Reeves Group’s Attorney Writes Oregon SOS Still Insisting They Are the Official Libertarian Party of Oregon

Here is the first page of a document sent to the Secretary of State of Oregon. As you can see, Tyler Smith, the attorney for the group headed by Tim Reeves and Richard P. Burke have written to the Secretary of State of that state. In it, they are insisting that they are the “official” Libertarian Party of Oregon, and are asking her to accept that.

The full 31-page document can be found ADV 14-023 request from Tyler Smith

Request from Tyler Smith 001

The three year battle has been well-documented here at IPR. Below are a couple articles, and there are many more if the reader will put “Libertarian Oregon” in the searchbox.

Geoff Neale Reaffirms that the LNC Recognizes Wes Wagner as LP of Oregon

Oregon Libertarian Party Lawsuit Dismissed

104 thoughts on “Reeves Group’s Attorney Writes Oregon SOS Still Insisting They Are the Official Libertarian Party of Oregon

  1. Wes Wagner

    I have sent the following to Mr Neale, Starchild and Mr Wrights:

    Mr. Neale,

    For your information, the Oregon Republican Party’s general counsel, Tyler Smith, who your organization once retained – and subsequently signed a conflict of interest release, is making assertions to a State Agency about your organization’s official position on legal matters.

    Have you retained him as counsel once more?

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

  2. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I keep asking what the prize will be if, by some miracle, the Reeves group “wins”. So, I was told they’ll have a new convention, and elect a new set of officers. I’m willing to bet my life savings that the Libertarians in Oregon will vote the same people in as are in charge now.

  3. Nicholas Sarwark

    It’s an interesting alternate history. I would note that the LNC “rebuke” of the Judicial Committee was a 12-5 vote. I would also note that 8 of the 12 yes votes are no longer on the LNC.

  4. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I can’t believe Smith has the nerve to say that “every organization except the Secretary of State”
    accepts Reeves and Company as the official group. That is a flat-out lie.

  5. Nicholas Sarwark

    It is worth reading the entire letter, if only to note what was studiously left out, e.g.:
    that the Credentials Committee had one of the litigants (and later chair of the “LPO” Judicial Committee) cast the deciding vote in favor of the Reeves delegation;
    that the national Judicial Committee ruled the Wagner affiliate was the proper affiliate in absence of a disaffiliation vote that never came;
    that in spite of the “rebuke,” the LNC did respect the ruling of the Judicial Committee;
    and that the “LPO” Judicial Committee that found the Reeves group was the proper Libertarian Party of Oregon was constituted after the lawsuit of primarily members who were parties on the Reeves side in the lawsuit or family members.

  6. Wes Wagner

    The illegitimate LPO appointed judicial committee ruling them as legitimate is just one of the most amusing tautologies I have seen in a long time.

    A lawyer that bad should be fired….

    Out of a canon …

    Into the Sun.

  7. Wes Wagner

    paulie

    Well he is making representations of the LNC’s positions on matters … so… I was just curious about that, since… you know… he makes some fairly less than accurate assertions of your organization’s position as if he has authority.

  8. Wes Wagner

    paulie

    That could lead to the sun exploding prematurely. Dangerous idea.

    In business we take measured risks all the time… this is one I approve of 🙂

  9. Fred

    Apparently they can’t recognize that sound.
    It’s the fat lady singing.
    The game is over, it’s time to go home.

  10. Wes Wagner

    Poor guys needed a rally song….

    was actually supposed to be the website link… but I guess it still works 🙂

  11. Wes Wagner

    Oops no, Hinkle did not vote.

    So there are 5 people who need to be gone since he tacitly supported it by not ruling it out of order…

    Others voting in favor: Lark, Redpath, Visek … who is the 4th who is still on the committee?

  12. paulie

    Good luck. Lark and Visek are region reps so you won’t have much influence on whether they are on LNC if their region is happy with them. Redpath is pretty much a permanent LNC member at this point since everyone else seems relatively content to let him manage ballot access all by himself (despite any misdirection to the contrary earlier this term).

  13. Wes Wagner

    Of the nay votes 3 of them left the LNC on their own accord… the other two who stood for re-election made it.

  14. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    The letter from Geoffrey Neale is interesting, but he does not have authority to set policy for the entire LNC. If anything, his letter represents Mr. Neale exceeding his power. After all, the LNC has sided with us in every vote taken to date. There have been three. Neale’s stance has run counter to all of the LNC’s votes. The three votes were:

    1. LNC Exec. Committee siding with Reeves
    2. The full LNC siding with Reeves
    3. The full LNC siding with Reeves and Repudiating the national Judicial Committee for exceeding it’s authority in the ruling effectively deferring to the Sec. of State.

    I stand by the claim that no authoritative entity within our party has voted that Wagner and his organization are legitimate (except perhaps people in Wagner’s organization). The closest they came was when the national Judicial Committee refused to say who was legitimate and kicked it back to the Secretary of State who says they cannot interfere with a party’s internal politics. The LNC Executive Committee, the full LNC, the 2012 national convention delegates, and the LSLA have all supported the Reeves officers, governing documents, and/or delegates.

    What authoritative party organ has said explicitly that Wagner’s side is legitimate? The answer is none. Only the force of the state stands between where we are and the full restoration of the legitimate LPO governing documents. And that’s a bad place for any Libertarian to be.

    Let’s not forget something here:

    1. On March 31, Mr. Wagner and his friends (by a 5-4 State Committee vote) purported to throw out the governing documents adopted by members in convention in favor of governing documents they wrote themselves outside of a properly noticed convention as required. They do not dispute that, and there is video. They claimed a state law for legitimacy, one that only applies to major parties.

    2. At the same meeting, they purportedly appointed themselves to new terms of office as provided for in their bylaws.

    3. At the same meeting, they purportedly canceled a convention session ordered by an earlier convention session, although LPO bylaws said that the State Committee is subordinate to the convention.

    If the LNC or the State Committee attempted to do the above, it would never be accepted. And it won’t be accepted here. Nevada just went through something similar, and the coup did not succeed. It won’t succeed here either.

    Of course, Mr. Wagner and his friends have since been trying to create facts on the ground relying on the ignorance of Libertarians in Oregon and relatively new LNC members. I can’t help but think that in some ways, what they did is somewhat similar to what Russia did in the Crimea: Seize what you want that you can’t aquire legitimately (The March 31 meeting), attempt to whitewash the action by creating a facade of legitimacy (the biased “mail” election where people who had not signed the pledge could vote), then wait for everyone else to accept things and accuse the other side of evil deeds (accuse US of attempting a takeover).

    The strategy of Wagner and his friends have been to delay getting to the merits of this case because they know that they will lose as soon as a court sees they violated ORS 65 and 248. We have been lining up additional donors to help our current donors, and we will not go away. If people want to change governing documents, fine. But you do it in accordance with those procedures adopted by members in convention.

    Richard P. Burke

  15. Wes Wagner

    That vote total keeps getting revised every year that goes by. Eventually it won’t have passed at all.

  16. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Mr. Burke, will you please explain to me what a “win” will be, after all this time? What do you envision happening?

  17. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I think we would all benefit from you answering my question, Mr. Burke. It’s very hard for me not to believe that your actions and continued refusal to realize you’ve lost is harming the Libertarians in the state of Oregon.

  18. Mercury is Rising

    Burke is as crooked as he is delusional.

    The LPO leadership, when they determined that the old governing documents were (through Burke’s ineptitude) impossible to either operate under or alter (remember the unattainable quorum requirement?), submitted proposed new governing documents for ratification to the ULTIMATE authority over the Libertarian Party in Oregon: their registered voters.

    The new structure was approved by an overwhelming majority (and without mysteriously uniformed troops in the streets, regardless of Tricky Dick’s attempt to make a clever current-events allusion).

    The LNC, the Secretary of State, and the courts have all looked at the situation and decided that the expressed will of the Libertarian electorate in Oregon should be respected… Would Burke even be willing to ask Oregon Libertarians what they want? Not likely – he’d rather see if he can pull the wool over a few peoples’ eyes and seize by force what he could never earn in an open plebiscite.

    His “donors” (who are all victims of fraud) should be asking themselves whether they’re willing to continue throwing money at a lost cause, in the interest of restoring Burke to his beloved throne of flesh and cash, with any benefits to the cause of liberty coming about purely by accident.

  19. Richard P. Burke

    The name “Mercury is Rising,” is apt, given the content of the post. Mercury, which itself is shrinking due to contraction of it’s crust, is a planet of extremes that goes very fast in very small circles. And while Mercury does indeed rise, it never rises very far (about 23 degrees above the horizon) and, because it is usually washed out in the glare of the sun, it seldom has much of a presence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29#Naked-eye_viewing

    More seriously, the “election” he speaks of was a sham much as the Crimean election was. And, in relative terms, was just as illegitimate. But I’m not going to try to convince any of the regular posters here. Those who are undecided can contact me through rpbcomm@gmail.com.

  20. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I really wish you’d answer my question, Richard. What will a “win” look like? How will you change things? More importantly, how do you envision the Libertarians in the state acceping their new leadership?

    It seems to me this very direct question deserves an answer if you wish to continue trying to make your case.

  21. Richard P. Burke

    Jill,

    Please realize that I’m not trying to make my case to you or most of the regular posters on this site. I regard you to be essentially un-persuadable on this issue. What’s more, this venue will ultimately have no bearing on how this thing will ultimately pan out.

    The only reason I post here at all is to go on the record for the sake of any occasional visitors who might check in who are not already one one side or the other. Nevertheless, I will answer your question as to what I think would constitute a win.

    I want to restore the rights of LPO members, particularly lifetime members, whose rights were diminished, destroyed, or diluted by Mr. Wagner’s actions.

    I want to make sure that those who vote on internal party matters have all signed the non-aggression pledge or an approved variant of it. The legitimate member-approved governing documents provide for this, Wagner’s do not.

    I want to secure full recognition by all relevant entities that the LPO governing documents approved by members in convention over four decades are legitimate, not those written by a few people purportedly approved by 5 votes in a state committee meeting rather than a properly noticed convention as called for.

    I want to see an effective repudiation of the practice of those who call themselves libertarians of co-opting the force of the state, or agents of the state, to achieve a political goal. By Wagner’s group attempting to apply ORS 248.072 to provide legitimacy to what he himself admits is a violation of our member-approved bylaws, he and his supporters have done exactly that (Oops, ORS 248.072 only applies to major parties and only over matters not covered by law – such as the nomination of candidates as described in 248.009).

    If the above takes place I would call that a “win.”

    Richard P. Burke

  22. Mercury is Rising

    Is that the best you can do, Dickie-Boy? I guess that any direct referral to the authority of the actual owners of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (hint: that’s not the LNC) is a “sham” in your klein bottle of a world.

    How much more of your deluded backers’ money will you waste in your quest for self-aggrandizement (at the low, low cost of the undermining of the cause of liberty)?

    Or are your backers perfectly happy to be represented by a serial con man, as they seek to disrupt the most active and fastest growing Libertarian Party the state has seen in decades? It seems to serve their purposes to lend their house lawyer to his effort…

  23. Bruce Alexander Knight

    Ballots for the election Mr Burke calls a sham were mailed to the entire membership of the LP of Oregon as defined by state law — 13,000 registered Libertarian voters. The Reeves gang’s (and the Oregon GOP’s) attorney Tyler Smith asserts that the entire membership of the LPO is “no authoritative entity within our party.”

    Is it any wonder that over 96% of the Libertarian voters in that election rejected the Reeves group’s leadership?

    Meanwhile Mr Smith claims, in his letter to the Oregon Secretary of State, that “every relevant organization” has recognized his clients as the LPO’s legitimate leadership. This clearly implies that (1) the LNC Judicial Committee and the entire LPO membership are irrelevant, since they decided otherwise, and (2) that the Libertarian National Committee, its executive committee, and the 2012 convention’s credentials committee somehow have the right to decide who runs the Oregon LP.

    The LPO, independently organized in 1971 under Oregon law before the Libertarian National Committee even existed, has never been, is not now, and will never be subordinate to the LNC. We represent and serve Oregon Libertarians, and will not kowtow to any out-of-staters — not the LNC, not Burke’s donors, and not the Reeves gang’s non-Oregonian members.

    Jill Pyeatt asked, “Mr. Burke, will you please explain to me what a ‘win’ will be, after all this time? What do you envision happening?” Well, Jill, don’t hold your breath waiting for an honest answer.

    The “win” the plaintiffs seek in their so-far-failed lawsuit is re-institution of their dysfunctional and ill-documented old party bylaws and recognition of their hand-picked clique as legitimate LPO officials. In effect, that would mean more failed quorums, a return to Burke’s petty power brokering, far fewer Libertarians on Oregon ballots, and disenfranchisement of nearly 16,000 current LPO members.

    That’s progress? Only if you believe Richard Burke.

  24. Mercury is Rising

    Bruce, you left out the restoration of Tricky Dick’s throne room in the state headquarters office and his ability to use the LPO’s treasury to pay for his own gas and groceries. That’s the real end game in all of his pathetically desperate maneuvering.

  25. Joe

    If we apply Mr. Burke’s logic, then any battle for liberty not within the bounds of past constraints is both illegal and immoral. Perhaps the first action of their group this weekend will be to apologize for our past crimes and petition England to take us back.

    When a libertarian organization no longer practices the principles of liberty, is there nowhere the right to overthrow it by “unfair-under-their-rules” means?

    That seems to be the core of the history here, at least as I’m, with my doubtless limited abilities and knowledge, able to understand it.

    Except to add, no such rebellion is ultimately successful without the rallying of those formerly within the old structure, the old governance, the old organization who threw it off. I’m no fan of democracy, a tyranny of the majority at best, death at worst; but in terms of people voting with their feet, there is, it seems to me, a clear winning, popular, liberty-loving,.committed, energetic side here and has been for some time.

    It looks to me like freedom loving folk threw off an oppressive, corrupt system and reclaimed their rights. I’m a fan of that wherever it is, even if parts of the process were ever-so “unfair.”

    Would I be going too far to add that I hope they continue to thrive and transform, reform or revolt against similar liberty-suffocating practices of the current LNC/national party?

    I do hope someone covers the convention this weekend, posts photos and minutes, even video. I think that might give us all a window into why this revolt in Oregon occurred.

    As for claims of imminent victory, I am fatigued. Those claims over two years ago at this time were clearly delusional and wasted a lot of time within the GJ2012 campaign dealing with ballot access issues in Oregon.

    I suspect this will still be going on 2 years from now and the lporegon.net website will still be down then as well.

    At least it seems a good bet to me.

  26. Bob Tiernan

    Dick P’rick Burke: “More seriously, the “election” he speaks of was a sham much as the Crimean election was. And, in relative terms, was just as illegitimate.”

    .
    Yeah, just as honest and legitimate as those Judicial Committee rulings your side evacuated. Like that one that followed a hearing that began after your side locked out one of the Judicial Committee members who was a little late and had no way of calling up to the office to be let in. Judicial Committee hearings are not like conventions, i.e. you don’t get locked out after a call to order. That is, not unless it’s (not “its”) held where your side could control the door.

    .
    “But I’m not going to try to convince any of the regular posters here”

    .
    Forget it – they all know you’re a born liar.

    .
    B. T

  27. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “I will answer your question as to what I think would constitute a win.”

    .
    Is this going to be as good as the way you defined what constituted a “member in good standing” in 1996? Or what “first of the month” meant?

    .
    Bob T

  28. Dave Terry

    “Ballots for the election Mr Burke calls a sham were mailed to the entire membership of the LP of Oregon as defined by state law — 13,000 registered Libertarian voters.”

    Bruce, how MANY of those 13,000 pseudo libertarians have signed the N.A.P. as required by the bylaws? Further, how many of those “registered Libertarian voters” paid their due$ in order to determine or change the rules that govern policies of the L.P.O. which is ALSO MANDATED BY THE BYLAWS.

    If you want to change the rules, you have do so according to the rules previously agreed to. Otherwise, you are simply unprincipled anarchists.

    “We represent and serve Oregon Libertarians, and will not kowtow to any out-of-staters — not the LNC, not Burke’s donors, and not the Reeves gang’s non-Oregonian members.”

    The simple FACT is, you DON’T! You represent freeloaders and those leaders who simply make up the rules as they go along. And THAT is WHY you you will LOSE!

  29. Wes Wagner

    Advocating for strict adherence to immoral law when it clearly infringes the rights of people is the very definition of tyranny.

    If someone of advanced age still does nit understand that while living their life proclaiming they are a libertarian … I really am powerless to stop their folly and they will have to suffer loss after loss with a confusion that rivals that of someone with dementia.

  30. Fred

    IF the rules had been agreed to by the members of the organization then you might have a point Dave.
    The facts are that the members of the political party (those you refer to as “pseudo libertarians” have been excluded from the process for decades.
    I have no problem with your organization choosing the leaders and the rules for your organization. I do have an issue when you claim that due to some philosophical superiority and payment of a fee that you have some right to claim that you represent a group of people who have not signed up to be part of your group and you don’t consider to be part of your group.
    Burke likes to make claims that they are following the Oregon Revised Statues that regulate political parties. However, I can find no justification for allowing a group of people who may be from a different political party and/or may live in a different state to determine the rules for the members of a political party while excluding those members from the process.
    I would love to hear how that is somehow considered Libertarian, in keeping with Oregon election law, or in keeping with the idea of Liberty.

  31. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It’s astonishing that Dave doesn’t realize they’ve already lost. This time, I’m not just talking about losing in the courts, which I believe they’ve done. They were going to file an appeal, but I guess they’re corresponding with the Secretary of State, hoping she’ll reverse their losses and make things good. Mr. Terry, the group has LOST in their attempt to convince the Libertarians in the state of Oregon. How many people in the state support your group? How many Libertarians in the state recognize Wes as their chairman? Oh, that’s right, you don’t want those people in your club. Do you have even 100 people in your club?

    Dude, you’ve already lost. If I were Wes, I’d sue all of you for attorney fees.

  32. Mercury is Rising

    If the Non Aggression Principle is so important to Burke’s Buffoons, how about they start adhering to it?

    Lying to people on their (now-it’s-there-now-it’s-gone-again) Web site about being able to place Libertarian candidates on the ballot, and soliciting donations in the name of an organization for which they are not authorized to do so (and failing to remit any such funds to that organization) strikes me as… hmm… fraud. Pretty sure that the N.A.P. precludes that, but then, cryptorepublicans don’t actually subscribe to the N.A.P., do they?

    The plain and clear truth of the matter is that the N.A.P. is irrelevant to these clowns – what they’re really after is (as Mr. Terry $lip$ up and reveal$ above) is control of a private club — and its (not it’s) due$.

  33. Wes Wagner

    The SoS requested a response to help them with the disposition of the Oregon Republican Party’s General Counsel’s letter.

    I have sent it to Jill for publication.

  34. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I see it. I should probably be able to post it in the next hour or two.

  35. paulie

    confusion that rivals that of someone with dementia.

    Plus, actually exhibits symptoms of early stage dementia as well.

  36. Fred

    I actually lve your strategy , Richard.
    The one you use in the post above, where you try to get people who don’t know the conflict to talk to you directly so that whatever you tell them won’t be fact checked by anyone else.

  37. Wes Wagner

    If you notice, their lawyer didn’t cc our counsel when he sent his letter to the SoS in hopes it would not be fact checked. Our response in the other thread here is informative as to why he may have chosen to do that.

  38. Fred

    Yes,
    It’s really easy to convince someone that you are the righteous party of a conflict, if they only hear your undisputed side of the story

  39. Dave Terry

    Fred: “IF the rules had been agreed to by the members of the organization then you might have a point Dave.
    The facts are that the members of the political party (those you refer to as “pseudo libertarians” have been excluded from the process for decades.

    I am delighted that you wrote the above. It exemplifies the point of view of the egalitarian, socialist-democrats (ie. pseudo-libertarians) that you seem to have identified with.

    May I remind you that paying dues has been an integral and essential part of the Libertarian Party since it’s inception in 1971. THUS, I suppose from your vantage point the LP HAS been excluding, free-loaders and ‘schnorrers’ for decades.

    Please refer to; https://www.lp.org/membership
    to wit:

    “With a donation of $25 or more you will become a member of the LP and will receive a customized membership card. Also included is a full, one-year subscription to LP News, the Libertarian Party’s newspaper. Complete the form below to activate your membership.”

    “You may also choose to become a life member of the Libertarian Party with a donation of $1,000 or more. Life membership entitles you to a lifetime subscription to LP News and ensures that even if annual dues are raised in the future, your membership will still remain active.”

    In regard to the N.A.P. “Certify Your Membership
    * YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership,
    I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

    Sounds pretty straight forward to me. Perhaps it isn’t the LIBERTARIAN Party you all are in search of but the Liberal Democratic Party.

    I would suggest you contact the Peace and Freedom Party…… but DAMN! Even THEY require
    “dues” http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/membership/membership

    “Annual Supporting Membership:
    $20/Regular
    $10/Student & Low Income

    If you would like to pay your supporting membership dues online, please click here.”

  40. Dave Terry

    More on annual dues!

    1. NJ Libertarian Party Grows Again – Again
    njlp.org/latest-news/76-latest…/1450-nj-libertarian-party-grows-again?
    Oct 29, 2013 – We have had outstanding growth in both the number of registered libertarians and the number of dues paid party members.

    BOTH the number of registered libertarians AND the number of dues paid PARTY MEMBERS
    WHAT could they POSSIBLY mean by THAT????????

    2. Joe Lhota And Kristin Davis: NYC’s 2013 Libertarian Party Ticket …
    http://www.nydailynews.com/…/joe-lhota-and-kristin-da…?
    New York Daily News
    Apr 10, 2013 – The Libertarian Party has endorsed Republican Joe Lhota for mayor … in endorsements if they show up at the convention, join and pay dues.

    WOW! A registered Republican can gain the endorsement of the Libertarian Party IF HE JOINS
    AND PAYS DUES? How do you suppose THAT works?

    3. Libertarian Party of Connecticut
    http://www.lpct.org/Membership_Application.pdf?
    Libertarian Party. Sign me up today as a proud, dues-paying member of the. Please include a check or money order for $25.00 payable to: Libertarian Party of …

    4. South Dakota Libertarian Party Platform
    sodaklp.org/platform.htm
    Membership shall run for twelve (12) months following payment of dues. Dues may be paid in part by providing service/labor at a rate approved by the ExCom.

    There’s that “power hungry” Executive Committee again!

    5. Bylaws – Libertarian Party of West Virginia
    http://www.lpwv.org/bylaws?
    Members of the Party shall be those persons whose LPWV dues are current and who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve …

    6. Bylaws – Libertarian Party of Alabama
    http://www.lpalabama.org/bylaws.html?
    These bylaws govern the Libertarian Party of Alabama, hereinafter referred to as … Members of the party are those residents of Alabama whose LPA party dues are current and who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

    WOW, funny how that NAP keeps popping up everywhere. but in Oregon, I’m afraid!

    7. Maryland Libertarian Party – State Central Committee
    msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/40party/html/lib.html?
    Membership in the Committee is open to all dues-paying, registered party members who wish to serve. From this committee, the Executive Board is chosen and officers are selected at its annual spring meeting. …

    Damn, THAT sounds VERY familiar!

    8. Party Constitution « Libertarian Party of Massachusetts <lpmass.org/constitution/?
    Persons, who are Members of this Organization whose dues are current, and who joined the Organization at least 30 days prior to the date of the State Convention, are eligible to vote and participate in the business meeting at the State Convention. Persons who were dues-paying Members of the Organization, or Sustaining Members of the National Libertarian Party, within the past three years, including a period at least 90 days before the day of the State Convention, but whose Organization dues are not current, may join or rejoin this Organization at the State Convention by paying their yearly dues. They may then vote and participate in the business meeting at the State Convention.

    9. Bylaws & Constitution(PDF) – Libertarian Party of Utah
    Qualification: Membership in the Libertarian Party of Utah is open to
    anyone who:
    1. pays the required membership dues and is a Utah resident
    2. manifests his/her agreement with the Statement of Principles
    of the LPUtah by signing the Pledge and is a Utah resident,

    10. Liberty Launch 2014 Memberbomb | Libertarian Party of Minnesota
    https://www.lpmn.org/liberty-launch-memberbomb/?
    Feb 2, 2014 – Membership is the lifeblood of our party. Your membership dues give us the resources we need for our public outreach events, staff, promotional materials, advertising, candidate recruitment, and general operating costs. We watch every dollar we spend. We live within our means and practice the fiscal responsibility that we preach. Being frugal and libertarian go hand-in-hand.

    WOW, do they mean that all the money DOESN'T go into the ED's pocket? Imagine THAT!

    Enough for now, IF you want MORE examples let me know

  41. paulie

    I approved the above comment from Dave Terry which was held up in moderation due to multiple links. As far as I could tell before I quit reading his comments, while borderline, don’t cross the threshold of removal. As usual, I did not read this comment by Dave Terry either, so someone please let me know if it contains anything besides multiple links that caused it to be held up for moderation.

  42. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    LOL! I approved one from moderaion, also. He could post 100 links, and I still wouldn’t believe his group will “win”

  43. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry: “More on annual dues!”

    .
    Whoa, holdo stoppo.

    .
    Remember when you and Burke were all goo-goo ga-ga over UMP? You said oh it was a great idea ’cause state parties would not longer have to “bother with” devoting time and resources to deal with dues. I was one of the mere six people who voted against that in the Bend convention. I was right, and you were wrin. What do you think of state dues, now?

    .
    Bob T

  44. Bob Tiernan

    It’s said that everytime you hear a bell ring, Burke has just told another dozen lies.

    .
    Bob Tiernan

  45. Dave Terry

    JP: ” He could post 100 links, and I still wouldn’t believe his group will “win”

    1. I WASN’T trying to convince you that we “WILL” win. Only that we “SHOULD” win.
    2. One CAN NOT “convince a closed mind of anything!

  46. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave, did you go to the convention today? Would you like to write something up about it?

  47. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    As far as a closed mind: I probably know as much about the Oregon LP dispute as anyone else out of state. I don’t recall that I started reporting on the events there with my mind made up. However, as time went on, yes, I did form an opinion.

    If you chose to call that a “closed mind”, whatever. I’ve been called worse.

  48. paulie

    Dave, did you go to the convention today? Would you like to write something up about it?

    Let me know if he does.

  49. Dave Terry

    BT>: “Remember when you and Burke were all goo-goo ga-ga over UMP? You said oh it was a great idea ’cause state parties would not longer have to “bother with” devoting time and resources to deal with dues.”

    As were 85% of the dues paying members. Isn’t it better that we spend our time doing other politics, rather than constantly chasing & soliciting funds?

    BT> ” I was one of the mere six people who voted against that in the Bend convention. I was right, and you were wrin. What do you think of state dues, now?

    LOL! You REALLY talk out of both sides of your mouth. However, I’m glad that you at least acknowledge that you were in a tiny minority on that issue. But WHAT ELSE are you admitting;
    that you think charging LPO dues is a good thing???

    If so, please explain how and why the Wagner/Tiernan faction don’t charge dues? Where you right then and wrong now?

  50. Bob Tiernan

    Dave: “I’m glad that you at least acknowledge that you were in a tiny minority on that issue.”

    .
    I don’t mind admitting that. Majorities can and often are quite misguided. Even super-majorities. In this case, most everyone fell for the hoopla about what a pot o’ gold this plan already was in some states, and would be for all others that joined. But take note, Davey Boy, how quickly UMP was puked up by the party. If anyone looks good from that Bend convention, it’s the “mere six” you ridicule.

    .
    “But WHAT ELSE are you admitting;
    that you think charging LPO dues is a good thing???

    If so, please explain how and why the Wagner/Tiernan faction don’t charge dues? Where you right then and wrong now?”

    .
    Sorry, but I’m not debating my own views on dues. Just pointing out that at one time you were strongly against state dues as being inefficient, and now you are all for them again. Looks like you were the blooper, Dave. What a chuckle.

    .
    Bob T

  51. Fred

    Dave,
    Yes I would like one more example– if you can find one from within Oregon revised statutes. The only statements about membership that I can find in Oregon election law equate party registration with membership.
    I don’t know the election laws of any of those other states.

    I understand the desire to keep the party true to its core principles. I, however, disagree that your strategy does that.
    But you are welcome to create a political party with whatever criteria you wish–just don’t claim that you represent the 16000 registered Libertarians that you deem unfit to have a seat at your table.
    If it makes me an egalitarian to consider my fellow registered Libertarians my equal, then I will wear that name proudly.
    You may be sufficiently superior to them that you know what they need better than they do. But I have not been ordained by God with a special ability to choose for all others. Since I know that I can stand up for my own beliefs without your direction, I have to assume that those other people who registered as Libertarians also can make choices without your direction.
    — must be the egalitarian in me.

  52. Fred

    As for a consistent funding stream-
    The party has consistently been able to raise more money and stay out of debt, when it didn’t require dues then when it did.
    A small and exclusive ruling class is (contrary to what you seem to believe) less likely to follow the core principles than a larger group that self identify as Libertarian.
    A couple dozen unscrupulous people who want to use the LPO for their own purposes could easily pay dues and sign a pledge –even if they don’t agree with the pledge or adhere to it– and take control of the party IF the LPO was constituted according to your wishes.
    Fortunatley the LPO is now designed to represent all of Oregon’s Libertarians and not just a handful of aristocrats who meet the Dave Terry approval requirements.

  53. Fred

    And one more point about my “egalitarian” view point Dave Terry.
    It was my “egalitarian” views that advocated for you to be included in the state committee meeting- when the old rules that you are so fond of would have disqualified your county due to bureaucracy. It was those views that advocated for not calling the police when you allegedly assaulted another committee member at that same meeting. And it was those same views that led me to insist that there was no mechanism to remove you from the party (should you remain registered as a Libertarian in Oregon) even though you have acted with aggression toward the party.
    Equality is only seen as a bad thing by those who see themselves as the ruling class.

  54. Dave Terry

    BT: “Sorry, but I’m not debating my own views on dues. Just pointing out that at one time you were strongly against state dues as being inefficient, and now you are all for them again.

    THAT is pure NONSENSE, and you know it. NO ONE who supported UMP was AGAINST state dues, at all. It was simply a method of raising “STATE” dues and “NATIONAL” dues at the same time, allowing for ADDED efficiency. There is no inherent conflict between state funds and funds for the national party. If I had to choose, I’d pay dues to the STATE Party, not national

  55. Dave Terry

    Fred> “I understand the desire to keep the party true to its core principles. I, however,
    disagree that your strategy does that.

    Clearly there is no common ground here. I, on the OTHER hand would argue that there is no OTHER way to keep the Libertarian Party true to its core principles. The party that you envision is indistinguishable from the so-called “Independent Party of Oregon”

    Fred> But you are welcome to create a political party with whatever criteria you wish–just don’t claim that you represent the 16000 registered Libertarians that you deem unfit to have a seat at your table.

    I would NEVER make that claim because I have no idea WHAT ideas those people espouse. Since they have not even signed (at minimum) the NAP I can’t trust WHAT they stand for. The fact that they registered Libertarian is meaningless as to their actually beliefs.

    A fact, you would know if you had ever organized a county party from scratch simply using the list of registered libertarians

  56. Fred

    Dave,
    It sounds like you have finally come to understand.
    You don’t represent the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
    Since you agree with this, I’m certain that you will leave the group (chaired by Mr. Reeves) that is attempting to claim they do represent the members (as defined by state law) of the LPO.

  57. Bob Tiernan

    Dave: “It was simply a method of raising “STATE” dues and “NATIONAL” dues at the same time”

    .
    Flapdoodle. Under UMP, no state dues were allowed. But again, I will point out that this plan you were so in love with was sooooo great that it was shit-canned before too long. That means that I and the other five look good, and you have poop on your face.

    .
    Bob Tiernan

  58. Dave Terry

    Fred: Since you agree with this, I’m certain that you will leave the group (chaired by Mr. Reeves) that is attempting to claim they do represent the members (as defined by state law) of the LPO.

    You are still Confused Fred. Mr. Reeves and the rest of us maintain that we represent the members of the the LPO; AS DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS, as provided for in Oregon Statutes. Mr. Wagner & Company, on the other hand represent the palace coup d’etat

  59. Dave Terry

    BT: “Under UMP, no state dues were allowed.

    You’re splitting hairs again Bob. According to UMP “revenue” was to be shared by both The LP and the various state parties (ie. dues, in kind).

  60. paulie

    It was those views that advocated for not calling the police when you allegedly assaulted another committee member at that same meeting.

    Allegedly? It’s on video.

  61. Dave Terry

    Fred; “It was my “egalitarian” views that advocated for you to be included in the state committee meeting- when the old rules that you are so fond of would have disqualified your county due to bureaucracy”

    Wrong again Fred, it would have require a decision by Jud-Comm to bar me from participating in that State-Comm meeting; NOT the arbitrary authority of Mr. Wagner and Miss Vetanen.
    He didn’t have the votes, so he capitulated.

    Fred: ” It was those views that advocated for not calling the police when you allegedly assaulted another committee member at that same meeting.”

    There was no “assault” because Vetanan “allegedly” provoked my response by getting in my face and screaming “Fuck Off” at the top of her voice.

  62. Fred

    Dave,
    Really curious to know what you mean by “as provided for in Oregon statutes”
    There is nothing that allows a political party to redefine its membership.
    A member of a political party in Oregon (according to ORS) is someone registered as an elector in that party.
    There is no provision to allow a political party to create new definitions.

  63. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry: “You’re splitting hairs again Bob. According to UMP “revenue” was to be shared by both The LP and the various state parties (ie. dues, in kind).”

    .
    No splitting of hairs that I see. States could not charge dues under UMP. They did receive their alleged “cut” from National. One thing people like your buddy Burke claimed was a good idea was that state parties no longer needed to bother with all of that hum-drum paperwork related to collecting dues. That was right up his alley, i.e. he was and always has been a lazy and sloppy person when it comes to all of that “hum-drum” work that needs to be done. But anyway, again, you applauded helping the states to avoid this work, and now you’re all for it again. I and the other five look good, and you don’t.

    .
    B. Tiernan

  64. Bob Tiernan

    Just got done watching “Child’s Play” for the first time, and it occurred to me that this story, if dragged out for 24 years, is just what it’s been like in the LPO with Chucky Burke terrorizing everyone and never giving up.

    .
    Bob T

  65. Wes Wagner

    I am unsure how David Terry can possibly believe that admitting using violence against a victim like a bully (both illegal and immoral) and then attempting verbal immasculation (an act of misogyny) against the same victim is going to possibly lead anyone to believe he is actually a libertarian and his cause is just.

    He managed to violate the NAP he claims everyone should pledge to uphold (shows you what a piece of paper is worth vs a self-regulating society of equals) and insult half our party members.

  66. Dave Terry

    BT> “States could not charge dues under UMP. They did receive their alleged “cut” from National. One thing people like your buddy Burke claimed was a good idea was that state parties no longer needed to bother with all of that hum-drum paperwork related to collecting dues. That was right up his alley, i.e. he was and always has been a lazy and sloppy person when it comes to all of that “hum-drum” work that needs to be done.

    LOL! I can’t believe that you are so dumb as to NOT see your own transparency here. If you had EVER done anything other than sit on the sidelines and criticize, you’d KNOW that there are MANY other things political parties must do besides solicit contributions and keep track of payments of dues. The most menial tasks are generally the most important.

    Further, IF you agree that it was a mistake to defer to National to raise the dues for us. WHY,
    WHY, WHY, are you so supportive of those who NOW believe that there should be no dues, at all?

    Perhaps some comparisons from LPO history are in order;

    2000
    Mitch Shults ran for State Treasurer, received the endorsement of the Salem Statesman Journal and got 4% of the vote in a five way race.

    2002
    20 Libertarian candidates ran for office, 14 of those for the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The Libertarian candidate for Governor of Oregon that year, Tom Cox, garnered 5% of the vote.

    2004
    The number of Oregon Libertarian candidates rose to 32, nearly half of them recent converts to the party, according to The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon: Oregonian Publishing). pp. B1 Har, Janie (August 17, 2004). “Libertarians find clout in role”.

    2006
    Libertarian Richard Morley ran for Governor, in the party’s only run for statewide office. The party fielded candidate Drake Davis in Oregon’s 1st congressional district, and had candidates in 13 state legislative campaigns

    Richard Burke was state executive director.during this entire period.

    THEN: Wes Wagner, Libertarian Party of Clackamas County vice-chair, sued the party and its officers in December 2006. Wagner’s suit alleged that the party did not obey its own bylaws with regards to its fiduciary obligations while running up a five-figure debt to Richard Burke. The case was dismissed in Washington County Court,
    (The Oregonian. (January 22, 2007; “Libertarians ask court to solve party infighting”.

    FAST FORWARD TO: 2012;

    According to the fund-raising solicitation that I received this afternoon, Wagner claims that his faction nominated 26 candidates for partisan office in 2012 (even THAT is 6 less than we did ten years ago).

    According to my search of the Sec’y of State’s election site @
    http://www.oregonvotes.gov/doc/history/nov62012/G12_Abstract.pdf
    I could only identify 18.

    He further indicates that due the cost involved, his lpo may be unable to send a ballot to EVERY registered libertarian in the state. So how does he propose to decide WHICH registered
    libertarians will receive a ballot and which ones won’t?

    He suggests that those who want to be assured a ballot should return the “ballot request form”
    (which is CONVENIENTLY attached to the “Donation Form”)

    I would suggest that anyone who won’t spend enough for a first class stamp, most likely, isn’t interested enough to be sent a ballot anyway. THIS suggestion, of course, is guaranteed to offend the most “egalitarian” among us.

  67. Wes Wagner

    Not all the candidates in question were partisan in that 2004 election (IIRC most were for non partisan elections). If you notice it was also not fact checked and Burke said it… go check the actual records.

  68. Wes Wagner

    As far as who receives a ballot in the event that there are insufficient funds to authorize a full mailing, the bylaws dictate who at a minimum must receive one.

  69. Wes Wagner

    I just went through the old election results and got 24 people who received votes in an L partisan race in 2004.

    That was the year the national convention was hosted in Portland and the beginning of the large deficit spending ramp leading into it.

  70. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry (abd the Pirates): “If you had EVER done anything other than sit on the sidelines and criticize, you’d KNOW that there are MANY other things political parties must do besides solicit contributions and keep track of payments of dues. The most menial tasks are generally the most important.”

    .
    You of all people should know that I cannot be classified as someone who sat “on the sidelines”. Fighting back against a piece of shit like Burke required lots of work. As for your second comment, interesting that (like I said) Burke has a bad track record when it came to the routine work. Some of his friends were the same. One case in point was the very easy but mundane chore of making sure that Harry Browne’s paperwork for getting his and his running mate’s statements into the Oregon Voters Pamphlet – the single most important campaign piece in the state. On my own, I contacted Browne’s manager (Badnarick I think) to remind him of this, sent him the paperwork, and they made it in time before the deadline. In the meantime, Burkite Adam Mayer told me to mind my own business and then promptly dragged his feet (and his head I guess) and never contactted anyone in time to get this done. Browne and VP would not have made it into the pamhplet. But I was the one who did it, unofficially and w/o the “permission” of the goons running the party. Badnarick thanked me and said they made it in solely because I aided him. Where was the LPO leadership – Burke, Mayer etc? We’ll never know if they did this stuff (by not doing anything) to sabotage the campaign, but man, it sure smelled like it all the time.

    Bob T

  71. Bob Tiernan

    Davey Boy: “Further, IF you agree that it was a mistake to defer to National to raise the dues for us. WHY,
    WHY, WHY, are you so supportive of those who NOW believe that there should be no dues, at all?”

    .
    Again, read my first post in this thread. I said I was not commenting on whether or not dues are a good idea or not, as the issue is your flip-flopping. If you want to know, for the record, I’ve always been for dues controlled at the state level, but believe those dues should be extremely low. $0 is acceptable so far as I’m concerned. Again, let me point out that you and your friends went ga-ga over UMP, and then UMP was repealed (with extreme prejudice) by National not long afterwards. Who looks good? You? Or me? Me, of course. I told you so!

    .
    Bob T

  72. paulie

    You’re confused. Legalizing or not legalizing marijuana takes a large coalition in which the LP in any state plays a very, very small role.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.