Libertarian Party of Oregon Passes Resolution Regarding Convention Actions

LP Oregon

Wes Wagner

This was sent to me via email:

RESOLUTION

Libertarian Party of Oregon
Board of Directors Meeting, Beaverton, Oregon
August 5, 2014

SUBJECT: 2014 Libertarian Party National Convention

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon, founded under Oregon law prior to the founding of the National Libertarian Party, is an independent organization neither subordinate nor bound by any contract to the National Libertarian Party,

WHEREAS at the 2014 Libertarian Party National Convention, the delegation from the Libertarian Party of Oregon was modified by the convention without the consent, and over the objection, of this state affiliate,

WHEREAS the National Libertarian Party bylaws require that “[e]ach state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions” (NLP bylaws §6(3)),

WHEREAS the National Libertarian Party bylaws require that “… delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (NLP bylaws §11(3)(b)),

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon bylaws make it a duty of the board of directors to appoint delegates (LPO bylaws §5(3)),

WHEREAS the board of directors adopted the following delegate appointment rule: “to accept applicants in the order they were received, with later applicants being placed in alternate slots”, (LPO Board meeting, January 15, 2014),

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon solicited delegates via a sign-up form in our 2014 primary election announcement letter, mailed to every person registered to vote as a Libertarian in Oregon,

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon also solicited delegates via a sign-up form in our 2014 primary ballot materials, mailed to every person registered to vote as a Libertarian in Oregon,

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon also solicited delegates via announcements on our website and other social media,
WHEREAS the National Libertarian Party bylaws direct that “[a] list of the names and addresses of all delegates and alternates chosen by each affiliate party shall be sent to the Credentials Committee” and that “[a]mendments to such lists may be made by the affiliate parties and submitted to the Credentials Committee” (NLP bylaws §11(5)(c), emphasis added),

WHEREAS there is no suggestion anywhere in the National Libertarian Party bylaws that any body other than the state affiliate party is ever granted the authority to determine its delegation,

WHEREAS the procedure used to modify the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s delegation – amending the Credentials Committee report – is not permitted by the National Libertarian Party bylaws,

WHEREAS the exclusive means to modify a delegation during the Convention is provided by §11(5)(e) of the National Libertarian Party bylaws,

WHEREAS the purpose of the §11(5)(e) provision is to enable the state affiliate to submit additional members of its delegation to the Credentials Committee during the convention,

WHEREAS the fact that §11(5)(e) is silent regarding who may make submissions to the Credentials Committee is not an implicit grant of authority for any other body to make submissions on the state affiliate party’s behalf, or over its objection,

WHEREAS even if others could make submissions, the application of §11(5)(e) requires a seven-eighths vote, which was not obtained,

WHEREAS “[m]otions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws of a society … are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void” (RONR (11th ed.), p. 343, ll. 14-17),

WHEREAS the convention did not act to modify or suspend the National Libertarian Party bylaws in the course of modifying the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s delegation,

WHEREAS the Libertarian National Committee, aware of these facts, has failed to apologize to the Libertarian Party of Oregon for violating the autonomy guaranteed to it under the National Libertarian Party bylaws §6(5), invoking either an erroneous reading of §11(5)(e) or erroneously believing that its parliamentary authority binds it to defend actions of the convention even when they are void,

AND WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon, as one of the founding affiliates of the National Libertarian Party, is hurt and saddened by the National Libertarian Party’s failure to adhere to its own bylaws and by its apparent disrespect of this state affiliate party; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Oregon repudiates the modification of its convention delegation and CENSURES the National Libertarian Party for that act.

RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Oregon invites other Libertarian state parties to join in this censure to support us, to defend the integrity of their future convention delegations, and to defend their own autonomy,

RESOLVED, that the topic of the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s relationship with the National Libertarian Party shall be placed on the agenda of our next state convention by our Convention Committee.

RESOLVED, that the long history of the National Libertarian Party’s unacceptable conduct toward the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be discussed at our convention, with consequences as may be chosen by our members.

RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Oregon will welcome a representative or a statement from the National Libertarian Party at our convention concerning this matter.


Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

There is quite a bit of history of this dispute here on IPR, not only from the recent convention, but back to the flare-up of competing factions back in March of 2011. There is much discussion on this thread , or the reader can put Oregon and Libertarian Party in the search box for the long, chronicled history.

246 thoughts on “Libertarian Party of Oregon Passes Resolution Regarding Convention Actions

  1. Stewart Flood

    This was a lot better that Oregon disaffiliating itself from the national party. When is their convention going to be held?

  2. George Phillies

    I imagine it depends what they do in the meantime.

    It is my impression that Oregon may have a list of 2-3 dozen people they want expelled from the National Party, not to mention court costs that they may want the LNC to pay. They may also perhaps have decided that the USA needs a new National Libertarian Group.

  3. Dave Terry

    George Phillies wrote: “It is my impression that Oregon may have a list of 2-3 dozen people they want expelled from the National Party,”

    So Mr. Phillies, WHEN did you receives such an impression and from who did you receive it?
    Who is on this hypothetical list?

  4. Stewart Flood

    Next spring. Ok, plenty of time for our new national chair to work on a solution. At least they did what most would agree was the right way to proceed, which is to put the decision in front of their convention.

  5. Richard P. Burke

    The 2014 national convention represents the second consecutive convention where Mr. Wagner and his supporters have been repudiated by party members assembled in convention. This is utterly unprecedented and for that reason cannot be discounted.

    And this is the second consecutive convention where both sides in the Oregon dispute distributed information telling delegates about what is happening in Oregon. Yet the result was essentially the same. Delegates supported the Reeves side. Let’s touch back to the essentials here:

    1. Misapplying an election law applicable only to major political parties, Mr. Wagner and his supporters purportedly adopted new governing documents at a monthly State Committee meeting with 5 people, not at a properly noticed business convention as was required by the bylaws.

    2. Mr. Wagner and his supporters purportedly adopted a new slate of officers in accordance with his governing documents to new terms of office.

    3. Mr. Wagner and his supporters purportedly cancelled a session of our Annual Business Convention scheduled by a previous convention session, in violation of bylaws approved by members in convention.

    Slice the bread any way you like, attempt to justify it in any way that you will, but Libertarians don’t like that. That is why the Wagner slate was replaced by the Reeves slate twice (we can debate the wording of the 2014 motion, but the effect was the same). At the very least, it must be acknowledged that while IPR is dominated by people who are on Wagner’s side in this dispute, it does not reflect the will of convention delegates.

    So let’s talk about the national Bylaws concerning delegations.

    It is true that states are allowed to choose the delegates they send to convention and come up with their own process for doing so. They did, and their selections went to the Credentials Committee who assembled a Credentials Report.

    But having made their delegate selections, and having submitted them to the credentials committee, does not necessarily mean that delegates in a general session cannot amend the credentials report during the opening session. In short, the two processes are not mutually exclusive and RRO provides for this.

    Which leads us to 11(5)(e). It is questionable whether Article 11(5)(e) even applies here because delegates can only be “added” in the manner described by 11(5)9e) once a Credentials Committee report has been adopted by the members. Until the Credentials Report has been adopted, it can be amended like any resolution.

    Even if this is not true, and the 7/8 majority rule would be applicable, Wagner only asserts that a 7/8 majority was not there in support of the Reeves slate. I dispute that – an overwhelming majority supported seating the Reeves slate. Had there been doubt, Wagner supporters should have demanded a standing count. But they didn’t do it.

  6. George Phillies

    Having been there, I do not think it was 7/8. I have seen some almost/8 vote in convention, and this was not one of them.

    Having said that, I believe Mr Burke is correct that the delegates did make their decision in 2012 and 2014, (though in 2014 they let Mr Wagner and Mr Weston remain as part of the delegation) to seat delegates from the Reeves faction. They really did make that decision.

    As Libertarians, we are responsible for our actions. The delegates who voted for this decision of the chair (it was a parliamentary vote, as I recall) are responsible for what s now likely to happen.

    I didn’t say you were going to like it.

    My sympathies to Nick Sarwark, and to Arvin Vohra.

  7. Wes Wagner

    This is one of those situations where George, a student and teacher of game theory, fundamentally understands what is going to play out.

  8. Joe

    Mr. Burke, of course, is entirely correct. This is the second convention in a row where the delegates have voted to support his cohorts, and ultimately the delegates rule. Heck, they could change the name of the party to LiberBURPEtarian, or elect Geoff Neale International Libertarian Czar, if they wanted to, just by voting for that at a convention.

    The relative ignorance of the delegates regarding Oregon, or anything else notwithstanding; it is what it is.

    The LNC must now deal with both the ripple effect of what the delegates, chair and parliamentarian did, and the fact that the courts in Oregon appear highly unlikely to rule that the LNC/LP must affiliate with the Burke side. Even if they were to do so at some future (and by then very late date)and were the LNC to then immediately finish its divorce of Wagner and fulfill on their increasingly awkward flirtations with Burke by taking his side to the altar (if they can make it down the aisle as doubtless both sides of audience in the church will be throwing something far uglier than rice down their path should that happen.)

    But if the courts do not rule in Burke’s side’s favor, then what?

    The delegates will have another change to vote in 2016; perhaps by then they will have a chance to become fully informed, third time’s a charm and all that. Whether the Wagner side would still walk down any aisle to reestablish any kind of relationship with such a rather untrustworthy partner seems highly unlikely. No amount of suiting in 2017 is likely to bring back any such rejected potential mate. (At least I could never make that work with my thrice rejected former fiancee. Only Charlie Brown keeps running after that football forever.)

    As for me, I’d like a real LIBERTY Libertarian Party. Sadly this one has polluted its brand over the past decade into something close to “home to relatively unsuccessful republicans” — Paul, Root, Barr, Gray, Johnson (in that order more or less with a noted, post-Paul, low sloped climb back up toward slightly less unsuccessful over time). Or more accurately “less-bright Republicans who (want to) smoke pot and have a gay cousin.”

    Perhaps Oregon will now bring to fruition a second child — a younger, more radical, more noisy sibling — one who will like many second children, leapfrog the success of its older, spoiled, parent-rejecting, somewhat addled first-child brother. It’s not an uncommon story.

    Right now I don’t see the momentum for that; but neither do I see any momentum at all for the LNC version of a LP.

    Then again, I have found I generally don’t see the future as clearly as Mr. Wagner and his meta brain up there in Oregon do.

    I wish them every success, a healthy pregnancy, and healthy progeny.

    Somehow I suspect the seemingly unstoppable now second marriage of the LNC to their repeatedly rechosen Oregon bride will be neither as successful, nor as fruitful.

    Time will tell.

  9. Fred

    Stewart,
    I agree. Putting the subject to the registered Libertarians in Oregon was the only acceptable action.
    We don’t know if they will choose to disaffiliate or not– but I suspect that a lot will depend on how the LNC behaves between now and convention.

    I suspect that they will continue with the current tradition of trying to choose who represents our state– instead of allowing the registered Libertarians in Oregon choose who represents them.

    Many of us in Oregon long to collaborate with other states in an organization built on mutual respect and inclusion–if your state wants to engage in such a voluntary agreement, perhaps we can find ways to work together outside of the power structure of the LNC.

  10. Kyle Markley

    Mr. Burke,

    “But having made their delegate selections, and having submitted them to the credentials committee, does not necessarily mean that delegates in a general session cannot amend the credentials report during the opening session. In short, the two processes are not mutually exclusive and RRO provides for this.”

    Citation, please.

    Do you recognize any limit to the power of the convention to amend the credentials report? Could they, for example, delete the delegation from a state? At what point would you recognize a bylaws violation and find the amendment to be void?

    “Which leads us to 11(5)(e). It is questionable whether Article 11(5)(e) even applies here because delegates can only be “added” in the manner described by 11(5)9e) once a Credentials Committee report has been adopted by the members. Until the Credentials Report has been adopted, it can be amended like any resolution.”

    §11(5)(e) by its own terms applies “during the Convention”. Absent limiting language, that means the entire convention. The obvious implication is that the process to add delegates must go through the credentials committee, not around it.

  11. Matt Cholko

    Y’all are crazy if you think the delegates in convention thought they were voting on anything other than a motion to seat some delegates. I’m confident that 75% or more of the people voting viewed it as nothing more than the daily, routine votes on whether or not to seat some new people.

    Consider this – I am very well aware of the situation. I voted yes to seat the delegates without evening thinking about it. Had I spent a minute to think about what was happening, I probably would have voted differently. But, in my mind, at that time, it didn’t even register as anything controversial. I talked to a few others that said the exact same thing. In fact, of the people that I’ve talked to about it (just a few), I recall that 100% of them told a similar story.

    This thing may be a big deal to some people in OR, some people here on IPR, and a few others. But, my observations tell me that less than 10% of LPUS members give a damn about it at all. And, of those, there is a huge range of how much of a damn those people give.

    And, again, I actually DO give a damn about it, but voted on the motion without thinking.

  12. Matt Cholko

    With that said, I think this resolution is pretty reasonable (though I didn’t read all of the complaints).

  13. Wes Wagner

    When someone asks you to do something without disclosing material facts that would change how you might take action (say voting to violate the autonomy of an affiliate thus resulting in a cataclysmic event with far reaching consequences) … to your detriment and their perceived benefit … you have just been the victim of fraud.

  14. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m wondering if lots of registered Oregonians gave Mr. Burke and his friends a high-five on their win at the convention. How many Libertarians from that state would accept the new leadership? You know, the one led by Tim Reeves and Mr. Burke: the one that would charge them a membership, and simultaneously take away many of their opportunities to act within the state party.

  15. Fred

    Matt,
    I certainly can’t speak to the intentions of the delegates.
    I would suspect that many acted like you — without concern.
    But if you were in our place. Would you want to be part of an organization that repeatedly (for whatever reason) decided to choose other delegates than those your state chose?

    I don’t want to be part of that organization, and I’m willing to bet that the majority of registered Libertarians in Oregon don’t either.

  16. George Phillies

    There was a clear point of order, namely the one I made, that adding the Reeves delegates violated party bylaws. When the chair said elsewise, I appealed the decision of the chair, and there was a vote. At this point, it was certainly clear that we were not hearing routine business.

    With respect to delegates not knowing or caring what was going on, well, if that was your attitude — I do not mean Mr Cholko — you *should not have been a delegate*.

    In my opinion, the party is going to find the decision of state parties to send delegates like that to be very expensive.

  17. George Phillies

    Also, while I have no inside information, the fact that the Oregon State Party will be waiting until its 2015 State Convention to discuss disaffiliation does not imply that the Oregon State Committee will spend the next 2/3 of the year sitting there not doing anything about the National Committee.

  18. Matt Cholko

    I’m just saying, neither side should read anything into the vote. Its not some kind of victory for the Burke faction. The delegates did not repudiate the Wagner faction, purposely mess with them, or knowingly side with anyone. Whether they should have or not, many delegates simply did not realize that anything controversial was going on.

  19. David

    States should be controlling who gets to be a delegate. If other states were willing to seat Burke then OK, but if Oregon had submitted it’s list then why do we allow the delegates to seat people over the objection of the Delegation chair?

  20. Dave Terry

    Matt Cholko wrote; ” I voted yes to seat the delegates without evening thinking about it. Had I spent a minute to think about what was happening, I probably would have voted differently. But, in my mind, at that time, it didn’t even register as anything controversial.

    1. Matt, how many OTHER states’ delegations were voted on at the convention and WHY did it not peak your interest or curiosity that the ONLY delegation to be voted on by the convention was Oregon’s?

    2. Did no one who opposed the vote on Oregon’s delegation SPEAK against it during the deliberation? If not, WHY NOT!

  21. Wes Wagner

    There was no deliberation. The vote was orchestrated and rushed through immediately after the parliamentary challenge was settled. The merits of the issue were never discussed.

  22. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt wrote; ” How many Libertarians from that state would accept the new leadership?
    You know, the one led by Tim Reeves and Mr. Burke: the one that would charge them a membership, and simultaneously take away many of their opportunities to act within the state party.”

    Only those Libertarians who accept the idea of individual responsibility and don’t expect a free ride. Clearly you think that FREE is a very good price. Do you also object to the idea of us requiring participating Libertarians to sign the NAP?

  23. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    You’re darn right, David. I think FREE is just about the best price out there, and this applies to every area of my life!!

    😀

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Does anyone else see any irony in David’s comment about the NAP, when there were delegates forcefully added to the recognized (by every entity that matters) Libertarian Party of Oregon?

  25. Dave Terry

    Fred wrote: “I suspect that they will continue with the current tradition of trying to choose who represents our state– instead of allowing the registered Libertarians in Oregon choose who represents them.”

    Why stop THERE, Fred? Shouldn’t ALL Oregonians be able to chose who represents them?
    Surely you are not so naïve as to think that all people who register as Libertarians are REALLY
    libertarians

  26. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeat wrote: “You’re darn right, David. I think FREE is just about the best price out there, and this applies to every area of my life!!

    FLASH!!! TANSTAAFL Jill!
    I’m TOLD you actually own a “business”?

  27. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Jeez, David, that was a JOKE! Of course I like free stuff, duh! Doesn’t everyone?

  28. Stewart Flood

    The chair’s ruling was sustained by a majority, but it was not much over 50%. As noted above, this was orchestrated in advance to push through approval of delegates. What bothers me is that delegates would vote to force another state to accept delegates against their wishes. Will South Carolina be next? We almost always have empty delegate seats. Will they force us to accept delegates against our will in 2016? Will it be another small state — or even several of us?

    I know this is repeating a comment that I and others have brought forward in the past, but there were other states willing to accept them. They did not have to be forced on Oregon, and even after they were, how could the Oregon delegation chair be changed in violation of their own bylaws? My guess is that even the bylaws in effect prior to the initial fight designated that the state chair is the delegation leader. That is a very common rule.

  29. david terry

    .Jill Pyeatt Post author

    “Jeez, David, that was a JOKE! Of course I like free stuff, duh! Doesn’t everyone?

    First of all, I recognize that there is no such thing as “free stuff”

    Secondly, in the context of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, I find that particular joke exceedingly UNFUNNY! Our party has been hijacked by a corp of egalitarian socialists
    who think that expecting participants to pay their own way and to contribute financially to
    the cause is wrong!

    I COULDN’T disagree more!!!!!!!!!!

  30. George Phillies

    How could the Oregon delegation chair be changed?

    Three members of the Oregon delegation appeared before the National Secretary, and claimed that the delegation had the right to elect its Delegation Head. The National Secretary consulted with the Convention Parliamentarian, who agreed with the three delegates. I gather that at some point the two legitimate delegates demurred. The three delegates elected one of their number as Delegation head.

  31. George Phillies

    Here we go again.

    Alicia Mattson has offered up to the Libertarian National Committee a motion. It reads

    “WHEREAS, the national Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee ruling dated August 25, 2011 is inoperable;

    RESOLVED, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Secretary is directed to send a letter to the Oregon Secretary of State:

    1) Asking her office to correct their records because after May 21, 2011, the outgoing chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wes Wagner) failed to notify them of the expiration of his term; and

    2) Reminding her that the LNC has several times acknowledged the legitimacy of the Tim Reeves group of officers who were selected on May 21, 2011 to replace them (and by implication, any subsequent successor officers);

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the LNC hereby directs staff to update their records to reflect that the Tim Reeves group of officers are – and have been since May 21, 2011 – the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon and that they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as that of any other affiliate, including being listed on our party’s website, subscribed to the state chairs’ email list, and sent monthly data files required by LNC policy.”

    The motion will need co-sponsors and a vote to pass.

    Of course, the Chair may rule the motion is out of order for contravening a Judicial Committee ruling, leading to an appeal of the decision of the chair, leading to an LNC decision on the Parliamentary point.

    The Bylaws give the Judicial Committee the option to hear appeals of *decisions* of the LNC, which includes Parliamentary decisions, meaning that if the Reeves side loses here they will go to the Judicial Committee, if they win here and lose the actual motion, they will go to the Judicial Committee, etc., and if they win the other side may go to the Judicial Committee. As the Judicial Committee has its new members, it it likely that the Reeves faction will win in the Judicial Committee.

    The interesting question is how far the Judicial Committee will go. For example, after endorsing Reeves it might rule that the Wagner State Committee, and perhaps its advocates across America, are guilty of fraud, and have voided their national party memberships.

  32. paulie

    LNC Secretary makes another public statement disavowing the recognized status of the LNC affiliate in Oregon:

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2014/001551.html

    She alleges your board previously voted to disaffiliate from LNC. I know this was discussed, but I am not aware of such a vote having been taken. As far as I know the action you took Aug. 4 is the only response your board has so far officially made to what happened at the convention. Please let me know if am incorrect on that.

  33. Fred

    There may not be such a thing as a free lunch. But what is the actual costs of associating with other people?

    If the “free ride” that you speak of is being a member of a political party then there might be a cost but it is assumed by the state (I haven’t heard anyone advocating that members of a party reimburse the state for any election related expenses)

    If OTOH you mean that people should pay for the political expenses they desire to contribute toward, then I agree. I prefer to do that on a case by case basis, so I can choose how my contribution is spent. If you prefer to pay a membership fee and have others help you decide how to spend your money, go right ahead. But don’t try to hold hostage my right to engage in the political party I am legally registered to vote in unless I contribute money to be spent by your committee.

    Am I so naive to think that everyone who is registered as a Libertarian is a Libertarian. Yes, by definition they are. Do I think I agree with all of them? No, but I also don’t agree with everyone who has signed the non-aggression pledge. It’s pretty obvious to me that some people don’t understand how to apply it.

  34. Wes Wagner

    paulie

    The email ballot that started in Ohio to disaffiliate got postponed to the meeting prior to reaching sufficient votes, then when it came up under old business, a motion to substitute replaced it with the proposal that passed.

    When our minutes get published to the website the nitty gritty details will be available.

  35. david terry

    Fred wrote: “If the “free ride” that you speak of is being a member of a political party then there might be a cost but it is assumed by the state (I haven’t heard anyone advocating that members of a party reimburse the state for any election related expenses)

    Fred. you should visit earth more often, You are a bit out of touch. :>)

    From the Libertarian Party of Georgia website;
    http://www.lpgeorgia.com/blog/libertarians-and-primary-elections/

    “Taxpayer money pays for primary elections, where political parties select their candidates for the general election. Libertarians believe taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize this — why should you pay to help a political party you might not support? Libertarians agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Therefore, Libertarians instead hold a nominating convention where party members convene to select our candidates, at no expense to taxpayers. The only people who pay for Libertarians to pick candidates are members of the Libertarian Party of Georgia”

    The same SHOULD be advocated by the other 48 Libertarian Parties (including Oregon)

  36. Steven Wilson

    Liberty and freedom are dying in America and this sandbox production continues on. Pathetic. Either way it is pathetic.

  37. Wes Wagner

    The enemy is and has been within our ranks and no one will remove them. You can’t win a war when you have traitors sitting behind your lines.

  38. Fred

    The LPO does pay for its elections. If you are still a registered Libertarian you received a ballot. If you paid for that ballot, thank you! If you didn’t then you can consider that a gift from me. But, the expense to being affiliated with our party is free (except for the state paid expenses of maintaining voter registration records) And in Oregon, it’s against the law to charge people for the right to participate in elections.

    So I concede, there is a cost of voting in the primary.

  39. Wes Wagner

    And first up to cosponsor and affirm that the LNC should be an imperialist organization that rules and attempts hegemony over state affiliates is … Idaho’s Rob Oates.

  40. Wes Wagner

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2014/001559.html

    Ron Windeler has completely consumed Alicia and Aaron’s kool-aid complete with multiple “facts” that have long been refuted under objective examination.

    He also state quite clearly that the purpose of State affiliate is to be subordinate and obedient. He also refers to non-existent contracts as his basis for legitimacy.

    Is this the LNC you want? One that attempts to place a tiny handful of people in control of your state who have republican ties just because they are better supplicants?

    Or do we want a party of principles?

  41. George Phillies

    And here is a defense of Miss Mattson’s motion, from Mr. Windelaer, as published on LNCVotes.

    Note in particular the despicable sentiment “He (Wagner) is now endangering his 56 candidates (some who may not be legitimate) by deliberately antagonizing the Republican Party of Oregon.” My objection is to the idea that we should not antagonize the torture-loving daughter-killing (because every woman killed by denial of access to abortion was someone’s daughter) Republican fascist warmongers. Mind you, I do not want to antagonize the Republicans. I want to render them politically extinct. I will be content if readers someday look at the IPR masthead, and are less baffled by the camel than by the elephant.

    I told you so. Passing either motion would not appease Mr. Wagner. I admire the man’s amazing talent for turning people against him every time he opens his mouth. But this time, he shot himself in the foot with a nuclear weapon. His opening statement clearly and unambiguously declares that his rogue organization is not affiliated with us.
    “WHEREAS the Libertarian Party of Oregon, founded under Oregon law prior to the founding of the National Libertarian Party, is an independent organization neither subordinate nor bound by any contract to the National Libertarian Party,”
    Why are we still listening to this megalomaniac? He has no respect for us. He lies while calling us liars. He even insults those among us who champion his cause. He has deliberately violated the bylaws of the LPO and defrauded Oregon by making false statements to their officials. He gloats publically that he was able to hijack the LPO because of badly written and incorrectly applied Oregon statutes. He has drastically reduced the effective membership of the LPO. He is now endangering his 56 candidates (some who may not be legitimate) by deliberately antagonizing the Republican Party of Oregon. He is acting like the posterchild of our opponents who want people to believe that all libertarians are wackos.
    The Reeves group recognizes and admits their contractual obligations as our affiliate. We have never disaffiliated with them. They were elected by delegates to a properly run convention that achieved a quorum and followed the bylaws . The judicial committee also properly elected at that same convention, confirmed that the Wagner group’s terms expired at the adjournment of the 2011 convention, and that they had formed a new organization not in compliance with the LPO bylaws. Still, they are working to get as many of Wagner’s candidates as possible plus many more properly nominated at their upcoming (August 17th) nominating convention. (8/26 is the filing deadline)
    It appears that most of us are still reluctantly dealing with Mr. Wagner because, by fraud, he does have control of ballot access. That is why the current motion focusses on correcting that issue.
    But some of us apparently can’t get past the flawed decision of our Judicial Committee. So let’s examine that for a moment. The proposed motion states that it is “inoperable”, meaning that it can’t be carried out under the real conditions that exist.
    I think that a more important consideration is that it is mute, because it has been replaced by at least three subsequent motions by the LNC, decisions of the Oregon Judicial Committee, and most importantly, by two votes of the convention delegates. (none of which have been appealed to the JC)
    But let’s go back to the JC decision anyway. It is inoperable for several reasons:
    1. Mr. Wagner had no standing before the JC. His group has never been affiliated with us, so he couldn’t rightfully claim that our action had disaffiliated them.
    2. The JC had no jurisdiction in the matter actually before them. They are prohibited by our bylaws from adjudicating disputes about which group is recognized.
    3. The opinion of the JC was just that, an opinion. They didn’t issue any orders to enforce their opinion.
    4. Their opinion was mostly false and only partially true. The group that has ballot access is the one recognized by the Secretary of State. The group that follows the bylaws, fulfills their commitments under the affiliation agreement, and is recognized by the delegates in convention is the one that is affiliated with us.
    5. Everyone tried to carry out that decision as if it had been ordered, but were unable to do so. The SOS refused to decide the issue and sent the LPO to the courts, where a judge refused to decide the issue and instructed them to settle it internally. When their JC settled it, the SOS refused to change. But they did indicate that they would accept an unambiguous statement from the LNC. That is what we are attempting to accomplish with the proposed motion.

    Ron Windeler
    rowin…@aol.com

  42. Wes Wagner

    ” Mind you, I do not want to antagonize the Republicans. I want to render them politically extinct.”

    Hear, hear

  43. Richard P. Burke

    A libertarian “party of principle” does not recognize governing documents or leaders that are purportedly adopted/elected in a manner other than that outlined in governing documents adopted by members in properly noticed conventions in accordance with the state party rules.

    A libertarian “party of principle” does not defer to the state in determining who our leaders are.

    A libertarian “party of principle” does not support one who attempts to co-opt the force of the state by asserting that a statute (ORS 248.072), which only applies to major parties under specific conditions, allows them to violate party bylaws.

    Such actions, and others, are the actions of people consumed by their own sense of self-righteousness. Such people have determined that the ends justifies the means and that the Non-Aggression Principle can be suspended based on perceived circumstances.

    Only authoritarians hold such values, and there is nothing libertarian about that.

  44. Wes Wagner

    ORS 65 – the entirety of which your pathetic lawsuit rests – says quite clearly that what we did was legal.

    More importantly, it was the right thing to do.

  45. Wes Wagner

    Even more importantly, if somehow you prevailed, you would probably be ripped apart by an angry mob limb from limb (most likely figuratively) for trying to assert dominance over people who do not want you.

  46. Wes Wagner

    To use an analogy, Burke has long been considered by many in Oregon to be a political rapist. He has chocked up many victims over the years. One day, tired of being raped, and knowing that there was no due process that would stop the rapings, they figuratively shot Burke. This is not a violation of the NAP no matter how much a rapist tries to hide behind that canard.

  47. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    Mr. Wagner has directly contacted the Republican Party state chair and politically threatened him and his party’s candidates in politically competitive races. We can debate the merits or demerits of this given our current circumstances, but Mr. Wagner’s action at this particular time has caused the GOP leadership to look more deeply into exploiting the current LPO dispute when it previously had bigger fish to fry.

    Mr. Wagner’s claim that he doesn’t want to “antagonize” Republicans, but render them “politically extinct” is good rhetorical fodder. All of us would like to see the LP displace one or both of the major parties.

    But had Wagner been smart, he would have done well to keep his mouth shut (as we all did in 2012), until ballots were printed and votes were counted. Had he done so, Wagner may have had a better chance to catch the GOP by surprise with the presence of his candidates. He blew that option too.

    I don’t know what the GOP will do (if anything) but I would be surprised if they did nothing. They badly want to win majorities back in the state legislature, and I suspect they will try to have Wagner’s candidates disqualified, as they have tried to do in other states, on the grounds that they were not legitimately nominated in accordance with the LPO’s legitimate governing documents as required by state law.

    For this reason, the legitimate LPO is hosting a candidate nominating convention on August 17. Timely written notices have been sent to LPO members and notices have appeared in multiple newspapers as required by law. Mr. Wagner would do well to advise his candidates to participate and legitimately secure Libertarian Party nominations.

    Richard P. Burke

  48. Wes Wagner

    Anyone who has a morsel of political awareness knows that showing up to the fake convention as anything but a spy is social death. All doors will be closed to them except for Burke’s … and we have decades to see what being an ally of Burke is worth.

  49. Richard P. Burke

    So Mr. Wagner is effectively calling me a rapist.

    A rapist takes what does not belong to him by force. This is something I have never done. In this context, have never attempted to co-opt the force of the state to replace LPO bylaws, cancel a properly called convention session, or install myself in office.

    If our side prevails in this dispute, ripping me apart limb from limb (figuratively or otherwise) will do little good as I am unlikely to offer a target by attempting to hold high office in the party.

    Richard P. Burke

  50. Wes Wagner

    Let’s see… there have been multiple elections … ample opportunities to petition, etc etc.

    Yet someone is trying to reassert dominance over registered libertarians via the court instead of asking their consent.

    Hmmm…..

  51. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner, nice try.

    The court case is to re-establish the governing documents of an organization which were adopted by members in convention and make it clear that a couple of people cannot write new rules at a kitchen table and use the state to impose them.

    All registered Libertarians have always been allowed to participate in candidate nominating conventions without paying dues as a delegate, candidate, or both. Those who wanted to end dues have been and our free to propose bylaw changes to make this happen.

    Your assertion that a 2/3 majority of members would never give up their… how did you say it on the video… “royal scepter?” was interesting. In addition to your statement being a misrepresentation of the membership, I also believe it is wrong.

    You’ve got some good ideas in your bylaws. But, at least for the present, they are not legitimate LPO bylaws legitimately adopted. They are yours, and you used the force of the state to try and ram them through.

    Richard P. Burke

  52. Wes Wagner

    Now… now your court case is to try to establish your 2013 bylaws that you passed in a high desert with a convention called by alleged officers that have no chain of custody and only achieved quorum by coming up with creative ways of deleting people from your membership rosters.

    You are a habitual liar.

  53. david terry

    Wes Wagner, August 8, 2014 at 9:37 am

    ORS 65 – the entirety of which your pathetic lawsuit rests – says quite clearly that what we did was legal.

    “More importantly, it was the right thing to do.”

    SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE ZEALOT!
    WHAT ELSE DO THE VOICES TELL YOU?

  54. Wes Wagner

    You also won’t address the chapter 65 issue, because you know the judge said “game set and match” to that comment, but otherwise chose the 1st amendment route to dispose of your pathetic lawsuit cleanly.

  55. david terry

    Wes Wagner August 8, 2014 at 9:38 am
    “Even more importantly, if somehow you prevailed, you would probably be ripped apart by an angry mob limb from limb (most likely figuratively) for trying to assert dominance over people who do not want you.”

    Careful Wes, your mask of civility is slipping and the true mobocrat is beginning to show.

  56. Wes Wagner

    It is just what happens when self-proclaimed aristocrats and dictators attempt to assert control against the consent of the governed.

  57. Wes Wagner

    Transcripts for people who want to read the hearings. Anyone who invests the time to read these will be thoroughly aware of how bad the plaintiff’s case is.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236231581/ReevesCA155616-2012-04-09-V1
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236231579/ReevesCA155616-2012-06-14-V2
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236231584/ReevesCA155616-2012-10-22-V3
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236231574/ReevesCA155616-2013-05-16-V4
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236231568/ReevesCA155616-2013-08-01-V5-Sent-3-10-14-by-Katie-Bradford

  58. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    Mr. Wagner is quite wrong about the 2013 convention. He attempts to dismiss it, characterizing it as being held in the “high desert” but was actually held at a popular resort in a popular part of the state where several successful LPO conventions have been held. Attendance was higher than at at least one or two of the Annual conventions Mr. Wagner and his supporters held in the metro area before the current split.

    Mr. Wagner asserts that the officers calling the convention had no chain of custody, but Mr. Wagner is in no position to call the kettle black. Tim Reeves and the other officers had a clear chain of custody leading back to the May 21, 2011 convention session that Mr. Wagner himself requested at the March 12, 2011 session. In any case, a Chair pro-tem was elected to preside over that convention to deal with the possibility of that issue coming up.

    Quorum was a challenge. We had to work for it. Many, many names had fallen off the list and other members were asked to resign their memberships to help us make quorum. One died. Some lifetime memberships purchased through national during UMP had transferred to other states before UMP ended and it hadn’t been noted. Anyway, with 2 to spare, the credentials committee report said there was quorum and the report was adopted by the body without objection.

    If Mr. Wagner believed there would be no quorum, or had he believed that people who were not on the membership list should have been, he should have sent someone who was still a member to come and object.

    Concerning ORS 65, Mr. Wagner is off base on many counts. But apart from that I won’t discuss details of pending litigation. When the case comes to issue, that will become apparent.

    Richard P. Burke

  59. Wes Wagner

    “If Mr. Wagner believed there would be no quorum, or had he believed that people who were not on the membership list should have been, he should have sent someone who was still a member to come and object.”

    Mr. Burke continues to fail to recognize that the rights of absentees are perpetual … that is why they are rights of absentees.

    Just like just because there was no one to object that all 5 people at their alleged state comm meeting had no valid credentials (proven in depositions) who allegedly elected their officers to offices (some of which would not have been vacant under 2009 bylaws) does not suddenly make those appointments legitimate.

  60. Wes Wagner

    Of course … saying someone was too drunk/passed out to not object at the time is the sort of thing a political rapist does.

  61. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Thanks for letting us know your plan, Burke. The courts didn’t change things back to the way you’ve wanted, so you’re working with the Republican Party to do it by knocking out the candidates. Again, force, and proof you’re working with Republicans.

  62. Fred

    IF– there were bylaws and constitution that had been adopted through proper, legitimate, and legal processes–THEN Mr. Burke might have a case that the LPO executive committee took improper actions when we voted in favor on the new bylaws and constitution (later ratified by vote from all Libertarians in the state.)
    BUT– There were no documents that had been created through valid means available.

    AND– even if the LPO executive committee didn’t act appropriately that does not give authority to the Reeve’s group.
    The Reeve’s group showed up at a cancelled meeting (when all LPO members would not expect anything to be happening) without any party officers in attendance they elected new officers, they later held execute committee meetings without inviting all the county representatives, and disaffiliated counties that were likely to object to their actions.
    Then they claimed that they were the duly elected officers of the party and demanded that the SOS of Oregon and the LNC give them authority to rule the party.

    Even if the Wagner group acted improperly (and I don’t believe that we did) there is no set of rules or laws that would grant authority to Mr. Reeves claims that he is the chair of the LPO.

  63. Richard P. Burke

    Fred,

    The LPO governing documents adopted in 2009 were legitimately in place and were used until they were purportedly replaced by your 3/31/11 meeting where you misapplied ORS 248.072. Saying that they were not legitimately adopted is counterfactual, even if you don’t believe it. Every State Committee meeting, Judicial Meeting, and convention had been governed by them until they were purportedly replaced.

    The May 21, 2011 convention session was not cancelled. The bylaws are clear that State Committee is subordinate to convention and since the May 21, 2011 session was ordered (at Mr. Wagner’s request) by the convention session of March 12, 2011 – and not the State Committee – the State Committee had no authority to cancel it. Any confusion among members about this was caused solely by the attempt to cancel the May 21st session.

    At the May 21, 2011 session of the convention, Mr. Reeves did not automatically preside. Instead, in accordance with RRO, a chair pro-tem and secretary pro-tem were elected, which is what an assembly does when the officers are not there. Same for the State Committee meeting afterward, where Reeves and the other officers were appointed during the meeting by the rest of the State Committee present.

    Richard P. Burke

  64. Wes Wagner

    Arguing that their legitimacy had not been challenged before is an argument from silence (an illegitimate legal argument – you had a judge explain that to your lawyer recently) . They were not challenged before because we all knew what a can of worms it would be to challenge it.

    No one at that alleged state committee meeting had valid credentials per depositions.

    You are a fraudster and a liar Mr Burke.

  65. Richard P. Burke

    Jill,

    Your accusation is hilarious. The Reeves LPO has already called a candidate nominating convention to be held on August 17th for the purpose of giving the Wagner nominees a chance to obtain their nominations legitimately and insulate them from any potential GOP action. We might get some more nominees to boot. I personally printed the LPO member notices and provided the required newspaper notices. The convention is being held at my office building. I am told that Wes will be asked to inform his nominees today. I am already working with Libertarian Brenden King, one of Mr. Wagner’s nominees, who will be participating in our convention.

    Nice try.

    Richard P. Burke

  66. Fred

    Granted that my stating that something was not done according to legal, proper, or legitimate means does not have any affect on if it was or not.
    by the same token, your claim that it was done according to legal, proper, and legitimate means does not have any affect on if it was or not.
    your insinuation that the bylaws being used by the various committees proves its legitimacy seems to omit the knowledge that the reason these conventions were being held was to address the concerns regarding the constitution and bylaws and the many, many complaints about people who were wrongly prohibited from being included in the process.

    What is most amazing to me is that some people can constantly try to justify their positions through a section of Robert’s Rules of Order–while completely missing the point of Robert’s Rules or Order.
    “According to Robert’s Rules of Order, parliamentary procedure is based on the consideration of the rights: of the majority, of the minority (especially a large minority greater than one-third), of individual members, of absentee members, of all of these groups taken together.”
    –Robert’s Rules Online

    I know that you often seemed very concerned about quorum (at least when it pertains to meeting that might have outcomes you don’t like) did you call for quorum at that meeting?

  67. mvetanen

    Just want to make sure I understand this:

    1. Mr. Burke is going to have his own unofficial nomination convention later this month;
    2. Mr. Burke is going to ask the Oregon SOS to throw off the ballot 50+ Libertarian candidates;
    3. Mr. Burke is going to ask the Oregon SOS then to place his very few chosen candidates on the Ballot (some of who will be GOP registered persons);
    4. There are LNC board members who openly support this such as Alicia Mattson, Rob Oates, Ron Windeler;

    How do you think the rank and file Libertarian will view this?

    Treasonous? Counter-productive? WTF? Monstrously stupid?

    What do you think will happen to the LNC support base and the moral of the Libertarian Party in general when all of this becomes widely publicly known and published?

    Do you people want a Libertarian Party or not? Because that is really the question.

  68. Richard P. Burke

    Fred,

    RRO is designed to protect the rights of a majority and an minority, as you point out. But a couple of things: 1) You’ve never established that your actions represented a majority. Your purported “ratification” ballot did not include information from both sides, as we would not participate in an illegitimate election, and allowed people who had not signed or subscribed to the NAP to vote on matters concerning internal party business. It was more similar to the election held by the Russians in Crimea than anything else, except without the guns. Hardly a mandate.

    When your side has had majorities at conventions, your side won. When our side had majorities at our convention, our side won. Occasionally but rarely, there were compromises and everybody won.

    And I don’t see you trucking out examples of how RRO was used by minorities to squelch majorities prior to 3/31/2011. You seem to believe that RRO represents mere guidelines to be disposed of if someone doesn’t like them at a particular time. Even at the 2010 special convention where we didn’t make quorum, I counted 27 supporters of our side. You didn’t even have a majority then, much less the required 2/3.

    Concerning quorum at the 2013 convention, the issue came up explicitly. Before the convention, the Credentials Committee reviewed the membership list as approved by State Committee after the list was cleaned up, people unable to attend tendered their resignations by email, deaths were noted, etc. They then issued a report before the assembled body where they asserted the presence of quorum in the report after counting the number of registered delegates. Nobody objected or attempted to amend the report. The report was then adopted. Quorum was not challenged after that.

    Richard P. Burke

  69. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Vetanen,

    No, you don’t have things straight.

    1. Mr. Burke is NOT holding a convention later this month. The Libertarian Party of Oregon, after a State Committee vote (and I am not on the State Committee at present), operating under governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions is holding a convention.

    2 and 3. Mr. Burke is NOT going to ask the Secretary of State to do ANYTHING concerning the Wagner nominees. Paperwork for the August 17th Candidate nominating convention will be submitted by Ellie Swanson, LPO Secretary, to the Secretary of State. What happens then – and nothing may happen – will depend on what the Sec. of State does with that paperwork or what a judge tells her to do with it.

    In any case, Mr. Vetanen conveniently forgets that we are asking Mr. Wagner to advise the winners of his vote-by-mail election to attend our convention for the purpose of insulating their candidacies from any scenario that might otherwise jeopardize their ballot presence.

    4. Neither Ms. Mattson, Mr. Oats, or any other LNC members will have anything to do with #1, #2, or #3.

    Richard P. Burke

  70. Fred

    Mr. Burke,
    I’m disputing your claim that Robert’s gave you authority to act as you did at the cancelled convention (the one you believe was not cancelled)
    I was questioning if you called for quorum at that meeting. Not sure how you could have since there was no credentials committee to verify who was eligible. Butane you found a way around that.
    I’m not sue how you got around the ides of the rights of those absent, when you declared Mr. reeves to be chair,
    But I won’t be surprised of you can find justification in your book for that too.

    Still, stating that we did the wrong thing on March of 2011 does not give authority to Reeves.

  71. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    At least one long-time activist is so sick of this stuff that she is thinking of resigning from the party. The Republican influence that has been allowed in our party is despicable.

  72. mvetanen

    Well Jill,

    All of this crap that Burke/Starr and of the some pukes on the LNC is pulling does have its impact. It is by design or is it all just consequences of our own laziness; I simply don’t know.

    Ill just ask again:

    Do you people want a Libertarian Party or not? Because that is really the question.

  73. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    We’ve got some serious stuff going on in LA County, too. There is clearly a concentrated effort by Republicans to infiltrate us. They’ve been more successful in some states than others, but it’s quite obvious to me that it is happening.

    I need a drink.

  74. mvetanen

    Why would you think we would not be infiltrated and our party/organizations subverted? Clearly the Libertarian Party is well known to ‘spoil’ GOP candidates in a tight race.

    Why would they not corrupt a few so called ‘Libertarian types’ to sabotage the party? All they have to is funnel money to someone who can push forward vote fixing, fund legal challenges here and there, and perhaps grease the right palms at the right time so that things go down more to the liking of the GOP.

    Are we infiltrated? HELL YES!

    Are we going to do anything about it? That is the question you have to ask yourself.

  75. NewFederalist

    “I need a drink.”

    That’s why the Prohibition Party is never infiltrated!

  76. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    Infiltration? I think people are seeing black helicopters. In Oregon, at least, the LP hasn’t been a clear factor in races for several election cycles. It is true that there is a perception that Libertarians tend to pull from Republicans, which is why they don’t like us in close races, but polling has consistently shown that this is usually not the case.

    Libertarians draw surprisingly evenly from both the left and right, and sometimes even from the left as was the case in the Washington state gubernatorial race a few cycles back. Libertarians, like other third party candidates, also tend to draw voters who would otherwise not vote at all.

    Perhaps it is our desire for political relevance that makes us believe we are more influential in elections than we actually are (though we sometimes are a factor), but the GOP and the Democratic Party generally have bigger fish to fry. In the current situation, my understanding is that the Oregon State Chair paid no mind to us until Wagner poked him with a stick.

    We will truly be threats on a consistent basis, and not just perceived threats (apart from the occasional race), to major party candidates when we run well-funded candidates sporting a track record in local office who are capable of actually winning elections.

    Richard P. Burke

  77. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Richard, read your comments. You pretty much admitted you’re working with the Republican party. And when they try to invalidate the Wagners’ group’s candidate, you bet we’ll know who started it.

    C’mon, we see what’s happening.

  78. Richard P. Burke

    Jill,

    I admitted no such thing. People always accuse me of working for the GOP and the GOP frequently accuses me of working for Democrats because I frequently work on Libertarian campaigns that are perceived to be spoiler campaigns against Republicans. My track record is replete with such campaigns.

    Years ago, I worked for Americans for Prosperity which is run and largely funded by the 1980 Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, David Koch. My boss was a former Republican State legislator named Jeff Kropf, who supported and co-sponsored two Libertarian election reform bills in 2001. They were SB747 and SB777 which made it easier to keep minor party status and obtain major party status. In the course of working together for a few years, we became friends.

    When Wagner politically threatened the GOP State Chair, the GOP Chair was oblivious about the LPO situation and had no real clue about what Wagner was talking about or what is going on within the LPO. The GOP Chair called Jeff Kropf who gave him my number since I am the only Libertarian Kropf knows well. The GOP State Chair called me and his first question was, “Who is this nut?” I asked him what happened and he told me about Wagner’s threats. The GOP Chair then volunteered to send me the Wagner email train. That is how I got Wagner’s emails. I have no idea what will happen next; I only know that Wagner got the GOP’s attention.

    Perhaps nothing will happen. But if it does, you’re not going to be able to deflect blame away from Mr. Wagner on this one. I am working very hard to protect our presence on the ballot as demonstrated by my previous post. We have already reached out to Wagner on the issue, and we have received obscenities and offensive graphics in reply. Those looking for infiltrators would do well to look at Mr. Wagner very carefully. He seems intent on burning everything down.

    Richard P. Burke

  79. Joe

    mvetanen @ August 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    wrote

    “Do you people want a Libertarian Party or not? Because that is really the question.”

    Mark, your question is spot on, but it presupposes that the current LP, run by the LNC, and constituted by 50 or so state LPs, with a lack of clarity about who owns/run who; etc . . . is a Libertarian Party.

    I might ask, “Is the current LP worth saving/reforming/building, or is it all just a silly waste of time/a playground for ineffective “former” (and likely to return again) Republicans?”

    Or I could ask it in another way, “Is Rand Paul more libertarian than Barr/Root and/or Johnson/Gray?”

    Or perhaps as — if the 49 state affiliates, plus Oregon, were to repudiate the current LNC-LP, could we/they do better with a new organization — one without the debt of a building in DC, with more volunteer participation, more radicals, etc?

    Could we?

    Or is this as good as it gets?

    If the answer to my last is “yes” then my answer to your question is “no, I don’t.” I’ve had enough. If the entire LNC were made up of Nicks, I’d have more hope, but to me it looks like he’s on a boat ride through hell, with a bunch of devils manning the oars.

    A bit extreme, but it makes the point.

    Joe

  80. david terry

    mvetanen, August 8, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    “3. Mr. Burke is going to ask the Oregon SOS then to place his very few chosen candidates on the Ballot (some of who will be GOP registered persons)”

    This is REALLY Bizarre and funny!!!!.

    Are you unconscious of the fact that the following Republicans are running under YOUR LP banner;

    1. State Senator, 3rd District Dave Dotterrer (R)
    2. State Senator, 17th District John Verbeek (R) (Fusion)
    3. State Representative, 6th District Sal Esquival (R) (Fusion)
    4. State Representative, 13th District Laura D. Cooper (R) (Fusion)
    5. State Representative, 15th District Andy Olson (R) (Fusion)
    6. State Representative, 25th District Bill Post (R) (Fusion)
    7. State Representative, 29th District Mark Richman (R) (Fusion)
    8. State Representative, 34th District Brenden King (R)
    9. State Representative, 41st District Tim McMenamin (R) (Fusion)
    10. State Representative, 52nd District Mark Johnson (R) (Fusion)
    11. State Representative, 56th District Gail Whitsett (R) (Fusion)
    12. State Representative, 57th District Greg Smith (R) (Fusion)

    NOT TO MENTION ONE DEMOCRAT:

    State Senator, 26th District Robert R Bruce (D)

    Vetanen, GET YOU HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!
    and read your own website;

  81. Joe

    Richard,

    I am wondering what your take on why Wes, et. al. took the actions they did?

    Are they simply power mad, and willing to spend a couple of hundred thousand to have the LPO as their playground (at their worst), or is there an accountable version for how this happened?

    It seems most of the debate about what went wrong in Oregon starts with Wes declaring himself chair for life (or something like that), but what happened before that?

    Or another way of asking the question — do you see any legitimate reasons for why Wes et al acted the way they did back then?

    I honestly do not know the pre-history of LPO issues, and I admit to having a bias here (liking Wes personally, feeling that libertarians need to be more like pirates to create social change and less like obedient folks only playing within the lines). But that said, I am sincerely interested in what precipitated this, and if, from your perspective, you see any legitimate reasons for those folks acting as they did?

    Joe

  82. david terry

    Jill Pyeatt; August 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    “Richard, read your comments. You pretty much admitted you’re working with the Republican party. And when they try to invalidate the Wagners’ group’s candidate, you bet we’ll know who started it.

    C’mon, we see what’s happening.”

    Unfortunately, Jill, what you are “seeing” is through the red colored glasses, in your mind!

    I’m an active member of the Oath Keepers. I haven’t done a survey, but I’d guess that at least
    90% of them are Republicans. Does this make ME a turncoat.

    Ironically, when I wrote something critical of the involvement of some Oath Keepers in the border protests against children, I was referred to by a couple of them as a “turncoat”

  83. Jill Pyeatt

    I generally support Oathkeepers, but was dismayed at their involvement in the complicated border matter.

    I just truly don’t understand why the Oregon thing is continuing. Again, do you all think the Lp of Oregon would accept the new leadership with open arms? It defies logic.

  84. George Phillies

    My state party received emails on its facebook page, alleging to be from Oathkeepers, and calling for the formation of what were recognizably armed light infantry groups in every town. The call seemed remote from the organization’s nominal purpose, so perhaps the messages were forgeries.

    We are a political organization, aimed in advancing through the electoral process. Those posts were deleted.

  85. Wes Wagner

    There has long been a desire to keep registered libertarians oppressed under tightly controlled pay for play systems by the control freaks of the LNC. A revolution occurred in Oregon. They are adamant about reversing that lest the fires of liberty spread.

  86. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “The 2014 national convention represents the second consecutive convention where Mr. Wagner and his supporters…”
    .
    .
    ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….

    .
    B. Tiernan

  87. Dave Terry

    Joe wrote; “do you see any legitimate reasons for why Wes et al acted the way they did back then?”

    Wagner wrote: “A revolution occurred in Oregon. They are adamant about reversing that lest the fires of liberty spread”

    Direct from the mouth (or fingers) of the “Zealot-in-Chief” (I wonder if Wagner types with ten fingers or just one) :>).

    He thinks he’s Patrick Henry, but he acts more like Robespierre.

  88. Dave Terry

    B. Tiernan wrote; “ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….

    Sorry we woke you, Bob.

  89. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry: # “Why stop THERE, Fred? Shouldn’t ALL Oregonians be able to chose who represents them?
    Surely you are not so naïve as to think that all people who register as Libertarians are REALLY libertarians”

    .
    .
    Nor, as we have seen numerous times in the Burke faction since 1992, has paying dues proven one’s libertarianism. Many were people recuited to help Burke while they remained outsiders. I recall in one example, at the notorious 1996 convention, Burke Recruit Richard Meinhardt calling us “you Libertarians”.

    .
    Oh, and for Burke, paying dues did not guarantee participation if he could do something about it. At that same convention, recall that a few dozen members of the non-Burke side had paid dues 11-1/2 or 12 months earlier and were entitled to full membership until June 1 as clearly written in the Bylaws, were declared to be expired members for the May 19 convention by Burke’s handpicked and unecessasary
    “credentials committee which “interpreted” rather than followed simple plain English and looked at a calendar, and which later “buck;ed” a little but only to define those members as “not in good standing” because they “owed new dues”, and thus could not vote at convention.

    .
    This is the puke you’ve been siding with, Terry. That’s why you’re a bitter old man.
    .
    .
    .
    B. Tiernan

  90. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “I admitted no such thing”

    .
    .

    Oh sure, that proves it. Like Al Capone never admitting having anything to do with the St Valentines Day Massacre. Oh, okay!

    .
    B. Tiernan

  91. david terry

    Jill wrote:
    “Again, do you all think the Lp of Oregon would accept the new leadership with open arms? It defies logic.”

    The irony is that the NEW leadership is Wagner & Co. So, it is a question of whether those who committed the coup should, at minimum, acknowledge that corners were cut and improprieties were committed and agree to return to square one and work with the rest of us to restore both the integrity and the spirit of the Libertarian Party.

    I know MOST of the people on the other side, and with a couple of exceptions I could work with most of them. Unfortunately, this enmity goes back to way before I was involved in the LPO and any explanation defies logic, It’s a can of worms, full of second hand statements; “he said this” and “he did that” – a lot of heat, but very little light.

    Further, exactly WHO are you referring to when you say the LP of Oregon. Frankly, I don’t believe for a minute that the bulk of “registered” Libertarians either know or care WHO is in control. or anything about this dispute.

    Shortly after moving to Oregon and began to get involved in the LPO, I moved to Josephine Co, just north of the California border and I decided that I wanted to organize an LP affiliate there.
    At the time only about half a dozen counties in Oregon had affiliated parties. (mostly in the more highly populated area between Eugene and Portland.

    All I had was a list of “Registered Libertarians. Anyone who has not attempted to establish a political organization from scratch, simply has no clue to the difficulty More importantly, however, it was a GREAT learning opportunity.

    First, I learned that “Libertarians” don’t live in one place for very long. Secondly, they don’t vote any more often than “normal” folks. :>). And more importantly, I learned that MANY registered “Libertarians”: 1. didn’t recall registering as Libertarian or disputed that they had, 2. thought it meant the same as liberal, 3. Just marked a box, just as long as it wasn’t Republican or Democrat.

  92. Richard P. Burke

    Joe,

    No, there was no reason for Wes to take the actions he did. He will, of course disagree, alleging corruption, conspiracy, and so on (which I would dispute). Such accusations, which I’m sure he believes, morally justify his actions . But even if Wagner is sincere along these lines, I would simply point out that tyrants ALWAYS say the ends justify the means.

    Prior to the actions of 3/31/2014 by Wagner and his supporters, there was faction with Machiavellian planning for conventions (by both sides) and frequent discord. But the system held up and the party generally moved ahead despite it’s internal divisions. Wagner and his supporters tried on multiple occasions to change our governing documents, but failed. I think that they have some good ideas and they probably could have gotten some important reforms through, but they consistently overreached.

    The quorum issue that started this mess arose from a change in our governing bylaws in 2007, which Wagner orchestrated in a December 28 or 29 special convention where few people could attend owing to the holidays. One of the the Bylaw proposals passed changed our conventions from events where county delegates voted on some things to where all members voted on everything. Unfortunately Wagner had forgotten to include a quorum clause, and this laid the seed for what was to follow.

    This omission was not discovered until 2010 when Jeff Weston was the State Chair. So at the spring 2011 March convention, where we did not make quorum, Wes Wagner moved to adjourn to a meeting (to be held on May 21st) where we could have a better chance of making quorum due to upcoming dues expirations and a speculative joint effort on maximizing attendance. This May 21 convention session was ordered by our March 12 convention session, not the State Committee. So since the State Committee is subordinate to convention, Wagner’s State Committee had no authority to cancel it. That’s why the rest of us showed up to it and elected a chair pro-tem.

    Had Wagner limited his purported bylaw change of 3/31/14 to fixing the quorum issue, he probably would have gotten away with it despite the fact that it still would not have been a legitimate way to amend the bylaws. But he pulled a full coup and again overreached.

    Richard P. Burke

  93. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “I would simply point out that tyrants ALWAYS say the ends justify the means.”

    .
    .
    You oughtta know! They also “invent new interpretations” (i.e. pulled out of your ass) such as “member not in good standing is one
    whose dues are in arrears”.
    .
    .
    B. Tiernan

  94. George Phillies

    Of course, one could propose that “He (Wagner) is now endangering his 56 candidates (some who may not be legitimate) by deliberately antagonizing the Republican Party of Oregon.” is a mark of failure, in that, at the mention of Wagner’s name, the Republican state chair should scream, tear out his hair, foam at the mouth, and chew on the carpet.

  95. Wes Wagner

    The republican party chair actually has some very kooky stuff in the book he wrote.

  96. Dave Terry

    WW: “Things like if we were to spray low doses of radioactive material all over the US it would improve public health. ”

    Craaaazy! Next thing you’ll read is someone advocating putting fluoride in our drinking water and bleach in our swimming pools.

    I read somewhere that in some places they inject influenza virus into kids on the pretext of preventing the flu. Weird, huh?

  97. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    So, Dave…it’s okay to spray radiation on people?

    Dude…I am (uncharacteristically) left speechless.

  98. George Phillies

    The DT descriptions, while Heinleinesque (revolt in 2200 iirc) are accurate. The radiation spraying refers to hormesis, a controversial claim…with some real data to support…that challenging the DNA repair system with very low levels of radiation reduces the likelihood of getting cancer. Your mileage may vary. If your office has a black granite facade, you may get that radiation dose naturally.

  99. Wes Wagner

    Radiation sources outside of the body are significantly different than ones that are inhaled or ingested. Peculiarly enough, we have evolved to be able to resist extremely large amounts of the former, but are extremely vulnerable to the latter. I suppose it is because prehistoric man did not think that chewing on clay with high uranium content in it was fun or particularly useful.

  100. Wes Wagner

    That is if you believe in such controversial theories like evolution, and history that spans backwards more than 10,000 years. Art might not consider those theories credible 😉

  101. Stewart Flood

    10,000 years? Wasn’t that about the same time the infighting started in the Oregon LP? 🙂

  102. Stewart Flood

    I was wondering that myself. My understanding is that one of the recent versions of their ByLaws still included special rules for temporarily recessing a convention during a dinosaur attack.

  103. paulie

    I don’t know if the Oregon LP conflict had anything to do with the last “big bang” that reset the universe but it may well have something to do with the next one. Maybe both.

  104. Stewart Flood

    Ok…I think we’ve worked this one to death. The only thing we haven’t done is mention Adolf H…

  105. paulie

    I heard he sided with one of the Oregon LP factions but I can’t remember which one. Some people have been wondering where all the money to fund the six figures (on each side!) lawsuits is actually coming from … well you may have heard of the missing nazi gold?

  106. Howie Roark

    Why do we only have two Libertarian factions here in Oregon? I mean our choice is limited to either the “Wagner” or “Reeves” group. We need a third party faction so we don’t have to choose the lesser of these evils!

  107. Mark Vetanen

    Howie
    The THIRD FACTION is the approximately 14,000 registered Libertarians here in Oregon. One group wants to include these folks in the process and the other wants to exclude them. What group will you pick?

  108. Howie Roark

    Mark,
    What group would I pick? That’s a tough one. But I’ll take a shot at it.

    The black and white case you stated supposes that:

    1.One group believes registered Libertarians are the de facto Party. Is there a place in that group for libertarian minded people that choose not to register with the State? How about those that the State does not “allow” to register to vote for whatever reason? Are those people excluded? Is that what you mean by “include”? Are they all libertarian now because they check a box on a State form? From what I’ve heard, even Bill Maher describes himself as libertarian.

    2. When you use the term “exclude”, it reads as though the other group believe that registered are prohibited from participating however I will give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you really don’t mean that. The other group from what I gather believes that membership should be a direct, self governing relationship (albeit with paying dues).

    Neither of which are truly the issues at play as anyone who has followed this soap opera can see. It’s two very small cults of personality engaged in a groupthink contest. Both sides are now shown to be degenerates locked in an uncompromising, distrustful battle for control of something that has little or nothing to do with any libertarian-minded individual residing in Oregon yearning for true Liberty.

    These factions have been battling now for decades using many tools repugnant to my principles as a libertarian. My proposed solution for all affected by these clowns is to throw them all out and start from scratch. Reboot the system, I say!

    I don’t want to imply that by simply taking a lot of different components and playing mix-and-match will provide an effective way to address this issue. A new organization can start with a clear framework informed by a true libertarian vision and mission, and put together a program that’s coherent, makes sense, and bypasses those “cults” that would get in the way. All the elements from all ideas have to fit; if they fit well enough, you’ll end up with a whole that’s greater than the sum of its parts. If the elements don’t fit together, or aren’t part of a program with a well-defined framework, the chances are you’ll end up with the same mess.

    What group would I pick? Neither. That’s my answer.

  109. paulie

    From what I’ve heard, even Bill Maher describes himself as libertarian.

    Not for many years now, although that doesn’t change your larger point.

  110. mvetanen

    Dear Howie Roark,

    Definition of Oxymoron: Libertarian Party

    I actually agree with you in a lot of ways. The whole idea that I am going to put a head on top of my head, and name it “freedom” has always been absurd.

    The ‘professional Libertarian’ in my mind is and always will be a scam. It is absurd and ridiculous to think that paying someone 50 smackeroonies is all that I need to do to secure my freedom and liberty.

    It is absurd to think that just joining a group, or what you call a Cult, is enough to fight the injustices, the powers that be and the status quo.

    As much as it is absurd to make a party out of Happiness, because perhaps a group of people believe in being happy, it is equally absurd to make a party from the belief of freedom.

    In my book Freedom and Liberty are not clubs you join or meeting attended, they are the end results of struggles against tyranny.

    Those who are free, who value freedom not only for themselves but for all living beings are Anarchist, that is to mean to not align with any king/flag or nation state. Such people view it absurd that people would think to build a nation state and somehow think that it is the freedom that we all seek. Everyone knows that nation states are inherently corrupted and eventually become tyrants. Just look at what has become of the LNC! Corrupted and tyrannical. Need I say more on that?

    However, what has all of this organizational effort in the name of “libertarianism” actually gained for us?

    “Anyone? Anyone …”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA

  111. Howie Roark

    Mark,

    Although this post is a bit of a non sequitur from the original discussion, I must say I agree. A tad depressing but true. What you wrote should be read by anyone who is interested in group dynamics.

    Allow me to digress and share with you something funny about what happened when I was reading your post: When you wrote “In my book Freedom and Liberty” I went to Amazon and searched for author “Mark Vetanen” and the book “Freedom and Liberty”. It took me awhile to realize it was an idiom. Anyway, I had to laugh at myself for that.

    Back to the original thread. This has all got me thinking about the requirement of being a registered voter in Oregon in order to obtain membership in the LPO. If the rules were changed by say the Oregon Legislature or a state department that would no longer register voters by party affiliation (or scratch registration for other than the D’s and R’s) what would happen to the LPO? I realize this is a hypothetical with little chance of actually happening but you get the the point.

    Secondly, I am still trying to wrap my head around how 14,000 (or 16,000 as Mr. Wagner corrected you) registered Libertarians in the state is germane to the issue. Why would it make a difference if it were 100 or 100,000?

    Anyway, thank you for your post as it gave me much to reflect on and makes some very good points.

    – Howie

  112. Wes Wagner

    Howie

    Regarding the quantities – None. The registered libertarians are by rights the people who should have the right to select the people and methods by which their ballot access and status are determined.

    There is only one set of bylaws and leadership in Oregon that sought and continues to seek their consent on a continual basis.

  113. Wes Wagner

    I will also note that they have plenary power to abolish, reform, or otherwise change everything.

  114. Fred

    Howie Roark,

    One of the problems we face is that we want to have a group based on a specific ideology and at the same time we want to have a political party (which has specific rules created by the state that it must follow to qualify as a political party).
    There is no reason that you can’t start a group similar to the one you described. But if you want to turn the group in to a political party you are subject to the rules of the State regarding political parties.
    The election laws governing political parties in Oregon are intended to protect the rights of everyone who is registered as a member in a political party–but they don’t apply to political movements.

    With those ideas in mind: we can really look at these group fighting two (at least) distinctly separate battles.
    One battle is to decide who has been chosen as the representatives of the registered Libertarians in Oregon. While we may not like the idea of ‘The State” choosing how we engage in politics–when we have a political party we are choosing to operate in a state created procedure which has specific rules. If our goal is to participate in state run elections, then we must follow state rules regarding the election process.
    The lawsuit that Reeves et. al have brought against the LPO was intended to place them as the representatives of the registered libertarian voters.
    The second battle is to decide who is affiliated with the national Libertarian Party. A national party doesn’t have any rights to ballot access in Oregon. Being affiliated with a national party also doesn’t change an Oregon political parties obligations to follow Oregon election laws. (If you want an illustration of how this works–you may want to research the Oregon Constitution Party, Which broke from the national party it had been affiliated with and re-affiliated with it 5 years later)
    Therefore, the national organization can choose to affiliate with one group (over the other) without regard to if that other group has ballot access.

    In my opinion (I intentionally avoided the term, “in my book”) the election laws are similar to a contract that a party signs with those who register as “members” (which is how someone who registers with a political party are described in ORS). Every registered member should have the expectation that the party they affiliated with, will be following the election laws that govern political parties. This, unfortunately, means that someone who isn’t legally allowed to register in our state can’t be a party member–but it doesn’t mean that they can’t be active in party politics.

    Can you choose a third option?
    Yes, and you have several potential ways of doing that. the first is to start the group you described. If you like you can go through the process to turn it into a political party. If you do, you will be subject to following Oregon election laws. If you don’t you can engage in a lot of political activities–but you won’t have ballot access (you can attempt to get your group members to run as a candidate endorsed by a political party or as “non-affiliated” but you wouldn’t have ballot access on your own.
    Or you could get involved in the LPO and run for internal office. Despite the rhetoric that “Wagner made himself chair for life” the LPO holds elections to determine who are the administrators of the party.
    You could also run for office in the Reeves group. At this point in time that wouldn’t give you any ballot access–but according to them that is likely to change in the very near future.
    You might even be able to (with a small group of dedicated people) get people elected to both the Reeves group and the LPO and find a way to merge the two back together again peacefully.

    Whatever you choose, I hope that you will keep your vision in mind. Its very easy to become disillusioned or to lose site of what you are really trying to accomplish when you find conflict with the people who you feel should be your allies.

  115. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Roark,

    Mr. Jabin (Fred) and Mr. Vetanen are certainly entitled to their theories and opinions. I actually agree with some of them. But do not let any of this distract us from what caused the current split and what the nature of that split actually is. Always remember:

    1. At the March 31, 2011 State Committee meeting, not a properly noticed convention as required by our governing documents, Mr. Wagner and four of his supporters (including Mr. Jabin and Mr. Vetanen), attempted to replace governing documents approved by members in convention with ones they wrote themselves.

    2. Mr. Wagner and four supporters attempted to appoint themselves to new terms of office in accordance with their governing documents and,

    3. Attempted to cancel the scheduled May 21, 2011 session of the 2011 Annual Convention ordered by the March 12, 2011 convention session, despite the fact that our governing documents make clear that our State Committee is subordinate to convention.

    Mr. Wagner, Mr. Vetanen, and Mr. Jabin have never denied the above. In fact, they are proud of it. You can view what happened yourself by pointing your browser here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89YMq-omW7o

    Such are our fundamental issues. Some of the reform ideas of Mr. Wagner and his supporters are interesting and we are willing to debate them. But the reform ideas are not what is relevant here – it is about the process.

    Members, donors, and volunteers need to know with some assurance what their rights, privileges, and responsibilities are, and they need to know the nature of their organization and it’s direction. They need to have a say in how it is reformed or how reforms are to be considered.

    As long as it is possible for one person listed as the “Chair of Record” to unilaterally write new bylaws and officer lists, there is no organization except that which is defined moment to moment by the will of the “Chair of Record”. When another “Chair of Record” takes office, what would stop him/her from changing everything again?

    We don’t care who the leaders are, as long as our processes are respected. This is not a turf battle. Mr. Wagner can be chair, as far as we are concerned, provided he does not act outside of our governing documents.

    Mr. Wagner and his supporters would have you believe that they are on some sort of crusade to make the party more inclusive and eliminate perceived “corruption”. While we may have disagreements about method and scope, nobody disagrees with these goals. This is just an attempt to whitewash the nature of the three things they did as listed above.

    How ironic is it that they attempted to co-opted the force of the state and disenfranchised members who signed the NAP to achieve their political goals? They attempted to legitimize their actions by misapplying a statute, which only applies to major parties, saying that a party’s State Committee is it’s supreme authority. And they only cling to their current status by virtue of an unwritten policy of Oregon’s “Secretary of State” to accept whatever governing documents and officer lists are provided to her by the “Chair of Record”.

    Truly, how we do something is at least as important as what we are trying to do, and the idea that “The Ends Justifies the Means” has been used by every tyrant through time. The fact that Wagner’s status depends solely on the state for legitimacy should tell us a lot, and such is extremely problematic for a party that calls itself “libertarian”.

    Richard P. Burke

  116. Wes Wagner

    There was an egalitarian revolution against some people who set themselves up a a pseudo-aristocracy. They were losing. They went to try to find allies amongst other pseudo-aristocrats abroad. Those pseudo-aristocrats were warned that they would share the fate of the domestic pseudo-aristocrats if they interfered. It is now coming to pass.

  117. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    Psuedo-aristocracy? Egalitarian revolution? You should hear yourself. Look at the organization we have. Look at the state it is now in. Registered voters are still below the peak of 2001-07, and the electorate is larger. You have a slate of candidates whose political leanings are largely unknown as long as they or a few of their friends could wield a pen. Your mighty organization could only muster two delegates in Columbus.

    You sound ridiculous. “Egalitarian revolution?” You forget that you guys were in charge on March 31, 2011. You were truly repressed. 😉 Insofar as your own organization is concerned, most of you have been in charge since then. Who is the aristocracy, again?

    Richard P. Burke

  118. Wes Wagner

    Burke,

    You know that the election list cleanup to remove duplicate entries and the centralization of the database in 2008 made numbers before that time statistically irrelevant. They were wrong, period.

    You are intentionally trying to deceive people (again)

    We had two delegates as emissaries to attempt to make peace. In 2016 I am nearly certain we will have zero.

  119. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    Invoking Washington and phrases like “Exitus acta probat” is all quite romantic, but quite ridiculous. We are not talking about an empire imposing it’s will with guns, and we are not talking about laws. We are talking about rules voluntarily adopted by the members of a private organization willing to pay refundable dues (via the tax credit) and subscribe to the NAP.

    Your hyperbole is showing.

    Richard P. Burke

  120. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I can’t believe Burke keeps posting the video of David Terry assaulting Mark. It certainly doesn’t make their side look good, IMO.

  121. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Wagner,

    Election officials periodically clean records. My guess is that they could use a good cleaning right now. It would be interesting to see what the numbers would be. In any case, you are forgetting that the electorate is larger than it was in 2001-2007 – or 2008. Where did you factor that in? I don’t believe you did. Who is misleading here?

    The real measure is what percentage of the electorate is made up by LP voters in Oregon, and I submit there have been no gains and, perhaps, some losses. According to the latest figures I have, June 2014, LP voters make up 0.00756% of the electorate, representing no real gain at all.

    So what, exactly, are you trumpeting here?

    Regarding convention… are you serious? You only sent two delegates because you wanted to send “peace emissaries?” Really??? Our group is supposedly on the outs according you you and we brought three.

    You should have brought four.

    I don’t think many people believe your “peace emissary” story. Your delegates just couldn’t afford to go. I can relate. It was a stretch for Tim and I too. But we got there.

    Richard P. Burke

  122. Wes Wagner

    Not that Burke will believe it … but the people who know me will.

    I had numerous people ask me “is it worth the (time/money) going to this convention?”

    I answered them, no.

    I was proven correct.

  123. paulie

    I posted some reactions on the LNC open thread from the state chairs list to the Mattson/Oates/McLendon motion for the LNC to recognize the Burke/Reeves group.

    State chairs are so far uniformly opposed; aside from Wagner himself, Doug Craig (GA) and Steve Scheetz (PA) seemed to make the strongest statements that the Wagner side is legit and the LNC should butt out. Knedler (OH) and Pojunis (NV) said the LNC needs to focus on national party building and stop messing with Oregon one way or the other. Axinn (NY) says that while he believes the Burke/Reeves side is correct on the original merits, that it is time to move on and not have the LNC and/or JC revisit the issue yet again. So far I have not seen any messages from state chairs supporting the proposed LNC motion, which still needs one more co-sponsor to make it to a vote. I apologize if I missed any.

  124. Dave Terry

    Axinn (NY) says that while he believes the Burke/Reeves side is correct on the original merits, that it is time to move on and not have the LNC or JC revist the issue yet again.

    This reads REALLY hypocritical to me. Isn’t the integrity of the LP worth anything. Are we just
    supposed turn our backs and “not waste the time” correcting injustice and corruption.

  125. Fred

    For the record:
    I do deny your account above Mr. Burke.

    I did not appoint myself to a new term of office–my action supported removing the county representative structure (and I was a county rep) and replacing it with a board of directors (I didn’t run for that position)
    In essence, I removed myself from any position of authority.

    You also fail to mention that while I agree that we didn’t follow the rules sighted in those documents, it is because those documents were not created legally and/or legitimately.

    If your lawsuit ever goes to trial (which is doubtful) you can try to prove to a judge that your claim that those documents are legal,legitimate, and binding.
    But you were unable to convince me and so I joined the action that seemed in best keeping with Oregon election laws.

  126. Dave Terry

    Nikolai Ilyich Wagner writes: “There was an egalitarian revolution against some people who set themselves up a a pseudo-aristocracy.

    Yea! Let’s hear it for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Death to the pseudo-bourgeois!

    At least SOME of you will realize just who you are allied with!

  127. Richard P. Burke

    Fred,

    I don’t understand how you believe the LPO governing documents everyone was operating by prior to March 31, 2011 were illegally created or adopted. They were the product of properly noticed business conventions. What is your theory here? What evidence do you have supporting that theory? The last time the bylaws were amended prior to March 31, 2011 was in March 2009. Why the two-year wait?

    Or did you base your decision violate our member-approved bylaws and attempt to invoke the state via ORS248.072 based on your feelings, complaints from aggrieved members, undocumented accusations, and the like?

    It is worth noting that you admitted purportedly adopted new bylaws in violation of our legitimate bylaws. You did not even address purportedly attempting to cancel a convention session ordered by an earlier convention session.

    As for the rest, apart from semantics, you made my point. While YOU didn’t appoint yourself to a new term of office, you supported the purported appointment of others to new terms of office in accordance with the Wagner Bylaws.

    Richard P. Burke

  128. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt wrote: “I can’t believe Burke keeps posting the video of David Terry assaulting Mark. It certainly doesn’t make their side look good, IMO.

    Jill, would you PLEASE get rid of those red glasses you seem to have on most of the time?.

    1. If one looks at the clip with an open mind one will clearly see that Mr .Vetanan was not injured

    2. A person not associated either faction stated loudly and clearly the HE provoked me!

    3. Mr. Wagner lied about the fact the incident occurred during recess, not as he claim during a State Committee meeting.

    4. Mr. Wagner also lied in a previous statement to this group, that I was “escorted” from the meeting, when actually I was simply trying to defuse the situation, by leaving, and the guy walking beside me and in behind Vetanen was simply acting as a neutral observer.

  129. Richard P. Burke

    Joe,

    I count 5 states represented by your comments. I think “uniformly opposed” might not be a fair characterization of what the 5 state chairs you mentioned actually said. The 5 might not want the measure to be taken up by the LNC, but that is not the same as saying or suggesting that they would oppose the measure itself once it comes to a vote. Someone reading your post might get that idea.

    From what you said, while Knedler and Pojunis may want the LNC to focus on other things (which it will), they do not indicate what side they would favor if they had to vote themselves. Axin may agree about focus but otherwise takes the Reeves side. Wagner (whose status as a state chair is in dispute) and the chair of Georgia take Wagner’s side.

    So far, then, I see 2 in favor of Wagner (including Wagner), 2 that expressed no side except to say they are tired of Oregon (though I can speculate about who they might support), and another who takes our side but wants to move on. If this were a matter up before the state chairs, I might be inclined to take our chances.

    In any case, I see no mandate here. I believe most state chairs want to focus on what is going on in their own states and, since state chairs will not adjudicate this dispute anyway, this is appropriate. It is also one reason why we have national bodies to consider such disputes.

    I do know that while the matter was in the hands of the LSLA, the Reeves side was favored.

    Richard P. Burke

  130. Howie Roark

    Wes,

    Thank you for responding to provide clarity.

    You wrote “The registered libertarians are by rights the people who should have the right to select the people and methods by which their ballot access and status are determined.”

    Do you mean this to be your stated opinion or do you accept it as fact?

    I disagree. IMHO, the party members regardless of their voter registration status are the plenary. By requiring the portal of entry to be registration with the state, a Pandora’s box of exclusion is opened as the requirement to join would be predicated upon the requirements of voter registration. At the exclusion of those that cannot (or choose to not) register to vote. By making this a barrier to entry, you voluntarily have given up major tenets of freedom of association and self governance.

    Fred made the statements “which has specific rules created by the state that it must follow to qualify as a political party” and “The election laws governing political parties in Oregon are intended to protect the rights of everyone who is registered as a member in a political party–but they don’t apply to political movements.” Both are true statements however in attempting to justify the voter registration requirement, would these statements not be considered conflation? I am unaware of any law in Oregon that would require voter registration as also the requirement to be a member of a political party. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Howie

  131. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Is anyone else really, really ,really, REALLY sick of the Oregon mess?

  132. Howie Roark

    Wes,

    Sorry, but I can’t stop there 😉

    If it is true that “The registered libertarians are by rights the people who should have the right to select the people and methods by which their ballot access and status are determined.” would it not also make these statements true?: “The non-registered libertarians should not have the rights to join the political party, select the people and methods by which their (as party members) ballot access and status are determined.” as well as “Both non-registered and registered libertarians do not have the right to associate for the purpose of ballot access and status are determined.”

    Howie

  133. paulie

    Richard, I think you meant me? I said “so far” uniformly opposed. I think I made it clear that other state chairs have not expressed an opinion yet and/or that I missed it if they did.

    From what you said, while Knedler and Pojunis may want the LNC to focus on other things (which it will), they do not indicate what side they would favor if they had to vote themselves. Axin may agree about focus but otherwise takes the Reeves side. Wagner (whose status as a state chair is in dispute) and the chair of Georgia take Wagner’s side.

    Read their actual comments on the other thread. They all said the LNC and/or JC should NOT revisit the issue and that the LNC should focus on other things. Which it is failing to do while it keeps dicking with Oregon.

    I agree with them.

  134. Richard P. Burke

    Jill – Yes. I’m tired of it too. But you know what they say, “When you find yourself in hell, well, keep going.”

  135. paulie

    I think you also did not count Steve Scheetz.

    And see my exact comments as well as those of the state chairs that have so far bothered to express an opinion on the other thread.

  136. Howie Roark

    Dear Jill, stewart, paulie,

    Please forgive me as I am new to this issue and I live in Oregon. I’m trying to understand this and it is incredible to me that many of the actual players are here and responding with depth.

    Is there a way you guys can turn off this thread so that it does not annoy you?

    Howie

  137. paulie

    Howie

    Nothing against you and this thread is not what is annoying us. You can read the other hundred or so other such threads in our archives too, but here is the one I really recommend the most if you want to truly understand the problems of the Oregon LP:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/04/allen-hackers-galactic-tribunal-resolves-oregon-libertarian-controversy-once-and-for-all/

    Yes, it was an April fools day post, but I think it really gets to the heart of the matter like nothing else.

  138. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Howie, it’s certainly not you that’s annoying me. What’s frustrating is that Richard Burke and David Terry just keep repeating the same explanations/arguments over and over again. If it hasn’t convinced readers before, repeating the same words are unlikely to change anyone’s mind.

    Despite their arguments about what is “right”, it is utterly beyond me that the Reeves group won’t accept their obvious loss, which is extremely unlikely to ever change, and get on with their lives. There are 49 other state parties, some so weak I’m sure they can find a state party somewhere to take over.

  139. Fred

    Howie ,
    Oregon election law specifically defines members as those registered in that party.
    There is nothing that prohibits having some other “membership” but for the purpose of the state laws only the ORS version is applicable
    For example we could call people under 18 “members” but that doesn’t give them legal right to vote. And if a person is registered as a Libertarian–we couldn’t exclude him/her from participation for not meeting other criteria that we might define as “membership”

  140. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Roark,

    Fred continuously uses the word “member” in the wrong context of this dispute.

    RIchard P. Burke

  141. Dave Terry

    I can only say that I’m glad that you weren’t the Commander-in-Chief on Dec 8, 1941.

    Has it occurred to you that those of us who would rather be “right” than rich or on the LNC
    have more to offer this party than all the “meet, eat, and retreat” fellow travelers combined

    Your LAST comment is insulting and beyond credulity. I live in Oregon, I have lived in Oregon for more than 30 years and I have no interest in moving somewhere else.

    I have absolute faith that (hopefully before I die) the “right” shall prevail, just as when the lights
    come on, all the roaches scurry to their homes in the wall and under the floor..

  142. Stewart Flood

    We’re not annoyed by the thread. We’re just tired of having to deal with a war that has been going on for over a decade (or possibly two). As an LNC member at the time, I was first forced to follow one of the skirmishes back in 2007. It was not a new fight then and it is certainly a very old fight now.

    I believe that a coup took place. Most people do, but some believe it was legal while others say it was not. I believe that the Judicial Committee’s ruling three years ago was based on a misinterpretation of what they believed their authority encompassed. There are others who disagree and believe they had the authority to act.

    This turned into a legal suit long ago. We need to wait and see what the end result is of the seemingly endless court battle. Regardless of whether the final decision ends up being based on reason and a determination of facts or is simply the mental toss of a coin in a judge’s head, we’ll have to live with it.

    And like Mr Knedler and others, I believe that it is a waste of the LNC’s limited time and resources to remain involved at this point. That does not mean that I don’t care about the outcome. I’m simply tired of the LP having to go through this.

  143. Howie Roark

    Fred,

    You stated: “Oregon election law specifically defines members as those registered in that party.”

    Without getting too far into jurisprudence, “member” in the context of the ORS statutes you refer to is a legal definition and in no way prohibits any party from delimiting or allowing membership of whomever as a party itself sees fit.

    You stated: “There is nothing that prohibits having some other “membership” but for the purpose of the state laws only the ORS version is applicable”

    Incorrect. The ORS version has no application in the context of party governance, membership, association or determination.

    >For example we could call people under 18 “members” but that doesn’t give them legal right to vote.

    Irrelevant to the issue. As a side-note, do you realize that there is a segment of the population in Oregon that is allowed (even encouraged) to register however are not allowed to vote as per ORS?

    >And if a person is registered as a Libertarian–we couldn’t exclude him/her from participation for not meeting other criteria that we might define as “membership”

    Well, as it now stands, the LPO may not be able to include or exclude since membership in the Party has seemingly abrogated its freedom of choice to the state by voluntarily requiring membership in the party to be predicated upon voter registration with them.

    I understand that law can be confusing especially with regards to legal definitions of words. As an example, as repugnant as it is to some the word “people” in general usage, is obviously a human being yet by statute, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, receivers, etc.

    Please correct me if you you think I am wrong as I am always willing to learn and appreciate a good dispute 😉

    -Howie

  144. Matt Cholko

    Honestly, the constant discussion of the Oregon mess has turned me off to IPR lately. It has also contributed to a growing feeling of disillusionment with the LP in general. At this point, I almost wish the state would slide into the Pacific Ocean.

  145. Wes Wagner

    Howie

    http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/248.005

    “Each political party by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation of party members in the party organization and activities. Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and open participation of all interested party members. ”

    It uses the legal definition of member since it is in the same chapter.

  146. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “The Ends Justifies the Means” has been used by every tyrant through time.”

    .
    .
    *chuckle* You displayed that very tactic when you were overheard telling your LPO recruit Richard Meinhart that he
    needed to vote to uphold the chair’s alleged “ruling” accepting his and your activist “credentials committee” “ruling”
    that literally stripped dozens of valid members of their legitimate membership and right to vote at that convention. Your
    words to Meinhard — “If we lose this vote, we lose the state committee”. Nothing at all about what was right or wrong. Your hold
    on the state committee (the ends) justifying the means (a dishonest vote cast by each of your supporters).

    .
    B. Tiernan

  147. Steve M

    Howie and Wes, so how about a definition that were to welcome anyone of legal voting age that hasn’t registered in another party or voted in another parties primary that then asks to be included as a member in the LPO?

  148. Wes Wagner

    Steve

    We have people like that who attend our meetings… they are often from just over the river in washington, etc. Felons can register and vote here, so can homeless people, travelers, etc.

    There is only very little the party apparatus itself formally does. The rest is volunteer groups, individual initiative etc. It is reasonable to have only party members voting on a board and election rules that has the sole responsibility of running party elections.

    You do need some voting members if you want to charter an affiliate organization, but there are no specific rules laid out that prevents them from being more inclusive.

    If someone petitioned to create “Libertarians For Private Political Clubs Who Charge Dues And Have Hooded Keyholder Meetings and Accept Anyone So Long As They Have Money Regardless Of Their Personal Loyalties” — it would likely get entertained so long as they were not say white supremacists who wanted to murder people.

    The LPO itself really has very little power, authority or responsibility anymore. I know that offends some people greatly, but it moves alot of conflict out into the free marketplace of ideas instead of contentious conventions and has been working fairly well.

  149. From Der Sidelines

    *SIGH*

    MUST Burke revisit the past and spin it yet again with his lapyapdog Terry?

    Bottom line is this: Mattson, as usual, is full of shit, and it’s telling of some people (and discouraging) that they buy the bullshit she’s selling. It’s bad enough the LNC blew their wad on a building they didn’t need all because Hinkle thought the suggestion was serious when it wasn’t. It’s even worse that the LNC keeps trying to reinvent the square wheel every two years.

    The best way to have the LP win is to simply ignore the LNC, ignore the LNCC, in some cases ignore their state parties, and simply do the job of local realpolitik.

    The Wagner group *is* the LP-Oregon. The Burke group is not. That’s the decided LAW on the issue, whether the Starr Chamber on the LNC and the Burke group likes it or not, and no amount of spin, even with all the Snuggle in the world, will change that dirty laundry of the LP. Time for Burke and the Starr Chamber to quit wasting water and soap and get out of the laundromat.

  150. Howie Roark

    Wes,

    You are correct in your citing of ORS. The legal definition of “member” is for the purposes of the statute and is not a requirement or delimiter of becoming an enrolled member of any political party. Heck, you could call your enrolled members partners, stakeholders or whatever you deem appropriate.

    Party bylaws can define the power to admit members, or to refuse admission, and on what grounds; they should also spell out members’ rights. The essence of freedom of association.

    Rights that enrolled party members commonly enjoy include opportunities to participate in candidate selection procedures, access to party-only forums, and the receipt
    of special information from the party. Common obligations of enrolled members include the duty to pay monthly or annual dues and, in some cases, the requirement to attend a certain number
    of meetings. Eligibility requirements as set by the party bylaws commonly make clear who may join. Stipulations can, may or may not include a minimum age for membership, the incompatibility of membership with membership in minimum standards, another party, and, in some cases, a residency or citizenship requirement. Party bylaws may also set the length of membership terms, as well as the grounds for termination.

    The bottom line is do you really believe that Oregon Law requires all parties to only allow those who have checked the box on a voter registration form to be allowed a membership card and rights within a political party?

    Here is your 1 question exam 😉

    To become a member of a political party in Oregon you need to?
    A. officially join that party by enrolling with them on their terms
    B. claim to be a member
    C register with that party at your precinct office
    D. All of the above
    E. None of the above

    “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” and “Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the [357 U.S. 449, 461] effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.”

    When “fundamental rights and liberties” are at issue (see Harper v. Virginia Board, supra, at 670), a State has very little leeway in making it difficult or impossible for citizens to associate with and organize campaigns any way they may choose.

    -Howie

  151. Howie Roark

    I made this up to make a point:

    471 STATUTE FOR KENNEL OPERATIONS

    471.001 Definitions

    “Member” shall mean canine and feline maintained in the kennel.

    471.998 All members of the canine type shall be caged and fed before 9PM and not released to the open areas until 6AM.

    471.999 All members of the feline type can do whatever the hell they want.

    .

  152. Wes Wagner

    Howie

    Sorry but you don’t fundamentally understand how parties work in Oregon. Actually allowing people who are not registered libertarians to vote on nominations would actually be grounds for them to be thrown out.

  153. paulie

    It’s bad enough the LNC blew their wad on a building they didn’t need

    Because wasting more money on rent was so much better.

  154. Wes Wagner

    The rent where they stayed for so many years was too damn high … if only we had a political party that understood that!

  155. Howie Roark

    Wes,

    You are most likely correct as my understanding of election Law in Oregon is admittedly lacking. My Doctorate or Jurisprudence is in Constitutional Law. But I do try 😉

    Howie

  156. Wes Wagner

    While political parties have certain freedoms… there are places where they are infringed where there exists a compelling state interest. Orderly elections is one of the most common items. Disenfranchisement is another hot area.

    While one can make an argument that it is possibly within your 1st amendment rights to determine who your candidate is by chopping the head off a chicken and having it run around on a large board on the floor and selecting the person where it drops, you had better prove that you gave everyone an equal opportunity to have an equal chance of name placement on that board! 😛

  157. paulie

    The rent where they stayed for so many years was too damn high … if only we had a political party that understood that!

    We do, except for the handful of people on here – including many non-donors and a few minimal donors – who keep knocking the office purchase before, during and after it happened. Meanwhile we have reduced our monthly payments in half, made staff happier and collected hundreds of thousands of FRNs from willing donors, most of it money that would not otherwise have been avalable to the LP at any level for any other purpose. Much more remains to be collected from those same (and other) LP donors and every indications is that may people will be willing to give to this what they would not give to any other LP project.

    Too bad the LNC back in 1985 (give or take a year or two) narrowly defeated a proposal to buy a townhouse on Capitol Hill for $140k. If that building still exists, it must be worth well over a million (maybe several million) now and in the intervening three decades we spent several million on rent. The prevailing side of the argument back then asserted that the building would quickly become too small for us, that we couldn’t sell it, that it might fall in value, etc.

  158. paulie

    Michael Wilson

    6:52 PM (4 hours ago)

    to Wes, State
    I personally am over this ridiculous Oregon debacle.

    Regardless of what faction you side with or if you feel the LNC has a dog in the fight, the bottom line is that it is internal bickering (such as this) that continues to retard the progress of the libertarian message and party.

    I am tired of expending every waking hour trying to build our state party only to have stupid bullshit like this continue to hit the reset button on our progress. You all (all sides of the issue at hand, including the LNC) continue to rip apart 40 years of progress and gain for the LP brand.

    Not having (or caring to have) all the elements of this 4+ year childish squabble, I can say that the adopted bylaws of the LPO is to blame for this issue. Had there been a solid operational structure, this could have never occurred.

    Mind your own business LNC and do what you are designed to do – SUPPORT THE STATE AFFILIATES AND OUR CANDIDATES!
    Oregon – KEEP YOUR ISSUES INTERNAL and let the other state affiliates (and territories) continue to make progress in the name of the LP.

    Michael S. Wilson, J.D.
    State Chair, The Libertarian Party of WV

    http://www.lpwv.org

  159. From Der Sidelines

    “Because wasting more money on rent was so much better.”

    It’s called a virtual office. It has mobile cloud computing, hotspots on laptops, cell phones, and all this wonderful technology that the geekfest in the LP should not only know about but embrace. Brick and mortar buildings for that adventure is so last millennium.

  160. Howie Roark

    Wes,

    You stated: “Actually allowing people who are not registered libertarians to vote on nominations would actually be grounds for them to be thrown out.”

    This is very interesting. On what grounds? Can you cite the ORS or anything else that would substantiate this? Could a 17 yr. old be a member of the LPO (if your bylaws allowed persons under 18)?

    Howie

    P.S. We should probably find another forum as some of the natives here are restless and I am having a blast with this discussion.

  161. Fred

    Howie Roark,
    You are attempting to claim (unless I completely mis-understand your argument) that freedom of association prevents the SOS for making specific requirements for political parties registered voters.
    I think your ideas are misapplied. A group of people can have freedom of association, They can also make rules for that association and charge dues if they like.
    Political parties have certain obligations. They are by design a government designation to participate in the state election process. Those registering as electors in the party are choosing to associate under the terms created by Oregon Election law. Groups that choose to become political parties are choosing to follow the rules created by Oregon election laws.

    Currently the LPO utilized the definitions that are in keeping with ORS. However, we don’t limit freedom of association. We don’t prevent people from coming to party meetings. Almost all of our meetings (including our board of directors meetings) are open to the public. The board set specific times in the meeting for observers to speak (but usually allows people to address issues during the meetings). We also don’t prevent them from being involved in the many political activities that the group is involved in–such as political campaigns, outreach activities, or participating in some committees.

    If you genuinely want to participate in a discussion that is intended for better understanding from those involved, I would be happy to engage with you in another forum.
    If your goal is just to debate for the sake of trying to find holes in someones arguments or to try to show you are smarter than everyone else–you might as well stay on this page. You will find yourself among like minded people.

  162. Fred

    Mr. Burke,
    You continue to claim that my applying the definition of “member” as described in ORS to the statues of ORS is somehow out of context.
    Please explain what definition of “member” I should be using to understand ORS and where I can find that definition.

  163. Steve Scheetz

    Mr. Burke,

    I will re-state part of what I wrote to the LNC regarding the Mattson motion, and add a bit more for further clarification.

    Right now there are more than 50 candidates on the ballot in Oregon, yet what seems to be important to certain members of the LNC is that we tell the Oregon Department of State to reverse its decision and recognize your group instead of the Wagner group (who is working with the candidates on the ballot.)

    I am going to say this as simply as I can.

    If you wish to spend your own personal resources on this issue, that is your right. If by wasting your personal resources, you cause resources to be taken away from the candidates who worked hard to get on the ballot, and will discount any efforts made by volunteers, (who I know, FOR FACT, are hard to come by) then you cross the line.

    Politics, as far as Libertarians go, involves the nurturing of trust. I promise you that if you continue your slash and burn method, there will few people who are going to be willing to trust you. Here in Pennsylvania, we had someone who did things the way you seem to be doing things in Oregon. Fortunately for everyone, we all saw him for what he was, and we threw him out of Pennsylvania.

    I will offer you a piece of advice, and you can take it, or leave it, but if you want to work with Libertarians in the future, consider taking it.

    Instead of continuing to pick at this, you should stop what you are doing, and help the candidates running for office.

    Nobody else in the nation is interested in your spin on what is happening in Oregon, if you feel that you were treated unfairly, then go out and handle that, yourself, at a time when there are NOT candidates who need help/support ahead of an election.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  164. paulie

    Regardless of which side, if any, you side with in the Oregon LP, the benefits of the LNC voting on it yet again can’t possibly be worth the opportunity cost in time used up on this. This is the third motion dealing with Oregon this term alone if it gets enough cosponsors and the term is less than two months old! The only other things that I can remember the LNC voting on so far this term: two non-controversial motions on dates and times of physical meetings in September and December, two non-controversial motions about ceremonial international representatives, and two controversial motions about the transparency of the LNC discussion list(s). Was there anything else? Oh, I guess there was some money for Kentucky, NY and aborted NH ballot access drives, but I think some of that was EC rather than LNC as a whole, and I am fuzzy on whether NY was passed this term or last. That is all I can think of.

  165. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Well said, Paulie. At this point, I wonder if it’s an intentional plan to sabotage our party. It’s obvious Republicans are scared of Libertarians. We’ve reported on at least 4 states with active assaults on Libertarian candidates by Republicans. Is this what the Starr faction is really after? Do they REALLY care that much about Oregon, or is this their way of neutralizing us?

  166. paulie

    Jill,

    Anything is possible, but I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to conspiratorial conjecture about the nebulously defined Starr faction. Many Starr opponents would consider Pojunis and Knedler to be Starr faction, yet they are among the state chairs saying enough is enough already. As for Aaron himself I think it is more likely to be a case of throwing good money after bad – ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy than anything nefarious. Aaron is running a strong race for city council and is, as far as I can tell, a sincere, hard working and committed Libertarian activist of many years who is doing what he believes is best for the party, movement, country and world. I strongly disagree with him on many internal party strategy matters and a few points of ideology (which would seem minor from a non-libertarian’s perspective) but I think it is much more likely that he is sincere than that he is some sort of sellout/government agent. I think those do exist, but they are not necessarily posing as one faction or another. That is, there are just as likely to be government agents posing as radical Libertarians as there are to be government agents posing as Starr faction members.

  167. Stewart Flood

    Neither Mr Knedler or Mr Pojunis are on the LNC anymore, so direct influence in advance to prevent them from reacting wouldn’t be something that the chamber would be thinking about. Both of these former LNC were influenced strongly by the chamber, but neither one should be considered a member of the inner circle.

    I only served with him for a few months, so I can’t speak for Mr Pojunis’ entire history on the LNC, but his alignment with the chamber was clearly for monetary gain. His actions since leaving the LNC would indicate that his level of connection with them is greatly reduced.

    Regarding Mr Knedler, my observation during the term we served together was that although he was influenced on some issues and agreed on other issues without needing to be influenced, Mr Knedler also disagreed with the chamber’s members on the LNC on a number of issues. His primary interest was always related to advancing support for the state affiliates and building membership in the national party (which of course builds affiliates!)

    Obviously Mr Knedler was being influenced by the chamber and/or its supporters during the 2012 convention incident that I and others labeled “knedlering”, but he was never completely under their control while on the LNC.

  168. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Sheetz,

    My guess is that the Wagner slate will survive to make it to the ballot as it did in 2012. We are holding our nominating convention to ensure Libertarian presence on the ballot in case I am wrong. I don’t have a personal stake in who represents us on the ballot; I just want to make sure that we are represented.

    You are wrong in claiming that nobody else cares about the Oregon issue, which involves some pretty important principles I have outlined elsewhere on this thread. I’m not going to repeat them here.

    I’ve also never heard from you before, or even of you, and the fact that you can make such definitive conclusions without having interacted with me or the ones I work with cause me to conclude that your perspective is not objective, or at least based on a balanced investigation. So why should I give it credence?

    I don’t expect to make a lot of friends, although I have already, within the party. That’s not what politics is for. And I have a good career in public policy outside of the LP. So while I appreciate your concern, you need not worry. Regardless of how I may be characterized or what people think of me, my goal remains the full restoration of governing documents of the Libertarian Party of Oregon as approved by members in properly noticed conventions.

    Richard P. Burke

  169. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    As far as whether the Starr Chamber/Reeves group are deliberately trying to hurt the party, I’m simply considering it as a possiblity. I admit, though, that I’ve considered this possiblity for some time now. Did Aaron really put $100,000 of his own money into the bottomless pit that’s the Oregon lawsuit? He’s a smart guy–and quite frugal, if I recall. We’re missing something.
    Why on earth don’t they just go on to another state?

  170. Richard P. Burke

    Jill,

    I cannot speak for Aaron, but I believe that he does not want what Wagner did to become a viable model for aggrieved minorities in other states to get their way when they fail to do so within a state parties voluntarily adopted processes and structures. Allowing this to happen would result in several or perhaps many states becoming unstable and fractious, weakening the party overall.

    Richard P. Burke

  171. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “Allowing this to happen would result in several or perhaps many states becoming unstable and fractious, weakening the party overall.”

    .
    .
    Har! You’ve made the LPO unstable, fractious and weak for most of the last 22 years or so. Neither Wes nor anyone else you might
    blame for those conditions either have not been around all this time or are long gone. One thiong is constant — your party-killing ego.

    .
    B. Tiernan

  172. Steve M

    too funny… Richard, unlike you Steve Sheetz is the recognized chairman of a Libertarian State Party. That you don’t know this is again funny.

  173. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    For the record, I don’t swallow Richard’s reason for Aaron putting $100,000 into Oregon. There’s just gotta be something we’re missing.

  174. paulie

    Why? He’s come this far so he just wants to keep going. Seen it happen too many times, done too much of that myself.

  175. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It’s only a feeling I have, Paulie. I’ve known Aaron for about 25 years, and he’s just different now. We all change as we grow, but I just have the feeling something else is at play here.

    Not a big deal, really. It’s just my intuition.

  176. Stewart Flood

    Is there hard evidence that a hundred thousand dollars has been put into this fight, and if so is there proof that Aaron Starr was the source? This number seems a bit beyond of what is believable without seeing proof.

    Numbers tend to grow as stories are repeated.

  177. paulie

    IIRC it came out in court filings/disclosures and has been posted here in the past. The other side has actually spent even more. I’m not motivated enough to look for the original link.

  178. Vernon

    Keep kosher talmudic zionists from buying Oregon! Get them and their $$$ out and keep them out!

  179. Dave Terry

    Jill wrote; “For the record, I don’t swallow Richard’s reason for Aaron putting $100,000 into Oregon. There’s just gotta be something we’re missing.

    So what’s wrong? Is your crystal ball on the frits. .

  180. Howie Roark

    My goal is to learn. I learn most when there is healthy discourse. I am found wrong more than I am found right so far in life but discovery of truth is many times accomplished through trial and error.

    I’ll do my best to not opine, just focus on getting to the bottom of what is considered lawful in the State of Oregon.

    >You are attempting to claim (unless I completely mis-understand your argument) that freedom of association prevents the SOS for making specific requirements for political parties registered voters.

    I admit “making specific requirements for political parties [sic] registered voters” is well within the purview of the SOS, ORS, et. al. as long as it is lawful This is not at issue.

    You must be a registered voter in Oregon to nominate party candidates for government office from what I gather however I am not settled as to if even this requirement would pass constitutional muster. Even the candidates for nomination themselves do not need to be registered with the party. In any event, this is also not at issue here and is moot.

    What is at issue is determination as to how and by whom the party is run and who gets to belong, decide and engage. A “card-carrying member” if you will. OK, let’s not call them members to avoid semantics. Associates?

    Check this out. It has has been cited more than once in this thread:

    ORS 248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members. Each political party by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation of party members in the party organization and activities. Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and
    open participation of all interested party members. [1975 c.779 §1; 1979 c.190 §68]

    What has NOT been cited however is what it is followed by:

    ORS 248.011 Enforcement of ORS 248.005 or political party rules. Except as expressly required by law, the Secretary of State, a county clerk or any other elections official shall not enforce the provisions of ORS 248.005 or any other rule adopted by a political party. [1995 c.606 §2]

    Why was this passed and made statutory in 1995?

    “Freedom of association encompasses a political party’s decisions about the identity of, and the process for electing its leaders.” Eu v, San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee (489 US 214,229,109 S Ct 1013 (1989). ORS 248.011 reflects the constitutional prohibition of state interference with the internal affairs of political parties. See also Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U,S. 477, 95 S. Ct. 541 (1975) where the court ruled a state court injunction as unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of association rights of delegates and violated a political party’s right to determine the composition of its national convention in accordance with party standards.

    Fred, I’m not trying to be a smarty pants here, just trying to make my case in point. Heck, this wasn’t any kind of original thought here, just a gut feeling reenforced by research. There is nothing in the law that required the LPO to exclude all but registered voters from becoming card-carrying, enrolled members (dues paying or otherwise) of the party and voting on bylaws, party leaders, etc. If there was, there are some other parties in the state that might be in a bit of trouble.

    Most sincerely,

    Howie

  181. Starchild

    With the somewhat embarrassing realization that I’ve now read the bulk of the 214 comments here even though common sense told me I should stay away from a thread about Oregon (kind of like the feeling you get when you just realize you ate most of that big bag of chips), and desperate to salvage some sliver of value out of that exercise, I’d like to announce my nominations for this thread’s most black-humored moment of fear and loathing (please vote for your favorite):

    A) Joe Buchman’s description of the current LNC chair as “look(ing) like he’s on a boat ride through hell, with a bunch of devils manning the oars.”

    B) Dave Terry, after being asked whether he got a shark he jumped pregnant, responding, “No… but she thoroughly enjoyed the experience!”

    C) George Phillies (presumably referring to the effect that mere incidental exposure to the Oregon LP meltdown might have on the Oregon Republican state chair): “at the mention of Wagner’s name [he] should scream, tear out his hair, foam at the mouth, and chew on the carpet.”

    D) Stewart Flood, in response to a comment about the theory of evolution and the history of earth going back more than 10,000 years, asking, “10,000 years [ago]? Wasn’t that about the same time the infighting started in the Oregon LP?”

    I know, these are some strong contenders and it’s a very tough decision, but please vote for only one of the above. 🙂

  182. Fred

    Howie,

    As you suggested– this might not be a good forum for open discussion — at least not one with good intentions.
    I sent you a FB friend request on the hopes that we can arrange for a better way to have this discussion

  183. Fred

    I’m going to have to go with “B”
    The levels of irony are just too good to be true. Whether DT is a comic genius, or isn’t aware of the irony is irrelevant to how funny the comment is.

  184. paulie

    Just saw it now thanks to Starchild since I don’t read DT’s keyboard spasms.

    Personally I don’t find rationalizing animal buggery to be funny 🙂

  185. Stewart Flood

    I’d vote for “D”, but I can’t since it is a verifiable fact and the rest of the choices are humorous. 🙂

    I vote “B”

  186. Fred

    If you can get past “animal buggery” and concentrate on the notion that the shark couldn’t get pregnant because it enjoyed it…….
    I just don’t know how that couldn’t make you laugh

  187. Dave Terry

    paulie
    August 15, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    Just saw it now thanks to Starchild since I don’t read DT’s keyboard spasms.

    Personally I don’t find rationalizing animal buggery to be funny 🙂

    Porky, WHY do you presume it was anal? Never mind, we all know the answer.

    Hint (the shark was a girl)

  188. Martin Passoli

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery

    “The British English term buggery is very close in meaning to the term sodomy, and is often used interchangeably in law and popular speech. It may also be a specific common law offence, encompassing both sodomy and bestiality.”

    Therefore, vaginal or oral sex with a non-human animal can also be buggery. Thus, Dave Terry is the one doing the presuming.

    Somehow this tangent seems appropriate for an Oregon LP discussion. We’ve already covered Hitler and Lenin, so now it’s on to interspecies sex….

  189. Fred

    It won’t be complete until someone can make a joke that includes Lenin, Hitler, AND inter species buggery.
    Extra points thrown on if it included: Wagner, Terry, Burke, or Bob Barr

  190. Dave Terry

    “Therefore, vaginal or oral sex with a non-human animal can also be buggery. Thus, Dave Terry is the one doing the presuming”

    Nolo contendere: I’ll leave this subject to the experts; Mr. Passoli and Mr. Canolli .
    I wonder what Mr. Ravioli thinks about it.

  191. Stewart Flood

    “Yep. August 13, 2014 at 4:19 pm.” Incorrect. Your use of the first and middle names of “Nikolai Ilyich” was incorrect, since Lenin’s name was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. You may have been incorrectly referencing Tolstoy, who’s full name was Nikolai Ilyich Tolstoy. Of course that wasn’t something Tolstoy would have written. Mr Wagner’s missives are certainly not on par with anything Tolstoy wrote.

    A search of the thread reveals that the first mention of Lenin was in your post yesterday afternoon where you mentioned Lenin having already been covered.

    Why did we fail to cover Lenin? The moderator is failing in his/her job…

  192. Bob Tiernan

    Stewart: “is there proof that Aaron Starr was the source?”

    .
    It certainly is useful to be able to find stuff like this is public records – one can find all kinds of interesting stuff. Like the time one
    of our researchers found that a member of Burke’s inner circle (serving on the LPO JudCom) had given money to the David Duke
    campaign in the mid-90s.

    .
    B. Yiernan

  193. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I had a short and incredibly creepy conservation with that person, who oddly uses an initial as a first name, on Facebook a week or two ago. I stopped after just a few back-and-forth comments. What he said in those comments convinced me he’s a sociopath. Yes, I now believe he is a sociopath.

  194. Martin Passoli

    “I’ll leave this subject to the experts; ”

    You’re the one that jumped a shark and thinks the shark enjoyed it. I don’t know which of the shark’s holes you stuck it and what difference would it make? Sheesh 🙂

  195. Martin Passoli

    “Your use of the first and middle names of “Nikolai Ilyich” was incorrect”

    You mean Dave Terry’s use. From context he was clearly intending to refer to Lenin. You are correct that Lenin’s actual name was Vladimir, not Nikolai. However, he used the pseudonym Nikolai Lenin or N. Lenin and has been referred to as Nikolai Lenin by some people. Nikolai was actually the name of his brother as well as his grandfather.

    Tolstoy’s name was Lev Nikolayevich.

  196. Martin Passoli

    “one
    of our researchers found that a member of Burke’s inner circle (serving on the LPO JudCom) had given money to the David Duke
    campaign in the mid-90s.”

    Who was it and where would someone verify this information?

  197. Fred

    Damn,
    Your right Wes, I should have included Nixon.
    Bonus points for any addition reference that is controversial — particularly if they relate to politics or Oregon (Tonya Harding, Stan Bunn, etc….)

  198. Bob Tiernan

    Bob T “one of our researchers found that a member of Burke’s inner circle (serving on the LPO JudCom) had given money to the David Duke
    campaign in the mid-90s.”
    .
    .
    Martin Passoli: “Who was it and where would someone verify this information?”
    .
    .
    Bob T: That would be eye doctor Peter Wyzinski (not sure of spelling at this time) of Eugene, Oregon who wrote the check, and it was discovered by long time (now ex) LPO member and proud Burke-hater Jon Zimmer while he was looking through Federal Elections records.
    .
    .B. Tiernan

  199. Dave Terry

    Marc Montoni
    Actually Lenin’s real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. But I just refer to him as “murderer”.

    So, does this mean that you have given Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, etc…….
    free passes? WHAT do you call THEM?

  200. Forgot To Post Under A Pseudonym

    At least they are not as bad as that Wagner guy… sheesh.. he is a real tool.

Leave a Reply

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