Appeal on Oregon Libertarian “constructive disaffiliation” filed with Libertarian National Judicial Committee

The LP Oregon group which is not currently recognized by the State of Oregon for the purpose of placing candidates on the ballot or by LPHQ (formerly the “Reeves Group,” now chaired by Ian Epstein and operating as Oregon PAC 16869) has filed an appeal of what it calls its “constructive disaffiliation” with the LP National Judicial Committee, chaired by M Carling, a plaintiff on their side of the lawsuit which they are currently appealing in Oregon state courts. Each side has declined the opportunity for oral argument in the Oregon state court appeal. A copy of the Oregon PAC 16869 appeal to the LP Judicial Committee is here:

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Judicial-Committee-Petition-Submission.pdf

Other IPR writers are welcome to edit this article to provide additional background information. Everything about the Oregon LP is always debated, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the wording of this article will be debated as well. I’m not wedded to this language, but I also don’t want to spend a lot of time on it; other IPR editors are welcome to fix it if they feel like it and if it is deemed necessary and proper.

Meanwhile, Scott Lieberman writes on the LNC email list:

As you all know, the LNC, Inc. is in a very serious financial crunch.

However, I have a way to help fix that problem!

The National LP can start a pool to guess how many comments the article covering the petition below will generate during the first 7 days after it gets posted to Independent Political Report.

Since IPR editors can track the IP addresses of comment authors, we will give them the name of everyone who enters the pool, and IPR will tell us if they have commented on that article. If they do comment, they will be disqualified from the pool, since we don’t want them gaming the results.

If we charge $50 to enter the pool, and we award half the proceeds to the winner, I bet we could cover half a day to a full day of LNC, Inc. operating expenses.

Just for fun, I will give my guess: 315 comments.

104 thoughts on “Appeal on Oregon Libertarian “constructive disaffiliation” filed with Libertarian National Judicial Committee

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    So, an appeal of a non-appealable action (it was the Judicial Committee, not the LNC, which decided what organization was the real affiliate; only actions of the LNC can be appealed), by a group without standing to appeal (only LNC affiliates can appeal their disaffiliation; the Reeves Gang has never been an affiliate of the LNC). Why am I not surprised?

  2. George Phillies

    Readers will note that the Chair of the Judicial Committee is a Plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Reeves faction on this matter. He might recuse himself. On the other hand, there is an arcane legal doctrine that if there is no alternative, then cases may still be heard. This doctrine arose in the 70s, though it is far older, when the Federal judiciary sued Congress, claiming that inflating the currency was an UnConstitutional reduction in their salaries during their terms in office, The Supreme Court, which was affected by the outcome, still heard the case.

    The reference to Massachusetts is incorrect, at least for sane definitions of “ballot-qualified”, though I believe the error is innocent on the part of the Reeves group. Masachusetts uses odd terms of art for major and minor parties, leading to the confusion. Minor parties are called “Political Designations”. However, you can run as a candidate of a Political Designation, using exactly the same method used by all major party candidates (except President and Vice President, for which there is a special rule for major parties), and the name of the Political Designation appears with your name.

  3. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    You forgot about the part about M Carling, plaintiff in the lawsuit, accepted the petition and deemed it justicable in less than 2 hours during the middle of a work day.

  4. George Phillies

    Tom,
    “no alternative path to resolve a fundamental legal dispute”. I believe the Reeves position is that they *are* the affiliate, in which case they can appeal LNC decisions (e.g., listing Wagner as State Chair, once upon a time, actions of staff still being LNC actions). On the other hand, the convention vote seating the Wagner group as the Oregon delegation, using the argument that the convention is the Supreme ruling body, could be viewed as definitive that the Wagner group is the State Party. The issue arose at the LNC meeting right after the last National convention.
    George

  5. paulie Post author

    There’s a typo in the headline. The committee is the Judicial Committee, not the Judiciary Committee.

    Thanks, fixed. But as noted in the article itself and on open thread – I don’t want to be the one to keep re-editing this article. I only put it up, hesitantly, because no one else had first; I would have preferred to have someone else do it.

    BTW, I guess you disqualified yourself from the Lieberman betting pool 🙂

  6. paulie Post author

    You forgot about the part about M Carling, plaintiff in the lawsuit, accepted the petition and deemed it justicable in less than 2 hours during the middle of a work day.

    It took him over an hour?

  7. jill pyeatt

    So, what will be result if these idiots “win”? They get to run around and tell everyone they won? BFD.

    These people need to worry about something that”s really important.

  8. paulie Post author

    So, what will be result if these idiots “win”?

    Being listed on the LP website and list of state chairs, getting data dumps from national, replacing Wagner on the state chairs list.

    Then, a counterattack, as long planned, by Wagner et al against the national party.

  9. Andy Craig

    “This doctrine arose in the 70s, though it is far older…”

    Much older, in fact. The doctrine of necessity is one of those common law things that traces its origins to “time immemorial.” State supreme courts have to invoke it fairly often, e.g. when ruling on campaign finance laws, after they were themselves elected with a regulated campaign. It’s less likely to be necessary at the SCOTUS level, but as you note it does happen.

    However, that would only apply if the “court,” or in this case committee, can otherwise not muster a quorum due to conflict-of-interest recusals. If we’re only talking about one person (even the Chair) rescuing themselves, then necessity wouldn’t apply because the rest of the cmte. could still render a decision absent a single member.

  10. George Phillies

    As an aside: The 2015 Reeves faction State Convention (M Carling, convention chair) amended their bylaws so that they would not need to file with the FEC, including performing actions that might influence a Federal election. That is, they said they will not perform Federal Election Activity, which must be done with Federal money. Activities that are FEA, no matter whether or not you have a candidate on the ballot, if performed within 90 days of a Federal Election no matter who is on the ballot in your state, include registering people to vote and getting out the vote for your nonFederal candidates.

  11. Wes Wagner

    But without M to cast the tie breaking vote, justice may not be able to be perverted… isn’t that a necessity? Isn’t it?

  12. Richard P. Burke

    George,

    The LPO bylaws approved by members in properly noticed conventions were not amended at the 2015 convention. To be adopted under normal circumstances, proposed bylaw amendments must be approved at two consecutive conventions where bylaw proposals are considered. While the proposed amendment you refer to was approved at the 2015 convention, it will have to also be approved in it’s current form at the 2017 convention in order to be adopted.

    This change was made at the 2013 convention as a way to reduce factionalism. The reasoning was that if bylaw amendments must be approved at two separate conventions in order to be adopted, it would be impossible for one side to sandbag another by introducing surprise amendment proposals and stacking the seats at one convention. Under this new system, opponents of bylaw amendment proposals introduced by surprise would have time to react and mobilize at the next convention. This assures that the only bylaw proposals likely to pass are those that would have broad appeal across factions.

    Concerning the 2014 national convention credentialing process, it was not a victory for the Wagner side. Although the credentials committee supported the Wagner side, the delegates amended the credentials report on the floor by adding Greg Burnett, Tim Reeves, and I to the Oregon delegation without us going through the process proscribed by the Wagner organization. This amendment to the credentials report was challenged as being out of order, but was ruled to be in order and this ruling survived an appeal of the Chair. Wagner was then replaced by Tim Reeves as the delegation chair, by a vote of those in the Oregon delegation, after Wagner said he would not recognize the votes of the additional three delegates during the convention. In the LNC’s subsequent resolution designed to pacify Wagner, the LNC did NOT attempt to reverse the decision of the convention (and would not have had the authority to).

    In any case, we regard the 2014 convention happenings to have been made largely irrelevant by the decision of the 2012 convention in Las Vegas, which was a clear victory for us. The credentials committee and the delegates explicitly seated our delegation, and not the Wagner delegation, many of whom chose to join the delegation of other states.

    Richard P. Burke

  13. George Phillies

    Thanks for noting you must pass the bylaw twice. This is a fine idea. I hope you take note of potential issues you may not have noticed.

    Nonetheless, the 2014 convention did seat the Wagner group, and it did seat you…as part of the Wagner group.

    However, it can be argued that the convention as a whole did not know that there was an issue, and certainly did not hear the issue debated.

  14. George Phillies

    @12:39 pm In addition, if the Burke side wins, which is not guaranteed by any means, National may need to find another ton of cash for ballot access in Oregon.

  15. Nicholas Sarwark

    The LPO bylaws approved by members in properly noticed conventions…

    You may want to start using the abbreviation ABMIPNC after LPO bylaws, kind of like how “Peace be upon him” is abbreviated to PBUH when referring to the prophet Muhammed.

    It might save you some typing time.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    Lol-Burke is still clinging to the 2012 convention “victory”, although they’ve lost virtually everything else.

  17. Chuck Moulton

    I will disqualify myself from the Lieberman betting pool in order to note that if (when) the judicial committee overrules the previous judicial committee (absent any authority to do so from the bylaws), the cash-strapped LNC will need to find another $50,000+ (probably a lot more) to get ballot access in Oregon and will likely have to contend with costly retaliation from the Wagner group which (as annoying as some people find them) has been mostly playing defense rather than offense up until now.

    I hope the people poking the bee’s next and stirring the pot will pony up the money that will be required for those things. I’m very skeptical that will happen though… instead, I forecast it will lead to a financial crisis at national: laying off staff members and canceling projects while struggling to stay afloat.

  18. Richard P. Burke

    Chuck,

    You are taking a lot for granted.

    We may not get the outcome we desire from the Judicial Committee. If we do, we also have a new Secretary of State and a new Director of Elections that may see things as past Secretaries of State have, particularly Phil Keisling, and not as Kate Brown and Stephen Trout saw them. If this happens, we will not lose ballot access in Oregon no matter what Mr. Wagner does.

    Also, those who agree with our petition would have to conclude that Wagner’s side became the offending party when they purportedly adopted new LPO bylaws outside of a properly noticed convention and subsequently attempted to substitute those for the ones properly adopted in accordance with our Constitution and Bylaws of the time.

    Even some on Wagner’s side acknowledge that what he did violated the pre-existing bylaws, but support his objectives and the concept of the ends justifying the means – a dangerous mentality for any libertarian organization. Others, even some on the LNC who acknowledge that what Wagner and his supporters did was wrong, think we should let it slide because so much time has passed.

    Indeed, insofar as I can tell, nobody on this thread has thus far disputed the arguments made in our petition. They’re just mad that it exists and that it was submitted.

    Also, if we prevail in the Judicial Committee, Wagner does not HAVE to “retaliate” and launch a war against the national party. He has threatened to do many such things over the years and if he feels a need to retaliate, the responsibility for doing so will be exclusively his, not ours. When things did not go our way, we did not war against the national party – we attempted to work within it.

    Wagner, and everyone else, is welcome to do likewise. In any case, the national party should not be cowed or be held hostage by his, or anyone’s, threats.

    It might be worth remembering that the stated justification for Mr. Wagner’s attempted coup of March 31, 2011 was the difficulty the LPO experienced making quorum after it was discovered in 2010 that a bylaw change supported by Wagner at a holiday 2007 special convention did not include a quorum clause. If you want to find the root cause of all of this, there it is… Wagner’s 2007 bylaw amendment changing our business conventions from an assembly of delegates to an assembly of members without a quorum clause.

    Had Wagner’s actions of March 31, 2011 limited itself to fixing the quorum clause, he might have pulled it off and may have been recognized by many in the LPO as having saved the organization. We would not have had to go through any of this. But he and his supporters wildly overreached, and even the LPO’s former legal counsel advised against it. There’s video.

    After all of the grief we have gone through since, it is truly ironic that, at their 2014 convention, the Wagner crew failed to make quorum. So even that thin excuse for a justification broke down.

    But, Chuck, if you insist on laying blame for any actions that Mr. Wagner might take, you might want to examine those who wrote and supported the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling which: 1) Ceded to the various government officials the power to determine who our leaders are in the various states and 2) Supported the idea that illegally adopted bylaws supplanting properly adopted bylaws constitutes a “constructive disaffiliation”. In my mind, this was unconscionable.

    The long term benefit for the national party, if we prevail, will be that nobody else will be likely to destablize other state parties by replicating what Mr. Wagner and his supporters have tried to do after failing to advance their political agenda through established means.

    Richard P. Burke

  19. George Phillies

    @4:39 Four years ago, the LNC was planning on entering the Presidential election year with large amounts of money set aside for ballot access. I seem to recall that at the LNC meeting Alicia Mattson mentioned $300,000. The plan for this year is no money set aside. We now encounter Mr. Moulton’s identification of the correct issues. In addition, I would anticipate that the LPOregon leadership will not respond to the current document brought to the Judicial Committee, assuming that the Judicial Committee does not have the good sense to vote to refuse to take it up. The Judicial Committee has the rational grounds that the issue is currently a subject of litigation, at least at the last report that I remember.

  20. George Phillies

    On one hand, I continue to believe that the phrasing in the last Judicial Committee decision about state recognition lacks the word “because”. The phrasing identifies which side won without naming the winning party, an obscure legal custom, but does not to me say that they won “because” they were recognized by the secretary of state.

    The Reeves-faction document references “ballot-qualified” parties. “Libertarian” (in Massachusetts, ‘Party” is not party of the legal name identifying the party) is ballot-qualified and has been for decades, since we filed the designation petition. They even count our enrolled Libertarian voters. I am having correspondence with ballotpedia about their phrase “ballot-qualified”, and what they think the phrase means.

  21. George Phillies

    Some of the respondents might propose that the petitioner does not have standing to file, because the Judicial Committee does not have jurisdiction to overturn its own rulings, and that the unambiguously correct route as demonstrated for Lee Wrights is 1% of party members/10% of NatCon delegates. That approach would eliminate all sorts of pointless arguments.

  22. paulie Post author

    @12:39 pm In addition, if the Burke side wins, which is not guaranteed by any means, National may need to find another ton of cash for ballot access in Oregon.

    That will be far from the biggest problem we’ll have. As I believe you have noted elsewhere before.

  23. paulie Post author

    if the Burke side wins, which is not guaranteed by any means,

    If you look at who is on this JudCom I would say it is pretty well guaranteed.

  24. Wes Wagner

    Phil Keisling is as populist of a democrat as they come.. you would have to be smoking crack to think he would overturn an egalitarian based LPO to the republicans.

  25. Jill Pyeatt

    It will be a disgrace if M Carling doesn’t recuse himself.

    Of course, we know he won’t do that.

  26. Joseph Buchman

    Having watched this video and in a state of numinosity – literally glowing from the benefits of this meditation, Nick has earned my vote for re-election if he desires it and the #u@k*r$ don’t get him down.

  27. Wake Up

    The article is biased, which is not surprising. Oregon PAC 16869 is not the entity which is filing the appeal with the Judicial Committee, although they are related. Why is “constructive disaffiliation” in quotes? Just to take two obvious examples of blatant falsehood and bias.

  28. Joseph Buchman

    “Constructive disaffiliation” (originally “effective disaffiliation” in the first draft published by Paulie) is in quotes because it is a claim which has been made which has not yet been proven. it is not a fact.

    PAC16869 is DBA as the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” without being recognized as such by the State of Oregon. So that is the name, as far as I know, of the group which has filed this appeal to the LP Judicial Committee. If there is a more accurate name, I’d be happy to include it.

    See: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/12/project-groundswell-press-release-from-oregon-pac-16869-dba-the-libertarian-party-of-oregon/

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/lp-oregon-quote-pres-jefferson-seek-attorney-fee-reimbursement-from-pac-16869/

    No one from the organization asked that I change the group’s name in either of those articles.

    So rather than whine about “bias” how about just presenting whatever facts are needed to correct the error(s) and then simply politely asking for the article to be updated?

    In the meantime “constructive disaffiliation” has yet to be determined as a matter of fact (so it is in quotes) and the most accurate (and previously accepted) name of the organization as best I know it is, “PAC 16869.”

  29. Wake Up

    The name of the organization is the Libertarian Party of Oregon. It’s in the very first sentence of the link to the filing you posted. PAC16869 is its entity for the purpose of dealing with the State of Oregon until the lawsuit is resolved, while the state gives its recognition for the time being to the illegitimate group that has hijacked their party through a rogue chairman and four of his friends. However as the filing makes clear:

    Recognition by the Secretary of State’s office cannot be the
    determinant of which entities are affiliates and who are the officers of a given state affiliate.
    Libertarian Party Bylaws Article 6.2 only empowers the Libertarian National Committee, not a
    secretary of state, to charter affiliates. PAC 16869 exists for the purpose of operating within illegitimate rulings which are being appealed within the Oregon court process. The Libertarian Party of Oregon, which operates under continuity of rules and membership structure, is the affiliate of the national Libertarian Party which is bringing this appeal to the JC and is not the same entity when dealing with the LP as it is when dealing with the state (until the lawsuit is resolved).

    You article is erroneous, it should name the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the affiliate recognized by the full LNC in multiple votes and by national convention delegates) not the PAC.

  30. Jeff Davidson

    Hi Wake Up – thanks for your opinions. Jill Pyeatt has asked many times what the likely outcomes of a victory by what I gather is your side would be. Assuming for the discussion that the Judicial Committee rules in favor of the filing, how do you see this as affecting ballot access in 2016 and going forward? How do you see it affecting the people who are registered as members of the other side?

  31. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wes,

    You write:

    “You forgot about the part about M Carling, plaintiff in the lawsuit, accepted the petition and deemed it justicable in less than 2 hours during the middle of a work day.”

    It’s not that I forgot about it.

    It’s that Carling has no magical power to give the Judicial Committee new powers.

    The Judicial Committee’s opinion on this matter is as relevant to the subject as what toppings the Judicial Committee might order on its group pizza should it happen to meet physically, and the LNC should give it exactly that much weight.

    Since the plaintiff gang is not and never has been an affiliate of the LNC, it has no standing to appeal a disaffiliation that never happened.

    And since what’s being appealed is a ruling of the previous Judicial Committee, the Judicial Committee has no authority to rule on it — only actions of the LNC and particular actions of the national convention fall within the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction.

  32. Scott Lieberman

    Dr. Mary Ruwart submitted a written argument to the JC in support of the Wagner faction in Oregon, and she was a prominent proponent of the Wagner faction in oral arguments and Q&A during the Judicial Committee’s hearing.

    No one disputes that Mr. Wrights was living in the same house as Dr. Mary Ruwart when Mr. Wrights voted in favor of the Wagner group the first time the Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee heard the Oregon dispute. It is not a big stretch to assume that they were paramours at that time.

    Why was it OK for Mr. Wrights vote on the Oregon matter, but it is not OK for M Carling to vote on the Oregon matter, when M Carling’s “conflicts of interest” on this matter are slim to non-existent? As best as I can remember, Mr. Carling has never even lived in Oregon.

    Scott Lieberman

  33. Wes Wagner

    If Lieberman ever had any credibility he just took a shotgun to his head and blew it off.

  34. Wes Wagner

    Wake Up does not have an objective view of facts on the ground. For example, the Secretary of State did not “allow them to operate as a PAC pending the outcome of this case”… the secretary of state ordered them to form a PAC because they were engaged in political activity that opposed another political party (The Libertarian Party of Oregon). In court during summary judgment argument they conceded that there is only one Libertarian Party of Oregon, which makes that stipulated fact. This one Libertarian Party of Oregon that exists in Oregon has never been in their lawful possession.

    They are a rump group that never even had valid credentials (also fact via depositions) during their rump meeting. They attempt to claim that facts don’t matter because no one objected at the time, but the legal rights of absentees are absolute and may be exercised at any point in the future.

    It is not “Bias” just because legal facts are reported accurately in a manner you do not like … that just means you are ignorant.

  35. Wes Wagner

    Further to point: IF the national judicial committee could have the power to wade into the inner workings of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (which they don’t) and actually did their job objectively rather than performing a political hack job (which it is bullshit like this that is the reason nobody in the Libertarian Party deserves to hold office because they either support it or abide it and are thus no better than the people they claim they wish to replace) — they would have to rule that the people petitioning the appeal do not have standing because there is no possible legal interpretation that supports that they have a chain of custody to hold the offices they claim they have since their rump meeting was fatally flawed at inception.

    Everything that has happened after that point in time is a ridiculous farcical delusion of Mr Burke and his distorted views of reality.

  36. George Phillies

    I seem to recall that Mr Carling was or is a member of the state party and was involved in the litigation in some role.

    I still say the standing issue is resolved via the member/delegate petition road rather than the character writing a letter petition road

  37. Wes Wagner

    Mr. Carling is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit and is also a named party of the appeal. He will also likely be a named party of any and all subsequent litigation.

  38. Nicholas Sarwark

    If you have the patience to read the entire PDF (it’s only 19 pages), you will find gems such as this, from the March 9, 2013 minutes that were attached (see page 10):

    Resolutions
    The LPO extends its gratitude to Aaron Starr, Alicia Mattson, and M Carling for traveling such a long distance to exercise their membership in the Libertarian Party of Oregon and their continued support. The motion was adopted.

  39. Jill Pyeatt

    Scott, you’re the dumbest smart person I know.

    Likening a lengthy and expensive lawsuit to the Wrights/Ruwart incident isn’t the same thing at all. You are all acting like a bunch of children who didn’t get your way, so you keep stomping your feet, crying “wah, wah, but, but…” But I guess you don’t recopgnize that because you are an oddly childless group of people.

    I’d say that I’ve lost respect for you, Dr. Lieberman, but I lost all respect for you when I started reading the LNC correspendence. I’m horrfied at the way you talk to other LNC members.

    And I’m not surprised that you were the first one ftoi bring up the Wrights/Ruwart thing.

  40. Andy Craig

    ” I’m horrfied at the way you talk to other LNC members.”

    I don’t generally wade into LNC internal politics, but I’ll second this sentiment.

    @Sarwark obviously has the right idea, as usual.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    If I recall correctly — and it may be that I don’t — I agreed that Lee had a conflict of interest there. A not especially significant one, given that the LP and LNC are a fairly small group where it’s nearly unavoidable for people who know each other and have relationships to be involved in various activities where one may have an opinion on something that the other has to make a decision on, but a conflict nonetheless.

    However, it is not even close to the conflict of interest that Carling has. He is a member of the Reeves Gang’s fake “Libertarian Party of Oregon” and has been an admitted operator of and formal plaintiff in the gang’s various and sundry scams, frivolous/malicious lawsuits, etc.

  42. paulie Post author

    Since the plaintiff gang is not and never has been an affiliate of the LNC, it has no standing to appeal a disaffiliation that never happened.

    Their claim stipulates otherwise, and the JC chair and majority agree with them.

    And since what’s being appealed is a ruling of the previous Judicial Committee,

    I thought it was the “constructive disaffiliation” that resulted from that. A JC’s ruling can’t be appealed, but whether the chair/HQ following the decision of a past JC violates bylaws can arguably be decided by a present/future JC. And if you argue otherwise, who can you make that argument to other than the court of public opinion?

  43. Joseph Buchman

    Wake Up @ July 25, 2015 at 3:19 am wrote:

    “You (sic) article is erroneous, it should name the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the affiliate recognized by the full LNC in multiple votes and by national convention delegates) not the PAC.”

    OK, what’s the name of the other group then, the one that has ballot access for libertarian candidates (including POTUS) in Oregon? It’s a bit absurd to have an article here with two quite different, opposed even, entities identified with the same name, yes?

    BTW — your organization seems to be utterly inactive except for this recent LP National Judicial Committee filing, at least as reflected by your website

    http://www.lporegon.net/

    which has not been updated in over four months, and is still urging your members and visitors to vote in the next election — last May.

    How seriously do you really expect anyone to take you?

    Your website says, “The Libertarian National Committee . . . recognizes the leadership and governing documents associated with organization (sic) sponsoring this website.”

    If that is so, what is the appeal to the Judicial Committee for?

    If you would like, I’d be happy to substitute the identifier “Oregon PAC 16869” with “OSTW” or “organization (sic) sponsoring http://www.lporegon.net” if you think that would be helpful to you.

  44. paulie Post author

    Apparently Scott Lieberman has disqualified himself from his own betting pool just to amuse himself and the rest of us 🙂

    Dr. Mary Ruwart submitted a written argument to the JC in support of the Wagner faction in Oregon, and she was a prominent proponent of the Wagner faction in oral arguments and Q&A during the Judicial Committee’s hearing.

    No one disputes that Mr. Wrights was living in the same house as Dr. Mary Ruwart when Mr. Wrights voted in favor of the Wagner group the first time the Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee heard the Oregon dispute. It is not a big stretch to assume that they were paramours at that time.

    Why was it OK for Mr. Wrights vote on the Oregon matter, but it is not OK for M Carling to vote on the Oregon matter, when M Carling’s “conflicts of interest” on this matter are slim to non-existent? As best as I can remember, Mr. Carling has never even lived in Oregon.

    Unlike Carling, Ruwart and Wrights have never as far as I know been members of the Oregon LP, never traveled to Oregon to actively participate and change the outcome of Oregon LP conventions, and never been plaintiffs (or defendants) in the Oregon LP laswuits. I would not be surprised at all if he drafted or helped draft the appeal he will now preside ruling on.

  45. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ July 25, 2015 at 1:28 pm wrote:

    ” I would not be surprised at all if he (M. Carling) drafted or helped draft the appeal he will now preside ruling on.”

    Well, although it is a bit out of date (as noted above), M. Carling is listed as one of five members of the “OSICSTW” — the “organization (sic) sponsoring http://www.lporegon.net” / PAC 16869 / state Judicial Committee – along with Eli Stephens, Nick Hazelton, Steve Dodds and Mark Delphine.

    see, http://www.lporegon.net

  46. paulie Post author

    Wake Up does not have an objective view of facts on the ground.

    “Wake up” is a troll/troling group which claims to be a neo-nazi, that Ron and Rand Paul are secret neo-nazis, and that he/she/it/they will pack the LP convention, nominate Rand Paul (or even more absurdly Trump-Paul), somehow win the election and usher in a fourth reich. He/she/it/they also are stalking me and several of my friends and issuing threats against us. It/they seems to know information that there is no explanation for how it gets such as when Andy J. was arrested in Arkansas and had no access to a phone to let anyone know, so no one, not even me knew that Andy was arrested, yet this entity did and posted about it in IPR comments, which is how I found out. It seems to have the ability to know what is said in our email and phone conversations, and not only to anonymize but to actually spoof IP addresses. I normally delete this entity’s comments but that would create discontinuity here because it received responses before I had a chance to catch them.

  47. paulie Post author

    BTW — your organization seems to be utterly inactive except for this recent LP National Judicial Committee filing, at least as reflected by your website

    “Wake Up” does not claim to be in any LP faction. In fact, if “Wake Up” is to be believed he is in the American Freedom Party of Oregon, the (defunct) Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, and the Republican Liberty Caucus/Campaign for Liberty. However this entity (which seems to have unlimited access to information and unlimited time on its hands) also takes a keen interest in everything from who contracts to do ballot access work for the LP (and even for the Constitution Party), who is the legitimate LP in Oregon, and who the LP will nominate for president next year. Why would a self-described National Socialist care about any of these things? How would it know what motel rooms we stay in and what we say on the phone and even that Andy was in jail essay using order of impression blade runner and frankenstein essay audison thesis hv venti цена click see custom dissertation introduction ghostwriting website online alcohol and prednisone buy viagra nhs https://www.nypre.com/programs/problem-solution-essay-topics-for-college/37/ top article review ghostwriter services here thesis editing services malaysia go to link https://www.guidelines.org/blog/writing-grade-level/93/ law assignment help https://calaverashumane.org/health/8ahr0cdovlzixni4xnz/15/ how to write assignments for university https://classicalmandolinsociety.org/how-to-find-out-if-my-ip-address-is-hacked/ generic viagra tablets promethazine hcl nursing considerations for lasix cheapest pfizer viagra online https://dvas.org/does-health-america-cover-viagra-1546/ https://rainierfruit.com/viagra-brands-in-the-philippines/ http://laclawrann.org/programs/how-strong-is-250-grams-o-amoxicillian/17/ cialis before alcohol buy online essay essay online go to site proofreading references https://geneseelandlordassoc.org/category/bu-supplement-essay/44/ buy paper raffia http://snowdropfoundation.org/papers/order-to-write-assignment-top-10/12/ go here before he got a chance to call anyone to let anyone know?

  48. Wes Wagner

    Paulie

    What you describe means that Wake Up is an agent in your close circle. There are ways to run a successful witch hunt, close ranks and purge to resolve these things.

  49. paulie Post author

    ” I’m horrfied at the way you talk to other LNC members.”

    I don’t generally wade into LNC internal politics, but I’ll second this sentiment.

    While there are certainly things that I don’t agree with Scott Lieberman about, lack of decorum is not generally one of his faults. No one is perfect, but I’ve seen other LNC members be much more impolite to fellow LNC members than anything I ever recall Scott Lieberman saying. I also tried to be polite and friendly to everyone although sometimes I fall short.

  50. paulie Post author

    What you describe means that Wake Up is an agent in your close circle. There are ways to run a successful witch hunt, close ranks and purge to resolve these things.

    That still wouldn’t explain certain things such as the ability to spoof IPs and to know that Andy was arrested before he could make a phone call. I know some of the things it knows only Andy and me knew, although I think all of them were mentioned in email, phone or texts on our phones, even if only to each other. I know it’s not me, and even if someone doesn’t believe me about that (another (?) troll, or maybe the same troll/group under another name, Nathan Norman, is all over the web claiming that this entity is actually me), the objective fact is that it knew that Andy was in jail before he had a chance to call me or anyone else. I also know that it can’t be Andy, since he was in jail at the time with no access to internet when that was posted, among many other reasons. And yes, once this entity told me, I did verify that Andy was in fact in jail, although how would I have even known to ask them if it hadn’t told me? It was not like I or anyone else anticipated that he may get arrested that day.

  51. paulie Post author

    oddly childless group of people.

    I’m only biologically childless if I am infertile – as a youngster, I had zero sense of responsibility, ridicuous amounts of both motive and opportunity, and my natural compunction to take all sorts of things to insane extremes. It probably sounds like I’m bragging, but I’m not, because I regret being so irresponsible… but the numbers were right up there with rock star and sports legends. It is very hard to believe by looking at me now, but I was young, in good shape, with plenty of money and lots of the best coke to be found anywhere and thousands of connections in every conceivable field because I had the ability to memorize thousands of phone numbers – a trait some people found very useful – no moral compass to keep me from doing anything at all, lots of energy and arrogance and using no protection – really, I can only hope I am in fact infertile … but regardless, I’ve never raised any chidren.

    Does this latter fact say something about me, and if so, what?

  52. paulie Post author

    Spoofing IPs is easy…

    You would know better than me. I suppose hacking into our email accounts and phones is doable too, and a skill a fair number of people have, which could account for having all that information, even if it’s a person or several people we never physically met. However – is there any explanation for **knowing Andy was in jail before had been allowed to make a single phone call**? At this point Andy was by himself in a city which was two or three hours from any of the rest of us. And the jail has records of when he made his calls, so he can prove that the IPR comment which first mentioned that he was arrested was before he ever called a single person.

  53. Jeff Davidson

    Apologies as this is only tangentially related to the issue at hand, but how does state membership in the LP work? Why or how can people who do not live in a state be members of that state’s affiliate?

  54. paulie Post author

    Apologies as this is only tangentially related to the issue at hand, but how does state membership in the LP work? Why or how can people who do not live in a state be members of that state’s affiliate?

    Each state LP defines its own rules. Some require living there and some don’t.

  55. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie, perhaps I’m more upset about Scott’s behavior because he represents the state I’m in. Also, my reason for pointing out the group is mostly childless is because perhaps they don’t realize they’re acting like children.

  56. paulie Post author

    Doesn’t look at this point like we are on track towards Scott Lieberman’s guesstimate of 315 comments on this thread in the first week, although there’s still time.

  57. Andy

    “Wake Up” and most (or all) of the trolling here is government connected. This is the only thing that makes sense.

  58. paulie Post author

    I don’t think all trolling here is government-connected, but I don’t see who else would be able to get all of the information “Wake Up” gets, have that much time to spend on it, etc.

  59. George Phillies

    Actually, it is entirely obvious who had the information, but I do not see why he would have done
    this, and I would not have guessed he had adequate electronic skills to obfuscate the addresses.
    I do not mean the last point as a matter of disrespect, just we are not all omniscient, and I guessed his skills are elsewhere.

    Having said that I believe it is worthwhile to have a legitimate discussion of whether or not the Judicial Committee has Jurisdiction *at this time*. There is a trivial way for them to be given jurisdiction for a few thousand dollars.

  60. paulie Post author

    Actually, it is entirely obvious who had the information, but I do not see why he would have done
    this, and I would not have guessed he had adequate electronic skills to obfuscate the addresses.
    I do not mean the last point as a matter of disrespect, just we are not all omniscient, and I guessed his skills are elsewhere.

    Not sure who you mean (although I’m curious) but once again consider:

    While there are a few people who had some of this info, only two people had all of the different info that he/she/it/they posted: me and Andy.

    I know it wasn’t me, but if anyone doubts this, it is provable that Andy hadn’t called me – or anyone else – to tell them he had been arrested in Arkansas at the time this person or group posted a comment about it IPR.

    And it couldn’t have been Andy, because he was in jail with no cell phone or computer access at that moment.

    It couldn’t have been any petitioner or LP member who saw him get arrested, because he was in a different part of Arkansas than the rest of us at that time, 2 or 3 hours from any other petitioners, and not near any LP activists we knew.

    The only other way to have gotten all of this information is to have Andy and my phones tapped and our email hacked into. Some of the IP addresses were not just obscured (anonymized), which is very easy, but spoofed (impersonated) which is somewhat more difficult.

    Having said that I believe it is worthwhile to have a legitimate discussion of whether or not the Judicial Committee has Jurisdiction *at this time*. There is a trivial way for them to be given jurisdiction for a few thousand dollars.

    Not sure what that way is either, although I am also curious.

  61. Andy

    George, who is it that you suspect to be the perpetrator?

    FYI, there are some other weird things that have happened in regard to this stuff which have not been discussed on this forum.

  62. George Phillies

    Andy,
    It should be obvious. You. (8^))
    All we would need to do is to explain how you had internet access while you were in the hoosegow, but that is a much simpler puzzle to solve.
    George

  63. paulie Post author

    As already noted above Nathan Norman once again popped up with the accusation that it’s me again. I already addressed that above: even if you don’t believe me, it’s a provable fact that I did not know that Andy was in jail at the time it was first posted about here.

    Yes, Nathan’s comments do get deleted, and so do “wake up’s” except when they get replies. Many more get deleted than remain posted.

    And Phillies said:

    All we would need to do is to explain how you had internet access while you were in the hoosegow, but that is a much simpler puzzle to solve.

    Please solve it then.

  64. Andy

    “George Phillies

    July 27, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    Andy,
    It should be obvious. You. (8^))
    All we would need to do is to explain how you had internet access while you were in the hoosegow, but that is a much simpler puzzle to solve.
    George

    George Phillies

    July 27, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    It’s the classic solution to the locked room mystery…the perp was in the room to begin with.”

    If this is a serious suggestion, then it makes me think that George could be the troll, because it damn sure is not me.

    I had no phone or internet access while I was in jail, so it would have been impossible for me to be posting on IPR.

    Furthermore, I would not send out mass emails slandering myself and telling people to not hire me, nor would I slander myself online, nor would I do the other messed up and destructive things that have happened.

  65. Michael H. Wilson

    Is it foolish to suggest that rather than go through all of the JudComm nonsense that Burke and company get organized, show up at the next state convention and vote out anyone who is not on their side? Yea that is a real question

  66. Michael H. Wilson

    Paulie wrote, ” I would not be surprised at all if he drafted or helped draft the appeal he will now preside ruling on.” Burke once did something similar when he was on the LPO JudCom. He wrote a complaint about someone in an effort to toss that person out of the LPO and had someone else submit it then when challenged said that even though he had written the complaint he could be a fair judge of it.

  67. paulie Post author

    MHW,

    The two sides don’t have the same voting methods or the same definitions of memberhip. The Wagner/Hedbor side conducts its elections by a vote of all the registered Libertarians in Oregon through mail ballot, whereas the Burke/Reeves/Epstein side have conventions where dues paying LP members make those decisions.

    If you didn’t already know this I’m surprised.

  68. Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks Paulie I haven’t been paying attention to Oregon for some time. It isn’t worth effort. Only if you like a continual soap opera. Or maybe that is Soup Opera.

  69. paulie Post author

    Even if you haven’t paid attention for a while that part is very basic as it is kind of the whole linchpin of the conflict. Regardless, thanks for introducing the question because I’m sure other people who haven’t kept up with all the old threads may have been asking something like that too.

  70. Bob Tiernan

    Wes: “You forgot about the part about M Carling, plaintiff in the lawsuit, accepted the petition and deemed it justicable in less than 2 hours during the middle of a work day.”
    .
    .
    Paulie: “It took him over an hour?”
    .
    .
    Well, he had to make it look like he thought about it for a little while.
    .
    .B Tiernan

  71. Bob Tiernan

    Burke: “We may not get the outcome we desire from the Judicial Committee. If we do, we also have a new Secretary of State and a new Director of Elections that may see things as past Secretaries of State have, particularly Phil Keisling, and not as Kate Brown and Stephen Trout saw them. If this happens, we will not lose ballot access in Oregon no matter what Mr. Wagner does.”
    .
    .
    Oh, here we go again! Burke is ALWAYS shopping for “better” judges, “better” JudComs, “better” convention delegates, “better” State Coms, “better” LNC members, and on and on. When he won anything at a low level he’d say game over, we won. When he lost, he’d claim that we had to go to a higher authority (until he won). Then it was “over”, for good, as he saw it.
    .
    Burke, you’re a low-life excrement. Can’t you find anything else to do? Go watch porn – one of your favorite activities. Like you always did at the LPO HQ office.
    .
    B Tiernan

  72. Bob Tiernan

    Michael Wilson: “Burke once did something similar when he was on the LPO JudCom. He wrote a complaint about someone in an effort to toss that person out of the LPO and had someone else submit it then when challenged said that even though he had written the complaint he could be a fair judge of it.”
    .
    .
    That’s right. It was in 1994 when he wanted to remove Jon Zimmer from the party, so he wrote the petition, had others sign it, and then voted to remove Zimmer. This was also when he was serving on the State Com at the same time, as “Immediate Past Chair”. He claimed he was not violating the Bylaws rule on serving on both by saying he “was not an *officer*” on the State Com. Even if “officer” means Treasurer, Secretary etc and not a position such as “director at large”, he ignored the spirit of the bylaws. Because he’s excrement.
    .
    B Tiernan

  73. George Phillies

    I do not have a solution. However, if a fact is actually only known to two people, it was used, and one of them did not use it, then the other becomes suspect.

    As I said, “I do not see why he would have done this,”. It makes no sense.

  74. paulie Post author

    Neither of us could have done it, and both are damaged by it.

    The only explanation is that someone is able to monitor our phone conversations, texts and emails. As it so happens, there is an entity which it has now become common knowledge does exactly that routinely.

    There are other indicators that this is the case – for example, profile studies of past instances where similar surveillance and disruption techniques have been found and exposed with some of the exact same methodology and techniques being used, and what appears to be different people with access to a common database of information and talking points but different levels of ability and interest in accessing it – almost like different signatures. That’s why we are hypothesizing that we are not dealing with a single individual, but rather a group of some sort working together.

  75. George Phillies

    Paulie, What you say makes sense if you are absolutely confident of your time chops.

    The opposite of the Oregon appeal is ‘makes sense’. I am advised that there is also litigation in Oregon, and that the Reeves faction as the people appealing waived oral arguments, so the judge is now deciding.

    George

  76. Jill Pyeatt

    I believe Aaron Starr has stopped paying the attorney. Perhaps Tyler Smith isn’t getting paid.

  77. paulie Post author

    Reeves faction as the people appealing waived oral arguments, so the judge is now deciding.

    New info to me. Any additional details?

  78. George Phillies

    I address the Judicial Committee as a State Chair, an interested party.

    I urge that the Judicial Committee after due consideration decline to act on the request from the Reeves faction in Oregon, at least until they present a 10%/1% petition for appealing an LNC decision:

    (1) There is no indication in the Party Bylaws that the Judicial Committee has the authority to hear appeals of Judicial Committee decisions. Therefore, if the Oregon message is an appeal of a Judicial Committee decision, it cannot be heard by the Judicial Committee, because they do not have the authority to hear it.

    (2) By ruling of the Judicial Committee, we do have an Oregon affiliate, until recently chaired by Mr. Wagner. That ruling is currently in place, and binds the Judicial Committee to recognize the Wagner group until the Judicial Committee decision is overturned. Therefore, it is only the Wagner party that can appeal a disaffiliation to the Judicial Committee, and they have not done so. The Reeves faction cannot appeal a decision under the guise of being a disaffiliated state party, because the state party by ruling of the Judicial Committee is someone else.

    (3) An LNC decision could be appealed under National Bylaws 8.12, but that requires a petition signed by 10%/1% of the eligible people. One might reasonably propose that the petition route could be used to open up this issue for Judicial Committee action again, on the grounds there was an LNC action. However, no such petition has been submitted.

    (4) The “notice of receipt of revocation”, if there was one, happened years ago, so the matter is beyond its time limit specified in 6.6.. The current LNC is simply maintaining the status quo that was fixed years ago. If the maintenance of the status quo is viewed as an appealable decision, then defeated factions will be able to file appeals ad infinitum, once for each time the LNC performs an act that continues the status quo.

    Finally, the ballotpedia document is simply wrong in its discussion of Massachusets. I have corresponded with Ballotpedia, but they just don’t get it.

    Primus, Massachusetts has major parties (term of art “Political Parties”) and minor parties (term of art “Political Designations”). All these groups are “ballot qualified”: Candidates may run with their party name, e.g., “Green-Rainbow”, no matter if “Green-Rainbow” is a Political Party or a Political Designation. Candidates of Parties and Desigantions get on a ballot via collecting signatures on nominating papers. Voters may register (term of art is “Enroll”) with their party, no matter whether the group is a Political Party or a Political Desigantion, and the Enrolled voters for each Party and Designation are counted the same way.

    Secundus, the Ballotpedia list only covers our four major parties, and does not include our two dozen Political Designations.

    Tertius, A list of minor parties, as recognized by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, reads
    Designation Name

    America First Party
    American Independent Party
    American Term Limits
    Conservative Party
    Constitution Party
    Green Party USA <– not the Green-Rainbow party
    Interdependent 3rd Party
    Libertarian
    Massachusetts Independent Party
    Natural Law Party
    New Alliance Party
    New World Council
    Pirate
    Pizza Party
    Prohibition Party
    Rainbow Coalition
    Reform Party
    Socialist
    Twelve Visions Party
    Timesizing Not Downsizing
    Veterans Party America
    We The People
    Working Families
    World Citizens Party

    Ergo, the claim of the appeal that Massachusetts Libertarians are not recognized by the Secretary of the Commonwealth is simply wrong.

  79. Jill Pyeatt

    You make some excellent points, George.

    I expect the current members of the Judicial Committee will ignore them.

  80. George Phillies

    Sarwark responds to Judicial Committee:

    Forwarded message ———-
    From: Nicholas Sarwark
    Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:40 PM
    Subject: Judicial Committee Meeting to be held on August 15th
    To: (List of Judicial Committee members)

    Dear Mr. Carling and other members of the Judicial Committee,

    I recently received notice that there will be a meeting of your
    committee held on August 15th to “consider the case of Ian Epstein vs.
    the Libertarian National Committee and to consider rescinding or
    amending something previously adopted in the related case of Wes
    Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee.” This was the first I
    had heard that your committee had agreed that Mr. Epstein’s petition
    was valid and fell under the specifically enumerated list of matters
    the Judicial Committee could consider pursuant to Article 9, Section 2
    of the Bylaws, which states:

    “The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited
    to consideration of only those matters expressly identified as
    follows:
    a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6),
    b. suspension of officers (Article 7, Section 7),
    c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 8, Section 5),
    d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 8, Section 12),
    e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 5, Section 7),
    f. challenges to Resolutions (Rule 6, Section 2), and
    g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates
    (Article 15, Section 5).”

    The only previous communication I had received regarding this issue
    was on July 23rd, when I received the following email:

    “Dear Mr. Sarwark,

    You are named as a potential respondent in the attached appeal to the
    LP Judicial Committee. Please also find attached a copy of the
    current LP bylaws and the rules of appellate procedure of the Judicial
    Committee.

    M Carling
    Chairman, LP Judicial Committee”

    I would note that the email copied verbatim above did not include,
    “notice that if the prospective respondent(s) desires to respond to
    the petition(s) the prospective respondent(s) must do so in writing
    within seven days (or promptly, if the request is received during a
    National Convention) (“response”)” as is apparently required by the
    Judicial Committee Rules of Appellate Procedure, section 2. As I was
    not noticed that I was to respond, I did not do so.

    If I had been noticed, I would have responded that Mr. Epstein’s
    demand that I recognize his group as the affiliate of the Libertarian
    National Committee in Oregon and my subsequent declining to accede to
    that demand was not a suspension of an affiliate party, since his
    group was not currently the affiliate pursuant to the prior decision
    of the Judicial Committee. Him sending an email does not magically
    make his group the affiliate and then suspend that affiliate, creating
    standing to appeal to the Judicial Committee and force a change in the
    affiliate party out of whole cloth. There needs to be an action of
    the LNC that falls under the specifically enumerated list of Judicial
    Committee subject matter jurisdiction to have an appeal, not the
    routine email correspondence of the Chair. As to the substance of Mr.
    Epstein’s demand, my response speaks for itself.

    If the Judicial Committee does intend to consider Mr. Epstein’s
    petition and/or to reopen the decision from two terms ago, I would ask
    that Mr. Carling recuse himself from any consideration.

    As I am certain all members of the Judicial Committee are aware, Mr.
    Carling is a member of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling acted as
    Chair Pro Tem during the 2013 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr.
    Carling was elected as a member of the Judicial Committee of at the
    2013 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group. Mr. Carling was elected as
    Chair of the Judicial Committee of Mr. Epstein’s group after the
    adjournment of their 2013 convention. Mr. Carling was re-elected to
    the Judicial Committee at the 2014 convention of Mr. Epstein’s group.
    Mr. Carling again acted as Chair Pro Tem at the 2015 convention of Mr.
    Epstein’s group at which Mr. Epstein was elected Chair. Mr. Carling
    is a named plaintiff in the case of Reeves et. al. v. Wagner et. al.,
    (Clackamas
    County Circuit Court No. CV12010345) and is an appellant in the
    pending appeal of the dismissal of that case by the circuit court (CA
    A155618).

    As a member of Mr. Epstein’s group who has previously acted in
    leadership roles at convention and presently is a member of that
    group’s Judicial Committee, as well as a plaintiff in a lawsuit
    against Mr. Wagner’s group that was dismissed and is presently on
    appeal, Mr. Carling would benefit from a Judicial Committee ruling in
    favor of Mr. Epstein’s group or a reconsideration of the previous
    Judicial Committee ruling that recognized Mr. Wagner’s group. His
    position as plaintiff and appellant would be improved by a ruling from
    the Judicial Committee that would strengthen his case.

    For the above reasons, I ask Mr. Carling to recuse himself from any
    decision on whether Mr. Epstein’s petition is valid and falls under
    the specifically enumerated list of subject matter jurisdiction of the
    Judicial Committee, and also ask him to recuse himself from
    consideration of Mr. Epstein’s petition or reconsideration of the
    petition from Mr. Wagner from two terms ago.

    Yours in liberty,

    Nicholas J. Sarwark

    Chair, Libertarian National Committee

    cc: members of the Judicial Committee; the LNC Business list.

  81. George Phillies

    It is noteworthy that a series of people were sent a notice that they were named as potential respondents, but in the end most of them were not named; only the LNC was named. It follows that the “potential respondent” letter could not have been the formal notice that you are a respondent letter, because if so all those other ‘potential respondents’ would still be listed as respondents. Thus, the LNC has never actually been given notice.

  82. Jill Pyeatt

    So, if these characters go through their mock vote and make an adverse decision, will there be
    any recourse? As per Nick’s letter, the JC really doesn’t have the right per bylaws to take up this issue, and now we see the LNC wasn’t properly noticed. Can we go ahead and set up a
    recall or anything? Or, will we just have to accept it and any fallout that comes of it?

  83. Jill Pyeatt

    I wonder if the LNC can just ignore any ruling the JC comes up with, since the issue isn’t something outlined in the bylaws that the JC can handle? I would certainly support that.

  84. Jill Pyeatt

    I received a second email from M Carling this afternoon:

    Re: JC meeting

    M Carling (mcarling@gmail.com)

    To: jcpyeatt@hotmail.com, travellingcircus@gmail.com, jill@jillpyeatt.com Cc: steven r Linnabary, Rebecca Sink-Burris, AR Wolf, Rob Latham, Rob Power, dianna.visek@gmail.com
    mcarling@gmail.com
    Ms. Pyeatt and fellow members of the Judicial Committee:

    I owe all of you an apology. I did not recall correctly the details of an email sent more than a year ago, when there was discussion during the election for Chair of the Judicial Committee about the possibility of a case concerning the ongoing dispute in Oregon.

    One of the lawyers serving on the Judicial Committee only opined regarding the second numbered point below (that recusal is not required) and has not opined on the first point (whether or not a conflict of interest might exist). I should have re-read that email before answering Ms. Pyeatt.

    With my sincere apologies,

    M

    So, only two attorneys on the Judicial Committee think there is no conflict of interest with M voting on the Oregon revisit vote. Does anyone know who those two attorneys are? I’d love to have their reasoning for my article.

Leave a Reply

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