog would agree with at least that much. THAT is the main reason we have worked so hard to defend the LPO as it is legitimately organized, warts and all.

    This has been a long haul and a destructive one, but we think it will turn out OK. In the long run, we think it will be better for our long term growth if we can establish that our governing documents can only be altered in accordance with the rules we voluntarily adopt for ourselves.

    And that’s all I am going to say about it. The courts will take it from here. The judge’s opinion is the only one that matters now.

    Richard P. Burke

  19. Marc Montoni

    You are not the one I need to convince.

    Yet here you are, trying to convince me and everyone else of your righteousness.

    By the way, you might want to remember that documents created ex post facto in an attempt to influence the court don’t count. I hope you’re not going down that road.

    County level documents are being likewise provided.

    So… if one of your partisans from something like “Hamhock County” (names changed to something more appropriate and to protect the guilty) has been the “chair” there since like the last ice age, yet no meetings, much less any elections, have been held since, well maybe the Maunder Minimum??

    If you’re submitting ‘documentation’ from those kinds of “affiliates”, then your lawsuit is in real trouble.

    I know affiliate party recordkeeping very well — and I *really* doubt all of the above-listed documentation existed.

    I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it will happen.

    Have fun with your plaything.

    And grow up.

  20. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Montoni,

    As I said, I’m not going to argue these fine points anymore. I’ll leave it with the judge, whose opinion is the only one that counts.

    I find it interesting that your questions of late (and those of most of the people participating in this thread) consistently concern the actions of LPO members assembled in convention, and at the subsequent state committee meeting, on May 21, 2011.

    That is interesting to me because it underscores the fact that those on Wagner’s side rarely wish to talk about what Wagner’s group did on March 31, 2011 when they staged their coup… and then failed to perform in their official capacities at the May 21 session of the convention proposed by Wagner himself and then approved by a majority of those LPO members assembled in convention on March 12, 2011 in an attempt to reach quorum.

    The defense shaping up seems to be, “Well, maybe what we did was in violation of the bylaws, but what they did didn’t count either… even though it was their job to make sure the May 21 session came off right.” One never knows what will happen in cases like this, but I’m glad like our position a lot better than I would like to be in their position.

    Unless you live in Oregon or are a dues paying member of the LPO as organized by governing documents approved by members in convention, I am curious about why you care about this do much. I am curious why you think it is OK to reorganize a party outside of convention without notice to the members, if you indeed think this way. And if not, why you are defending Wagner? Do you think the ends justify the means?

    Richard P. Burke

  21. Joe Buchman

    I find all this incredible — as in “lacking in credibility.” As were the likewise incredible claims dating back almost a year now that these legal issues would be settled in a court of law PRIOR to the deadline for submitting candidate names to the Oregon SOS.

    Laughable in retrospect.

    As were the more urgent appeals from Aaron Starr, M. Carling, Scott Liberman and others that the campaign needed to sever ties with Wes Wagner and all the Libertarian candidates associated with him in order to assure Governor Johnson’s name would be on the ballot.

    What a (expletive deleted) joke.

    I know some in the campaign relied on those (let’s say “at the very least rather overly optimistic” mis-) characterizations about the “guaranteed” timing of judicial relief which generated a fair amount of turmoil, uncertainty, the infamous Liberman “let ballot access be damned to “win” in Oregon” emails, and a fair amount of additional, utterly unnecessary work, for several of us — and certainly for me personally.

    At one point I told Ron that if these legal matters were settled prior to the SOS deadline for ballot access, as Arron and others apparently “guaranteed” they would be, that I would (quote) “Eat the “Mormons don’t let Mormons vote for Mitt Romney” button I had given him.”

    Why ANY one would have imagined for even a moment that any of this would have been settled last summer is a bit beyond my ability to comprehend as anything other than the (again in retrospect) clearly self-evident dishonest misrepresentation for purposes OTHER than advancing the cause of Liberty, much less the LP, or the Johnson campaign.

    It seems the same is going on here again.

    For what it’s worth, in contrast, I found Mr. Wagner’s representations to have been accurate and trustworthy regarding his promise to put Governor Johnson on the ballot (albeit at the last minute in order, IMO, to legitimately minimize the likelihood of further legal action against him (and not for the various nefarious motives others threw as accusations).

    I also appreciated the high quality of the candidates associated with him, at least to the degree I was able to vette those in Oregon who requested the Governor’s endorsement (a smaller number than might otherwise have partnered with us if not for these ongoing legal threats and, well, lies.

    Bottom line: either win your lawsuits (put up) or shut up.

    This, as well as all the distractions around this issue from last spring through at least August, have proved to be nothing but a (perhaps slanderous) waste of time.

    Joe

  22. Richard P. Burke

    Joe,

    Obviously, those of us on our side were overly optimistic regarding when this issue might be settled. Of course, Wagner’s obvious delay tactics had a lot to do with that and fair people will agree. Their motions to dismiss the case were groundless, as demonstrated by the fact that they were all thrown out.

    We wanted to move quickly. They wanted to avoid getting to the core of the case. That should tell you a lot.

    I am happy and relieved that Wagner finally deigned to put the Johnson ticket on the ballot, but there was a lot of posturing and drama which led up to that. There were insinuations that he might not, and discussions about them have appeared on IPR. Given this, I think our concerns were grounded. Fortunately, Wagner was smart enough to know he would have become a pariah within the LP had he failed to back Johnson in the end. So he wisely put Johnson on the ballot.

    Concerning credibility, you might recall that Wagner and his supporters seemed to assert that we would do whatever we could to remove Johnson from the ballot. That didn’t happen either. So his clock is not always right either.

    As far as Wagner’s candidates went, you apparently didn’t dig very deep in your vetting process. While both sides did some cross nominating, Wagner’s side made it an art form including the nomination for congress of a Progressive Party member whose views are as socialistic as they come.

    Libertarian candidates performed dismally at the polls in Oregon. In partisan offices at every level featuring more than than three candidates, no LP candidate who was a registered Libertarian did better than 4th place, except Gary Johnson, anywhere in the state. Check the results yourself.

    But at least a lot of candidates got the message out, right? WRONG. In the Oregon’s Voter’s Pamphlet, mailed to every voter in the state, only TWO libertarians (who were registered Libertarians) appeared in the one distributed in my area – Johnson, and a woman running for state senate who apparently forgot to include her picture. No statement for Attorney General, Secretary of State, or State Treasurer. Compare that with 2002, 2004 and 2006. I’ll rest on that.

    But this is all a sideshow. You tell me to “win our lawsuit (put up) or shut up.” Your point is well taken, and we are trying to do just that.

    But before telling us how we wasted so much time, you might consider that there would be no court case had Mr. Wagner’s group not attempted to pull a coup. Had they worked within the legitimate bylaws they would still have been in charge (they were at the time) and had we worked together, we might have made quorum at the May 21, 2011 convention session – that was the point of calling the session in the first place.

    Had we failed, we could have jointly asked a judge for relief from the quorum requirement and crafted a narrow amendment to fix it. Or come up with another solution. But a coup was NOT the answer and compounded every problem the LPO has.

    Wagner’s people might not have liked the way the organization was structured, but they were already leading it and would be able to work for amendments over time. We could have overcome the quorum problem in a variety of less destructive ways – everyone wanted to meet quorum. We might have had factional problems (what political party doesn’t?), but we didn’t have THESE kinds of problems before Wagner’s coup. If you insist on laying blame, make sure you bear this in mind.

    Richard P. Burke

  23. Steven R Linnabary

    Delegates at our national convention clearly made their choice, when the matter came to the floor, as did the national Credentials Committee and the LNC itself.

    IIRC, the National Credentials Committee did NOT decide in the Burke factions’ favor, but rather worked out a compromise between the two factions. Neither side had a full delegate slate, and half of both factions listed the same delegates. The compromise was that BOTH factions would be seated together. Sadly, less mature individuals wasted convention time and created a situation where one state chair was forced to find another state delegation to be seated with.

    It is way past time for people to grow up and work together.

    PEACE

  24. Oregon Libertarian

    Steven,
    I remember that Mr. Richard Burke blocked the seating of Wes Wagner in the Georgia delegation and the seating of a few others as well on the Sunday morning by requiring a full 2/3 vote. Mark Hinkle was clearly unhappy with what Richard Burke was doing though and he asked Richard Burke if he really wanted to proceed.

    I like to hear your side of what happened with the National Credentials Committee. What was said, who said what, and more importantly what was promised and stated as facts by M. Carling.

  25. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Linnabury @33,

    No motion for any compromise was voted on at the national convention regarding the Oregon delegation. Those of us in the Reeves delegation, recognized by the Credentials Committee, volunteered to back fill our delegation with LPO members from the Wagner delegation. I believe our attempt to be reasonable in this regard showed our goodwill, and delegates responded accordingly.

    No promises were made at the Credentials Committee meeting where they decided to back the Reeves delegation, although we may have offered to back fill our delegation with Wagner delegates. But there is no need to speculate. I’m sure anyone with questions can view the minutes of the meeting.

    Richard P. Burke

  26. Chuck Moulton

    Richard P. Burke wrote (@20):

    All of you… these are sideline issues. None of this disputes the fact that Mr. Wagner’s coup was wrong or that similar actions would be accepted from the LNC or in your states.

    Yes, this is all a sideline issue. Courts are going to decide which is the legitimate slate of officers. I don’t know who will win — neither outcome would be surprising to me.

    The actual issue is until that time why does LSLA allow the Reeves group access to the state chairs email list while denying access to the Wagner group? It is especially strange since the judicial committee and the national office has recognized the Wagner group.

    Richard P. Burke wrote (@28):

    In contrast to the Wagner side, I do not seek any officer position and support LPO governing documents approved by members in convention over many years. I have been active in the LPO and even worked for the LPO. But I haven’t held an officer position on the State Committee for over eleven years.

    You claim to not be an officer. Yet you are on the state chairs email list and regularly post there while Wagner is denied access to that list.

    I count 14 messages from Richard Burke to the state chairs list since April. I see zero messages from Tim Reeves to the state chairs list. In yesterday’s message to the state chairs list you (Burke) sent an affiliate news report on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to staff. Tim Reeves was CCed, but he said nothing and the report was clearly composed by you rather than him.

    Reeves may be the state chair of that slate of officers, but it is in name only. Burke is the de-facto chair of the Reeves faction, which does not comport with the assertion “In contrast to the Wagner side, I do not seek any officer position”.

  27. Marc Montoni

    As I said, I’m not going to argue these fine points anymore. I’ll leave it with the judge, whose opinion is the only one that counts.

    Excellent! So we’ll never hear from you again, right?

    I find it interesting that your questions of late (and those of most of the people participating in this thread) consistently concern the actions of LPO members assembled in convention, and at the subsequent state committee meeting, on May 21, 2011.

    I find it interesting that people like you 1) seem to think your crap doesn’t stink, 2) are either intentionally or unintentionally oblivious to the effect that their own actions have on others; and 3) it is you and yours who keep bringing the subject up.

    That is interesting to me because it underscores the fact that those on Wagner’s side rarely wish to talk about what Wagner’s group did on March 31, 2011 when they staged their coup… and then failed to perform in their official capacities at the May 21 session of the convention proposed by Wagner himself and then approved by a majority of those LPO members assembled in convention on March 12, 2011 in an attempt to reach quorum.

    What I saw was a bunch of wimp-a-tarian “mainstreamer” or “reformer” Libertarians hamstringing every attempt to hold a convention by claiming no quorum.

    What I saw was a continual wearing down of Oregon LP members by you and your quorum bs.

    What I saw was less and less likelihood of LPOR ever meeting quorum because what member in their right mind is going to continue making the effort to travel hundreds of miles to attend a useless meeting that will be shut down?

    What I saw was Burke, Carling, and two or three other close friends intent upon burning the house down until you were the only ones left.

    What I saw was the majority of LP-OR members staying away from the may 21 meeting, which was attended only by you and your tiny coterie of hooded key holders. The fact that hardly anyone attended your May 21 meeting speaks volumes.

    What I saw was a preordained conclusion: You knew damn well few would bother to come to your convention — you had made sure of that — and if Wagner and company showed up, you would again claim no quorum, then you’d hold your un-noticed, extra-legal committee meeting and throw out Wagner and the other officers anyway. Oh, and you’d claim it was perfectly legal.

    Unless you live in Oregon or are a dues paying member of the LPO as organized by governing documents approved by members in convention, I am curious about why you care about this do much.

    Maybe because you came on here and played the innocent, aggrieved victim?

    I actually fell on the Hinkle/Mattson/Burke side of things when I first heard about what was going on. Hell, I supported Hinkle for chair on his first run, and pretty much trusted him to do the right thing in most matters. But as your fiasco continued, and the feathers kept flying onto IPR and elsewhere, I started reading source material — like your own damn bylaws, watching video of a meeting where a Libertarian assaulted another Libertarian, and convention notes — and I realized I had discovered just another in a long line of people in the LP who have some difficulty keeping their Aspergers or sociopathic tendencies under control. I’ve seen you before — although you were a different sex, had a different name, and it was a different time.

    I swear, you guys are all connected. I am convinced that if one of you ever dies, 5 or 10 % of the population will fall down dead at the exact same moment.

    If you don’t want non-Oregonians to comment on Oregon events, don’t come on here and tell stories to a national audience.

    I am curious why you think it is OK to reorganize a party outside of convention without notice to the members, if you indeed think this way.

    I don’t. I have stated repeatedly that I don’t. You just choose not to acknowledge it.

    But I also don’t think it was OK for you and your supporters to rack up the kind of record that made people so angry they felt they had to use the nuclear option.

    And if not, why you are defending Wagner?

    I’m not. Wagner himself will tell you that I have counseled him extensively to give up some things to make peace; and I have also stated at various times that I do not agree with his methods.

    But I also do not agree with yours. Especially when you keep bringing up Wrights, while keeping a blind eye towards the petulant, childish actions of Carling (who allegedly had training in appropriate behavior, because he got a credential from the National Association of Parliamentarians — a credential which, apparently, is utterly meaningless the way he abuses it).

    Do you think the ends justify the means?

    Do *you*?

  28. George Phillies

    @36 The interesting question is why the LNC is subsidizing at some level the claims of the Burke faction. Subsidizing? Yes. The LSLA functions via the “State chairs” list, which is used to broadcast propaganda from the Burke faction. The “State Chairs” list runs on the LNC servers. That’s a direct subsidy of the Burke faction propaganda machine by the “State Chairs” list.

    I put “State Chairs” in quotes. When the immediately former Chair of the LSLA with the support of many other state chairs said that Wes Wagner should be added to the “State Chairs” list, nothing happened. When the immediately former Chair of the LSLA asked who was on the “State Chairs” list, the LSLA Secretary who runs the list did not answer. And who is that Secretary? Aaron Starr. Just as the “Reeves Faction” appears to be a creation of Mr Burke –readers may note how many Reeves Faction officers showed up at their own state convention — so also the LSLA appears to be the private fiefdom of Mr Starr and his cronies.

  29. George Phillies

    @39 Keep up the good word.

    However, applicable word of the day is, I believe “mumpsimus”, which is not a reference to a certain childhood disease of day gone by.

  30. Tom Blanton

    How about Mr. Martini? That would go pretty good with white shoes, a paisley ascot and some mirror shades.

    Anyway, maybe Wagner and Burke could settle this thing with a wrestling match. I’m not talking that sissy crap where they get on their hands and knees and hug each other. I’m talking WWE-style wrestling. The LP could turn it into a fund raiser event.

    Or, they could just have a regular knife fight.

    It’s just so shocking to see political hacks playing politics to gain political power in a political party involved in the political process. Who would have ever thunk something like that could happen? Well, you know what they say: politics makes for strange bed sores.

  31. Bruce Alexander Knight

    Richard Burke continues to make contradictory claims within short periods, reinforcing his reputation for saying anything that suits his momentary purpose.

    In comment #9, above, he writes, “The Oregon matter is finally at issue in the courts and is not “pretty much over” as asserted in #6.” But two days ago he sent the LP News a “news item from Oregon” announcing his faction’s planned March 9 convention, claiming, “Pending legal action over matters concerning the form and control over the LPO are expected to be completed by that time, offering the LPO a chance to recover lost gains and build it’s organization and political relevance.”

    As one of the defendants, advised by first-rate attorneys, I can imagine only two ways for the lawsuit to be finished by March 9: the judge could dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit, or the plaintiffs could drop it. Otherwise the plaintiffs’ sole attorney will need more time than that just to go through the thousands of pages of material we defendants will be submitting in response to the 30 questions (many of them very broad) in the plaintiffs’ discovery motion.

    In #28 Burke says, “Wagner’s side is strutting pretty large and trying to create facts on the ground, but the ice is melting under their feet. I think they know it.”

    Our feet are solidly on the ground. We are not “trying to” but actually creating facts on the ground: mailing LPO primary election ballots to all 13,000+ registered Oregon Libertarian voters last June, conducting a fair election to nominate more candidates than the party has in years, holding regular Board meetings and unofficial social gatherings, planning for next spring’s Board of Directors elections and convention, and keeping our state party’s debt to zero (it was over $30,000 when the “Wagner faction” was elected unopposed to clean up the party in March 2011).

    Despite Mr Burke’s disingenuous news releases, Oregon’s news media concur with the Secretary of State in recognizing us as the LPO’s legitimate officials. Just this fall I’ve had letters published in The Oregonian daily and the Portland Tribune weekly with “Secretary, Libertarian Party of Oregon” under my name, and was interviewed on KOPB radio in that capacity. In my experience as a writer, party official and candidate, most news people seem to have pretty good BS detectors.

    Most ironically, Burke ends #28 with, “And that’s all I am going to say about it. The courts will take it from here. The judge’s opinion is the only one that matters now.”

    Promises, promises. He goes on trying to sway opinions in #30, 32, and 35 over the next 8 hours.

    Of the lawsuit itself, in #32 he says, “We wanted to move quickly.” But if that is what they wanted, they failed to do it. The plaintiffs could have filed their suit in the summer of 2011, but held off until January 2012 when they may have thought it would disrupt our preparations for the national party convention and our spring primary.

    Whatever Mr Burke’s real intentions are, his actions have consistently sown turmoil in the Libertarian Party of Oregon for at least 20 years now. What truly amazes me is that anyone with an IQ over room temperature still listens to him at all.

  32. paulie Post author

    Yes, this is all a sideline issue. Courts are going to decide which is the legitimate slate of officers. I don’t know who will win — neither outcome would be surprising to me.

    The actual issue is until that time why does LSLA allow the Reeves group access to the state chairs email list while denying access to the Wagner group? It is especially strange since the judicial committee and the national office has recognized the Wagner group.

    I agree.

    I count 14 messages from Richard Burke to the state chairs list since April. I see zero messages from Tim Reeves to the state chairs list. In yesterday’s message to the state chairs list you (Burke) sent an affiliate news report on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to staff. Tim Reeves was CCed, but he said nothing and the report was clearly composed by you rather than him.

    Reeves may be the state chair of that slate of officers, but it is in name only. Burke is the de-facto chair of the Reeves faction, which does not comport with the assertion “In contrast to the Wagner side, I do not seek any officer position”.

    Agreed again.

    The interesting question is why the LNC is subsidizing at some level the claims of the Burke faction. Subsidizing? Yes. The LSLA functions via the “State chairs” list, which is used to broadcast propaganda from the Burke faction. The “State Chairs” list runs on the LNC servers. That’s a direct subsidy of the Burke faction propaganda machine by the “State Chairs” list.

    That’s a pretty minor subsidy. I’m sure the LSLA can find other servers to run an email list off of if they get kicked off the LP.org servers, it’s not expensive. In fact it can be done for free through yahoo groups, google groups or any number of other services.

  33. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@36):

    I count 14 messages from Richard Burke to the state chairs list since April. I see zero messages from Tim Reeves to the state chairs list.

    Tim Reeves wrote (state chairs email list, 12/6/2012 at 12:19 pm):

    I asked the LSLA Secretary whether he has ever been approached by Mr. Wagner about the chairmanship and who the LSLA recognizes as the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s chair. He replied that since his election as Secretary he has never received an email or phone call from Mr. Wagner for any reason, nor has he ever reached out to him. The person currently subscribed to the email list as Oregon’s state chair, myself, is the same person subscribed when he became Secretary.

    […]

    in my capacity as state chair, I hereby authorize the LSLA Secretary to add Wes Wagner as an additional moderated subscriber from my state, provided Mr. Wagner requests it and so long as he does not use this list as a means to undermine the Libertarian Party of Oregon recognized by the delegates at National Convention.

    This is the first email from Tim Reeves to the state chairs list that I have seen. The entire email is much longer — I only quote the most interesting parts relevant to this discussion.

    Reeves seems conciliatory on the issue of Wagner being on the state chairs list while the Oregon matter is in litigation.

  34. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    I was intrigued by Mr. Knight’s post @43. Nobody can guarantee when, precisely, this lawsuit will be resolved, but it is going to trial and will be resolved.

    In the meantime, the legitimate LPO as organized under governing documents approved by members in convention has continued to operate as if nothing were amiss. We held our annual business convention in 2012 and will do so again in 2013 whether the lawsuit is still pending or not. In so far as we have been able to given our legal environment, we have continued to operate in accordance with the LPO’s legitimate governing documents.

    Mr. Knight is being disingenuous on this thread, not me. He is correct that the state currently recognizes the Wagner bylaws and officers, but fails to note that the state has allowed us to function as the Libertarian Party of Oregon in many capacities despite several formal complaints lodged by the Wagner group. The reason for this is that the State knows the matter is in the courts and have said they would abide by the outcome. As the Judicial Committee of the national party has oddly said that we should defer to the State in determining who our leaders are, all is in play. This being the case, any claims by the Wagner group about the state supporting them need to be offered with an asterisk and captioned “subject to the outcome of the current case”.

    Regarding Tim Reeve’s decision to ask that Wagner be put on the state chair’s list, I will say that I understand Tim’s reasoning. I will back his decision even though I have strong reservations about allowing someone on our list who has attempted to invoke and co-opt the force of the state in an attempt to achieve a political goal.

    You will recall that Wagner’s group cited an Oregon statute to claim legitimacy for their March 31, 2011 coup attempt. The statute, which says that a political party’s State Committee is a party’s highest authority, only applies to major parties and only those which agree to be structured according to guidelines suggested in statute. And that ain’t us.

    Richard P. Burke

  35. From Der Sidelines

    “in my capacity as state chair, I hereby authorize the LSLA Secretary to add Wes Wagner as an additional moderated subscriber from my state, provided Mr. Wagner requests it and so long as he does not use this list as a means to undermine the Libertarian Party of Oregon recognized by the delegates at National Convention.”

    That’s kinda funny since Reeves is not state chair per the Oregon SoS and the LP Judicial Committee, and the delegates have not overridden the decision of either. IOW, no authority, which makes Reeves’ pompous statement pathetically laughable.

  36. paulie Post author

    The full letter from Reeves:

    Fellow State Chairs,

    First, let me apologize for the length of this email. I have been very busy
    with work and I did not have the time to write something shorter.

    For the most part I have remained relatively quiet on this email list. I
    tend to focus my attention to local matters rather than the national
    scene.

    As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing conflict between two groups,
    each claiming to be the rightful leadership of our state party, the
    Libertarian Party of Oregon. Each group sent a slate of delegates to Las
    Vegas in May and the highest body of our organization, the delegates
    assembled at National Convention, chose to recognize our slate of officers
    and seat our delegates. I am grateful for their decision and I ask that
    others honor it.

    Allow me to publicly express thanks to those of you who have sent me private
    messages of support, especially after you received some recent emails from
    Wes Wagner, our party’s former state chairman and leader of the group not
    seated.

    Many of you are already aware that the conflict escalated to a lawsuit to
    preserve the rights of our members to choose their leadership and uphold
    our
    party’s bylaws. It wasn’t an easy decision for us. Before he became state
    chair, Mr. Wagner sued our party on multiple occasions and managed to chase
    a lot of good people away. We didn’t like it then and we don’t much like it
    now.

    Oregon’s Secretary of State has a policy of only recognizing a new state
    chair when the old state chair informs her of the change. In our case,
    former chairman Wes Wagner claims to still hold the position and has
    submitted to the SOS a replacement set of bylaws – one that was never
    adopted by our membership. As you might imagine, the leadership here in
    our
    state are all very disappointed that one of our own would resort to
    something like this.

    We realized that we had a choice: we could do nothing and allow bullying
    behavior to prevail or we could defend ourselves. For the first time, we
    chose the latter.

    I won’t bore you with all the details, and there are limits to what I should
    state while we navigate the legal system, but I can tell you that while the
    defendants’ attorneys have done a masterful job of delaying the day we’ll
    finally be in court, we know that time and Oregon law are clearly on our
    side and we will ultimately prevail.

    I asked the LSLA Secretary whether he has ever been approached by Mr. Wagner
    about the chairmanship and who the LSLA recognizes as the Libertarian Party
    of Oregon’s chair. He replied that since his election as Secretary he has
    never received an email or phone call from Mr. Wagner for any reason, nor
    has he ever reached out to him. The person currently subscribed to the
    email list as Oregon’s state chair, myself, is the same person subscribed
    when he became Secretary. He also volunteered that he has not seen any
    reason for the LSLA to overturn the decision of the delegates at the
    National Convention.

    I then asked him for his policy for putting people on the state chairs list.
    He told me that state chairs and a few other dignitaries (e.g. the National
    Chairman) are subscribed without moderation. Upon the request of a state
    chair, others from their respective state may be subscribed with
    moderation.
    I asked him whether under his policy if Wes Wagner could be subscribed by
    someone else. He told me that as long as I am the chair of my state, only
    I
    would get to decide who else can be subscribed from my state.

    As a general rule, I believe it’s worthwhile to keep former state chairs
    involved in party communications, providing they want to be constructive.
    In spite of the egregious behavior we have experienced from our former
    comrade, I want to believe that no one is beyond redemption. When this
    lawsuit reaches its final conclusion, it is my hope that Mr. Wagner can
    make
    amends and return to being a worthy activist.

    In that spirit, in my capacity as state chair, I hereby authorize the LSLA
    Secretary to add Wes Wagner as an additional moderated subscriber from my
    state, provided Mr. Wagner requests it and so long as he does not use this
    list as a means to undermine the Libertarian Party of Oregon recognized by
    the delegates at National Convention.

    Furthermore, if Mr. Wagner makes any further attempt to undermine the LSLA
    as he has done recently, I will construe that as his desire to no longer
    be
    subscribed to the LSLA email list. I ask that anyone who becomes aware of
    such an act to please promptly notify both me and the LSLA Secretary.

    Of course, this in no way represents a concession to his position, or an
    admission that he should be allowed to violate bylaws as he did, just an
    interest in seeing that the LPO continues its fight for liberty with as
    many
    people working together as possible.

    Thank you.

    In Liberty,

    Tim Reeves
    State Chair LPO

  37. Jill Pyeatt

    In the spirit of “You can’t make this stuff up” and the absurdity of this letter, this would be a good time to invoke Honey Boo Boo.

    The little seven-year-old makes more sense than Tim Reeves’ letter above.

  38. Oregon Libertarian

    The delegates at the National Convention in Las Vegas only voted to accept the credentials report without amendments. Mr. Richard Burke has a chronically bad habit of distorting the actual facts in such a way as to always support his cause and cast false light on his opponents.

    It is my view and opinion that the credentials committee exceeded its authority and duty and thus committed a bylaw breach. Had the chair had any sense of honor and duty he would have dismissed the credentials committee on the spot for flagrant failure to do its duty, and appointed a new one.

    The issue of the Oregon party was dealt with at the LNC board level and resolved. Only those who disagreed with the LNC board and the LNC Judaical committee bamboozled the credentials committee to create an outcome to their liking.

    As long as the LNC allows such actions to stand it is a shining testament as to what complete sham the LNC really is and what sort of people it allows to infest its operations.

    It is clear to me as to why Wes Wagner is starting a New State Chairs organization…the existing one is compromised.

    In politics integrity is everything, and from where I am sitting the LSLA and the LNC have a complete lack thereof.

  39. Harry Heyoka

    In comment #46, referring to Wes Wagner’s being added to the state chairs list, Richard Burke says, “I have strong reservations about allowing someone on our list who has attempted to invoke and co-opt the force of the state in an attempt to achieve a political goal.”

    Being familiar with the Oregon party’s history, I know Mr Burke is making a reference to Wagner’s lawsuit a few years ago which sought to require the LPO (then under Burke’s control) to obey its own bylaws and stop letting Burke play fast and loose with the party’s credit card.

    Now Burke himself is suing to put his hand picked minions in charge of the LPO. So who is really trying to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal?

  40. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Heyoka @55,

    Actually, I was not making a reference to Mr. Wagner’s lawsuit a few years ago when I accused Mr. Wagner and his group of initiating force by co-opting the force of the state to achieve their political goals.

    Instead, I was referring to Mr. Wagner and his group attempting to use a statute (ORS 248.072), which says that a political party’s State Committee is it’s highest authority, to unilaterally: 1) Replace governing documents approved by members in convention with documents they wrote themselves, 2) Elect themselves to new terms of office in accordance with these documents and, 3) Cancel a session of the LPO Annual Business convention approved by members in convention.

    It’s bad enough that a Libertarian would use any government statute to run roughshod over what members approved in convention, but the statute didn’t apply to minor parties anyway – only major parties who agreed to organize themselves according to structures outlined elsewhere in statute (ORS 248.007[3]).

    If allowed to stand, apart from the personalities involved, we would have a situation where members have no rights at all except those granted by the State Committee at any given moment. We would also have a situation where any sitting state chair would be allowed to submit to the state any governing documents he or she liked, and any list of officers he or she liked, and be recognized as valid. That is not what I understand libertarianism to be.

    In any case, THAT is what I was referring to. I have no doubt that had we tried something similar, it would be Mr. Wagner and his friends that would cry foul and, given their litigious history, would probably have gone to court even faster than we were forced to.

    Bottom line is that our court case is a response to force, as outlined above, not an initiation of it. Seriously – Would you tolerate this on the LNC or in your state? I hope not.

    Richard P. Burke

  41. From Der Sidelines

    Burke, are you really that arrogant and that stupid? You’ve lost every step of the way, even when you think you won, and it’s only going to continue. When the bodies hit the floor, the carnage will be your fault for your Don Quixote-ish quest. Quit while you’re behind.

  42. Jill Pyeatt

    RB @ 56: Ah, yes, the infamous court case, which will undoubtedly be solved early in 2013. So, what will happen if you win? What about the 97 % or so of the Oregon Libertarians who approved the new Wagner by-laws? Do they get kicked out of the party, or will you have a new email vote?

    This reminds me a little bit of the Birthers, who are convinced that Obama will be shown to be not eligible to be president any day now. What will happen then? Will everything Obama did be overturned?

    Will the people who died in Obama’s illegal wars suddenly be alive? I don’t mean to make light of the deaths. I’m trying to make a point. A lot of time has gone by since May of 2011. Is it really in the best interest of the party to go back to that point, with the different set of officers?

  43. Richard P. Burke

    Jill @ 58,

    I don’t know how you figure we’ve lost “every step of the way.” We won in the LNC, lost in JudComm (at least until the court ruling comes down), won at the national convention, and won in every court hearing seeking to dismiss our case. The Sec. of State is holding off on enforcing their current position until the court resolves this matter, and it is not at all clear who will win. But to say we have lost every step of the way is demonstrably untrue. Only one step matters anyway, and that is the outcome of the court proceedings which will occur sometime next year.

    If we win the case, at least any subsequent conflict will be channelled according to the rules of governing documents passed by members at convention. We will have to deal with the quorum problem, but there are legitimate ways to do that. At some point we should be able to elect a new Judicial Committee and settle any future conflicts internally.

    And if we lose the case, well, all of us lose… except, of course, whoever is in charge at any given time as they will have the ability to re-write the LPO’s governing documents at any time and submit them to the Secretary of State. That’s not something I would think any libertarian would ascribe to.

    Regarding Jill @58, I will point out that the election she refers to was not conducted in accordance with the legitimate LPO bylaws and no materials were provided by the opposition.

    But by raising the point of Mr. Wagner’s “election”, Jill brings to mind an interesting parallel: Look at what happened in Egypt… Mohamed Morse became the president of Egypt legitimately according to Egyptian law. He then threw out the rulebook and issued decrees granting himself almost absolute power. He now is attempting to rush through an election on a new Constitution which was not widely debated in a biased atmosphere using a process lacking legitimacy under Egyptian law. If the constitution is “approved”, which would be no surprise given these circumstances, Morsi will use the farce election to attempt to paint a layer of legitimacy on his actions. Fait accompli.

    Back here in Oregon, Wagner came to the position of Chair legitimately after the resignation of Jeff Weston. He then used his position to throw out the rulebook, replacing member-approved governing documents with documents he and his friends wrote themselves. They then held an “election” using processes not in accordance with the legitimate bylaws in a biased atmosphere where only one side was presented. Wagner has since used the “election” to paint a veneer of legitimacy on his actions. Fait accompli.

    The passage of time doesn’t make what they did right. Letting it stand actually poses dangers for the future as any future chair could arbitrarily stage another coup. Members will never be sure of what their right are as they could change according to the whim of whomever the Chair is.

    Provided they don’t have a habit of attempting to invoke state power to achieve political goals, I care much less about who the leaders are than making sure that no state chair has the power to unilaterally reorganize our party and select officers in a way that the state would lend credence to. I would hope that such a sentiment is one to which we can all ascribe to.

    Richard P. Burke

  44. Jill Pyeatt

    RPB @ 59: Re: your first paragraph, I didn’t say that you’ve lost every step of the way. That was From der Sidelines @ 57.

  45. Richard P. Burke

    Jill @ 60,

    Quite right. My apologies.

    Despite this nasty snafu, I wish you well and hope you are having a good holiday season. Same to everyone else, including Mr. Wagner.

    Richard P. Burke

  46. Jill Pyeatt

    RPB @ 61: I did my best to make my questions at 58 as not- rude as possible. I wish you and your family a happy and safe holiday season as well.

  47. From Der Sidelines

    Mr. Burke’s delusions are growing geometrically. Now he’s comparing Oregon Libertarians to the Egyptian situation? There are riots on the streets of Salem over Wagner being in charge? Really? Where’s the news coverage on that?

    And no, you lost on appeal to the JudCom after the stacked LNC screwed the pooch. You lost at the SoS, too. So you sued, and you’re losing that, too, but you don’t even realize it yet. The CredCom was a stacked win as well. Face it, you can’t win without cheating and spinning and lying and have your handlers in the Starr Chamber work you with their hands up your back like the LP’s version of a very bad ventriloquist dummy.

  48. House Cleaning Supplies

    I’m very skeptical that the LSLA board actually represents the group that it claims to (state chairs). We can all clean house at the next state chairs conference if they continue to ignore the state chairs though.

    Next meeting will be May 18-19 in Aurora (a suburb of Denver), CO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.