James Libertarian Burns is a Nevada LP activist who ran for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination.
| |
|
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent proposed By-laws changes by e-mail. I wish to replace what I sent with what is below you said that you would make these changes but have not done so and I move that the following replace the current By-Laws:
Proposed Libertarian Party of Nevada Bylaws
1. Preamble
People should be allowed to live as they choose so long as they do not initiate violence, coercion nor engage in fraud.
We adopt the Statement of Principles of the National Libertarian Party.
2. Membership
a) People who are registered to vote as partisan libertarian for Nevada State elections are members of the Libertarian of Nevada (hereafter the LPN), or:
b) People who are not qualified to register to vote but have A) been a resident of Nevada for at least six weeks B) signed a document acknowledging the reading, understanding, and agreement with the LPN Preamble and C) submit said document to any party officer who shall give it to the Secretary of the LPN and then that person is a member of the LPN.
3. The ExCom and LPN Officers
a) The Executive Committee (ExCom) shall be the highest authority of the LPN when conventions are not meeting. ExCom members shall be elected at Conventions of the LPN. The officers of the ExCom are Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, At Large Representative, Southern Regional Representative, Central Regional Representative, and Northern Regional Representative.
b) Chair: Shall preside over conventions and ExCom meetings. The Chair shall not have a vote unless to break a tie (including elections). Temporary vacancies in the ExCom shall be filled by the Chair with approval of the Excom except for the Southern Regional Representative, Central Regional Representative, and Northern Regional Representative who shall be replaced by a caucus of their region. The Chair shall work with others to establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations and other actives of the LPN. The Chair is the chief executive officer of the LPN.
c) Vice-Chair: In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair. The Vice-Chair shall work with others to establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations, and other actives of the LPN. Other duties mutually acceptable may be given by the Chair and/or the ExCom.
d) Secretary: Shall keep the non-financial records of the LPN including but not limited to the minutes of LPN meetings (which shall include all submitted officer reports), conventions, LPN correspondence, archives of the affiliate organizations and the LPN Website. The Secretary shall post on the LPN Website all minutes of Conventions and ExCom meetings and calls for a caucus other than those held at conventions and shall set a time for a special caucus which may be held by meeting, phone or computer. The Secretary shall work with others help establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations and help when needed with the record keeping of affiliates and other actives of the LPN. The Secretary shall submit, or cause to be submitted, the list of Candidates of the LPN to the proper authority on or before the proper time.
e) Treasurer: Shall keep the financial records of the LPN and be responsible for the money of the LPN. The Treasurer shall report the financial standing of the LPN to each ExCom meeting and conventions either in person, cause their reporting or in writing. The Treasurer shall work with others to establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations, help when needed with the financial records of affiliates and other actives that may be helpful to the LPN and its affiliates.
f) At Large Representative: Shall help the other representatives and others to establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations and other actives of the LPN.
g) Southern Regional Representative: Shall represent Clark County to the ExCom and to establish, maintain, promote and facilitate affiliate organizations and other actives of the LPN.
h) Central Regional Representative: Shall represent Nye, Lincoln, Esmeralda, Elko, White Pine, Eureka, Mineral and Lander Counties to the ExCom and to establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations and other actives of the LPN.
i) Northern Regional Representative: Shall represent Carson, Churchill, Lyon, Douglas, Storey, Washoe, Pershing, and Humboldt Counties to the ExCom and to establish, maintain, promote, and facilitate affiliate organizations and other actives of the LPN.
j) Replacement of the Chair in case of resignation, death, or an absence of more than two consecutive months in a single year is the Vice-Chair: Then: the Secretary, Treasurer, At Large Representative, Southern Regional Representative, Central Regional Representative, and then Northern Regional Representative.
k) Temporary appointments to fill vacancies shall stand for election at the next convention of the LPN.
l) In the event of special elections for partisan office by the State of Nevada or any subdivision thereof, the Chair shall call or cause to be called a caucus of the members of the district and the caucus may select a candidate.
4. Fees
a) Fees may be charged but shall not be required to participate in the business affairs of the LPN, any County Affiliate, or Caucus of the LPN. A fee may be charged to those who wish to receive special notification of conventions and other information or honors.
5. LPN Conventions
a) LPN Conventions are the highest authority of the LPN.
b) All members of the LPN are eligible to serve as delegates to all LPN conventions.
c) Regular Conventions shall be called by the ExCom under the authority of the bylaws. The Secretary shall cause as much information as is known about any upcoming convention to be posted on the LPN website and any other means available without delay. Information about upcoming conventions and other LP events shall be offered to the public by the Secretary of the LPN and others. A minimum of 90 days notice of the date and hosting county shall be given and a minimum of 30 days notice shall be given for the specific location and time for a regular convention.
d) Regular Conventions shall be held at least once each year, and shall be schedule to meet the timetable of the State of Nevada for the nomination of candidates, of the timetable of the National Libertarian Party for the election of delegates to the national conventions, and to achieve the goals of the members of the LPN. Election of officers of the ExCom shall be held during the Regular Convention which does not precede the election of Governor or President.
e) Special Conventions shall be called if:
(A) A petition is submitted to the Secretary of the ExCom (if the Secretary is not available any ExCom member shall accept it and report to the Executive Committee) with the signatures of at least 40 members of the LPN demanding a convention. The petition shall have the signatures and printed name and printed address of each person signing the petition.
(B) Or, a vote of two thirds of the ExCom in favor of a Special Convention.
© Or, if there are only two or less remaining members of the ExCom elected by convention. In each of these cases, the ExCom shall call a convention within 40 days giving at least 30 days notice.
f) If the ExCom fails to call a proper convention:
(A) In the case of a petition (which includes the naming of a credentials committee), a committee of 8 of those who brought the petition may call a convention, or
(B) In the case of a yearly convention, 10 members may form a committee and call a convention.
g) The credentials committee of all LPN Conventions shall consist of the Southern Regional Representative, Central Regional Representative, and the Northern Regional Representative. Each member of the credentials committee may appoint their replacement. If any of these are not available, the first replacement is the At-Large Representative, then the Chair shall appoint. Non-regular conventions not called by the ExCom shall select their credentials committee as part of their petition for the call for a convention.
6. Affiliate Organizations
a) The LPN is an affiliate organization of the National Libertarian Party.
b) In keeping with important libertarian principles such as, but not limited to, the division of labor, competition, voluntary exchange, and voluntary association it is, therefore, a duty and an important objective of the ExCom to help establish, work and corporate with and maintain, promote, and facilitate County and other affiliate organizations. All affiliates shall engage in all actives that are proper to promote and facilitate Libertarianism in general and the Libertarian Party in particular.
c) A County Affiliate Organization is the second highest authority within that County of the LPN subject to the National Libertarian Party and the LPN. County Affiliate Organization should do those proper things and engage in such actions as to promote and facilitate Libertarianism and the LPN. There shall be only one Affiliate County Organization in a County.
d) To form and maintain a County Affiliate Organization a convention must be held where bylaws are adopted that adopt the LPN Preamble and officers are elected. Then submit the results to the Secretary of the LPN or if the Secretary is not availably then any officer of the LPN. Once these appropriate steps are taken, the organization is an affiliate of the LPN. Thereafter, an annual convention shall be held before the state convention and the results given by the appropriate person to the Secretary of the LPN or if the Secretary is not availably then any officer of the LPN.
e) The ExCom and all County Affiliate Organizations shall recognize all organizations (affiliate) that wish to affiliate provided that they have a non-duplicated name and adopt and not violate the LPN Preamble and submit their information to Secretary of the ExCom or the County Party. In the Case of affiliation with a County party the County Secretary shall forward a copy of their information to the ExCom Secretary. To maintain affiliation the affiliate must resubmit their information on or before the appropriate annual convention. Only conventions may disband an affiliate organization.
7. Representative Governance and the Caucus
For the election of party officers and candidates for public office, members may vote only in the district that they reside – for example – Only those who live in Assembly District 5 may select and vote for nominees in Assembly District 5 and only those who live in the named counties may select and vote for the Northern Regional Representative and so forth.
At State or County Conventions to select and elect party officers and candidates for public office, the conventions shall divide into a caucus for each office and report their results to the convention.
Candidates not elected at County conventions, may be elected at LPN conventions. If no candidate for a public office is selected at convention, members of a district may form a caucus using the Secretary to facilitate and choose a candidate who accepts the nomination and deliver that name to the Secretary of the LPN before the list of Candidates is submitted to the Secretary of State of Nevada.
8. Elections
a) All elections that do not involve the election of people shall be decided by voice vote. The Chair shall decide: If a delegate with three seconds calls for a division of the house, then under direction of the Chair, all in-favor shall raise their hand (or stand) and then the delegates in favor then shall count off, then those opposed shall do the same.
b) All elections of the LPN or County Parties involving the election of people, that all delegates may vote, shall be by secret ballot. Only people who are able to hold the office may win that office. The candidate who receives the most votes wins. In case of a tie for the most votes the election shall be decided by coin toss.
d) If only one person is nominated for LPN officer, partisan office, or other position, that person is elected.
e) The elections of the Regional Representative shall be held by caucus at the convention of the LPN with delegates of their region.
f) The election of delegates to the national convention shall be as follows: Each delegate to the LPN conventions shall be allowed the number of votes as the LPN is allowed delegates to the national convention. LPN delegates shall be given the number of small ballots to which they are entitled and shall cast them one at a time into the ballot box. In case of tie, the coin toss method shall be used.
(A) The Chair is, without election at convention, the first delegate to the convention.
(B) The first delegate is the spokesperson for the LPN delegation at the National Convention.
© Those receiving the most votes are in order of the votes received are ranked and in order are replacements for the first delegate.
(D) Those receiving the most votes are in order of the votes received at the LPN convention delegates to the National Convention to the number of delegates allowed.
(E) All others in the election for delegate at the LPN Convention are in the order of votes received be ranked Alternate delegate.
(F) If elected delegates fail to attend, the alternate delegates by the order of their rank shall be promoted to delegate until and unless the elected delegate attends.
(G) If a delegate is not present, the ranking alternate shall replace the delegate until the delegate returns.
(H) Alternate status is granted to LPN members not elected at convention but in attendance and they shall be in line to be delegates after those elected, in order as they report to the first delegate is their rank.
(I) Libertarians at the national convention not members of the LPN maybe selected delegate with the consent of the delegation, but members of the LPN always bump non-members.
g) The election of officers of the ExCom shall be held in odd numbered years. However, election of any or all officers may be called for by majority vote at any convention.
h) The convention during election years should select as many legally qualified libertarian candidates for partisan office as is practicable. The candidates selected by county affiliate organizations shall be adopted by the LPN convention. The LPN shall select no more than the required number of candidates to seek partisan.
9. Amendments
To amend the Preamble requires a 3/5’s vote at three consecutive regular conventions of the LPN. To amend the bylaws require 3/5’s vote. To remove parts of the bylaws with the exception of the Preamble requires a majority vote present plus one.
10. Quorums
A majority of the credentialed delegates, including the Chair, to any Convention constitute a quorum. Five of the eight members of the ExCom shall constitute a quorum.
11. Roberts’ Rules
Rules not in these bylaws shall be guided by Robert’s Rules, the newest copy available.
12. Leadership
Officers of the LPN should provide leadership by example with persuasion and conduct that inspire activism. Officers should promote and facilitate with words and deeds the division of labor, competition, voluntary exchange, and voluntary association to the membership and the public. A way to achieve these goals is to understand that all can and should provide leadership and that we should work together when we can and by ourselves if we must. Leaders should use the word yes as a major tool to increase libertarian activism.
End End End
If the above replacement of the LPN By-Laws fails to pass, I move the following:
1. Replacement of the Preamble with:
People should be allowed to live as they choose so long as they do not initiate violence, coercion nor engage in fraud.
We adopt the Statement of Principles of the National Libertarian Party.
2. Next: Membership be replaced with:
People who are registered to vote as partisan libertarian for Nevada State elections are members of the Libertarian of Nevada and delegates to all conventions.
3. Next: Add to Candidates for Partisan Public Office a section D:
In the event of a special election, the Executive Committee may appoint a candidate.
Wow…. I have never been able to put a name to a bitter cold wind better then now…. that name is Policie de Hipocrace…
well maybe the other obvious name is….
LOOSER
WW @196: They ultimately lost in the judicial committee
The Judicial Committee did not endorse the Wagner coup. What it did was abdicate any judgement on the merits to Oregon government bureaucrats who had already said they won’t consider the merits and that outgoing officers can only be replaced with their own consent.
The people who staked their political auspices on them lost in Las Vegas.
Only one candidate in Las Vegas distributed a printed opinion on the case. He opposed the Wagner coup, and was re-elected to JudCom, getting more votes than 11 other candidates. He was out-polled only by a state Chair and two of the three incumbent attorneys on JudCom.
Wagner lost when the Credentials Committee voted against the junta’s delegation.
Wagner lost again when the convention voted to approve the Credentials report.
Wagner lost again when the convention voted not to seat him as a delegate.
Wagner lost again when he ran for LNC Chair, finishing last with only 9 votes (<2%). He claims he threw his support to another candidate, but:
Wagner lost again when he ran for LNC at-large (where delegates could vote for 5 candidates), receiving only 23 votes and finishing 17th in the field — behind 5 candidates who had opposed his junta.
Did anyone lose more times in Vegas than Wagner?
Oh, and the new LNC people who replaced the incumbents whose defeat Wagner crows about? Well, Wagner has since Las Vegas been complaining bitterly that on the LPOR dispute, the new LNC is just as bad as the old.
Perhaps one group of people understands politics better than the other.
Indeed.
Alas, it seems that one side understands better how to back up rule-breaking with the power and inertia of the State.
Well, HP felt strongly enough to ridicule me, and only Holtz and Phillies has done that here in the past, but I don’t feel like getting into a big discussion here. I still don’t call it “inside job”, BTW.
Actually, I seem to recall that Holtz has his doubts about certain elements of the “official account” of 9/11. Not as many as I do, and he’s certainly not a supporter of the (as yet unsupported by so much as an iota of credible evidence) “inside job” stuff, but not in the “credulously accepting” category.
The first Pennsylvanie thread from February hit over 500 comments. That was quite a surprise, since I had not idea of the turmoil in the state.
That reminds me, though, of something I wanted to respond to from Hypocrisy Police: It’s gotta be Brian Holtz because he made some crack that I believe in conspiracies in events over ten years old. He’s one of the few people I know who still believes the nonsensical “official” 911 story, so I now agree with Thomas Knapp and LG on the identity of the mystery poster–
Jesus Christ 232 comments. This may be the record for comments on an article that I’ve submitted 🙂
Well, I wonder which one of you scared off HP? 😉
TK @229
Well who is right or wrong is so subjective…. 🙂
Not Oregon again!?
We were FINALLY back to talking about Nevada for a little while….
WW @228,
I’m not sure what the argument here is. I’m willing to stipulate to your claim on the subject, but I don’t see how it has fuck-all to do with whether they, or you, are right or wrong.
TK @227
Not entirely correct… if you complain to one particular arbiter (the executive branch) and they issue a ruling, the judicial branch is not allowed to review it unless you sue the executive agency that issued it within 60 days according to the law.
The plaintiffs who asked for that ruling, sued the wrong party and did so after the deadline.
@226,
The whole point strikes me as somewhat irrelevant regardless of which side is talking about it.
It’s a procedural matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of either side’s claims.
The side that is right is right, and the side that is wrong is wrong, and that will remain the case regardless of whether or not one side complained to the wrong arbiter.
read our motion for summary judgment regarding the appeal of rulings subject to the administrative appeals act.
I’ve seen the other side argue that the ORS Sections you have quoted (not sure if that is one) don’t apply to the LP because we don’t meet various other criteria in those sections. I’d have to look up the particulars.
The oregon sos uses those laws all the time and quotes them in administrative rulings. It is not just my opinion that they are applicable.
I don’t remember that one. I might look it up later.
Paulie @ 221,
I believe he’s referring to the Oregon LP’s argument that the Secretary of State’s ruling was subject only to a particular administrative appeal system, not to court action.
I’ve seen the other side argue that the ORS Sections you have quoted (not sure if that is one) don’t apply to the LP because we don’t meet various other criteria in those sections. I’d have to look up the particulars.
Not sure I remember that part. What were the details on that?
Jill,
In fairness, this is not a fair analogy.
No one is contending that Johnson cheated or changed the rules in the middle of the game. He won fair and square by a wide margin. Wrights promptly and enthusiastically endorsed him. That is nothing at all like the Oregon mess.
If Rutherford had managed to eke out a narrow victory due to disputed delegate votes and/or due to the ridiculous ruling that a write-in candidate was the lowest vote getter to be dropped from the subsequent ballot, I expect there would have been a lot of carrying on and “crybabying” from the other side.
The “big plot” was two guys from Texas and one woman who helped with the delivery.
Again, I don’t agree that either side followed the rules as closely as possible. As a mitigating factor, I also bring up that there are other libertarian principles besides following rules.
I already agree with you there. It’s just that I don’t take this in isolation from other factors.
Getting 8 or more state exec committee members, or 20% plus one, to meet is nowhere near as difficult as getting 50% plus one of all dues paying LP members in the state, including life members who hadn’t been active in many years or had moved out of state, to show up for a convention. The two quorum problems are nowhere near equal. And then there’s the matter of the allegations that 4 or even all 5 of the 5 people that did show up were not eligible, which has still not been addressed except through assertion.
I’d offer a better solution if I had one, but Burke/Reeves are not it.
There are other things that matter here besides Wagner’s excessive transgression against the old rules, which again I agree with you went too far.
Actually, on my recent visit to Oregon, the people that I met with that made the most sense were people who had recently moved to the state (Samantha and Alison, who had moved from Illinois), and Amy, a new party activist that came in from the Johnson campaign. Of the long time members, Fred Jabin has made the most sense of anyone I have talked to. And there are others such as Michael Jingozian who don’t line up with either warring faction. Unfortunately, none of those people are willing to jump into this heated battle, and I can’t say I blame them.
No, but state recognition is one thing that needs to be weighed when the whole point is to participate in state-run elections.
Another is level of political activity, such as nominating slates of candidates, communicating with the membership and general public, raising and spending funds in advancement of these ends, and so on.
Another is clear public communication of the full spectrum of libertarian ideas, rather than emphasizing only issues where we agree with conservatives.
Another is running a party that is separate and distinct from others, as opposed to a party which intentionally stays out of races where Tea Party type conservatives get Republican nominations.
There are other factors as well.
Overthrowing a set of old bylaws, outside those bylaws, while necessary to some extent, was done in a way that I think went overboard, so you and I agree there. Where we disagree is that this was the most important and decisive factor between those two factions, or that the other side was really even making a good faith effort to follow the old rules.
I wasn’t claiming any slippery slope. I was illustrating through exaggeration why dilution would not always be a good thing.
Not seeing any proof that the people who participated in the exec comm meeting which elected the Reeves group were eligible, or what the actual number of exec comm members was at the time. Starr says 11, which would make 5 above quorum; Wagner says 30-something, which makes 5 below quorum. Nor did Starr discuss how and why those 5 were eligible, which Wagner says he addressed in his court filings, showing that they were not.
Chuck based his conclusion on suppositions that are in dispute here, about what constituted quorum and whether the people there were in fact current LPO state committee members at the time. According to Wagner, Chuck has since revised that opinion more in his favor. Note also that Chuck even then said “stronger case,” not that the case was open and shut.
The number for the Wagner meeting I have seen was 9, which is above quorum. As far as I know, no one has alleged that those 9 were ineligible, as has been alleged was the case with the Reeves meeting.
Neither one. Having a bunch of ineligible people, including Republican committeemen, meet at a place and time that the other side considered to have been cancelled, without constituting a quorum, and creating a new state committee mostly made up of conservatives with no record of LP activity, would not constitute following the old rules, only using them as a fig leaf. What Wagner did also did not follow the old rules, and in my opinion went too far in chucking them overboard.
I welcome the new slate to the race. From everything I have learned so far, it seems they would be an improvement over the current leadership there.
Colborne has now confirmed it is him.
Didn’t say who the North Nevada person is. I’m also guessing Colborne.
Toni Pacini on FB:
Tonight the following candidates announced, I hope I get their names right: Brett Pojunis – Chairman
Jason Smith – Vice Chair
Lou Pombo – Secretary
Tim Hagan – Treasurer
I hope David Colborne is one of them. He seems very centered. Please let us know as soon as possible, Sam, or anyone else.
On facebook it has been announced that one of the Pojunis slate is from Northern Nevada. My guess is David Colborne. We are supposed to find out some time this afternoon.
It sounds like Tim Hagan will probably run for Treasurer, which is the same office he holds with national, on the slate with Brett Pojunis.
Wes, Brett seems willing to stand up to Silvestri, which is probably the reason for the hit piece Silvestri put out toward Brett a few weeks ago. I’m anxious to see who else is willing to stand up against him.
Will the Pojunis leadership slate take a public position on what appear to be member suppression tactics being employed by the existing leadership?
Excellent! I’m sure Paulie or Krzysztof or me (or another writer) will post the rest of the Nevada slate as soon as possible.
Other candidates running on the slate with Brett Pojunis will be announced at “mid day today” and will have an event to meet supporters and others interested in meeting them tonight at Brett’s office.
In other Oregon news.. we sent out 5600 new member packets last week and they hit mailboxes starting yesterday.
The packets were the result of grassroots effort on the part of LPO members, but ultimately funded and sent out by the LPO State Committee.
I am really proud of the work done by libertarians in our state to self-organize and and happy to report their progress.
HP, I’m curious what you think you’re accomplishing with this marathon of self-righteousness. Have you taught any of us anything we didn’t know about the Oregon dispute? More importantly, did you change anyone’s mind? You kind of remind me of Don Grundman and the topic of homosexuality. People keep prodding him because they can’t believe what outrageous statement he’s going to come up with next. Okay, this situation isn’t so extreme, but I certainly think it’s analogous. He’s so utterly convinced he’s right that he can’t possibly open himself to the possibly that just maybe he isn’t.
re 191 similar events have happened in the past. The game has been played before.
You might try wasting your time on something substantial.
TK @200
Where is RC when you need him to discuss the psychology of axiomatic thinking!? 😉
WW@199,
No, it’s not hard to say. Mr. Holtz’s use of language and style of argument are both very different from Dr. Lieberman’s.
HP is either Brian Holtz, or someone doing an astoundingly good impression of Brian Holtz.
As to the merits of his arguments, I don’t agree that not agreeing with you is necessarily an indicator of “immaturity” or of any other defect.
It is hard to say LG … both Holtz and Lieberman are so immature that they can’t realize that strict adherence to the Law is a form of perversion.
If we were in colonial America they would be on the last boat out of New York claiming that they were betrayed by treason against the crown.
Only Brian Holtz argues like this , im calling it
The plaintiffs lost in Oregon.
The ultimately lost in the judicial committee.
The people who staked their political auspices on them lost in Las Vegas.
Everyone who keeps supporting them seems to lose and lose things that are important to them.
Perhaps one group of people understands politics better than the other.
Since then, Wagner pointed out to Moulton that the State Committee quorum requirement may have been so high that neither of the Wagner nor Reeves meetings met it.
This is not true. The Reeves group did not meet it even if all of their members had valid credentials. Our meeting had 9 representatives present and would have constituted a quorum even if the highest quorum calculation was used (8).
Also Chuck Moulton backed off his original opinion once more facts were revealed.
Starr is funding the lawsuit so he has quite a bias.
HP @ 193,
What is this “member-rights dilution” that you keep referring to?
Does it have something with the Wagner Faction’s decision to recognize the membership rights of all of Oregon’s Libertarians by becoming a political party instead of continuing as a private club masquerading as a political party?
See Aaron Starr on quorum issues here.
Note Chuck Moulton’s response here, where he reviews the quorum issue and concludes:
In my opinion as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian the slate of LPO officers selected at the May 21 post-convention State Committee meeting to fill vacancies have a stronger case for recognition than Wes Wagner?s slate of officers.
Since then, Wagner pointed out to Moulton that the State Committee quorum requirement may have been so high that neither of the Wagner nor Reeves meetings met it.
The fundamental question remains: if it’s true (as Wagner claims) that quorum problems can make it “necessary” to work outside the bylaws, then which transgression is more faithful to the rules: 1) filling officer vacancies without changing any bylaws, or 2) completely rewriting the bylaws to purge your enemies and ram through a member-rights dilution that you’ve admitted on video you could never pass legitimately?
Running late for work again, so I’ll save the rest of whatever I have to say for later, but:
I’m not remembering that. If someone could refresh my memory, I would appreciate that.
I have heard most of that one way or another years ago
Huh? The events I listed @183 all happened less than two years ago.
As we approach 200 responses, it’s occurs to me that the handful of diehard coup apologists here doth protest too much — and that actually gives me hope.
If they had no pangs of conscience about their position, they would have just dismissed or ignored my initial scolding, and moved on. Instead they keep coming back for more, letting me make it ever clearer that they have let their factional ends dictate their rule-breaking means.
Their cognitive dissonance is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The coup apologists here doggedly deny that the ends are justifying the means, but as their arguments about the means are systematically cut from underneath them, they can’t help but cling to arguments from the ends: The Bad Guys.
JP: That was 2 years ago!! […] You clearly have the most time to waste.
Hmm, maybe you didn’t notice my “controlled demolition” dig at you @74. You waste your time on conspiracies that you fantasize happened over a decade ago. The events I list in my indictment @183 all happened less than two years ago, and Wagner doesn’t dispute any of them. LOL, indeed.
HP I have heard most of that one way or another years ago from the Burkester.
LOL. You win, HP. Congratulations. You clearly have the most time to waste.
there are so many things to do while the courts work this out
Then why are you adding to this thread, instead of actually reading it? I already told you @92:
When the coup apologists stop posting excuses for why we shouldn’t care about the coup, I’ll stop rebutting the excuses. Wagner had the first word, the H.P.D. will have the last, and then the H.P.D. will go back to its silent vigil.
“TK” @182: incoherence
I won’t insult the name of the real Tom Knapp by breaking out the crayons and diagramming for this “Tom Knapp” the sarcasm @176.
That was 2 years ago!! I can’t imagine stewing over something for that long. Wow. Dude, really, there are so many things to do while the courts work this out. I’m working on a bill in CA to get my state to nullify the portion of the NDAA that allows indefinite detention. Maybe you can find a time-sensitive issue to take your mind off this. Is there a local office you can run for? Can you recruit someone to the LP? They don’t need to know all of the history. Maybe there’s a young person like Krzysztof that could use some mentoring. Really, you’ll feel much better.
you don’t know the history
Do you dispute any of the events listed @183? They are all matters of record.
I never said the ends do justify the means.
Do you advocate undoing the actions listed @183, or not?
If you don’t advocate undoing them, then you’re justifying those means. And the only rationale you’ve given for them is the “history” of The Bad Guys™.
QED.
As I said, you don’t know the history. I never said the ends do justify the means.
MWH, too bad you can’t understand my position no matter how many different ways I say it.
The ends don’t justify the means.
No “history” could possibly justify what Wagner did:
JP @ 177,
That’s one of Brian’s few weak points. When he’s wrong and knows he’s wrong, he tends toward incoherence.
HP too bad you don’t know the history of the LPO. What you ignore is that this is not new.
Oh, I forgot, it’s that ‘sarcasm’ thing again.
@177 You’re not making sense.
The sarcasm @176 is designed to highlight the implausibility of your vouching @175.
It seems to me the lawsuit, filed by the Reeves group, is what’s keeping the state of Oregon divided
When right resists might, lovers of justice know who to blame for the problem constituted by the “division” between the two.
HP, you’re not making sense.
Ah, so the coup apologists go apoplectic when their opponents seek to have the rules be followed, but they would just “get over it” if their opponents staged a coup-plus-purge that rewrote the rules to suit their whims.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, and accepting a coup-plus-purge is exactly analogous to accepting the overwhelming first-ballot victory of the LP POTUS candidate who went on to more than double the vote percentage achieved by any of the previous 7 POTUS campaigns.
Got it.
HP: ” The coup apologists would be screaming bloody murder if such a coup-plus-purge were committed by people they consider factional opponents.
Instead, they just say “get over it”.”
How do you know those of us not on your side
wouldn’t have taken the loss, and just gone about the business of growing the Libertarian party? That’s an enormous assumption on your part. It seems to me the lawsuit, filed by the Reeves group, is what’s keeping the state of Oregon divided.
An example would be the campaign for the presidential candidate at the national convention last year. Many radicals supported Lee Wrights, but our guy lost. So, then we supported the guy who won, Gary Johnson. WE GOT OVER OUR LOSS. Then the vote for chair happened. The supporters of Mark Rutherford absolutely could not deal with their loss. The Crybaby Caucus carried on for months. I’ve never seen grown-ups be such poor losers. My point is that some people accept a loss and get on with their lives.
(And don’t even start with the story that there was a big plot with the NOTA signs. There was never any evidence of that. It’s just more evidence that the Rutherford side were such poor losers they had to make up a story).
You don’t know what Wagner apologists would have done if the situation had been reversed.
I don’t remember seeing a response to the allegation that there was no quorum at the state committee meeting that appointed the Reeves group
I recall that claim being rebutted on IPR.
it is the state which determines who gets to participate in the state’s elections
So any coup is OK if you emerge from the rubble holding the keys granted by the government. Got it.
neither side followed the old rules, even if following the old rules is the most important thing to you
This isn’t about following the rules off a cliff. This is about following the rules as closely as possible, out of respect for Libertarian principles.
Instead, Wagner pulled a Rahm Emanuel: “never let a good crisis go to waste”.
It’s just shameful to see someone as principled as Paulie justifying an outright coup-plus-purge with allegations about quorum problems — when the coup leader cited quorum problems as the very thing that necessitated the coup!
The coup apologists would be screaming bloody murder if such a coup-plus-purge were committed by people they consider factional opponents.
Instead, they just say “get over it”.
The hypocrisy is palpable.
Sometimes the answer to slippery slope is to point out natural walls that one will smack into really hard…
I was just presenting a hypothetical to illustrate a point in discussion, not suggesting it could or should actually be done.
Paulie @165
Membership in the Libertarian Party of Oregon is defined by election law:
248.002 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) “Committee office” means chairperson, vice chairperson or other office the county or state central committee of a political party creates to govern the business of the committee.
(2) “County clerk” means the county clerk or the county official in charge of elections.
(3) “Elector” means an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution.
(4) “Member” means an individual who is registered as being affiliated with the political party. [1979 c.190 §67]
I suspect defining it more broadly would possibly raise a claim that your rights are being diluted… though the enforceability of it might be suspect.
The hostages have been released. I repeat, the hostages have been released.
Paulie… my scribd links to the latest filings got caught in the moderation queue. Please release.
Today the LPO filed for leave to amend our amended answer to the case in Clackamas Count yto demand attorney’s fees from the plaintiffs.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132342097/Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Second-Amended-Answer-P0325875
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132342048/Decl-of-Bob-Stringer-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Leave-to-Amend-P0325872
On Thursday last week the plaintiffs filed to request partial summary judgment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132342022/Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-P0325823
Wagner sends me emails backing up his claims on a regular basis. I don’t always publish all of them, though.
I would prefer it if both sides backed up their claims as much as possible.
For example, while my memory is not perfect, I don’t remember seeing a response to the allegation that there was no quorum at the state committee meeting that appointed the Reeves group or that most of the people who were in fact there voting were not eligible.
Likewise, I prefer it when Wagner backs up his claims, as he often does, but I understand there are somethings he can’t or doesn’t want to tell me because he is in the middle of active litigation.
Smart Alex @157: my @147 was sarcasm. When you gushed @143 that “the Wagner group has gone about the business of working towards liberty”, I was pointing out that their self-described coup left them in sole control of the yoke, throttle, and rudder pedals. If doing the pilot’s job is the only justification one needs to stage a hijacking, then buckle up for some turbulence.
Meanwhile, Wagner says that a quorum problem can make it “necessary” for him to completely rewrite the bylaws at a meeting he runs, but an alleged quorum problem does not make it “necessary” to fill mass officer vacancies if he’s not running the meeting.
Yet another instance of Wagner’s hypocrisy.
If you are sufficiently curious about the allegedly planned bylaws changes
I’m more curious about why nobody but me is asking Wagner to back up his claims. Oh wait, I already know: coup apologists argue backwards from their desired result, because they are factional infighters for whom the ends justify the means.
Depends on how you do it.
If you throw out the requirement to sign a pledge of non-initiation of force, that’s a problem for many LP members. If you disenfranchise people who paid to be members, including life members, but are not allowed to register to vote, that can be a problem.
Suppose you had a third group of LPO officers which defined LPO membership as “every biped living in or passing through Oregon,” regardless of whether they paid dues, signed a pledge, registered to vote LP, hold any libertarian views, or registered or are eligible to vote at all. That would be an even greater dilution than Wagner et al did. Do you see how that could be a problem for some people?
Exactly. Whether it’s called “awarded” or something else is besides the point.
Question it all you wish, but it is the state which determines who gets to participate in the state’s elections as a political party/label and who is recognized as being the leadership of such for that purpose.
Given the “party” part of Libertarian Party, I don’t consider the state’s de facto recognition to be unimportant here.
As best I understand it, the meeting that created the Reeves leadership did not have a quorum of state committee members, which is a separate matter from the lack of quorum at the convention it followed. Thus, neither side followed the old rules, even if following the old rules is the most important thing to you.
As I said already, I do, however, agree that the Wagner group went too far in replacing the old rules in a more thorough fashion that was necessary to fix the quorum issue.
SA @160
On May 21st, 2011 — in the parking lot, yes.
ProFunk is only available by phone right now, but (s)he believes (s)he has that information somewhere in his/her email archives. However, (s)he is too busy to look for it or be involved in internet discussion fora for the foreseeable future.
If you are sufficiently curious about the allegedly planned bylaws changes, you could inquire with the court in Oregon to see whether they have in fact been entered into the court records as Mr. Wagner claims above, and if so whether those records are available to the public.
WW, are you talking about the meeting in the parking lot?
paulie
Since vacancies count under parliamentary law, there were 32-36 offices on the state committee depending on which records you believe. Quorum was 20%.
This gives you a quorum requirement of 7 or 8 … of the 5 people at the alleged meeting, all 5 were unable to produce credentials during depositions. I think one of them was just incapable but might be legitimate. The other 4 had testimony and evidence to the contrary.
As I understand it, Wagner et al. say that some of those members had resigned months earlier while others who were allegedly representing counties have no proof as to how or whether those counties (or the state committee, if it even could appoint county representatives at all) selected them.
I can’t remember whether I’ve ever asked or been told whether 5 of 11 met quorum requirements, assuming there were any.
I “get it” HP, I just don’t think it applies here as you think it does. So, since the Reeves group didn’t manage to keep control, they don’t deserve to be in charge? Well, I agree, but I’d be surprised if that’s what you meant.
TK @150: rounded up by Richard Burke
The real Tom Knapp would know that the time and place of this meeting were set pursuant to a motion by Wes Wagner.
pretended to be the remaining State Committee members
The minutes of the meeting give the names of the 5-out-of-11 State Committee members attending.
Thanks for dropping the pretense that the convention didn’t happen.
Class, does anyone want to explain the analogy @147 to “Smart” Alex @153? Beuller?
TK @152
The NAP only applies to the initiation of force… it does not state the manners in which reciprocation could and should occur and to what extent.
If you give David Terry enough time he will find a way to break the NAP first 😉
ProFunk@41
@FB:
Brett H. Pojunis 5:06pm Mar 25
“The address is:
1771 E. Flamingo Road
Suite 201 A
Las Vegas, NV 89119
After hours you will have to call one of us to come down and get you as the doors will be locked, if you would like to park in the underground parking, call me and I will give you the code.”
HP @ 147: Your comment @ 147 makes no sense at all. Maybe this is Brian Holtz.
WW@151,
Well, when you put it that way …
If I lived in Oregon, and if I was an LP member, and if the situation transpired as it has, yes, I would probably throw in with “the Wagner faction.”
I would not do so because I consider your actions “justified.”
I would do so because of the two coups, yours succeeded while the other failed, and I would do so because I agreed that your cabal’s future plans for the OLP than the other cabal’s, and I would do so because I’m just not really sure that I could discipline myself to adhere to the non-aggression principle if locked in the same room as David Terry. Also, I hear you guys have ice cream.
TK @149
Considering one side justified or not does not cause one to have to act.
A neutral observer to the trolley problem might decide to do nothing to prosecute the person who decided to kill one innocent person to save five because it is not in the interest of justice to do anything about it.
Likewise that neutral person has no moral compulsion to have to do anything about it. Evaluating an act as justified or unjustified does not compel an individual to act on their opinion. They can have one, but choose to not act upon it.
HP @ 144,
“A bunch of people rounded up by Richard Burke, including at least one Republican committeeman, met immediately following adjournment of the convention and pretended to be the remaining State Committee members (representatives appointed by the county affiliates) ”
There, fixed that for ya.
WW@142,
“If you lived here you would probably consider one side justified or not …”
Nope.
For one thing, sometimes one gets in a situation where there is no justifiable path and no matter what you do, it will be wrong (for example, one of Mr. Holtz’s favorite things to throw out there, the “trolley problem,” to which there is no solution — it’s wrong to kill one innocent person to save five, and it’s wrong to kill five innocent people to save one).
For another, I am not a member of the LP these days, and the only interest I have in its affairs is as entertainment.
It is also my understanding that as a matter of law, any action that takes place at a meeting where there are not enough attendees even reflected in the minutes to constitute a quorum are invalid even if no one is present to object at the time.
That is the governance protection of having a less than a full quorum meeting conduct business in secret w/o inviting everyone.
Therefore no actions ever done by the Reeves group could be legal because they have never had a quorum at any of their meetings under the rules they claim are operative.
the Wagner group has gone about the business of working towards liberty
Mohamed Atta kept Flight 11 flying for a while, too. Those pilots he took over from didn’t subsequently even lift a finger to help the flight’s progress. Thus, Atta deserved to be at the controls.
Well except for the position of vice-chair… but you would have needed a quorum to appoint someone to it, which was around 7 or 8 people who had valid credentials, not 5 people of which maybe 1 had valid credentials.
“Since the LPO officer terms expire at the end of their conventions, all the officer positions became vacant at that point.
Under the old 2009 bylaws this was not true … the plaintiffs assert it, but it is actually false. If the 2009 bylaws were in place, these offices were not vacant.
The real Tom Knapp wouldn’t confuse the assertion with the argument for it, which I repeat:
“Since the LPO officer terms expire at the end of their conventions, all the officer positions became vacant at that point. Specifically Wes Wagner ceased to be the LPO Chairperson at that point. The remaining State Committee members (representatives appointed by the county affiliates) met immediately following adjournment of the convention, as required by their 2009 bylaws. Their State Committee members are empowered to fill officer vacancies, so the State Committee selected new officers.”
One side seems to be pursuing good ends while the other does not. But that does not “justify” anything.
Ah, so the “good” ends don’t “justify” the means, they just provide a reason to defend or uphold the means as warranted or well-grounded.
justify v. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded
@142 Pope Wes needs to pick a story and stick to it. Was his coup necessary because of 1) the quorum problem, or 2) “20 years of raw naked political fraud and aggression”? Is he admitting (as he did on video) that if his coup merely fixed the quorum problem, he could never have convinced the LPOR to adopt the new membership criteria that he needed in order to vanquish The Bad Guys?
Such an admission might win points with the “Tom Knapp” of this thread, who likes his power grabs naked and “honest”.
Seems to me most Oregon Libertarians have
already decided which group they’re going to side with, and it certainly doesn’t seem to be the Reeves group. The latter seems to be stuck in the “but, but, but..it’s not fair” mode, while the Wagner group has gone about the business of working towards liberty.
TK @141
If you lived here you would probably consider one side justified or not … 😉
It is not easy for outsiders without 20 years of suffering raw naked political fraud and aggression to understand why some things get done the way they do.
“Who is Tom Knapp in Missouri to decide for Oregon Libertarians how best to promote liberty there?”
Why, nobody at all. I’m sure that Oregon libertarians will decide for themselves how best to promote liberty there — and that they’ll do so regardless of internal LP, or external LNC, squabbles over the matter.
“Ends justifying fraudulent means”
I don’t consider either side “justified.”
One side seems more honest insofar as they broke the rules openly instead of pretending that was not what they were doing (no amount of repeating “just tried to follow the existing bylaws as closely as was possible under the circumstances” will make it so or serve as a refutation to the obvious contrary truth).
One side seems to be pursuing good ends while the other does not.
But that does not “justify” anything.
One broke them without admitting they were breaking them
Argument by repetition. Already rebutted @138.
build a political party of and for Oregon’s registered Libertarian voters
I favor being more inclusive of registered Libertarians. But the right way to grow the LP is to recruit or persuade Libertarians — not fraudulently rewriting the rules.
Is Richard Burke some kind of hypnotoad or cult leader, whose mind-control of LPOR members could only have been broken by inflating the membership by 10000%? Who is Tom Knapp in Missouri to decide for Oregon Libertarians how best to promote liberty there?
Ends justifying fraudulent means, not trusting grownup libertarians to run their own affairs — who are you, and why are you posting under Tom Knapp’s name?
HP @ 138,
Neither faction tried to follow the rules as written. One broke them without admitting they were breaking them, the other threw them out entirely but openly.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that I think the Wagner faction is “ideologically pure.” I haven’t followed the controversy from an ideological standpoint at all.
From the standpoint of practical politics, it does seem to me that the Wagner faction is attempting to build a political party of and for Oregon’s registered Libertarian voters, while the Reeves Gang is attempting to preserve LPO in its former configuration as the Oregon Society for the Care and Feeding of Richard Burke.
The Reeves group did not change any LPOR bylaws. They just tried to follow the existing bylaws as closely as was possible under the circumstances. The LNC’s JudCom brief explains:
“Since the LPO officer terms expire at the end of their conventions, all the officer positions became vacant at that point. Specifically Wes Wagner ceased to be the LPO Chairperson at that point. The remaining State Committee members (representatives appointed by the county affiliates) met immediately following adjournment of the convention, as required by their 2009 bylaws. Their State Committee members are empowered to fill officer vacancies, so the State Committee selected new officers.”
TK: a convention that never happened because there was no quorum
Lack of a quorum just means a convention can’t do any business other than to recess, take actions to achieve a quorum, or adjourn. It’s not serious to say a convention “didn’t happen” just because no quorum was achieved.
BOTH factions threw the rulebook out
One tried to follow the rules as written. The other completely rewrote the rules outside of convention, and foisted a controversial membership inflation that 1) they admitted on video they could never have gotten convention approval for and 2) conveniently expelled several of their dues-paying opponents.
They also dissolved the Judicial Committee and threw out the Pledge — but they still somehow get credit for “a rulebook that works” and for ideological purity. Neat trick, that.
My guessing who HP is had nothing to do with being a moderator. The only way I could do that is by checking IP numbers, and since most of us have email at home, work, and through our phones, it’s not worth my trouble. Besides, I know there are valid reasons people choose not to identify themselves, and I respect that.
I still think it’s Dr. Lieberman because he continues to focus on the “coup” and not things going on before or after, which would indicate to me he might not be an insider, meaning an Oregonian. Of course, that would be true with Holtz, but I think Holtz would have known about the Sept letter from the SOS. Anyway, I really have spent enough time on this thread, so
that’s enough for me.
HP@134,
“We here at the Hypocrisy Police Dept. are not surprised that people who reason backwards from their Enemies List are obsessed with our identity.”
I’m not obsessed with your identity — I just wonder why you don’t care to associate your position with that identity.
If you think that Brian Holtz is on my “Enemies List,” you are much mistaken.
“ProFunk, who wrote earlier ‘I also know that the other side was also planning to throw out the bylaws and stage their own coup.'”
If the other side is the Reeves Gang, they DID throw out the bylaws and stage their own coup.
They created a new “state committee” from whole cloth, including members who were not only members of the organization, but were committee officials for an opposing organization.
Their only justification for their action was that the existing bylaws called for a state committee meeting after a convention — a convention that never happened because there was no quorum, and a “state committee meeting” they held was no more a “state committee meeting” than the following week’s Portland Kiwanis Club gathering was.
BOTH factions threw the rulebook out — one with a view toward implementing a rulebook that actually worked, and one with a view toward preserving their Big Fish in Small Pond status.
everything within its power to increase the number of people interested in participating with and maintaining a personal, emotional stake in their LP chapter
Right. Because nothing says “personal, emotional stake” like not having to take the Pledge, not having to pay any dues, and instead just getting a form letter asking one to rubber-stamp a set of bylaws without any context or alternative.
Why any LP member would want to restrict that is beyond me
Strawman much? Wagner’s opponents restricted nobody from joining the LPOR. However, Wagner summarily expelled/disqualified anybody unwilling/unable to register to vote in Oregon — even if they were Pledge-taking dues-payers.
Wagner’s LPO is and remains the de facto LPO
And who are we Libertarians to question the government-decreed status quo?
We here at the Hypocrisy Police Dept. are not surprised that people who reason backwards from their Enemies List are obsessed with our identity. However, the Anonymity Pledge administered at Hypocrisy Police Academy is not to be abrogated — unless of course Pope Wes issues a papal bull deeming abrogation “necessarium”.
tacky
The Hypocrisy Police still consider it completely appropriate to suggest that if you don’t care about respecting voluntary agreements in one context, you might not care about respecting them in other contexts.
The SoS letter @126 is completely consistent with — and an inevitable result of — the SoS’s position that it is “unable to process any changes without written approval from the current chair of record of the Libertarian Party of Oregon”. There is zero suggestion in the SoS letter @126 that the SoS has taken a position on the merits of the dispute.
It is our contention that the lack of appeal of this order is fatal to their case
Mr. Wagner, brace yourself for a shitstorm of criticism here for asking that rules be followed.
…crickets…
Oh wait, that criticism would only happen if the Anti-Rules Caucus members weren’t just reasoning backwards from their preferred outcome — precisely as they complain about their Enemies.
P.S. Thank you for digging up that quote. I remain curious about the bylaws change allegedly planned by the Reeves group. Too bad we apparently lost ProFunk, who wrote earlier “I also know that the other side was also planning to throw out the bylaws and stage their own coup”.
One more thing… regardless of whether the SoS “awarded” or “recognized” or whatever term you choose, the simple, legal truth over the last two years is that the Wagner’s LPO is and remains the de facto LPO, and will remain so unless the current court case awards that status to the Burke/Reeves group. No amount of semantic hairsplitting changes that.
For what it’s worth, Paulie’s interpretation of the LPO situation pretty closely mirrors my own – though I commend Wagner’s and his associates activity as of late, that doesn’t mean I think the serial bylaw changes or vast uprooting of membership requirements was necessarily done “transparently”. Whether any of the reforms could have been done transparently, with consultation among all members of the LPO (even the ones Wagner & Co. don’t like) is certainly open to debate.
I will note, however, that the entire point of an LP chapter is to consistently “dilute shareholder power”, meaning each LP state organization should be doing anything and everything within its power to increase the number of people interested in participating with and maintaining a personal, emotional stake in their LP chapter. Why any LP member would want to restrict that is beyond me.
Paulie @ 130,
“I don’t see any problem with guessing who someone is based on their writing style, but I would prefer if those people who actually can check the IP would make clear whether their identifying a pseudonymous person is based on checking the IP”
Well, let me be as clear as I can be: I never have, and never would, check a pseudonymous commenter’s IP for the purpose of “outing” him or her.
There’s no “right” to have others protect one’s pseudonymity, especially in the absence of effort to protect it one’s self
It’s not a legal right, but it’s our tradition here, and I would like to preserve it if we can.
and just to be clear on that, I didn’t consult IP logs or anything like that. I just noticed from the particular writing style and word usages that the writer is obviously Mr. Holtz, and wondered why he didn’t want to associate his name with his views.
I don’t see any problem with guessing who someone is based on their writing style, but I would prefer if those people who actually can check the IP would make clear whether their identifying a pseudonymous person is based on checking the IP – or just based on the same kind of guess that anyone else here can make based on the person’s writing style or other clues which everyone can see whether they are signed up to write for IPR or not.
But that’s just my preference; no one here is guaranteed that other people who are signed up for IPR will respect this custom, unfortunately.
I should also make clear at this point that I haven’t checked who HP is either, although I could.
Holtz like to post graphs.
As of the last time I checked, only IPR writers can post images, although non-IPR writers can now post videos. If Mr. Holtz wants to post images he would have to do it under his own name.
If it isn’t Dr. Lieberman, I apologize. If it is, I’m getting off this thread because I don’t like being this nasty to anyone. Oregon really isn’t my battle, anyway, and I have other things to do.
Jill,
In my experience, Dr. Lieberman is usually a very courteous individual, as is Mr. Holtz — but neither is above a not necessarily pertinent dig at someone now and again.
For those who don’t want to dig through facts and documents that are in legal filings, the 29 Sept 2011 final order reads:
Messrs. Wagner and Reeves:
We understand that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
While we have attempted to stay out of your internal party processes, it is clear that we will have to make a decision so that the voters affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be able to have a candidate for the Special Election in the 1st Congressional District.
We currently recognize, and will continue to recognize Wes Wagner as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. We will accept the Libertarian nominee for the 1st Congressional District Special Election from Mr. Wagner.
Sincerely,
STEPHEN N. TROUT
Director of Elections
————-
That was the final order of the Oregon SoS. The only way to reverse a final order determination of a state agency it so appeal it within 60 days. It is our contention that the lack of appeal of this order (which was made at the request of the plaintiffs) is fatal to their case along with many other fatal flaws.
Please refer to our Motion for Summary Judgment to see half of the fatal flaws that require no facts in dispute to prove.
Tlk: Perhaps you’re right. I wondered if it was Holtz, too, but just decided it was Lieberman for the reasons mentioned. Would Holtz have been tacky enough to attack me professionally, though?
I know I could figure it out if I really wanted to, but I’ve spent enough time on this thread already.
Jill @121,
I’ve known both Dr. Lieberman and Dr. Holtz for years, and it is my considered opinion that “Hypocrisy Police” is Mr. Holtz, for the following reasons:
1) Dr. Lieberman’s writing tends toward typos of kinds that I don’t see in HP’s comments; and
2) HP’s writing resembles Mr. Holtz’s in significant non-trivial respects, to wit:
a) Tendency to respond to claims with lengthy tendentious questions as in @3 (“You mean, the kind who …?”);
b) A penchant for using Soviet-style portmanteau abbreviations (e.g. “reglib”);
c) The habit of claiming that a particular statement “tells me all I need to know” about someone’s views;
d) Dismissal of others’ arguments as “hand-waving.”
While none of those things, taken individually, constitutes proof that HP is Brian Holtz (I’m not innocent of [a] myself, for example), taken as a collection of verbiage from a single thread they constitute strong evidence that HP is Brian Holtz.
HP
The September 29th, 2011 letter is in the exhibits on the legal filing on my Scribd account which was posted here under the MSJ thread.
The SoS has rendered no additional opinions after that final opinion they rendered on Sept 29th, 2011.
You may write the Oregon SoS and request copies of all emails and documents related to this dispute as they are considered public records.
Hmm, Sep 2011 letter. Let me Google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22oregon+secretary+of+state%22+site%3Aindependentpoliticalreport.com+2011&l=1
I don’t see anything about a Sept 29 letter, but the first link is a Reeves press release from April 2012 asserting that the SoS “will not take a stand on the relative merits of the LPO dispute and is content to take its guidance from a court”.
If it were true that the SoS had ruled on the merits of the case, then you could post/quote the SoS letter saying so.
But you can’t, because the SoS has never reversed its position from what I quoted.
@115,
“Regardless of whether the latest statement about HP’s identity is correct or not, if someone wants to not sign their name, for whatever reason they don’t want to sign it, we should not reveal who they are.”
If people don’t want to identify themselves by their real names, that’s their business.
If I want to note that someone isn’t identifying himself by his real name and mention who that someone is, that’s my business.
There’s no “right” to have others protect one’s pseudonymity, especially in the absence of effort to protect it one’s self — and just to be clear on that, I didn’t consult IP logs or anything like that. I just noticed from the particular writing style and word usages that the writer is obviously Mr. Holtz, and wondered why he didn’t want to associate his name with his views.
tlk@ 114: I don’t think it’s Holtz. I don’t think Holtz knows every little detail of the Oregon dispute (he does, after all, have a family/life); he has a unique manner of writing, which is different than HP’s; and Holtz like to post graphs. The reason I think it’s Lieberman is that the doctor keeps coming back to that Assault video, which he referred to fairly early in this thread. He really thinks it’s the smoking gun of the case.
For those who want to look further into how to properly appeal an administrative ruling that was requested of an executive branch body in the State of Oregon, see http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/183.html
(The letter you want is the 29 Sept 2011 letter… it was the last letter on this topic from the Oregon Secretary of State and was a final ruling)
As far as all of my documentation and evidence of all the allegations, it is being posted as part of the legal filings and a comprehensive review will be posted after the legal process is over.
A large number of people will be very embarrassed and I believe it will be more shocking than the alleged Flood keyholders expose’ that has been promised.
Protecting the interests of Oregonians comes before winning a public relations battle at the moment … and allowing our political enemies to continue to dig their holes deeper before revealing their alliances and involvement is also in the best interests of the LP.
This organization will not prosper without a very large purge of all the bad actors. It is best to let them expose themselves entirely first.
HP — what you are quoting is an earlier letter. Reeves and Burke through their lawyer asked for a ruling.
The later letter is far more concrete.
This, Paulie, is why you shouldn’t take Wagner’s word on what evidence is on record about bylaws changes allegedly planned by his opponents.
I was already planning to be at my real job several hours ago, so I need to stop feeding my addiction. If either side wants to provide actual evidence for what those planned bylaws changes were, by all means do so. Otherwise I have other things to do.
Regardless of whether the latest statement about HP’s identity is correct or not, if someone wants to not sign their name, for whatever reason they don’t want to sign it, we should not reveal who they are.
Hmm. 19 comments so far. Why are you reluctant to sign your own name, Mr. Holtz?
More hand-waving from Wagner, who again tries to obscure the facts. Here is what the SoS office actually wrote on the matter:
We are unable to process any changes without written approval from the current chair of record of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
I have not made any assurances to the national party organization or anyone else on either side of this dispute. It is a party dispute and needs to be resolved by the party.
When coup leaders or apologists try to claim that the SoS “awarded” or “ruled” or “decided” in Wagner’s favor, that tells you all you need to know about their level of truthfulness. This, Paulie, is why you shouldn’t take Wagner’s word on what evidence is on record about bylaws changes allegedly planned by his opponents.
Actually there was a request for an official ruling by the reeves crew with the SoS and a ruling was issued.
Despite everyone claiming the SoS saying things they did not say.. the letter containing the ruling was posted here.
The change did not meet the unanimity rules that existed under the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution was soon ratified by all the states. Thanks for ignoring my point that the people asked to ratify it were fully informed of their options.
The Articles and Constitution were an agreement among the states, so your point about 5% of the populace is irrelevant.
P.S. If there were a live case in a federal court about whether to revert to the Articles of Confederation, I would indeed favor doing so — primarily for the increase in decentralization.
As a matter of facts on the ground, the SOS decision gave the Wagner group the power to control the ballot line. What term you use for it is up to you, but until and unless a court (or Wagner) says otherwise that was the SOS decision.
I didn’t realize it was possible to shout anyone down here, and I wouldn’t want to shout you down – you make some good points, although there are things I don’t agree with you on, such as your conclusions, at least as I understand them.
That is in fact awarding de facto
An “awarding” is an event. There was no such event. The SoS just writes down what it is told by the outgoing officers of record (or by a court). Stenographers don’t “award” anything, and neither did the SoS. The SoS has explicitly declined to make any judgement on the merits of the case, but coup apologists have repeatedly suggested otherwise.
They should know better.
The means of mendacity are apparently justified by the ends of opposing The Bad Guys.
History is written by the victors — but now we have IPR. It’s interesting to see The Good Guys in this thread stumbling over each other trying to shout down one voice trying to set the record straight.
The change did not meet the unanimity rules that existed under the Articles of Confederation. It was a coup.
The constitutional coup…was it even rubber stamped by 5% of the people of the US? Not that I know of.
Interesting questions. Allegedly they were answered in a court deposition.
Considering Wagner to be less bad than Reeves/Burke does not mean agreeing with Wagner.
It is, however, true that in the case of imminent danger such as “one man who started loading a revolver while screaming about how they were going to kill you” taking measures in self defense by firing first is not contrary to libertarian theory. Whether this was such a case is a separate question.
That’s just a conspiracy theory 🙂
Logically, it doesn’t. If registered LP voters with a state is the legitimate definition of LP member, and any other definition is illegitimate – which is what Wagner has said here – what does that mean for the national party, when half the states don’t have registering LP as an option?
North Dakota. Still doesn’t – I worked there last winter.
That’s true.
I agree with the quote above from Chuck about dues. I also favor retaining the pledge.
That is in fact awarding de facto.
It is dilution. Wagner is contending that the registered LP voters were the rightful members even before his new bylaws defined them as such, so he considers the old bylaws and the old governing structure, even before the quorum problem, to have always been illegitimate.
No, the only thing I saw being said was that the coup is not a reason to back the other side in Oregon, since they are no better in that respect – they just didn’t get to carry out their planned coup first. And that doesn’t even get into the other issues with them.
From Wagner’s position that the prior governing structure was always illegitimate, both of those statements make sense.
I agree with you that a more surgical bylaws change would have been preferable.
Yep, I agree on all that.
@102 I believe it means something quite different, namely that LNC Inc, by funding part of the current Reeves suit, by sending members to Oregon to disrupt their state convention [1], and by failing to seat the Oregon delegation to the 2012 national convention, has proven that it is a threat to the LP of Oregon. There are well known lawful and ethical processes for using the voluntary political marketplace to shut down political threats to your political organization.
With respect to registration, etc., one state at least until recently did not use voter registration at all. A moderate number of state parties do not require people to sign the loyalty oath to join. I am, however, inclined to believe that Mr Wagner’s idea on organizational dues is less viable in the marketplace of political ideas than the contrary.
Yes, but the problem could have been fixed surgically instead of completely changing the definition of party member.
As a practical matter, yes. It also helps that they are not the group that wants to make the LP a temporary rest home for disgruntled conservative Republicans. However, I don’t agree that the extent of bylaws change was necessitated by the quorum problem; that’s a separate issue.
I think shareholders was meant more in the sense of people with a vote over the leadership, bylaws, and candidate selection etc. than any financial sense as such.
I’m considering it. What I am taking it to mean is that the LP would no longer exist in states which don’t allow people to register as Libertarians, which is about half of them.
So you are presuming that the subjects are those who have registered LP with the state, rather than those who have signed the pledge with the party. Also, you believe basic membership dues are unethical. Just so anyone reading the discussion understands what you are saying.
So someone like me who paid to be a life member of the LP and is not allowed to register to vote would no longer be an LP member. Fine (not really), but what about all the people who live in states that don’t register voters by party or where the LP is not one of the options?
I’d rather stick with signing the pledge as the basic definition of LP membership.
What makes you think HP is Lieberman?
Only the people who paid dues and/or signed the pledge (some states allow pledge signers who don’t pay dues to vote) governed the party, and any person – whether they are allowed to register to vote by the state or not – was free to join that association (or should have been) if they signed the pledge. On the other hand, registering LP with the state does not involve a pledge of non-initiation of force, and having called through such lists before, I found many, many people who thought libertarian meant liberal, or meant true conservative, or (fill in the blank).
It’s also not a model that could work nationally – only about half the states have Libertarian as an option to register to vote with, and some states don’t register voters by party at all.
Joining a state or national party is more meaningful than signing a voter registration. It involves a pledge of non-initiation of force, and isn’t bound by the state’s restrictions over who may register to vote.
Actually, did someone who knows what state you live in say what state that is?
Personally I didn’t even say what state you definitely don’t live in. All I have done is caution people against certain assumptions, such as that you live in Oregon or are an LNC member. But that doesn’t mean that you aren’t or don’t.
WW
Not in a voluntary association they have paid to join.
What you mean, in case HP did not understand you, is that the people registered as LP voters with the state did not consent to the previous governing structure.
However, the people who signed the non-initiation of force pledge and paid to join the LP did consent to it, and their consent was a voluntary contract.
It’s completely possible that HP is from Oregon. All I said was that people shouldn’t assume that HP is from Oregon, but that also means you should not assume that HP is *not* from Oregon. As for guesses as to the exact identity of HP, I would certainly not make any assumptions. Jill is actually among the people who could look it up, but that doesn’t mean that she has. She may or may not know how.
Why are people thinking HP is from CA and not OR?
the group that was awarded the status of de jure LPO by the Secretary of State
There was no “awarding”. The SoS simply said that they wouldn’t update their records of who are the LPOR officers until either 1) the officers of record notified them that they’d been replaced, or 2) an Oregon court ordered it.
I said nothing about “shareholders”. The voting membership of the LPOR went from ~150 to ~13,000 because of a 5-4 vote at Elmer’s restaurant. Tell us again with a straight face that’s not “dilution”.
breaking a poorly written contract isn’t hypocrisy
The hypocrisy is saying a coup was justified because the other side was planning one too.
The hypocrisy is admitting on IPR that one committed a coup, while complaining on lporegon.org about “a failed attempt at a bureaucratic coup of the LPOR”.
The hypocrisy is conflating the need to fix the quorum problem with the desire to ram through a membership dilution that the coup leader admitted on video could never get the requisite 2/3 approval.
The hypocrisy is dissolving the Judicial Committee so one’s crimes cannot be adjudicated within the Party, and then complaining that the case is being taken to court.
The hypocrisy is claiming to be ideologically holier-than-thou while throwing away the Pledge as a criterion for membership.
Fraudulently filing completely-novel bylaws with the SoS is not the same as a firm filing for bankruptcy.
Contrary to popular belief among libertarian circles, contracts can and are routinely broken – in fact, large sections of the legal code deal exclusively under which conditions contracts can be broken, how to make each party whole(-ish) after a contract is broken, and what punitive actions may be taken when one party of a contract simply refuses to honor the contract, as opposed to being unable to fulfill it.
In the case of the LPO, given the strict quorum requirements effectively preventing the LPO from holding a convention, a very good argument could be made that the contract (i.e. the governing LPO bylaws of the time) were non-enforceable since it was physically impossible for them to be fulfilled. Apparently both factions agreed, which led to a pair of novel “breaches” of those bylaws. The Burke/Reeves faction, at least from the little bit I’ve looked into this, definitely had the most legalistic approach to the problem, using some rather clever Robert’s Rules clauses and loopholes to effectively hand-wave the quorum requirements away; Wagner’s crew, meanwhile, basically just walked away from the “contract” entirely and wrote a new one up, though there was a fig leaf or two pulled from the old bylaws to provide some continuity.
In the end, I rather doubt it matters much either way – both parties effectively proved that the bylaws, as originally written, were unenforceable through their actions after the last failure to achieve quorum. From that moment forward, it comes down to which group has since acted as the de facto LPO, which, near as anyone can tell, matches up just about perfectly with the group that was awarded the status of de jure LPO by the Secretary of State. Since the LPO wasn’t incorporated until well after the suit was underway, “dilution of shareholder value” isn’t a concern since there was no corporation capable of distributing shares as the LPO; besides, the LPO would be properly registered as a non-profit anyway, which probably neutralizes the whole “shareholder” argument right there.
Either way, breaking a poorly written contract isn’t hypocrisy – it’s just good business sense. Ask anyone that’s filed for bankruptcy.
Yeah, whatever. I need to go wash my hair.
I guess that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t measure the magnitude of an injustice by how much it involves me personally.
attacking me professionally was inappropriate
The Hypocrisy Police consider it completely appropriate to suggest that if you don’t care about respecting voluntary agreements in one context, you might not care about respecting them in other contexts.
I’m just here to set the record straight. When the coup apologists stop posting excuses for why we shouldn’t care about the coup, I’ll stop rebutting the excuses. Wagner had the first word, the H.P.D. will have the last, and then the H.P.D. will go back to its silent vigil.
You coup apoligists are in complete control of how long this thread lasts.
The thing about you being Scott Lieberman, HP, is why this is so important to you. It isn’t your state, and you weren’t one of the parties wronged. Yet, you seem so personally harmed by it. It’s just baffling to me. That convention stuff started 2 full years ago. So much has happened in our country and our state since then! I just think it’s bizarre that it’s such a big deal to you. It’s none of my buisiness, though, I suppose.
By the way, attacking me professionally was inappropriate. I just had my 29 year anniversary with my company and have essentially a perfect record as far as complaints to the commissioner and e & o claims. So, I can and do follow rules when it’s important. It’s when they’re not so important that I have trouble with them, like cumbersome rules of protocal, which is why I’ll never be on an executive committee again.
I think HP just broke his brain…
WW: not allowed to revolt when they find it is impossible to replace a government they never voted to accept
I’ve read a lot of the briefs in this case but have no idea what Wagner is referring to. I’d ask him to explain, but it’s presumably part of the same “trap” that excuses him from answering my questions @61.
(Readers are advised not to scroll up to read those questions. The facts inquired about are not relevant. All that matters is whether I’m Scott Lieberman.)
Look out behind that tree! It’s al Qaeda! I better overthrow Iraq’s government!
Look out behind that bush! It’s Scott Lieberman! I better overthrow the LPOR bylaws to force a policy change I admitted on tape I could never pass legitimately! (Then later I’ll write on IPR that I had “critical mass” behind me in the crucial 5-4 vote at Elmer’s restaurant over whether to move forward with my coup plan. After all, by Prof. Phillies’ math, I had 55% of the LPOR behind me.)
HP said: “Jill Pyatt For ExCom: “I usually get over Bylaws violations and coups, as long as my world moves forward and no one gets hurt. Sure, some dues-paying members were expelled, and the Judicial Committee was dissolved, and remaining members had their voting power diluted by 98%, but no one got hurt. GET OVER IT”
I didn’t stay on the Ex Com because I couldn’t deal with all the little procedures and things. Trust me, I won’t ever run for it again. As you see, it’s amold I don’t fit into.
The people of California seem to tolerate a great deal of things that would set any rational man to the point of revolution… it must be something in the water.
Apparently In HP’s case, M.D. stands for Moronic Dumbass…
Why the California LP puts up with him is a great mystery…
HP @ 76: Remind me not to get any medical care from you if you have such little ability to think on your own.l
Readers should consider carefully the penultimate paragraph, notable the parts in future tense.
HP makes the same statist rules for thee but not for me bullshit that we have come to expect from that faction…
(I personally favor such an inclusive membership model, but I only want to win such reforms without force or fraud.)
Apparently under the statist version of the LP, the subjects are not allowed to revolt when they find it is impossible to replace a government they never voted to accept and when they finally get the critical mass to change it (after paying unethical fees and working within unfair rules for a decade), outside parties interfere to maintain the king’s law…
Subjugation is an act of force… the fact that people abided it for so long before they reciprocated may have lulled the statist faction into a false sense of entitlement that they should have peace while they commit their crimes against us, but that is just not the way it will be.
We intend to reciprocate the force that was levied upon us.
What happened in Oregon is exactly what any group of libertarians would do when confronted with the policies of Lieberman/Starr/et.al. and it will happen again at the national level and in every state until they are all reformed.
That is just the way of things.
Wagner thinks that who I am has some bearing on whether my arguments are valid. Don’t disagree with Wagner, or you join the Enemies List. When you’re an Enemy Of Freedom, then the end of defeating you justifies any means.
when you have 13,500 people who are being governed without their awareness or request for consent by some group
LP affiliates have no power to “govern” people who voluntarily choose to register Libertarian. (Wagner, Pyeatt, Wilson — how many LP officers can we get in this thread to make basic conceptual mistakes about the difference between voluntary contracts and government-imposed laws?)
there is a difference between joining the LP known as the Libertarian National Committee Inc. and signing a voter registration card
I never said there wasn’t. You are the one who has erased the difference between joining the LPOR and signing a voter registration card. (I personally favor such an inclusive membership model, but I only want to win such reforms without force or fraud.)
Not that HP aka Lieberman could ever be convinced to see objective reality, nor understand that when you have 13,500 people who are being governed without their awareness or request for consent by some group that isn’t the registered libertarians of Oregon it is a scenario for alot of problems (and quite a large number of problems did in fact occur) … but apparently he can’t understand that there is a difference between joining the LP known as the Libertarian National Committee Inc. and signing a voter registration card.
I know he is beyond help … hopefully someone will put him out of his political misery at some point by stripping him of all rights to represent anyone but himself and send him home.
You would think after the letter he wrote to suggest that his good buddy Burke spike the Johnson ballot access in Oregon to just cause political harm, he would have met with an unfortunate political end in his home state… but we know that our southern neighbors lack ethics in their leadership.
We have been dealing with them attempting to make us a puppet state for a couple decades.
So former LNC Chair candidate Wes Wagner thinks people who join the LP can’t be considered to have agreed to follow its Bylaws.
Well, that explains a lot.
It also takes a real statist to believe a system of laws that a person never consented to in the first place represents a voluntary contract
Of the 15,000 Oregonians who woke up to find themselves members of Wagner’s LPOR (thanks to Wagner’s use of Oregon government machinery), it’s true that only a small fraction can be considered to have voluntarily agreed to the novel Wagner bylaws. So heads up LPOR: either Wagner thinks these bylaws are as non-binding as the earlier ones he threw out, or he follows some kind of statist theory that if you find yourself under a set of rules, your consent is measured by whether you leave.
I say we finish the job and get rid of the rest of them
Luckily, purges are against LP bylaws. Oh, wait…
Well, luckily none of the IPR moderators are dropping hints about what state I do or don’t live in. Oh, wait…
MHW @77
They are only in love with Robert’s rules when they can use them to bludgeon their opponents…. they ignore them when they are inconvenient and know they can get away with it.
When someone calls them on their shit and actually shitcans them after decades of abuse, they get butthurt over it.
I say we finish the job and get rid of the rest of them that somehow didn’t get the memo.
It takes a real statist to worry about their voting power being diluted.
It also takes a real statist to believe a system of laws that a person never consented to in the first place represents a voluntary contract.
@ 75 Right on Jill! Some Libertarians are in love with Robert’s Rules and any other ones they find.
For Libertarians, who generally want as little breaking of voluntary contracts as possible, the love affair that some of them have with contract-breaking just blows my mind.
Jill, it’s shocking that you can’t tell the difference between 1) a government “rule” which you certify protects nobody from harm (as is indeed the case with many government rules) and 2) a voluntary agreement all parties to which expect it to be upheld.
What kind of Libertarian asserts that voluntary agreements among people are void whenever one party decides that abrogation is “necessary” or doesn’t really “hurt” the other parties or yields a result that is “better ideologically”? You’re in the insurance business, right? Remind me not to enter any insurance agreements with you.
Jill Pyatt For ExCom: “I usually get over Bylaws violations and coups, as long as my world moves forward and no one gets hurt. Sure, some dues-paying members were expelled, and the Judicial Committee was dissolved, and remaining members had their voting power diluted by 98%, but no one got hurt. GET OVER IT.”
For Libertarians, who generally want as little government as poosible, the love affair that some of them have with rules just blows my mind. I break rules all the time, some intentionally, most unintentionally. But I usually get over it, as long as my world moves forward and no one gets hurt. GET OVER IT, HP. This doesn’t become you.
Nothing to see here, citizens, move along in an orderly fashion. Ignore the evidence of controlled demolition of the LPOR bylaws, and get back to the business of working for freedom.
For the incident here that alerted the Hypocrisy Police, re-read @3. It should then be obvious how to keep the Hypocrisy Police vigilant but silent.
Frankly, I want to concentrate on the forward-moving states, which now includes Oregon. Let’s get back to the business of working for freedom for everyone.
Me or HP?
thats some seriously dramatic rhetoric there man!:)
Some people get tired of beating the Oregon thing to death after a while. If you have said all you have to say several times, I wouldn’t blame anyone for finding something else to do.
@67 It remains false to claim (as @4) that “more than 95 % of Libertarians in the state approve[d] the new bylaws”.
725/15,157 = 4.8%, even in Oregon.
While Wagner’s answers would be interesting, my questions @61 were for ProFunk, testing the extent to which he trusts history written by the victors . His silence is deafening.
Page 1 of the coup handbook is: accuse your opponents of attempting a coup.
As Major Remer said during a coup on July 20 1944: “We are the coup, you idiot! We’ve been duped!”
@65 Some Libertarians like to debate the War Of Southern Independence. Others of us are more interested in the only still-under-litigation case about an admitted coup of an LP affiliate. We each have our own utility function — except in Oregon, where the Powers That Be tell us what is Necessary and what is Not Necessary.
First they came for the anarchists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an anarchist.
Then they came for the ExCom members who hadn’t paid their dues, and I didn’t speak out because I was a life member.
Then they came for the not-registered-to-vote LPOR dues-payers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an LPOR member.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
@67 I can’t tell you, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
No, the Oregon change was ratified by a 95% vote. In voting only yeses and noes count.
@65 It really apepars reasonably like that HP is an Oreganian.
GP also, even if the building was worth slightly less than we bought it for, by now we would have had it paid off or almost paid off. Instead, we have spent the same amount of money on rent, and are no closer to paying a building off than we were in 2007. And that’s assuming no contributions specifically towards a building that we couldn’t get for any other purpose, which is not the case.
Had we bought the building in the 80s we could have owned several such buildings by now.
HP, why is this such a bill deal to you? Why don’t you worry about the leadership in your own state, or the possiblity of impending change of same, instead of Oregon’s troubles? It’s old news.
HP @63
Those questions are answered already… you just have to care enough to seek the truth rather than sucking up everything your friends tell you.
My intent is to lure you into the same trap that destroyed all of them … why would I go out of my way to enlighten you?
quod est necessarium est licitum
If it could be objectively determined quod est necessarium, then we wouldn’t need rules or voting. We’d just need a crown for King Wes or King Barack or whoever our current Determiner Of Necessity is.
Thanks for not answering my questions @61. That tells me all I need to know about the “loaded revolver” that was going to “kill” you.
quod est necessarium est licitum
that would be worse than what they have now
I.e. the ends justified the means. QED.
The Constitution was ratified by a supermajority fully informed of their choices. The Wagner coup was rubber-stamped by a 5% vote of people who had no clue that a coup had occurred.
I’d like to hear about the bylaws change allegedly planned by the Reeves group. Did it involve anything other than fixing the alleged quorum problem? Did it include purging political opponents? Did it include dissolving the Judicial Committee? Did it include ramming through a membership rights dilution that they’re quoted on video saying they could never get the members to approve?
analogous to one man who started loading a revolver while screaming about how they were going to kill you
(Facepalm)
Congratulations, ProFunk, this is the kind of mentality you’re excusing. You must be so proud.
One side was the first to do it.
The other side was the first to create a credible plot to do it and set actions in motion.
The situation was analogous to one man who started loading a revolver while screaming about how they were going to kill you, and you had a fully loaded 1911 inside your belt holster that you hoped you would never have to use.
What happens next ?
P & GP @ 50 & 55: Alan is actually sending resumes to Texas. Our future in CA is uncertain at this time. Thanks to both of you, though.
@56
1986 was when we came close to buying. It was narrowly voted down. Bad decision.
Had we bought in 2007, although there was no such offer/plan then, it would be worth more than then in DC. And there would be no reason we would be selling now.
@55 see @50-51
@47 And if we had purchased in 2007 we might now be able to sell it for most of what we paid for it.
@49 You could always run for CA Chair yourself.
Sure you do. If you’re not advocating that the coup be undone, then you’re excusing it.
If by undo the coup you mean support the Burke/Reeves side, then no, that would be worse than what they have now, for various reasons I tried to explain.
Are you demanding that the US Constitution be scrapped in favor of the Articles of Confederation? The convention that created the US Constitution was only supposed to amend the Articles, not scrap them.
What evidence is there for your claim?
Wagner @27: “it has been entered into the record in depositions that the Burke/Reeves crew were plotting with agents at national to do their own bylaws swap without any vote or ratification by the membership,”
This is no different from saying force initiation is OK whenever the force initiator “knows” that his target is planning some force initiation.
No, I said it is NOT OK. But a solution which gives power to a faction that would not throw out the old rules is not available. One side happened to be first to do it.
I don’t excuse it.
Sure you do. If you’re not advocating that the coup be undone, then you’re excusing it.
the other side was also planning to throw out the bylaws and stage their own coup
What evidence is there for your claim?
Note that the coup leaders have not dared to try this argument in the government’s courts. It’s a sad day when “the ends justify the means” carries more weight in the court of LP opinion than it does in the courts operated by the leviathan state.
the fact that Wagner et al beat them to the punch doesn’t make them any better
Are you even listening to yourself? This is no different from saying force initiation is OK whenever the force initiator “knows” that his target is planning some force initiation.
Libertarians are supposed to be the ones who know that the initiation of force is what determines the moral high ground.
Maybe Starchild is right. Maybe we should default to not trusting that Libertarians will put principles first when any real-world consequences are at stake.
How about Starchild for chair?
No, not a good time for either of us, Paulie. Thanks for the support, though. Both of us are of the opinion that local activism seems to be a little more effective for us at this time.
Jill, maybe you or Alan should run?
Re: the announcement @ 41: I’m pleased to see someone challenging the current leadership in Nevada. It would be wonderful to see a whole new set of leadership in Nevada. I would say the say the same about PA, Dr. Stevenss’ belief he’ll
be nominated from the floor notwithstanding. It just seems that the current chairs of both states are too disruptive and self- serving.
It is a mystery to even people on the Ex Com as to whether chairman Kevin Takenaga of CA will re-run at the convention in two weeks. If he doesn’t, no one I know can think of anyone in the entire state who might challenge him. Wow. Rumor has it a certain National Committee member called around trying to find someone to challenge Kevin. It will be interesting to hear what happens.
There was also discussion of abolishing the dues since people seemed to sit on their asses when it came to fund raising and were satisfied with the little that dues brought in.
Didn’t work out too well for national, though.
We can and should plan to buy additional buildings as we grow. Hoping for growth is not a reason to stay stuck renting.
The mid to late 1980s building that we narrowly voted against buying on Capitol Hill for 140k is now almost certainly worth over a million, assuming it still exists. In the meantime we have spent several million on rent, putting us no closer to owning.
We always hope for growth, and could always lose members. That’s not a good reason to be stuck in the endless rut of paying rent.
@40 You are absolutely right that party membership might in the next few years change dramatically. That’s why buying a building is a demonstration of defeatism. Of course. someone will say that if we need more space we can sell. Note the space we almost bought. It is still for sale a year later, a clear message on the value of “we can sell”.
There was a plan in 1995 to reach out to all the registered Libertarians in Oregon of which there were 9000 at the time. Burke screwed that one up as well.
There was also discussion of abolishing the dues since people seemed to sit on their asses when it came to fund raising and were satisfied with the little that dues brought in.
I never said you consider the Good Guys to be perfect. I just said that you excuse their rule-breaking precisely because you consider them to be the Good Guys relative to their opponents.
I don’t excuse it. I disagree with Wagner @1, and I think he should have stuck with a surgical bylaw change focused on the quorum problem, not completely changed the bylaws.
I don’t think they are the good guys. IMO, less bad guys, yes.
Wagner believes that a dues based system of membership creates “a tiny private club often run by power mongers and petty con men.” He believes the ends justify the means in creating a “mature political party” by getting rid of the dues structure and allowing all who are registered as Libertarians with the state to be defined as members.
I disagree with him on all of this.
I do still view him as being less bad than the other side in Oregon, for other reasons. I also know that the other side was also planning to throw out the bylaws and stage their own coup, so the fact that Wagner et al beat them to the punch doesn’t make them any better.
But I don’t think either side there is the good guys, and I don’t excuse the wholesale change in the bylaws outside the old rules, nor do I think Wagner’s model of bylaws is better (technical problems with the old bylaws aside) overall, even if it had been voted in under the old rules.
@33 I never said you consider the Good Guys to be perfect. I just said that you excuse their rule-breaking because you consider them to be the Good Guys relative to their opponents.
Libertarianism isn’t about some team’s ends being better than another’s. Libertarianism is about some means being immoral no matter what the ends.
Libertarians are supposed to oppose the use of immoral means to achieve political or social goals — even if the goal is liberty.
Jason Smith is going.
Follow Post · 42 minutes ago
Paulie Cannoli
I’m not actually going to be in Nevada, but I said maybe so I can post the question here, who are the candidates besides Brett? Or is it a secret until the 26th?
Tim Hagan We’re planning on announcing the candidates tomorrow.
Debra Dedmon and Tim Hagan are going.
Lou Pombo is going.
https://www.facebook.com/events/116750551849485/
[When]
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
[Time]
6:00pm until 9:00pm in PDT
[Where]
Liberty Headquarters
[Description]
Come down and meet the candidates who are running for the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee at the 2013 State Convention.
The event will be at Liberty Headquarters
We will have food and beverages available. Please RSVP so we can get an accurate headcount for the food.
The biggest drop in paying membership (at any level) was right after zero dues was implemented. After that it stabilized, with much smaller increases and decreases in recent years.
The Watergate office is not very large (I’ve been there). If anything, the new office should anticipate the possibility of growth to never before seen levels within the next 4 years.
@36 I am reminding people of the history on dues levels, namely that first they were to be hoisted to 50 and then they were to be dropped to zero. Some of the numbers have indeed changed since then. For example, the estimated number of members was 24,000, close to twice the number of members we have today.
Indeed, one might ask why if membership has fallen by half we still need the huge watergate office rather than something more modest.
@37
Votes 1 and 2 were huge mistakes. The party has still not recovered from their impact.
Votes 3 and 4 sound like worthwhile ideas, although that depends on the details. Whatever happened with those?
I’m not sure if the membership survey results from years ago have any validity now, but it may be useful information.
Perhaps the LNC should do a survey to look at the higher membership level changes that are being considered. If the bylaws committee examines the issue of changing basic dues, maybe they should do a survey like the one mentioned by Mr. Nelson.
The above was in the May 2005 Let Freedom Ring.
Zero dues happened in August, the motion as seen in Let Freedom Ring being
LNC Meeting August 6-7, 2005, Kansas City MO
1) Zero Dues passes: BetteRose Ryan submitted a four-part proposal establish the zero dues proposal of George Squyres. Summary:
1) to set membership dues at zero effective 1/1/06;
2) to end the Unified Membership Program (UMP) effective 9/30/05 and offer UMP states a choice of either 6 months of full payments or 12 months decreasing by 1/12th each month beginning 10/1/05;
3) to develop programs and budget lines for training programs for state level activists, covering at minimum the following areas: ballot access, FEC compliance, fundraising, database usage, member recruitment, and candidate recruitment and training; and,
4) to develop a formal national-state affiliate agreement to be approved at the November meeting, which shall cover at least the following areas: ballot access, database sharing, LP News and material sales, an integrity clause, FEC compliance and adherence to common purpose.
Discussion: LP News would be sold by subscription; details up to the LP News editor. Jim Lark asked if everyone who signed the pledge would be considered a current member. How do we count people with old contact information? There is no requirement to supply us with current contact information. Squyres stated this proposal is culturally far reaching in setting dues to zero and completely changing the national-state party relationship.
Wrights said that zero is not an amount of dues which would be compliant with the Bylaws. Carling moved to postpone indefinitely with Wrights seconding. This failed on a voice vote.
Starr argued this was a motion to amend a previous action and thus required two-thirds approval. Dixon ruled against Starr. Starr’s appeal to the body was defeated.
The division was divided in four parts. The votes were:
Vote 1: eliminate UMP, passed 10-5
Yes: Nelson, Sullentrup, Colley, McGinnis, Rutherford, Ryan, Breudigam, Hoch, Ryan, Squyres. No: Wrights, Redpath, Lark, Southerland, Starr . Not Voting: Dixon, Carling. Not Present: Karlan, Gilson
Vote 2: zero dues, passed 8-7-1
Yes: Breudigam, Colley, Hoch, Nelson, B Ryan, T Ryan, Squyres and Sullentrup. No: Carling, Lark, McGinnis, Redpath, Southerland, Starr and Wrights. Abstaining: Rutherford. Not Voting: Dixon. Not Present: Karlan, Gilson
Vote 3: training programs, passed 14-0-2
Yes: Breudigam, Colley, Hoch, Lark, McGinnis, Nelson, Redpath, Rutherford, B Ryan, T Ryan, Southerland, Squyres, Sullentrup and Wrights. No: None. Abstaining: Carling, Starr. Not Voting: Dixon. Not Present: Karlan, Gilson
Vote 4: affiliate agreement, passes 11-4
Yes: Breudigam, Colley, Hoch, McGinnis, Nelson, Redpath, Rutherford, B Ryan, T Ryan, Squyres and Sullentrup. No: Carling, Southerland, Starr and Wrights. Not Voting: Dixon. Not Present: Karlan, Gilson
The portion of Mr. Moulton’s comments quoted @29 was about whether we should have dues at all, not whether they should be raised or not, although he did address that question later in that original comment which was posted in another thread.
The balance of Mr. Nelson’s comments aren’t applicable in 2013, since both the member service costs and the number of dues paying members have changed quite a bit since that was written.
The LNC changing the basic dues is now no longer an option; it is covered in bylaws. However, the LNC is studying the issue of changing the additional levels, including life memberships.
Getting back to Nevada, there is a note on facebook that the rest of the slate running with Brett Pojunis will be announced tomorrow, and there will be an event to meet them at Brett’s office the following day.
@29 Let us recall the last time the LNC diddled the dues. This was covered in Let Freedom Ring, available on the CMLC.ORG web pages. First there was an increase to $50.
Dues Raised in Secret Ballot Vote; Money will Pay for New Washington, DC Office Location; Membership May Fall
Meeting in Portland at the end of February, the Libertarian National Committee voted to raise LPUS dues to $50. The vote was by secret ballot. Libertarians around the country were swift to condemn the manner by which the vote was taken as contrary to our party’s principles.
And here are the people who voted to make the decision by secret ballot:
Dena Breudigam
M Carling
Michael Colley
Ed Hoch
Dan Karlan
Bill Redpath
BetteRose Ryan
George Squyres
Aaron Starr
Bob Sullentrup.
In a widely-circulated letter, National Treasure Mark Nelson wrote: “I voted no on both the dues increase and the UMP increase. My reasoning for my votes follows. As detailed below, without consideration for the political implications, increasing dues is a fiscally irresponsible decision. Increasing UMP payments would seriously compound this irresponsibility.
I encourage the other LNC members to publicly declare their votes and their reasons. Voting on an issue such as this in a secret ballot is deplorable behavior for a decision that directly affects our state parties.
It should be noted that the LNC ignored my repeated requests to direct staff to update the following data prior to making this decision, or to delay the decision until the data was updated. The National Chair has asked that I do so prior to the next meeting, which, unless directed otherwise by the LNC, I will make available on this list.
First, there is no structural need for a dues increase. As part of the 2005 Budget, the cost of members was estimated using the direct membership expenses (only UMP and renewal, the LP News breaks even) and a percentage of all common costs estimated based upon the percentage of dues relative to total revenue (32.26%). This formula estimated the “loss” on membership was $4.03/member, at the projected membership level of 24,000. It was noted that this “loss” disappears somewhere just over 30,000 members, when our common costs are spread over a larger membership base.
I believe this methodology overstates the common expenses of membership. There is no way our executive director, or most of our employees, spend 32% of their time on basis membership. Most of their time is focused on larger donors, fund raising or outreach. A membership operation could be run out of a basement in Boise, not a DC office. We are in DC for other non membership related reasons. A modest lowering of the common expense allocation to 20% of the common expenses would eliminate the net loss on membership.
The only argument with this analysis I heard was that prospecting or recruitment expenses are not included. This is unrealistic. No repeated use product or service includes the total expense of capturing a new customer in the first purchase. It is recaptured over the life of a customer, which in our case is over 7 years.
I believe it is a reasonable marketing strategy to have a modest loss leader as an inducement to “qualify” members for increased donations. That is how membership works in the LP’s model.
My final comment on whether the dues cover the associated expenses: The R’s and D’s National Committee both use a $25 or lower sustaining membership amount. It is compelling that they see $25 as the level needed to attract donors (while trying and bump them up) and retain member loyalty.
Beyond the lack of need for a dues increase, based on the best information available (a 2002 extract of donations showing how many members gave $25, $25 to $50, and over $50, and a survey of the $25 only members), increasing dues results in a net reduction in revenue. Based on the data, the loss was estimated at $14,130. Using the margin of error in the survey, the range of projections was +$28,440 increase in revenue, to a -$56,700 revenue loss. Using the motions that were passed in Portland, UMP payments would be reduced significantly. This would result in the LNC experiencing an $86,940 increase in net income (the range of projections is $56,502 to $117,377). This does not account for increased renewal costs, which would reduce the increase, quite possibly substantially. Still, it is notable that all of the increased income (revenue – expenses) to national is at the expense of UMP states.
With Aaron’s proposed “fair” increase of UMP II payments to $30 per member, the LNC would experience a significant net loss, projected at $89,352 (the range of projected losses is $72,324 to $106,308). I don’t see how taking $100,000 from National and simply transferring it to the states is “fair.”
The only arguments against the above analysis were against the survey methodology, stating that pricing survey’s result in biased answers. The survey firm (a highly qualified firm ran by a small l, that does work for the Heartland Institute), disputes there are any problems with the survey methodology. Instead, they state that the methodology was specifically designed to overcome any bias. To my knowledge, customer surveys are a routine part of pricing decisions. No one credibly provided information suggesting otherwise. For the modest cost associated with the survey (roughly $3,000), I believe it should be part of our decision process. If anyone wants them, I can provide the spreadsheets showing the above analysis.
Mark Nelson LNC Treasurer
I predict Kurts answers are he never answers the email
I think we probably have a winner here!
@26 is not saying that. In fact @26 explicitly said
honestly I think there are serious problems with “both” sides there
and
Whether that extent of action is justifiable is a valid question, and you may well be right about that it wasn’t and isn’t.
and
I’ll note here that I disagree with Wes Wagner @1 about the whole issue of a “dues club.”
How @26 drew out the characterization of it @32 is a mystery to the author of @26.
@26 is saying: because faction X are the Good Guys, they don’t have to follow the rules everybody agreed to.
That attitude is responsible for nearly all the factional poison complained about by LP insiders/infighters from every faction.
The problem of factionalism in the LP is not that some faction is worse than another, using some criteria like @26. (The other side could make a similarly-reasonable-sounding case.)
The problem is when infighters reason backwards from the rightness of their faction to the rightness of the actions they use to advance their faction.
Rule-breakers never think they are the Bad Guys. When you’re the Good Guys, you shouldn’t have to break the rules to win.
Again: the idea that rules (e.g. non-aggression) don’t apply to Good Guys is the very essence of statism, and is the antithesis of libertarianism.
If you are looking for a faction that is without sin
That is a fool’s errand. That you would even frame the situation that way speaks volumes.
I predict Kurts answers are he never answers the email
its march 29th??
24th. Eyeglasses time? 🙂
Posted by Chuck Moulton in another thread:
When we went to zero dues the treasurer (who presented the proposal) cooked the books. It was presented to the LNC as $x is membership revenue, $y is contribution revenue, $z is membership servicing cost, so switch to zero dues (contribution only) tobsave money. The reality was a lot of the $y in contribution revenue was additional contributions from people filling out membership forms. With zero dues we lost not only the $x membership revenue, but also a lot of the $y contribution revenue.
People like being able to say they are card carrying members of the Libertarian Party. They are willing to pay extra money beyond contributions for that privilege. Having card carrying members both helps with outreach and generates revenue. In my opinion membership is valuable and ought to be retained.
its march 29th??
ProFunk @26
Considering that it is pretty much semi-common knowledge and it has been entered into the record in depositions that the Burke/Reeves crew were plotting with agents at national to do their own bylaws swap without any vote or ratification by the membership, I think you can talk about it.
Libertarians are supposed to be the ones who understand that the ends don’t justify the means. Libertarians are supposed to be the ones who uphold the rules of voluntary agreements. Libertarians are not supposed to be the ones who invoke government power as their authorization to throw out voluntary agreements in the name of some supposed greater good.
If those who invoke government power could be trusted to act for the greater good, then libertarianism itself would be invalid.
If the alleged quorum problem were the real motivation for the coup, then that would have been the only thing the usurpers changed. Instead, the coup leader is on video admitting that he could never get 2/3 agreement for the changes he wanted in how membership is defined.
It was a no-win situation and the information I have received, which I don’t think I am allowed to share, would upend the contention that either side was all that stuck on the old rules.
You can look at it any way you want to, and honestly I think there are serious problems with “both” sides there, but I don’t think that measures of results (money raised, candidates run etc) or state recognition for ballot access can just be ignored in favor of adherence to the old rules at any cost.
In addition to being far more active in terms of measurable results and having the state’s recognition – no minor matter when engaging in political activity such as running candidates which depends on the state’s cooperation – the Wagner faction seems to be better ideologically.
Most of the “Reeves group” including Mr. Reeves have no history of libertarian or Libertarian activism, but have a recent or current involvement in conservative Republican activities. Others, such as Mr. Burke, have a long history of LP activity, and have for a long time been trying to conflate libertarianism with conservatism as well as trying to keep the LP from getting in the way of conservative Republican candidates.
I’ll grant your point that Mr. Wagner and his friends went far above and beyond surgically fixing the quorum problem with the bylaws. Whether that extent of action is justifiable is a valid question, and you may well be right about that it wasn’t and isn’t.
But I wouldn’t let any answer to that question lead me to necessarily support the Burke/Reeves faction, since that group has other serious problems and was allegedly also plotting something as well.
The LP is supposed to be engaging the state on the state’s home turf – electoral politics – so yes, state recognition is no small matter here. A libertarian book reading club, think tank or supper speech forum should, of course, be held to a higher standard, but a political party isn’t a purely libertarian institution; rather, it has to navigate the intersection of libertarian values and government elections, and those are rough seas to sail in. Oregon’s are choppier than most.
If you are looking for a faction that is without sin, or even relatively free of it, you won’t find it among the Oregon LP combatants. And Nevada is no different in that respect.
I’ll note here that I disagree with Wes Wagner @1 about the whole issue of a “dues club.”
HP @ 23: Ah yes, the famous ASSAULT video.
To be fair, going from a dues paying membership model to a non-dues paying membership model is rather difficult simply die to human nature. When people pay dues, they effectively become shareholders in the organization and start thinking of their role accordingly. When you talk about eliminating dues, you’re essentially proposing to dilute existing shareholder value to near nothing. To make that argument work requires some seriously special debate skills that most people simply lack.
It can be done, of course. But it takes some major experimentation and patience to fully pull off. It’s worth it in the long run, though – when you demand money in exchange for participation, you’re not only setting the market rate for participation (Ah, so being part of the State LP is only worth $25!), you’re also going to build up an unwarranted sense of entitlement (Well, I paid my $25 – whaddya mean I have to pay to participate in this event?). Better to just keep things voluntary and let donors surprise you.
@10 the amount of participation has still gone up
Libertarians are supposed to be the ones who understand that the ends don’t justify the means. Libertarians are supposed to be the ones who uphold the rules of voluntary agreements. Libertarians are not supposed to be the ones who invoke government power as their authorization to throw out voluntary agreements in the name of some supposed greater good.
If those who invoke government power could be trusted to act for the greater good, then libertarianism itself would be invalid.
for lack of a quorum
If the alleged quorum problem were the real motivation for the coup, then that would have been the only thing the usurpers changed. Instead, the coup leader is on video admitting that he could never get 2/3 agreement for the changes he wanted in how membership is defined.
David Terry would probably also know, since he spends so much time posting non-useful comments here, maybe he could come through with some information someone is actually asking for, for a change.
Thanks.
Jill
I’m pretty sure Richard Burke’s email address is posted various public places on the net, so hopefully there is no problem if I post it here. If anyone knows what happened at the “Reeves Group” convention it would be him.
[email protected]
Yes, ProFunk, HP might not be an Oregonian. He might very well live in a more southern state, for example.
From: Kurt Brackob [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:46 PM
To: Elmer Whittaker
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party of Nevada Customer Refund Notification
i have no authority to make any decisions. You should address any concerns to the party chairman. I can offer an easy solution. Provide a Nevada address and register again. CC address is unimportant, just the customer address should reflect Nevada. You will be refunded the $30 difference so you can still get in at the early price.
Just because HP is a sympathizer of the Reeves Group does not mean he or she is a member of it or an Oregonian.
From: Elmer Whittaker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:38 AM
To: ‘Kurt Brackob’
Subject: RE: Libertarian Party of Nevada Customer Refund Notification
Treasurer Kurt Brackob.
No decisions on your part are necessary Kurt Brackob. All usual decisions have been made for you already and can be consulted in the LPN Bylaws.
Not even this corrupt LPN Executive Committee denies that there are and always have been LPN members (non-voting members) who are not LPN delegates (voting members). Out of state members being the most prominent non-voting members and you yourself have confirmed the existence and acceptance of out of state members in the LPN in your email from March 9, 2013 which reads:
“Membership numbers are always changing as some people sign up and others lapse and I only handle the money coming in. We will have a report at the convention on where we are at with members at that time. Usually it is around 30-35, but some of those are from out of state and not eligible to vote.”
There is no legitimate bylaw or even an illegitimately made up written notice from the Executive Committee anywhere that restricts attendance of the LPN convention to delegates (voting members) only. In fact, there are not even any requirements that attendance is restricted to LPN members (non- voting members) and delegates (voting members) only. Non LPN members (guests) are allowed and welcome to attend the LPN convention as your little to almost non existing advertisement and promotion of the 2013 LPN State Convention clearly shows.
Therefore, I do not need a Nevada address or residency to register and attend the LPN convention on April, 27. Period.
As I am a fully recognized, dues paying member of the LPN, I claim that your rejection of my registration was done in discrimination, harassment and retaliation of my views and not so humbled opinions about LPN’s current Ex-Com, in violation of LPN bylaws and the rules for the convention.
I am owed a sincere apology.
As I have already changed the address on my debit card to my Nevada residency and have no intentions of changing it back to my Arizona address, just to prove or insist on making a rightful point, I will accept your offer of resubmitting my convention registration for the amount of $95 in trust and hopes that you will immediately refund the excess $30 so I will not incur additional costs and spare yourself the inconvenience and embarrassment of being sued in a legal court of law.
At the LPN delegate (voting member) registration on the day of the LPN convention from 8am-9am I will present all necessary requirements (LPN membership in good standing, $65 voting fee, NV State ID, NV Libertarian Voter Registration) and my unwavering determination for liberty and justice, and must be allowed to vote against the current Ex-Com.
Elmer Whittaker
Ray Beez, what you’re referencing is the convention for the Wagner group. which is the official LPO. The convention from a couple weekends ago was the one put on by the Reeves Libertarian group, who a few people, including, obviously, Hypocrisy Police, put on. There’s a whole history on this which, hopefully, will be settled this year after some litigation is settled.
Replies on FB:
Jim Duensing: My prediction on the answers:
1. No.
2. Not sure. You’ll find out at the convention. Usually it’s around 30-35.
3. That will be included in the Treasurer’s Report at the Upcoming Convention.
4. All those who don’t care about Liberty despite their willingness to pay greater than 100 to participate in a minor party political convention.
5. No.
6. The reasons for any rejected registrations were clearly stated to those whose registrations had to be rejected pursuant to invisible section of the bylaws 12-1-b-6 actions detrimental to the LPN, its Excomm, or any of its members; specifically to wit having shown its utter contempt for the current excomm by not demonstrating immediate undying unquestioning blind support of those who have demonstrated their commitment to Liberty by working as hard as people like Kurt Brakop and preventing others from getting involved with the LP and screwing up the All Time Chair’s 5 year Central Plan for Liberty!
7. The authority of the bylaws (see above)
8. The Excom are the people who truly care about Liberty and spend all of their waking time listening to Joe ramble about Liberty. They have been elected and their duties are clearly defined by the bylaws. A Treasurer’s Report will be made available at the convention pursuant to those bylaws with the information you are requesting.
[/jd]
David Colborne: *chuckle* Personally, I think the responses will be along the lines of the following…
1. Sure – they’re available riiiight here: http://www.fec.gov
2. It’s a variable number. (Pretty much Jim Duensing’s answer.)
3. Pretty much Duensing’s answer.
4. “We’re not allowed to release that information due to privacy concerns.”
5. “We’re not allowed to release that information due to privacy concerns.”
6. “We’re not allowed to release that information due to privacy concerns.”
7. “We’re not allowed to release that information due to privacy concerns.”
8. “We’re not allowed to release that information due to privacy concerns.”
Personally, the answers I’d like to see and might expect something approaching an honest answer from a communicative Executive Committee are questions 1-3. 4, 6, and 7 would be nice as well, but that’s definitely in long shot territory.[/dc]
Letter from James L. Burns:
March 29, 2013
Kurt Brackob
Treasurer, Libertarian Party of Nevada
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Brackob,
I have some questions for you.
1. May I have a Treasurers report including where the money came from and how it was spent and who authorized the spending?
2. How many members of the LPN are there?
3. How many members of the LPN have paid their registration fee for the upcoming Convention?
4. To how many people have you returned their registration fee?
5. May I have the names and contact information of all the people to whom you returned their registration fee?
6. Did you state your reasons for returning the fee?
7. What authority did you have to return their fee?
8. How can members believe you about anything if the list of members with names and contact information is not available them but only to the ExCom?
Submitted By,
James Libertarian Burns
PO Box 1139
Beatty, NV 89003
541-261-4163
702-722-9494
According to http://www.lp.org/event/2013-05 the Oregon convention will be on May 4.
http://www.lporegon.org/ also says “Dates Set for LPO Business
Please keep checking back for more details
More details will be forthcoming, but at the most recent LPO State Committee, firm dates were set for our board elections and biennial convention.
Elections for new board members will conclude by April 12th, 2013
Our biennial convention will be held on May 4th, 2013.”
However, on the state chairs list Richard Burke said that the convention already took place and Tim Reeves was re-elected chair, but he did not give any other details. Maybe you could email him for additional information.
Speaking of conventions, Hypocrisy Police, I’ve been trying to get details and photos of the Oregon convention. Can you direct to someone who can provide that, so we can write something up for IPR?
@7 That may be, yet the amount of participation has still gone up compared with what was happening with out of the way conventions that were being shut down over and over for lack of a quorum.
he’d just get a lifeguarding job not in L.I NY….
Though I’d certainly vote in favor of abolishing dues, there’s just no way we have the necessary 2/3 of the membership required to pass that right now. We’re closer than we have been in a while, though – at this point, we could probably scrape together a simple majority, which is pretty impressive improvement.
Article 3(j) makes me chuckle a little – I like to think of that one as the “Joe Silvestri Rule”.
I also like this preamble over the one in our current state bylaws. It’s significantly shorter and to the point.
All in all, it’s not a bad effort, but there’s no way in Hades that these bylaws would pass. Unfortunately, changing the author to an unknown ghostwriter would probably add 15-20 votes in its favor right there.
gets more than 95 % of Libertarians in the state to approve the new bylaws
There are 15,157 registered Libertarians in Oregon. Only 725 answered “yes” to the consequence-free context-free question of whether to “ratify the Constitution and Bylaws adopted by the LPO State Committee on March 31, 2011”.
725/15,157 = 4.8%. Not 95%.
Thus 95% is the fraction of Oregon reglibs who ignored the one-sided question of whether to rubber-stamp the sham bylaws of the organization they were told they were now members of.
we have an alternative set of bylaws set to fly ala Brett , Dave C etc…..just sayin
Comment above should be for 3
HP @ 4: Mr. Wagner is talking about the kind of party that puts multiple candidates on a ballot, gets
more than 95 % of Libertarians in the state to approve the new bylaws, and otherwise goes about growing the cause of freedom instead of wasting time an money in a courtroom using a system they supposedly profess they don’t need.
tiny private club often run by power mongers and petty con men
You mean, the kind who throw away their bylaws, disband their judicial committee, summarily expel their enemies, and ratify their coup with a sham election in which only 5% of the new “members” bother to vote in the consequence-free context-free no-alternative should-we-keep-our-current-rules “election”?
Plenty of good bylaws in some other states. Goodness, just look them up and maybe use some of them in Nevada. Get the Organization structure and bylaws behind you and start to get people elected. All this internal bullshit only delays the election of LP candidates. I just had to say it.
I note a cornerstone of these amendments is the recognition of mere membership (and in this case desire to be if registration is not feasible/practical/desired/whatever) w/o any payment of dues.
Perhaps people in Nevada will decide to consider this concept and become a mature political party rather than a tiny private club often run by power mongers and petty con men.