Oregon Libertarian Party Lawsuit Dismissed

The ruling from last week’s Motion for Summary Judgement in the lawsuit over which group is the correct Libertarion Party of Oregon has been released. Judge Breithaupt ruled:

The motion of the Defendants in this regard is granted. The other motions of Defendants are denied as moot, including Defendants’ motions to strike. The motions of Plaintiffs are denied.

The ruling can be read in full: Oregon Lawsuit Ruling

The Motion for Summary Judgement can be read here .

The dispute which triggered the lawsuit has been well-chronicled by IPR. It started in March 2011, and we’ve posted more than 50 articles about it since. The reader can research it through putting “Libertarian Party Oregon” or something similar in the searchbox. This writer suggests starting in March 2011 and reading toward the present date.

It is unknown at this time if there will be an appeal.

108 thoughts on “Oregon Libertarian Party Lawsuit Dismissed

  1. Joe Buchman

    All the wasted time in the campaign being concerned that the Reeves group would win and then be the ones to submit Gary and Jim’s names to the SOS . . . what an absurd waste of time . . . or as I wrote on July 19th to no avail —

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Joseph Buchman
    Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM
    Subject: Friday August 10th
    To: Ron Nielson

    Friday August 10th is three weeks and a day from today.

    If the Reeves group has won their lawsuit by then, I’ll eat the “Mormons don’t let Mormons vote for Mitt Romney” button I gave you.

    Joe

  2. Steven Wilson

    Another fine example of Libertarian Leadership, management, vision, and courage.

    In economics, we use something called…well, never mind. The Libertarians can think for themselves where the money could’ve gone instead to lawyers. Peace n Hugs for Oreo gone!!

  3. Be Rational

    Congratulations to the Libertarians in Oregon – this means, the real, sincere, dedicated LP members and registered Libertarian voters who want to get on with the struggle for Liberty.

    It’s time for everyone to move into the future to build an active, successful LP organization that can recruit members, increase it’s base of registered voters, attract donors, field candidates, build it’s financial base, grow strong and win elections.

    Let us hope that this will be the end of this saga.

    The Burke cabal should stop now, leave this train wreck in the past, and get on with their lives. In order to save face, they can hold their heads high and proudly proclaim that they had the best intentions, intending to uphold the rights of all members and insure that leaders follow established rules under the LPO governing documents.

    The rest of us can allow them this bit of self-sustaining face saving, nod, mutter “OK, sure” and move on.

  4. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It does seem like an enormous waste of time and energy. I hope the state party continues to move forward.

  5. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    JB @ 1: ” If the Reeves group has won their lawsuit by then, I’ll eat the “Mormons don’t let Mormons vote for Mitt Romney” button I gave you.”

    I’m glad you didn’t have to eat your button. Hang onto it–it might be worth some money someday!

  6. Wes Wagner

    Burke has already stated in the other thread on this topic that he has no intentions of giving up his struggle to take over the party for his own personal financial gain.

  7. Nicholas Sarwark

    As libertarians, we recognize the right of people to make their own choices in life.

    We also recognize the right of others to judge those choices and use them in determining who they respect and choose to associate with.

  8. Be Rational

    Just to be sure you don’t miss it:

    To: Richard P. Burke,

    Take a step back, you are obsessed. Everyone can see through you, so take a long look at your situation. Just like George Lucas in the song below, it is time for you to stop and move on.

    “Please, fucking stop!”

  9. Hypocrisy Police

    Interesting!

    The judge apparently (and accidentally?) endorsed the central contention of the Reeves group (that the 2007 Bylaws are the current LPOR Bylaws) when he quoted those bylaws saying “The Judicial committee shall be the final body of appeal in all matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution, Bylaws, rules, or resolutions of the LPO”.

    What the judge didn’t bother noting was that the coup leaders already dissolved the LPOR JudCom, and will surely ignore any ruling from any such entity, no matter what its credentials.

    This leaves open a hole for appeal so wide you could drive a truck through it.

    But I’ll predict that the government’s judges will always find an excuse not to enforce the contract constituted by the LPOR bylaws. It’s hard to blame them, since the LPUS JudCom itself already punted on the question.

    Bottom line: don’t expect the Oregon government to get interested in enforcing contracts among Oregon Libertarians, given how few Libertarians (whether inside Oregon or not) care about following such contracts.

    In fact, just watch the comments that follow below and count how many Libertarians endorse the idea of having this case settled by a ruling of a Judicial Committee from the 2007 LPOR Bylaws.

    You’ll be able to count them on one hand.

  10. Hypocrisy Police

    It’s unclear from the ruling which is the case:

    1. the judge was oblivious to the importance of the question of which LPOR bylaws are the current ones
    2. the judge takes the 2007 LPOR bylaws more seriously than either of the two factions, given his reading of the “final body of appeal” language.

    If (2) — which upon reflection seems far more likely — then this decision is a catastrophically Pyrrhic victory for the Reeves faction.

    Because the coup leaders will surely never agree to the solution that Bylaws-respecting Oregon Libertarians should demand: track down the last known members of the LPOR JudCom as of the the March 2011 convention, and have them make a final and binding decision.

  11. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    Congratulations to Wes Wagner. An outstanding victory for LP Radicals!

  12. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    HP @ 11: The judicial comitteee of the LNC ruled that the Wagner group was the Oregon Libertarian Party to be recognized. You might remember something about that. Now, the judge has dismissed the lawsuit. I wonder if there’s any scenario where the Plaintiffs might just say “We just might not win here. Maybe it’s time for everyone to get on with our lives, and move forward, instead of staying stuck in March 2011”?

  13. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    Also, to be clear, Defendants were granted summary judgment which is different than a dismissal.

  14. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    DJR @ 14: So, does that mean the lawsuit is still going on with the July court date? I’m not an attorney, and I don’t understand all the terminology being used.

  15. Nicholas Sarwark

    Technically, the Judicial Committee ruled that the Executive Committee of the LNC could not decide which group was the LPO, and that in absence of a disaffiliation vote by the entire LNC, the LPO was the group recognized by the State of Oregon.

    The result of a granted motion for summary judgment is a dismissal.

  16. north west front

    Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com

    Ubcrshyyl zber crbcyr va Bertba naq fheebhaqvat fgngrf jvyy abj orpbzr vagrerfgrq va uggc://abegujrfgsebag.bet/

  17. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Thanks, Nicholas. BTW, congratulations on your election to the Colorado Ex Com over the past weekend.

  18. Steve M

    “The motion of the defendants in this regard is granted. The other motions of the defendants are denied as moot, including Defendants’ motions to strike. The motions of the Plaintiffs are denied.

    Councils for the defendants are directed to prepare a form of order, and if appropriate a form of judgment.”

    sure sounds the Defendants won given that they were the ones directed to complete forms of order and possible judgment.

    If I understand it the Judge said… you have the mechanisms within your own organization to sort this out…. so we don’t have to and wont do it for you.

  19. Fred Jabin

    @17
    All racists who decided to come here at your beckoning would find the vast majority of people here reject their bigotry.
    The beauty of Oregon is shown in our varied terrain and our tolerance for people of all colors, nationalities, ethnicities, orientations, and cultures. What you won’t find here is tolerance for bigotry, prejudice or racism.

    Even most of the people who call themselves “rednecks” here feel uncomfortable around racial discrimination.

    Your values won’t sell here.

  20. Hypocrisy Police

    JP: The judicial comitteee of the LNC ruled that the Wagner group was the Oregon Libertarian Party to be recognized.

    Wrong.

    NS: Judicial Committee ruled that […] the LPO was the group recognized by the State of Oregon.

    Right.

    And they did so with the full knowledge that “recognition” by the State of Oregon consists in noting that the previously-elected officers hadn’t consented to being replaced.

    “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state — except we do not question its stale records about our internal affairs.”

  21. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    A “motion to dismiss” is a written request to a judge by a party to a litigation (most commonly the defendant) to find that the claims of the adversary be determined to be legally insufficient and therefore, dismissed.

    A “motion for summary judgment” is a written request to a judge by a party to a litigation to find that when the law is applied to the undisputed facts in the case, you prevail, therefore, there is no need to conduct a trial to determine facts because it will not change the ultimate outcome.

    A motion to dismiss is made at the beginning of the case, alleging that there are deficiencies in the complaint – failure to state a cause of action, defective service, etc. A motion for summary judgment is typically made later, usually after discovery, alleging that there are no issues of fact to be determined at trial, and the only issues are of law, to be determined by the judge, so s/he should decide them and grant judgment to the movant.

  22. Fred Jabin

    @ HP 11

    You seem to be under an assumption that the bylaws of 2007 and were adopted in good faith by the Libertarians of Oregon and by the rules set forth in previous bylaws.
    Were the situation that simple, we might not be having a conflict.
    The reality in Oregon is that over the last decade (at least) there have been many actions taken that were not done according to the rules of the organization or according to state law.

    Key people were left out of meetings, memberships were lost, agendas were set without quorum, committee members weren’t invited, and a host of other issues that put into question nearly every governing document of the LPO.

    The documents that remained left us little ability to do the business of the party. It certainly didn’t give the registered Libertarian voters much chance to be involved in the party.

    We could talk all you want about what it says in the 2007 bylaws–but until anyone could produce a list of LPO members that we all agreed upon–it would seem like there was likely a reasonable challenge to the validity of the bylaws.

  23. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    I should have added to 22:

    Unlike a dismissal (which is often due to a demurrer) summary judgment is not in fact a final judgment, but an order. The eventual final judgment can be appealed.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    @10,

    “In fact, just watch the comments that follow below and count how many Libertarians endorse the idea of having this case settled by a ruling of a Judicial Committee from the 2007 LPOR Bylaws.”

    That seems like the reasonable way to approach the issue, assuming recusal on the part of any judicial committee members party to the controversy.

    But it also seems that the Reeves Gang would be the ones who should have made such an appeal, in a timely manner, instead of contriving to have the LNC’s executive committee illegally disaffiliate LPO.

    That they did the latter instead of the former may be a clue to their expectations as to how such an appeal would have gone.

  25. Wes Wagner

    Not to poop in anyone’s pond… but I am about to poop in everyone’s pond.

    I have seen a whole bunch of people trying to come up with a whole bunch of ideas how this whole artificial crisis for who should control the party should have been resolved…

    It involves judicial committees, and officers, and national parties, and judges and all sorts of crap.

    Has anyone ever for a moment considered asking the governed (in this case the registered Libertarians of Oregon) for their consent?

    Just saying…

  26. Hypocrisy Police

    TK @26: assuming recusal on the part of any judicial committee members party to the controversy

    The Wagner coup disbanded the LPOR JudCom, so Knapp would have an empty JudCom try to resolve the case.

    JudCom members should recuse themselves over alleged factional/personal sympathies only at their own discretion. (For example, Lee Wrights was well within his rights not to recuse himself from the LPOR question, despite his alleged personal connection to the lead advocate for one side.) When you elect a JudCom member, you are subjecting the Party to their best judgement, for better or worse. Take responsibility for your votes for JudCom members — and hold them responsible for theirs.

    WW @27: asking the governed (in this case the registered Libertarians of Oregon) for their consent?

    LP affiliates have no power to “govern” people who voluntarily choose to register Libertarian.

    (When state power is used to interfere with freedom of association, some alleged victim class is always trotted out as not being responsible for their free choices.)

    The “governed” in this case should be the dues-paying pledge-taking members of the LPOR, who consented to freely associate under the LPOR bylaws.

    Any ideas how to to resolve the crisis are indeed suboptimal compared to following the rules by which the governed already chose to govern themselves.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    HP @ 28,

    “LP affiliates have no power to ‘govern’ people who voluntarily choose to register Libertarian.”

    True.

    However, if LP affiliates want to be organizationally co-extant with Libertarian Parties as components of the state’s election system, people who voluntarily choose to register Libertarian must have the right to govern those affiliates.

    You don’t get to be a political party when you want to run candidates for office, and then magically become a private club when being a political party seems inconvenient. You get to be one, or you get to be the other.

  28. AntiWar.Com sues FBI

    ” assuming recusal on the part of any judicial committee members party to the controversy.”

    Gee, Tom, you seem to be developing an optimism streak. Last time you proposed that the IRS could not be used to intimidate political opponents before the law creating it was passed, and now you are saying the above. Keep up the good work!

    Having said that, I believe that your analysis is completely solid. It would indeed appear that one side or the other is going to try an appeal to a Judicial Committee whose terms of office might be suspected of having expired.

  29. Hypocrisy Police

    TK @29: people who voluntarily choose to register Libertarian must have the right to govern those affiliates

    RegLibs have the same right to join the LP as anyone else. That opportunity was not secret on the day they decided to register Libertarian.

    It’s sad to see libertarians argue that informed adults are not responsible for their choices…

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    HP @ 32,

    “RegLibs have the same right to join the LP as anyone else.”

    Registered Libertarians (even if the term is Sovietized) ARE the LP in the states that have voter registration by party.

    If the LNC’s affiliate in such a state wants to also be that state’s LP, its membership consists of those registered voters. If that’s not the case, then the LNC’s affiliate is a social club, not a Libertarian Party.

  31. Oregon Libertarian

    TK,
    The LNC, INC. is a social club as much as he Elks, Mooses, Odd fellows and such are.

    You you can read the LNC, INC. bylaws yourself and come to your own conclusions. It is not that much to read.

    http://www.lp.org/bylaws

  32. Oregon Libertarian

    A few other points about the LNC:

    1. It does not own any ballot access in any states,
    2. It does not appoint or select any states officers or create bylaws for the states,
    3. Presidential nominations are not binding on the states….a state could send delegates to a LNC convention and yet put someone else on the ballot for LP president.
    4. Any group may apply for LNC affiliate status, even if they don’t have ballot access
    5. LNC allows only be one State affiliate per state, but that is not to say you could have non-state affiliates.

    The LNC is a Social Club, it is not the “Federal government” of the Libertarians

  33. Hypocrisy Police

    TK @33: Registered Libertarians ARE the LP in the states that have voter registration by party.

    No, they are people who have expressed a preference to e.g. vote in any primaries that the government conducts to decide certain Libertarian ballot lines in that state.

    The implications of that expression of preference comes from the legislation enabling it — not from Tom Knapp’s a priori dreams about how he wishes informed adults would freely associate.

    the LNC’s affiliate is a social club, not a Libertarian Party

    The LP’s own bylaws define it as “the association known as the ‘Libertarian Party'”. When Westphalian states legislate an opportunity for such an association to play a role in elections, that doesn’t change the rules or membership of our voluntary association — no matter what name-calling (“social club”) you stoop to.

    It also doesn’t by legislative fiat create some right to control the LP and invest it in everybody who fills out the appropriate government paperwork. The meaning of that paperwork is fixed in the government’s own rules. In the case of Oregon, the government just today clearly declined to endorse the Wagner junta’s bylaws that would impose on the LPOR the very association requirement you claim is built-in the concept of partyhood.

  34. Bob Tiernan

    Wes Wagner @27:

    Has anyone ever for a moment considered asking the governed (in this case the registered Libertarians of Oregon) for their consent?

    ————————
    Years ago, people like Bruce Knight, Michael Wilson and myself (among many others) believed that by recognizing all registered Libertarians in Oregon as members of the LPO, it would be extremely difficult for trouble-makers like Burke to cause much trouble.

    At the same time, we never expressed any concern for how votes by such a large body of Libertarians would affect our own vision for the party. We had nothing to worry about, even if many of our agenda items were rejected. We simply wanted a voting bloc so large that only persuasion – real persuasion – could lead to results.

    Burke cannot thrive in such an environment. Which is why he’s been trying so hard to go back to the old way of the exclusive little pond where it’s easy to be (or look like) a big fish.

    Bob Tiernan

  35. Fred Jabin

    Its really easy to sit behind a pseudonym and make whatever pronouncement you see fit.
    but to actually have to live in the trenches like a real human being with a real identity and deal with the consequence of your philosophical leanings are another issue.
    If you have any relevance in what actually happens in Oregon, then reveal yourself and talk honestly with those of us who want to fix the situation.
    If you are an armchair quarterback who thinks he knows what is best from his living room, then I have no need to discuss the actions or what the registered Libertarians in Oregon do.

  36. Richard Winger

    #36, the Oregon government has never conducted a Libertarian primary. In Oregon, only parties that have 3% of the registration get a government-provided primary.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    HP @ 26,

    “The Wagner coup disbanded the LPOR JudCom, so Knapp would have an empty JudCom try to resolve the case.”

    Um, no. I understood your proposal to refer to the Judicial Committee as it existed at the instant immediately prior to the dual coup.

    “JudCom members should recuse themselves over alleged factional/personal sympathies only at their own discretion.”

    I wasn’t talking about alleged factional personal sympathies. I was talking about actual claimed membership in the body whose composition was at issue.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    HP @ 36,

    “The LP’s own bylaws define it as ‘the association known as the ‘Libertarian Party’’. When Westphalian states legislate an opportunity for such an association to play a role in elections, that doesn’t change the rules or membership of our voluntary association — no matter what name-calling (“social club”) you stoop to.”

    In the United States, the political parties which play a role in elections are created by state law and function under state rules.

    The LNC’s claim to be, and/or control the definition of, “the Libertarian Party” is unrealistic at a minimum. Fraudulent is actually the appropriate term.

  39. Hypocrisy Police

    TK @42: the political parties which play a role in elections are created by state law

    There never has been an LP affiliate whose initial meeting was organized by the government.

    You’re conflating the creation of an organization with the creation of a role that the organization can choose to play. (Cue lame snark about that verb.)

    and function under state rules.

    Yep — and if state rules say that all RegLibs get to govern an LP affiliate if/when it chooses to function as a ballot-line-controller, then that’s a voluntary choice of that affiliate.

    But it remains bizarre for an anarcholibertarian to insist that when a Westphalian state makes available a relationship among registered voters and a ballot-line-controlling organization, then that relationship is fraudulent if it doesn’t give those registrants full control of the organization.

    The state sets up rules by which parties and voters can freely associate. A freely-chosen association isn’t fraudulent just because you don’t like it. (Where was your concern for defrauded RegLibs when you were on the LNC? I would think that such monumental fraud in the LP’s name would have been your top priority. I hope it’s not the case that you only decided it was fraud when you decided to quit the LP.)

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    HP @ 43,

    “TK @42: the political parties which play a role in elections are created by state law

    “There never has been an LP affiliate whose initial meeting was organized by the government.”

    Not surprising, since being an LNC affiliate has precisely zero to do with whether or not an organization is its state’s Libertarian Party.

    ” it remains bizarre for an anarcholibertarian to insist that when a Westphalian state makes available a relationship among registered voters and a ballot-line-controlling organization, then that relationship is fraudulent if it doesn’t give those registrants full control of the organization.”

    What’s bizarre about noticing that words mean things, and that playing the state’s game means playing by the state’s rules? I never said it was a GOOD thing that that’s how things are. I just noticed that that’s how things are.

    “Where was your concern for defrauded RegLibs when you were on the LNC? I would think that such monumental fraud in the LP’s name would have been your top priority. I hope it’s not the case that you only decided it was fraud when you decided to quit the LP.”

    I noticed how things were after leaving the LNC, but long before leaving the LNC’s subscription program.

  41. Robert Capozzi

    44 tk: I never said it was a GOOD thing that that’s how things are. I just noticed that that’s how things are.

    me: I support this first step, and suggest you broaden out your application of “noticing how things are.” Next, consider noticing that it’s ALL good. 😉

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 45,

    Sorry, can’t do that — I’m a subjectivist 😀

    Over time, however, I am beginning to see the merits of subjectively evaluating the glass as half full rather than as half empty.

  43. Be Rational

    RC, you should form the “Pollyanna Party.” Your theme song could be “Don’t worry, be happy.”

    Your attitude being that it’s all good could inspire countless millions to accept their current plight and forget about any struggle for change.

    Disney could make some new feel-good-no-matter-what-comes political films based on the Pollyanna Party Principles:

    We could surely enjoy:

    Pollyanna in the Gulag
    Pollyanna, Slave girl,
    Pollyanna in Little House on the Plantation
    Pollyanna and her Massa’s Child
    Pollyanna, Happy Days at Dachau
    Pollyanna, Crushed by the State but It’s All Good

    Written and Directed by Robert Capozzi, coming soon to your local Goebbels Theater.

    … Oh yeah, in case you don’t get it, things are never “all good.”

  44. Hypocrisy Police

    playing the state’s game means playing by the state’s rules

    Exactly! And if the state’s rules don’t require that your party’s registrants can control your party without pledging or paying dues etc., then that state of affairs does not constitute fraud.

    The rules in effect when an organization registers a ballot line — or when a voter registers a preference for a ballot line — are reasonably clear. When either side so registers, they do so as informed adults. That’s called free association — not “fraud”.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    HP,

    From the conflation of “state affiliate of a national membership club” with “political party under the election laws of [insert state here],” only three inferences are reasonable:

    1) The person engaging in the conflation is not well-informed;

    2) The person engaging in the conflation is stupid; or

    3) The person engaging in the conflation is a liar.

    When the conflation is organizational and takes place over a long period of time when the information to dispel the conflation is available and extant, only the third inference is reasonable, and the obvious reason to lie about the matter is to gain or keep control of assets to which that organization is not entitled.

    The word for doing that is “fraud.”

  46. Wes Wagner

    TK @49

    My conclusion is and has been for quite some time that Holtz thinks so highly of himself that he sees feudalism as a natural social order.

  47. Hypocrisy Police

    TK @49: the conflation of “state affiliate of a national membership club” with “political party under the election laws of [insert state here],”

    Huh? I quoted the LPUS bylaws only as typical of the bylaws of its affiliates, insofar as they all similarly begin as a private associations. After forming, a state LP then seeks to 1) affiliate with the LPUS, and/or 2) register itself with the state as having a ballot line.

    When they do (2), the requirements that brings come from state laws. If those laws do not say that RegLib control is the price of playing, then the non-payment of that price just isn’t fraud.

    I don’t see how your histrionic “stupid/liar/uninformed” trilemma is responsive to this point: The rules in effect when an organization registers a ballot line — or when a voter registers a preference for a ballot line — are reasonably clear. When either side so registers, they do so as informed adults.

  48. Oregon Libertarian

    Is the LP is engaged in neo-feudalism? ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neo-feudalism&defid=6378390 )

    A corporation saying you cannot smoke or have tattoos is step towards Neo-feudalism. A political party who requires pledges, entry fees, loyalty oaths and obedience to an elite is very much neo-feudalism.

    In a neo-feudalistic society the elite (“Cops, government employees, elected officials, party leaders, etc..”) set the rules and insist everyone abide by them….or else! However, those very elite that set the rules often exempt themselves from the said rules.

    History shows that this sort of feudalism end badly. One only has to read about the French Revolution or bolshevik revolution to know that it did not go well for the Elites of those times.

  49. Hypocrisy Police

    neo-feudalism n. The phenomenon of corporations taking control of cultures and indiviuals through money, policies, practices, and gatekeeping in general to the point that they control many aspects of everyday private life.

    Actual libertarians oppose “control” only insofar as it involves aggression (fraud or force initiation). Any other form of “control” is really just influence.

    Actual libertarians say that you should be just as free to reject smokers (or the tattooed) as employees as you are to reject them as spouses.

    Actual libertarians know that if an employer discriminates in hiring, then she will soon be out-competed by employers willing to hire the employees the discriminator irrationally rejects.

    “Oregon Libertarian” is apparently not much of a libertarian.

    P.S. This sheds interesting light on Wagner’s “feudalism” mud-slinging @50.

  50. Wes Wagner

    HP @53

    Nah… I part ways from OL. I think you are a condescending douche who thinks that the registered libertarians are the peasantry who produce the ballot access that you exploit for your little silly political rituals and club, and you won’t let them have self-government unless they agree with your theories that some people are more equal than others through the payment of dues and recitations of pledges and oaths and willingness to abide your company.

    I am quite aware how much my egalitarianism offends some people in the alleged Libertarian Party (aka the Libertarian National Committee Inc.) … but I also know that demographics will ultimately resolve this because on average your children will outlive you, they see it all for what it is, and they will put an end to it.

  51. Hypocrisy Police

    WW @54: won’t let them have self-government

    Says the leader of the 5-man junta that unilaterally threw out the LPOR’s voluntarily-agreed-to bylaws that are only supposed to be changed at a properly-noticed convention of members.

    Every RegLib has an equal right to join the LP. But in one state, they apparently don’t have the right to expect that the LP’s rules will be followed.

    who produce the ballot access that you exploit

    Freedom-loving voters are grownups, fully informed of their options.

    Some choose just to check the box that their local LP has worked so hard to make available to them.

    Others are interested enough in helping to spread the LP’s message that they accept the standing offer to join it. In all but one state, joining means accepting the rules the other members have already agreed to — including the rules about how to change the rules.

    I do believe that a libertarian should offer to put a little more skin in the game — beyond just checking a government form — to have a full say in changing the LP’s principles and platform. (Otherwise, the confusion that influence=aggression might soon spread beyond Oregon.)

    But in my own affiliate, I’ve argued for years that the LP should be more inclusive of RegLibs and more focused on them than on membership counts or revenue.

    However, I have enough faith in my fellow libertarians that I can reform the LP without committing any coups or purges.

    Reforms that depend on coups and purges are unlikely to outlive the next coup or purge.

  52. Robert Capozzi

    47br: Your theme song could be “Don’t worry, be happy.” Your attitude being that it’s all good could inspire countless millions to accept their current plight and forget about any struggle for change.

    me: Yes, prior to recovering from the Angrytarian, Randian/Rothbardian model, I’d probably see things your way. However, I then went back the source of L-ism, the Tao, and found that there is another way of looking at the world.

    It is what it is, and we have a choice in how we perceive what is. We could – as the Rs did – resist what is, and whine about how it COULD be.

    Or we could perceive the world as perfect since it is as it is, but to invite others to share our view that more liberty would make tomorrow even better than today.

    Anger may seem motivational, but it’s at root shot through with fear and resistance. The Chicken Little routine gets old REAL fast.

    I happen to think the love-based, aspirational, positive approach is far more attractive and likely to lead to sustainable change.

    Accepting the current “plight” says nothing about what the next day should bring. Make it better, by all means.

    I do not advocate denial about current dysfunction. I simply choose not to wallow in it.

  53. Robert Capozzi

    br 47: Written and Directed by Robert Capozzi, coming soon to your local Goebbels Theater.

    me: Hah! My observation is that Rand and Rothbard may well have both suffered from histrionic personality disorder, and that their thinking poisoned L thought for decades. This would be an example. Tying originalist/Tao-ist L thought to Goebbels? Really?

  54. Bob Tiernan

    HP # 55:

    However, I have enough faith in my fellow libertarians that I can reform the LP without committing any coups or purges.

    Bob T:

    Clearly you’ve never had to deal with Burke or someone just like him. Burke’s trail is littered with many people who couldn’t and wouldn’t believe that any LP member would be so aggressive and sociopathic about gaining and holding onto power, until it was too late.

    I’ve been a participant and/or observer of the LPO since Aug 1992, and Burke has been a hemorrhoid on the anus of the LPO for that whole time. And there’s not much to show for it. But then, perhaps that’s his goal. We’ll never know, but that’s the result just the same and it has his dirty fingerprints all over it.

    B. Tiernan

  55. Wes Wagner

    Well today we met a refugee from the California LP … someone who felt the high event fees and clubby clique thing just wasn’t for them.

    I am sure you dodged a bullet there, because they did not seem like a “higher quality delegate…” or whatever crap actual libertarians get called these days in the states still held under the thumb of people like the Aaron Starrs and Brian Holtzs of the world.

    I am just going to put this out there… Oregon is willing to offer asylum to said real libertarians… and hey California… if you have any more of those “lower quality delegates” that you think you are having problems with… please send them up here. We will take your whole inventory….

    Thank you in advance.

  56. Hypocrisy Police

    hemorrhoid on the anus

    Yes, I’ve heard Wagner repeatedly claim that the coup was justified because Burke is a Bad Guy™. (Never mind that Wagner & Co. were in charge when they staged their coup — they just didn’t have enough of a supermajority to completely dilute the rights of their opponents.)

    However, Wagner has also declared that I am a Bad Guy™ — so I don’t put much stock in the mud-slinging ad hominems that continually emanate from Oregon.

    On the contrary, I find it quite instructive the mud-slinging emanates almost exclusively from one side — the ostensibly winning side! — of the Oregon dispute.

    Those who know they’re right don’t need to stoop to name-calling.

  57. Dave Terry

    Dr. Jimmy Russels @12: “Congratulations to Wes Wagner. An outstanding victory for LP Radicals!”

    I sincerely hope that DR. Russel is not an obstetrician, otherwise he is about to perform an abortion. THIS BABY IS A LONG WAY FROM BEING AT TERM.

    Contrary to HP@11, If the Wagner faction won ANYTHING, it is a fatally pyrrhic and symbolic victory, at best.

    IF, as the Judge stated, the 2007 Constitution is still intact, the 2011 Wager bylaws cannot be in force since they are incompatible with the Constitution.

    Therefore, it would follow that everything that flows from the illicit 2011 Wagner bylaws is invalid!

    It sounds to me like the judge did not really read this stuff and connect the dots one way or the other.

  58. Dave Terry

    The Worlds Oldest Living Flower Child, AKA Oregon Libertarian @ 52: “A corporation saying you cannot smoke or have tattoos is step towards Neo-feudalism.”

    Jeeze, are you STILL driving that old psychedelic
    Volkswagen Bus around.

    Liberty is a TWO sided proposition. In a “free” association of “free” men they are absolutely free to prescribe OR proscribe what ever conditions they choose.

    If you don’t like those conditions you have TWO
    choices; 1. convince them to CHANGE them, OR
    go start your own “free association”.

    You DON’T have the choice of highjacking the wagon, JUST because you like the hub caps.

  59. Dave Terry

    WW @ 54: “I am quite aware how much my egalitarianism offends some people in the alleged Libertarian Party … but I also know that demographics will ultimately resolve this because on average your children will outlive you, they see it all for what it is, and they will put an end to it.”

    Wes, you are 180 degrees out of phase with the historical forces that will determine the future.

    Flower power is OUT! You aren’t even welcome in the the Democratic Party anymore. All demographic studies indicate that the next generation will be be LESS egalitarian, LESS collectivist and LESS superstitious than the present generation. Mobocracy is all but DEAD!

  60. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    HP/Troll @ 60: “However, Wagner has also declared that I am a Bad Guy.”

    And this priceless gem: “On the contrary, I find it quite instructive the mud-slinging emanates almost exclusively from one side — the ostensibly winning side! — of the Oregon dispute.

    Those who know they’re right don’t need to stoop to name-calling.”

    Oh, King of Irony, you must be kidding! No one is as consistently rude, arrogant, condescending, and dishonest on this site than you. You’re worse than Grundmann. I decided weeks ago to just ignore you, but I just can’t let these I-can’t-believe-I’m-really-reading-this comments go.

    Who do you think you’re kidding? I don’t recall people from the Wagner side calling names, but at least he doesn’t try to hide behind some curtain (which happens to be invisible) by using a couple fake screen names. I’m sure everyone here recognizes your bizarre writing style and knows who you are, so why do you bother?

    Excuse me, while I go laugh myself to sleep.

  61. Be Rational

    Yes, RC, I think that denying reality and pretending that it’s “all good” is at best a Pollyanna-like, head-in-the-sand view of the world, at worst, it’s an extreme form of propaganda intended to sideline dissidents.

    It would be better to admit that some things are good, some OK, some not so good, and some pretty horrendous – and then you can advocate that everyone stay cool, avoid hysterics and work for a better tomorrow. But it doesn’t do to deny reality, for things are not, and have never been, all good.

    Denying reality is not an improvement over histrionics when it comes to dealing with the problems in today’s world.

  62. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Oh, and HP, I won’t be replying to you. I’m going to go back to enjoying my life, while ignoring you. Really–I completely skip over your name and don’t read it (just like I do to Grundmann).

  63. Robert Capozzi

    66 br: I think that denying reality and pretending that it’s “all good” is at best a Pollyanna-like, head-in-the-sand view of the world

    me: I’m guessing you still believe in “right” and “wrong,” too.

    Perhaps not…

    Let me try a different angle, to help you understand this originalist paradigm, which I understand feels foreign when one’s thought system is based on black hats and white hats.

    There is always dysfunction in the world. It never ends. If we accept that, then we begin to see that dysfunction is unlikely to be eradicated by human action. It can, however, be recognized, embraced and then dealt with.

    Whatever dysfunction one perceives, one can embrace it and then undo it, IF it’s in one’s control. Since most dysfunctions are NOT in one’s control, then one just deals with it, or works around it.

    I prefer this paradigm to the black/white model. The most extreme examples of the b/w model are Timothy McVeigh and the Weather Underground. That approach seems unlikely to yield desired outcomes, and – more importantly – is a choice to live a life of hell on Earth. Being THAT angry and violent sounds like no fun at all!

  64. paulie

    Registered Libertarians (even if the term is Sovietized) ARE the LP in the states that have voter registration by party.

    If the LNC’s affiliate in such a state wants to also be that state’s LP, its membership consists of those registered voters. If that’s not the case, then the LNC’s affiliate is a social club, not a Libertarian Party.

    Not sure why you think this is, unless state law also specifies that registered party members choose the nominees, bylaws etc., a political party is free to organize itself as it wishes, regardless of some states (but not others) making a register LP option available. Since Oregon chose nominees and bylaws by convention for many years, I am presuming it is not a matter of state law. Therefore I don’t know the basis for the claim. Even Democrats and Republicans have multi-tiered party bureaucracy, some of which is selected by active members, not just registered voters. In some states that bureaucracy is free to keep candidates from appearing in its primary.

  65. paulie

    Is the LP is engaged in neo-feudalism?

    No, that does not apply to voluntary associations. Feudalism was not voluntary for the serfs; they were beaten or killed if they tried to escape. The LP is in no way analogous. No one is compelled to be an LP member or registered LP voter.

  66. Be Rational

    RC, If you recognize that there is “dysfunction” in the world at the present time, then you are also recognizing that things are not “all good” … so perhaps this is a matter of semantics.

    As I see it, the world is a mixed bag, with many degrees of dysfunction. Things that are not “good” are in various states of dysfunction. Things that are good, or better, are still less than optimal. In any case, dysfunction is less than OK, OK is less than good, good is less than great … etc … and nothing is perfect. So, things can always be better tomorrow.

  67. paulie

    A corporation saying you cannot smoke or have tattoos is step towards Neo-feudalism.

    Only the “corporation” part. The rest is a matter of voluntary contract. By corporation I take it you mean non-contractual limited liability.

  68. Robert Capozzi

    71 br: perhaps this is a matter of semantics.

    me: Yes, and attitude. All perception uses semantics. Words are not real. Judgment is not real. We have a choice on how we perceive things, since words and judgments are symbolic.

    I even think it’s perfect that the LM was shaped by minds that thought blowing up buildings over a contract dispute and that fetuses are parasites. But, I’d say, there’s a time to put away childish things….

  69. Kevin Knedler

    The OTHER LP O for Ohio.
    Our “members” are those that register with the LP via the Ohio Primary. By Ohio law, the registered voters are the members. Of course our bylaws require that all officers of the Central Committee and the Executive Committee be members, via the primary. I’m glad we have the rule. It does a couple things:
    #1 It lessens the chance for a bunch of people to show up in a bus and just “takeover” the party at a convention we have every two years.
    #2 It gives us some consistency in leadership at many levels. Ron Paul people are great, but they have been coming and going every two years, depending on if Ron Paul was on the ballot for the GOP. About the time a RP supporter gets onboard, they jump ship again to vote in the GOP primary in Ohio, thereby disqualifying themselves from being in leadership of the Ohio LP. In a volunteer group, we expect liquidity in leadership but we try to keep it to a minimum.
    And the appointed Directors (I make those) of each Division are not only required to be members of the Ohio party, but required to be sustaining members of the national LP. And for the national convention, everyone from Ohio is required to be a LP Ohio member, via the primary, AND also to have signed the national pledge. Again, we want people to pick the LP team and stick with us for a while. It is working.
    Just takes time to get all the pieces in place.

  70. Hypocrisy Police

    Jill Pyeatt @65: I don’t recall people from the Wagner side calling names

    Just 3 days ago you quoted Wagner calling someone “as daft as H.P.” and responded “LOL”. Here is a sample of other recent name-calling from just Wagner himself (to say nothing of his friends e.g. @58 “Burke has been a hemorrhoid on the anus of the LPO “):

    • petty con men
    • When someone calls them on their shit and actually shitcans them after decades of abuse, they get butthurt over it.
    • bullshit that we have come to expect from that faction
    • so immature
    • a form of perversion
    • condescending douche
    • classic narcissist
    • very very low quality sociopathic narcissists
    • abnormal psychology
    • power mongers and tyrants
    • condescending arrogant SOB
    • politico/statist/parliamenrary-perversion/kleptocrat
    • starr-ized to the point where it is a sack of excrement
    • sociopathic control freak
    • dial the douche level up to 11
    • a large % of the people who are in leadership positions are bigots and racists

    No one is as consistently rude, arrogant, condescending, and dishonest on this site than you.

    Rude?

    JP @13: “You might remember something about that.”
    JP @64: “Sore losers much?”
    JP @65: “Troll… priceless gem… King of Irony… Excuse me, while I go laugh myself to sleep”

    Quote me ever being more rude than the comments to which I’m responding. You can’t and won’t.

    Dishonest? Quote me saying anything as dishonest/recklessly-false as your Wagner-doesn’t-call-names above. You can’t and won’t.

    Arrogant and condescending? The people who say I put myself on a pedestal seem to be those looking up from the bottom of the hole they’ve dug.

    I won’t be replying to you. I’m going to go back to enjoying my life, while ignoring you.

    You keep saying that, and yet you keep coming back to make shrill and unsubstantiated attacks on my personal character. A decent person would try to back up at least some of her character assassination with facts.

  71. Fred Jabin

    HP @ 75,
    Jill’s statements were just as incorrect as yours. Wagner’s and his “side” have made many rude comments over this thread and other IPR threads about Oregon.
    I would suggest that if you want to be fair–go back and look with the same diligence at comments made by those who are on the “Reeve’s side” of the issue. It appears to me that there have been many rude comments and more than one threat.

  72. Fred Jabin

    HP–concerning your overall message on this post.

    I have been avoiding responding to your comments because ultimately, since you are neither a member of the LPO or an Oregonian, than how we determine our parties rules are none of your business.
    But, since there are several Oregonians who are reading these posts they deserve to have a better understanding of the issues, I will reply.

    You have been repeating the notion that seems to be the foundation of the “Reeves faction” argument:
    The bylaws were decided by a fair process and LPO members agreed to abide by them.
    We could debate the merits of either set of bylaws, or who should and does have the rights to be in the party–but it would be inaccurate to say that the 2009 bylaws were created with a fair process and that LPO members agreed to those rules even if we only looked at the criteria for who was an LPO member at the time of the 2009 convention.

    When I resigned my position as secretary of the LPO in 2008, our membership list showed over 650 members. At the time our membership fee was $0. (Based on our constitution at the time we had a requirement for membership dues, but the cost of dues was set by the state committee. That’s why we had an actual amount for membership dues but the amount was nothing) The dues were set to be paid administratively every year.
    Therefore the only way that a person’s membership would lapse is if they denounced their membership–or in some way actively reported to the LPO that they didn’t want to be a member. There is no record of the LPO having held any hearings or made any announcement to remove any members of the LPO between the time I resigned and the 2009 convention.
    A few months after my resignation, while the dues were still $0. The membership list showed under 500 members. I don’t remember the exact number but it was, I believe, in the mid 400s.
    I suspect that this wasn’t because of any intentional wrong doing–just somehow the membership lists that had been updated during my term were somehow misplaced and older membership lists were being used. This would be consistent with the approximate number of members before I was in office–because we had done a great deal to grow the membership of the party.

    This wasn’t an isolated or one time issue. We had a bad history in the LPO of not keeping good track of our membership records and our documents that showed who was or was not a member of the state committee.

    Often state committee meetings were held, and sometimes conventions planned–where one or more person disputed if the correct process had been followed to ensure that all the correct people had been invited to the meetings. Calls for quorum in meetings and conventions were inconsistent at best.
    When I was secretary I attempted to track down the last time that we had governing documents that were created without a credible dispute to there having been established according to procedure. I couldn’t find any.
    This put us in a very strange position when the famous meeting was held . We were going by the 2009 documents but we had good reason to believe they were not authorized with consent of the body and according to the rules of that time.
    In addition we had a history of problems that left us without being able to find any indisputable governing documents.
    The 2009 documents (if they were valid) only allowed us to make changes if we met quorum criteria that nobody seemed to think we would be able to make.
    In addition we had an issue about following Oregon State Law. It seemed consistent with Oregon Law that the people who made the choices about how the party is run are the people who are registered to vote in that party. While Oregon Law does state that they don’t intend to enforce the law, we believed it was our responsibility to the registered voters of Oregon to follow the law and represent them (or better yet, let them represent themselves) as best as they could.

    In the state committee meeting in which we voted to change the bylaws, we decided to let the registered Libertarians of Oregon decide if they did or didn’t want the new rules we were proposing. This seemed like the fairest way to resolve all of the past grievances and start over.

    I recognize that it may have been a violation of the 2009 bylaws–but since we couldn’t trust the authenticity of those bylaws (or any before them) we were really at an impasse. Do we keep following rules that were created against the rules? or do we create a clean slate and start again?

    Some people have suggested that this was an attempt for us to stay in power. In my case this is easily disputed. I did not run for the new board of directors but I was a state committee member according to the old rules. Therefore under the old rules- I had a position of authority and under the new rules I did not.

    On the other hand it is harder to determine if this was the motives of Wagner and other who are considered on “his side”.
    It seems likely that had they followed the old rules that the four officers (Wagner, Weston, Vetanen, and Knight) would have been able to win re-election. There is no real reason to think that the opposition had gained great strides and that they needed this action to stay in power.

    If there was great opposition, they would likely have been able to be voted out of office during the most recent convention.

    I won’t speak for their motives. But I will speak for mine.

    I voted to change the governing documents because it was the only way I could see to let us have any chance of correcting all the mistakes we made in the past and it was the best way to let anyone who wanted to work to grow the party and the movement to be involved.

  73. Wes Wagner

    Had strict adherence to and continued implementation of the 2009 bylaws been taken to its rhetorical and parliamentary conclusion, the LPO would have had a vacated judicial committee due to their terms being for only a single year, and a set of officers (alleged Wagner officers) who would have remained dictators for life and empowered to choose their successors in perpetuity.

    In short we had the votes to stay in power forever… and even if the Reeve’s faction were to have successfully convince a court to return us to the 2009 bylaws, they would have just re-installed alleged Wagner-aligned officers as dictators-for-life

  74. Starchild

    Do registered Libertarians in Oregon still have to sign the Non-Aggression Pledge prior to being allowed to vote on party business? I hope so.

    With that safeguard in place, I can support the LPO’s approach of allowing registered Libertarians to vote without being dues-paying members. Otherwise I cannot.

    While I do not feel the Pledge alone is sufficient to guarantee the Libertarian Party’s commitment to libertarianism on a sustainable basis, and would like to see us complement it with a more specific and meaningful requirement based on scoring above a certain level on the Nolan Chart, it sends an important symbolic message and is better than nothing.

    Unless/until we adopt stronger ideological standards that leaders in our organization must meet, Libertarians who do not want to see the LP gradually sell out, be overrun by conservatives, etc., should strongly defend the Pledge.

  75. paulie

    Do registered Libertarians in Oregon still have to sign the Non-Aggression Pledge prior to being allowed to vote on party business? I hope so.

    No. And according to at least one person who has participated in this discussion believing they should makes us “neo-feudalists.”

  76. Wes Wagner

    Starchild @79

    We have no practical method to compel the state to place such a pledge on the voter registration form.

    I can only anecdotally report that the average new libertarian party member who has become more active in the party (shown up to meeting, run for office, etc.) over the last 12 months:

    -would score closer to 100 on the nolan chart on average
    -is far more ideologically libertarian and well read on libertarian subjects
    -is more probable to be female
    -is more probable to be under the age of 40
    -has fewer conservative values or republican-hold-out issues
    -are just plain more friendly

    Compared to what we typically saw when we had pledges, dues, and butt-sniffing tests.

    I guess the average libertarian just finds those sorts of things distasteful and was staying away.

  77. Wes Wagner

    Oh.. forgot one other very vital statistic. After they show up for the first time to see how things are, they actually come back.

  78. George Phillies

    Some years ago, Massachusetts got into a prolonged discussion about interpretations of the pledge. We then assembled at a state convention, and a 7/8 majority of those present voted to scrap it.

  79. Wes Wagner

    GP @83

    I did not know that about Massachusetts … how long did the debate take? Because that sounds like it could be nearly a day long argument to reach that type of consensus (7/8)

  80. Fred Jabin

    @ Starchild 79
    With all do respects, It doesn’t really matter to most of us whether or not you agree with the way we run our organization or who we let in.

    But, I would ask that you consider this.
    Anyone who doesn’t agree with the pledge could sign it and say that they do agree with it. Pledges rely only on the ethical conduct of those who take them–those without ethics may not be bothered by pledging something with which they disagree.

    If you have a small number of members (say 450) it is much easier to take over an organization with a small number of unethical people then if you have 15,000 members.

    If we can’t trust the people who identify themselves as Libertarians to run the party that stands up for Libertarian values–how would we ever expect the general voting public to accept that the Libertarian party is going to give them more power to run their own lives.

  81. Dave Terry

    WW @ 50: “My conclusion is and has been for quite some time that Holtz thinks so highly of himself that he sees feudalism as a natural social order.”

    To my knowledge Mr. Holtz has never arranged to put himself in power and then make it impossible to meet a quorum and thus, preclude any election to replace him and hence rule in perpetuity.

    Are you STILL walking on water, Wes?

  82. paulie

    Anyone who doesn’t agree with the pledge could sign it and say that they do agree with it. Pledges rely only on the ethical conduct of those who take them–those without ethics may not be bothered by pledging something with which they disagree.

    True, but it’s better than nothing. And anyone can sign a voter card claiming a political party, at least unless the state has disqualified them from voting for any reason, legitimate or not. BTW, what will you do if the state eliminates registration by political party, as some states have?

    If you have a small number of members (say 450) it is much easier to take over an organization with a small number of unethical people then if you have 15,000 members.

    Your number of active members is not 15k, it’s something much closer to 450 (slightly higher iirc, but much closer to the second number than the first in terms of those who have ever returned a mail ballot or showed up to anything in person). If someone really wanted to take you over they would only need to pay or entice a few hundred people to change their voter registrations and send off a mail ballot or two. They wouldn’t even have to leave the house to do all that. Is that really more difficult than getting a few dozen people to sign the pledge and spend their day at a meeting? If I was willing to do it (I’m not) and if someone paid me (no one has offered, and I would reject the offer if they did) I could accomplish either one for about the same amount of money.

  83. Dave Terry

    FJ @ 85: “If you have a small number of members (say 450) it is much easier to take over an organization with a small number of unethical people then if you have 15,000 members.”

    HOW then, do you explain the Democratic and Republican Parties? They have millions of registered voters, most of whom are clueless knee jerk Followers.

    You seem to be unaware that the reality is that there are three kinds of people in politics; 1. Those who MAKE things happen, 2. Those who WATCH things happen, 3. Those who wonder WHAT is happening.

  84. Steve M

    @74 Kevin,

    So Ohio holds primary elections for Libertarians?

    Are the party officials elected as part of the Primary or are the Party officials required to have voted in the Primary as Libertarians?

    Thanks,

  85. paulie

    Are the party officials elected as part of the Primary or are the Party officials required to have voted in the Primary as Libertarians?

    Not the first part, that much I know. I believe Kevin said it was the latter but he can correct me if I’m wrong.

  86. Dave Terry

    BR @ #4: “The Burke cabal should stop now, leave this train wreck in the past, and get on with their lives.”

    I seem to recall reading that the same advise was given to John Paul Jones, Winston Churchill & General MacArthur. I think they all answered with one word, (or was it one finger?)

    OH! That is Wagner’s signature sign!

    > “The rest of us can allow them this bit of self > -sustaining face saving, nod, mutter “OK, sure” > and move on.

    You can remain neutral or non-aligned OR just hide on the sidelines, or in the bushes, but PLEASE, spare us your insipid platitudes.

    In order to save face, they can hold their heads high and proudly proclaim that they had the best intentions, intending to uphold the rights of all members and insure that leaders follow established rules under the LPO governing documents.

  87. Fred Jabin

    Paulie,

    I think it would be considerably more difficult to persuade a couple of hundred people to change their voting status and send off a ballot then get enough people to sign the pledge and take over a meeting.
    It would be pretty easy to show a group of activists from a grass roots organization that they could gain the ballot access from the party and probably have a base of 15,000 people voting for them–if they cared more about their cause then the Libertarian party. It would be even easier if they thought the Libertarian party fit well with their cause.

    DT–You make a good point, and I like your “3 kinds of people” example

    But I don’t have to explain the results and the infighting that happens when only a small group of people can take control of a party. We can see the results of that type of leadership.

    I can’t promise that the LPO won’t lose some of its core beliefs, but I can tell you–I wouldn’t know how to convince people that the LPO had their best interests in mind–if we won’t let them decide who leads the organization.

  88. Dave Terry

    Paulie @ 87: “And anyone can sign a voter card claiming a political party, at least unless the state has disqualified them from voting for any reason, legitimate or not.”

    AYE! And wherein lies the problem. Contrary to the view through the rose-colored glasses and leftist ideology, of the (for lack of a better term) radicals in the LPO (and elsewhere as well, I’m sure!) The majority of “registered” libertarians are generally, not really consistent practicing libertarians.

    I personally, organized TWO affiliate county parties in the past dozen or so years. Each time, I began with nothing but a list of LPO members,
    a list of “registered” libertarians and a phone.

    What struck me as MOST memorable was the strange (to me at the time) that the majority of those who were “registered” as libertarians, as often as not had no specific idea what the Libertarian GENERALLY stood for and only identified with one issue that the LP stood for.

    Amazingly, a very large percentage of them were even surprised that they were “registered” as libs.
    Generally, they were only adamant that they weren’t Democrats or Republicans.

    On more than a dozen occasions, I was told that they THOUGHT they had checked ‘independent”,
    or what we now call “unaffiliated voter”

    It goes without saying (or at least it should) that
    most “registered” libertarians are simply nominal
    members of the party and IF they choose not to join the L.P.O. as distinct from the libertarian party, they really should NOT be making those important decisions that candidates and elected officers must follow.

    I don’t expect EVERYONE to agree, BUT the point is those who pay their dues and put in the time and effort to make the party viable, deserve to control the direction of the “organization”

  89. George Phillies

    @91 If you recall that such advice was given to Churchill, you are correct. After the failure of his Gallipoli invasion, whose execution under his plans was massively inept, he was removed by the Prime Minister.

    If you remember this of MacArthur, well, Truman did throw him out on his ear, and Truman was right.

    And if you remember this a Washington, well, Washington was permanently in competition with people who thought themselves better generals. After Washington’s disastrous handling of Long Island and New York, they might well have been right, because Washington repeatedly almost lost the war through not noticing that he was on an island, but there is little evidence we had anyone better to replace him.

    Amusingly, the better general for Washington was Arnold, who would likely not have changed sides if he had been given the recognition he clearly deserved.

    @84 The debate was fairly short. We listed interpretations held by substantial numbers of Libertarians, and the observation that everyone active in the party at that time supported removing it, so out it went. It was fairly clear that anyone who wanted to keep it had to explain what they thought it meant.

  90. Steven R Linnabary

    @74 Kevin,

    So Ohio holds primary elections for Libertarians?

    Are the party officials elected as part of the Primary or are the Party officials required to have voted in the Primary as Libertarians?

    Thanks,

    Yes, all state and county Central Committee members are elected in the primary election.

    The Central Committees oversee & audit the county & state Executive Committees which are appointed. Executive Committee members are required to be dues paying or life members and pledge signers.

    Additionally as Kevin mentioned, all delegates to the National Convention are required to be pledge signers as well as dues paying or life members of National LP.

    PEACE
    Steven R Linnabary
    Libertarian Party of Ohio Central Committee, Treasurer
    Franklin County Libertarian Party Central Committee, At large

  91. paulie

    Fred,

    I think it would be considerably more difficult to persuade a couple of hundred people to change their voting status and send off a ballot then get enough people to sign the pledge and take over a meeting.

    You can think that. I happen to know that it is not. How do I know? Personal experience.

    Again, it’s not something I am willing to do again, but I’ve done it before (at least the voter registration part…sending off mail is easy, you could offer to do it for them). If I was willing to do it, I’d charge about the same price for either job – if anything, voter registrations and mail ballots would cost less. I can find a hundred or more people a day who are willing to switch their voter registration just to do me a favor. If I am unscrupulous enough to pay them and pay for referrals, several hundred, easily. If the client is willing to pay enough, I could subcontract and get a thousand or more in one day.

    Getting someone to spend all day at a meeting is harder. That may take 50 bucks, and gas money if they have to travel any distance…maybe motel rooms and meals.

    It’s not that I am proud that I have these skills and experiences, I wish I had never done that stuff…but some of it is public record and some of it I have written about before, so I see no need to hide it either. Just because I no longer choose to use the political dark arts for fun and profit does not mean I don’t know what I am talking about.

    So, please believe I am not talking out of my ass; I’m giving you free political consulting. It could be done, and it wouldn’t cost all that much. And once again in case anyone is interested: no, this is not an offer.

  92. Steven R Linnabary

    Amazingly, a very large percentage of them were even surprised that they were “registered” as libs.
    Generally, they were only adamant that they weren’t Democrats or Republicans.

    On more than a dozen occasions, I was told that they THOUGHT they had checked ‘independent”,
    or what we now call “unaffiliated voter”

    Arrrgh…yes, this is a problem. Which is why the LPOH has the safeguard of using the appointed Executive Committee structure.

    And the best way to combat this problem IMHO is to educate the LP voter. And the best way to do that is with contested primary’s. Contested primaries also have the added benefit of attracting new voters to the LP.

    PEACE

  93. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry @ 93:

    The majority of “registered” libertarians are generally, not really consistent practicing libertarians.

    Bob T:

    Sometimes they don’t even stay registered as L’s, such as that batch of Republicans who, after their own primary, re-registered as Libertarian so they could help their friend Burke vote for None-of-the-Above and prevent an LP candidate from getting nominated to run against their candidate for Oregon’s US House Dist One in 1996.

    Also, it should be pointed out that requiring dues does not guarantee libertarian-minded people, either.

    Bob Tiernan

  94. Pingback: Minutes and By-Laws Released from First of Two 2013 Libertarian Party Conventions in Oregon | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  95. Steve M

    wow sure seems that the Reeves’s group fails to demonstrate that they had standing because they hadn’t payed dues…. judge was not impressed by the Reeve’s Lawyer’s answer …

  96. Fred Jabin

    Paulie,

    Which ever way is easier to take control of the party isn’t really as important as finding a way to safeguard the party from being taken over. The idea of a “stewardship” model versus a “central control” model is what the constitution was aiming for. Even if someone took the time, energy, and money to take over the “leadership roles” of the LPO– they would only be able to change the elements consistent with stewardship not with control. Therefore for they would be the one planning when meetings are held and ballots are sent out–they aren’t controlling what the organization believes or who gets put on the ballot.
    You would have to use your influence on each one of those issues separately to make those changes.

    This is also what makes this structure different that what the Ds and Rs are doing as brought up by Dave Terry @88

    The Ds and Rs have that central control model. It isn’t the amount of people in the party, its the amount of people who have control of the party. If the control is held by a very small group then they decide.

    How many people would you need to control the LPO under the old rules. If you had them placed in the right counties you would need (at the most) 8. At least that is based on the size of the best attended state committee meetings that I was involved in.

  97. Fred Jabin

    You would need 33 people to ensure that you would be able to take over the “reeves faction” (based on their 32 current members).
    And you would only need that many if the entire “Reeves faction” showed up and voted in unison.
    33 people can be found in many small politically motivated groups.
    33 people can be found in a radical cult group.
    33 people are likely to be in my backyard for a BBQ.
    33 people can be found in just a few Mormon families.

  98. Meanwhile back at the LP ranch

    And while the Oregon train wreck continues to pile up at malfunction junction we have this from the former LP VP candidate…

  99. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Re: 106: Oh my Gawd!!! I SO don’t miss Wayne! I’m SO embarrassed this guy “represented” the LP!!!

Leave a Reply

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