Geoff Neale reaffirms that the LNC recognizes Wes Wagner as LP of Oregon chair

doing case study research https://pacificainexile.org/students/buy-a-custom-essay/10/ enter site brave new world conditioning essay http://www.cresthavenacademy.org/chapter/college-transition-words-for-essays/26/ abnormal psychology case thesis in spanish viagra pelvic examination medical office secretary resume http://www.hemsleyandhemsley.com/viagra-buy-viagra/ where can i buy college papers http://go.culinaryinstitute.edu/how-do-i-add-another-email-to-my-iphone-8/ que es cialis 5 go to link https://goodsamatlanta.org/patients/buy-viagra-in-tijuana/01/ viagra pages generic edinburgh sample search cialis 5 mg experience prednisone no rx essay on favorite teacher https://greenechamber.org/blog/where-to-place-executive-summary-in-research-paper/74/ go to site hydrochlorothiazide price go to site source https://www.guidelines.org/blog/thesis-appendices-definition/93/ https://geneseelandlordassoc.org/category/njhs-essay-help/44/ research writing style watch https://groups.csail.mit.edu/cb/paircoil2/?pdf=celebrities-are-bad-role-models-essay essay writers doctoral thesis structure hero's journey essay Geoff Neale to statechairs, lnc-discuss, wes.wagner:

Doug Craig wrote:

“I would like an official ruling from the LNC or Chairman on who is the official of Oregon. .Thank you”

Doug – thanks for the softball.

It is my position that Wes Wagner is the Chair of the Oregon affiliate of the Libertarian Party.

The Bylaws are very clear that only the LNC can establish or terminate a relationship with a state affiliate, and that there can only be one state level affiliate per state. The Bylaws are also clear that only the Judicial Committee can veto an action or decision of the LNC. However, it is just as clear to me that the delegates in convention can trump the Bylaws.

The Judicial Committee ruled that the “Wagner” group is the official affiliate from Oregon.

However, the Credentials Committee at our last convention decided to recognize the “Reeves” group, and took the matter to the delegates, who upheld their decision. My problem with this decision is that, according to the minutes, the Credentials Committee referred to RONR for what to do when there are “conflicting” groups. In my opinion, there can be no conflicting delegate submissions from two “affiliates” in one state because our Bylaws state there can only be one affiliate per state, and the Judicial Committee ruled that the “Wagner” group was the official affiliate. I think the Credentials Committee did not have any choice but to accept the Wagner delegates, but obviously they saw it differently.

Subsequently, when the delegates upheld the “Reeves” delegates, it might be argued that the delegates were therefore ratifying the position that the “Reeves” group were the official affiliate, but I disagree. The motion that was voted on did not specify this position. In effect, the delegates sat individuals, without taking a position on the affiliate of record, which has created a huge problem, since the Bylaws specify that it is the responsibility of the recognized affiliate to submit the list of delegates. What a mess.

Now on to the next issue: the state chairs list. Let’s be clear – this is an LP list. It’s hosted on lp.org. At some point in the past, administration was turned over to the LSLA. While it might be argued that this list is independent of the LP, it is not – the LP pays for it, and it is on the LP site. I think we have to keep this in mind. As long as the LP hosts this site, it needs to be able to exercise limited control over it. I think that limited control should be that the affiliates recognized on this list are only the affiliates recognized by the LNC, which is the sole explicit authority in the Bylaws that can recognize affiliates. Likewise, under our Bylaws, we can only have one affiliate per state.

Personally, I think the best path would be to direct the LSLA to create and pay for its own list, or adhere to LNC decisions as to which “group” is the affiliate, or turn administration of the members of the list back over to LNC control.

I see no upside for the LNC in allowing this argument to continue on a list paid for by the LNC. Either the argument needs to end, or the list needs to be truly separate.

But these are just my opinions. Ruling on who the LNC recognizes as the official Oregon affiliate is straightforward. Deciding what action, if any, that the LNC takes must be an LNC decision.

86 thoughts on “Geoff Neale reaffirms that the LNC recognizes Wes Wagner as LP of Oregon chair

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, these are strong words from Geoff. Lee Wrights answered the same thing. But, what does it mean? Would the LNC really take action to make the LSLA pay for their own list and mailings?

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    At what point will Tim Reeves man up, realize he isn’t helping the LP or LP of Oregon, and step aside?

  3. Eric Sundwall

    Oh good . . . this leaves Wagner room to howl the whole year until the convention.

  4. Spence

    Way to go LP! Way to advance the cause of freedom. At this rate you will be a major party and making us free any day now. Seriously..arguing about who controls your tiny little state parties and email lists? That’s your idea of fighting for freedom? I mean…seriously? Wow. Just wow. Could the LP be any more pathetic? This is what some of my friends are spending so much time and money on? I’m starting to believe they need an intervention, like strung out junkies.

  5. Andy

    “Spence January 7, 2014 at 12:53 pm
    Way to go LP! Way to advance the cause of freedom. At this rate you will be a major party and making us free any day now.”

    “Spence” the fake is back. What phony name are you going to post under next? Are you a lone nut, or are you on the payroll of some government agency or some other group to post your bullshit here?

  6. Spence

    Yeah Andy, I’m the one who’s nuts here. Because this behavior by the LP is totally not nuts. And you are all completely sane for putting your efforts into an organization that engages in this kind of behavior. Move along folks, nothing to see here, this is all a rational and normal adult way of spending your time and money. I don’t know where Andy gets the idea that my name is fake, who my employer is or that anything I posted is bullshit but suppose my name WAS fake….would anything I have said be any less true? I know you don’t want to face it but come on folks. There is something seriously nuts here and it is not me.

  7. Wes Wagner

    Spence is actually correct that the behavior in the LP is entirely nuts. They also attack anyone who tries to correct it or stands against the sociopathy or narcissism of the leadership.

    An organization that proclaims it stands against the cult of the omnipotent state has itself created a culture of imperialism and personality.

    Having had to fight against it in political figurative hand to hand up close and personal combat .. you could be wrong to discount the Spence entirely … however, I think he should act less like a troll in order to increase the effectiveness with which he is attempting to eviscerate us. I would prefer he be successful in it… because we deserve it.

  8. Richard P. Burke

    I saw Mr. Neale’s letter. And, with all due respect to our national Chair, he is demonstrably wrong on the facts. Evidence will be shown here. I hope somebody gets this letter to him. He will be able to go over the record and see for himself that what I say is true. He can be forgiven, because all of this happened before he became the LNC Chair. But if he is to speak on this matter, he has an obligation to see what the facts are.

    Fortunately in this case, Mr. Neale’s opinions do not reflect that of the governing LNC board and hold no weight concerning what the position of the LNC actually is. This begs the question, “What has the LNC actually said about this?”

    The LNC never recognized Wes Wagner or his bylaws as legitimate. Never. On the other hand, the LNC has recognized the Reeves group of officers as legitimate on multiple occasions and has actually repudiated the Wagner group. Here is the proof:

    1. LNC Executive Committee. On 7/17/11, the LNC Executive Committee voted 6-1 to recognize the Reeves officers as legitimate. Mr. Neale and others can read the minutes here: (http://www.lp.org/files/2011-07-17-LNCExCommConfCallMinutes.pdf). Mr. Wagner and his friends responded to this with the infamous middle finger graphic.

    2. Full LNC. On 10/16/11, the LNC rejected a motion 5-10 to direct the LNC Executive Director to Recognize Wagner as legitimate. Mr. Neale and others can read the minutes here: (https://www.lp.org/files/2011_12_10%20LNC%20Minutes%20Las%20Vegas%20-%20approved.pdf)

    Much has been made of the national Judicial Committee ruling which did not recognize ANY side as legitimate but only deferred to the Secretary of State which says it will not decide and, while listing Wagner for now since he was the chair of record at the time of the split, has allowed BOTH sides to function as the Libertarian Party of Oregon until the legal matter is resolved.

    3. Full LNC Again. On 11/20/11, the full LNC voted 12-5 that the Reeves group was legitimate. They passed a resolution stating that, in the view of the LNC, the Judicial Committee exceeded their authority in their ruling and re-asserted that Wagner was not the legitimate leadership of the Oregon affiliate, even stating that “it is apparent under the 2009 Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) Bylaws that it was impossible for Wes Wagner and his associate claimants to be the legitimate leadership of LPO as of the date of the Judicial Committee appeal.” (Mr. Neale and others can see p. 11-13 of the same minutes at (https://www.lp.org/files/2011_12_10%20LNC%20Minutes%20Las%20Vegas%20-%20approved.pdf).

    On top of this, the national credentials committee voted to seat the Reeves delegates, not the Wagner delegates, and this decision was confirmed by the entire assembly of delegates.

    All of this seems pretty decisive to me. Not one LNC ruling in favor of Wagner. Three in favor of Reeves plus the national convention votes. The LNC and the national convention has spoken 5-0 in favor of Reeves and only lists Wagner because of an administrative decision, not the expressed will of the LNC. The national Judcomm recognized nobody but the state. The state says it won’t decide.

    Apart from all of this is the irony of the LNC ignoring it’s own rulings, particularly the one on 11/20/11, and effectively allowing the state to tell us who our leaders are. This is not a high water mark in the defense of Libertarian ideals.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  9. Wes Wagner

    Mr. Trout from the elections division did decide this issue and was quite clear in his letter of who they recognized and would continue to recognize.

    They were also very clear that they would not change their mind outside of a court order.

    We still hold that Reeves et.al. sued the wrong people because the letter ruling from the SoS is a document protected under the APA and that they would have needed to sue the Secretary of State.

  10. Spence

    Steve,

    I already answered that question more than once but just in case you missed it here it is again. “This is what some of my friends are spending so much time and money on? I’m starting to believe they need an intervention, like strung out junkies.” Do you know what an intervention is Steve? When people you care about are doing something massively self-destructive, counterproductive, obviously irrational and wasting their lives? That’s exactly what this is like. And that’s because that is exactly what it is. The LP as an organization needs a rope and a scaffold, or a needle and a gurney. But there are many good people, including some people I care about, wasting their time and money on this worse than useless mess. That is why I care. Thanks for asking!

  11. Spence

    Jill

    My comments are made out of love, not out of hate. Hate would be letting you keep staying delusional about the LP being some sort of organization that is advancing freedom and a productive use of your time, money and efforts.

  12. George Whitfield

    Spence, thank you for your kind advice and guidance. May I ask what organiztions or activities you suggest would be a better use of our resources? And in which ones are you participating?

  13. Wes Wagner

    Some people seem to have leaky memories when it comes to inconvenient facts.

    On 9/29/11:

    Attached is the decision of the Oregon Secretary of State with respect to the recognized leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    Stephen N. Trout

    Director of Elections

    Oregon Secretary of State

    503-986-1518

    steve.trout@state.or.us

    In that letter, which is available on IPR and the internet… :

    “We currently recognize, and will continue to recognize Wes Wagner as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. …”

    Anyone with basic logic skills (e.g. NOT BURKE) would then follow back that the Judicial Committee did make a decision to recognize Wagner because they made a decision that the affiliate officers are whoever the laws of that state say they are, etc etc etc.

  14. Richard P. Burke

    Dear All,

    In Mr. Wagner’s reply he refuted nothing I said before about previous LNC rulings. He only selectively refuted the position of the Oregon Secretary of State and he did so in a misleading way. We have already noted that they currently list Wagner as Chair because he was the “Chair of Record” when the split took place, not because he is the legitimate chair. And we noted that they will maintain this posture until a court tells them otherwise. This stance is due to US Supreme court rulings prevent election officials from making such determinations.

    But the WHOLE truth is that the Sec. of State takes no position on Wagner’s legitimacy and have allowed both groups to operate as the Libertarian Party of Oregon, despite Wagner’s formal complaints on the matter, for that reason. Were this not the case, Wagner’s complaints would be acted on and we would be enjoined from acting as the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    One other thing that is important to remember. The LPO as organized under Tim Reeves and bylaws approved by members in convention does not consist of a only few people. We are a full blown organization that is raising money, collecting dues, building membership, and will be holding the 2014 LPO Annual Convention in Salem on March 22. The members on our side are those who do not just meet for dinner and go for hikes (though there is nothing wrong with that) but actually donate money, support races successfully electing Libertarians to local office, establishing a legislative presence and so on. In the next year we will hold a candidate nominating convention and will be working to get Libertarians appointed to public office where openings and vacancies exist.

    It has been almost forgotten that near majority of Oregon national party members signed a petition to dis-affiliate Oregon after what Wagner did (others were disgusted by the internal conflict and didn’t respond while a few supported Wagner), but this effort was abandoned when we learned we might lose ballot status. These LNC members are on our side, and they are a substantial group.

    My point here is that it would be a mistake to think that the “Reeves Group” consists only of the lawsuit plaintiffs. It consists of the core of that portion of LPO membership which demonstrated that it could actually achieve political success. Unlike Wagner’s LPO whose membership figures are artificially high because thousands were “defined” into being members without their knowledge or consent, members of the Reeves LPO have all signed the non-aggression pledge and have paid dues giving them some skin in the game. It would be political folly for the LNC or any responsible body to alienate them further.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  15. Wes Wagner

    i will also note that several lawyers weighed in on the State Chairs list advising Mr. Burke that a court ruling to dismiss his case is the law of the land and everyone is to act on such a basis until such time as it is reversed, unless a temporary stay is put into effect.

  16. Wes Wagner

    In between all those hikes and dinners (also known as teambuilding exercises and training sessions) … we seemed to have nominated something like 2300% more libertarian candidates than you, sent out 20000% more direct mail than you, raised I have no idea how much more money than you, and added over 2500 more members, which is probably something like 10000% more members than you.

  17. Wes Wagner

    Yup .. you had 1 none republican, we have 40 something, but if we only count the non republicans who made it onto the ballot just to be nice… you don’t look so good, Mr. “I only managed to nominate one libertarian elector at my parking lot convention”

  18. Richard P. Burke

    Wes,

    I can pull numbers out of the air too. I think I saw one, maybe two voter pamphlet statements from your candidates, one of them was a Democrat who didn’t bother to include a picture. I haven’t seen a single one of those nominees go on to get elected to a local office subsequent to their races. Like I think we had 10,000,000,000% more people actually get elected to local non-partisan office than yours who actually got to implement Libertarian philosophy in governance. And, if I wanted to tie membership to people who register as Libertarians without necessarily knowing anything about it or signing the non-aggression principle, we could probably boost our numbers too. Maybe by 20,000,000,000,000%.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  19. Wes Wagner

    If they are registered as a libertarian and serving in public office, they are our member’s too 😉

    If they aren’t, you haven’t accomplished jack shit.

  20. Richard P. Burke

    They’re registered as Libertarians. You can claim them if you want, but you wouldn’t be able to without our work. Which of course highlights how disingenuous your claim actually is.

  21. Wes Wagner

    We accept the hard work and loyalty of every person who has a libertarian by their name and give them all the credit for what they do.

    We are not narcissists.

  22. Richard P. Burke

    Nobody has called anyone a narcissist as far as I know. And who you or anyone else gives credit to is beside the point, though it is nice to hear.

  23. Doug Craig

    My goal was to get this behing us and move forward.I thought the LSLA was not giving the official party of Oregon a fair shake..That is the reason why I ask for this to be cleared up…I hope we can move forward after the LSLA acknowledges one party the official party..Which should be the same as the LNC. THANKS Doug Craig..chairman Georgia and Alt on the LNC

  24. Richard P. Burke

    Daniel,

    The LSLA made it’s determination at it’s last general meeting in favor of the Reeves group and, as you see from the documentation I provided, they made the same determination that the LNC did.

    Mr. Wagner, whatever his intentions, by his own admission attempted to change the LPO’s governing documents in a manner violating the governing documents that were in force at that time approved by members in convention by 2/3 majorities. He attempted to cancel a session of the LPO convention, moved by HIMSELF SPECIFICALLY, called by delegates at a convention even though the State Committee is subordinate to convention. Mr. Wagner and his friends attempted to justify it by citing a government statute that only applies to major political parties agreeing to adopt the organizational structure outlined for major parties in statute (so it did not apply), which is a direct violation of the non-aggression pledge.

    None of this is in dispute. The Wagner side is simply trying to create facts on the ground and relying on everyone’s fatigue with the issue to help him prevail. But we’re not going to do that. On principle.

    We don’t care who is in charge. We were never wild about Wagner being chair, even in 2011, but we accepted it because we knew he was accountable to our bylaws. That’s when he tried to throw out bylaws approved by members in convention by governing documents he wrote himself with his friends. The ends don’t justify the means. That is the route to mob rule and, in this case, a clear violation of the Libertarian Statement of Principles. He has clearly, by his own admission regarding his attempt to invoke statute, attempted to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  25. paulie Post author

    only lists Wagner because of an administrative decision

    And why would Hinkle make such an administrative decision when he sided with your side? I think he understood that the Judiciary Committee trumps the LNC.

  26. Wes Wagner

    Well I don’t know why he would be trying to convince Doug of anything… Doug had a ringside seat to the whole affair back when he was on the LNC at the time.

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    Perhaps you can write up an article or two about your successes, Mr Burke, to be posted here. I’ve never heard anything a out them, so clearly we’ve only heard one side of the story here.

  28. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, everyone is so caring on this thread. First, Spence told everyone how we’re wasting our time on the LP out of his genuine love for us, and Richard Burke has patiently corrected us here at IPR because of principles, or something.

  29. Richard P. Burke

    Paulie – The LP Judicial Committee never ruled that Wagner was the legitimate chair or that the bylaws he wrote by himself with a few friends, is legitimate. They only decided to defer to the Sec. of State, which has said that they will not decide who is legitimate although they currently list Wagner because of policy. You keep saying the Judicial Committee said Wagner is the legit Chair of Oregon but that isn’t true at all. Read the ruling again.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  30. Wes Wagner

    I think someone likes to pretend that Mr. Trout’s letter from the SoS does not exist.

  31. Richard P. Burke

    Jill,

    You want to know about my personal successes? I’ll do that if you want me to, but I don’t see why it matters.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  32. Wes Wagner

    Which is kind of funny because it was Burke and Mattson and such that asked the SoS to make an administrative ruling, and they did. Since they did not get the decision they liked they try to pretend it doesn’t exist, but the problem is that it has the force of law.

  33. Richard P. Burke

    Wes,

    The letter from Trout exists, but it doesn’t mean what you say it does. Trout has wrote a number of letters and not all of them say what you would like them to. Also, Trout isn’t there anymore. There is a new Director of Elections as I’m sure you know.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  34. Wes Wagner

    Burke,

    Publish the Trout letters then. Bear in mind when Trout told you that they would not change the listing without a court order, that didn’t mean you had to sue us. It meant you needed to get an order that actually compel the SoS to do something.

    I don’t know exactly how you planned to get the SoS to perform an act without naming them as a party.

    -Wes

  35. Richard P. Burke

    Wes – The Trout letters are already public record.

    Nicholas – I would also like a Trout Mask Replica. I think that is freakin’ AWESOME!

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  36. paulie Post author

    The LP Judicial Committee never ruled that Wagner was the legitimate chair or that the bylaws he wrote by himself with a few friends, is legitimate. They only decided to defer to the Sec. of State, which has said that they will not decide who is legitimate although they currently list Wagner because of policy. You keep saying the Judicial Committee said Wagner is the legit Chair of Oregon but that isn’t true at all. Read the ruling again.

    I’ll defer to Nick Sarwark on this. He says the court case is effectively final, he is an attorney and was on the judicial committee that made that ruling. I’ll also take as de facto proof that an unwilling LNC chair deferred to the concusion that you say the JC never reached.

  37. paulie Post author

    You want to know about my personal successes? I’ll do that if you want me to, but I don’t see why it matters.

    Not personal. What your side or “Reeves group” has been doing by way of being a political party other than suing the Wagner LPO. You mentined some things earlier in the thread. Several of them were news to me, and I have followed all the threads about this issue for years. They may form the basis of a new article if you write one up.

  38. Richard P. Burke

    Nicholas,

    Thanks for posting the music. Believe it or not I am copying it onto an 8-track tape. I have a Dolby recorder, and it seems to belong on 8-track. Cool!

    Regarding the court case, the appeal shows that the previous ruling is not final and the fact that both sides have agreed to go into settlement discussions would suggest that both sides know that the latest ruing is not final.

    Paulie,

    I’m not sure what sort of victories you want me to go into, but I will say that we have managed to stay true to governing documents adopted by members in convention over 40 years rather than those that were written by a couple of people at a kitchen table.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  39. Nicholas Sarwark

    For those who are unclear about what the Judicial Committee decision did and didn’t decide, the opinion (and dissents) is available here. The majority opinion, written by Jim Gray, in its entirety:

    Opinion of the Majority, rendered August 25, 2011
    In the matter submitted to us as the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party, both the appellant and the appellee agreed that still at this time there is an entity known as the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    We find that the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state, in this case the Secretary of State
    of Oregon.

    That state’s party that is recognized by the secretary of state may, under the bylaws of the National Libertarian Party, be disaffiliated by the Libertarian National Committee if 3/4ths of its members vote in favor of a motion of disaffiliation for stated cause. Then if that motion passes, there would at that moment be no Libertarian Party from that particular state. Thereafter, the LNC would be empowered under the bylaws to vote in favor of the affiliation of
    another Libertarian Party from that state, which party could then seek recognition from that
    state’s secretary of state.

    Based upon the record presented to us, the LNC did not hold either of these votes, and in fact no cause for disaffiliation was ever formally stated. But the LNC and the Executive
    Committee did purport to recognize and empower one group (the Reeves Group) over another
    group (the Wagner Group) to represent the Libertarian Party of Oregon. This action was beyond the authority of the LNC or EC based upon the bylaws, and is void,

    Opinion of James Gray, joined in by Bill Hall, Nicholas Sarwark and Lee Wrights

  40. paulie Post author

    Regarding the court case, the appeal shows that the previous ruling is not final and the fact that both sides have agreed to go into settlement discussions would suggest that both sides know that the latest ruing is not final.

    Not recognizing you have been beat is not proof that you haven’t been beat.

    I’m not sure what sort of victories you want me to go into

    The stuff you alluded to in this thread.

  41. Wes Wagner

    Burke,

    You should not take that we are willing to attend a court mandated settlement hearing, and have a conversation, which your side refused to do for over 2 years, except under the preconditions of unconditional surrender, as any expectation that we believe your case has merit.

    We have additional claims that are worth exploring against you and others and thus having an opportunity to talk about them in settlement of this full dispute, not just the one case you raised and already lost, is only reasonable on our part since you finally did not make unconditional surrender a precondition of even having a conversation.

    -Wes

  42. paulie Post author

    We find that the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state, in this case the Secretary of State
    of Oregon.

    Currently the SOS recognizes the Wagner officers. That could change if the Reeves group won their appeals and the court ordered the SOS to change their ruling, but that hasn’t happened, so at this time the SOS and thus (per JC) the LNC recognizes Wagner et al. I’m not an attorney, but that is evident from the documents that have been linked here.

  43. Richard P. Burke

    Wes,

    It is not intellectual fraud to point out what you have admitted yourself:

    1. Your proported bylaws (written by yourself and your friends) were not adopted in a properly noticed convention as required by member-approved bylaws everyone acknowledged to be in force at the time,
    2. That you attempted to cancel a session of the LPO Convention when the State Committee is shown clearly in the LPO Bylaws to be subordinate to convention and,
    3. That you and your friends purportedly elected yourselves to new terms of office according to the bylaws you wrote for yourselves.
    4. That you and your friends attempted to co-opt the force of the state by attempting to use ORS 248.072 to usurp the will of the LPO’s members, thereby using the force of the state to achieve a political goal in direct violation of our Statement of Principles and Non-Aggression Pledge.

    This is the core of the matter and accusing people of intellectual fraud with respect to any part of this process will not change that. We will keep coming back to it and will not let anyone obfuscate the matter.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  44. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie understood what I was asking for, Richard. You boasted about all the acomplishments from the Reeves group. I believe your arguments might be more meaningful if we knew about the gains you’ve made.

  45. Nicholas Sarwark

    Regarding the court case, the appeal shows that the previous ruling is not final and the fact that both sides have agreed to go into settlement discussions would suggest that both sides know that the latest ruing is not final.

    Taking an appeal does not make the decision being appealed not final. To the contrary, one cannot generally appeal anything other than a final decision of a court. While a decision is on appeal, the decision is in effect unless either (a) the decision is stayed pending appeal by the lower court or an appellate court or (b) the appeal is successful and reverses the previous decision. See, e.g. the recent Utah gay marriage decision, where the decision of the lower court took effect even as the state of Utah appealed until they could persuade the Supreme Court to stay the decision pending a hearing by the 10th Circuit.

    If there’s a stay of the judge’s dismissal in Reeves v. Wagner, it’s news to me.

  46. paulie Post author

    Believe it or not I am copying it onto an 8-track tape.

    By the time these lawsuits end, today’s technology will probably seem more archaic than 8 tracks do now.

  47. Jill Pyeatt

    The fact that Richard will not give us the specifics of their successes makes me wonder if he cannot give us specifics.

  48. Richard P. Burke

    Well,

    I’m obviously outnumbered here, which is usually the case on IPR. I take it that when our appeal is won you will all reverse your positions. I don’t think I have posted anything that isn’t true and see no undecided IPR people to convince of anything else.

    We’re actually sending out notice of the LPO 2014 convention today during our State Committee meeting, so I am going to disengage from this list and attend to that. Thanks.

    Richard P. Burke
    Oregon

  49. Nicholas Sarwark

    Mr. Burke’s claims that the Reeves group is having success would be easier to verify if that group had a website or there were any news stories about it. I looked and couldn’t find anything when searching for “Oregon libertarian Reeves”.

    All I found was Mr. Reeves’ Facebook page, where he has a number of groups listed that he is a member of, but none of them appear to be a Libertarian Party of Oregon or any variant of those terms. There is a Facebook page for a Libertarian Party of Oregon that is controlled by the Reeves group, but I scrolled all the way through the timeline and didn’t see any posts about candidates, legislative presence, a state convention, or any of the other things Mr. Burke mentioned above.

    If one did live in Oregon and wanted to join the Reeves group, how would one do it? I’m sure there is a process, but I can’t find it.

  50. paulie Post author

    Nick, very good point. I understand Richard is busy but maybe he or someone else will come back and answer at some point, even if it is not today.

  51. Jill Pyeatt

    I sincerely would like to read about their accomplishments, just as I sincerely wanted to report on their convention. If he wants us to believe him, he needs to give us specifics.

  52. Jill Pyeatt

    Is it possible that Burke believes winning their appeal means anything more than the court will hear the case?

  53. Wes Wagner

    Nick .. some people can’t build anything and only know how to steal the efforts and resources of others.

  54. Steve M

    well I have been sitting back and watching this one…. my take is….

    The Richard Burke and all all other non-dominant factions interested in contesting for the leadership of the Oregon Libertarian Party to have Wes and Company put a stake in the ground for how to participate in the next election of Oregon Libertarian Party Officers and then go off and win the inter party elections.

    I would hope that such inter party politics grows the strength of the Oregon Libertarian party by bringing people into the party. Win by growing a small party not by dividing a small party.

  55. Joe

    Thank god all the legal wrangling was over before the deadline for putting Governor Johnson’s name on the ballot in Oregon. The Reeves faction was just as confident about that as they (or their one member) seems to be here today. “When the appeal is won” strikes of “When the SOS recognizes our side” or “When we defeat Wagner this summer (meaning 2012) or “When we put Governor Johnson on the ballot this fall . . .”

    What was the Biblical standard for dealing with “False Prophets” again?

    OTOH, — Screw being chair of the LPOregon! I say, Wes Wagner for Seer, Revelator, and Diviner. He’s clearly earned THAT (and I’m not kidding here).

    One side has a perfect record of declaring what would happen next. The other . . . notsomuch.

    I’d suggest attending to what Wes says he sees happening in the future; part of his own creation; part out of, what seems to me to be, a keen ability to discern trends and outcomes; or at least one far, far, far better than the other side.

  56. Joseph Buchman

    Maybe an article posted now, “What Wes Wagner Forecasts for 2014, 2015 and Beyond” would be worth posting on IPR today. If we’d had something similar posted in 2011 or 2012, it would be fascinating to look at today. What would such an article look like in 2017 or later, I wonder.

    Wes? Any chance you could do a Ray Kurzweil for us?

    http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-bio

  57. Wes Wagner

    Steve m

    Our bylaws setup such that the board is composed via proportional representation. It is nearly impossible for any one faction to take control … especially a aggressive minority faction.

    That is a large part of why we continue to grow and do so without acrimony.

    Burke completely isolated himself into his own little world … that didn’t hurt either, but the membership we have now would reject people like him many anyway.

  58. Wes Wagner

    Sorry .. my phone messes up text in the IPR reply box. Auto complete fires off sometimes.

  59. Steve M

    kind of my point Wes…. one minority faction has a hard time taking over a larger organization in which all members get to vote. But to get more influence factions have to win officer elections which requires either convincing existing members to vote for their candidates or bring in new members which grows the organization.

  60. Wes Wagner

    Since officers are elected from the board it gets even more politically complicated than that. Only people who can generate consensus and have broad factional support can really get the votes for the key officer positions.

  61. Fred

    Richard Burke,

    I see that once again you have listed some thoughts about the former LPO bylaws, membership, and procedures and followed it up with the statement, “None of this is in dispute.”
    I will once again dispute your claims.
    I hope this is clear enough language for you to stop asserting that your claims are undisputed.
    The former LPO bylaws were not created with legitimate means. The bylaws, constitution, and all governing documents that have been made over the last decade have had legitimate disputes concerning who created them and if they followed correct procedure.
    Most importantly is that none of them were made utilizing the definition of a party member that is defined by the Oregon Revised statutes.

    If one did accept the governing documents that were in place prior to the most recent major change and did believe that Wagner et al acted inappropriately then one would still not have any reason to accept Reeves et al as leaders of the LPO because the process that y’all followed was not in keeping with the bylaws that you claim to be in force.

    Nearly every claim you have made concerning the bylaws, membership, and authority of the party has been disputed. You may not agree with the dispute, but that is not anything even remotely the same as “None of this is in dispute”

  62. Michael H. Wilson

    Some years ago when I was in the LPO I was at a convention and a motion regarding membership was proposed. I and some other were opposed and I thought we prevailed and won the vote. For some reason it took a number of months to get a up to date copy of the revised bylaws and when I finally saw them I was surprised to find that in reality we had not prevailed. I have often been told my memory is faulty but I really did not know it was that bad.

  63. Wes Wagner

    Burke would have never attempted to manufacture a leadership dispute had he not already been promised by Aaron Starr and his operatives on the LNC that he would be backed up and given control of the party.

    They had an entire plan to take over the offices in March 2011 (under an incorrect interpretation of the 2009 bylaws), disaffiliate, vote in their own bylaws as a state committee, reaffiliate with the national party and declare themselves the victors without the consent of anyone.

    The fact that we learned of this plot and decided to take an action of self-defense really threw their entire plan into limbo.

    They changed their plan to pretend that what we did didn’t happen and hold the May 2011 convention. They expected the Oregon SoS to listen to the LNC. That also didn’t happen.

    But at the core, the LNC leadership created this entire crisis because of the personal ambitions of some of its principals — never held them to account — and now the LNC needs to be held to account.

  64. Wes Wagner

    As far as my “disrespect” to the LNC, it and all its supporters deserve disrespect for attempting to hold court (declare the leadership of an affiliate as if we are a vassalage) over that which is not theirs to hold.

    The states, on the other hand, do have the right to hold court over the LNC. That time is quickly coming.

  65. Fred

    Why is Wes Wagner the chair of Oregon?
    –and how you can change that.

    I’m going to tell you a not so well kept secret. I wish Wes Wagner was not the chair of Oregon. Its not because he is doing a bad job–I have to admit the party is doing the best it has in years. More people are becoming active, more candidates are preparing to run for office, the books are balanced, the party is engaged in political activity, the meetings are orderly and friendly.
    I wish Wes Wagner was not the chair of Oregon because he has been a divisive force in Oregon. Wes has created enemies who would be happy to be active in the party except that they don’t like him. Wes has taken stands that have alienated a lot of people and some times his flaming-middle-finger-communication style offends people. (go figure)

    The reason Wes Wagner is the chair of Oregon is because his political enemies have made him the chair. Wes Wagner has pushed past the boundaries of socially appropriate to cause his opponents to falter. He is the Dennis Rodman of the Libertarian party.
    In one game I watched Rodman place his head on the shoulder of an opponent and have his head pushed away by the opponent. The opponent was given a foul and Rodman shot a couple of free throws. I am not a Rodman fan–but he was affective. Wagner’s strategy has been to put his opponents in a position where they are likely to commit a foul. So far Wagner has been affective. It seems that far too many of us are willing to commit a foul and Wagner has capitalized on this fact and managed to get many of his opponents to foul out. Wagner then gets control of the ball.

    One of the reasons that I don’t like this strategy is because it isn’t fun to watch and many of the fans of the game become disinterested. They want to see great passing, high flying dunk shots, last minute 3 pointers and great team work. Watching Rodman shoot free throws just isn’t that much fun. If the game becomes too much about Rodman, then a lot of people decide they just don’t care and leave the stadium. But the coach is going to leave Rodman in the game as long as those other players keep committing the fouls and it is helping Rodman’s team win the game.
    (* there is at least one basketball fan who is thinking something about Rodman’s other abilities on the court such as his rebounding skill, Please forgive me–this is just a metaphor)

    Wagner’s obnoxious strategies may have been what helped him become chair, but it is the actions of the Burke/Reeves group that keep him as chair.
    There may be a lot of other people who would be willing to chair the LPO. There are many more temperate voices within our organization. Some of our party members have great skills in reaching out to others and would be great at re-building bridges that have been burnt down. But anyone who became chair of the LPO would be putting himself or herself in the line of fire of the lawsuit.
    Would you be willing to become the chair of an organization if it meant becoming a defendant in a lawsuit? If your answer is “no” then you would be in the same position as most potential leaders in Oregon. A reasonable person would not voluntarily want to be in that position. If however the the lawsuit was dropped, many people may consider running for chair of Oregon. I suspect that Wagner might not even run if there were a few good candidates who would replace him.

    The longer the national debate about Oregon continues, the more likely Wagner is to stay in that position.

    So what do you do when Wagner puts his head on your shoulder?
    If you want to get Wagner out of the game there are two things you can do.
    1. Move out of the way. Wagner’s head on your shoulder only gives him strategic advantage if you commit a foul. If you move to a different spot then Wagner will have put himself in a place that has no advantage in the game.
    2. Ignore it. This will cause one of two things to happen. Either he will recognize that you aren’t going to foul and move away or he will push against you harder. If he pushes too hard you can then move away which will send Wagner falling to the ground.

    Either strategy will take away Wagner’s game.

    What I have been watching transpire over the last couple of years on the national stage, is almost identical to what I watched transpire in Oregon. Wes is utilizing the exact same method and strategy. His opponents are saying the exact same things. Many people are on the sidelines saying that Wagner’s expectations are ridiculous and that what he thinks will happen is never going to happen.

    Wes is drawing fouls and taking foul shots. Opponents are fouling out or on the verge of fouling out. Wagner’s strategy only works when his opponents break the rules and even the little fouls turn into a game winning strategy for Wagner.

    I doubt that my explanation will do anything to change your actions, but I feel compelled to try.

  66. paulie Post author

    Joe, I think you are too harsh towards Nielson now, just as I think you were too unrealistically positive about him before. I just don’t see him in either as positive or as negative a light as the extremes you have jumped around to.

Leave a Reply

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