IPR has received the approved minutes and bylaws changes from the convention held by the Reeves faction of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. It was held in Redmond, Oregon, on March 9, 2013. This is the group led by Tim Reeves, Chairman.
There was another convention in Oregon on May 4, 2013, which was held by the Wagner group in Beaverton, Oregon (although Mr. Wagner wasn’t able to attend). We haven’t received the minutes from that convention yet.
The lawsuit between the two groups, which was intended to determine the correct group of leaders of the LPO, was dismissed this week.
Here is a link to the article which details the judge’s decision.
I find myself to be happier not reading any of David Terry’s comments anymore.
re: David Terry @ 65. I have just returned form a long trip out of state but for the moment let me clue you in to one simple thing. You have no idea what has happened in the past.
You come to this discussion with little or no knowledge and some questionable actions of your own. Your biases are showing quite well.
Dave Terry @ 69:
When you choose to exaggerate everything with purple prose, how can one take you seriously?
—————————
And that proves your point about something?
Face it, the term “stabbed in the back”, among others, has been used for a long, long time to describe numerous despicable behaviors and actions.
And suddenly you are unaware of this?
Jerk.
Bob T.
BT@68: “So you take the phrase “stabbed in the back” as always a literal one? Gosh you’re getting silly.”
When you choose to exaggerate everything with purple prose, how can one take you seriously?
Dave Terry @ 67:
Sounds almost ghoulish to have ANY KIND of relationship with the “dead” (i.e. those who have been stabbed in the back or throats cut).
——————————————–
So you take the phrase “stabbed in the back” as always a literal one? Gosh you’re getting silly.
Bob T
BT@66: “Key words were (now pay attention!):
“speaking terms”
“working relationships”
Nonsense, The “Key Words” are ” those whose throats he’s slit and whose backs he’s stabbed.”
1. I can’t imagine ANYONE, who has had the personal abuse heaped upon him, having ANY kind of “working relationship” with them.
2. Sounds almost ghoulish to have ANY KIND of relationship with the “dead” (i.e. those who have been stabbed in the back or throats cut).
This ISN’T the “born again” Constitution Party.
Dave Terry @ 65:
ROTFL! Yeah, Burke thinks that there would be nothing better than having you and Wagner and Vetanen and Michael Wilson, et. al. over at his place for a barbeque and keg. Ha Ha Ha Ha!
———————-
Key words were (now pay attention!):
“speaking terms”
“working relationships”
Conventions and assorted LPO meetings are all the events needed to provide ample opportunities for the above.
Bob T
BT @ 42; ” It’s all about ostracizing him so that he does not get the satisfaction (which he craves) of remaining on speaking terms, and having working relationships with those whose throats he’s slit and whose backs he’s stabbed.”
ROTFL! Yeah, Burke thinks that there would be nothing better than having you and Wagner and Vetanen and Michael Wilson, et. al. over at his place for a barbeque and keg. Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Great Schtick Tiernan!
Please take that conversation elsewhere. I don’t care which of you can kick the other one’s ass, and what exactly would that prove anyway? Don’t answer that. It seems some people are still stuck on the playground in terms of their maturity.
T Lee Ryde @ 60:
Even though it sounds like both Terry and Tiernan want to get in a fight…
Bob T:
No, it sounds like Terry introduced the subject. I merely reminded him that it won’t last long.
B. Tiernan
Starchild
Steve M is right. M was voting on the very issue about what delegation to seat here he was directly effected, had he lost the vote he would then not have been seated!
Does anyone see anything wrong with that?
MV @ 52
WOOOHOO, I WIN ! I WIN!
What do I get?
oh, this thread, thanks-but….
Even though it sounds like both Terry and Tiernan want to get in a fight, should IPR comments be allowed to be used to make such arrangements?
Dave Terry @44:
As sec’y pro-tem, I recorded the meeting on tape, keeping only cursory ‘written’ notes. The fact that you CHOOSE to remember it differently is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
I transcribed the recorded notes a couple of days later and posted the minutes on line.
——————
Bob T:
The issue here was that you failed to properly record that a motion was to be continued the next morning, but you and your friends claimed that there was a vote to close the issue even though you produced not a single note to prove that. You guys got away with that one.
Dave:
So, in YOUR view if the presiding officer rules a speaker is out of order, the speaker should simply
challenge that officer to “step outside”
Where do you find THAT in Robert’s Rules?
Bob T:
No, I’m not trying to fit this into any parliamentary proceedings, but am simply stating that you should have excused yourself from the meeting so you and Ron could meet outside somewhere.
Dave:
Well, Bob you ARE lot younger than I and IF you REALLY think that, I’d be very happy to afford you the position of surrogate child.
You name the time and the place, I’ll be happy to “discuss” this with you
Bob T:
Phfffttt!!!! It’ll be over in a few seconds.
B. Tiernan
Dave Terry @ 48:
BT @ 42: “I agree that ignoring controlling personality types can be quite effective…It doesn’t always work, but it usually does for me.”
—————————
No, those weren’t my words. Check again.
Gee, you’re not doing very well tonight when it comes to knowing what I’ve written in this thread. This is strike two.
B. Tiernan
Dave Terry @ 45:
…and even Tiernan acknowledges that my view
of what happened is essentially right.
———————-
Well, no, I acknowledged no such thing. Except that as secretary you sat there and took no notes. Or at least no notes worth checking.
Oh, and if Ron Boozel “coached” his kids, then he did nothing that Burke hasn’t been doing for years. There was a reason why numerous people who were total strangers to the anti-Burke side came to conventions such as that in 1996 and had the nerve to vote against valid members’ right to vote.
B. Tiernan
Allowing an individual who was participating on one side of internal state party dispute to participate in the credential committee vote on which of the two competing factions from that state should be seated seems biased.
In the future, maybe there should be a requirement that an individual who is party to such a dispute to recuse themselves from such a vote. Perhaps before such a vote is taken that challenges to whom on the credential committee should be voting on that single issue.
Mark Vetanen @30 – The role of the Credentials Committee and how it operates are governed by the Libertarian Party’s bylaws. The conventions are the opportunities for LP members to get those bylaws changed.
If you want the rules changed to prevent a recurrence of something like what happened when the committee voted to seat the non-recognized faction from Oregon in contravention of the ruling by the LP’s Judicial Committee, boycotting the party’s conventions will make that less likely, not more likely, since you will not be there to add your voice or vote to the debate.
It’s not clear to me what if anything you think the Libertarian National Committee or anyone else ought to do in the meantime. You refer to M Carling “corrupting” the Credentials Committee. Can you be more specific? Simply making a bad decision or giving bad advice in such a situation would not appear to be actionable.
GP @53: “Gee, this sounds like Stewart Flood’s description of how the LNC used to conduct business.”
Not familiar with either Mr. Flood OR the situation at the LNC; I can see the comparison only IF a number of sitting members on the LNC were under 18 and were dependents of another member on the LNC.
Does this seem similar scenario to YOU, George?
“…not for simply having his ‘vassal’ children attending with him, but coaching them on who he expected to vote…”
Gee, this sounds like Stewart Flood’s description of how the LNC used to conduct business.
@DT
Fred says, “I don’t need to discredit anyone–I will let Burke (and Wagner and everyone else) speak for themselves. And everyone can decide for themselves what to think of them.”
I think Fred is the undisputed winner in this particular discussion. Don’t you?
FJ @ 39: “I work in the mental health field and I don’t believe that any person is beyond the ability to change.”
In THAT case, PLEASE contact Mark Vetanen ASAP, he definitely would benefit from your insight!
You are eminently qualified then!
T’ Lee Ryde @ 40
I’ve made that joke I several times myself. I also work with the developmentally disabled. so…..
Relax people–its just a joke.
BT @ 42: “I agree that ignoring controlling personality types can be quite effective…It doesn’t always work, but it usually does for me.”
It doesn’t work for me and I’d venture that it ONLY works for what I’d call either vassals or cowards.
Bullies will NOT be ignored, they will simply take what they want and presume your silence is a kind of passive acceptance.
NOT ON MY WATCH!
CP drama is more exciting than LP drama.
WW@28: “Don’t forget M cast the deciding vote on the committee … and the next alternate behind him was also a plaintiff in this lawsuit at the time.”
LOL If Wagner means that “the next alternate behind M”, is NOW a plaintiff in the current lawsuit, he is absolutely right.
The irony is that since Wagner’s team of malcontents were in a minority and LOST ALL of the votes, that he resorted to “legal harrasment
Their moto appears to be; “if you can’t convince people with your reasoning, compel them with litigation.
And YES Jill, it WAS Wagner and Company that initiated the legal war between the factions.
MV @ 27; “It was himself that was upset with Ron Boozell and his 5 minor children who he paid memberships for and ALL where attending and voting at the convention.
I’ve already stated that I was upset with Mr. Boozell, but not for simply having his ‘vassal’ children attending with him, but coaching them on who he expected to vote.
Isn’t it strange that the very people who think that dues payments for membership is horrible, but defend a person who believes that a person who “buys” five memberships, should get five votes.
Of course, we know that Vetanen is a compulsive
liar and even Tiernan acknowledges that my view
of what happened is essentially right.
I Did NOT challenge Boozze to a fight! THAT would have been as foolhardy as when Vetanen got in my face and screamed at me to “FUCK OFF!
VT>: “Then hotel security showed up……
Did you overlook the part where I never left the dias after the initial confrontation and about ten
minute afterward, hotel security showed up ESCORTED by the affore mentioned Boozel.
He ALSO used the lie that I had challenged HIM,
and the expression on the face of the security officer after looking at me and looking at Boozer,
spoke VOLUMES!
BT @ 25; “And it turned out that, as secretary, you hadn’t written down much or were taking no minutes at all, since on Day 2 we had an issue about where exactly we left off because you had not written down anything. You then used your “memory” (which differed from what many recalled) to side with Burke.
As sec’y pro-tem, I recorded the meeting on tape, keeping only cursory ‘written’ notes. The fact that you CHOOSE to remember it differently is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
I transcribed the recorded notes a couple of days later and posted the minutes on line.
>BT; “You should have met Ron outside after all, age and weight differences aside. That’s what you get for “calling him out”
So, in YOUR view if the presiding officer rules a speaker is out of order, the speaker should simply
challenge that officer to “step outside”
Where do you find THAT in Robert’s Rules?
Dave:
“AND since he was 25 years younger”
Bob T:
” Well then, you could have slapped one of kids around instead. Right, tough guy?
Well, Bob you ARE lot younger than I and IF you REALLY think that, I’d be very happy to afford you the position of surrogate child.
You name the time and the place, I’ll be happy to “discuss” this with you
By “ignoring” I do mean ostracizing. The method works best for me without giving me an ulcer.
Jill @ 38 :
I agree that ignoring controlling personality types can be quite effective…It doesn’t always work, but it usually does for me.
————————
What I’m talking about is not ignoring Burke hoping that will cause him to disappear, or change. It’s all about ostracizing him so that he does not get the satisfaction (which he craves) of remaining on speaking terms, and having working relationships with those whose throats he’s slit and whose backs he’s stabbed.
Anyone doing as I recommend still has every opportunity to deal with Burke’s agenda and his friends.
Bob T
@40 As I do not recognize your name, welcome to IPR! I hope you enjoy the stay.
I work in the mental health field
Great preparation for participating in LPO!
Bob @ 37
I work in the mental health field and I don’t believe that any person is beyond the ability to change.
I also don’t see a lot of value in discrediting individuals. I’ve crossed that line on occasion and I regret every time that I do.
On the other hand, there is certainly bad behavior and I don’t mind calling something bad behavior when I see it. I try to accept it when someone points out my bad behavior–although I find this more difficult.
I don’t need to discredit anyone–I will let Burke (and Wagner and everyone else) speak for themselves. And everyone can decide for themselves what to think of them.
Personally–I would suggest the opposite tactic to you. I would suggest that when one speaks as strongly and vehemently as you do, you actually allow your enemies some credibility. There is life in being hated.
BT @ 37: I agree that ignoring controlling personality types can be quite effective. Sometimes it’s really hard to do, but the person being ignored has to ignore the ignorer so it appears they’re still in control. It doesn’t always work, but it usually does for me.
Fred @ 29,
You have provided a lot of good information about why you do not want to belong to either faction while also detailing so many failings of the Burke faction, but particularly Burke’s own character.
We’ve always felt that people refusing to side with any faction were good for the party because in the end their refusal to go lock-step with anyone meant that their decisions were based on what they felt was the right way to go. And this still goes.
However, let me make one suggestion for you.
If there’s anything that you need to do, as I see it, it’s to ostracize Burke himself. Not his friends, or his faction’s agenda items. Just Burke. And here’s why: Burke’s personality type is one that thrives and needs recognition in order to feel that he’s powerful, and is winning all the time even if slowly. You see, we’ve noted in the past that when Burke had done some back-stabbing, and had f*cked over some people and had slit some throats, he loved it when those victims still talked to him, shook his hand, whatever, as if it was all like Reagan and Tip O’Neil talking over the day’s fighting.
Sorry, but it’s not like that at all. Burke feels that he’s so mesmerizing and powerful that many of his victims still remain cordial with him, if not on somewhat good terms. Not all of them, but many of them. Dan Vander Ploeg was the first, I think, to totally ignore him. People like Burke really hate it when people have very, very little to do with him and simply work around him.
You’ve already made it clear that you’re aware that Burke has engaged in very disgusting power-playing. Why bother even having eye contact with him. I mean, to continue dealing with him as a person means that you still consider him an equal to, say, Wes Wagner, which is a real joke. Come on, Fred, we’re not talking about baseball rivalries here.
Bob Tiernan
Mark V @ 33:
David Terry in #16 has his personal rules about who should be a member
———————–
Nothing new there. When the 1995 recall petition was introduced it had two signatures of two mid-teens members, the son and daughter of the current vice chair of the LPO. They were intelligent enough and old enough to know what they were doing. But Burke and fiends saw this as, gee, the Bylaws were never meant to allow anyone under the age of 18 to be members, so gee, we won’t let those two signatures count, and gee, that means there are not enough signatures now to make the petition valid.
He had another bylaws interpretation “problem” a year later with the easy wording of when memberships expire.
For those non-Oregon readers here, the Bylaws at that time stated that membership ends one year after the first of the month following payment of dues (unless one pays on the first of a month). So there were only twelve expiration dates.
Due to an error made by a pro-Burke roster keeper who had listed a few dozen anti-Burke members as having expiration dates of “May 12” (made a year earlier when these people paid in time to participate in the June 11, 1995 convention which required 30 days of membership by convention date, to show any credentials committee that they had paid on time), as the 1996 convention date neared (scheduled for May 19 by Burke’s people, as they mistakenly assumed that many “expired” – on May 12 – members would have a hard time paying dues again, which was true), the good faction pointed out the never-corrected error and said that all of the so-called May 12 members would be there because their actual expiration dates were June 1. Even Burke loyalist and state com Treasurer Paul Bonneau admitted to his anti-Burke friend Gene Nanni (former chair) that “Burke blew it” and that they were all indeed valid members until June first. (But even he later reversed himself, so bent on keeping power these people were abd still are).
Burke and fiends scrambled again, trying to come up with all kinds of ways to ignore the facts, and eventually settled on the Burke claim that yes, they would indeed still be members at convention time, but that in the short period between the expiration date of May and the first of June, they were “members not in good standing” because their dues were “in arrears”, and they therefore could not vote. In other words, Burke pulled that one out of his ass. His “Credentials Committee” — all of him were his appointees and friends — ruled in favor of this mis-interpretation, including the moron who had listed May 12 as the expiration date a year earlier even though he KNEW that he was listed that as strictly a “date paid” date to show 30 day eligibility for the June 11 1995, convention.
One need only to look at a copy of the membership list from that time to see that all expiration dates were the twelve different firsts of the month, plus a number of May 12 (anti-Burke people), and May 11 (pro-Burke people) dates for new and returning members joining in May 1995. Clearly that keeper of the roster kmew the rule – oitherwise there would have been few expiration dates showing the first of any month. By the way, that person was Steve Dodd, partner with Dave Terry in their do-nothing Yamhill County LP.
In the end there was a two and a half hour floor fight at the convention just to argue this point, with the burden for the good side being that they had to come up with a two-thirds vote to overturn the ruling. This would have been impossible. (We were also aware that Burke’s side had hired private security guards who were there and we had already been threatened with removal were we to get out of hand). Later, it was changed to a simple majority by a replacement pro-tem chair, and the majority was reached, barely. Real sad testament to Burke’s evil influence that so many members voted to deby participation rights to so many valid members. But it was all about power. Indeed, Burke was overheard telling one new member that “if we lose this vote, we lose the state committee”. So that’s what it was all about. Not about what was right, but about keeping the state committee on his side.
Bob Tiernan
@30
The answer is hysterically funny. The LNC elected a new credentials committee, as was their duty. They then re-elected the person who did not send you guys the legitimate credentials password, to the committee.
Seems that if he was abusing his position as a state party officer to claim that legitimately credentialed delegates should not be allowed to vote or seek the counsel of others on how to vote he should have been removed for cause. Threats of violence should have led to removal from the premises as well.
@32
At the time, the bylaws allowed ANYONE regardless of age, location or Registered Voter Affiliation, who paid dues and submitted an application to be a member.
David Terry in #16 has his personal rules about who should be a member, and I have observed that he tends to think his rules are superior to the rules of others.
There is a video of this, I will see if we can get it uploaded.
If it was legal under bylaws, what’s to be upset about?
It’s good to see that Terry feels guilt and embarrassment for his boorish behavior at the Sunriver Convention. Anyone might also be tempted to lie about the events that day when one has behaved so badly.
Hotel security was informed of his verbal threat and was confronted and was forced to retract his threat right in the middle of the meeting.
How the LNC let the Credentials Committee become corrupted by M Carling and used to disaffiliate a State Affiliated Delegation MUST BE EXAMINED AND ANSWERED.
I know that I will never again attend an LNC convention until this issue is dealt with.
@26 There was a huge difference in the way the two factions allowed for members to be part of their delegations. The “Wagner faction” let people know there were spots available on the website and on their meetup group. They sent notices to their email list.
I have know idea what the “Reeves faction” did to let people know-because despite the fact that I was still an active member on their rolls they didn’t give me any notification (they didn’t have a website or to my knowledge a meetup or Facebook, they didn’t send me notice of any meetings or elections to be a delegate). I only found out they were sending a delegation after I had already been named a delegate from the “Wagner faction” had booked a flight and made hotel reservations.
When I found out they had a delegation going, I immediately called Reeves and asked to be part of that delegation. I was told “yes” but also told he had to contact Eric Saub because Eric was the leader of the delegation. I made several calls to Saub but despite all my efforts I was never included as part of the Reeves delegation.
Then they made the claim at the convention that they would work to have a group made up of both factions–by which they implemented by stating that they would allow people from the “Wagner faction” to fill in the gaps they had in their delegation. They also actively attempted to remove some of the “Wagner faction” from being seated at convention with any other state.
But, they could have avoided all of this if they had simply signed up to be delegates with the “Wagner faction” There is nothing in the bylaws or constitution of the “Wagner faction” that would have let them be discriminated against. And since there were open spots–they would have been awarded to them.
If you want to consider if this was all done in fair play, you should just compare the members of the “Reeves faction delegation” with the members of the LP credentialing committee.
Steve @26
Don’t forget M cast the deciding vote on the committee … and the next alternate behind him was also a plaintiff in this lawsuit at the time.
And Oregon was the only affiliate not given a login to the credentials database for the explicit purpose of creating a controversy over an issue the national judicial committee had already settled.
Dave Terry @ 16
David Terry remembers the event backwards….
It was himself that was upset with Ron Boozell and his 5 minor children who he paid memberships for and ALL where attending and voting at the convention.
David was very upset that Ron did this and make quite a few remarks about this during the convention.
Well, things got heated between the two and David Terry then stood up in full view of all the attendees and challenged Ron to a fight fight out in the parking lot!
Then hotel security showed up……
It’s not the credentials committee’s job to “recognize” affiliates.
It’s the credentials committee’s job to recommend credentialing delegates.
And that is what the 2012 LP Credentials Committee did.
There were two slates of delegates for 14 (IIRC) slots. Eight delegates were on both slates. With M Carling offering to seat himself with the NY delegation there was room for everybody from Oregon that wanted to be seated in their delegation.
PEACE
Dave Terry @ 16:
When I called him out, he charged the dais and challenged me to step outside to settle this “man to man”. Since, I was the Secretary, I’d have to request a recess to accommodate him
————————–
*chuckle*
And it turned out that, as secretary, you hadn’t written down much or were taking no minutes at all, since on Day 2 we had an issue about where exactly we left off because you had not written down anything. You then used your “memory” (which differed from what many recalled) to side with Burke.
Gee, what else is new?
You should have met Ron outside after all, age and weight differences aside. That’s what you get for “calling him out”.
Dave:
AND since he was 25 years younger
Bob T:
Well then, you could have slapped one of kids around instead. Right, tough guy?
B. Tiernan
@From Der Sidelines
Can you supply documentation to support this claim?
I can quite absolutely assert that he question of quorum was never put to the LPO Judicial Committee even when the issue was known about and quite activity discussed, and when there definitely was enough committee members on the Judicial committee to hear it.
Using rules of logic the truth is very obvious:
Nobody wanted quorum.
@20:
IIRC the Judicial Committee was unable to meet for some reason (I think it had to do with an inability to fill vacancies, but I’m not certain).
Steve M
We did and the vote was 725 to 26 in favor.
Oregon Libertarian,
The non-profit law in Oregon also seems to allow voting by mail on issues instead of having to hold an meeting as long as ballots are mailed to every member. Didn’t the LPO also do this to get membership consensus for their new set of bylaws?
Steve M
What becomes very clear is that when the bylaws are silent, you then refer to higher law (City Law, County Law, State Law or Federal Law).
In the Oregon Case, the bylaws or constitution did not prohibit the State Committee from amending the bylaws. The bylaws said that members in convention could amend the bylaws, but it did not make that an exclusive means to amend. State Law does however give the board law to amend its bylaws.
The Oregon Board choose to amend its bylaws because they simply could not meet due to quorum interpretation issues.
Now, the Judge did point out that there “was a Judicial Committee” who “Is the highest Authority” that could have decided “what quorum is” when all this trouble started at the Special convention way back in ’10 when Alicia Mattison and Mark Hinkle showed up there. Had anyone bothered to submit the issue to the Judicial Committee then whatever they decided would be the interpretation, and Roberts Rules Be damned because whatever the Judicial Committee says is it.
BUT NOBODY DID THAT!!!!
So, now it is all “To bad and so sad” the boat sailed away and we are stuck with our choices.
The judge made his “observations and comments” about what he saw and then simply said that the courts don’t want this issue, now “GO AWAY”. Judges do that, make comments all the time about how silly people act or what dumb things they do then dispose of the case in a judicial way so that it is over.
So the argument becomes, “what is to stop any committee from changing its bylaws at anytime for any reason”? Well, unless it is directly prohibited by the bylaws, nothing. However, the consequences for doing such could be great, such as a membership revolt in such a way that they don’t contribute to projects, vote for someone else at conventions, or “”simply let their membership expire (or resign).”” <– Yo LNC TAKE A NOTE OF THIS!
An organization that is bankrupt, with no contributing members is one that will not succeed its mission it was created for. People will move along to another organization that does have progress towards the mission goals.
That is just a simple fact of how things work.
Nobody can "own" politics and philosophy. Its like trying to own religion, its not possible. Only fools think they can own these things, and they cry out loud, like a baby, when it is ripped from them in the most unpleasant way.
Dave,
Listening to the judges questions and comments, it seems that the executive committee of LPO had the authority to amend the bylaws under Oregon Law.
DWP @ 12,
“iirc the Wagner group was not recognized by the Convention Credentials Committee at the LP National last year”
It’s not the credentials committee’s job to “recognize” affiliates.
It’s the credentials committee’s job to recommend credentialing delegates.
While it is possible to infer, from the credentials committee’s decision as to which delegates to recommend credentialing of, that they prefer one group to another, neither that inference nor the delegates’ acceptance of the committee’s recommendation are authoritative acts with respect to recognition or non-recognition of either group.
DT @ 16: “You mean like Wagner did filling a suit just because he lost an election?”
I don’t understand this comment. I take it this was before the March 2011 convention/lack of same?
>WW @ #1: “So…. how about those M Carling/ Aaron Starr / Richard Burke bylaws !?”
Not perfect*, but at least it was passed “legally.”
* IMO, Regular membership should be for those 18 or over, same as ‘registered’ members. I recall a convention about 10 years ago where one member signed up his three children and brought them to the convention and prior to each
and every vote, huddled with them coaching them on how to vote.
When I called him out, he charged the dais and challenged me to step outside to settle this “man to man”. Since, I was the Secretary, I’d have to request a recess to accommodate him AND since he was 25 years younger and 35 pounds heavier, I declined his invitation.
> OL@2; “Anytime where you are forced to > conform to a group model of behavior that is > vaguely defined (or at the whim of a Leader), > then the members are in constant fear at all > times that you could be brought up on charges > and kicked out…..”
You mean like Wagner did filling a suit just because he lost an election? THAT is the reason,
WE went on the offensive THIS time.
If you listen to the Audio Recording of the MSJ Hearing, the Reeves Group Lawyer did concede that the Wagner group is the LPO and that they are not. This happens about 40 minutes or so in to the audio.
http://www.tensormatrix.biz/files/LPO-MSJ-Hearing-May-16-2013.mp3
The Judge then granted the Defense motion #2 (to dismiss the case on the first amendment grounds) AND denied all of the plaintiffs claims that include that they are the LPO.
There is only ONE LPO, and it is the one that Wes Wagner is the current chair of.
Of course the LNC and its corrupted Credentials committee can choose otherwise, though it has no effect on who the Oregon Secretary of State recognizes nor the courts view on this issue.
Keep in mind that the LNC is created by the willingness of the State Parties to attend its conventions, and without them they would not really exist. Oregon could leave the LNC and choose to hitch up to another Organization if they choose.
Based on the comments on the recent lawsuit dismissal thread, the Reeves group isn’t ready to concede.
Until one group decides to not exist, I suspect that calling them both by the name of their faction is the only fair system
iirc the Wagner group was not recognized by the Convention Credentials Committee at the LP National last year… will the CCC now recognize the Wagner group as the real LPO?
As soon as someone comes up with a descriptive but respectful name to indicate the Reeves group has lost, I’ll be happy to use it, but I couldn’t come up with one last night. The Losers doesn’t work. The Other Group That Tried doesn’t work. How about the Group that Lost? I’m really not making a joke. I think that info is readily available by clicking the first link, and I didn’t put anymore background into the article than that. I do feel the info posted in the article was good information, though, that readers might be interested in.
When Burke and Company had their convention, I believe most of them really believed they would be vindicated in court soon. I’m trying to be respectful of that.
Hopefully, the Oregon LP story will be over soon, and there be no more posts.
Krzysztof, click the first link in the article, and you’ll know. The Wagner group in both cases you mentioned is the recognized party.
What is the current LPO as recognized by the LNC and the state of Oregon. Is it the Wagner or Reeves faction?
Paulie @ 4,
I don’t have any specific proposal.
I’m thinking more in terms of the likelihood that this is the kind of situation we will run into again and again, and not just with respect to the Libertarian Party.
Fringe political organizations tend to have explosive schisms that often result in more than one group claiming to be the real/remnant organization.
IPR’s guidelines are, as they should be, in continuous evolution. It just strikes me that this is a point on which they should evolve something like a standard form.
There can be only one. Empty chair songs.
groups = organizations
aka there is only one LPO.
paulie @4 tk@3
If you listen to the court record, you will hear that through counsel, the Reeve’s faction has formally retreated from the argument that there are two groups.
That may have some weight in your decision how to handle it.
What would you propose?
I see a bit of a journalistic quandary here.
The state of Oregon recognizes one organization as the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
The Libertarian National Committee recognizes that same organization as its affiliate in Oregon.
Another organization has made various attempts — a fraudulent disaffiliation attempt, a court case, infiltration and corruption of the LNC’s credentials committee, etc. — to change those facts, but has so far failed to do so.
If Lyndon LaRouche declares tomorrow that his group is the “real” Democratic National Committee, will IPR treat the two organizations as equally valid claimants to that descriptor?
The Burke bylaws look more like what you see in a cult organization, such as Scientology or such.
Anytime where you are forced to conform to a group model of behavior that is vaguely defined (or at the whim of a Leader), then the members are in constant fear at all times that you could be brought up on charges and kicked out…..
THIS IS CLASSIC CULT OPERATIONS WHERE THEY RULE THOUGH FEAR AND INTIMIDATION.
So…. how about those M Carling / Aaron Starr / Richard Burke bylaws !?
A top notch libertarian performance!