The Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee meets tomorrow in a virtual meeting to discuss whether they will overturn the prior Judicial Committee’s decision from 2011 regarding the ongoing, complicated matter of who the legitimate affiliate for the Oregon LP is.
IPR has written at length about the dispute, and the reader can learn about the 2011 events from this article. There are links in the article to provide history on the dispute prior to the September 2011 Judicial Committee (which I’ll now call JC) decision. The decision wasn’t well received by the members of Libertarian National Committee (which will be referred to from now on as the LNC). Here is an article discussing that.
Moving forward to 2015, much has happened in the interim. The leaders of the losing group, which for now will be referred to as the Reeves group, filed a lawsuit to the Oregon Secretary of State to prove that they are the legitimate affiliate, not the other group, for now called the Wagner group. In May of 2013, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying in essence (to this layperson) that the LP should settle its own issues. The decision was then appealed, which is where we are now. The appeal is currently awaiting a decision by a judge.
During the period of time between the 2011 JC opinion and now, much was written on IPR. An interested reader can put “Oregon” in our searchbox, and spend the entire weekend reading about the legal actions, and also the activities of both affiliates. Most of the articles have multiple links within them. Both groups held conventions and recruited candidates. The Wagner group, who had and still has ballot access, ran a record number of candidates in the past couple of elections.
The Judicial Committee elected at the national convention in 2014 recently announced that they would review the decision from 2011. That meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Both groups have elected new leadership since 2011, and the chair of the Reeves group is now Ian Epstein. The new chairman of the Wagner group is Lars Hedbor.
The chairman of the Judicial Committee is M Carling, a longtime member of the Libertarian Party. He has been part of the Oregon dispute since at least 2011 and is listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit which is currently under appeal. There has been discussion among many LP members that Mr. Carling should recuse himself because of what some people perceive to be a conflict of interest. IPR has covered many of the emails and discussions, either in the recent thread about Oregon, or in the thread about George Phillies’ August 2015 edition of Liberty for America. I’ll list them here to continue telling the story.
I may have been the first person who asked Mr. Carling to recuse himself. Here is the email I sent on August 11:
Since you have been involved in the Oregon lawsuit from the beginning, I’m sure you can see that it would be conflict of interest for you to vote in the meeting on Saturday. I’m requesting that you recuse yourself.
Thank you,
Jill Pyeatt
Regional Chairperson for the Libertarian Party,
Pasadena/Glendale Region
Judicial Committee LPCA
Judicial Committee LP Los Angeles County
Mr. Carling responded fairly quickly:
1. The three lawyers on the Judicial Committee are of the unanimous opinion that I do not have a conflict of interest in the case of Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee, either in the legal sense or in the RONR sense.
2. In the hypothetical case that a member of the Judicial Committee would have a conflict of interest, there is no requirement in our Bylaws, in the Judicial Committee’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, or in Robert’s Rules of Order which would require a member of the Judicial Committee to recuse herself.
3. There seems to be no precedent in the history of the LP of a member of the Judicial Committee ever recusing herself.
Despite the foregoing, I will take your request under advisement.
Regards,
M Carling
It is unknown whether anyone else wrote to Mr. Carling. However, we know that Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian Party, sent this email:
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.
I received another email from Mr. Carling on the evening of the 12th:
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
I was unable to determine who the attorneys were who do not think Mr. Carling has a conflict of interest, and as a result, was unable to ask for comment.
As of this writing, it appears the virtual meeting will go on as planned.
Update: The draft minutes of the Judicial Committee meeting held on August 15, 2015 were posted by George Phillies in an IPR comment written on August 15, 2015 at 6:39 pm:
The draft minutes, all committee members being present.
Rule limiting debate to speaking twice per day on the same topic suspended by unanimous consent.
Moved and seconded to Rescind the Judicial Committee decision issued on August 25, 2011, including the amendment issued on September 23, 2011, in the matter titled Wes Wagner vs. the libertarian National Committee.
A point of order was raised on whether or not the motion to Rescind is order. The Chair ruled that Rescind is in order. The ruling of the Chair was appealed. The ruling of the Chair was sustained 4-2, with the Chair abstaining.
A question of parliamentary inquiry was raised on the vote required to Rescind. Because notice was given in the call to meeting and because no member of the Judicial Committee voted in the majority (either of these two reasons sufficing to require a majority vote), a majority vote is sufficient to Rescind.
The votes on the motion to Rescind are 4 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: No, Power: No, Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to Rescind carries. Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, and as amended, is rescinded.
Moved and seconded to dismiss the petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee. The votes are 6 in the affirmative and 0 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: Yes Power: Yes Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to dismiss carries. The petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee is dismissed.
Some comments may be missing from this thread; check archive.org to see.
Good question.
Dave Terry has decided against running for President? Why is this not an IPR article yet?!
Paulie those are my thoughts as well. He hasn’t disappeared, we have had a few chit chat emails.
No rush. He’s more than welcome to take his time.
NOTICE:
After brief and cursory reflection, I have decided NOT to seek the office of President of the United States in 2016
You won’t … if he had good evidence to respond to these issues they would have presented it in their summary judgment filings and it would be readily available.
FYI- I have not heard further from Richard, but if his life is anything like mine- it is having a crazy moment in busy-ness.
Just wanted to post the status though.
Exactly.
“Delegates shall be required to be members of either the Party or an affiliate party. At all
Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the
Convention. At all Non-Regular Conventions, any person who wishes to attend may do
so.”
How would delegates even be selected to a “Special” convention?
— make the call…. I hate my fat fingers sometimes.
Dave,
==Excuse ME? Where is the logic that would demand that one’s “personal interest” in a decision
necessarily requires that person to disengage from deliberation.==
There is a context to that statement. This is well settled in courts of law. Judges recuse themselves all the time. Mediators and arbitrators won’t take a case in similar situations. When one’s personal interest is different than that of the organization or group or people one is acting on behalf of, one should recuse themselves.
As an example, I used to own a large debate forum. If a moderator was involved in a debate and a moderating questions came up, another uninvolved moderator must make the care.
I think this is basic intuitive sense. I recused myself from many a decision in that forum even though I owned the place.
Tiernan; “I am not a crook!”
What a hoot! If you have to SAY that, than you MUST be!
.
You may be right (as you say the lawyers have advised) in the letter of the law, but not right in the libertarian spirit of what we members expect. It is a matter of simple sense that your personal interest in this renders it impossible to be unbiased…. at the very least, even if a right decision was reached, it would be forever tainted by these suspicions.
Excuse ME? Where is the logic that would demand that one’s “personal interest” in a decision
necessarily requires that person to disengage from deliberation.
“You have died of dysentery”
“I see the plan! You want me to post on Oregon stuff:)”
You could be a special correspondent on “The Oregon Trail”
Tom,
[[blush]]
Steve,
==Unfortunately, the LNC IS involved. ==
Yes and no. I think what Daniel and I meant (I know what I meant) is that now a suit is involved, they need to stay out of it until it is resolved. Particularly since the suit is a direct result of the JC decision four years ago. Let’s say the LNC resolved it was going to recognize Wagner… well the Reeves group detrimentally relied upon the idea that if they won in Court that they would be recognized. And what if the Court recognizes someone different than the LNC does (I am simplifying what an actual Court case would do, but you get the picture)? One could argue, though not as successfully, in reverse, the Wagner group relied upon the Court decision being the final route. While there are legal matters pending, the LNC needs to abate its decision-making. (and once again I reiterate that I don’t think it has the bylaws authority in such decision-making)
Burke: “I am not evil”
.
.
What a hoot! If you have to say that, then you are (“I am not a crook!”)
.
B. Tiernan
You care about the facts enough to try and get them right.
You take the time to write well even in blog comments, a venue not noted for careful attention to grammar, spelling and detail.
The plan is to get you to post, period 😀
Paulie,
==The idea is fine; I just have an irrational aversion to posting about it myself. I have no logical explanation for this since I am clearly not averse to commenting about it.
Say, have we signed up Caryn as a writer yet?==
I see the plan! You want me to post on Oregon stuff:)
I am of course skewed by being involved here – but to put this to bed, I wouldn’t be so sure of lack of appetite.
There is no decision yet. There is a leak of a draft of minutes summarizing the action, but no decision that I’m aware of.
As to the appetite, it was in reference to a special national convention. I don’t think that delegates from across the country want to show up on short notice to address whatever does happen when the regularly scheduled national convention is only nine months away.
The idea is fine; I just have an irrational aversion to posting about it myself. I have no logical explanation for this since I am clearly not averse to commenting about it.
Say, have we signed up Caryn as a writer yet?
Paulie, you might want to ask Richard if he wants it to be a new article. He might appreciate the forum. I’m kind of sick of this topic, so someone else posting it would probably be a good idea.
Thank you for the update and yes, it is certainly completely understandable. The good news here is that now that we are well into record comment count territory, we can all afford to make the next thousand comments in this thread at a much more leisurely pace; there is no longer any reason to be in a hurry here.
Unfortunately, the LNC IS involved. Their inaction regarding the rogue JC decision and the subsequent statement about the lack of appetite to do anything about it basically says that the LNC is cool with having a rogue JC, and it is cool with whatever the rogue JC does.
If this is not the case, it matters very little because this is exactly how it looks. Anyway, regardless of the fact that the LNC should stay out, unfortunately, it is IN.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
They waived their right to oral argument for the appeal. This is not the action of people who think their ability to win their case is serious.
==When I do calculations I don’t count fusion candidates. I am only concerned with pure L candidates.===
Wes,I respect that utterly. I hate “fusion.”
Appellate courts tend to be pretty stringent reviewers. I haven’t read the court file so I have to speak in the vaguest of generalities. In any case, Daniel is right, the LNC needs to stay out now that the court case is still ongoing. And if Burke is confident he will win, why the LNC games? This is NOT good for the party. Someone has to blink here.
Caryn, it’;s possible they need another “win” to help their case because of any coming court decision to reimburse the legal fees for Wes’s group. Frankly, it has been my opinion from the beginning of this episode that that was the reason. It’s hard for me to believe they think the court will rule favorably to hear the case again, but, even in the unlikely event they do, will there be funds available to pay their attorney? Mr. Starr hasn’t paid him in many months.
Richard, if you are still reading, Daniel made an excellent point. You have not declared some intention to harm the LP. IF you are confident you are going to win the suit, and it isn’t your intention to bring all this strife, then why don’t you cut Wes’ plan off at the knees by asking the LNC not to do anything until such time as the Court case is resolved? If you win, the issue has settled itself. If you don’t, there is nothing to be gained… until you want the LNC to start over with no ballot access and having to compete with using the Libertarian name? Is that what is best for the entire party? For Liberty?
Starchild,
I completely agree with your points.
All,
Richard has written to say that his defense of their votes is coming, he just got real tied up with meat-space activities. I think we all can relate.
I was going to leave this thread alone — there are intra-party fights over important matters of principle, where what needs to happen is clear as day, and then there is Oregon — but since I was mentioned here on another subject, I guess I will weigh in.
Paulie (August 20, 2015 at 1:01 pm), quoted Joe Buchman…
I remember when Starchild was on the LNC, we would consistently disclose a “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” with the broader LIBERTY MOVEMENT. Starchild was/is a stand for advancing LIBERTY and not someone who would declare putting the LNC’s existence ahead of that.
…and responded to Joe:
LNC is a fiduciary responsibility. While I would certaily hope that everyone on the LNC would place devotion to liberty over devotion to party, it’s not a conflict of interest. If and when someone concludes that the LP is or has become counterproductive to the end goal of liberty, if they are on the LNC, they should resign from the LNC. At which point there’s no conflict.
The way I usually explained it, when I had time to explain myself, went something like this:
The Libertarian Party is part of the larger libertarian movement. The libertarian movement is basically everyone who’s consciously working to advance freedom at any given time. In other words, the libertarian movement is basically libertarian and pro-freedom by definition. Organizations, on the other hand, can and do go astray from time to time (and the bigger they are and the longer they’ve been around, the more likely they are to do so — there’s a reason Thomas Jefferson liked the idea of having a revolution every 12 years). Therefore my first loyalty is to the movement, not the party, and I would hope that every other Libertarian, and member of the LNC, feels the same way. If I see a conflict between what is in the interests of the LP, and what is in the interests of the larger cause of freedom, my first loyalty is to the movement and the cause of freedom, not to the interests of the party as an organization.
Fortunately I didn’t encounter any situations during my term on the Libertarian National Committee where I felt this conflict of interest affect my actions in an official capacity. But if I had, it would not necessarily have meant that I felt the entire Libertarian Party had become “counterproductive to the end goal of liberty”. Far more likely it simply would have meant I disagreed that the narrow interests of the party ought to carry more weight than some other consideration on a particular issue. To resign in such a situation rather than cast a principled vote for doing the right thing (or against doing the wrong thing!) would itself have been counterproductive to the end goal of liberty.
For instance, if I’d been told that a major donor was weighing whether to give $10,000 to the LP to pay for us to hold our committee meetings in hotel meeting rooms with catered food, or to the Institute for Justice, and an LNC member had asked us to approve a resolution urging the donor to give us the money, I would have opposed it, because IJ getting that money would have in my estimation done more to advance freedom. And seeking to advance freedom is why I am in the LP and why I was willing to serve on the LNC in the first place. (Please note, this is a totally hypothetical example — there have been countless appeals to fund ballot access, buying an office, running TV ads, and a thousand other things, but it’s a safe bet we’ve never tried to raise money by asking donors to pay for the overpriced snacks and meeting rooms on which party funds are wasted just about every time the LNC meets. There is a reason for that, too!)
In taking such a vote I would no doubt have been accused of violating my “fiduciary responsibility” (indeed I was accused of doing so merely for serving on the LNC while holding and stating the principles I did!). But FR is something I view much the way I get the sense that you, Paulie, view RRNR (Robert’s Rules of Order) — a genuinely useful concept in some situations, but sadly one which also makes a splendid tool for justifying a whole lot of dubious if not downright unlibertarian bullshit.
Here in PA, there are some of us working with other third parties in order to widen the campaign that has been applying pressure to our state “representatives” in order to make them feel the obligation to finally pass the Voters Choice Act.
As it was, Oliver Hall WON in court with the decision declaring that the current ballot access laws are UN-Constitutional.
Time is hard for me to come by, lately, but I am working on this. While the R’s and D’s are appealing the Judge’s decision, it is one of those decisions that is meaningless without the VCA to back it up. As it is, the challenges are continuing, and they are telling all third party candidates:
“This is OUR ballot, and you are most unwelcome. You may go to the judges, and we will probably lose, but the time and money you spend doing that, is time and money you will not be campaigning.”
On top of this, we have a dysfunctional LNC that has stated, clearly, that it does not care to do anything about the JC. How motivated is a Libertarian supposed to feel when his organization is an embarrassment?
Know this. I do what I do to help our local candidates, THAT’S IT.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Wes..I saw a guy today talk about how he went inactive over all the infighting in Oregon years back…So…meh…Say whatever you want…there are people that hate You and Burke.
And you want it to be that Way WES….braugh..You wanna play the victim. I bet it excites you to think that the LNC might disaffiliate the LPO. ME? I am from a state that has good ballot access. I understand that having a bunch of candidates on the ballot that you have a chance of winning is WAY better than having someone on the Presidential line that will get 2%. So good luck with that Wes. Hope you guys get some Libertarians elected to office.
“In fact, LPO held up its end of the deal WELL above and beyond the call of duty in 2012 when it allowed the LNC to use its presidential ballot line even after having its legitimate delegation to the presidential nominating convention replaced by the impostor organization’s representatives.
And yet the LNC and its subcommittees continue to attack their affiliate rather than support it.”
^^^ This
Yep.
Daniel,
Well, here’s the state perspective:
The LNC is supposed to support its affiliates, not attack its affiliates. ESPECIALLY when those affiliates are functional organizations which hold up their end of the deal.
Where the rubber meets the road, LPO has held up its end of the deal. It is a functioning state party that puts candidates on the ballot.
In fact, LPO held up its end of the deal WELL above and beyond the call of duty in 2012 when it allowed the LNC to use its presidential ballot line even after having its legitimate delegation to the presidential nominating convention replaced by the impostor organization’s representatives.
And yet the LNC and its subcommittees continue to attack their affiliate rather than support it.
Paulie,
I was speaking more from the State perspective. That said, do we not draw a line somewhere?
As to Oregon and what I think should happen. I think either, the EC should rescind something previously adopted which removes the decision that the JC made that was appealed. More likely cause I dont see enough votes on the EC making that happen, the LNC should just ignore the Carling ruling..errr wait it wasnt a ruling..the rescinding of something previously adopted. because its out of order.
As to the Wagnerian faction, we shouldn’t disaffiliate Wes, it’s what he wants. Its to give him ammunition to scream and cry that he has been further aggrieved. IF They decide to disaffiliate themselves, it’s NOT the end of the world. There WILL still be Libertarians on the ballot in Oregon, they just wont be directly affiliated with the National Libertarian party. Oregon has good ballot access. It’s not like some states where the ONLY thing you can get on the ballot is a Presidential candidate. Oregon will be fine.
While its more desirable to have a Presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, for me, at present coming from a pragmatic standpoint, I am only interested in it in so far as it can help me registered new Libertarians in La and thereby empower ourselves even more on the local level and get more candidates into office. If Judge Napalitano suddenly decides he wants the nomination, then I become a LOT more interested in the race for that office.
Contrary to what Wes desires, the NLP won’t implode if they leave. EVEN if we get a bunch of lawsuits. IF we really were going to crack..you’d suddenly see a bunch of money come off the sidelines. The NLP isnt going to go poof.
I haven’t been a voter in quite a few years, mainly due to paperwork issues. I stopped using an SSN about 15-20 years ago and my state ID expired by early 2008. Since they want an SSN even though they already had it as part of my old one I have not been able to get my ID renewed. Also I have a disqualifying felony, which is not necessarily an issue since there are states that don’t care and with my nomadic lifestyle I could figure out a way to get registered in one of them….but then they still need a current state ID and/or SSN so I’m out of luck on that one. I’m still very active in the political process, both in general politics and LP internal politics, despite not personally voting in government elections in the last dozen years. But I guess I would be one of the people that would not get a vote on party matters if it was limited to registered voters. Also, I am a life member of national and that cost me $1,000 which is a lot of money for me. So I can only imagine how pissed I would get if national told me my life membership was cancelled and I don’t get to vote on party members anymore due to my paperwork issues with the state and stupid criminal shit I did well over a decade ago.
On another note, Wes, we have spoken and I think we have a better understanding of each other than we did when we first corresponded. Around the time I told your group to disaffiliate..get it done..stop talking about it etc. Your side conversed back. Their(Burke) side didnt write me back despite my asking them for more info. The Reeves/Burke faction blew me off. Maybe its cause I am just a new lowly alternate. That is something I noted in the back of my brain. I don’t consider myself that important, but I do SOMETIMES have a vote, and had a very good relationship with the Rep ahead of me. It didnt necessarily mean anything, they might have missed the email or whatever, but it’s a little piece of data.
I personally prefer the SOME of the way you have amended your bylaws as to who can vote.( I just dont like way you did it. Which shouldn’t be my concern, yet..it keeps being made my concern and that bugs me.) I think that ONLY registered voters in each state should be able to vote on matters in the Party in that state. And if they have recognized voter affiliation like Oregon and Louisiana do, only those that are registered as affiliated with the Party should have a vote on Party business then. That said, I DO think you need some form of Opt in..be it dues or simply filling out a form with the LPO. Some do register L and have no idea what it is and wont participate in your mail votes. Once again, that all said, I dont get a vote until I move to Oregon. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Wes,
If you say there are NO Oregonians that are Libertarianesque that don’t hate your faction and the Burke Faction, I think you need to get ya meds bubba. 😀
If you read that post you question my integrity over, it was more directed at Burke than you. I expected you might take offense. Just because Oregon is performing better than most LPs doesn’t mean its performing well? How many Libertarians did Oregon elect last year? La which has only 6 congressional districts now(meaning its slightly smaller than Oregon) put 4 people into office, which was more than any other State.
That all said, I SUSPECT that you guys ARE doing more outreach etc than the Burke people are so don’t wear the shoe if it doesn’t fit. That said, you can always do better.
I can sign off on whatever and spend some time into it. I may need some help with getting the paperwork organized though.
Also with Alabama consider all of those candidates were in county races… we were not eligible for any statewide, legislative or federal races at all.
Paulie
I think an independent PAC not subject to LNC politics would be best. I can’t offer time but I can offee money if there were a leadership team that could take it up.
Fair enough.
Good idea. That’s part of the idea with the ballot access committee I am on, but it doesn’t seem to be very active so far despite my prodding… so additional efforts would be welcome, and I would help in any way I can.
Paulie
When I do calculations I don’t count fusion candidates. I am only concerned with pure L candidates.
True, and I had quite a bit to do with two of the three states BTP got ballot access in, but there was a lot more drama than that… all for a party that put its presidential ticket on the ballot in three states once, endorsed a few candidates of other parties and maybe some independents, and as far as I know that’s it electorally. There was always some shit swirling around Jim Davidson, Todd Andrew Barnett, JW Smith, Billy Roper, Robert Milnes, Tiffany Briscoe etc etc etc….
Alabama has it hard with ballot access 🙁
This is part of why we need a national PAC to help with access that has the capability of actively attempting to change legislation and access laws as part of the strategy rather than a narrow focus on the presidential line.
Paulie
I know those people .. they just wanted a club to hang out at and pretend they belonged. While I understand their loss .. their lack of initiative to change anything is indicative of their pragmatic value to a political movement/party.
If you want to compare that Alabama only had ballot access in four counties that had candidates we actualy had more candidates per capita, I believe. And unlike Oregon we don’t have fusion so they were all LP-only. Still, good job with candidates, Oregon.
And in another IPR first….while we have had two other posts that broke 1,000 comments before…this is the first one to break 1,100.
If you want to compare how your state did in 2014 …https://www.lp.org/candidates-14
Remember to facter in the Oregon has only 7 electoral votes compared to say Ohio .. or New York … etc.
No organized third faction as far as I know, but I have talked to several Oregon Libertarians, Oregon ex-Libertarians and ex-Oregon Libertarians who are more than a little fed up with both of the feuding factions and wish there was another option…yet don’t feeled empowered to organize one themselves.
I also am getting pretty tired of lazy people who just assume Oregon is performing poorly because Burke Carling Starr and Mattson are stirring shit.
Daniel has been corrected on this point multiple times … I have begun to doubt his personal integrity.
Daniel
There is no disgruntled faction in Oregon.. the people who want an effective party that runs libertarian candidates instead of trying to be pals with the ORP are with us. The republican puppets are with Burke. The Burkies are grossly outnumbered. Our ‘faction’ is an amalgamation of all libertarian factions. The Burke faction are the republican sympathizers.
The facts on the ground in Oregon are not as they get portrayed by people in the national LP. This is not a two equally balanced feuding factions situation. It is an alliance of everyone who despised the absolute shit pool of crap Burke represents and everyone who came along who is new afterwards.
Why would a third faction emerge when there is already a functioning alliance that is posting record numbers of candidates and operates under mutual respect for our ideological differences?
It’s because they are both very “principled,” have tunnel vision from years and decades of constantly fighting each other, and no longer care or even can see the larger picture outside the frame of their tunnel vision based on their conflict with each other. Two crazy trains going off the rails and headed for a head on collision, with nuclear materials on board…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDpAfFzcRQ
Paulie wrote:
“They have to have a new, separate case to give them grounds for that, not just “reconsideration” of something from years ago. And since the Epstein petition was rejected it doesn’t really qualify as a new, separate case here.”
and Caryn wrote:
“Yes. And not only that, at least if we are going to make a Court analogy, they have to give rationale for their reversal. So far we do not have that. I do not know if we are to expect anything else from the JC on this (anyone know?)”
I agree with you guys. Like you mentioned earlier, now that this is being adjudicated…the LNC, EC and the JC should stay the hell out, at least until that is done.
Richard Burke, you think you are going to win a court case and yet you are putting the whole party through this, you are may be the biggest douche bag in the party.. Wes at least admits he wants to bring down the National Party, thinking he is going to reform it into something better. What’s your excuse?
IF you want CONTROL of the LPO, maybe you missed the memo. That aint very Libertarian. Step off the authoritarian crap.
Oregon has PARTY recognition just like La does. Get out and do some Party information booths. Keep it mostly away from the split shit show that you and Wes have created and register people. Compete against each other. If you and the Wangerians BOTH did that..Oregon would be jamming. Instead you bitches are both trying to cut each other off at the knees.
Why don’t you all both do that? Probably cause besides the Burke faction and the Wagner faction, the I AM SICK OF BOTH THESE MFers Faction would probably spring up and throw both of you out.
Grrrrrrrr
==They have to have a new, separate case to give them grounds for that, not just “reconsideration” of something from years ago. And since the Epstein petition was rejected it doesn’t really qualify as a new, separate case here.==
Yes. And not only that, at least if we are going to make a Court analogy, they have to give rationale for their reversal. So far we do not have that. I do not know if we are to expect anything else from the JC on this (anyone know?)
They have to have a new, separate case to give them grounds for that, not just “reconsideration” of something from years ago. And since the Epstein petition was rejected it doesn’t really qualify as a new, separate case here.
Correction: I see my original statement was a different one than I was recalling. I still didn’t say I didn’t remember, only that I was not referring to anyone specifically but a general observation on multiple encounters. I don’t however keep an inventory of people who have pushed that button.
Dave,
==One would think that, if such statements drove you “nuts”, you would surely remember WHO they were!==
I would note that I didn’t say I didn’t remember. I said that it wasn’t anyone here. Also as far as having an inventory, I have hundreds of FB friends and admin multiple FB groups, one of which has over three thousand members. Other statements were not from people I know personally but from perusing myriad libertarian-oriented sites (I don’t take down names when something is annoying) or in meat-life personal discussions that I am not going to drag into a political blog. Further, this topic is not primarily about that, I am not going to drag names into this discussion that are only tangentially related.
As far as your other statement:
==Not correct at all! It is rather, MORE like a court reversing itself based on new information.==
What is the new information here? You may not have seen it, but that analogy was mentioned earlier in this thread and rebutted by another commenter as not being similar to hear. I think everyone knows that Courts can reverse themselves. “Separate but equal” comes immediately to mind.
Caryn Ann Harlos, Aug 16
And just to clarify… I am not referring to anyone specifically.
One would think that, if such statements drove you “nuts”,
you would surely remember WHO they were!
Something to consider. Allowing the judicial committee to reconsider a prior JC decision is like the US Courts allowing someone to be tried for the same crime twice. Is this what we want to show the world what libertarian are about.
Not correct at all! It is rather, MORE like a court reversing itself based on new information.
This is a list of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that have been
explicitly overruled, in part or in whole, by a subsequent decision of the Court
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S.
100 (1941)
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35 (1966)
Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989)
Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co., 330 U.S. 422 (1947)
Department of Revenue v. Washington
Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (1978)
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976)
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit
Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)
Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 90 (1937)
Department of Revenue v. Washington
Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (1978)
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 (1883) Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)
Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343 (1898) Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988
Low v. Austin, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 (1872) Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276(1976)
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co.,U.S.353 (1984)
Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929) Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933)
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)
O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969) Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987)
The old 2009 bylaws were a hodgepodge of expiration terms. The judicial committee terms lasted precisely one year… which means they could expire before the next convention.
The normal officer terms had no explicit expiration date, which mean that they served until successors were elected.
The language on succession of vice-chair to chair specifically stated that the newly promoted vice chair only served as chair until the close of the next business convention.
Basically Roberts was adopted before the language of the bylaws was cleaned up with the best practices recommended by Roberts.
Either way… the alleged chain of authority that Reeves (Burke’s puppet) was completely screwed up by a lack of quorum at their meeting, invalid appointments, and by the time they raised their lawsuit all of them didn’t have standing if they applied their own rules they claimed were in force for failing to pay dues (even to themselves, but arguably they needed to be paid to the party treasury, but no payment was made) — it was so messed up it was silly for them to even lay any claim to holding title to the offices they claim they held because they were all invalidated under their own rules they allege were still in force.
That notwithstanding, the rules had been changed anyway … but to seek relief you at least need to have your own house in order.
“Parliamentary error … terms of office do not expire unless the bylaws specify a time period for the term of office, otherwise the term is until successors are elected (not appointed).
No quorum at a convention, no elections.”
There’s actually a bit of an analogous historical situation with the LNC.
In 2000, the national convention adjourned sine die after a failed quorum call, before elections to the Judicial Committee.
The LNC’s response to that situation was to decide that the existing Judicial Committee members’ terms should be considered extended to the next valid election.
If the LNC in 2000 had acted according to the logic its executive committee propounded in 2011 vis a vis Oregon, it would have claimed to “not know” who the Judicial Committee was, then recognized a “Judicial Committee” chosen by Republican National Committee chairman Jim Nicholson and some people randomly selected from a pile of phone books.
In fairness on the drama front, with respect to the Boston Tea Party, yes, there was a lot of drama.
But to the extent that one subset of the drama was somewhat analogous to the LP — Tom Stevens is a sort of lobotomized, ham-handed version of SMC — you may recall that THAT problem was handled quickly and efficiently, and that we managed to do that while simultaneously going from zero (no intention of a presidential campaign) to putting nominating a presidential slate and putting it on several state ballots in something like 60 days.
While it’s true that the LP has managed to continue putting its presidential slates on ballots through the analogous situation, it’s also true that it’s allowed that situation to fester for more than a decade now, and that that situation continues to get worse rather than better.
Good idea!
(Nothwithstanding that they lacked quorum at their alleged state committee meeting where they attempted to appoint non-qualified people to non-vacant offices)
“That means that they could have ended the convention, thereby ending the terms of the former officers. The rest is murky..”
Parliamentary error … terms of office do not expire unless the bylaws specify a time period for the term of office, otherwise the term is until successors are elected (not appointed).
No quorum at a convention, no elections.
Daniel,
In those links I provided is the JC decision and the clarification
We don’t have any photos at present at About IPR, although we should. And yes, more pink please 🙂
2A, then. See the links I posted above for the details of how the ’11 JC and what grounds they justified their ruling on.
And supposing the LNC/EC uses the ’15 “reconsideration” to constructive disaffiliate our Oregon affiliate yet again, a new challenge under 2D woud be in order. If the current JC rules against us Wagner et al on that, supposing Burke is correct above regarding one bite at the reconsideration apple, the shoe would be on the other foot and we can get a friendlier JC some time in the future for reconsideration 🙂
and Caryn beat me to the 2d thang regarding 8.12.
” this might be a rehashing but…under which of these did the Judicial Committee act in 2011.
2. 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).
2a and 2d would both seem relevant.”
Paulie…the thing about 2d though is:
Article 8.12
“Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regul
ar Convention
or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider t
he
question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified
sections of
the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, i
t shall be declared null and void. ”
They could NOT reverse the decision unless petitioned by 10% of the delegates or 1% of sustaining members. Did either of those things happen? I dont think they did.
Paulie wrote:
“They did not have quorum at the convention. It is disputed whether tey had quorum at the state committee meeting folowing.”
Paulie..there are 4 things you can do “in the absence of a quorum, the assembly max fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess, or take measures to obtain a quorum. RONR(11th ed.)p.347,ll.30-32.
That means that they could have ended the convention, thereby ending the terms of the former officers. The rest is murky..
===Caryn, we’re always looking for new writers here. We only have two rules, well three: The article needs to have a clear connection to alternate parties, or an alternate party member; the owner of our site likes a photo with every article; and we have an understanding that a writer doesn’t post his or her own article if it’s editorial in nature. We ask another writer to post it for us.
You might consider joining our staff.===
LOL you really want a pink-haired photo here?
==Concievably, but my recommendation at this time is: not yet.
Start at the regional alternate or maybe At Large level, become more familiar to the LNC members and other likely delegates, then consider a run for an officer position after at least a term on the LNC. It’s possible we could elect someone who hasn’t been on LNC – or hasn’t been on recently – as secretary or treasurer, as happened in 2012 and 2010 respectively, but I think it’s less likely.==
Paulie I agree with you. I have no aspirations at this time for that position. I intend upon running for my Region Alternate. If our current Region Rep didn’t run, I would run for that.
Caryn, we’re always looking for new writers here. We only have two rules, well three: The article needs to have a clear connection to alternate parties, or an alternate party member; the owner of our site likes a photo with every article; and we have an understanding that a writer doesn’t post his or her own article if it’s editorial in nature. We ask another writer to post it for us.
You might consider joining our staff.
Concievably, but my recommendation at this time is: not yet.
Start at the regional alternate or maybe At Large level, become more familiar to the LNC members and other likely delegates, then consider a run for an officer position after at least a term on the LNC. It’s possible we could elect someone who hasn’t been on LNC – or hasn’t been on recently – as secretary or treasurer, as happened in 2012 and 2010 respectively, but I think it’s less likely.
Will do. Will be next week. Will bring it with me camping this weekend to proof and edit (if any are needed). Thank you for offering. While it may cause some controversy with my peers, I think it will be apparent from it what my motivations are— Libertarian unity.
Length is fine. Just email it to me and the other IPR writers with contact info on the About IPR page linked at the top.
==Let me know if you want to submit it as an IPR article.==
Egad. I would be opening myself up to a whole world of controversy. Particularly amongst fellow radicals.
But yes, I would. I would like to go through it one more time to make sure it is grammatically sound, and that my positions haven’t changed at all since I wrote it. And there are a few things I would add. The length though is about three pages… is that too long? And it has endnotes…
So what would you need me to do?
Let me know if you want to submit it as an IPR article.
==2a and 2d would both seem relevant.==
2d is in conjunction with 8.12….
12. Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it shall be declared null and void.
Which doesn’t apply here. Yet.
And the grammar in that is bad. A missing comma.
Agreed!
…And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they call New York the Empire State…
🙂
2a and 2d would both seem relevant.
So would I!
And with that, we have a new IPR comment record.
Correct.
So you think the LNC/EC wil not consider the “reconsideration” to have been in order?
I tend to think they will.
Although, that brings another question to mind.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/lp-judicial-committee-meets-tomorrow-to-reconsider-prior-jc-decision-re-oregon-affiliate-carling-will-not-recuse-himself/#comment-1219608
Richard Burke writes
Would the appeal of the JC decision referenced in one of my last few comments constitute “reconsideration” under that ddefinition, or not?
It’s much debated whether that is the same thing in effect as disaffiliation and reaffiliation.
They did not have quorum at the convention. It is disputed whether tey had quorum at the state committee meeting folowing.
IPR discussion:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/lnc-loses-judicial-committee-appeal-about-oregon/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/wagner-side-of-oregon-libertarian-dispute-appeals-to-judicial-committee-again/
LNC Chair Mark Hinkle’s interpretation of the Judicial Committee’s prior ruling in that case is here.
See also:
Fourteen LNC Members File Joint Response to Judicial Committee Appeal
Legal Brief Filed by LNC Member for the Judicial Committee regarding the Oregon Ex Com Power Struggle
Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to decide fate of Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO)?
Chuck Moulton: Wes Wagner Not Chair of Oregon Libertarian Party
Wes Wagner: Here?s What Happened?
Oregon Libertarians reform state party
Wes Wagner is new LP Oregon Chair
Oregon Libertarian Convention broadcasting live?
Libertarian Party of Oregon Nominates Gubernatorial Candidate, Bickers About Bylaws
Richard Burke responds to Wes Wagner
Wes Wagner: ?My open apology to the Libertarian Party of Oregon for destroying it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4_2oU2kZMI
The Daryls get a mention @ 2:00
Jill, I love playing with language and synthesizing things I love from all over. I use quite a bit of Spanish in my vocabulary and habits as well, for although I have only a little knowledge of it, I absolutely love the Spanish language. And one day, I will learn it well. And though I am loath to admit it, I am a bit homesick for South Florida… and there, Spanish is just part of the everyday culture.
As far as Briticisms that were discussed several comments above, I enjoy using the spelling “jewellery” for my new business, along with the name of that business being “faeriejems”. No particular reason, except that I think it’s kind of cool.
Caryn said: “Mark I have stayed away from discussing the LNC personalities on this thread and will still do so.”
That was a good idea. When you’ve been around a while, you will see that some personalities seem to exhibit certain behaviors long enough that perhaps you’ll start to expect those behaviors as the norm. And, my usual disclaimer: I have never really had an opportunity to work with Alicia. I don’t know her at all. On the other hand, Aaron Starr is the one who brought me into the party. If he hadn’t done that, I wouldn’t be married to the man I’m married to, and I would never have been given my wonderful son, who is by far the best accomplishment of my life.
So, thanks for that, Aaron.
I often do that with the numbers, not so much with the Zs, although sometimes I do that too.
I learned numbers in Russia, so that may have something to do with it.
True… I haven’t noticed LP members to be unusually drama-obsessed. In IPR history, which of course is only one slice of thing, the Constitution and Boston Tea parties have probably had the most drama, especially in relation to the number of overall comments and articles about them. There’s plenty of drama revolving around the Green Party and various socialist parties, but relatively little of it has been posted here. And, of course, there’s plenty of drama in and around the establishment parties, historically in the Reform Party, and so on.
==I don’t know that my endorsement carries any weight (for some people it is probably a negative, and what few objective measures I have of my popularity in the party indicate it is not very high), but you have it if you think it is useful. You seem to be extremely dedicated, fair-minded and detail-oriented from everything I have seen here and on the various FB groups where we have conversed, with a deep understanding of libertarian principle and philosophy.===
*blush* Paulie that means a lot to me.
I am going to add this to my next week things to do.
She went out of her way to help us participate as best we could when I was going around to states on behalf of Steve Kubby. She was LPTN chair then.
RC asked: “Is the LP a party of drama addicts?”
I don’t think we are more than any other population. Some of us are very much emotionally involved with the party, and when it’s threatened, we react accordingly.
It actually hit the thousand comment mark in a lot less time than the other two took to get there.
I don’t know that my endorsement carries any weight (for some people it is probably a negative, and what few objective measures I have of my popularity in the party indicate it is not very high), but you have it if you think it is useful. You seem to be extremely dedicated, fair-minded and detail-oriented from everything I have seen here and on the various FB groups where we have conversed, with a deep understanding of libertarian principle and philosophy.
I re-read my sentence and had a weird double negative in there. Alicia has been nothing but helpful and kind is what I intended to say. In fact, she went out of her way to give me more information than I hoped for in questions I asked of her at LPEX.
Well, Paulie recruited me as a writer in the spring of 2011, so that’s an important point. I never would have thought of myself as a blogger. I’m a bit surprised this thread has lasted so long, because we’re all so sick of Oregon, but then we haven’t had many articles on that issue lately.
The biggest surprise in looking at Paulie’s Leader Board, though, is that none of the articles had to do with Root. Maybe it’s because we had so many of them.
Paulie,
==Write the state committee members identified on their webpages and express your willingness to serve. State any reasons why you believe you would be a good choice. Provide refereces/endorsements. That’s all I can think of at the moment.==
Good suggestions. Now I gotta get endorsements I suppose… It is worth a shot
GP @ 11:39 am today: I concur with WW at 12:07 pm that “it probably could not pass.”
Mine too.
Factional rivalry does not have to mean personal animosity. Painting people as cartoon villains and heroes doesn’t seem to me to conform to reality – we all, or almost all, have good and bad sides to us and a mix of motivations.
Paulie, I have changed the permissions on those documents, so everyone should be able to get them now… so sorry.
As far as my Briticisms…. LOL. I started doing that in High School as part of an experiment to see how things become second nature with repetition (I told you guys I am a big geek) and for aesthetic purposes (I like they way they look). I now do not give it a second thought (I also put horizontal lines through my 7s and Zs in handwriting and always put a diagonal line through my zeros). I had no political motivations or thoughts about it. But it is deeply ingrained in me now from about thirty years of habit.
Here are the links again in case my changing permissions changed the links:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kQXMwYXE2eG90NEE/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kUHA1T2xGeG1DY2c/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kZm9NSmE3QzR3TDA/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kWXFJbHpfY1g2M2M/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kallLM0x1ZVFLMW8/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kcXp1ZWIwQzVOT3M/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kbmRBcGVmbGFOc1U/view?usp=sharing
Thanks for the heads up on the lack of issues with posting information… I am still a bit paranoid about that. Anyone can find me on FB very easily too… I use the exact same name (middle name included) there.
I also note that the Bylaws numbering did change from 2011 to now, and the membership appeal process was 8.13, and it is now 8.12.
Write the state committee members identified on their webpages and express your willingness to serve. State any reasons why you believe you would be a good choice. Provide refereces/endorsements. That’s all I can think of at the moment.
Agreed.
The results of that meeting were posted in an update to this post and in the comments, but not as a separate article, so a lot of people may have missed them. If you would like to post a followup article that would still be a logical place to start. For some odd reason I don’t understand myself, even though I am posting lots of comments in this thread, I am not eager at all to post any followup articles myself. But, if I did, that would be where I would start.
At least some people in the LP have a flair for the dramatic at least some of the time.
Another update on comment stats – shortly after noon central time today this post jumped into second in all-time comment count at IPR, giving Jill both the #1 and #2 spots.
1. Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 1,064 comments
Published 2014/06/26
2. [This post: currently 1,040]
3. LNC Elections Thread
paulie Libertarian Party 1,034 comments
Published 2012/05/06
As can be seen at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/lp-judicial-committee-meets-tomorrow-to-reconsider-prior-jc-decision-re-oregon-affiliate-carling-will-not-recuse-himself/#comment-1218898 and a few followup comments, there are 6 additional posts in the 500-1000 comment class. In order of number of comments they were posted by GE, Krzyzstof, me, Knapp, me and Jill. Myself and Jill remain the only IPR authors with more than one entry of the 9 that have 500+ so far, with three each. Jill has the top two, and two of the three with 1,000+.
Caryn: Generally agreed with all aspects of your analysis at 1:24 pm. The google drive documents you posted are only available by request.
As a side note, I noticed that use some briticisms such as “favours” – out of curiosity, any particular reason why? I got into that habit myself in the mid-to-late 1990s and perhaps early 2000s, probably due to reading Lew Rockwell’s websites and authors too much, but dropped it when I thought it through a bit. If the implication is that the US revolution was a bad thing, I can’t agree. Of course, it wasn’t perfect, but it was generally based on classical liberal principles and resistance to absolutist monarchy. I find any suggestion that preservation of absolutist monarchy to have been a worthy cause to be against the grain of classical liberalism and libertarianism, Hoppe’s arguments to the contrary. I also saw some of the LewRockwell crowd explain that these Briticisms were also popular in the Antebellum South, perhaps out of their love of tradition, aristocracy, and opposition to the US North; but there I also find no legitimate reason for libertarian sympathies to be on the side of the slavemaster plantation owners or their state-segregationist heirs.
As another aside, I’ve posted my phone number and email address in IPR comments and even stories many, many times with no masking, and have not seen any great explosion of spam or telemarketers as a result.
Daniel,
You are getting to the heart of the problems here.
Chronologically:
1. The LNC decided with finality which bylaws and officers were in place for an affiliate. I do not believe they have the authority to do that. However, I have read their arguments and do not imply malice or bad faith. They have logical arguments for being able to do this. I simply disagree pretty firmly. The 1995 and AZ precedents are on my side. I provided a link to the 1995 letter earlier (link again below)
2. The JC then heard an appeal based on constructive disaffiliation and went on to opine about breaching the autonomy of an affiliate. Though I agree with their conclusion, this hearing itself is potentially problematic. Why? Constructive disaffiliation and breach of autonomy are two sides of one thing and one of them is not explicitly named as within their authority (I would argue that constructive disaffiliation is). There is a different appeal process spelled out for improper decisions of the LNC. So again, arguably, this should never have been heard. I do, however, like the above, believe there is a good argument for it, and I concluded that it favours it. I think people here have well laid out the grounds for why it was a disaffiliation and reaffiliation.
I think unlike the polarizing sides here, things are simply not that clear with villians and heros on the JC or the LNC in 2011. I can accept both things as done in good faith with some fuzzy boundaries. But I think what they effectively did was breach the autonomy of the affiliate and effect a constructive disaffilatiation and reaffiliation.
If the JC had declined to hear the case, there was another appeal process available, and maybe that is the route we need to go here. IIRC it is section 8.12 of the bylaws (listed incorrectly in the links below as 8.13… unless the bylaw numbering changed between 2001 and now)
The pitchfork and torches reaction is not something I am onboard with. If people are unhappy with the LNC for other reasons of which is this is a cumulative part, I hope they vote for the one they want. Part of the whole reason I am going through is to be sure I vote for the ones I truly want.
But Wes’ crusade to destroy the LNC based on this is just not supportable. And I would be more than willing to spend time with anyone who wishes to see how this is so, by email or on the phone. Anyone reading this thread that wants to discuss is welcome to contact me either way. My email is carynharlos with an email service of at icloud.com. My phone number is Florida area code 561 (I used to live in Florida) 523 followed by 2250.
So while I have an opinion on whether that initial Ex Comm decision was correct in its authority to do so– it didn’t have that authority (I believe it was correct in most of its conclusions), this isn’t an earth-shattering conspiracy—at least I don’t see it that way—and I have talked off list with person(s) involved that aren’t polarizing figures mentioned in discussions here—and they were not acting in bad faith . I realize there is a lot of outrage at what is perceived as really bad behavior on the part of the Reeves group in OR that led Wes to his actions that is part of the background of this. I know I would not be on board with any Republicanizing agenda and favour agendas that turn the party and affiliates very hard northward in the libertarian direction. I openly am not even considering that in judging the actions of the LNC, and reasonable people can differ on what the LNC did. I happen to agree that it was substantially a constructive disaffiliation and that the LNC does not have the authority to issue a final ruling on an affiliate’s bylaws and officers.
Read their arguments though… they are not crazy. And read Hill’s post (made a pdf below) though on why he decided on the JC why he did… and it is eminently reasonable.
To me, it all started nationally from that Ex Comm decision that should have been done differently. My opinion is that they had every right to give an advisory opinion as they did in 1995 and then tell OR to go handle it. With that advisory opinion, the SoS and court cases likely would have went very differently.
I think now the membership has an appeal process.. but I do not know the timeframes, but if it is something people want, they better hop on it.
Here are documents you asked for:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kQXMwYXE2eG90NEE
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kUHA1T2xGeG1DY2c
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kZm9NSmE3QzR3TDA
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kcXp1ZWIwQzVOT3M
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kbmRBcGVmbGFOc1U
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kWXFJbHpfY1g2M2M
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzTky_4r540kallLM0x1ZVFLMW8
Is the LP a party of drama addicts? 😉
Jill, I would have to get Richard’s permission for that… though theoretically obviously anyone can take a comment and make an article, but I think the permission he gave me to post in a thread our conversations is not the same as permission to send to an author for an article. I am a consent freak, I know.
Richard, if you are reading this… your thoughts?
People seem to still want to talk about this topic, Mark, so I see no need to end this thread. I would have expected to have an update article to post, but nothing really has occurred (to my knowledge) since the Saturday meeting. If Richard Burke sends info to Caryn, perhaps that would be a good way to start a new thread. Caryn, if you’d like to do that, you can send it to any of the writers. Many of us have our contact info in the “About” section. My email address is [email protected]. Anyone is welcome to send me things to post, although I’m not always able to time-wise, in which case I can send it to the other writers.
George
That would be far too rational and is written in far too neutral a way that even though it should be passed my unanimous consent, it probably could not pass.
Marc,
Thank you for that link. I wouldn’t even have the slightest knowledge though how to approach the possibility of getting another state’s nomination to the platform committee. If you have any thoughts let me know (here or off list). Thinking perhaps I could ask our Chair to let the other Chairs know (if she is willing). Would love your thoughts.
Mark I have stayed away from discussing the LNC personalities on this thread and will still do so. I just wanted to echo you that of the people I have been in contact with (and met at LPEX)- I have had no issues with them, and they have gone out of their way actually to be helpful.
I try to work with everyone. But in the past I have needed information and Alicia has been nothing but above and beyond helpful and kind. YMMV. That is my personal experience.
This thread will have some more information to add on OR if people want whatever I receive from Richsrd.
But yes to me, the Platform lies closest to my heart.
The motion might read
“Without taking any position as to whether the motions
“1) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the
Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended
March 14 15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party
of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since
March 15, 2009. (Vote was 6-1. Hinkle, Rutherford,
Mattson, Redpath, Knedler Lark in favor; Ruwart opposed)
2) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Libertarian National Committee recognizes as
the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon those people
elected by the State Committee during its meeting on May
21, 2011. They are: Chair: Tim Reeves; Vice chair: Eric B.
Saub Secretary: Carla J. Pealer ; Treasurer: Gregory Bur-
nett (Motion passed 6-1, same votes as previous motion.) ”
Are or or not valid, were or were not valid, and did or did not have any effect or meaning, the motions in question are hereby ruled to be null, void, without consequence, and may not be invoked as being valid in any future action of this party.”
At least as it related to the political side of things… economics is another story.
Mark
It has actually been partially helpful that our bad actors sequestered themselves. Imagine if Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens and such had instead of doing real things that mattered in your state like filing signature petitions, they just locked themselves in a closet and pretended they were the LPNY but did not do anything of actual consequence. Life would have been easier, yes?
If we did not have the distraction of the nationally LP regularly trying to empower them we might do even better — but we are pretty resilient and battle hardened out here.
“But there wasnt an actual disaffiliation.”
Correct.
“It was a decision by the EC as to disaffiliate LPO and recognize a new affiliate by pretending to be doing something else so as to avoid the required 3/4 LNC vote, which the Judicial Committee correctly ruled ‘not only no, but fuck no’ on.”
There, fixed that for ya.
>” which has crippled Oregon”
>Record candidates in 2012 and 2014, higher than any other affiliate per capita, #2/3 nominally.
>I would love to see what not crippled looks like.
Wes, I stand (actually sit) corrected. Please substitute the inaccurate term “crippled” with “unfortunately distracted”.
I think it’s great that notwithstanding all this mishagoss (that’s a legal term), the Oregon LP has run so many candidates and recruited new members.
The problem with you personally trying to say: The officers of Apple Computer are now Bob, his brother Daryl and his other brother Daryl — is that all the objective legal structure in place in all courts and governments of jurisdiction will say your declaration means nothing, because objective reality is that the officers of apple are still the officers of apple until there is something that functionally changes that in a real and tangible legal sense.
Now if you owed Apple $600 for an ipad you ordered but cancelled the check after you walked out of the store… Apple would still be the entity you still have a relationship with and you can’t walk away form that $600 bill just because you say that Bob and the Daryls control it now.
You have to go through a process to end your relationship with the real legal entity known as Apple… you can’t just make shit up by fiat and pretend it means something.
George Phillies said:
“The LNC Excomm could clear the decks by repealing their 2011 motions.”
George are you saying that the Ex Com should move to rescind something previously adopted to remove their motion that was appealed?
I am sure I am sticking my foot in my butt some kinda way here…Anybody have the actual 2011 Ex Com motions handy?
I really need to start book marking all this crap.
But there wasnt an actual disaffiliation. It was a decision by the EC as to who the affiliate was. There was still an affiliate in place. The EC was just deciding in the midst of a dispute who the affiliate was. There were competing factions that had both taken actions that left no clear chain of who was in charge. The EC looked at what was done and tried to make a determination. Being the parliamentary slut that I am. If I had seen that a meeting had been adjourned to a different date, and no pre-existing authority to cancel meetings in the bylaws, and a group of people showed up to the adjourned date…there’s some problems there. Those people showing at the adjourned convention DEFINITELY had the authority to bring about final adjournment, which would have ended the terms of the old board as I understand it. The rest is muddy or I dont have a good enough grasp.
Boy Wes..you did a good job of engineering a mess to leave the LNC with no clear path. Were you trying to bring down the National Party in 2011 already?
Richard Burke, are you working with Wes to help destroy the National Party? At least Wes is honest with himself about what he is doing at least in part, that being destroying National. Or are you just one of Wes’s tools to help get it done?
“The LNC Excomm could clear the decks by repealing their 2011 motions.”
That would be a very bad idea.
The 2011 motion is no longer in effect, as the Judicial Committee correctly overturned it on appeal. Therefore it cannot be repealed.
To to pretend to repeal it now would be to falsely ecognize it as still being in effect, and that in turn would constitute a ratification of the Judicial Committee’s claim to wield a power it does not have under the bylaws.
The LNC Excomm could clear the decks by repealing their 2011 motions.
Bill Hall understood that when you do an act, but call it something different, you legally still did that act – therefor the disaffiliation had the right to be appealed since the appeal was filed within 30 days of that act, and the disaffiliation was overturned because the act was done by the ex-comm (who is not authorized to do disaffiliations) and not a 3/4 vote of the entire LNC.
Daniel,
The Judicial Committee action in 2011 was an appeal of the disaffiliation of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. The Judicial Committee overturned that disaffiliation because it was not done in the manner required by the bylaws (the executive committee voted to disaffiliate LPO and to pretend that it was doing something else; the bylaws require a vote of the full LNC).
” which has crippled Oregon”
Record candidates in 2012 and 2014, higher than any other affiliate per capita, #2/3 nominally.
I would love to see what not crippled looks like.
this might be a rehashing but…under which of these did the Judicial Committee act in 2011.
2. 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).
Also, Chuck, Vicki (and Audrey whom I think you know as well) will never be former New Yorkers. They are New Yorkers. They just live in Florida.
Bonnie is a Vermonter, but it’s always a delight when she’s back.
First and foremost, I am delighted that Jill was Post # 1000.
Now that such important matter is resolved, I recommend that we seriously close this thread, especially as a discussion of the LP Platform for example (a subject that matters to me much more than Oregon, bylaws and every fucking page of Roberts Useless Rules) belongs elsewhere.
It was the devastation of our statement of principles in Portland that got me back involved in what goes on in National. (I was a Browne delegate in ’96, but took the next five national conventions off and concentrated on building Manhattan and New York LP’s.) Like many others of the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party, I went to Denver in 2008 with the primary purpose of restoring the Platform to where it had been. In the last few years, my Vice Chair Chris Padgett has been New York’s rep. to that important committee and done a fine job as such.
Unlike many on this thread with whom I agree ideologically, I have never had any problems working with M, Alicia or Aaron even though I disagree with them on many important issues, the most important of which (by far) was and is ballot access funding (a subject near and dear to people like Paulie, Andy and me).
Fortunately, while we have had many internal issues in the Evil Empire State (e.g., twenty years ago our then foolish leadership fell for the tricks of a charlatan radio jerk), we have not gone through the Richard and Wes Follies which has crippled Oregon. I truly hope that the Oregon LP can resolve its internal dispute, ahem, internally, but as this thread has shown, that is not likely.
Bon chance.
Tom,
==“I support deletion of the abortion plank, which makes me an odd one out.”
No so much as you might think. In 2002, there was an organized effort to delete it and we came within 1.x% of getting it done.===
Let me explain, I am an odd one out amongst most radicals. Most do not agree with me, and I am cool with that.
Yes, I have the figures from the past four conventions (I think) on how close it came or not. That one time it was pretty close… (going from memory again) as my notes are on my computer that died and waiting to restore the backup when I get a new one… but it had about 107 tokens for deletion, and the next one had like 14?
I know my motivations, but I am suspect of some of the motivations of others (no one specifically,this is a general amorphous ever-present suspicion with me when things get changed) to more conservatify the platform. There is a fine line between removing something that is a barrier to actual libertarians that might be homeless and removing something that makes semi-libertarians more comfortable. I am not interested in the latter.
I think such a suspicion is healthy today actually.
PS I have written a position paper on my motivations for this plank removal, anyone can ask me for it.
On the topic here, I am expecting any day for Richard to provide me an email with his case for why his group’s election was valid. I will share that here. It is somewhat tangential (for me) as my focus has been — irrespective of who is right– can the LNC tell an affiliate what it’s bylaws are and who its’ officers are in a binding, final decision, kinda of way.
When I do post that information, I do hope that if people disagree, they will post. I have a feeling this thread is going to be an information resource for the future. There is a lot of information here and with both sides participating.
Marc,
Yes, the LNC has been losing donors.
And yes, I’m certain that there are at least a couple of people on the LNC who are going to do what they’re going to do, the LNC’s donor base be damned.
What I don’t THINK has happened (although I could be wrong and have no way to know for sure) is LNC donors calling LNC members and saying “here’s what I expect for my money, I’m not getting it, but you can fix that.”
Don’t get me wrong — I am not suggesting that every donor who dropped out agrees with me on what the LNC should be doing and is pissed off that they’re not doing it. I’m sure there are all kinds of reasons why donors decide to stop giving.
But the squeaky wheel does get the grease, if he squeaks at people who genuinely want the wheels to keep turning. And I think enough of e.g. Jim Lark to believe that there are people on the LNC who DO want the wheels to keep turning and would welcome input from the people who keep them turning.
My impression is that the reason Starr, Mattson and Carling work the way they do (through parliamentary machinations and by monkey-wrenching from key subcommittee positions) is that they don’t believe they could get genuine majority member support for their goals if they appealed for it. When it comes to the Oregon situation, I believe that the correct position WOULD have majority member support and, more importantly at a point between conventions and with a subverted Judicial Committee, majority donor support.
Nick, I am sorry you feel that the LNC is not interested in policing itself, in this case the need to ask its membership to step in and help with that process.
Tomas, If you would like to coordinate with me, I would be more than happy to make some phone calls in addition to the one I intend to make to LPHQ stating that if nothing gets done, then I will not be helping to pay for the organization that makes a lie out of “the party of principle”
My number is 610 636 8039.
Due to my schedule, my phone goes to “do not disturb” at 5AM and stays that way till around noon unless I stop the program sooner. Regardless, I don’t like to take calls before 12, so if you wish to actually talk to me, make it after 12. otherwise, I am on Facebook, I believe my e-mail is all over the place including lppa.org.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Knapp said:
I think we’re already at that point. Recently we had fewer 12-month donors that we had in 1990. It doesn’t seem like anyone on the LNC particularly cares just how quickly the LP is shedding donors.
I’m not sure what the issue is. Libertarians seem to go tone deaf when they get into a position of leadership.
So, BT, on WHOSE watch did the LPO become the FOURTH largest party in Oregon
Burke: “With all the talk about the corrupting influence of money in politics today, I find it interesting that those who purportedly subscribe to the idea of a party based on principle are now actively talking about using money as a factional weapon.”
.
Here it comes! The feigned “outrage”.
.
This ruling would not have come about were it not for you pushing and pushing in your “never give up” ego trip.
.
Can’t you find ANYTHING ELSE to do? Go masturbate somewhere like you used to do while watching porn in the LPO office. You continue to be a hemorrhoid on the anus of the LPO.
.
B. Tiernan
“I support deletion of the abortion plank, which makes me an odd one out.”
No so much as you might think. In 2002, there was an organized effort to delete it and we came within 1.x% of getting it done.
Mark Axinn wrote:
Mark,
I don’t wade into the platform. It’s not my area of interest.
My personal problem with Mattson’s handling of the committee is not the recommendations themselves, but rather how people are treated. For example, alternates were excluded until I proposed a bylaws change from the floor to fix that loophole. She has worked hard to suppress minority reports. Etc. I happen to believe that process matters — the ends don’t justify the means.
I don’t claim to be a firsthand source… I learned these things from talking to many people who have been on the platform committee or followed the platform committee closely.
I’d suggest talking to former NYers Bonnie Scott or Vicki Kirkland about the platform committee sometime.
Phillies wrote: “The situation is totally absurd, but like the Titanic after the ship broke in half it is not clear what can be done about it.”
I can’t speak for you, BUT I think that MORE BOATS IN THE WATER, would be an excellent start!!!
Daniel Hayes wrote:
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
There are still some states that have not yet appointed their platform committee representatives. You don’t necessarily need to reside in a state to be appointed by it.
See here (under Platform Committee):
http://www.lp.org/leadership/bylaws-mandated-committees
The list is somewhat out of date with the TBDs (e.g., Pennsylvania appointed Roy Minet), but I know some states have not yet made a selection.
Well we may have found someone to run against Mattson for secretary 😉
I actually neglected to mention a different problem with the Platform. I am so reconciled to it that I just don’t even think about it terribly much but I don’t consider it a Platform committee issue and that is that I support deletion of the abortion plank, which makes me an odd one out. But there is the automatic deletion vote, and it passes or it doesn’t. My reservations about its deletion is that I fear that would be a gateway to the further Republicanization. I think it is terribly divisive though even amongst Libertarians. The surest way to get some Libertarian bloodsports going is to through that molotov cocktail into the room which is why I will not debate it here (anyone is invited to my FB wall to discuss).
==Personally I don’t necessarily consider the 2004 platform optimal. I’d like to see the platform brought back into accord with the Statement of Principles and the spirit of the Dallas Accord.==
I can’t speak to the idealess of the 2004 Platform as of yet but your following sentiment is my philosophy. I think there are deviations with the SoP and definitely some with the Dallas Accord, that could actually be fixed quite easily. I think there are some bald spots as well…. which is my purpose in going through all the past ones. The printouts have filled a 3″ binder… that is my next project. Reading material for the camping trip this weekend. Last camping trip I brought minutes, the Bylaws and the Policy Manual. I am a big geek.
“we’ve talked all week practically, and don’t have any real solutions to the Oregon/rogue JC thing.”
Oh, I think we might. But it would require fairly quick action by a number of people. Not just me. Maybe not even me at all except in some kind of helper role.
We need to get a few people together who understand the situation and who know lots of LP members well enough to have a heart-to-heart with them.
Those people need to look through the donor list and start calling their acquaintances, discussing the situation with them, and persuading them to contact their regional reps and at least one at-large for the purpose of making it clear that their continued financial support for the LNC depends on the bullshit getting knocked off right now.
Huzzah! 1000+!
Caryn, you seem like a good pick for the platform committee next time around. If you care to study a little history, try Googling (or asking someone about) “Restore 2004.” It was a 2008 effort to undo the Portland Massacre.
Personally I don’t necessarily consider the 2004 platform optimal. I’d like to see the platform brought back into accord with the Statement of Principles and the spirit of the Dallas Accord.
Well, it looks like we’ve made it to 1000 comments! Somehow, though, it just makes me sad that we’ve talked all week practically, and don’t have any real solutions to the Oregon/rogue JC thing.
On another note… Specialty Suites and Hospitality Suits with some perks should be available REAL soon, probably before the end of the Month. I think the mutual Oregon Delegations should all chip in a $15,000 donation(its higher than the retail cost so…I can guarantee the room at that price even before the COC votes on it.) before rooms come up for availability and get a Presidential Suite and hug it out.
Mark just listed the chairs of those committees. I believe SMC are also members of the groups their co-conspirators are chairing. For example, I’m pretty sure Aaron is on both the bylaws and the platform committees. That doesn’t seem healthy, even if I didn’t believe he is puposely harming the LP.
==Caryn are you trying to get on the Platform Committee?==
Daniel, that is my main interest. I missed the deadline last year to apply. But it depends on how much I end up getting involved with. I think I told you I planned on running for my Region alternate. An alternate leaves me time however. So short answer. Yes.
Caryn are you trying to get on the Platform Committee?
BTW, 995 and counting.
I think we should all let Jill be number 1000; she posted this in the first place and while it’s after my bedtime on a school night here in the Big Apple, it’s only 8:00 in California.
Nick wrote:
>There is an LNC meeting scheduled for November in Orlando. Absent a mail ballot or online meeting before that, that would be the next time the LNC could take any action. I doubt there is any appetite for a special convention prior to this coming May.
Even if it were on Pluto? It would take the warring parties years to get there, more years to adjudicate their disputes and then years to come back.
You gotta admit the attraction to my venue suggestion.
Mark, while amongst my circles, this isn’t a particularly popular point of view, for the most part, I like our present Platform. When I first read it, it immediately resonated. Would I prefer it to be a bit more hard Libertarian? Yes. But I like our present platform, and always have. I have some issues where I think it comprised the spirit of the Dallas Accord, and that is the only place that I have an issue. But it succinctly covers a lot of good ground.
Now that being said, I have a personal project to go through in a lot of detail the past Platforms, in fact I printed them all out today and have them in a notebook, so my grieving for some lost issues might intensify.
I liked a lot of Alicia’s platform recommendations in Columbus. I think we strengthened it in several places.
Imagine the opposite: We decimate the platform and make it much, much, much worse, like say what was done in Portland OREGON.
Credentials is going to be where the instant battle will be fought, and Emily has done a fine job there in the last two conventions which I attended (2010 and 2014).
Wes (anyone),
I would love to hear more details about the various Republican support issues mentioned. After someone putting their paws on the SoP and the pledge, co-mingling the LP and the Republicans is my next red flag. I guard our unique Libertarian identity pretty zealously.
Chuck,
Without speaking to the persons involved, in general, I think that kind of incestuousness is harmful to an organization. A healthy organization needs diverse blood. Even if everyone is completely awesome… an organization needs diverse blood.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Jill Pyeatt wrote:
At the last LNC meeting Robert Kraus explained what portion of his time would have to be spent on accounting due to audit committee requests and recommendations (80%). Starr and others said he was being a drama queen, vastly overestimating the burden.
My impression is staff now believes Kraus was underestimating. In addition to that much of Kraus’s time, Wes Benedict also has been spending a lot of his time on accounting for Starr. The opportunity cost is Benedict fundraising.
The LNC has already clearly told Sarwark that it wants Starr to have carte blanche with LP resources and staff time, so there isn’t much that can be done to stop LPHQ from being sidelined. I hope staff sticks it out, but a mass exodus would not surprise me.
It would be nice if the convention delegates and the LNC would realize some people are a net negative for the LP. Seems unlikely.
Let’s look at committee chairs:
audit committee – Starr
platform committee – Mattson
bylaws committee – Carling
judicial committee – Carling
See a pattern?
I have not seen him take payment from anyone but republicans on Orestar (the campaign finance database) in a very very long time.
If I recall correctly, the gentleman is a sometimes Republican political adviser.
George,
Yeah that is a tough one… Burke likes controlling ballot access and offering it up to republicans, and the registered members of the party are the people who generate and maintain the ballot access. If there isn’t a super class of members in a structure that can be tightly controlled that can politically manipulate the game, well that isn’t as much fun is it?
Of course, one could have imagined the two Oregon groups to have agreed that one of them represented the registered Libertarians, the other was a membership group, and both did there own thing. However, that was also what did not happen in Massachusetts in 1998-2000, when Eli Israel and his cronies took control of the voter group, and then quite deliberately destroyed the membership group. Famous alter expenditures of that group include over $4000 to one of their statewide candidates to pay for an election eve party.
Tom,
==You talk as if principle and using money as a weapon are incompatible. Not only are they not incompatible, that’s how things work.==
LOL I was going to say.. umm that is called the market. Last I checked that was still a “thing” with Libertarians.
“Bankrupting national is cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
Who said anything about bankrupting national?
My fervent hope is that if donors communicate their desire for competent and legitimate action to the LNC, the LNC will respond appropriately and and thereby enjoy increased donor revenues.
Quoth Burke:
“With all the talk about the corrupting influence of money in politics today, I find it interesting that those who purportedly subscribe to the idea of a party based on principle are now actively talking about using money as a factional weapon.”
You talk as if principle and using money as a weapon are incompatible. Not only are they not incompatible, that’s how things work.
People want to give their money to organizations that agree with, and act in accordance with, their favored principle
People don’t want to give money to organizations that don’t agree, or act in accordance with, their favored principles.
It is ENTIRELY appropriate to talk with other people who give money to the LNC about whether or not they’re making a good investment in the principles they’re trying to support, and to encourage them to communicate with LNC members on that subject.
In fact, to the extent that donors don’t examine the uses their money is being put to and communicate their opinions on the matter to the LNC, they’re doing the same disservice to the Libertarian Party as voters who give money and power to politicians do to society. As PJ O’Rourke said, the latter is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
The LNC might be more inclined to follow the bylaws and respect affiliate autonomy, rather than (to give them benefit of the moral doubt) letting themselves be continually tricked by con combines like your gang, if they knew their organization’s solvency depended on exercising good judgment.
Chuck said: “I just came from LPHQ. Morale is pretty low — and it’s not even because of Oregon. A number of staff are very frustrated with Aaron Starr.”
Would you like to elaborate on that?
Tom Knapp wrote:
I’ve donated more than $1,000 / year to national for more than 10 years. That hasn’t made Redpath or Lark sympathetic to my views on Oregon.
I have no plans to stop donating to national even given all this craziness because I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also I don’t want Libertarian activists, our presidential candidate, staff, etc. to suffer due to the actions of a few jerks on the JC (and other bodies guilty of shenanigans over the years) that they have no control over.
I stopped giving over $1,000 / year to Virginia after Redpath threw me under the bus at the national convention. That’s probably a big part of the reason Lark isn’t talking to me.
I just came from LPHQ. Morale is pretty low — and it’s not even because of Oregon. A number of staff are very frustrated with Aaron Starr. Bankrupting national is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
One other thing that perhaps should be brought up… set aside my position that the LNC does not have Bylaws authority to make a ruling on this… the situation was almost completely different in 2011. Right now the parties ARE involved in litigation, and it would be highly inadvisable for the LNC to do a thing until the litigation is resolved. Of course that would leave the issue of convention delegate seating in controversy. But that is better than interfering with litigation, though I suppose I think they could issue an advisory opinion as to how they see things ala the 1995 letter I posted earlier. Which I really hope people read…
ADD: I see Nick has said this would not happen likely until after the convention.
Richard,
==The reason I think so is because, had pulled a coup like Mr. Wagner and his group attempted to do on 3/31/11, I am supremely confident that most of our critics on this blog would have reviled us and, were our positions reversed today, most of them would be hailing the recent JC ruling as a shining example of libertarian jurisprudence (except, perhaps, you).==
I would have condemned any coup by any person. I have consistently condemned the Wagner coup here. As far as the recent JC decision, it is hard to know what one would do, but I would have hoped I would not because I do not see their authority to do so.
I think the LNC came to the *right* conclusion that the Wagner group were not the legitimate officers and that the bylaws were not legitimately changed. I do not know if I think they came to the right conclusion about your election (that is hotly disputed here, and from I understand you are going to privately share information with me on that that I will post here).
My hang-up is the LNC’s original authority to interpret in a binding manner the bylaws of an affiliate and tell them who their officers are.
I confess this does not leave me entirely at peace because I do not think that the Wagner group is the legitimate officers but they are the legal ones. It seems to me that the only option they had was disaffiliation which is terribly harsh and leads to all kinds of opportunities for hostile takeovers of other affiliates and a means to cripple the party. I have read the response briefs of the LNC and they make cogent arguments for their authority, but I can’t get past that this breaches the autonomy of the affiliate.
This raises the question of whether the 2011 JC itself had the authority to hear the case… they did so under constructive disaffiliation, which also is not entirely solid, though I am more persuaded than not that it falls under that.
Nothing in this whole matter is as crystal clear cut as we would like.
One thing that is crystal clear to me is that Wagner’s coup was illegitimate. It is also crystal clear that Carling should not have been involved in the rest of this at all. I am deeply troubled by the rest. I do not impute malice or scheming or anything else to the LNC that made the decision not to recognize Wagner. I see it as a difference of opinion on the power of the bylaws, and I am not going to raise pitchfork and torches against it.
It’s my understanding that M Carling added to his Libertarian Party State Plate Collection. He became the LP Washington Region 5 SEC representative at their last election. I think that’s LPNY, LPOregon, LPCalifornia, and LPWashington. I think he must be the 13th Cylon model or something.
Oh so sorry. M. Carling already started that years ago…..
Let’s start the FREE OREGON PROJECT. Who’s gonna move to Oregon and vote the current leadership of the party out and clean up this mess?
All,
Referring, I think, to Mr. Wagner’s attempted coup of 3/31/11, Caryn writes, “If there were proof that the Reeves group were about to do the same thing, I would love to see it.”
So would I.
Even if such a plan existed, it would have been quite a trick given that our side neither controlled a State Committee majority or held any of the officer positions.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Caryn,
No, no, know, I get it. And I don’t have a problem with it. I’ve supported such things for years. Of course, there is a difference between withdrawing one’s support and proactively trying to get other people to withdraw theirs, but I’m OK with that too. I don’t think it would work in this case, but, whatever…
I bring it up because I think that if our side were to suggest doing the same thing after the 2011 JC decision, I am quite confident that we would have been accused of trying to hold the party hostage, trying to blackmail the party, or something like that.
The reason I think so is because, had pulled a coup like Mr. Wagner and his group attempted to do on 3/31/11, I am supremely confident that most of our critics on this blog would have reviled us and, were our positions reversed today, most of them would be hailing the recent JC ruling as a shining example of libertarian jurisprudence (except, perhaps, you).
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Five dollars seems low… perhaps a cap of around 15 ounces (aka 30 shekels)… that seems to be the going rate for selling out, right?
On the bright side, if you want a Presidential candidate who is standing against the possibility of being corrupted by Mammon, we have one who will only take bitcoins and silver coin as donations, and another whose donations are capped at five dollars.
Paulie,
If there were proof that the Reeves group were about to do the same thing, I would love to see it.
Richard seriously? When one is being represented by a group and funding that group, AND that group has done something you think is improper, a perfectly appropriate thing to do is withdraw your support and let them know ahead of time to give them time to reconsider.
That is actually called the market. That is a “thing” for libertarians you know;)
There is a principled difference between a body that represents you in some way and a body that does not.
All,
With all the talk about the corrupting influence of money in politics today, I find it interesting that those who purportedly subscribe to the idea of a party based on principle are now actively talking about using money as a factional weapon.
I’m not surprised and realize that such is a common practice across party lines, but I find it ironic given the premise held by some on this blog that the power of one’s principles is enough to influence people and thereby change the world. I see this as an admission that more than that is required.
There… that should provide the fodder necessary to break 1000.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
You’re right, Mark — Jim Lark and Bill Redpath will likely be on the LNC for as long as they want to be on the LNC.
There are a number of reasons for that and one of them is that, whatever their particular views on particular issues, they care about the party.
It’s just a human nature thing that if they hear the things they always hear from the people they always hear those things from (e.g., back in the day, me), they’ll ascribe a certain constant value to those interactions.
But if they start hearing from frequent, recurring or major (or any combination of the three) donors who they don’t usually hear from that there’s a problem, that’s not a constant, it’s a change. And given the LNC’s precarious financial position, any change that isn’t obviously and without question positive is a crisis.They’ll put more weight on that kind of interaction. When some guy who’s popped a thousand bucks a year for ten years without asking any questions starts asking questions, he’ll get answers. And, all other things being equal, he’s likely to get the answers he wants rather than the answers that make him re-think his financial commitment.
There is an LNC meeting scheduled for November in Orlando. Absent a mail ballot or online meeting before that, that would be the next time the LNC could take any action.
I doubt there is any appetite for a special convention prior to this coming May.
>You think you are going to disentrench Lark and Redpath? Regardless of whether one thinks that’s a good idea, I’ll bet real money against it actually happening.
I want to write book on that action on Paulie’s side too.
Regardless of how people think about Oregon (this never-ending thread is about Oregon, right?),
their popularity in the Party is unsurpassed. Bill and Jim have been tremendous assets to the LNC, the LP and to me personally for years. They ain’t going nowhere.
Thank goodness.
Actually, there’s a more immediate way to influence the LNC than waiting for a convention.
As I’ve mentioned (with Paulie concurring in my assessment), relatively few people take an avid day-to-day interest in the affairs of the LNC, Judicial Committee and so forth.
Some of those people are included in, but certainly don’t represent anything like a majority of, the identified donors who gave the LNC $183,745 in the first six months of 2015.
The difference between LNC income and LNC expenditures in the first six months of 2015 was about $5,000.
With less than $1,000 per month separating positive from negative cash flow, it wouldn’t take very many of those donors, especially regular, recurring, long-term ones, calling up LNC members and asking “what the fuck?” to create a positive environment for open communications and wise decision-making on whatever issues those donors might be concerned about.
Of course, there’d need to be some kind of minor boiler-room operation to contact them and get them concerned about THIS. But whaddayaknow, their names and addresses are just a few mouse clicks away.
Just sayin’ …
I am heading to work now, but I can still read this albeit arduously on my phone….
George, and anyone else interested in holding the JC to account, it would really help the LNC’s credibility whenever they say things like “the party of principle” if they would hold their organization to account for its own wrong doing.
My understanding is that the only way to fix the JC is at convention, and the only way to make this happen before 2016 is to hold a special convention. Maybe we can do something like the AGORA.IO unconference where we held everything on-line, and credentialed members could participate from their own living rooms, or be like my group and set up, as a group and participate as a group in one location.
This will cut down on costs, it will achieve the desired results, and to Mark Axinn, if a group wishes to participate from Pluto, as long as they have a solid internet connection, they can make that happen!
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
P.S. There will be cocktails and PLENTY of popcorn served to those joining my group, as I am sure there will be need for both!
LOL
Can’t argue with that!
Good point.
Another good point.
It’s more likely than electing a Libertarian President, but I regularly work for that to happen.
The JC decision isn’t a decision on who the current affiliate is. That would still have to be put in as a change by the LNC/EC, although I do aree that it is very likely.
My memory is hazy on this, but I think he emailed me evidence of this at some point.
I saw Wagner disagree with this, but it seems to make sense to me.
You think you are going to disentrench Lark and Redpath? Regardless of whether one thinks that’s a good idea, I’ll bet real money against it actually happening.
And, unfortunately (sorry, I know he doesn’t like me harping on this) Chuck snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with the botched, negative campaign against Alicia. That, and the record of secretarial problems last term, probably means Ms. Mattson is pretty secure in her position as well, now that she is back on.
Tom, others–
Free Libertarian Party, Inc. was incorporated under the New York not-for-profit corporations law on July 11, 1972.
Although we had been using the name for years, one of the things I did when I became state chair in 2010 was to file a Certificate of Assumed Name (a d/b/a certificate) for the name “Libertarian Party of New York”. Incredibly, no one thought to do it in our first 38 years of existence!
I also trademarked the name too, which is good as we had some difficulty that same summer with a certain recent past Chair of LPPA.
Seems highly unlikely to happen regardless or whether you think it should or not.
Appears to have been an occassion for speeches and panel discussions. As far as I can tell no business was done; no elections, bylaws or platform changes, candidates for internal or external office.
See http://www.libertarianism.org/lr/LR7810.pdf pp 26-33 by Jeff Riggenbach.
“Mr. Burke has, several times now, fraudulently signed his comments claiming to be the secretary of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”
Former LPPA Chairman, Tom Stevens, like Mr Burke, liked to make himself look more important than he actually was. It did not turn out so well for him here in PA. While the same solutions we applied here in PA will not work for Oregon, I am hopeful that a solution will present itself to those members in Oregon.
Regarding the LP, the LNC, and the JC, I am still waiting to hear about whether or not the LNC would hold a special convention to deal with the rogue JC.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Although I agree with you more on the substantive issues than I do with Mr. Burke, he is entirely correct on the subject of his name and how you refer to him. Calling him by a variant of his name that he doesn’t use to make a point weakens your case from an outside standpoint – and I largely agree with your case.
Ideal, but at present I only see them meeting in the middle in the sense of colliding trains.
I don’t think there is any danger that anyone will mistake Burke for the secretary of the Wagner/Hedbor LPOR if they read his comments, so I am not worried about it from a moderation standpoint, any more than I was about Grundmann claiming to be California CP chair.
I rate this as unlikely, but we shall see.
Based on what Wagner told me about the number of additional issues his side can bring up in court to run the clock, we’ll need some serious progress on life extension to get this resolved in court in any of our lifetimes.
You’re jumping ahead; that hasn’t happened yet. It will almost certainly happen, but not yet. And it still won’t make you a state recognized party.
That is true. As the chair, secretary and treasurer or the PAC “taking care of my responsibilities and not wasting time and procrasting here, not even a little” I fuly sympathize.
Yes, please.
Isn’t that the purpose of the JC?
Me neither, although perhaps for different reasons.
Yep!
Good deal..thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjwi2OELumY
Good stuff. May as well make this the temporary open thread as we cheat our way towards a new comment record 🙂
We’ve been known to be on a first name basis, although I am not at liberty to discuss what we talked about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzqQst-Sg8
That sounds kinky…
.45s and Jim Beam? Sign me up. Oh and there’s fucking and fried chicken and rock ‘n’ roll there too? Oh yeah!
We need more action for sure. I kind of like the conversation part too though. I am less motivated for action without it.
You could try…
Does not compute. I thought you were talking about Republicans?
🙂
LNC is a fiduciary responsibility. While I would certaily hope that everyone on the LNC would place devotion to liberty over devotion to party, it’s not a conflict of interest. If and when someone concludes that the LP is or has become counterproductive to the end goal of liberty, if they are on the LNC, they should resign from the LNC. At which point there’s no conflict.
No. The UK was not a voluntary association, and neither was the colonial relationship. The American revolutionaries (secessionists) were not declaring opposition to all rules – or they wouldn’t have created any of their own. They were seeking to get out of that particular involuntary relationship. Membership in the LP on the other hand is voluntary. LP life membership is contractual. If the national LP voided my life membership I would have a problem with that.
Regardless of whether the national LP and/or LNC already existed or not, some state parties, including in Oregon, were formed locally first and then joined the national association after that.
“So who is going to pay for this special convention? If you want a special convention say it with Cash. I expect donations to the party to be up 50,000 by the end of the week.”
Daniel, asking this question would translate into the LNC stating something akin to the following: “We cannot take any action that would help us not look like a corrupt organization, therefore, we will continue looking like all of the other political groups. Despite the fact that we have this slogan: “the party of principle,” we really do not have any.” Frankly, I find your question insulting.
As for me, I will be paying all of my travel expenses / time from work, etc, in order to be there. If the party needs more from me, I will give more. However, if the party drops the ball on this one, there will be a stop payment placed.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Immediate Past Chair, LPPA
Lifetime Member LP
Torch Club Member
O Beautiful Queen of the Libertarian Party of CA Jill and honorable Colonel, King of the Real(tm) Fake(R) Libertarian(C) Party of Oregano(It was not weed honest), Dictator For Life, Scourge Of Dues Paying Out Of State Members, Slayer Of Republican Infiltrators, Deposer Of Corrupt Executive Directors, Grand Generator Of Enflamed Digitus Impudicus, and Happy Hiker Wes,
IPR just paid for itself this morning. Thanks for the laugh.
DMPFTOTC*
jjj
joe (just joe)
(deadline for packing for Burning Man is late tonight; I leave for the Palya at daybreak tomorrow (albeit via Denver) — I am going in a week early to work with the Burning Nerds Census Team). Any other IPRers going to Burning Man? Hope to find Brian Doherty out there and get my copy of Radicals for Capitalism autographed . . .
* Doing My Part For The One Thousandth Comment . . .
So who is going to pay for this special convention? If you want a special convention say it with Cash. I expect donations to the party to be up 50,000 by the end of the week.
IIRC, the Free Libertarian Party of New York and the Libertarian Party of California both preceded the formation of an ostensive “national LP.”
I’m not sure how many others pre-date the formation of the LNC, which I’m told happened in 1975.
Not that that particularly matters. The primacy of the state LPs versus the LNC isn’t a matter of chronology, it’s a matter of ontology. Political parties in the US are creatures of the several states. National committees are creations of those state parties. You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.
BTW, 928
I would ask Nick and the LNC to hold a special convention to address the Rogue JC. Mark suggested Pluto, but their hotels are limited, this time of year, so maybe somewhere a bit more convenient.
Since a special convention is necessary to address the very obvious perception of impropriety which was on display with the draft minutes, a special convention we must have. To wait until 2016 will cast a shadow over a business meeting that should be clear for the actions we need to be addressing, like helping candidates.
I am thinking that both factions will wish to be in attendance so that they could file their briefs first thing monday morning following, but this cannot change the course of what the LNC must do to stop any perception of impropriety and corruption.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Gene Berkman might know. He was around at the beginning of the party, and is a pretty good historian.
People keep telling me that various state parties predated the LNC or national LP. The national LP was officially formed in1971.
Which state parties actually did predate it?
O Beautiful Queen of the Libertarian Party of CA,
Thank you for this fine article you wrote and all the entertainment it brought against the backdrop of the party committing suicide. At least we get a good laugh while the ship sinks.
Someone strike up the band….
Signed,
Colonel Wes Wagner, King of the Real(tm) Fake(R) Libertarian(C) Party of Oregano(It was not weed honest), Dictator For Life, Scourge Of Dues Paying Out Of State Members, Slayer Of Republican Infiltrators, Deposer Of Corrupt Executive Directors, Grand Generator Of Enflamed Digitus Impudicus, and Happy Hiker
Oh, I demand everyone start calling me: O Beautiful Queen of the Libertarian Party of California.
This is a different Libertarian Party of CA, but call me that anyway.
Signed,
Jill C. Pyeatt
O Beautiful Queen of the Libertarian Party of CA
Thank you Dr/Col Buchman.
Colonel Wes Wagner, MBA, Director of Oregon Republican Party Gay Conversion
May all future Oregon elephants be pink and fabulous
WAIT, HOLD THE PRESSES — it is still there — URP it is!
http://www.themonastery.org/catalog/honoraryreligioustitle-p-65.html
Sad. Apparently they don’t offer the URP certificate anymore:
http://www.themonastery.org/catalog/-c-28.html
Colonel Joe, Universal Religious Philosopher ca 1979
Colonel Wes,
By the power vested in me as a Colonel, and with the authority of being Chair, LP Ceres (I was recently promoted from Treasurer), I declare you to be a Colonel.
Reverend Joe, Colonel, Doctor, URP
(the PhD you’re going to have to work for though. I don’t recognize those granted by diploma mills anymore than I do the self-proclaimed “Dr. Mary’s” on Frasier, or ex-Colonel Burke’s comfy chair claims)
Caryn Ann Harlos August 15, 2015 at 7:19 pm wrote:
“I am reading through the National Bylaws and the affiliate status was granted. . . ”
My condolences for having to read through that, but . . .
Like Burning Man (where I’ll be heading on Saturday), the LP was built from the bottom up, not the top down. (Once established, sure, the LNC wants to claim greater authority — but just like our Federal Government it was created by the States. The Feds are (were) subservient to the States, not the other way around . . . but again, Burning Man is the better example — a BOTTOM UP organization, not top down.)
So the Libertarian Party of Oregon, as well as the Libertarian Parties of some other states actually predate the creation of an LNC — they are the older, longer-tenured organization.
And when the LNC no longer serves the needs of a majority of states or their members, it can be, it seems to me, dissolved by those states — and NOT the other way around.
Of course, that perspective isn’t exactly in their bylaws.
I remember when Starchild was on the LNC, we would consistently disclose a “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” with the broader LIBERTY MOVEMENT. Starchild was/is a stand for advancing LIBERTY and not someone who would declare putting the LNC’s existence ahead of that.
We used to call these sorts of people principle-centered patriots. Now we condemn them for their alleged “disloyalty. ”
Personally, I’ll support the LP/LNC so long as it is an effective/the most effective organization for advancing Liberty (and, yes, solely in MY judgment. I am not surrendering that to someone else’s claim of knowing better than I do what is best. I’ll listen and think, but not to the degree it becomes self-defeating).
And that’s where this thread is. It’s clear who is principle-centered, who advocates for Liberty above mechanics.
If you want to condemn people who “did not play by the rules” or even people who “broke the law” then for consistency, please advocate for our return to the Queen. She deserves an apology for all those Liberty Lovers who broke all kinds of British Laws.
Yes?
(hopefully it was clear we were going to convert people to BE gay… not to go form gay to straight… but that will be very clear in the fundraising letters announcing our new party positions)
I wish I had a cool story about how I became a Colonel… maybe I should register the Oregon Republican Party PAC and declare myself Director In Charge of Gay Conversions and start sending out letters to donors.
The LNC lacks the capacity to do genuine fact finding and is removed enough from the proximity of events as they occur that it is nearly impossible for them to discern what the truth is and render an opinion in most circumstances. Opinions in the past tended to get rendered on ideological lines and political alliances rather than objective determination of fact and I expect that would be the case on a forward basis.
Case in point, the 2011 LNC adjudicated 4 people officers of the party and the 2009 bylaws in effect despite that those two things could not be simultaneously true due to the lack of authority in their own appointments, the lack of their having paid dues, the lack of their being qualified for the offices and that they appointed themselves to offices in most cases that were not vacant under the strict interpretation of the 2009 rules.
Given that they failed so spectacularly in being objective determiners of fact in that case, I would not trust them with a mote of responsibility in such matters.
Andy @ August 19, 2015 at 7:30 pm wrote:
“Joe Buchman, how did you come to be a Kentucky Colonel?”
Well, now . . . there you go . . . opening an interesting tale.
I was born an only child in southern Indiana — New Albany to be exact about it – a small city just downstream from the falls of the Ohio — a town founded by people on a raft who had floated down the Ohio from . . . yes, it was Albany New York. Being highly creative and feeling they had gone far enough into THE WEST — Indian Land no less, they named their new town NEW Albany, after their former home way up river in New York.
Being an only child, I suppose it was because of that, I got hyperactive in Scouting, first as a kid, and then as a young adult, eventually promoted to Program Director of one of the best Scout camps in the USA (IMO) — Tunnel Mill, named after a Tunnel which had been drilled in the rock in a narrow S-curve of 14 Mile Creek to power a mill downstream. Mr. Work built his home there, and eventually it became the home for the ranger/caretaker of the camp. That house is now over 200 years old. . . .
I served on the executive board of the council until moving away for college halfway through my sophomore year, eventually earning a PhD at Indiana University — but also supporting from afar my old home town and that old scout camp. For a couple of summers I also worked for WHAS-TV, the CBS affiliate in Louisville, and got them to do a couple of ON THE ROAD specials about TUNNEL MILL — resulting in some significant donations.
In 1999 they invited me back as a keynote speaker for their annual banquet, the former George Roger’s Clark BSA council had merged with the former Old Kentucky Home council to become the Lincoln Heritage council — and at that banquet, one of my former mentors presented me with the Kentucky Colonel certificate, membership card, lapel pin and associated accoutrements. And since then no one has ever called me Colonel, not even once — but I think I will take it up in honor of SECRETARY Burke.
Dr, Colonel Joe, PhD and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Ceres — who would have preferred being a Sagamore of the Wabash . . .
Everyone, I think this document is pretty key to one way the LNC could have handled this initially. Please read it VERY carefully.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kWXFJbHpfY1g2M2M/view?usp=sharing
A similar situation occurred…the LNC examined documents to determine who the governing officers were for the LPO. But note multiple things:
1. Letter addressed “To Whom it May Concern” (it ended up being given to the SoS who used it to finalize the officers):
2. The tone is of a general information
3. The letter goes out of its way to say that the LNC cannot breach the autonomy of the affiliate
4. The LNC reaches a conclusion and couches it as “it appears”
5. The LNC “urges” the LPO to abide by the decision of its own internal JC–which the LNC agrees with– and to continue to resolve disputes as provided by its bylaws. It does not say it will only recognize certain officers.
My honest assessment is that this is how the LNC should have handled this at the first in this case. I do not have an issue with the LNC reaching an opinion. The parties both came to the LNC and gave testimony.
I repeat. I do not have a problem with the idea that the LNC *should* be able to resolve this (depending on how this was crafted in the bylaws)… it is quite fundamental that the LNC be able to identify who the officers are of an affiliate. My issue is that the present bylaws do not authorize the LNC to be the final arbiter to tell the affiliate entity who its officers are (the problem in this discussion is the blending of making the officers=the affiliate… which is not the case,the existence of the affiliate is continuous through officer changes but obviously the identity of the officers at a particular point in time is critical).
Some may still think this is too far and abridges autonomy. If taken that strictly it completely gags the LNC on even having an opinion, and would be contrary to this prior precedent (which went unchallenged). My point of view is in conflict with the Bill Hall notes above where he denies any warrant for the LNC to “judge” if an affiliate is following its own bylaws.
This and the precedent of AZ I think gives some guidance.
PS I also note that the “for cause” requirement authorizes the LNC to make determinations regarding the affiliate (and “cause” is not defined). To say it cannot make these determinations ahead of time and give an advisory opinion would make it necessary for the LNC to go from zero to nuclear in one bound, and that doesn’t seem reasonable.
“Mark Axinn
August 19, 2015 at 8:58 pm
Andy, I don’t about you, but after 900 comments about who did what to whom and why in Oregon, I say, ‘Fuck the fried chicken and Elvis 45’s and pass the bottle of JB.’ :)”
I’ve long thought that Libertarians waste far too much time on preaching to the choir and internal bickering and not enough time on things that actually build the party and movement. Here’s an Elvis song from which Libertarians can learn a lot, as in we need a little less conversation (as in talking amongst ourselves) and a hell of a lot more action.
Elvis Presley-A Little Less Conversation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkCWVNaX6-k
Jill, the parts with Ben Carson were awesome
Andy, I don’t about you, but after 900 comments about who did what to whom and why in Oregon, I say, “Fuck the fried chicken and Elvis 45’s and pass the bottle of JB.” 🙂
Next most famous Kentucky colonel?
This one’s for Paulie….
James B. Beam, though many of his friends and confidants call him Jim.
There was also Colonel Tom Parker, manager of Elvis Presley.
Well, I was wrong yet again.
According to Wiki:
>Kentucky colonel is the highest title of honor bestowed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Commissions for Kentucky colonels are given by the governor and the secretary of state to individuals in recognition of noteworthy accomplishments and outstanding service to a community, state or the nation.
Most famous Kentucky colonel (other than Joe of course)? Harland Sanders.
Are you all as desperate for a laugh as I am? Let’s all make fun of Republicans:
http://www.brobible.com/life/article/bad-lip-reading-first-republican-debate-2015/
As opposed to a real colonel, like Harlan Sanders.
Andy
Same way Burke became secretary of the LPO … duh!
Joe Buchman, how did you come to be a Kentucky Colonel?
Wes or anyone else BTW, may contact me off-list as well. I am open to all comers. If anyone is concerned that personal communications will snow me… I think my comments here show I am not easily snowed. I just want to be friends and friendly. We are all in this party. We have to find someway to work together as much as possible.
Everyone (and particularly Paulie because he asked),
I am in contact with Richard off-list and will share here any communications that have to do with this topic. I won’t be sharing things strictly of a personal nature… for example in my last email I communicated to Richard my desire to have cordial communications and shared a bit of my background. But anything relevant to the discussions here, I will share, and I have his permission to do so.
Richard,
Well to me, it seems you are okay with going beyond bylaws when it comes to the LNC but not when it comes to your own party. The LNC simply does not have this power. Whether they *should* or not is a different question.
Caryn wrote,
1. Registered Libertarians were not the previous member class. That member class was summarily redefined. It is somewhat problematic to say “the new member class approved me making the new member class as opposed to the old member class.”
2. How much did they know? At a proper convention, there is much more opportunity for personal discussion and communication. Were they aware of the controversy? Were they aware of the prior bylaws?
3. How many of those who voted would affirm the pledge? This was summarily removed without the consent of the prior member class who had every reason to rely on this.
Exactly, which is why we boycotted and did not campaign. Also:
4. Our bylaws did not provide for such an email ballot. It was not a legal vote according to the legitimate bylaws and,
5. Our participation would have been a de-facto admission of the ballots legitimacy and, as a function of that, the legitimacy of the Wagner coup.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Daniel,
I don’t want to wait for the courts because I don’t want to risk losing more election cycles than necessary and because Wagner’s tactics have worked against timely resolutions. So you do what you can. It also seems that the question of who the state and the LNC recognize for their respective purposes are different questions. While the 2011 JC decision connected them (a mistake), this mess has a lot of moving parts. Besides, even if it takes time to get the ballot line back, the credibility of being the official LNC affiliate will facilitate organizational efforts.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
== I also think we’ve overlooked an extremely important issue in the state. 97 % of the people in the state party who voted whether to accept the new Wagner bylaws voted to accept them. I believe this is significant. ==
I have pointed this out repeatedly in my private communications. It is a significant issue.
==Now, I expect Burke will point out that this was 97 % of the people who voted, as opposed to 97 % of the Libertarians in the state, but I still think it indicates the state party was happy with the status quo. I’m curious as to why this wasn’t meaningful to the Reeves group.==
I will play devil’s advocate, there are some issues with this.
1. Registered Libertarians were not the previous member class. That member class was summarily redefined. It is somewhat problematic to say “the new member class approved me making the new member class as opposed to the old member class.”
2. How much did they know? At a proper convention, there is much more opportunity for personal discussion and communication. Were they aware of the controversy? Were they aware of the prior bylaws?
3. How many of those who voted would affirm the pledge? This was summarily removed without the consent of the prior member class who had every reason to rely on this.
All that being said, it is a significant factor. OR registered Libertarians so far seem happy with the arrangement. I am not in a position to contradict them. This is an OR matter absent explicit powers of the LNC.
I believe the numbers were 725 in favour, and 26 against, going from memory.
I’ve been dealing with this for over a week now, when I first wrote to M about recusing himself, and I’ve been absent on the thread most of the day because I’ve come down with another case of “Oregon Fatigue”, but I have this compulsive need to keep up with all the discussion on my articles. I also think we’ve overlooked an extremely important issue in the state. 97 % of the people in the Oregon state party who voted whether to accept the new Wagner bylaws voted to accept them. I believe this is significant. Now, I expect Burke will point out that this was 97 % of the people who voted, as opposed to 97 % of the Libertarians in the state, but I still think it indicates the state party was happy with the status quo. I’m curious as to why this wasn’t meaningful to the Reeves group.
Daniel,
==Why did your “side” do what it did with this questionable “Rescind something previously adopted” Motion? Why not just wait for the courts to get done?==
THAT is an excellent question. AFAIAC, all parties here are gaming, and I don’t like it ONE BIT.
Mr Burke if you believe the following:
“In the end, I don’t think the courts are going to let Mr. Wagner get away with his coup. ”
Why did your “side” do what it did with this questionable “Rescind something previously adopted” Motion? Why not just wait for the courts to get done?
Daniel Hayes
Steve,
==It would also force a debate at the delegate level about the relationship between the state parties and the national party.==
This is the issue to me. What is the bounds of the LNC when things such as this happen. I have no theoretical (at this point) problem with the LNC having greater power in this situation, but it has to be spelled out in the bylaws and agreed upon in the proper manner
The LNC did something analogous to what Wes did ironically. They didn’t follow their bylaws because they thought this was right (and I believe some of those in favor did think they had the bylaws power— I do not have to impute bad faith), and Wes didn’t because he thought it was right. I am consistent in saying both were improper.
Steve M
There are legal reasons that is not a wise approach for us and would open us up for a potentially legitimate claim that has case law to support it.
It can’t happen that way.
Wes, I am sorry but you are overly fond of silencing people. I am not interring with OR politics. I have made that so clear here that it is beyond obvious. OR politics is up to OR people (or the previous agreed members) to deal with. This, however, has involved the LNC, which represents ME, and thus the issues have become MY business. However, I do not have any authority…. I have only my opinion. As a party member, I need to be educated about the issues, and that is all I am doing.
You and a band of others (thus Wagner “group”) acted unilaterally. And I do not condone that. It is violative of a voluntary association. You can’t violate rights of others by saying that HE was about to violate rights of others. That is like saying we must have the state and not anarchy because anarchy would lead to the state. It is nonsensical. You make this about YOU, but it isn’t, it is about the group. A group, members of which you disenfranchised, and even the ones who ultimately ratified… how much did they know? Would they have rathered it be a different way? What choices were they given?
I believe if I was the LPO with ballot access, I would attend the Libertarian National Convention with the intent to walk out if the Convention fails to seat the LPO delegation or tries to inject unwanted deligates into their delegation. I would walk out and deny the National Party ballot access!
I would hope that if the LPO does this that they have a really good favorite daughter or son to run as a place holder for the Presidental Office and a full slate of Electors as well as high quality candidates up and down the ticket.
I would hope that if such an intrussion on the rights of the LPO were to happen again, that like minded deligates from other states would walk out with them in protest.
I believe that if this were to happen this would actually be good for the party. If for no other reason then it would attract media attention to the convention and to the party. It would also force a debate at the delegate level about the relationship between the state parties and the national party.
Again… I did not act alone nor by pure individual fiat – and if you lived here for the past 10 years you would probably have a completely different perspective on the matter.
That is precisely why outsiders should not interfere in foreign politics.
You didn’t have the right to do that. The membership did. You were not crowned king.
“I get it but there was still a right of the membership to make the final decision, not you. I already disagreed with the wielding of the RONR when this quorum issue was not the understanding that all this was done under before. We don’t disagree there. So you fix the quorum issue and move on with your reforms.”
Nope… that would have been organizational suicide to attempt it given the conditions on the ground.
==They planned to do it first — you and I have different opinions on whether to use self-defense or not. It is that simple but you lack the facts on the ground, the history of the people involved, and the details. This is why outsiders should not meddle in other state’s business. There are reasons a 97% majority supported what was done and there were no pitchforks and torches and why a republican party insider lawyer represented the Burke side.==
That is your belief. You cannot just violate a voluntary agreement based upon your crystal ball. I do not have to believe in the purity of the other side to say what you did was not right.
==If the “unilaterally cut out” care so much, they can register libertarian and vote different leadership in.==
That is not your decision to make. That betrays an incredible arrogance.
==I did not act alone and we did not act without a charter. We had a charter from the 2009 convention … we enacted it when gamesmanship was used to prevent its enactment couple with an existential threat.==
I get it but there was still a right of the membership to make the final decision, not you. I already disagreed with the wielding of the RONR when this quorum issue was not the understanding that all this was done under before. We don’t disagree there. So you fix the quorum issue and move on with your reforms.
Sorry the 2010 convention (May 2010) not 2009.
Caryn
They planned to do it first — you and I have different opinions on whether to use self-defense or not. It is that simple but you lack the facts on the ground, the history of the people involved, and the details. This is why outsiders should not meddle in other state’s business. There are reasons a 97% majority supported what was done and there were no pitchforks and torches and why a republican party insider lawyer represented the Burke side.
If the “unilaterally cut out” care so much, they can register libertarian and vote different leadership in.
I did not act alone and we did not act without a charter. We had a charter from the 2009 convention … we enacted it when gamesmanship was used to prevent its enactment couple with an existential threat.
Game over.
From a Facebook post re: the above:
“boycott the convention it will be seen as you giving up and that you don’t care about Liberty”
It will not be seen that way by me!
Wes, I apologize again for the way you were jerked around by Ron Nielson and GJ2012. I communicated promises to you that I believed in, relied upon and when I found I had mis-relied on those, I quit (although that wasn’t the only issue). You were an honorable gentleman through all of that and IMO withholding ballot access is not a hateful act — it is LOVE — and the best kind — tough love. It is vital, IMO, to love others enough to not rob them of the lessons that come from the logical and natural consequences of their actions. When one robs others in that way it is NOT LOVE. Allowing others to experience the logical and natural choices of their behaviors IS LOVE (and the opposite of “helicopter parenting” — which is so unloving and destructive).
Frankly I do not see what other options your organization has. Except in isolated cases among individuals, reasoning has not worked (likely because your past relative kindness and generosity have confused them.
Colonel Joseph G. Buchman, PhD
Lord and Master of all I survey, and chair, Libertarian Party of everywhere not on planet Earth, etc.
(Actually I am a legit Kentucky Colonel)
I have a HUGE problem with the JC being able to overturn the decisions of the LNC or the EC for that matter. The LNC should be able to overturn a decision of the EC and the Convention of Delegates should be able to overturn the decisions of both. NO group in the LP should have the power to overturn the decisions of the body. It’s simple. Who then hell sold the idea to give the JC power over the LNC or the Convention?
Wes,
It is not BS whether or not your coup was legitimate. You prevent the expense of going to trial by not breaking the rules of the voluntary association. Which you have admitted you did, but justify it. You are arguing that the disenfranchised member class you unilaterally cut out for example have no recourse. That is bull. It seems no matter what… that you have decided you are the ultimate authority on behalf of everyone in this.
Caryn
When you are fighting a case that is absolute B.S. you do what you can to prevent the expense of going to trial. If you want to write a $400,000 check to go to trial… please send it to PO Box 1099, Wilsonville, OR 97070
Umm, he was joking. Unless you really think we were going to send you and Wes to Pluto to settle it. It is a tempting thought.
All,
The LNC cannot mandate an Oregon convention as long as there is an Oregon affiliate.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Wes,
Is the audio there? And I will look…. can you give me an approximate date? I am just finding scribd kinda clunky to navigate.
I have to tell you that even arguing absolute claim preclusion in toto…. is so disturbing to me that I can barely express it.
Saying “he did it too” in the past is not a libertarian argument AFAIAC. You are basically arguing to the Court that even if I did effect a completely abusive and illegitimate coup (I am characterizing it in the worst possible light for sake of argument to demonstrate a point), no one has ANY relief. Bwahahaha.
And I think that is wrong.
(Claim preclusion should have prevailed IMO given that in 2005/2006 Burke as an agent of the LPO argued successfully that the court cannot compel a treasurer to obey party rules and create accurate books per the party bylaws and received the relief he asked for that the court cannot interfere in party business)
Caryn,
The Motion for Summary Judgement was made by the defendants (us) citing 8 distinct reasons why summary judgment should be granted. The court ruled on 1 and rendered the other 7 moot. The filings in my scribd account are more or less in chronological order by upload date. The plaintiffs sent a clarification letter regarding the judicial committee, the judge stated he understood their clarification, but that it was an example of an internal relief and not an informative one and should not have been interpreted as such. IIRC claim preclusion was our #1 choice… but 1st amendment was #2. I can only speculate the judge chose #2 because it was easier to rule upon and that deciding on #1 actually would require wading into waters protected by #2.
You should find these documents in the account unless I forgot something.
==Please schedule a special convention to resolve this issue once and for all.
Pls schedule it to be held on Pluto, which is now once again a planet in good standing.===
And only invite Oregon? [evil grin]
Nick–
Please schedule a special convention to resolve this issue once and for all.
Pls schedule it to be held on Pluto, which is now once again a planet in good standing.
Richard,
==Wagner’s court positions attempt to create an untenable and un-libertarian situation where members of a group led by a rogue state chair have no recourse through the Sec. of State, the courts, or presumably anywhere else. Authoritarian rule, even if not exercised, is a poor foundation upon which to build a libertarian organization, and this is one of the other reasons why we continue to fight this.==
I understand. Though the law might give one the “right” to do this, it is patently unlibertarian IMHO to pursue that. I understand the counter-argument, that this was for the good of the party, that monkey business was going before, that there was an after-the-fact ratification, but this is a party of voluntary agreement based upon bylaws which the prior member class had every reason to depend upon. I do not believe in violating such agreements for a higher cause. Appeals to the revolutionary war do not help. A voluntary association is not a state imposes its coercive will and violence upon anyone.
If you notice, I am being ruthlessly consistent. This is the same standard I am holding the LNC to… its voluntary rules.
Does anyone have the audio of that hearing?
Richard, I will email you. I assume your offer that I can post those substantive correspondences here holds. I won’t violate privacy unless there is some kind of fraud or deceit involved, without permission which is why none of my other email correspondences have been posted here nor the authors disclosed. I won’t do that.
Who filed the Motion for Summary Judgment? What was the result?
Wes, there are a ton of filings in your folder, which is great, but can you link specifically to the MSJ, any oppositions/responses to the MSJ, and any Orders on the MSJ?
It is my understanding that the circuit Judge made a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the existence of a LPO JC, and just was contradictory.
I have to say Wes, I am deeply disturbed by your argument that there should be NO recourse outside of a coup. I am fine with letting the courts decide, but your argument is that no one should decide…. but you.
Waiving oral arguments is not a signal to the appeals court that you want them to take your appeal seriously.
Wagner,
I stand corrected, but I wasn’t trying to quote him directly. He said something to the effect that he did not go over all of it, that it was a two-bagger, and then proceeded to ask both sides questions that are typically asked by people who had not read the material.
It was obvious that there were things that needed to be adjudicated, much more banal than the most important issues, including but not limited to who various properties properly belong to. This guy just wanted the case off his docket.
I supposed he went over some summary materials, but it matters little at this point. I am hopeful that the appeals judges will be more conscientious.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
The vast lion’s share of the questions were directed at plaintiffs counsel, Tyler Smith, which shows the judge clearly read the plaintiffs pleadings and was giving all the rights conferred to the party raising the claim in a summary judgment hearing (whereby the case is adjudicated with prejudice that all facts that are in dispute are weighted to the advantage of the non-moving party).
Despite that standard, the plaintiffs still lost their case.
They also waived oral arguments in the appeal, which is not exactly something that sends a strong message as the appellate.
The concept that they will receive a favorable ruling from the court is not an entirely rational position.
And, finally, I didn’t post what I posted for purposes of arguing with you about your fraud perpetrations. I posted what I posted for purposes of IPR’s moderators discussing whether or not the anti-fraud-in-identity rule is applicable to positions, not just personal names.
Burke,
1) I am not on your side of the dispute. Neither is the state of Oregon. Neither was the Judicial Committee decision the last time it acted legitimately.
2) Whether or not your organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon is irrelevant to the question of whether or not your organization is the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
3) Your organization’s fraudulent, deceptive and abusive use of another organization’s name doesn’t make you the secretary of that other organization.
George — Sorry, the – should have been an — not a minus sign. 🙂 I was separating a thought, not subtracting.
Thomas,
I am not fraudulently signing my name as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, almost literally, by any standard. Consider:
1. If you are on our side of the dispute, you acknowledge that I am the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
2. If you are not on our side of the dispute, the recent Judicial Committee ruling effectively restores our organization as the LNC’s Oregon affiliate and, again, you acknowledge that I am the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
3. If you are in denial about #2, and don’t believe the recent Judicial Committee ruling restores our organization as the LNC’s Oregon affiliate, then the fact remains that, at the very least, we are recognized as a PAC named “Libertarian Party of Oregon” and it cannot be denied by anyone that I am Secretary of that.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
“. By the judge’s own admission he did not read the briefs or documentation (he called it a two-bagger because the papers filled two Trader Joe’s grocery bags). ”
This is completely untrue … he did not say he did not read it and in fact was very well prepared. Anyone who would listen to the audio transcript would see this as an outright fabrication on the part of Burke — aside from him calling it a two bagger, that part is true, but he did not say it with any intonation that he did not read the material and the judge asked very pointed questions specific to the filings and arguments therein. The audio supports this reality, not the one Burke is peddling.
Wes @4.24 PM: Your math makes no sense. Not wrong, just incomprehensible.
Caryn,
That is what we have been arguing in court. Wagner’s court positions attempt to create an untenable and un-libertarian situation where members of a group led by a rogue state chair have no recourse through the Sec. of State, the courts, or presumably anywhere else. Authoritarian rule, even if not exercised, is a poor foundation upon which to build a libertarian organization, and this is one of the other reasons why we continue to fight this.
It is sad that the last judge who dismissed our case, though not on the merits, was so eager to get this case off of his docket. By the judge’s own admission he did not read the briefs or documentation (he called it a two-bagger because the papers filled two Trader Joe’s grocery bags). Fortunately, I think the appeals judges will be more conscientious. If we win our appeal, we will be close to having a judge consider the merits of our case, which Wagner’s group has ferociously tried to prevent.
In the end, I don’t think the courts are going to let Mr. Wagner get away with his coup. Wagner and his lawyers will bring up an endless number of side issues in an attempt to obfuscate, but through election law, non-profit law, or something else, it will ultimately boil down to the fact that he and his group, by Wagner’s own admission, tried to replace our governing documents, cancel a properly called convention session, and appoint officers to new terms of office in violation of the member-approved bylaws.
Caryn… please email me at [email protected]. Thank you.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
With respect to boycotting NatCon, it might make sense to wait and see what the LNC does. They might hand your side the victory.
A moderation question which I am not prepared to act on unilaterally:
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that we have a commenting rule at IPR against impersonations. That is, I could start signing my comments with a pseudonym, e.g. Tricky Dick Thomas or something, but I couldn’t sign them in a way intending to confuse people into thinking I am Paulie or Jill or Caryn. Does that rule apply to falsely claiming positions/titles which one does not hold?
Mr. Burke has, several times now, fraudulently signed his comments claiming to be the secretary of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
States that have handled rogue regimes effectively in recent history: Nevada, Pennsylvania
States were that strategy would not work: Oregon
Reason: “rogue” government had > majority support of people who gave a damn – people opposing “rogue” government were mostly hated domestically
Lesson? – Politics is local so stay out of it.
Everyone,
I have reviewed some of the court filings and am deeply concerned and unsure of the remedy. Of course the appeal is not concluded, and things might just need to wait until then to have a good handle.
But here is the issue, in 9/11 we have that JC clarification ruling that basically punts the dispute back to the state and the LPO itself. This is consistent with our bylaws I believe. However, in the lower court, Wagner argued that the state has no authority either, and cited substantial case law that made it a First Amendment issue. This is an untenable situation where someone can effect a coup at the affiliate level and there is no remedy if they are intractable to resolving it internally.
What can the LNC do? Frankly I still think disaffiliation is the only option, with this opening the door for all kinds of monkey business at the affiliate level with takeovers. If the LNC had issued an advisory opinion in 2011 similar to its 1995 letter to OR, this might have all been avoided (though some would have disagreed with the LNC’s opinion) and still might have been arguably a breach of affiliate autonomy. Some argue that this was not an advisory opinion.
Richard –
I have said the same thing regarding Wagner and the quorum issue, I believe you are absolutely right there. Times ten.
Vis a vis the LNC observers, I think you are painting it the way you wish and others are just as justified in their view. My view- the national party members have rights vis a vis the national party that the LNC should protect- they have no business sticking their nose in OR matters. As “observers” sounds nice, but the fact is there is power behind those positions and that is a not subtle intimation of that power “we’re watching you and we can make trouble for you”- that is inappropriate in my book, and I most certainly feel that way if they meddled in CO that way. I can understand the resentment.
Both sides need to start meeting in the middle somewhere for the good of OR (and the LP).
Steve,
We don’t disagree, and I do not know yet all the options other than the use of the delegate vote. Also I would add, the LNC and National is one thing but we really just need to get all activist up in our own States. That is where the real political action is and we can have the most impact.
Don’t get me wrong. This stinks. The most disturbing thing to me is the obvious prejudice of the JC Chair. No one should be applauding that even if it gives them a result they like. Just like I hold the LNC to its bylaws even if the result is not what I would want.
Chuck,
Re: special convention
How I would love to see that. Even if results were not in line with my position. I just want to see the members take more control and assert their voice.
I thought you all might like to see my response to Wes Wagner’s call to boycott the national convention and withhold the presidential ballot line in Oregon.
Hi all,
At this point if you boycott the convention it will be seen as you are giving up and that you don’t care about Liberty. When you stand up to bullies you have to fight. If you don’t fight, it will be seen as giving up and running away.
What National is doing is unconscionable, but if you don’t go to the convention and try to defend you position, then most people there will only hear their side of the issues and we will look like the bad guys.
It might make you feel better but it will do nothing advance liberty in Oregon or at the national level.
I encourage anyone who wants to stand up to these bullies to go to Orlando with the understanding that you won’t be seated with the Oregon delegation but you will be seated with another state and your voices will be heard. Then after the convention, if national still refuses to recognize us, then withhold the presidential ballot line because they broke there arrangement with us and they won’t be able to claim that it was our fault that their candidate wasn’t on the ballot in Oregon.
Dick
The reason I call you Dick is to associate you in the minds of others with another famous Dick. The one associated with the quote; “I’m not a crook!”
That would be like eliminating the JC seven years ago because it has not recently done anything.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
George Phillies wrote:
Before my time. I get the impression that it was sort of like a state chairs conference… for social purposes and training rather than business.
Dan Karlan brought it to the bylaws committee’s attention because we are considering proposals that change the way conventions work, including a proposal that would eliminate non-regular conventions. We haven’t had a real meeting yet, so I don’t know whether that proposal will be reported out of committee.
LibertyDave,
What can I or anyone else say about your speculations about what M Carling, I, or anyone else would do in particular scenarios except, “You’re wrong, but you’re entitled to your opinion.” Your anger, furstration, and/or hatred is getting the better of you, as evidenced by the fact that you are regarding such speculations as self-evident facts.
Regarding the whole “Dick” thing: If you call me Dick, I’ll answer to it. After all, it is a nickname for “Richard”. I went by Dick, as my father still does, until I was 16. At that time we moved to Kansas and I started to go by “Rich” because I liked it better and was already weary of the jokes. I still go by “Rich” when dealing with family and friends.
If you are addressing me as “Dick” to imply that I am “a dick” in the colloquial sense, all I can say is, have at it. You think you are the first to come up with that one? Such third grade tactics are usually the last redoubt of people whose arguments are shown to be weak. It doesn’t really bother me (been there) but it makes you look juvenile and weakens your credibility among folks you might otherwise persuade.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Interesting. I had never heard about that before. What happened?
George Phillies wrote:
The Libertarian Party held a non-regular Convention in 1978. It was in Massachusetts… specifically, Boston.
Steve,
It is possible that the LNC will deal with things. I believe that at this point they have not yet heard from the Judicial Committee.
At the next NatCon, canning most of the current judicial committee would be good. Getting rid of everyone who was on the 2011 ExComm and voted for th2 2011 resolutions would be a good thing. We are currently at 3 down, 3 to go.
Before Orlando, the only simple path that does not involve the LNC is a Special National Convention, which has never happened before. Of course, until recently the JC had done very little in a long time, too.
George
Dick
You stated;
“There was never any point where we were considering pulling any kind of coup in violation of party bylaws.”
We know how your group works. You would have had M Carling come up with a RONR excuse to ignore the party bylaws when you pulled your coup. Just like you did during your meeting after the canceled convention. And like now with M Carling’s attempt to use the Judicial Committee to take over the LPOR instead of disaffiliating the current LPOR and affiliating with your group
You also stated;
“Fact is that, had Wagner limited his 3/31/11 coup to fixing the quorum issue, he would have gotten away with it.”
This is also false. You and M Carling had other excuses you would have tried to use to stop Wagner’s group and take over the LPOR. I was here in Oregon and watching when it happened and heard some of them before either group attempted any coups.
Caryn, if there is nothing in place enabling action against a rogue judicial committee, then we have something else broken with the Libertarian Party, and that fact becomes yet another reason why people are becoming more interested in opting out.
If we act like Republicans and Democrats, on an organizational level, we will be treated like Republicans and Democrats.
Regardless of whether one believes the Reeves group is correct, or the Wagner group is correct, or NEITHER group is correct, the case remains that the JC is positively INCORRECT.
This needs to be rectified, or we will continue to loose members to apathy.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Daniel,
You are correct that the 2015 JudComm rescinded their 2011 ruling on the LPO and did not issue a new ruling. Still, this would seem to restore the authority of the two LNC Executive Committee resolutions of 7/18/11 (passed 6-1), the attempted LNC resolution of 10/16/11 recognizing Wagner’s group (failed 5-10), and vindicate the LNC resolution of 11/20/11 (passed 12-5). I recognize that, at present, the state still recognizes Wagner’s group. And we need to see what explanation the JudComm provides us with for their rulings. But given their actions, except by way of moral indignation, I can’t see how anyone can claim that Wagner’s group is affiliated with the LNC anymore.
LibertyDave,
Your last post, and justification for Wagner’s actions contained within, is based on a false premise. The LNC never issued any kind of threat, much less a disaffiliation threat, in connection to the 2010 special convention. They came as observers out of concerns that the rights of national party members were being abrogated, but issued no threats or passed any resolutions in relation to events surrounding that event.
Another point, little discussed…
Wagner has repeatedly asserted that he was forced to execute his coup of 3/31/11 because, according to him, we were about to do the same thing. This was never true. There was never any point where we were considering pulling any kind of coup in violation of party bylaws. To do what Wagner did, we would have had to have a State Committee majority. We did not have it and we had no guarantee that we would have it in the near future.
Fact is that, had Wagner limited his 3/31/11 coup to fixing the quorum issue, he would have gotten away with it. He would probably have been seen as a uniting problem solver rather than a divisive problem creator among LPO members and much of the LNC. This would have afforded him considerable political capital, which he might have been able to use to get most of the rest of what he wanted at a future convention. For those of us who opposed some of his ideas, like effectively getting rid of the NAP, it is good that he has exposed himself as a bully.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
The JudComm repealed a former decision, it did not make anyone the current afiliate. The ExComm vote that is currently valid again is
Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the
Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended
March 14 15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party
of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since
March 15, 2009. (Vote was 6-1. Hinkle, Rutherford,
Mattson, Redpath, Knedler Lark in favor; Ruwart opposed)
2) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Libertarian National Committee recognizes as
the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon those people
elected by the State Committee during its meeting on May
21, 2011. They are: Chair: Tim Reeves; Vice chair: Eric B.
Saub Secretary: Carla J. Pealer ; Treasurer: Gregory Bur-
nett (Motion passed 6-1, same votes as previous motion.)
The first motion does not do anything directly. The second motion recognizes as officers a list of people who are not currently officers of any Libertarian organization, so it has no current effect. Also, as this was an ExComm vote, it can simply be overcome by a new Excomm vote.
Any set of rules lets someone shoot angles.
Sturgis just has fewer angles to shoot.
No matter what set of rules we choose, there’s still no substitute for a Chair who doesn’t let people shoot angles.
Chairman Sarwark
I am familiar with Sturgis’s Standard Code. It is the book used by the American Institute of Parliamentarians of which Allison Wallis is the current President/Chairman of. Allison serves on the Metairie Unit of the National Association of Parliamentarians(The group that uses RONR) with me. I have to ask how she knows M Carling, but she does, as she mentioned him to me when she found out I was a Libertarian. I suspect they may know each other from the AIP.
Switching Parliamentary Authority isnt the Pancea some might claim. All it would do would create a scrabble as to who will learn how to use it to their advantage first over others. Some already have a hand up on an understanding of Sturgis and there are a LOT less AIP Pro’s to turn to for help out there. The problem that LP’s have related to Robert’s is Libertarians all think they are the smartest sucker in the room. Most won’t consult with a NON-Libertarian Professional Parliamentarian. We end up with the various clusters we have all over the country.
The real answer is to get more people to understand the rules and stop using it as a means to “GOTCHA” everyone. We need to learn to govern ourselves or we will be governed.
Since our goal is to move towards self governance, in general I see in Libertarians a bunch of people that are not qualified to run their mouths much less run government with the objective of reducing it.
The REASON that RONR is so damn long and has so much in it is because of PEOPLE. When you leave it more loose and more open ended, SOMEONE finds the angle that can either create a big mess by accident OR..intentionally. RONR is 700 pages because people over the years come to the authorship team with all these goofy scenarios they managed to get into. It attempts to provide an answer to everything that can come up. Where things really get complicated are when others throw their own rules they made up on their own with no experience on top of RONR.
That attempt to cover all the eventualities leads to a massive daunting book. Recently the authorship team released a book called Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, 2nd edition. This book makes it much more doable for members to get a basic grasp on how to run an organization that uses RONR as its Parliamentary Authority.
Daniel Hayes
Metairie Unit of National Association of Parliamentarians member
Richard Burke Wrote:
“Fair warning taken, fair warning back: I think it is unconscionable that any organ of the Libertarian Party, particularly our Judicial Committee, says the government can tell us who our leaders are. ”
IF you don’t believe that Mr. Burke, then maybe you should not be filing suits for relief with the government.
Richard Burke also wrote:
“Finally, I can’t see how even Libertarians like you, who disagree with the latest Judicial Committee ruling, could make a strong principled case for restoring the Wagner regime based on their coup of 3/31/11. That’s what you’d be fighting to validate because that is what you’d get.”
Mr Burke,
Did the 2015 JC make a ruling or did they make a motion to rescind something previously adopted? They actual RULED to dismiss the Epstein petition. Otherwise they simply rescinded the previous 2011 JC Ruling.
Daniel Hayes
LNC Region 7 Alternate Representative
Switch from Roberts to Francis and Francis. It is pretty much not gameable, and LPNC did it.
I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
Nice, Short and to the point. And it is totally worthless. Much like the oath to protect the constitution that all elected officials make, then ignore.
All the NAP does is give us an excuse to feel superior over someone else.
For someone who actually believes that the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals is wrong, it will show in their actions.
For someone who doesn’t believe that the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals is wrong, then they will sign your pledge and proceed to stab you in the back.
For those who say “eww, Oregon got rid of the NAP requirement, there not Libertarians.” Get over yourselves.
If you want to know who lives by the NAP quit listening to what people are saying and start watching what they are doing.
In 2010, officers of the LNC came to Oregon and threatened the LPOR that if they didn’t do as they said then they would disaffiliate the LPOR because anything we do, would be done without a quorum . This is called the initiation of force to achieve a political goal.
In response to the initiation of force from the LNC officers, the Wagner group changed the bylaws according to state law. Remember if the bylaw of a group are written is such a way that no business can be done then the bylaws need to be changed by the officer of the group.
For those who claim that the Wagner group changed to much and there for is in the wrong is like saying that someone who is being attack by someone else with a baseball bat, then pulls out a gun and shoot the person with the bat, used to much force to defend himself. It is still self-defense and not a violation of the NAP.
Since then this group from the LNC has attempted to use force to interfere in the LPOR first by filing a lawsuit against the officers of the LPOR, then by attempting to disaffiliate the LPOR without following their own bylaws.
The officers of the LPOR have never violated the NAP in this matter since it began of this affair, but the same can’t be said about the Carling/Burke group, as had be documented in this thread.
You all need to stop worrying about what the LPOR has done in the past and start worrying about what M. Carling and his group are doing now. Because if his group succeeds in disaffiliating the LPOR without following the National Bylaws then any state party could be next if they don’t like what your doing.
Nick Sarwark wrote:
You know who is on the bylaws committee. That proposal wouldn’t make it out of committee. Frankly, any good changes will have to come from the floor. Perhaps we should be putting together literature and a phone bank encouraging delegates to reject the entire bylaws committee report and use that time for floor proposals.
I think they would game Sturgis just like they are gaming RONR. I’d be much more in favor of passing a bylaw with rules of interpretation (which should be common sense anyway) and making the judicial committee behave like a judicial body such that it requires a case in controversy and cannot revisit decisions from previous terms (a new case in controversy from different plaintiffs/defendants could be decided, and decided differently — precedent not binding — but it would not affect the earlier case).
Nick,
==I believe it’s a simple bylaws change to change the parliamentary authority that the Libertarian National Committee uses. I believe the Bylaws Committee may be considering proposals now.==
I sure hope so. This has become a weapon and a barrier.
Mark,
==Now if both sides in Oregon could perhaps spend some some time and energy promoting freedom and attacking the omnipotent State, that would be a welcome breath of fresh air.==
^^^THAT
We used Sturgis (the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, not the motorcycle rally) to good effect in Maryland. It’s simpler for non-parliamentarians to understand and easier to use.
I believe it’s a simple bylaws change to change the parliamentary authority that the Libertarian National Committee uses. I believe the Bylaws Committee may be considering proposals now.
Chairman Sarwark
I realize that those of you that have attended law school look down your noses on us mere mortals that have not done so and instead rely upon a certain BROWN(coincidence?) book to help guide our “legal” endeavors. Having met quite a few PRPs in my day… They just say each letter, “R O N R”, though when speaking people just often say Robert’s. The problem comes in citing and the diSTINKtions need to be made as to which version you are using. Most organizations set up their Parliamentary Authority to change to the latest version currently in print. RRO just isnt how the cool kids with the big brown decoder ring and credentials tend to write it. RONR is shorter than typing RONR(11th ed.).
Daniel Hayes
Parliamentary Wannabe
Nick,
I don’t believe that’s how you spell “…that accursed tool of Satan…”
Francis and Francis, accept no substitute.
From what I can make out, Everyday Math is like the look-say reading method.
George
Common core is not how you teach math, it is the target point. Readers interested in “how” should investigate “Singapore Math” and “Everyday Math”.
BTW, this is Comment 1000 according to both New Math and Common Core.
So there!!!!!!!!!!! I win.
Now if both sides in Oregon could perhaps spend some some time and energy promoting freedom and attacking the omnipotent State, that would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
Having posted Comment No. 1000, I hereby declare this thread closed and all further debates regarding Oregon LP to be fully resolved, determined for all time and beyond further review.
I need to return to the real world now.
Ciao!
Chuck–
Of course, but you and I both know I did not have any power as Chair of another delegation except to offer space in my own to Mssrs. Burke, Wagner, et al.
BTW, Sam showed up and tried to be credentialed. I told him he could apply to another State, but I was prevented from seating him in NY under our own bylaws. Tom has far better manners than Sam; he had the good grace not to show up in Columbus.
Also important to remember that it’s properly pronounced “ROW-nuhr” when speaking.
Example: “He had such a promising career as a surgeon until he went to parliamentarian school and got his hand mangled in a copy of the RONR.”
The Oregon Party appears to have found the minimum moral suasion level at which part of the LNC sometimes pays attention. They also have the issue that as new internal leadership comes in the new people have to come up to speed on the unbelievable situation. Finally, they appear to want the LNC to disaffiliate them, not the other way around, so that local voters will understand what is going on. AT this point, we must wait for the JC to finish its minutes and deliver up a verdict, following which the LNC has to decide what to do about the situation.
I was asked about this in private, and I thought I should post about it here, because I realize that my position could be understood from this angle, really wrongly, (as it has been used so by Wes)…and I also realize this will depart from the opinion of others here that may agree with me on the main point.
The main point is that the LNC overstepped its bounds. But I do not draw the inference here that it was done maliciously. I know others who have been in the LP much longer than I have definite opinions on motivations etc but you will note, I have avoided those strands of the conversation, and that is intentional.
I do believe that members of the LNC (whether others believe specific ones did not… my statement is not specific but general) could have reached this decision in good faith. Reasonable people have differed as to whether the LNC had this power. They were certainly in a very bad position, and in the heat of the moment, things are not often as clear as they appear to an uninvolved critic. In fact in at least one case, I am absolutely positive the LNC member acted in good faith.
As to their conclusions….I believe most of their decision was right actually. The older bylaws WERE the right bylaws. Wagner did NOT legitimately take over. I am not convinced that the Reeves faction had a proper election either, so I would depart there.
Could some of them wanted the Reeves faction in power for other reasons? Absolutely. But that doesn’t always mean that is why they decided. Richard incorrectly inferred that I came to my decision because I want the Wagner group in power… that is the result isn’t it? But that is not what I want, and if I can make a decision based upon the facts that results in a decision I don’t like, so could the LNC.
I do not believe they had that power, not that they came to an utterly wrong conclusion. I want that to be abundantly clear. And I believe that members who decided they had that power did not have to be operating from some malicious intent but did it in good faith. Does that mean they all did? I can’t say that, and I can’t not say that.
Steve, what *can* be done about the rogue JC?
Those who are complaining, be the change is all I can say.
Wes,
Do not use me in that way to further your personal vendetta. I’m not interested. Let’s remember you are the one who effected a completely illegitimate coup. You are one the baddies when it comes to blowing off rules on a power trip. Sorry, you complaining about the LNC/JC is kinda rich considering that. Don’t mistake my position for keeping the LNC within bounds as support for your actions, then or now.
“Our problem right now is that too many people are opting out.”
We have members who are not interested in running for office given the bullshit they have to deal with when they attempt to gain ballot access, we have volunteers who refuse to go out and work, for the exact same reason. Now, we have a party whose Judicial Committee, chaired by a member of the group which will directly benefit from a favorable ruling using force because the committee, as a whole, believes that it is more important to take up the charge for an issue they have 0 authority to do anything about. This, of course, screams “CORRUPTION!” even to the cheap seats!
Why, IN THE WORLD, would anyone wish to take time, and / or donate money, to an organization, which, so far, allows itself to, at best, look like a farcical melodramatic group of individuals attempting to look important?
I have news… members are not enthusiastic about supporting people who enjoy stroking their own egos, frankly, neither am I.
To those of you who want a presidential candidate on the ballot in Oregon, I would be surprised if that ship has not sailed already given the actions of the JC this past weekend… To this observer, the LNC is its own worst enemy.
Those involved in the Oregon Dispute are THEIR own worst enemy.
While I still say that this thread will reach 1,000 or higher, it will have to do so without my participation.
Frankly, I am extremely disturbed by the fact that we are discussing Oregon, as opposed to what we should be doing to the Rogue Judicial Committee, since it appears that we all agree that it had no authority to do what it did, and it did it anyway, at the prodding of its chair, a man who stands to benefit from the decision rendered.
Here’s to keeping an eye on the ball…..
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Mr Burke,
RONR is the proper way to refer to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Thank you for your attention.
Daniel Hayes
LNC Region 7 Alternate
Parliamentary Peever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRvGZffXhfk
La la lala la la la la la la LA la lalalaaaaa…..
“Wagnerian operas have a reputation for being very long, dawn out, and over-dramatic. This is no different.”
lol
Some non-political reading I’m doing, completely separate from this. Somehow it seemed to relate…
http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2011/03/07/defending-your-territory-is-pe/
Defending Your Territory: Is Peeing on the Wall Just for the Dogs?
Well played.
Caryn
The party in its current form has been very parasitic and chewed up and spit out alot of very good people. It is hard to believe that as someone who is new that it could be that bad, but over time the problems begin to become more clear, and the reasons why they exist become more clear — and the solution becomes more clear.
Exactly!
Usually true.
Doesn’t mean that it will not lead to the Epstein group being recognized by the LNC as its affiliate. It probably will.
George,
It is not my position that the Judicial Committee’s ukase should be viewed as invalid.
It’s my position that the Judicial Committee’s ukase is invalid.
Paulie,
With regard to how many people are aware and care about this, people in a controversy often delude themselves into thinking everyone must care about it as much as they do. It reminds me of something one of my pastors said, “Don’t worry about what other people think of you. They don’t.” We all like to think we are the center of the universe.
Wes,
==excellent choice… if everyone would go Galt we could get this resolved.==
I have to retract my prior statements of ideological affiliation, at least on this count. Our problem right now is that too many people are opting out. Why are you in a political party? This kind of stuff is highly destructive to the party… just as much as the conservative shove. I respect consistent voluntaryists… but if you want to be that, don’t do it within the party those of us are working for. We have a different idea of how to work towards liberty, and it isn’t telling party members to ignore the party. Being a wrecker is not a high calling.
I once heard the definition of hero described as “Someone who can turn an enemy into a friend”
Wes, your attitude does just the opposite. You are turning friends into enemies. Quit being a villain and become a hero. It will make your life way easier and a lot more fun.
Not me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svMHBPed9Bs
Tom,
I will respect your position that the recent JC decision should be viewed as invalid, but the likelihood that that will occur appears to me to be significantly less than the likelihood that I will be our 2016 Presidential nominee.
George
Seconded!
Wagnerian operas have a reputation for being very long, dawn out, and over-dramatic. This is no different.
See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/state-recognized-libertarian-party-or-oregon-convention-comes-up-short-of-quorum-business-goes-to-mail-ballot-board-elects-new-leadership/
Maybe. My last one was #800 so you could still be #1,000 too.
I dont think Wagner et al would be that help. See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/lp-judicial-committee-meets-tomorrow-to-reconsider-prior-jc-decision-re-oregon-affiliate-carling-will-not-recuse-himself/#comment-1217935
There were handouts from both sides of the Oregon dispute on our tables.
Only if you consider the latest action of the JC to be legitimate.
Not in practical reality. Outside of your wishlist, that question is settled.
I suspect you will end up being correct, but we shall see. Even if you are, I don’t think it will put you any closer to being on the ballot in Oregon.
Yep!
The issue of “parties without standing” was made irrelevant by the rejection of the Epstein petition. The endless reconsideration period and some other things are more germane.
The question is whether the EC or LNC will have votes to make some new motion based on this alleged reconsideration stick. My guess is yes.
Illustrated way above:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/lp-judicial-committee-meets-tomorrow-to-reconsider-prior-jc-decision-re-oregon-affiliate-carling-will-not-recuse-himself/#comment-1218222
If you’re not correct, you’re most likely not far off. The number of people who understand it and care is most likely even lower.
LibertyDave to Richard Burke:
Yep!
LibertyDave to Wes Wagner:
Right again!
I don’t find conspiracy conjecture to be very productive, so I’ll just say that intended or not that is the net effect they are having with this endless feud, which may well be about to metastasize on the national level.
Understandable given the circumstances, but I wish we had more level headedness like what you seem to exhibit through the rest of your comment in the LPOR, and in the LP in general.
Mark Axinn wrote:
Mark,
How would you react if the convention delegates decided to seat Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens as the New York delegation instead of the list you submitted to the credentials committee? Would that not be a big deal because Georgia would provide a space for the people you intended to have credentialed from New York (including yourself)?
Everyone? Sounds collectivist to me. If you want to “Go Galt” by all means please go right ahead. I don’t see why the fact that some of us would like to continue to have a national LP stands in the way of you “going Galt.” Now “going Galt” is not my thing personally…but if it’s yours…please stop dicking around with electoral politics and
LibertyDave
“promoting Libertarian issues instead of Libertarian politics.”
excellent choice… if everyone would go Galt we could get this resolved.
Richard, or can I call you Dick?
Dick
Ballot access in Oregon is not in dispute, the state has spoken and it belongs to Wagner’s group and nothing a bunch of people outside of Oregon does will change that.
Your hope that the recent events with the judicial committee will make any difference in you lawsuit will be in vain. Oregon is controlled by Democrats, not Republicans and most Democrats will rule against you just to damage the Republicans you consistently endorse.
Wes
I’ve told you this before and you wouldn’t listen, maybe this time it might sink in.
It doesn’t take a bully to stand up to a bully.
Your attitude has hurt your cause more than anything Dick has done. I know you’re not stupid which makes me wonder if you and Dick worked this out between yourselves to destroy the LP.
Your attitude and the actions of the Carling group at National are the reason I am not active in the LP and instead put my time and energy in promoting Libertarian issues instead of Libertarian politics.
PDX to Orlando is not a particularly expensive plane flight compared to alot of other locations.
Jill,
I hate to disagree with you, but I have to.
Outside of two places (Oregon itself and the LNC, the latter of which appears to have been subverted by the party’s enemies on this issue), there probably aren’t 50 people in the party who care — or have even noticed — this matter.
In the past, we’ve sometimes been able to create enough of a ruckus to get some popular support behind fighting SMC’s attempts to destroy the LP. But it takes work each time, and the work hasn’t been done yet THIS time.
We need to get started on that work, and on the secondary task of making future such work less necessary by rooting the party’s enemies out of their trenches in the LNC, Judicial Committee, Bylaws Committee, Credentials Committee, etc. They get the jump on us every time by being able to pull this kind of shit from positions of authority within the party, and every time beating them in the subsequent fight is a big “if.”
Considering that Orlando is at the extreme other end of the country, I can’t blame Wes for not knowing if they’ll go. It costs a fortune for a weekend trip like that. Sometimes, it involves baby-sittters, pet-sitters, or misssed work. In the meantime, we don’t know how this new idiotic situation will play out. I’m amused that Burke somehow think they’ve won. They haven’t, but Wagner’s group hasn’t won yet, either.
Richard, people are outraged over the overreach of the judicial committe. Don’t put your boxing gloves away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
Plus, I haven’t heard the fat lady sing yet.
Burke, maybe if you say it enough times, someone will believe you.
Quoth George:
“The currently active LNC ExComm resolution identifies the affiliate as the group that has Mr Reeves as Chair and Mr Saub as Vice Chair.”
That’s incorrect. That ExComm resolution was invalidated on appeal to the Judicial Committee. Since fraudulent and untimely appeals by parties without standing do not fall within the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction, there’s been no reversal of that invalidation.
Mark, I believe that the Oregon people were all allegedly seated as Oregon delegates. The currently active LNC ExComm resolution identifies the affiliate as the group that has Mr Reeves as Chair and Mr Saub as Vice Chair. The Epstein appeal appears to have been dropped because the Judicial Committee thought that matters had been settled with the Reeves faction as our affiliate, but the motion about the Oregon Bylaws is not an affiliation motion and the motion as to whom the valid officers are is inoperative. The JC might have been better off to act on the Epstein petition directly.
The next bit of entertainment happens when the LNC or ExComm irons this matter out. Bring plenty of popcorn.
Caryn,
Sorry if I was not clear in my earlier post where I was discussing possible Orland scenarios. I was not trying to represent your position. I was just trying to speculate on what the political realities are likely to be on the floor.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Mark Axinn wrote:
That’s great, Mark! I believe Georgia has been accommodating too.
However, it obscures the real issue. It’s not just about the ability to be a delegate, it’s also about being seated in your actual delegation and not having a bunch of imposters that did not go through the proper procedure seated in your delegation against your will or replacing you as a fake delegation.
In Columbus the delegates had the “let’s just seat everybody” attitude. That led to disrespecting the sovereignty of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, seating a bunch of people who neither recognized the sovereignty of the party nor went through its delegate selection procedures (which were pretty much everyone who asked and who was a member — meaning registered libertarian voter — got seated), and allowing those imposters to get a majority of the delegation, elect a new delegation chair, and choose the LNC representation. That is OUTRAGEOUS!!!
I think the Wagner crew have been excessively polite at national conventions. I’ve served as chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania and the Libertarian Party of Virginia. If the credentials committee or the national convention delegates had tried to disenfranchise either affiliate I was chairing and seat a fake delegation instead of us, you can bet your ass I would be angry beyond anything anyone has ever seen and we would not just roll over and take it. You would have to drag me kicking and screaming from a microphone before I would stop filibustering that BULLSHIT. And if I was escorted out of the convention hall, you can be damn sure I would return with a team of lawyers by the end of the day.
Richard P. Burke,
All,
Wes’s group cannot disaffiliate from the LNC because it has again established, as it was by the 2011 LNC, that it is not and never has been the Oregon affiliate of the LNC.
Now, Wes’s group attempting to disaffiliate from the LNC would be like Notre Dame disaffiliating from the National Football League.
The dispute does remain about who the Libertarian ballot line belongs to in Oregon. That is a battle we still must fight, but the political landscape in Oregon has changed and much can happen. Do not assume it is a no-brainer that Wagner’s group will retain it. In any case, the recent JudComm ruling settles the question of who the LNC affiliate is.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Chuck,
Agreed!
Since I wasn’t involved with the LP as of the 2012 or 2014 conventions, a question: Was there any organized effort at either convention to INFORM THE DELEGATES OF THE FUCKERY THAT WAS GOING ON?
If not, there should be this time. Some of us who want this to be done right should work with LPO to get a list of their legitimate delegates early and have literature ready at the door and workers running info on the floor so that delegates know who the legitimate LPO delegates are and can be persuaded, early, to resist any attempts by the Reeves Gang, Burke Gang, Epstein Gang, SMC or whatever, to monkeywrench things again.
I’d be glad to be part of such an effort. But I can’t get too excited about it with LPO already talking about just blowing the whole thing off.
Chuck–
If I recall, we offered in Columbus whichever side in the Oregon fight lost to become New York delegates.
Not surprisingly, no one took me up on that.
I hope the Libertarian Party of Oregon shows up at the national convention.
The way the LPO has been treated by the credentials committee in 2012, convention organizers in 2014, convention delegates in 2014, and the judicial committee in 2015 has been ridiculous and reprehensible. Those of us who still want to fix the Libertarian Party from within could use help throwing the bad people out and electing good people. The machiavellians should not be given the satisfaction of winning after all the destruction they have inflicted on the LP.
Dammit Paulie, if I’m not comment 1000 can I be comment 10,000? Or 10,000,000?
I forgot whether it was Wes or someone else from Oregon warning other affiliates about M Carling and Alicia Mattson, but to that one I must reply. M Carling has been a member of LPNY for many years and was a great resource for me, who hates rules and procedure but had a Roberts Rules fanatic as Secretary, during the five years that I was state chair. Ms. Mattson, alas, has never been a member of our fine state organization, but I welcome anyone with 1/100th of her organization and dedication to hard work. And she hates the NSA as much as I do.
Wes, you are still in control of the only LP affiliate that the SOS of Oregon recognizes. Just go out and run a libertarian organization and please stop threatening the national party. I have never had it tell us who to support or how to run our affairs, so you should just go on recruiting candidates and building the libertarian movement in Oregon. Talk of not supporting the LP Presidential candidate will not win you any support here (a friendly forum) or elsewhere.
As Andy asked, how does this in-fighting help advance libertarianism and the freedom agenda?
Lars Hedbor
Kyle Markley
Jennifer Mendenhall
Sharon Durbin
Jeff Weston
Wes Wagner
Robert Rowe
Frank Brannen
David Massman
The state committee section of the Libertarian Party of Oregon website seems to be out of date (it still lists Wagner as chair). Who was elected to the new board?
Wolfefan,
Thank you so much. Comments such as yours make it all worthwhile.
Wes,
You threatened to disaffiliate in 2011 over the LNC EC’s attempt to disaffiliate you.
You threatened to disaffiliate in 2012 over the convention delegate situation.
You threatened to disaffiliate in 2014 over the convention delegate situation.
Now you’re threatening to boycott the Orlando convention and withhold the ballot line, which amounts to disaffiliating although it seems like you might be trying to shift the burden of actually acting on that to the LNC with that one.
I’ve supported your side on the main issues.
And I’ve been quite clear that if the LNC keeps acting the way it has been acting, LPO would be fully justified in disaffiliating and going its own separate way.
ACTUALLY disaffiliating and going its own separate way, not just threatening to every 12-18 months.
Either disaffiliate or come to the convention and fight.
Hi Caryn – just a note to thank you for your participation in this thread. Most of the long threads devolve very quickly into endless back and forth. Your participation, analysis, and pointed questioning of both sides has brought forth admissions of regret from each (which I have never seen before.) I also have far greater clarity on what occurred and when, which I would not have had absent your role here. Thank you again.
I do hope you direct them to this thread.
Tom
We seated a new board just before our last meeting.. we were not about to cram the decision down their throats even though we have the votes before they had time to learn about the dispute and form and argue opinions.
==f this becomes an issue in Orlando I think people will respond well to the idea that our side is the one which defended the NAP as a requirement for membership and that our organization is based on governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions. People don’t like coups as a matter of course, and those trying to restore his coup won’t look good. As a Libertarian at a national convention speaking to a typical delegate, I’d rather be on our side of that debate than the other side.==
I don’t think people will respond well to misstating positions either Richard. I am in favor of keeping the LNC within its powers. To characterize that as being in favor of Wagner’s acts is not correct.
Amen Tom, you nailed it.
Wes…. leave already if you don’t like it. Seriously. Are you just getting off on the attention?
Q: Why would rational people keep threatening to leave their abusers … for four years … without ever actually doing so … and then keep threatening to do it some more?
A: Drama queens much?
If you’ve already decided to do it, then fucking do it already.
If you haven’t already decided to do it, then quit whining about how you’re just about ready (for the nth time) to do it.
Either give it the old college try again in Orlando, or don’t. Enough with the “well, maybe THIS time we won’t” stuff.
Does someone have a good argument that does not involve dysfunctional psychological behavior as to why we as a board should endorse our members to spend money and time to represent our state only to have our delegation meddled with again amid the backdrop of all the pre posturing for setting up more meddling when no apologies for past meddlong have ever been issued and it is quite obvious people will just mess with is again?
Why would rational people submit to this and reward their abusers ?
Victim blame mich ?
And Richard I am ridiculously opposed to removing the pledge ever, anywhere. We agree.
With Wes’ threats I tend to favor actual disaffiliation if the current board is onboard with him.
Richard,
You are not correctly representing my position. I do not believe what Wagner did was right. I do not believe what the LNC did was within their power. I do not believe the ends justifies the means in either case.
This is an Oregon matter to be settled by Oregon pursuant to our bylaws. I do not have to say I like that conclusion but justifying breaking the voluntary agreement – which puts all affiliates in doubt as to when their autonomy might be violated is a principled position.
“We have no obligation to fulfill our end of an agreement that the other side has already breached.”
You’re right. You don’t.
But if you’re not going to keep fulfilling your end of the agreement, you should just say so, void the agreement, and go on your merry way instead of threatening, every six months for four years, to void the agreement and go your merry way at some constantly moving point in the future.
Fish or cut bait.
Shit or get off the pot.
The national convention is in what, 10 months? Either announce that you’re out or commit to being in.
Honestly.. I should have refused to sign the papers in 2012 after our delegation was denied.. in retrospect I consider that a mistake because it only further empowered our abusers and increased the codependent relationship.
We have no obligation to fulfill our end of an agreement that the other side has already breached.
Our delegations are not respected and we have no assurances that it will be.
Why should we invest the time to go only to be denied the sovereignty of our delegation and to be fairly represented?
If national wants a ballot line in Oregon it can solve this problem or prepare to petiton for it independently.
More threats from Mr. Wagner.
Why would that be on the agenda, absent either disaffiliation of LPO by the LNC, or a choice by LPO to disaffiliate from the LNC?
If LPO is the affiliate, one of its obligations is to make its ballot line available to the national convention nominee. And IMO that’s not a negotiable obligation. If you’re not planning to do it, be honest about it and get the fuck out now.
It is still on the agenda to boycott orlando and post a blank presidential ballot line because our delegations are not respected. It has not been decided yet.
“That was not in the plain reading of the bylaw itself, it wasn’t the intent, and no one saw this implication of Roberts Rules for three years.”
Most assignments of Robert’s as parliamentary authority in state LP bylaws, in my experience, specify that Robert’s is the authority “where consistent with” the bylaws.
If the intent was not X, then an application of Robert’s that requires X is not consistent with the intent.
This is one of the ways in which SMC has backasswardized parliamentary procedure in everything they’ve touched. They treat Robert’s as a plenary and supervening authority regardless of bylaws content, rather than as a guide to implementing that content. Or at least that’s how they treat it when they want something the bylaws don’t allow.
Caryn,
Read RRO with respect to recinding decisions. It isn’t possible to recind a successful motion to rescind a previous decision. When a body rescinds a decision, the issue dies and ceases to exist as if never existed (though the carnage remains, I suppose). To bring it up again requires an entirely new item of business, which would have to come to Judcomm like any other new item of business.
Consequently, the peril you describe, repeated and alternating motions to rescind, cannot happen. No parliamentary body would have stability otherwise because nothing could ever be settled. A body can rescind to correct an error, which is totally in order, but it only gets one bite at that apple once done.
Hopefully, when we get to Orlando, as was the case in Columbus, people will not be obsessed with any single issue – including Oregon. People on this list care a lot more about Oregon than most delegates do, and I suspect those complaining about Oregon on either side will be seen by the delegates to be obnoxious (which was the case in Columbus). That dynamic may work for our side this time.
Finally, I can’t see how even Libertarians like you, who disagree with the latest Judicial Committee ruling, could make a strong principled case for restoring the Wagner regime based on their coup of 3/31/11. That’s what you’d be fighting to validate because that is what you’d get.
If this becomes an issue in Orlando I think people will respond well to the idea that our side is the one which defended the NAP as a requirement for membership and that our organization is based on governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions. People don’t like coups as a matter of course, and those trying to restore his coup won’t look good. As a Libertarian at a national convention speaking to a typical delegate, I’d rather be on our side of that debate than the other side.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Same with Brian Holtz. I’ve also invited a lot of other people to post articles here in the past who have yet to agree. Bruce Cohen was a writer here for a while, but he had some issues with the ownership (I don’t remember anymore if it was Trent Hill or Warren Redlich) and got the boot. Robert Capozzi has never agreed to become an IPR editor, but is one of our busiest commenters.
And as I also said earlier:
The offer has been, still is, and will remain open. I no longer have access to sign people up unilaterally, but I can make recommendations to the Redlichs, and they are generally pretty good about following up on those.
Richard I also want to be clear that I think the LNC can give the state the finger in its bylaws and say it can interpret bylaws of its affiliates in equity regardless of state laws and decisions. But it didn’t.
tldr; the LNC is bound by its bylaws to have a hands off approach in issuing binding decisions touching upon the bylaws and actions of its affiliate other than disaffiliation
Hit return too soon… this does not mean we have to approve of the rules of the state. We can work to change them, we can protest them, the LNC can have a definite opinion on who’s right and who’s wrong here, but the fact is, as that email above from the JC member showed, ballot access, officer recognition, etc are all practical realities we have to deal with. And that is what identifies the affiliate legally.
I don’t approve of what Wagner did.
I don’t approve of the state.
I don’t approve of the state’s rules.
But this is the system we are in, and if we are going to play the political game, this is what we have. I don’t like it.
We cannot unilaterally go beyond our bylaws to expand our powers. This not only affects the autonomy of OR, it is a threat to the autonomy of every affiliate who has a right to know what their affiliation relationship and bounds are with the National LP
Richard, I can only address one point now:
==Fair warning taken, fair warning back: I think it is unconscionable that any organ of the Libertarian Party, particularly our Judicial Committee, says the government can tell us who our leaders are. In my mind, correcting such an egregious error is NOT out of line, is eminently defensible, and is absolutely consistent with our Statement of Principles. Every deliberative body is allowed by RONR the option to correct mistakes by means of motions to rescind. I see no reason or mechanism that would make JudComm an exception to this concept. But if you want to talk about naked power grabs, talk about what Wagner’s group did on 3/31/11. Without that, there would be no errant Judicial Committee ruling of 2011 or, for that matter, corrective Judicial Committee ruling of 2015.++
We have chosen these rules and to respect the autonomy of the affiliates, even when violations happen. The only recourse the LP allowed itself in its bylaws is disaffiliation. We have chosen to be a political party thus voluntarily subjecting ourself to the state in its rules in this. The bylaws give the JC specific powers, and to endlessly review past cases isn’t one of them. That is naked gaming of the RONR (if that interpretation is even correct, but we have turned into a Party where one has to be an expert not in our voluntary rules but in Parliamentary procedure, and I think that is awful). It has become a bludgeon. And Carling should never have had a thing to do with it. That is unconscionable, and forever taints this.
Richard…. read my posts. I agree that what Wagner’s group did was a naked power grab. I have been singularly unambiguous about that. I do not agree with what he did in the slightest.
And if we vote in a new JC in Orlando, I hope you are consistent and be all in favor of a motion to rescind the motion to rescind. And a motion to rescind the motion to rescind the motion to rescind. Madness.
See above. It was not in the bylaw (old or new) itself. Rather, it was in an interpretation of Roberts Rules regarding what constituted quorum.
The 2007 bylaw change was to change the state conventions from gatherings of delegates to gatherings of party members. Most LP states’ conventions, and LP national conventions, are in theory gatherings of delegates, although in practice any member who shows up can be a delegate – there are often bylaws about how long one has to have been a member, but those typically get waived. What no one understood in 2007, and no one discovered until 2010, was that under Roberts Rules if we call a convention a gathering of “members” rather than “delegates” and don’t specify in the bylaws what percentage of members have to be there to achieve quorum, the default answer is 50% plus one. Of party members in the whole state, to be physically present at the convention. That was not in the plain reading of the bylaw itself, it wasn’t the intent, and no one saw this implication of Roberts Rules for three years.
Caryn,
A few things…
Regarding the 2010 convention, remember that it was 5 years ago. Memories fade. Not everyone has documents to refer back to, so not everyone remembers it right. But I think those on this list know that it was not our side who called the special convention of 2010. And those who called it did not do so for any purpose having anything to do with quorum.
The SOS letter from the Sec. of State you refer to *reiterated* who the SOS recognized, in keeping with their unwritten policy. They did so for an explicitly stated reason, to facilitate candidates being placed on the ballot that year. Given that this letter did not speak to the merits, I think it is important not to read too much into it. They’ve never considered the merits.
I’m not offended by your opinion that the current JC revisiting the 2011 decision was wrong. I also think I have a different standard than you have with respect to what constitutes “gaming” RONR. Rules like RONR become necessary when there is discord; they are less necessary when everyone is happy. When it becomes necessary to invoke RONR, people will naturally work it to their advantage and, I would suggest, that this holds true for every single person on this list.
Fair warning taken, fair warning back: I think it is unconscionable that any organ of the Libertarian Party, particularly our Judicial Committee, says the government can tell us who our leaders are. In my mind, correcting such an egregious error is NOT out of line, is eminently defensible, and is absolutely consistent with our Statement of Principles. Every deliberative body is allowed by RONR the option to correct mistakes by means of motions to rescind. I see no reason or mechanism that would make JudComm an exception to this concept. But if you want to talk about naked power grabs, talk about what Wagner’s group did on 3/31/11. Without that, there would be no errant Judicial Committee ruling of 2011 or, for that matter, corrective Judicial Committee ruling of 2015.
Prior to Mr. Wagner’s first lawsuit in 2006, I was the Executive Director of an LPO whose candidates won 2/3 of the local non-partisan offices they ran for. They held sway in partisan elections. We had an effective legislative presence and were credited for stopping bad bills and passing good ones, including ballot access bills. We had a functioning office. We led ballot measure fights. In two consecutive elections, all four local news organizations set up shop in our office. We were relevant with the media. We didn’t run so many candidates as Wagner did (whose ballot only requires that one write in oneself if they don’t file), but we had more candidates actually running active races. All of this activity caused the LNC to hold the 2006 convention in Portland.
I want to get back to this kind of success. But I can see no way to build any kind of a sustainable foundation as long as one man or woman is allowed to reconfigure our membership, leadership, and governing documents at will and have them be recognized by the LNC and the state. THAT is madness – rejecting such a regime is not. Further, I believe it is reckless and hypocritical for members calling themselves Libertarians to allow such a thing to stand. The fact that this matter has consumed so much of the national party’s time and attention has been a function of people allowing it to stand.
As for myself, it is said that if you find yourself going through Hell, the only thing to do is to keep going because doing so is the only chance out. And I will tell you, I find no joy in this. I regret some of the tactical moves I have made over the years and a few other things, but stand by the overall arc of my activism, my recruitment, and my attempts to build an organization capable of moving public policy instead of just complaining about it.
What will bring me joy is not the current Judicial Committee ruling. I will experience joy when we are able to again experience that kind of political achievement. I’ve been saving an expensive Cuban cigar for the day when we are on that road again.
The LPO still means a lot to me, but I have other fish to fry. I run a 501(c)3 that trains limited-government activists how to get elected to local office (and I’m discovering a lot of libertarians around the state I never knew before). I’m married again and have an amazing step-daughter. I do not, Caryn, measure my self-worth (or anything else of mine) by the outcome of this conflict. As for others? Well, I hope that whatever it is they are measuring matches up to their expectations. I don’t care. I don’t even have anything personal against Mr. Wagner and his friends. I don’t know them outside of the LPO. Apart from LPO issues, I wish them well. Unlike Mr. Wagner, I’m not out to punish anyone or exact some sort of price. I just want a political party that puts us on the successful track we were on before.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Caryn, you partially have my point. I’m saying it’s unbelievable to me that he did not know of the changes to the bylaws including the change to the quorum requirements.
Steve Scheetz
“Some people simply don’t have the best interests of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY at heart.”
Funny you should mention that.
This is the second election cycle in a row that the Oregon matter has popped up with great timing from the perspective of someone wanting to either keep the LP’s presidential ticket OFF the ballot in Oregon, or force the LNC to spend a bunch of extra money to put that ticket ON the ballot in Oregon.
I suppose that could be coincidence.
On other hand when a group of people keep proving over and over that they simply don’t have the best interests of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY at heart, it’s reasonable to look at their actions and start thinking about whose best interests they DO serve.
Because we participate together on FB, you have heard this anecdote from me multiple times,but apropos here. Back when I just starting to get involved, and still in the extreme honeymoon period with the LP, another member warned me off saying, “Wait until you see the inner machinations of the LP, it will eat you alive.” I laughed.
I no longer laugh.
==We are not Republicans.===
But are we Libertarians? We (collectivism here I know) aren’t acting like it.
As far as your “emotional waters” that you referred to above, Caryn, I definitely agree with what you said. I admit that I haven’t been impartial in my comments here, although I’ve tried to be mostly impartial in the articles I’ve posted. Keep in mind that I’ve been dealing with this nonsense for over four years. Yes, I have become impatient with some of the people who comment here because they have chosen to continue this vendetta. To think that it’s reached these unbelievable levels and threatens our very party is truly saddening.
Sadly, I don’t even think “voting them out” in Orlando will even fix this. Some people simply don’t have the best interests of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY at heart.
We are not Republicans.
Aaand…we’ve now passed the 2008 Keaton thread, putting this one at #3 and climbing in number of comments on any IPR thread ever.
All that remain are the two LP national convention threads with over a thousand comments each from 2012 and 2014. We still have 300+ comments to go to beat the top one though.
Thank you Jill. Though on the other hand I want to say why do you hate me so much:)
Caryn, we’ve posted articles about this mess fairly regularly here at IPR, until sometime in the past year or so, when we all came down with a case of Oregon Fatigue. I believe there are as many as 55 to 60 articles. Of course you don’t want to read everything, but you may have developed a general time frame by now. You might want to put Libertarian Party of Oregon in the searchbox, start at the end (spring of 2011), and work your way to the present, reading some of the articles that might fill in some of your blanks.
BTW going to a Libertarian meet up tonight. Don’t miss me too much. Plan on having multiple margaritas, will dedicate a few to the Sarwark Memorial Magarita Fund.
God no… first names only.
Ms., I take it?
Thank you Wes, then I will take a look at them when I can. I have to slow down a bit on this because I actually have local LPCO tasks I need to do. Go figure. I promised a few newsletter articles I really ought to do:) And I have a personal task I want to do of going through and comparing old platform and grieving the loss of some planks. We are going to the mountains this weekend, and that will be my reading material. Perhaps the lawsuit material too.
My Scribd account has been up since nearly the beginning. I have posted everything that would qualify as a public record and a few emails I have voluntarily disclosed.
Chuck,
===I serve on the bylaws committee. I will write a proposal to clarify the subject matter jurisdiction of the judicial committee so they can’t use RONR to get around it — it will with certainty not make it out of committee (given the composition of the bylaws committee), but I’ll try nonetheless.===
And if the LNC wants something other than nuclear option of disaffiliation, there needs to be something on that… though again I am not sure something could be crafted that couldn’t be mis-used to give them horrifying powers.
Supposedly, because a lot of the people ther were not actually eligible to take part in those votes, and also supposedly that if the inelligible votes had not been counted there would have been no quorum even for a state committee meeting, never mind a convention. I don’t have a handy link on the details of why those votes were allegedly not eligible. Wes Wagner probably does, and may have posted it by the time this gets posted, or maybe will later if he hasn’t already.
===Phillies called you “Miss Harlos”. I told him you have your MRS degree.===
Ahh. Yes I have. Though I have to tell you getting that damned state license irks me very day, and I regret it.
But no one with pink hair should be called “miss” or “mrs”
Oh I almost forgot the most hilarious part of the why their leaders are not legitimate … they all let their dues expire and didn’t even pay them to themselves (notwithstanding they would have really needed to pay them to the actual LPO treasury since there is only one bank account by law) 🙂
Paulie wrote:
I strongly suspect even if the JC had decided to accept the Epstein petition, Latham would have ruled against Epstein and issued a dissent saying he didn’t think there was subject matter jurisdiction. I don’t get the sense Latham favors one side or the other; rather, he seems to think the JC shouldn’t intervene unless there is an actual disaffiliation (distinguished from “constructive disaffiliation”). But that’s just my impression… you’d have to ask Latham himself to be sure of his position.
Therefore, even if they had wanted to grant the Epstein petition, the ruling would have been either 4-3 with Carling’s vote or 3-3-1 if he recused himself. I think they saw the writing on the wall and all voted against considering the Epstein petition so they could be on the winning side of the votes. They still got the outcome they wanted — even with Carling’s recusal — by rescinding the previous ruling, which swung Latham to their side (achieving the “landslide” in Burke’s words). It was an astute political maneuver. From a bylaws perspective, it was completely illegal.
I serve on the bylaws committee. I will write a proposal to clarify the subject matter jurisdiction of the judicial committee so they can’t use RONR to get around it — it will with certainty not make it out of committee (given the composition of the bylaws committee), but I’ll try nonetheless.
Thank you Wes. Hopefully that link will stay valid for a bit.
Phillies called you “Miss Harlos”. I told him you have your MRS degree.
Wes, I would really like to get my hands on the court documents. This is more for a conversation that is going on in private,but also for things I post here. I am juggling about ten different balls here between IPR, Facebook PMs on this, and emails.
Lawsuit documents:
https://www.scribd.com/wes_wagner
I might be missing a couple of the most recent appellate documents.
As do I.
For the benefit of anyone who doesn’t, no, he did not. He wanted the bigger change he made anyway. The lack of quorum provided a convenient pretext or excuse, depending on how you look at it. Richard Burke reminds me, as I had already forgotten, that making this bigger change was the original intent of the special convention.
Don and Helen McDaniel were not the county Representatives from Clatsop County, per their minutes. The Casterlines were. They claimed they had proxies, but proxies were not legal under the old bylaws.
Steve Dodds of Yamhill County had not been appointed during a convention according to their minutes in well over 4 years – his term of office had long since expired if ever valid in the first place.
David Long was not actually listed in the Washington County Minutes as being a representative from Washington County. There were questions about Richard Whitehead as well that were not entirely resolved during deposition.
Their list of county representatives that they used for calculating quorum was incorrect. Additionally Parliamentary Law states that vacancies count, so all the counties with 2 vacant positions still needed to be counted towards quorum. A discussion of the actual calculation of quorum can be found in the legal filings, but it was about 7 or 8 if I recall correctly.
According to evidence in deposition they had either 0 or 1 representatives at their meeting.
It appears to be a quirk of the most recent version of wordpress software being used here when copying and pasting smileys. Some of the time. Not sure why.
Well said! I agree completely.
Wes or Richard (or both),
Are the lawsuit filings uploaded anywhere?
I don’t think that was why Haugh “ordered” Fincher’s petitions burned (which you sensibly ignored). He ordered them to be burned because of other things Fincher did, or allegedly did, years before then, in other states. Later that year Haugh wrote an article defending that demand, and adding that petitions I personally gathered should have been burned as well, because of other bad things I have done many years ago (ironically, in Oregon). That article remained online for almost 7 years. As of this year, it appears to be down, as well as not available through archive.org. As for Fincher, at last report he was sitting in the Bristol Mass jail on an unrelated matter. If anyone would like to find out if he’s still there, I am mildly curious, although not curious enough to call the jai myself and ask them. Fincher’s petitions in Mass were good, as were mine, and I don’t see any reason that other bad things he and I did in other states in other years should have meant that they should have been burned.
Everyone,
I know Chuck laid this out a bit, but can everyone who wishes to please lay out their case why they believe the Reeves group 4/21/11 election was illegitimate? Here are the minutes:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTky_4r540kaXJFOVBqendCTTg/view?usp=sharing
(and I can’t find that post by Chuck– reposting that would be very helpful)
George and Paulie,
== Paulie, Thanks for the correction re Caryn.==
I apparently missed something… what is this about?
Yes. Some pingbacks seem to appear and later disappear, and some (from the same article) appear days, weeks, months or even years after the (newer) article is posted. Sometimes more than one pingbacks from the same (newer) article appear on the same (older) article. Sometimes pingbacks that should appear (by the same logic that others do) don’t appear at all. I have no idea what is going on with any of that.
Paulie,
If we do have correspondences I definitely will. I am so swamped at this point, I don’t know when I can do that. The other people in communication with me have not given such permission, but I have been digesting the information I received and posting my thoughts on it here already.
And that Bill Hall post was great, thank you. I wish they worded their decision better. I am encouraged by the fact that what he wrote on disaffiliation parallels my own thoughts… I am in good company. It was greatly edifying. And respectful of the autonomy of the affiliate which is my great burden absent direct warrant in our own bylaws.
I hope you don’t mind that I reproduce that here:
Bill Hall
August 27, 2011 at 10:13 am
I joined in Judge Gray’s opinion, after going through the analysis set forth below. These are my personal opinions on this matter.
1.The Bylaws prohibit the LNC from violating the autonomy of State Affiliates, except as otherwise provided in the Bylaws. That primary exception to the “no violation of autonomy rule” is the “nuclear option” of the LNC disaffiliating “for cause”. The Bylaws do not grant the LNC the power to judge whether a State Affiliate is following its own bylaws, as the LNC purported to do in Oregon.
2. In connection with the Arizona disaffiliation in 1999, I came to the personal opinion, and I believe this was the opinion of many other members of the 3/4 of the LNC that voted for Arizona disaffiliation at that time, that the LNC’s hands were bound by the Bylaws – the only remedy they had to address shenanigans at the State affiliate level was disaffiliation. Thus the reason I characterize it as a “nuclear option.” In my personal opinion, the idea of simply “recognizing” a different set of officers as the “true” AZ officers would not have passed the smell test with that LNC, even though there would have been a lot of arguments that could have been made at the time to support such an approach.
3. Perhaps because of my long experience dealing with ballot access and campaign finance issues, I am acutely aware that our State Affiliates are independent political committees or organizations, whose existence is largely governed by the common and statutory law of their respective states. This means that your typical Secretary of State doesn’t care what the LNC says concerning issues such as which organization is the true LP affiliate in a state, or who the LP nominees for President and Vice President are. The typical Secretary of State only recognizes the authority of the State Affiliate in these and other political matters. Yes, we have Bylaws under which the LP’s State Affiliates loosely affiliate for certain purposes with the national LP and LNC. However, the ties imposed by those Bylaws are few and very limited.
4. For me, some of the most important indicia of who the LP’s current affiliate is in Oregon, pending future negotiation or litigation among LPO members, are:
(a) Which group is recognized by the State as having ballot access. (Wagner’s group)
(b) Which group has possession of the property of the LPO (funds, websites, state mailing list). (Wagner’s group)
(c) Which group in a more general sense (campaign finance filings, contracts, etc.) is the LPO under State law. (Wagner’s group)
Yes, the identity of officers (recall that no one disputes Wes Wagner was the prior, duly-elected Vice Chair, succeeding to the office of Chair under the LPO 2009 Bylaws) and the continuity of the Bylaws are important, but they don’t tell the whole story.
5. Given these factors, I was hard-pressed to conclude that no disaffiliation occurred. The LNC did not follow the disaffiliation process set forth in the Bylaws. It has the power to disaffiliate the Wagner group, for cause, but it has yet to exercise it in accordance with the Bylaws.
6. The corollary here is that if the current LPO is disaffiliated, the LNC must take action to affiliate a new LPO. IMHO, the LNC should then follow the precedent established in the Arizona disaffiliation. There the LNC oversaw a mail ballot election of all AZ LP members as to which faction they wanted to be the new affiliate. The LNC then moved to affiliate the winner (with roughly 67% of the vote) of that election. That was a remedy that respected, as much as possible, the autonomy of the Affiliate members.
[end quote]
The LNC overstepped its bound big time. And is about to do it again. The only remediation for this is Orlando. Take note.
== It was a catch 22 since they couldn’t get a quorum to fix the quorum.==
Did Wagner try to work with them to invoke “emergency powers” with them? Was there any exploration on other way to fix this on Wagner’s part? I know the answer. I am making a point.
Don’t know why a question mark got in there…. no problem on the name 🙂
Richard,
No problem on the name?
== The 2010 special convention had nothing to do with changing the quorum threshold.==
Thank for your clarifying. Some on your side of the issue seem to think otherwise, but its not terribly important.
== The September 29, 2011 letter that Wagner provides to you, if read carefully, does not represent a determination that Wagner was right. It says they recognize him and will continue to do so, but that is not the same thing – they are just adhering to their unwritten policy. This did not represent an agreement by the Sec. of State to adjudicate the matter, just a practical move to accomodate voters in the moment.==
It is not a judgment on the merits, I agree. But they did fix who they would recognize. And that is crucial to me vis a vis the LNC issue which is my main concern.
Fair warning, wading into more intemperate emotional waters than I have thus far… with regards to the recent JC move, there is no defense IMHO for this visiting of the 2011 JC decision than sheer political meddling in the affairs of an affiliate. Gaming the RONR to do something clearly out of line, not within the scope of the JC’s mandate, and without any legitimate provoking event is a classic example of everything that is wrong in the party. It is clear that this was a naked power grab to overturn something that this particular JC just simply didn’t like. It is indefensible.
In your joy I hope you really think it is worth it to put the whole of the LP through this. I said the same thing to Wagner and I say it to you. Shame. I think both sides are doing tremendous evil to fellow Libertarians. Most of us do not consent to this madness. Pursuing your remedies in Oregon… all within all of your respective rights. Gaming the JC and dragging the entire LP down with it is inexcusable. The goal here isn’t liberty, and no one will convince me otherwise.
I hope I will be forgiven this drama as I do not want to be part of the problem, but part of the solution, but it is my heart in the whole thing. My concern is for the party. Sometimes I feel like just saying to you all, get it over with, whip them out and put them on the table, and we can all measure them and move on and fight the real enemy… the statist encroachment on our liberties. Remember that? The reason we are supposed to be doing?
Thank you for continuing to participate here.
If you have read this whole thread, you already know that most people who have commented on that issue here – possibly everyone except you – has said that the JC did not in fact have authority to rescind a 2011 ruling, although (according to them) they did it anyway.
My prediction would have been more accurate had I checked back to how Rob Latham voted in 2011. I didn’t, so I was off. Otherwise I was correct. I don’t remember anyone else issuing predictions. Besides my mistake on Latham, and M not voting since he did not have to, all the rest voted as I expected.
Epstein’s petition was accepted and voted down unanimously. Lawson’s petition was never brought up for a vote. There’s a difference.
The bylaws changes were welll known. It was their supposed implications under Roberts Rules for quorum that were not discovered (or creatively interpreted, depending again on who you ask) until 2010.
It was a catch 22 since they couldn’t get a quorum to fix the quorum.
There’s the JC ruling. That may need a separate article rather than an update, or maybe you already made an update here (I haven’t checked). I don’t want to post any articles at the moment myself, especially about this.
They had several different conventions in different times of year that tried to get quorum under the 2010 reinterpretation of the 2007 bylaw change that redefined quorum. None of them got quorum under the new interpretation.
Wagner has admitted as much. It’s not a secret.
No they ordered you to file a PAC because you were engaging in political activity and when you chose the name they accepted it because of the lawsuit they lost in the past regarding the socialist party.
They are not letting you operate under that name out of some form of deference.
No one disputes that. What some people dispute is that the SOS decision was the sole reason why they ruled that way or that they implied any general rule about SOSs in any and eery state. Here’s Bill Hall, one of the members of the JC majority from 2011, explaining his reasoning in concurring with that decision:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/08/libertarian-judicial-committee-voids-executive-committee-action-in-oregon-credentials-dispute/#comment-560498
Nick Sarwark was another member of that 2011 JC majority and I seem to remember that he told me something similar, but I don’t remember where. He did not want to get into it again when I asked him about that again a couple of days ago. If he makes it back to this thread perhaps he will clarify now. Or not. I also asked the other two (Judge Gray and Lee Wrights). Wrights asked me WTF was going on here and has not replied again after I tried to explain it (it’s been 2 or 3 days at least); Judge Gray did not replly at all. I’ve heard second hand that he is on vacation with family.
Steve and Paulie, Those are draft minutes. I have been told there may be discussion on the draft before it is approved, which requires a committee action.
Paulie, Thanks for the correction re Caryn.
With respect to New England petitioning, in NH the LPNH petitioned for a slate of candidates, and got most of them on the ballot. The LNC then petitioned separately for ballot access for Barr/Root, using Eric Dondero as their petitioner (or one of them). All petitioning succeeded. The LNC then sued to have me removed from the ballot. They lost. They also failed to have me served.
In Massachusetts the LNC started petitioning for Phillies/Bennett (after all, we had it in writing from the Secretary of the Commonwealth that we could substitute) well before the national convention. Those petitions went through satisfactorily, despite the LNC asking us to burn several thousand signatures worth of nominating papers (we didn’t; they had among the highest validity rates we saw). We then sued successfully for substitution. The law has since been, ummh “clarified”.
I think something strange is going on with pingbacks. One just showed up, and I posted that link on Saturday. Perhaps William’s links haven’t been deleted, but just haven’t come through for one reason or another. When I originally posted this article, there were 4 IPR articles that I linked to, but I only noticed 2 pingbacks. I thought that was odd at the time. I added the link just listed as a pingback on Saturday, as an afterthought. I’ll try to keep an eye on what’s happening.
Andy, Jed or Paulie, have you noticed any irregularities like this?
I try to take that approach as well. Maybe you’re better at it than I am though.
To be fair, they have both said that. It takes two to tango as it were.
We shall see.
Steve Scheetz wrote:
Paulie wrote:
The draft minutes were posted by George Phillies in a comment written on August 15, 2015 at 6:39 pm:
I will edit the article to add the decision.
Burke said: “But was the Judicial Committee was within it’s scope of authority when it voted 4-2-1 to “rescind” their 2011 ruling, which admittedly had much the same impact as if they had decided to accept and support Epstein’s petition? Thankfully, it was. I fully expect everyone participating on this thread to heartily agree.”
Absolutely not! That’s kind of what most of us saying through most of these 700 comments.
Both of these as well as other issues have been discussed in this thread quite a bit.
Caryn,
The September 29, 2011 letter that Wagner provides to you, if read carefully, does not represent a determination that Wagner was right. It says they recognize him and will continue to do so, but that is not the same thing – they are just adhering to their unwritten policy. This did not represent an agreement by the Sec. of State to adjudicate the matter, just a practical move to accomodate voters in the moment.
This is underscored by the fact that the Sec. of State has allowed us to operate as a PAC with the name “Libertarian Party of Oregon” out of recognition of the continuing dispute and continues to do so.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Caryn (sorry about getting your name wrong before),
The 2010 special convention had nothing to do with changing the quorum threshold. The convention was called by the Wagner faction, which was then led by LPO Chair Jeff Weston, to consider a new set of governing documents like the ones they failed to pass in 2007 and the ones they purportedly adopted in their coup of March 31, 2011.
My understanding is that there was a meeting the night before the convention (I was not present) where a number of people were going over they bylaws with a fine tooth comb to determine whether or not it was proper to exclude from participation 13 new members who paid their dues and submitted their application forms in October. Note: Before the meeting, Weston made the decision to “delay” the processing of new memberships because, as we found out via email, he thought the new members might vote against their bylaw proposals.
This followed closely on the heels of an attempt by the Wagner side to terminate all lifetime memberships. This was overturned by the Oregon Judicial Committee, which was then populated and functioning.
In any case, national party officers showed up as observers out of concern that the rights of a large number of contributing LNC members might be violated by the LPO by improperly excluding them from participating in the convention. I can only speculate that they thought everyone on both sides might behave better if they thought a lot of eyes were on them, but I don’t know.
Anyway, at this meeting on the eve of convention, they were going over bylaws relating to membership, conventions, and credentialing with a fine-tooth comb. It seems that this provided the focus on particular portions of our bylaws which resulted in the discovery of the quorum problem. I heard that Weston himself discovered the problem.
Prior to this time, none of us were well-versed with alternate ways in which we could fix the quorum problem. None of us expected this. Most of us believed that we could actually achieve quorum with some cooperation and elbow grease. We were only about 20 short, and some members were going to drop off the rolls by letting their dues fall into arrears. Ostensibly, such was the rationale for adjorning to a meeting (at Wagner’s request) at the March 21 session of the 2011 Annual Business Convention.
But as it was in the moment, the only way at that moment to fix the quorum was to make a small amendment to the bylaws, which required the presence of a quorum. So the 2010 special convention adjourned. Had we “ignored” the quorum issue once raised prior to adjournment, the legality of the bylaws would have come into question, particularly the validity of changes in methods of nominating candidates.
There were 50-something people there. I counted 27 who opposed the Wagner proposals, far short of the 2/3 majority required, so we probably saved our weekends from being consumed. Trying to “fudge it” seemed dubious and pointless.
If Wagner’s “coup” had been limited to fixing the quorum issue, he probably would have gotten away with it (though it would have still been wrong). We later discovered that there were additional ways in which we might have solved the problem, but everything blew up by that time.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
They are available and were posted in the thread above. I don’t have time to find where exactly right now.
CAH
Please do.
We strive to be neutral in our role as moderators. That doesn’t mean that we are neutral as commenters. As commenters, we can be and are every bit as opinionated as any other commenter.
It is what people make of it. For example, Aaron Starr is still signed up to post and edit articles as well as comments. He chooses not to, but that’s his choice to make. We are open to signing up additional people to post articles from your side as well. Just let us know what you all want to do.
I believe someone raised the point that the 2011 EC resolution – which was overturned by the 2011 JC decision that was just supposedly reconsidered – named specific officers of LPO by name. I guess that’s a problem the EC or LNC will have to fix, if so.
I’ll go back and look at his emails again. It sure sounded to me like he was refusing to recuse, but I’ll double check.
I don’t think so. He clearly did not recuse himself from ruling the matters to be in order and scheduling the hearing to begin with. Without that there would not have been a vote at all.
All,
M is being attacked on this thread, allegedly, because “he” purportedly agreed to hear the Epstein petition. This is unfair. From what I understand, the Judicial Committee chair simply receives petitions and then brings them to the entire Judicial Committee. It is the committee which decides whether or not to accept the petition for the purposes of holding a hearing and then ruling on it’s merits.
It is worth noting that while the vote was not a landslide, it wasn’t a squeaker either. It was 4-2-1, not 4-3 as many predicted. And whatever you think his reason would be (ethics or political utility), M didn’t vote.
Sure, M’s a clever guy who can be Machiavellian (as I and many of my opponents have been), but the other members of the Judicial Committee have either served on previous Judicial Committees or have been around the block enough times to know what their rights are under RRO and how JudComm works. People generally don’t call their personal credentials as a “libertarian” into question (only M for some reason) and they were all elected at convention, with M actually receiving the most votes.
My understanding is that Epstein’s petition was rejected. It is also my understanding that the petition coming from Alabama was rejected, which M also brought to the committee. I don’t yet know why.
But was the Judicial Committee was within it’s scope of authority when it voted 4-2-1 to “rescind” their 2011 ruling, which admittedly had much the same impact as if they had decided to accept and support Epstein’s petition? Thankfully, it was. I fully expect everyone participating on this thread to heartily agree. 😉
I will admit that while I have been a member of NAP (I let my dues lapse), I am not a parliamentary expert. But I looked at the national bylaws very carefully and researched “recind” under RRO. There are a variety of things that RRO and/or the bylaws let the Judicial Committee do on it’s own. Among them are electing a chair, adopting or amending their rules of procedure, or even meeting at will to consider nonbinding resolutions – which they thankfully do not do. Fortunately for us, it also seems that ANY deliberative body has the right to rescind any previous decision it makes, and nothing in the national bylaws says otherwise. Call it a hole in the bylaws (I don’t think it is), but there it is.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
It’s not unfair. He specifically, in writing, refused to recuse himself. He did abstain from the votes, which was well after this article was written, and unlike his denial of the request to recuse himself, not something he announced ahead of time.
Also, while he did not actually vote on anything on Saturday, he was the one who initially scheduled the meeting and said that reconsideration of a matter previously decided in 2011 was in order. And while it is a somewhat moot point since it got zero votes, he was also the one who ruled that consideration of the Epstein petition was in order, which is also disputed.
Richard Burke wrote:
I’ve had that happen enough times — at IPR and other places — that I draft long comments in Notepad and save a copy on my desktop until they post successfully. This practice has saved me significant headache and loss of time over the years, so I highly recommend it to everyone who — like me — can get wordy.
An interesting point… during the hearing on the rule 21 motion to dismiss, plaintiffs counsel changed mid course when confronted with this issue of APA and started to claim that their lawsuit was solely about which bylaws are in force. Yet they never removed from their pleading their request for a remedy of replacing all the officers and their claims that they were the rightful officers. Their case survived dismissal at that stage of the process only because they characterized to the court that the purpose of their lawsuit was not to replace the leadership … then continued to pray that they be deemed the leaders of the party.
Caryn
Legally speaking, they made a decision. Whether it was on the merits or not, they stated in writing to 2 or more named persons a decision and it was a final determination. That makes it a ruling protected under the APA. After 90 days that becomes a matter of law and fact that cannot be appealed.
Thank you Wes that is helpful! Gotta run for a while.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/112631651/Libertarian-Leadership-2011
Regarding SoS APA protected ruling.
Wes, I looked against at Stephen Trout’s declaration (from the SoS), I do not think your representation is correct that they adjudicated who the officers were. Adjudication implies ruling on the merits. They did not. They threw their hands up and punted.
Steve I do not think he is saying the bylaws went undiscovered, I think he saying that the lack of a quorum requirement revision went undiscovered. But they operated just fine, it obviously wasn’t the intent to raise the quorum, so why they just couldn’t agree is an issue to me.
George, that is absolutely absurd…. They should have, AT LEAST, published their ruling by now, and or informed the LNC…
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
I am also wondering how bylaws changes went undiscovered for 3 years given what has to happen in order to change bylaws…. I have been to enough conventions to know that the procedures for changing bylaws are pretty arduous. Few present at such conventions will forget what happened given the trauma surrounding such decisions!
To take this one step further, once said bylaws are accepted, they are then changed, published, and then displayed. To not “discover” any changes means that nobody, other than those people who voted on them, actually read them, and those who did read them, did not share, nor were they asked.
I find it impossible to believe that someone in Mr. Burke’s position could be so completely arrogant and incompetent as to not know what the bylaws were, for 3 years….. Before I went to my first Libertarian Convention, here in Pennsylvania, back in 1998 or 2002… (one of those years) Anyway, the first thing that I did was to familiarize myself with the policies and bylaws so that I did not look like an ass if I asked a question or made a comment about this or that.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Wes I haven’t had a chance to go over the lawsuit more thoroughly.
Where dud the SoS adjudicate who the officers were? It appears they stopped in their tracks after the dispute arose. Freezing the records isn’t adjudication. It is freezing status quo. They said go to the courts.
Steve, There are a set of draft minutes, and the statement from at least one Judicial Committee member that there may be corrections. So far as I know there are no final minutes yet. I have confirmed that the LNC has not yet received the outcome. Indeed, one LNC member indicated that he had heard the outcome from me. George
Richard – also it’s Caryn not Carol:)
Richard,
So the winter break meeting of 2010 had nothing to do with raising the quorum threshold? I was told that there was a change at that meeting which brought this to a head.
and since this had been undiscovered since 2007 why couldn’t you all just agree to fix it? It obviously hadn’t been an issue anyone was relying on or operating under.
“The Wagner side is wrong on this. This is indisputable. Here is the SoS statement from the court file:
“The Secretary of State’s Election Division has not and will not enforce or adjudicate disputes about political party bylaws. We have told the parties that they have to go to court to adjudicate this matter if there is to be any change because we do not adjudicate this type of dispute.””
This is correct… but they did adjudicate the question of who the officers of the party were, and that decision had a 90 day toll on it under the Administrative Procedures Act. Burke et.al. needed to sue the SoS at that point in time.
The Burkies characterize this in their lawsuit as merely siding with the chair of record, but that is not something the SoS ever said in any letter ruling. The reason their attempted coup did not work is because they tried to wholesale change the entire leadership in a rump meeting. The SoS is not going to go along with that — they want continuity. They would likely rule differently if you had 1 rogue chair and an entire state committee saying that person went rogue.
Courts do not wade into these waters either except when the state has an interest such as settling disputes of titled property or should person A or person B be on the ballot. Their attempt to file a lawsuit to ask to be placed into offices that they could not possibly hold in a court that would never grants such relief under claims that were also subject to preclusion due to earlier litigation was always a pointless exercise, except to try to bully us into giving it to them. Their lawyer actually expressed actual surprise that our response to their demand that “we give them everything and they might show us mercy” was to file a response to their claims. Richard had convinced everyone involved that we were defenseless (emails in the exhibits) and that they would have this all resolved in a month.
Heck, they filed the lawsuit without even sending a demand letter — it was a plain attempt at intimidation. Because they never filed a demand letter we never had an opportunity to correct their lawyer’s knowledge of facts before he filed his claim – which only made it more expensive and more difficult to resolve.
Carol,
The quorum issue did not exist prior to the Wagner amendments of 2007. Prior to that our conventions were assemblies of delegates, not assemblies of members, with convention delegates elected from the county parties. In assemblies of delegates, according to RRO, is conventions with assemblies of delegates, quorum is a majority of the delegates. We never had problem making quorum.
When Wagner’s bylaws of 2007 were adopted, we became an “assembly of members” as each member could come to convention and vote. According to RRO, absent a quorum clause, quorum for an assembly of members is 50% of the members plue one. THIS is not what was discovered until 2010, and I wasn’t even at that meeting. I could be wrong, but I was told it was Jeff Weston, a supporter of Wagner and a new National Assn. of Parliamentarians member who found it.
Richard P. Burke
“Given that M Carling abstained on every vote, your headline is unfair.”
Your fraudulent so-called petition would have never been heard in the first place had he not agreed to do so, called a meeting to consider it, and then ruled it in order. Abstaining from the actual votes, when he knew the outcome, is a ridiculous fig leaf and you know it. Presenting that series of events as being functionally equivalent to an actual recusal is disingenuous in the highest.
Since Richard Burke has made an appearance here, I would like to raise an issue. (not the usual ones!) Apparently he has suggested (perhaps it was on the Saub issue) that I (Jim Bell) was somehow an “enemy” of his in the 1995-1996 time frame. I, then an now, am a Vancouver Washington resident. I attended various libertarian events in the Portland area, although I didn’t attempt to involve myself in Oregon politics, in large part _because_ I was an Washington resident. While it has been 20 years since, I do not recall how anything I did or said led to his apparent conclusion that I was an “enemy”. There is a possible explanation: No doubt Burke knew who his friends were. Did he automatically consider anyone who wasn’t his friend, to be his enemy? That would be what I’d expect him to believe, but not admit.
I also challenge his use of the dust-up between me and the Feds, in 1997-onwards, as some sort of reason to attack anyone in the Oregon libertarian area. If Burke had actually read my AP (assassination politics; http://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) essay, he would have known that I very carefully justified it according to the NAP (Non-Agression Policy) standpoint. It was certainly a source of controversy, but the least of that controversy should have come from the liberarian area. I challenge Richard Burke to have a debate on this matter. (Better on a different subject than this one, which is already way too long.)
Mr. Burke, when I put the article up on Friday afternoon, Carling was refusing to recuse himself. Yes, he didn’t vote for the two actions, but he approved the Judical Committee to go forward, which wasn’t right, given the obvious conflict of interest.
I will correct my statement about Eric Saub: Saub is not the current vice-chairman of the Reeves faction, which is now the Epstein group.
I’ll update the article as soon as there’s something official to add.
Steve,
==Given that the JC decided on something it had no jurisdiction to decide, I am actually surprised that the discussion is continuing to revolve around the issue of quorum from 5 years ago, instead of focusing on a JC doing something it has no business doing. ===
I think nearly everyone agrees on this.
Yes Paulie, I have been talking with all comers by email. I have always stated that although a radical, I believe in working with all sides to the extent possible, and always maintaining a cordial line of communication when dealing with party business. I can be a firebrand in debate on my personal FB wall and ranting and in voluntary groups, but there is a time and a place.
== The Wagner side denies that the reason the SOS ruled in their favor was solely because Wagner was the chair of record====
The Wagner side is wrong on this. This is indisputable. Here is the SoS statement from the court file:
“The Secretary of State’s Election Division has not and will not enforce or adjudicate disputes about political party bylaws. We have told the parties that they have to go to court to adjudicate this matter if there is to be any change because we do not adjudicate this type of dispute.”
This is in accordance with OR Statute 248 I posted above.
==just as there is an interpretation of the 2011 JC decision that says that while the ruling said it was in favor of the side recognized by the SOS, it was not solely because that side was recognized by the SOS – in other words, that these were just a way for the SOS and JC to refer to which side they were ruling for, not the sole reason why they made those rulings as your side suggests.==
Actually I think it is solely because it was recognized by the SoS but the way the Reeves supporters further spin is that the SoS was the ONLY recourse, and they did not. I detailed that in an earlier post. I would love to see some actual argument citing the actual text of the JC decision that disputes that the JC found the identification of the affiliate as co-extensive with the SoS records.
Paulie, I get that the quorum issue is not as big of a deal because things are not decided the same way under the Wagner bylaws…but I do find it ironic (and one could read more into this) that under colour of “fixing the quorum,” these sweeping changes were made… and didn’t fix the quorum. And while we are at it, let’s disenfranchise parts of the former pledge-affirming member class and fundamentally change the ways things are decided. That decision could be for the better…. But the fact is that this was the goal, not to fix the quorum. This is why I say Wagner performed a coup and not something justified under emergency powers. IF the LNC had the power to determine this in a binding fashion, I would have no problem with them coming to this decision (whether or not the Reeves group is legitimate is another question). My issue isn’t the illegitimacy of the Wagner coup, I already believe that. My issue is the illegitimacy of the LNC’s power to issue a binding determination on this, in my view…. so far. I have come to concede they could issue an advisory opinion.
I am still processing the quorum information you provided… and it certainly seems the system was gamed.. within the “rules” so to speak but gamed. But then again, holding that meeting in the period of time between Christmas and New Years 2010 is a fair bit of gaming too to stack votes. Both sides did this extensively. And no, I do not like the outside interference one bit. I would be bitter too. I am bitter about a platform scrapping I wasn’t even around for and only just really learned about? I can’t imagine how I would feel if I were there… though it was all done completely legitimately.
And from what I have been told, the meeting subsequent to the coup didn’t make quorum. Neither did the most recent one, that is true.
George, I am wondering why it is that JC minutes are not readily available, particularly in this case. If you happen to have a link to their minutes, I would appreciate it, they are not easily found on lp.org, so I assume they are somewhere else, or in a place that cannot be found using the site’s search engine.
Given that the JC decided on something it had no jurisdiction to decide, I am actually surprised that the discussion is continuing to revolve around the issue of quorum from 5 years ago, instead of focusing on a JC doing something it has no business doing. Mr. Burke has made it clear that he will continue to fight this… for lack of a better term, pissing match against Mr. Wagner, regardless of what it costs, and regardless of what it does to the party in general, because, contrarily to his statement, it is all about the personalities involved including each of their egos.
To Mr. Burke, I don’t care about your proclamations regarding your affiliation. I care more about your group’s actions which, from what I can see, are causing harm, and frankly, are making me conclude: “I don’t believe you.”
To everyone else, I am reasonably sure that 1000 will be reached on this particular topic…
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Richard,
Richard, thank you for writing, and I will take you up on your email offer- though it may be a bit. And I will share what is said if anyone here wishes me to. I have taken all comers to my offer to give me information. Multiple people have contacted me outside this forum—some from my ideological perspective, some definitely not. And it is to their credit that they continue to correspond even when I have come here and disagreed with some things. I mentioned my placement in the camp of an opposing ideological faction because I believe in getting biases out on the table. You say “IPR is a forum dominated by people who belong to a particular faction of libertarians.” I agree, and I am openly part of that particular faction. I know you know that, but I just really believe in getting those things out. I will never be good at politics since part of the game is to keep part of your hand concealed. I don’t do that, and never will.
Yes, as it stands right now I am of the belief that the election your group had was illegitimate but I am open to more facts. But, as you can see from my posts… when it comes to the LNC and an “official” decision it is somewhat irrelevant as I don’t see the LNC having the authority to make such a decision, but it is certainly relevant to individual Libertarians who simply want to get to the truth of the matter in equity, and it is certainly relevant to judicial or internal resolutions made in OR. I do not believe that the ends justifies the means, even if the end is a more radical LPO that I would be at home with if I were an Oregonian. Others here disagree with me.
No one has to convince me that Wagner staged a coup. I already believe that, and that is pretty solid in my view. The LNC has every right to believe that too, but their only remedy, as I see it, is acceptance or disaffiliation. Do I think it should be that way. No. But our bylaws do not give it further power without breaching the autonomy of the affiliate in my opinion. This is not a slavish devotion to rules, but our voluntary bylaws which is what all the affiliates believe is the term of their agreement. It cannot be expanded so broadly without violating what they agreed to. Yes, this does open the door to all kinds of potential abuses at the affiliate level. This door should be shut, and a bylaws amendment is the only way to do it. How to do to do such a bylaws amendment without giving the LNC a back door into using such power to circumvent the autonomy of the affiliates to fulfill an agenda is another matter.
Each day what troubles me most about this is the blanket redefinition of membership. The membership is the heart and sole of the affiliates as far as I am concerned…who all this stuff is done for. The officers and the like can act like rock stars, but they are servant-leaders for the membership. And the removal of the pledge is a big problem for me. One might as well show a red flag to a bull to justify to me the removal of the pledge. Keep everyone’s paws off the pledge and the SoP, and I am a pretty happy radical.
Richard I wish you would stick around. This thread will be a resource in the trying days ahead, and readers deserve to have all sides. Well deserve is strong… you have no obligation. But it would be a service to affected LP members.
Richard,
==Given that M Carling abstained on every vote, your headline is unfair. Also, based on what you posted, M Carling never said that he would refuse to recuse, he just said why he didn’t think he was required to recuse. This makes the headline counter-factual as well as misleading. Also, given the 4-2-1 votes, the question of his recusal is largely moot.==
No I am afraid you are not correct here. He received many requests to recuse and he refused on the basis that he didn’t think he was required to. You are finessing words words. The fact that he eventually abstained is good but the very fact this was being heard is to his agreement to do it, a decision he should not have made. He is a named party in ongoing litigation referring to this subject matter. It is wrong.
George I am asking questions about an allegation made here. That the quorum mess was caused SOLELY by inserting RONR up the behind of the LPO and that the Reeves group knew this and conveniently didn’t mention this quorum mess. Would there have been a quorum issue if Wagner had not re-constituted the convention composition over the 2010-2012 holiday break? I do not know the answer to this…… and in reading Burke’s responses it seems that a problem was already there, and that it wasn’t discovered until 2010…. And yes, I question the “discovery” because often “discoveries” are a result of trying to find a way to defeat one’s opponents, even if valid. A lot of gamesmanship here. I don’t like it at al.
And while I AGREE that I do not like the way RONR is used as a fetishistic token in the LP and it can impede common sense and getting shit actually done, the FACT is that it was there in the bylaws, and it isn’t a secret that it imposes quorum requirements. Did Wagner look at those before re-constituting the convention composition? Was the quorum issue that required this overthrowing of the bylaws and disenfranchisement of some of the prior member class (pledge-affirming members no less) a result of Wagner’s own convention changes? Or would they have happened anyway? I am sorry but that is an eminently reasonable question.
If you find my “gazillion” words pointless, do not read them. You see, I frustrate a lot of people, because I refuse to blindly follow factional lines (and never will) and I do not simply accept the received narrative. Fair warning: more words coming. I said at the beginning of the thread when I knew nothing, that I wanted to learn, and that is precisely what I am doing. And in trying to clarify items given to me by people clearly with their own biases (as everyone has here), I am going to the horse’s mouth. I am not accepting anyone’s word for it. I will take anyone up on their offer to give me information.
As far as the pre-2011 issues, these ARE pre-2011 issue, this is 2010. How the quorum issue (the very root of the claimed mandate to change the bylaws) came to be an insurmountable issue. It “seems” to me that it was already an issue prior to that holiday break meeting, but as of yet “undiscovered” and was made an even greater problem by the reconstituting of the convention by Wagner…. And politically used by the Reeves group to have a weapon against Wagner…. They found a way to hoist Wagner on his own petard. Another chess move. I don’t agree with this kind of crap on any side. I have already conceded several things:
I. I do not like the out of state meddling in OR including the outside money poured into this dispute. Some of the outside opinions though I think have been elevated into more than they actually were.
II. I do not like the fetishization of RONR. I do not like the state either, but we are relying upon it here, aren’t we? Wagner is. The 2011 JC decision did. The voluntary bylaws of the LPO incorporated Robert’s.
III. More on RONR… it is ridiculous the way it is used by some people to end-run around other people. It should be a general tool, it is used as a tactial weapon to “gotcha!” I don’t like that one bit. Our party has become a battle of Parliamentarians instead of a focused goal to promote…. Libertarianism. I. Hate. That.
IV. The direction of the LPO under the Reeves group was not in line with my personal vision of the LP in general and libertarianism in full, but this is an ideological question, and I openly admit my ideological bias. And they have run candidates. I am a Libertarian radical. I don’t avoid stepping on political third rails. If it has a whiff of conservative agenda, I break out in hives.
I suppose that is not sufficient if I don’t drink the Wagner kool-aid all the way down?
Jill,
Given that M Carling abstained on every vote, your headline is unfair. Also, based on what you posted, M Carling never said that he would refuse to recuse, he just said why he didn’t think he was required to recuse. This makes the headline counter-factual as well as misleading. Also, given the 4-2-1 votes, the question of his recusal is largely moot.
For these reasons you might want to consider modifying the very prejudicial headline associated with this thread.
Also, regarding Eric Saub, you suggest the rest of us are guilty by association. I don’t know what Eric did or didn’t do, but you also fail to mention that he is no longer the LPO vice chair (Tim Reeves is).
Headlines like this, disingenuous attacks by IPR moderators (like guilt by association), plus the overt lack of neutrality among most of the IPR moderators, undermines the credibility of IPR among those of us who have differing perspectives. The environment is hostile to us, which is why most of us don’t post here. Except for myself and a couple of others who have other opinions, you guys just seem to use IPR to create a bubble within which you just frenetically affirm each other.
If moderators want more balanced participation, as Paulie seems to, the venue needs to be more balanced. Otherwise, invitations to participate, like Paulie’s invitation issued earlier in this thread, equate to invitations to be cyber-flogged. It should come as no surprise that he would have few takers.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
As much as people want to make this about the events in 2011, it’s not. It’s about an unethical Judicial Committee Chair ignoring the bylaws to change a previous Judicial Committee ruling in and attempt to influence an appeal of a lawsuit that he is involved in.
Every State Chair should be concerned about this because while right now it is only Oregon that M Carling and crew are attacking, they will use these tactics to attack other states that don’t do what they want in the future.
Also, I’ll comment on the incredible amount of comments this article is getting:
I’ve been a lot less active on IPR lately, mainly because Jed and Andy Craig are so good at posting articles, and now Peter Orvetti is back. So, with Paulie’s help, there’s usually a good range of articles, with a great many of them not being Libertarian articles. I’ve also been really maxed out on time, partly because of the second business I’m starting, which is starting to bear fruit (yay!). I was so outraged that Carling wouldn’t recuse himself,though, that I felt it needed to be in a headline, so I put everything aside that I was supposed to do Friday to get this article up. The fact that, four days later, people are still commenting on it shows me I wasn’t alone in my frustration over Saturday’s inappropriate meeting to make a verdict on something I don’t believe the Jucdiical Committee had the right to do.
Burke continues to act as if their whole reason for continuing to try to destroy the LPO is some great moral statement, but, well, I don’t believe it. Most of the characters from the Reeves side have proven an intent to harm the LP by their actions over the course of many years.
And with that we are now in 5th place in all time comments at IPR, soon to be 4th. The leader board again:
1,000+:
Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 1,064 comments
Published 2014/06/26
LNC Elections Thread
paulie Libertarian Party 1,034 comments
Published 2012/05/06
500+:
Angela Keaton resigning from LNC
G.E. Libertarian Party 736 comments
Published 2008/12/08
Libertarian Party vs Constitution Party: An Analysis
Krzysztof Lesiak Constitution Party, Libertarian Party
664 comments Published 2013/03/26
LP Judicial Committee Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior JC Decision re Oregon Affiliate; Carling Will Not Recuse Himself
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 656 comments (this one)
Published 2015/08/14
LNC Meeting Mar 28-29, 2015 Phoenix (Updated)
paulie Libertarian Party 654 comments
Published 2015/03/29
California LP Judicial Committee overturns member’s suspension on appeal
Thomas L. Knapp Libertarian Party 583 comments
Published 2010/01/29
Coverage of LNC meeting 12/14-15/13
paulie Libertarian Party 528 comments
Published 2013/12/14
What’s Going On with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania?
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 502 comments
Published 2013/01/28
Story and discussion: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/05/former-burkereeves-group-lporegon-vice-chair-eric-saub-arrested-charged-with-murder/
Thanks: I had forgot the details.
The board is elected every 2 years by mail ballot in odd numbered years. To qualify to run you have to have participated in the primary that was mailed out in the preceding even numbered year. All registered libertarians have received primary ballots. Only those who participate in our primary received ballots to vote on intraparty business.
9 Board positions are seated via single transferable vote – and the board in turn selects its officers form among itself, and can be replaced at any time by a simple majority vote. The officers are functionaries that serve the board, not figureheads.
The powers of the board are significantly limited and really are purely administrative in nature.
Caryn, way back at his 8:35 comment this morning, George Phillies mentioned the vp of the Reeves group, a gentleman named Eric Saub. You may be interested to note that he is currently awaiting trial for murdering a young lady acquaintance of his (if I recall correctly). You might keep that in perspective when you sort out who is whom, who hangs out with whom, and who may have the values you wish Libertarian leadership to have. IIRC, this same young man had served a prior term in prison for some financial misdeed.
It’s helping create a new kind of libertarian super-warrior forged into steel by the pressure of constant infighting; a kind of political drug-resistant super-virus.
Or not.
If anyone survives the circular firing squad, please conserve energy and dim the lights.
Anyone can see how comments there are in the thread so far at the top of the thread.
If no one posts one since my last one before this one is posted, this will be #651. Unfortunately there is no longer any way to tell what number yours was without counting. I think it was in the 630s or so. At #655 this will become the fifth-most-commented thread at IPR; at #665, the fourth (see 1:01 AM, two days ago, for the stats). After that we’ll see if it will make the subsequent thresholds. I think it probably will go to at least 3rd and quite possibly 1st or 2nd.
Wagner introduced the bylaws amendment that was later reinterpreted by people who dislike him, several years after it was passed, to create the quorum problem in 2010-2011.
The other side contends that they used parliamentary trickery to create an interpretation that created a problem where there was none. If it hadn’t been that perhaps they would have found some other section of the bylaws to interpret in a novel way and create some other problem. No doubt they will dispute this.
I think it’s the most recent one that didn’t make quorum. More importantly, state conventions have been made a lot less important overall.
For the most part, since making quorum at the convention is a lot less crucial than it was under the other bylaws.
The change noticed or invented (depending on who you ask) in 2010 changed things significantly because now all of a sudden conventions would not have quorum unless most of the members of the LP in the whole state were physically present as delegates. That had never been the case before, and almost any state LP in any state in any year would fail to get quorum under such a rule.
The Wagner/Hedbor rules changed convention quorum much more drastically to be a percentage of registered LP voters in the state (0.25% iirc), but more importantly they changed the fuction of the convention to be a lot less important altogether.
My understanding is that no one either imagined or noticed this quorum issue until outside observers from national (primarily M and Alicia, iirc) did.
The latter, especially, could prove to be a problem…
I have been told she has her MRS degree.
The difference is that under the Wagner bylaws conventions don’t decide very much anyway. Most actual decisions are either made by mail ballot or by the board/exec comm, which is replaced by the board/exec comm itself, not the convention. By contrast, under prior rules and under the Burke/Reeves/Epstein rules today, conventions make most of the important decisions about the leadership, candidates and rules of the state party, just like in most other state LPs.
The Wagner side denies that the reason the SOS ruled in their favor was solely because Wagner was the chair of record, just as there is an interpretation of the 2011 JC decision that says that while the ruling said it was in favor of the side recognized by the SOS, it was not solely because that side was recognized by the SOS – in other words, that these were just a way for the SOS and JC to refer to which side they were ruling for, not the sole reason why they made those rulings as your side suggests.
Too bad if you aren’t sticking around. I would be interested in knowing what you think those were.
Sorry to hear that. I don’t see it in pending posts or spam.
I hope someone does reproduce the Burke side here, Caryn perhaps, so the other side can address it. I agree that threats and abuse are unfortunate.
That’s unfortunate. You all are welcome to participate here. I understand why virtually no one wants to do it without the other and be badly outnumbered, though.
Caryn has been talking to people from your side on email. I guess more of them read IPR, at least some of the time, than you realize. Your side has been laid out in many past IPR threads, and if someone (first hand or second hand) wants to lay it out in this one – whether to join the fray or not – that would be good. I could so it with some research, but I already am biting off more than I can chew.
Precisely.
The purpose of a parliamentary authority such as RONR is to facilitate an organization’s operations by lending structure to its meetings and decision-making processes. In the usual case, such as the LNC, it applies only in cases “consistent with” the organization’s bylaws.
Parliamentary authorities can be used as weapons of debate/decision-making warfare, and I wouldn’t go so far as to say they never should be. Things like moving the previous question to end debate, appealing a ruling of the chair, etc. are sometimes wise tactical moves regardless of the merits of either side’s case.
But SMC has turned RONR exclusively into a weapon of decision-making warfare. Whenever the normal and obvious application of a set of bylaws would produce a result they don’t like, they dig into RONR looking for a hook to hang the result the do like on. They use it to frustrate, rather than to facilitate, the operations of the LNC, the national convention, and sometimes state affiliates.
The LNC and the state parties might be wise to adopt a simpler parliamentary authority, like the Standard Code, which is less vulnerable to such exploits.
People seem to trust the current organization enough that we fielded a record number of partisan candidates in 2012, and then again in 2014… and likely will again in 2016.
Assuming this is accurate, what was “inserted” was not Roberts Rules (RONR) itself but the interpretation under which the then-current bylaws were reinterpreted to make quorum virtually impossible, an interpretation that at least some people dispute is even accurate.
Richard, I seem to have learned something from you. I had missed that Hinkle came as an observer. Thank you
All,
RRO was not “inserted” into the special convention of 2010. RRO has been incorporated into our bylaws since before I joined the party in 1990.
The quorum issue, created by the lack of a quorum clause in the bylaw amentment proposals introduced by Wagner in 2007 (which turned our conventions from assemblies of delegated to an assembly of members), was not detected until 2010.
The close examination of our bylaws in 2010, which resulted in the discovery of a quorum problem, was prompted by an attempt by Wagner, Jeff Weston, and their supporters to bar new members from participating in the special convention because they feared the new members would not vote their way. This followed closely on the heels of an attempt by Wagner’s group to unilaterally terminate the memberships of lifetime LPO members, an action which was overturned by the Oregon Judcomm.
Together, these two acts of disenfranchisement invoked the concern of the LNC, many members of which feared that the rights of national party members were being arbitararily violated by their state affiliate. The folks from the LNC, including Rachel Hawking who supported Wagner’s objectives, did not impose rulings and did not participate in debate. They answered questions where they could before the special convention, and Mark Hinkle spoke about people working together, but they came as observers wanting to see that the rights of national party members were respected. All rulings were made by LPO chair Jeff Weston.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Carol,
I have neen reading this thread and admire your desire and ability to examine this issue independently and critically. Moreover, I appreciate your ability to disagree with people without maligning them and your ability to maintain a high level of decorum. It does not bother me that you regard yourself to be in an “opposing faction” from my perspective because you are consistently civil. The party needs more of that. Thank you.
IPR is a forum dominated by people who belong to a particular faction of libertarians. Most of the people I work with are not a part of this faction and simply don’t post here. Most of them don’t even read it. It is therefore not surprising that it is a biased venue. Respectfully, while not your fault I think some of your current opinions may have been colored by this.
Yesterday, I made an detailed attempt to correct some of the “statements of fact” which have been made and attempt to correct some errant assumptions people have been operating on. They are legion. Unfortunately, my post was rejected because it exceeded this board’s maximum length and was sibsequently lost.
I don’t have the energy or desire to reconstruct it, but am willing to interact with you privately and answer whatever questions I can. If you choose to do so you are free to share our correspondance. I don’t really want to do it here because of the threats and abuse I typically get, particularly (it seems) when I make a point. In this respect, the loss of my post of yesterday could be for the best. My email is [email protected].
But I will say this now:
1. I am not evil. Likewise, I am not a Republican plant and there is no Republican conspiracy to take over the LPO. I can see why those who see black helicopters everywhere might get that idea, but such is not the case.
2. That said, I acknowledge that my hands are not pristine. I’ve made mistakes. I have occasionally been quite machieavellian, and there are some moves I would take back if I could. But I have always functioned within the bounds of the LPO constitution and bylaws. None of the charges Wagner has made against me with respect to theft, forgery, and much more ever survived examination by LP committeescand government entities charged with doing so.
3. I don’t really give a damn who our leaders are, at least not any more than is typical for one who is politically active. Sure, we didn’t like it when Wagner and his friends led the LPO legitimately and didn’t like it at times when we lost political battles. But we accepted it organized for the next time. That is how our organization is supposed to work. Mr. Wagner and his supporters have historically failed to do likewise. Since 2006, they have consistently turned to lawsuits, harassment, defamation, intimidation, and have even attempted to co-opt the force of the state to achieve their goals when frustrated at convention or the State Committee.
4. Those of us on the Reeves side make no claim of perfection. But we have gone to great lengths to abide by the governing documents approved by LPO members at properly noticed conventions. I truly believe that the State Committee meeting held at the conclusion of the May 21, 2011 LPO Annual Convention session was valid and that we met the 20 percent quorum requirement laid out in the bylaws.
5. The above notwithstanding, this is not about Wagner, myself, or any other individuals. It is about whether or not it is possible for a single person within the LPO, in this case the “Chair of Record,” to arbitrarily write governing documents, make up officer lists, redefine the membership, eliminate the NAP requirement, attempt to impose all of this on the membership by mis-applying statute in an attempt to co-opt the force of the state to acieve a political goal, attempt tobwhitewash all of this with an illegal mail ballot, arrange for the filing of official documents with the state which he himself acknowledges were not adopted in accordance with our governing documents, and effectively disaffiliate the LPO which has continually existed since 1972 in favor of his organization.
If one chair can do all of this, the next chair can do it too and turn it all around. Or in some other weird direction. After all, if Wagner prevails, what is to stop a future chair from doing the same thing? Watching the LPO struggle with this, the Oregon GOP feared that they might suffer the same fate when they found themselves on the verge of ousting their state chair, Suzanne Ghallager, who was looking for a way to hold onto power. She ultimately stepped down, but this, and some whacky correspondance between Wagner and Ghallager’s replacement, is what caused the GOP to write an amicus brief in support of our lawsuit.
Anyway, if one person has this power, no member will ever know with any degree of certainty, what their membership status is, what their rights and responsibilities as a member are, how the organization functions, or what the purposes and direction of the organization are.
Apart from close circles of belligerents and their supporters, few members will invest their time, talent, or money in such an organization. Nobody wants to invest in unpredictability, and the base of donors to the LPO (either LPO) have shrunk dramatically.
Wagner and others argued that his coup was justified because of the lack of a quorum clause in our bylaws. It therefore represents the height of irony that, at their last convention in April, Wagner’s organization failed to make quorum.
Anyway, this is why we are fighting. This is why we don’t quit. I have no doubt that if we gave up and entered Wagner’s organization, it would be redefined as soon as we made enough traction to make Wagner and his friends uncomfortable. That is no way to build a stable and enduring organization capable of supporting the candidates we nominate. That, ultimately, is what we are fighting for.
I realize that I have been a polarizing figure in Oregon. That in itself does not make me wrong here. So as things stand now, if we prevail, I intend to back out of a leadership role to facilitate the introduction of new faces and deny my opponents a rallying post.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian party of Oregon
Andy@12:33 AM. Stop asking intelligent questions that lead to confusion.
The point of having rules is to use them to advance the organization’s business, as opposed to the point of the organization being to figure out how to apply rules no matter whether they advance or retard the organization’s business. Miss Harlos, you completely miss this basic point, so the rest of your gazillion words — not to mention the pree-2011 events that you are ignoring — are fairly pointless.
Steve, TheJudicial Committee overturned their 2011 decision, dismissed the Epstein petition, and adjourned. The 2011 decision overturned the 2011 LNC ExComm vote that recognized Mr. Reeves by name as the LPOR chair, Mr. Saub by name as the LPOR Vice Chair, etc.
I avoided the poll tax issue- totally ignorant on that controversy and have my hands full.
I really want to pin this quorum thing down as I have two conflicting sets of narrative – or actually maybe they don’t actually factually conflict- it is the interpretation that does.
I have very serious concerns about people being involved in OR’s business also being involved in these decisions— I am not ignoring that-
Tom
Lol at must dye one’s hair pink
And I realize these issues which iny questions I have stayed away from – just dealing with the claims made here.
I get that the insertion of RONR is a sore spot and people think there was out if state meddling. On that point I agree… No good ever comes of that.
But Wagner said they inserted RONR conveniently not mentioning this changed quorums considerably— but did it change quorums considerably if the convention composition was not changed? Wagner led for a change in the convention composition AFTER RONR was “inserted”- arguably it was his responsibility to realize this would jack up the quorum? There is an issue about gaming the timing of that meeting too- but I accept those as political games played—- on both sides.
Caryn,
If only it was as simple as looking it up. But it isn’t. This relates to the pre-2011 history of the Starr/Mattson/Carling antics.
Sometime in the early 2000s, there was suddenly a lot of talk about parliamentary procedure, and Carling and Mattson (at least) got themselves certified as “professional parliamentarians.” Then they started inserting themselves into various questions, declaring in any given controversy that their interpretation of RONR came down on whatever side of any issue they were on.
In their visit to Oregon prior to the split, they basically told LPO that it was doing things wrong because RONR said this and RONR said that. Were they right? I haven’t studied that particular incident carefully, so I don’t know. But I do know how they use RONR, and here’s one example:
The national bylaws carefully lay out what one has to be or do to be a national convention delegate. It is an all-inclusive list in format: If a qualification is not listed, then any demanded qualification is not CONSISTENT with it. If you meet those qualifications, you’re a delegate. If you don’t, you’re not. It does not allow for an ad hoc rule to be added, i.e. “must dye one’s hair pink” or “must at all times keep a live peregrine falcon on one’s shoulder;” therefore, no additional such rule can be imposed. And it does not provide for assessment of a poll tax (“registration fee”) to serve as a delegate.
Up until 2012 (IIRC — it may have been 2010), the obvious, correct, and universally understood interpretation of those bylaws was that no such poll tax was allowed. The convention organizers could try to sell you a package with various perqs at the convention, but they couldn’t force you to buy it as a requirement for being a delegate.
Then it suddenly became an issue, it got sent to the Judicial Committee, and the SMC argument was that since RONR’s section on conventions/meetings credentialing processes mentions, in passing and without elaboration, “payment of the registration fee,” that such a fee can be assessed no matter what the bylaws say. They won that round, but hopefully the next case of such a bylaws-forbidden poll tax being imposed will be appealed yet again.
So: I wouldn’t put much stock in what M Carling or Alician Mattson say about the content of RONR. When they want something the bylaws say they can’t have, they go looking through RONR trying to find some way, any way, to get whatever it is they want, and they don’t give a tinker’s damn whether or not their logic actually holds up.
Also after that bylaws rewrite which had to be done under emergency powers to fix the quorum issue (starting to seriously doubt this was such an emergency but grant IF it were that emergency powers might be warranted)— did the first convention after this re-write make quorum?
IOW, did the ostensible catalyst for the coup (and I think we all know that is a pretext and I have called bullshit on the rest of it) — was the quorum issue even fixed? Was quorum made? I understand it was not.
I have a question about this quorum crisis requirement. It has been said here that the Reeves contingent sneaked in RONR in order to change the quorum requirement under the radar without mentioning this would do that. That is kinda a shaky theory- couldn’t anyone have looked it up? Anyways….
Wasn’t the quorum issues rather caused, at least in part (totally correct me if I am wrong, I obviously have put out an open request here for information and multiple people have privately contacted me to provide some) by a Wagner led change restructuring the convention? And this change led to the drastic quorum change? How could the Reeves people have a crystal ball to know that this structuring would take place so that a quorum crisis would result?
Marc,
I do not think that ballot lines and party names belong to the state parties BECA– USE of state law.
I think that ballot lines and party names belong to the states because the state parties existed before the Libertarian National Committee. It is their instrument, not vice versa.
And yes, I acknowledge that copyright law is law even though I don’t agree with the concept of “intellectual property.” But even under that law, fraudulently registered copyrights that claim a property right in names that were already in use by other entities before the entity claiming them existed are not valid.
>the Nicholas Sarwark Memorial Margarita Machine at the national headquarters.
Now that’s something we can all agree upon. In fact, I think we should get a movement out to send some of them to the affiliates too.
NF’s comment was good, but it can’t top my comparison of Sam Sloan to a case of herpes.
I hope this is comment 1000!!
OK, most of the discussion I have been sifting through revolves about who was right and who was wrong.
I am wondering what the outcome of the Judicial Committee meeting was. Currently I am not hearing anything yes or no, therefore I am wondering if that means they decided to not meet and simply forget about the whole thing given what was coming in they continued their farce.
Anyway, I would really like to know what happened, because that answer will tell me what is GOING to happen.
Steve Scheetz
By that logic, these statements work also:
“Prohibition: Too bad if you don’t like it.”
“Cop as Executioner: Too bad if you don’t like it.”
Stealing your property for a factory: Too bad if you don’t like it.”
How is any of this bullshit that is going on in the LP of Oregon advancing the Libertarian Party and movement?
Marc: trademark is also the law …. then the national party also legitimately owns its trademark.
NO. The one does not follow the other.
Just because trademark law is law, does not mean the LP owns its trademark.
Courts have already determined that state parties own their ballot line.
No court has yet determined that the national LP’s trademark is valid under trademark law.
I studied trademark law back in law school. I don’t have space here to give you a lesson. But the state parties’ claims to their ballot lines are legally strong. The LP’s claim to its trademark is legally weak.
That’s the law. Too bad if you don’t like it.
How would national win a trademark case, when LPOR existed prior to any affiliation with national? Seems like a non-starter to me.
You people who are arguing who owns ballot access are funny.
Ballot access doesn’t belong to the state party or national party it belongs to the state and the state is the sole entity that decides who has access.
That’s why some states its supper easy to get ballot access and other states its almost impossible.
So instead of wasting time arguing who owns ballot access, just ask the ballot access experts who will get ballot access for the next election in Oregon. They will tell you that it will be the Wagner group regardless what the National party does. The Reeves group could also have ballot access if they and the National party want to spend enough money to get the petitions that will be needed.
The trademark claims are unenforceable. My understanding is that the trademark is filed on the logo – not the word “Libertarian” (which would be an R mark if it exists and they don’t advertise it on everything) – on top of that the prior art issues are legion, and on top of that I have twice asked them to defend their alleged trademark in Oregon in writing and they declined to do so.
Marc
==The most proper response to the LP no longer serving your purpose is to start a competing political party, building your own database and gaining your own ballot access by your own independent and legitimate efforts. Doing anything less is unethical.===
Nailed it again. I said it earlier when I said I have been there- I was treated badly at a successful forum I vokunteered for – lies plots the whole nine yards- I made my dramatic exist with a small group of supports and we torched the place! No, actually we took our bitterness and our balls and built a new one– still successful. I could have plotted and destroyed. We got our own software, operating manuals, protocols, content and members.
Tom your whole argument centers around the fact that the ballot line goes with whichever arm of the Party state law specifies.
I disagree with you.
As stated, the law is an ass.
If you want to fall back on the law, then you should also acknowledge that trademark is also the law, and that if state parties legitimately own the LP ballot line, then the national party also legitimately owns its trademark.
Personally I’d favor getting rid of both laws. In the meantime, efforts should be made to establish ownership of name and ballot lines via contract.
Going back to the example in Virginia, had the state committee disaffiliated the local chapter, under Virginia law, the state party would still retain all rights to its ballot line.
Using your argument, the affiliate actually owns the LP ballot line in its claimed jurisdiction, thus the state party would no longer have any rights in that area.
I would not agree with that.
I guess let a thousand flowers bloom and all that, but that would be an idiotic outcome and it would make party identification meaningless.
I suppose if your aim is to eliminate the limited-but-still-useful information that party affiliation gives to the average voter, then disrupting the proper order of ballot ownership is just fine.
In my opinion, ballot line ownership begins with the national party, and is granted to state and local parties. They have no claim to the reverse.
A split as in Oregon or Arizona has threatened Viginia in the past; for that matter, I think every state party has stared at the abyss at one time or another in its history. But if it had happened in Virginia, I would not be threatening “the nuclear option”. I’d wait until the idiots simply exhausted and visited ruin on themselves, and left.
The most proper response to the LP no longer serving your purpose is to start a competing political party, building your own database and gaining your own ballot access by your own independent and legitimate efforts. Doing anything less is unethical.
Ack CPD.. …. I hate acronyms
Marc, you have worded what I have been trying to say a million times better than I. His bloodlust is misplaced and utterly wrong and is unlibertarian aggressive threats. And liberty suffers.
And there are such differing motivations. I do not think what he did was legitimate. In any way. I have made that clear. YET, I still say that the LNC overstepped its bounds. Because of the way I read the bylaws. I would think this even if I thought the Reeves faction DID follow the rules, this in my view, is not the LNC’s place. They can express their opinion through disaffiliation. They certainly can have an opinion. And perhaps even with the precedent of that 1995 LNC letter, they are entitled to issue an advisory opinion.
And this post-coitus rage he has is so cringeingly wrong. In one way, I want to find reason to believe the LNC has the right to make this declaration because saying they don’t feels too much to me like cowing to threats. A person can start with some modicum of righteousness (I do think his group has revived the LPO and got them doing productive things and they do apparently have the support of registered OR Libertarians… though I would note, that his jettisoning of the pledge was totally illegitimate and who knows how many of these OR Libertarians would certify the pledge? if weeded out between those that would and those that would not, the approval rating might be much lower… we do not know)…. well they can start with some rightness and make themselves utterly wrong by subsequent actions.
You are right. His threats include me, and I did nothing. I am too new to have done anything other than exist in the LP and in the short amount of time I have been involved to do a lot of work. The fact that I am cordial and friendly with everyone I can be in the LP, and welcome open communication with anyone, is probably enough to doom me.
As far as the law being an ass…. no argument from me, but I still think these are the rules of the game, and we had the opportunity in our bylaws to overcome that, and we *chose* not to. Thus, in this, and the autonomy of the affiliates, the LNC is restricted in its decisions regarding the state affiliates to the vagaries of the state law. And no Prohibition isn’t just, but if we voluntarily affiliate with a business that organized under a license of the state and who’s existence depends upon that license… well we have subjected ourselves to that. And that,due to the state, is the price of political admission. We don’t like it…and that is kind of the point of the political involvement for a Libertarian, isn’t it? We are suing the PDC right now to follow the vagaries of the law aren’t we (yes I know some don’t agree with the suit)
On the “at will” preference… it is a voluntary arrangement, I don’t care what is agreed to, and from the point of the view of an affiliate, the “cause” provision keeps the LNC from interfering with the autonomy of the affiliates with threats of disaffiliation because they simply would prefer the affiliate to do something else.
And I thought we were saving calling each other asses for the convention?
George, that is the rub. It is all about WAGNER when it comes to Wagner. The world revolves around him. I suppose I am not on his “side” because I think what he did was completely illegitimate (with a narrow exception to cure a quorum issue). As far as his views on the direction of the Party, I agree. I want to yank it hard libertarian-wise rather than the conservatish route it is on now. But I don’t believe in illegitimate affiliate take-overs and especially do not believe in disenfranchising members. By anyone. A good end goal doesn’t cleanse it to me.
Marc,
I can see advantages and disadvantages to an at-will relationship. To be honest, it’s what we have now anyway, since nobody seems to take the “cause” requirement seriously. Much less in the way of extended messing around on any given instance is the advantage. The likelihood of continuing musical chairs is the disadvantage.
And then there’s the whole problem of who owns what. I’m not sure you’d favor an at-will relationship if that came with acknowledging that each state LP owns its name and ballot line and that those go with it when the relationship ends.
Phillies said:
Yep, sometimes I do get it wrong.
And Knapp, you could be less of an ass.
Nevertheless, I favor an at-will relationship.
I’m consistent about it, as well. A similar issue came up a couple of years ago in Virginia, where a local affiliate had elected officers who were campaigning for Republicans. At the time the affiliation relationship was at-will; however, despite years of this behavior, the state committee refused to act and one member insisted on (essentially) formal charges and a public trial. Last year we added a “for cause” provision.
And my position was then and is now that if we weren’t willing to do anything when the relationship was at-will, we definitely won’t do anything when severing it requires 18 steps of bureaucratic wrangling. That would require piling even more on people who are already predisposed to be eager to end normal 3-hour meetings; asking them to instead sit through a contentious, disputed 6-hour meeting and forever afterward be known as part of a group that had to do something (gasp) controversial.
If there was a way to ensure absolute paralysis, “for cause” is it.
By the way, Carling’s inability to remain at arms’ length from questions he had a direct interest in has been well-established for several years now. I posted the below summary of the Credentials Committee meeting on May 2, 2012:
In my experience, Wagner has noticed that there are LP members who are on his side and LP members who are not.
Wow, that was a quick pile-on 😀
“The bylaws do not require any cause.”
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, and please accept a complimentary copy of our home game.
“The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, FOR CA– USE, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee.”
Emphasis mine.
Montoni is not right in the prior remark. The Bylaws say “The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.” The Bylaws do require a cause.
Marc – cause is in tey bylaws. From 6.6 @ http://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Bylaws_and_Convention_Rules_w_2014_JC_Rules.pdf
The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation. {…}
Caryn said:
Your correspondent would say that only if he thinks Robert’s Rules overrides the LP bylaws.
Which it doesn’t.
Affiliation is at-will. All it should take is a 50% + 1 vote to disaffiliate or reaffiliate, regardless of whether there is cause or not. The bylaws do not require any cause.
Those who suggest — because “cause” and a formal hearing and a trial and a right of appeal and all sorts of additional bureaucracy are all in Robert’s — showing cause is a legitimate requirement are also (strangely) people who deny the right of national to charge a floor fee because it’s NOT in the LP bylaws.
I prefer consistency.
National LP should be free to affiliate and disaffiliate at will if an affiliate is no longer loyal to the national party. And yes, ballot access should follow national’s affiliation.
The law is generally an ass, and anyone who uses its vagaries to convince me of their position might as well tell me Prohibition is just.
Unfortunately, Caryn, this is just the way politics is. These debates have been around since the beginnings of the movement. “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
That’s the case, even within the Libertarian Party, and even within the movement.
I thought the AZ fiasco was going to be enough to destroy the LP; but it’s still here. I honestly do not know if the LP will survive the combined effect of declining revenues and membership levels, on top of more lawsuits in this Oregon mess. I hope it will, but we will see.
One fact is clear: Wagner continues to cast blame on people who both are powerless to stop what is happening, and who had no part in creating the conditions he opposes. Collective punishment — which is what he’s calling for with his repeated threats to make the LNC or the national LP (meaning: the general membership and donors) pay — is just evil.
The LP is the best recruiting tool the overall libertarian movement has, bar none. We engage in wholesale education of the mass market. All other libertarian movement organizations recruit on a far smaller scale. If Mr Wagner does succeed in shutting down the LP, there WILL NOT be anything to replace it in that role.
Paulie summed all this up pretty well:
It was Wagner’s open hostility that drove me from being pretty much 100% in his corner (I supported seating his delegation, and so on) to being in the “both sides are seedy” camp. He has continuously made statements blaming LP members in general (and that includes me) for having to fight his war.
Problem is, I’ve actively opposed, with my votes and statements, all of the people who have been attacking the Wagner faction.
The fact that other LP members have outvoted me is not my fault.
Libertarians “giddiily reveling”– don’t know why but that makes me smile
Let’s get them to reconsider the reconsideration and then to reconsider the reconsideration of the reconsideration and…..
Reconsideration of the 2011 decision was not on the basis of the Epstein petition. It coincided, but the Epstein petition was denied. Reconsideration was based on M’s interpretation of Roberts to say that the JC cn reconsider any prior decision it ever made, no matter how much time had passed, without anyone bringing a new petition. According to this logic, this “reconsideration” could have happened even if there had been no Epstein petition.
I agree with you Dave. And the only good course of action I see here is this.. and it isn’t going to happen. The LNC refuses to recognize this decision as improper due to res adjudicata and bias and affirms the 2011 JC decision. This will not happen, but this would put the LNC on the high ground and is the best hope for resolving this dispute amicably as possible. Individuals can have their own opinions (and the LNC itself can have its own opinion on the merits) but it isn’t its decision.
Marc, are you surprised? Libertarians are too chickenshit to touch this issue though it is a fundamentally basic right. National won’t touch. I’m not surprised Oregon wouldn’t either, but for all the cock-crowing here about how fundamentalist they are now, you would think so. I am utterly disgusted with the official Libertarian cowardice on this. And Gary Johnson denies freedom of association, so what do we expect… never mind the redefinition of aggression by another candidate.
Forget the infighting, it is this kind of stuff that if I ever walk away will be the reason. Libertarians too big of cowards to be libertarian on a hot issue. It is this issue that makes me seriously consider NOTA.
The better comparison would be whether or not the Supreme Court reconsiders prior Supreme Court decisions. And it does. The Court may decide something one time, and later another case comes up and it reverses its prior decision.
What it doesn’t do is just say “hey, let’s go dig up Lochner and re-think it.” There are rules. The plaintiff has to have standing. Appeals have to be timely.
In this case, a party without standing filed its complaint long after the 30-day window for doing so would have closed even if the party HAD had standing. Yes, they came up with a bullshit story to bring it into that window, but that bullshit story was clearly a bullshit story.
The equivalent would be someone popping up today claiming to be William Marbury and demanding that the Supreme Court reverse his “constructive non-commission” as Justice of the Peace in DC because even though that case was settled in 1803, he suddenly noticed last week that he wasn’t getting the paycheck he thought he was entitled to. Since William Marbury is clearly dead, the guy wouldn’t have standing, and since the case is 212 years old, not actually from last week, it wouldn’t be timely. So for John Roberts to assert that Marbury v. Madison is up for reconsideration on that basis would be, like I said, a bullshit story.
I’ve said my piece. On some things, Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner are simply full of it. And I will leave it at that.
Meanwhile, while these geniuses are fighting over the carcass, there is a wholesale attack on the right of association going on in the same state, it seems neither of the OR LP’s have made an issue of it — despite the fact that Libertarians in Oregon have a unique standing to participate in the debate.
Even non-Libertarians appreciate the Libertarian position on the issue; yet Libertarians everywhere have been mostly silent about it.
Libertarians used to be ideological trailblazers. So many of our early spokesmen giddily reveled in being at 1 or 2% in the polls — because they realized it gave us the absolute freedom to speak unabashed truth to power.
Now, we fight over scraps.
Something to consider. Allowing the judicial committee to reconsider a prior JC decision is like the US Courts allowing someone to be tried for the same crime twice. Is this what we want to show the world what libertarian are about.
I further note that the letter — addressed “to whom it may concern” — purports to convey the “views” of the LNC. Not a final decision.
Additional information I took a look at… the Arizona precedent is not the only precedent. Apparently a conflicting set of officers has happened in Oregon before (1995), and the LPO’s Judicial Committee had to rule on a recall election and there were still two competing claims afterwards, and the LNC stated that the matter was handled properly by the LPO’s JC, thus perhaps telling an affiliate who it’s officers were. No one appealed this decision.
This was very interesting and certainly caused me to question my position of whether or not the LNC had the authority to determine which officers were the right set. Of course, I could always just think it was wrong back then but no one appealed…. but, I actually see this as factually distinguishable. First,I was very impressed by that former letter in how it was very careful to respect the affiliate’s autonomy. It appears that it was couched in the form of an opinion (it “appears” and “urges”) and not an absolute directive and it continuously urged the affiliate to work through its own disputes. If there was no challenge, it seems that the parties agreed to be bound by the opinion, which is different than happened here. If there was an appeal of this as binding… it would be a different story. We don’t know what would have happened.
The beginning of the letter says that the LNC must be able to identify its affiliate in order to fulfill its duty to insure only one affiliate exists and that practically means it must be able to identify its officers. This is the same reasoning used in the LNC decision in favor of Reeves. In making the determination of the identity though, it is stated, that the affiliate’s autonomy must not be breached. The LNC deferred to the LPO’s JC as the proper body to determine this and makes the statement of what the results appear to be and urges the affiliate to insure there is only one state convention and only one set of delegates… seeming to recognize that this decision was not the end-all, that it was in their hands.
Apparently this letter was submitted to the SoS who relied upon it to change the records.
This throws a wrinkle in the whole thing, and if this was a binding decision then it shows precedent that the LNC thought it had this authority, and if advisory, then not, but in either event it was not challenged apparently.
Paulie–I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Judicial Committee sets LNC on course for nuclear suicide, poking its nose once again into the Oregon mess years after the fact thanks to an obvious conflict of interest and endless cycle of intra-party cycles of vengeance, to the delight of the duopoly and its corporate sponsors.
Meanwhile, in other Oregon news…
http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/17/oregon-secretary-of-state-says-independent-party-has-enough-registrations-to-qualify-for-its-own-primary/
BTW we are now at #6 on the all time leader board in comments for IPR (see 1:01 am today)….
Chuck Moulton Submitted on 2015/08/16 at 11:24 am Exactly!
I don’t know M, although I know I met him in Pasadena once, briefly. I don’t want to know M. But, I’m curious as to how he got any power with the LP. Aaron has been CA State Chair, served as LNC treasurer for years, so I get that. I don’t know Alicia, either (again, don’t particularly want to), but I know she has worked as secretary for the LNC for many years, and is apparently good at it (although not distributing info deliberately, as Rachel Hawkbridge claimed in the Libertarian Peacenik link I just posted makes me question whether she was good). But, what has M contributed? I’m really curious about this.
Has anyone heard what the National Committee is going to do?
More history:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/11/thinking-differently-about-libertarian.html
I found this while doing a bit of research this afternoon. Caryn, you might pay attention to this. It shows the pattern of downright unethical behavior by some of the players here.
http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2011/04/rachel-hawkridge-quits-libertarian.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASKb-u4Vt5g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5wUr4Lut4A
Yep.
“I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.”
We don’t disagree on that at all.
Where we disagree is where you pretend that the national organization has a legitimate power to keep controlling things like ballot lines and names of organizations once those organizations AREN’T its chapters any more.
Most, if not all, of the state Libertarian Parties existed before there ever was a Libertarian National Committee. It is their creature, not vice versa. It certainly has the right to part ways with them, as they do with it, but it doesn’t get their stuff (e.g. their names and their ballot lines) if that happens, any more than they get its stuff (e.g. its office and equipment).
Your characterization (“miscreants”) aside, I predict a snowball would have a much better chance in hell than there is of 2/3 of this LNC will remove 5/7 of this JC as party members, even if we grat that such a power exists at all.
I guess we’ll see if people at the national level will be as inclined to listen to them.
Is that a crime against nature 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=985JGeGq_tc
Yeah… I am disappointed that we were not #1 in legalized mj… but maybe we can be #1 for legal opiates.
NF, still almost 500 to go for the record. See my post above from 1:01 AM today.
Still, this…one…could…go…all.. the…way….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuiGGDoFlhE&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
===C’mon folks… we need another 200 or so posts to break the record. I know we can do it. Oregon is, after all, a state where you can legally kill yourself so it is vitally important that there be a vibrant LP affiliate to assist with the euthanasia of the national party! In other words… most of us are pretty freaking tired of this. There is no answer.===
Best post of the thread.
Btw how did that issue work out in Louisiana ?
C’mon folks… we need another 200 or so posts to break the record. I know we can do it. Oregon is, after all, a state where you can legally kill yourself so it is vitally important that there be a vibrant LP affiliate to assist with the euthanasia of the national party! In other words… most of us are pretty freaking tired of this. There is no answer.
Wes..
Some might say a tisket, a tasket…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTT2LEyjdC4
Daniel
Don’t let snakes use your basket as sanctuary and hurl rocks at the eggs we are rebuilding from within it and think that basket will stay safe.
George,
It is also important to remember that in the spring convention of 2010 the party was almost dead. The bank account was closed and overdrawn, the party had been evicted from its office, etc.
There was a resolution that was passed by that convention with a charter. Some people tried to bring in outside powers to prevent the execution of that charter in good faith.
When you break a deal — you can have serious problems.
Wes I am not arguing with your fire-breathing threats any more. Other issues, okay but the rest of that is on virtual ignore.
Wes said: “Moral of the story: deal with your traitors, saboteurs, etc., before someone just breaks the egg again.”
SOoo…there’s still an egg to be broken….stop trying to take all the yokes out of all the others eggs you selfish somebeach. :D.
Just cause your egg broke and the yoke is out doesnt mean you have to tilt over the basket and dump out every other person’s egg just cause you hate the basket. That smacks of aggression…
Since we are using bad analogies..I figgert let it roll…
==No, the totally unethical act was persuading the 2010 LPOR State Convention to adopt Roberts, and then showing up in 2011 and claiming that the State Convention had without noticing adopted a *new* quorum rule, so that the largest state convention they had had in recent memory allegedly did not have a quorum even though a new quorum had not been discussed in 2010.===
No doubt that is a sneaky move. I never claimed the Reeves group was pure… I have said the exact opposite, and I don’t hold their elections to be legitimate either.
==The Wagner decisions were totally appropriate and legitimate under the circumstances. ===
I disagree. They took a small mandate and drove a truck through it. The quorum had other ways to be dealt with. Or just wait it out like Marc said. The redefining of membership was completely illegitimate and disenfranchised the then existing member pool. The wholesale replacement of the bylaws was illegitimate.
And once again…. the Reeves election was illegitimate as far as I can tell.
This is an OR matter however. Not mine.
Caryn
I will admit that what happened was not done in exact accordance with the bylaws… but the problem is that Oregon law protects what we did, and the other side already started planning to do it first so we were compelled to act.
It is what it is… the registered libertarians of Oregon own this party now. Most of us contend that they were the rightful owners in the first place and it was the structure that was perverted.
We tried to work within it, but people cheated and started to bring in outside parties.
At that point they don’t get a fair fight… and that is just simply the way it is.
Now we have to cleanup every person who ever helped them or gave them quarter.
No, the totally unethical act was persuading the 2010 LPOR State Convention to adopt Roberts, and then showing up in 2011 and claiming that the State Convention had without noticing adopted a *new* quorum rule, so that the largest state convention they had had in recent memory allegedly did not have a quorum even though a new quorum had not been discussed in 2010.
The Wagner decisions were totally appropriate and legitimate under the circumstances. Indeed, if the Reeves group had announced “we are keeping the dues-paying members, and we are a private body, the Libertarian Association of Oregon”, no different that the association of the Americans for Democratic Action with the Democratic Party, there would have been much less fuss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs
That is a fair bit of narcissistic posturing, which has not been in short supply.
At least now you admit what you did was illegitimate. Earlier we didn’t have that.
And legitimate is irrelevant when things break down to the point of revolution. The egg can’t be put back into the shell at this point. Moral of the story: deal with your traitors, saboteurs, etc., before someone just breaks the egg again.
LibertyDave seems to have missed where I have clearly said I believe the LNC overstepped its bounds and interfered in the autonomy of OR.
The anger is clouding reason.
I didn’t say unethical, I have been avoiding the ethics since I am dealing with institutional legitimacy. And what Wagner did was not legitimate.
Also LibertyDave, I would like to beg a minor bone of contention … I act like a giant asshole, but I am not a complete dick. 😉
Can everybody agree that Wes Wagner’s intent is to bring about the destruction of the National Party in it’s current form?
If you didnt agree to that you havent listened to Wes very closely.
It might surprise people but I think to a degree Wes and I are “cool”. ,despite my having told all of their LPO board to “shit or get off the pot” in response to their demand that the LNC apologize for the Convention or the LPO would disaffiliate. I recognized what he was doing with that demand. Be aware. Wes is setting another “trap” for the national party. Carling and those guys couldnt just let things ride out there for a while and had to oblige him and take the cheese. IF LPO voted to disaffiliate on their own, that left the NLP the right to seek a new affiliate without having “FORCED” the affiliate. It would get hairy over trademarks, ballot line access, but gee…I think we are already in the barber shop and people have been cutting hair for 4 years without sweeping the floor.
I beg to differ regarding it being unethical 🙂 There are reasons no one whipped out pitchforks and torches domestically when it was done and the outrage primarily came from outside our borders.
You all seem to be hung-up on one act that you call an unethical, that happened in 2011 by the Wagner group and don’t seem to be upset about the unethical acts that the Reeves group and their friends on the national committees have been committing ever since then.
And it was at most an unethical act, not an illegal act as the courts in Oregon have already ruled once and will probably rule again on appeal.
This is why I refuse to support the National Libertarian Party and instead send people new to the Libertarian movement to the Advocates for Self-Government because at least they are consistently Libertarian.
Liberty Dave makes an excellent point. If the LNC via the disaffiliation process, or the National Convention by rejecting their delegation list, disaffiliates Oregon, then they are not our affiliate, and we have no claim on their loyalties.
“I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.”
Your description of my position is wrong.
I believe that a National Party or National Convention can choose who to recognize as its affiliate in a state. There are a long series of precedents and examples (see, e..g, the 1968 and 1972 Democratic National Conventions) for parties making those choices. The now-reversed 2011 Judicial Committee ruling does not disagree; it simply chose an obfuscatory way of saying which group was the state affiliate.
There have been proposals as to whom national *should* recognize, but that’s a different question. There have been emphatic reminders that the LNC has a well-defined disaffiliation rule. If the LNC wants to disaffiliate a state group, and then extend an affiliation offer to a particular group in that state, they are entitled to do so by following their rules.
I do not believe the LNC has to decide who they are disaffilating in order to do the disaffiliation. That is, going back four years, the LNC could have disaffiliated the Oregon affiliate without deciding first whether the legitimate affiliate was the Wagner or Reeves group. They could then have offered affiliation to whoever. That’s not what they did.
With respect to your other point, your own words
“The chair does not appoint the EC; rather the LNC elects it. When this agenda item arose, Nick asked whether he could express his preference; no one objected to his doing so. He then stated his preference that the LNC choose Sam Goldstein, Bill Redpath, and Jay Estrada.
After some discussion, Arvin Vohra moved to elect these three people to the EC; the motion was defeated on a vote of 6 to 7.”
prove that I am telling the truth and your sources are lying.
I have a question for Mark Montoni.
You stated the following;
“In any case, I favor continuing to recognize the Wagner faction, as long as that faction respects the right of the national convention delegates to name our presidential candidate, and agrees to do the paperwork necessary to have their state government print that name on the general election ballot.
If that group subsequently named some other person to be the LP presidential candidate in OR, al la what happened in Arizona between 1996-2000, then I would be first in line to condemn them.”
Will you still be first in line to condemn Oregon when we name someone else for president in 2016 when the national convention delegates refused to respect the rights of the Oregon Libertarian Party like they did in 2012, 2014, and appears will happen in 2016 if the LNC disaffiliates the Oregon Libertarian Party without even following their own rules?
Hi Marc, I always love hearing from you, and this time we disagree on some things and agree on most.
==I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.
We spend a lot of time saying how stupid various laws are and then some of us turn around and try to tell me that the LP has no right to determine its own chapter relationship; that it’s all up to the vagaries of state laws.==
The LP has bylaws which set the scope of its powers. I agree that it could have chosen to not be subject to the vagaries of state laws, and in this case, there is a definite vagary in that the SoS rubberstamped an event, there is no determination on the merits, yet. If the LP wanted such control, it should have been in the bylaws. But instead the bylaws grant specific autonomy to the affiliates except as provided in the bylaws, and here we are. The autonomy punts it back to the states where they have organized under certain laws… and a lot of stupid ones that take power away… not from National from the affiliates themselves. The LP does have a right to determine its own chapter relationship; through disaffiliation affiliation.
The other states are affected by this.. they are relying on our bylaws and the affiliation agreement therein. To just go and state that the LP is the final arbiter in this broad manner when that is not what they agreed to is violative of them. This is a union based on agreements, and these agreements cannot be unilaterally expanded. I tend to agree with you that the LP should have more control here, and the only way to remediate that is to revise the bylaws.
==I also believe that as long as there are trademark laws, the LP does indeed have the right to use them like any other organization, and should be able to protect the use of its name by unauthorized groups.==
I agree here.. but isn’t this using stupid laws? It is. And for the same reason I support this, if the LP chooses to affiliate with a creature of the state (not that there is any choice if we want to play the electoral game, but we know the game we are signing up for), then it is subject to the vagarities of the state that go along with it. Our bylaws are deficient here.
It pains me to be arguing “muh state” but this is what we signed up for in entering this arena, and we have to play the game with an eye towards beating the game to dismantle the game—this is how we chose to fight contra the no-voting voluntaryists. I have no love for the state. I prefer my state nonexistent.
==Whichever group is affiliated with the national LP is the group that should have the legal right to use our name on the ballot.==
I agree.
==Burke and the rest of his cohort spent the better part of a decade or more using the LPOR as their personal toys. So in a sense I fully understand the nuclear reaction. Suppress change long enough and eventually you’re going to find yourself on top of a volcano.
Yes, I understand all of that.==
I also understand the rage. And sympathize with it to a great deal. But I also think part of what you sign up for when joining a movement is to also put away some pride, and I see a great deal of pride here in the chest-thumping would-be-destroyers.
===And yes, Wagner’s group staged a coup. Yes, I understand they felt was necessary. However, they violated the right of the dues-paying membership to decide for themselves in convention what their rules were going to be, going forward.
In that sense, yes, Wagner’s group is entirely illegitimate.===
^THAT. And you picked up on something important with “in that sense”— there are many “senses” here.
==All of that said, the “Reeves Group” was also illegitimate, as they purported to meet as the state committee of the LPOR when none of them were current party officeholders.==
^THAT.
In the absence of our bylaws, agreed to by the agreed process in our organization, giving the LP the power to not be subject to the vagaries of the state, I have come to the conclusion I have.
I do not think either of the groups have the right of it. They are both illegimate. How to work that out? The LP interfere when we have no express warrant to do so and an express warrant not to? I keep hearing (not here) that we need to judge in equity between the two groups… I say there aren’t only two groups there is a third one. And that is where the LPO would have been two seconds before the coup. Now that may be impossible to go back to, but that is the legitimate third group in the room. And in order to sort this out, the LPO is a organization existing under the laws of their state, and representing Libertarians in a certain state, and it is their’s to work out. The bylaws do not give us this power. They only give us the power to disaffiliate from the affilitate— which is the LPO— which is a state-created institutional form.
I agree it is a catch-22. If the LP didn’t like what the state records were saying were its officers due to this, they should have disaffiliated.
I am not entirely satisfied with this, but is the best I can make of the situation.
George Phillies said:
Mr Phillies has already been corrected on this in another forum, yet he continues to make an issue of it.
This is the earlier response to Mr Phillies claim:
For whatever it’s worth, the Virginia LP could not meet quorum for many years (12, as I recall), and we had things we wanted to change. Those things waited until we finally did achieve quorum.
Wagner and company weren’t that patient.
I disagree with Knapp, Phillies, and Wagner in that I believe state governments have unconstitutionally interloped between the national organization and its state chapters. I believe the national party is the one and only arbiter of who its chapters are.
We spend a lot of time saying how stupid various laws are and then some of us turn around and try to tell me that the LP has no right to determine its own chapter relationship; that it’s all up to the vagaries of state laws.
I call BS.
I also believe that as long as there are trademark laws, the LP does indeed have the right to use them like any other organization, and should be able to protect the use of its name by unauthorized groups.
Whichever group is affiliated with the national LP is the group that should have the legal right to use our name on the ballot.
Burke and the rest of his cohort spent the better part of a decade or more using the LPOR as their personal toys. So in a sense I fully understand the nuclear reaction. Suppress change long enough and eventually you’re going to find yourself on top of a volcano.
Yes, I understand all of that.
And yes, Wagner’s group staged a coup. Yes, I understand they felt was necessary. However, they violated the right of the dues-paying membership to decide for themselves in convention what their rules were going to be, going forward.
In that sense, yes, Wagner’s group is entirely illegitimate.
It is just as illegitimate as the LNC giving itself the authority to charge a floor fee that the delegates themselves have not been given the opportunity to vote on.
All of that said, the “Reeves Group” was also illegitimate, as they purported to meet as the state committee of the LPOR when none of them were current party officeholders.
In any case, I favor continuing to recognize the Wagner faction, as long as that faction respects the right of the national convention delegates to name our presidential candidate, and agrees to do the paperwork necessary to have their state government print that name on the general election ballot.
If that group subsequently named some other person to be the LP presidential candidate in OR, al la what happened in Arizona between 1996-2000, then I would be first in line to condemn them.
I find it amazing that people, who state that they believe in a non-interventionist policy with other countries, believe that it is OK to interfere with the political parties in states where they don’t live.
If you don’t like how the Libertarian Party of Oregon is being run you can either disaffiliate with us or you can move to Oregon and register Libertarian and get involved. This load of crap of people who don’t live in Oregon trying to tell us who our leaders are, is as bad as when our government tries to bully another country to change their leadership because they don’t like their current leaders.
I get why you don’t like Wes Wagner, he is an asshole. Of this there is no doubt, but I would rather have an asshole who is consistent in fighting for liberty in charge of the LPO than the lying disgruntled republicans trying to change the Libertarian Party into what they believe the Republican Party should be.
For those of you who are crying, “There and no clean hands”. In this there never could be any clean hands. In 2010, M Carling and Alicia Mattson came to Oregon and threatened our party with disaffiliation if we tried to change the bylaws to be more accommodating to Oregon libertarians. They claimed that by our current bylaws we could never achieve quorum. If we had only changed the quorum requirement then changed the bylaws in convention, M Carling would have come up with a different excuse to try and stop us. We can all see how good he is at twisting some rules and ignoring others by his use of the judicial committee in this current mess.
If Wes Wagner goes nuclear on the LNC and he likes to put it, it is still self-defense and is deserved because the National Libertarian Party members keep putting these bad actors into leadership positions.
“I have heard the charges that this renders the affiliates very potentially vulnerable to hostile actions and takeovers by forces that are enemies to the party. This is true. This is an argument to amend the bylaws, however, not to create new powers without proper ratification at convention.”
And this becomes a very different tactical situation when the enemy is at the gates and they themselves are intending on using this power to unilaterally re-write the bylaws to ensure that the libertarian faction of the LP is locked out, and you have to choose whether or not to shoot first because you know the threat is imminent and credible.
We had grey intelligence that indicated that this was the case. During discovery we obtained the documents that proved our intelligence was in fact correct. We acted on grey intelligence — that much is true, but it was credible and represented an existential crisis large enough that we chose to act.
I said Colorado instead of Oregon… whoops. I am from Colorado and so used to writing it, it came out as second nature. Should be “registered Libertarians of Oregon.”
I am reviewing some additional information and there are some wrinkles.
First, with regards to the “widest and fairest representation of members”- that was allegedly such a dire threat that the Wagner group had to fiat revise the bylaws– the state apparatus declined to enforce this provision, besides the fact that this law was in place for over twenty years at the time of Wagner’s action without repercussion; it would take a court case, presumably by an aggrieved registered Liberation, not state action, to enforce. See:
§ 248.011¹
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 (Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members) or any other rule adopted by a political party. [1995 c.606 §2]
Anyone setting aside their factions and ideologies, I think, should fairly see that this changing of the bylaws was not to protect the Party from imminent harm from losing its ballot access, but to reconstitute the membership in a way favorable to the Wagner group. I agree that this reconstitution was likely in line with the law as far as dues goes (not as far as the pledge goes), but this is gaming. Perhaps gaming for a good motive but it disenfranchised prior member class people that were not co-exensive with this new definition. That is my real big hangup. I think it should be for all Libertarians.
But note something else interesting… this statute states that the SoS, county clerk, or any other elections official shall not enforce the provisions of “any other rule adopted by a political party.”
I am not entirely sure how broadly that is to be interpreted. ANY rule? Including bylaws? That is the interpretation suggested to me, and I can go with that until shown otherwise. Thus it was further suggested that this renders the JC 2011 functionally impossible. The SoS in this case when presented with the conflicting claims said “Not my job” and stuck with what was on record as per their unwritten procedure or decision. But that is what they decided, that is who the Chair was as far as they were concerned and comprising the legal entity of the LPO: Wagner. They didn’t look at the facts and decide this, this was just how it happened, for right or for wrong. But this is still the state’s legal identification… whether we like it or not. And whether the LNC liked it or not. And whether it is fair or not. When one is a creature of the state, fairness often goes by the wayside.
I do not agree though that this renders the JC 2011 ruling impossible. But let’s accept for the sake of argument it did. So? This still does not give the LNC additional powers it didn’t have. It merely shows how the state ruins everything:) It puts the LPO in a pickle, puts everyone in a pickle, but it doesn’t create LNC powers out of whole cloth. What to do? Disaffiliate or go with the legal identity. Those are the only options.
But I don’t accept that this rendered the JC 2011 impossible. Let’s look at the pertinent part (JC Opinion clarification rendered 9/23/11)
“The interpretation of a state-level affiliate’s bylaws is an internal matter for the members of the state-level affiliate to pursue by negotiation, political action, litigation and/or other action in state-level affiliate meetings, and before the state-level judicial committee (if any), courts, and governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the state-level affiliate.”
So if the SoS has no authority to enforce any rules of a political party, those other entities can. And if they can’t, that still doesn’t create a new power of the LNC.
Now interestingly, if the LNC wanted to attempt to make this determination of who was right and who was wrong, I think they could have (if the JC agreed… probably doubtful but who knows) done it,but a different route, and disaffiliation would still have been required–thus not the result of putting the Reeves group in control. They could have disaffiliated the LPO (led legally as per the SoS by Wagner) for cause, and then let Wagner appeal the disaffiliation and the JC would have examined if the cause had merit. How far they would have examined, I do not know, but this was a route open to them. This would have been a loss to the National Party of ballot access etc.. but has that been avoided really? And all the acrimony and strife? And now they will likely just put the Reeves group back on control in paper in the mind of the LNC but the SoS has obligation to accept this neither do the Oregon courts, neither do the registered Libertarians of Colorado or the previous member class. And draw all kinds of legal hassle potentially if Wagner makes good on his threats (which I still think are vengeance, his hands are not clean, and we will all suffer for it, and liberty is the biggest loser of all).
I have heard the charges that this renders the affiliates very potentially vulnerable to hostile actions and takeovers by forces that are enemies to the party. This is true. This is an argument to amend the bylaws, however, not to create new powers without proper ratification at convention.
I cannot express how appreciative I am to the people who have reached out to me privately and provided a ton of extraordinary information for my education in this. Particularly since I am not coming to the same conclusions on many things (I am on some things), but things remain cordial and collegial. I have much more to review, but I can only eat an elephant one bite at a time. I asked for information and an education. I am getting it.
in pari delicto was an alternative argument in our request for summary judgment.
Caryn,
You seem to be coming to a lot of the same conclusions I reached over time.
I agree that neither side’s hands are clean. As a matter of fact, if you go back to early in the controversy, you’ll see me stating flatly that BOTH “factions” broke the bylaws.
My reason for thinking the Wagner faction had the better case was pretty simple:
The Wagner faction was clearly acting with intent to make the party functional; the Reeves faction was clearly acting with intent to make sure LPO remained Burke’s moribund plaything.
The Wagner faction seemed to be backed mostly by Oregon Libertarians; the Reeves faction was backed, and funded, by out-state actors who had a long record of working hard to do the same thing in other states and at the national level.
BTW: I now have more information relating to things after these events-particularly dealing with how OR handled to review.
Will it change my opinion? I am always open to changing any opinion with more facts. And do not follow faction lines – in this case it is evident. Factionally I should think Wagner’s claim is pure, but I just don’t believe that for reasons stated.
RECAP of the 2011 portion
At the July 17-18, 2011, LNC meeting, the LNC was already aware and been presented with the fact of two competing claims to be officers of the LPO who were given time to speak.
During executive session they ruled which bylaws were correct and then concluded that the officers elected were the Reeves group.
NOTE: I believe they are right about the bylaws in effect and wrong about the officers. I also believe there was credible evidence about issues of damaging interference by Republican interests in that make-up. I do not think either group, if I were the OR finder of fact, has a clean legitimate claim.
That being said, I do not see the bylaws authority for the LNC to make these determinations. I in theory would not have a problem with a bylaws amendment to cure this for future but they did not have it then. I understand their rationale that it is implied that having to work with an affiliate implies the authority to identify the affiliate. But the identity of the affiliate is clear. It is the LPO, a creature organized under the laws of OR and deriving its statutory existence from OR. It’s bylaws and officers are an internal matter that the LNC does not have the right to take sides on without violating their autonomy. The legal entity of the LPO had officers recognized by OR. If the LNC felt this was done unjustly or in error or scandalously, their only power was to disaffiliate OR for cause.
This does and is a harsh conclusion if one of the two groups were innocent but it is our bylaws. We are a voluntary group with bylaws approved by members who have a right to know what powers they are agreeing to. And for me, in this case, I do not believe either group is innocent. There was gamesmanship, pure and simple. This is politics as usual but not what I hope for in Libertarian politics.
On 8/25/11 and supplemented 9/23/11 the JC ruled pretty much what I said above. I came to this rough conclusion prior to reading the final decisions so it was confirmation to me.
The LNC made a motion afterwards codifying its disagreement with the JC decision and interestingly blaming the JC for the OR deciding to recognize the Wagner group. Could we have blamed the LNC if their decision influenced OR?
The LNC further claims the JC did not have jurisdiction to hear this which gets into constructive disaffiliation. I believe the JC did. Our dealings with our affiliates vis a vis ourselves are not bound by statute but by libertarian principles. If the LNC improperly took a side – and both sides had potentially legitimate claims- it is potentially constructive disaffiliation if the legal entity was identified by the state as having the rules against officers- which it did. The JC did not instruct or guide OR, it stated the current status of things. If OR used bad reasoning the parties with standing in OR need to take that up there to the extent they can.
I note (and did not look up the timing) if the LNC goes beyond the bylaws again there is a procedure for members to appeal.
I would add lastly that the LNC has no authority over the state of OR and deciding that they get to decide who are the officers is not binding, and then what? And likely lose ballot access as well.
TLK
Alternate does not necessarily require travel. Just think you could be the counter-Lieberman on the LNC email list, all from the comfort of home.
Thank you, and likewise.
Backatcha.
Yes, but it wouldn’t be the LP line. That would remain with Wagner/Hedbor and friends unless OSOS or OR courts say otherwise, which they probably never will, regardless of what LNC does.
The current LP already has a ballot line, and still will regardless of whether someone affiliated with the LP or its national presidential ticket qualifies another one or not. The first one, which will stay with Hedbor et al., will still be there regardless.
Certainly understandable. As I recall, they wasted your time and money by starting the petition over with Barr’s name post-convention and throwing out everything collected before then. And the accusation that you were going to not cooperate with substitution was false. I was at your state committee meeting, at your house, and you convinced people to go along with substitution. Some of them were not very eager, to say the least, but they agreed to.
Very close to being overcome in 2006, along with most of the platform being trashed, in, ahem, Oregon. Reason it was there was due to all the (disputedly) impressive work Burke and friends did with the Oregon affiliate.
Fast forward almost a decade, and we now have the other side of the Oregon mother-of-all-messes, Wes Wagner, preparing the nuclear option to destroy the LNC/national LP, and with it that 7/8.
Something in the water in PDX?
Oy vey.
My guess, very soon.
@ TLK 2015/08/16 at 7:39 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos.
Without saying whether I agree with TLK’s characterizations (wreckers, impostors, etc), I think TLK is on the money about how things will play out.
Highly doubtful.
Just checked. There were a couple I forgot but not very many.
1,000+:
Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 1,064 comments
Published 2014/06/26
LNC Elections Thread
paulie Libertarian Party 1,034 comments
Published 2012/05/06
500+:
Angela Keaton resigning from LNC
G.E. Libertarian Party 736 comments
Published 2008/12/08
Libertarian Party vs Constitution Party: An Analysis
Krzysztof Lesiak Constitution Party, Libertarian Party
664 comments Published 2013/03/26
LNC Meeting Mar 28-29, 2015 Phoenix (Updated)
paulie Libertarian Party 654 comments
Published 2015/03/29
California LP Judicial Committee overturns member’s suspension on appeal
Thomas L. Knapp Libertarian Party 583 comments
Published 2010/01/29
LP Judicial Committee Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior JC Decision re Oregon Affiliate; Carling Will Not Recuse Himself
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 532 comments (this one)
Published 2015/08/14
Coverage of LNC meeting 12/14-15/13
paulie Libertarian Party 528 comments
Published 2013/12/14
What’s Going On with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania?
Jill Pyeatt Libertarian Party 502 comments
Published 2013/01/28
I’m at a long layover switching buses in Memphis. You are correct. Two threads w/ over 1k to date. Both originated with LP ational conventions, I believe (2012 and 2014). IIRC, next highest after that was about Angela Keaton resigning from the LNC, which was in our first year of operation. I think the next few after that involved one with LP vs CP comparison, and a couple on LP intra-party controversies in CA and PA. If there are others that are way up there I am not remembering them now. This one is probably either already, or about to pop some of those off the leader board in comment numbers.
Both of those only tell you how many comments so far in the thread, not what the comment number of any individual comment is after more comment are added after that.
LOL. Thanks! I’ll do my best and see how the dice land, like we always do.
damit did it again… Paulie
Nicholas,
Thanks for the reply. I have little interest in participating in the soapoprish antics of the LNC. I am very sure I wouldn’t want any of my cash spent enabling these antics. I do occasionally see a project that I want carried through. Oklahoma ballot access for example.
My suspicions was this had more to do with inflating membership numbers rather then miss-using my donation.
Pauli, we have knocked heads in the past. So what. Have fun and get the job done!
No mix-up. Sustaining member is someone who gave $25 within the last year. It does not matter if the $25 is earmarked for the building fund, ballot access, or the Nicholas Sarwark Memorial Margarita Machine at the national headquarters.
You can specifically ask to not be listed as a member when donating, but being a sustaining member is automatic is you give $25 and have signed the pledge.
==Caryn, I apologize for widening the yellow brick road regarding who was innocent or not regarding Oregon… I was only commenting on how long this has been going on, etc….==
No problem Steve. I wish there were a party here with completely clean hands. I don’t believe there is. There is definitely a side I align with ideologically, but the ends do not justify the means, and I am not convinced the means was correct. By either side. And I am not sure even if I were an OR finder of fact (I obviously am not) that there is a clean remediation. But I don’t see the LNC has the authority to even try. They have competing claims to the OR leadership. I do not see they have any choice but to accept what the state of OR says is the OR leadership or determine there is an cause to disaffiliate.
If I were to pretend that LNC was to be the OR finder of fact of who their leadership is, I don’t think it should have found for either group, which again would have led to disaffiliation.
The only way for you to know is on the first page of the site, right below the headline. Yours was comment # 524. The number is also in the dashboard by comments, but only the writiers and editors can see that.
Jill, I cannot tell what number comment we are on for this thread, is there a way to know without counting?
Caryn, I apologize for widening the yellow brick road regarding who was innocent or not regarding Oregon… I was only commenting on how long this has been going on, etc….
Mark is being very kind to not bring up why Tom Stevens was thrown out, but I will respect the LPNY by not stating it here.
When we were planning on throwing Tom Stevens out here in PA, He was attempting to resign, and given the fact that if we threw him out, he could attempt to use the Judicial Committee to bludgeon us further, we decided to allow him to resign, and wrote a letter basically stating to not let the door hit him on the way out.
The point of bringing this up is to bring up the fact that it is extremely difficult to toss anyone from the party, for any reason.
However, sometimes there are reasons and a necessity. Self defense should never be confused with the initiation of force.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Mark Axinn wrote:
As a contributor here, luckily I can edit my comments to fix spelling/grammar/usage mistakes. 🙂
Mark Axinn wrote:
I’ve been friends with both Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens for years.
Despite Tom Stevens running Pennsylvania as a dictator and alienating many Pennsylvanians, to his credit he was a pretty good organizer and recruiter. He was meticulous about following up with inquiries (an opportunity many state and county chairs squander) and excellent at getting people more involved by matching members up with tasks.
Sam Sloan may be over-litigious and his behavior in the governor’s race was outrageous, but he can always be counted on to run as a candidate for offices at all levels (if only more Libertarians would step up!) and he doesn’t back down when the board of elections tries to bully him (I’m sure you’re CCed on the current email chain). Sam has the distinction of being the only non-lawyer to argue pro se at the U.S. Supreme Court and win, which he will hold forever because they no longer allow non-attorneys to participate in oral arguments. I run into Sam frequently at my other main hobby: chess tournaments all over the country.
It’s too bad that NY expelled them rather than channeling their energies into productive ends, though I understand it can get tiresome babysitting the bulls so they don’t run loose in your China closet.
We’ve had 2 or 3 articles reach over 1,000 comments, the most recent being from the 2014 convention, IIRC. Paulie would know, but he’s apparently on a bus now.
Mark Axinn said: “Sam is like a case of herpes; he keeps coming back just when you thought everything was clean.”
Very funny way to put it! We can say that about BC in CA, also.
Regarding two of Chuck’s posts:
>Hagan keeps good books as treasurer, doesn’t rock the boat, and votes his conscious.
I hope all of the LNC members are conscious when voting, but after reading all these comments, I doubt that I am any more. Sorry NF, no summary has been provided although if there were one, I think it would read as follows:
“The non-ending Wagner/Reeves battle, which has bored and distracted us silly for at least the last five years, continues with no end in sight.”
** ** ** **
On another post, Chuck very accurately remembers that both Sam Sloan and Tom Stevens were expelled as LPNY members. That happened in my first year as state chair, although for very different reasons. Tom was expelled in July 2010; Sam in August 2010.
I won’t go into the reasons for the Stevens expulsion, but Sloan’s is more straightforward: force and fraud. He took the LPNY petition form, whited out Warren Redlich’s name, wrote his own in, submitted a couple hundred signatures (all in the same handwriting) and claimed to the BOE that he was the LPNY candidate for Governor and had 15,000 valid signatures supporting his nomination. He sued Warren, Chris Edes, Eric Sundwall, LPNY and me. He lost. He appealed. He lost.
Sam tried to become a delegate at the National Convention last year from both NY and CA and neither Kevin nor I would agree to seat him. He tried to be a delegate most recently at the LPNY Convention last April, and I told him he could stay but could not be a voting delegate as he is not a member of LPNY in good standing.
Sam is like a case of herpes; he keeps coming back just when you thought everything was clean.
The pledge is an analog of a first moral principles of greek ethics .. e.g. don’t hit people, don’t take their stuff.
We can keep pressure on the usurpers here and on Facebook. It’s conceivable they won’t make a move since so many people are paying attention. They’ll wait until we’re wound up about something else.
“And back to the topic, if the ExComm is going to do anything with this… when?”
The timing of this is not coincidental — the wreckers clearly want to get their way late enough in the game to screw up the LP’s presidential ballot access and/or Oregon electoral prospects, but far enough in advance of the national convention that any outrage has had some time to tied down (they don’t have much respect for the organizational skills of their opposition; based on past events, that lack of respect seems somewhat justified).
So, their next consideration is whether it is the executive committee or the full LNC that’s most likely to vote their way. Once they’ve decided that, it will go like this:
– Some item will be added to the agenda that puts the Judicial Committee’s ruling into effect.
– The chair will, I hope, rule that item out of order since the Judicial Committee’s ruling exceeds its authority, has no basis in the bylaws, and is therefore void and of no effect.
– The wreckers will appeal the ruling of the chair and get a vote to overturn that ruling.
– If the chair’s ruling is overturned, there will be a vote to put one or more consequences of the ruling into effect (e.g. changing information on the LNC’s web site regarding the identification of its Oregon affiliate; directing staff to do database dumps to the Reeves Gang instead of the LPO; etc.).
I’m guessing that the chair’s ruling WILL be overturned and that the impostor gang will be fraudulently advertised on the LNC’s web site as if it were a real affiliate and so forth.
Then again, Nick Sarwark is a pretty smart guy. Perhaps he has another way through these waters already charted that a simpleton like me can’t even comprehend.
And back to the topic, if the ExComm is going to do anything with this… when?
I thank God (or whoever anyone or no one you wish to thank) that the 7/8 requirement is there. The LP would be dead in the water without that. And clever boys and girls back then, making the 7/8 requirement need another 7/8 requirement, though I have read of the ways people have tried to get around that. I am not fooled for a second.
My ideological zeal is showing. I am hear for one reason and one reason alone. I believe this stuff. I was “converted” in the space of 15 minutes.
P @6:03 Thank you. I am not sure which piece of the LNC and staff was claiming I tried to sabotage our 2008 Presidential ballot access in Massachusetts, so I do not name names. I also stay entirely clear of such efforts in Massachusetts now.
Tom
== Well, one thing to keep in mind about the membership oath is that a number of party members, including older ones who were around early on (even David Nolan before his death) insist that the membership oath has nothing whatsoever to do with the nearly universal libertarian value of non-initiation of force, but was simply a way to signal to the FBI that the LP wasn’t a bunch of violent terrorists preparing to overthrow the government.==
Yes I have heard the claim myself, and it is bullshit. It makes no logical or historical sense. I do believe that was the exigent factor, but there is a reason it is worded the way it is, and OBVIOUSLY it wasn’t intended to have zero ideological content. That is just ridiculous. I agree that the expedient reason it was made a requirement was the desire to get off the state radar. I disagree that it wasn’t chosen because it was actually TRUE about what Libertarians were supposed to universally belief. I just doubt that it would have been made a requirement if not for the immediate need.
Yes, I have read your article a while ago. I said I was a fan:) Your Against Stockholm Libertarianism article was very influential to me.
I have been to this Pledge rodeo many times, and eliminating it doesn’t eliminate the problem to non-radicals of the SoP which states the same thing. I have seen the parsing to get around that too, and it isn’t convincing at all.
ack— then not than!
==We’ve got a ways to go before we reach that. I’ve seen ones with over 1,000 posts. I don’t know what the record is, but most of our monthly open threads reach a few hundred.==
We need to try harder than slacker.
So how ’bout those roads?
==There is one case of a state election agency siding with the national party over the state affiliate, and that was in 2012 when Oklahoma sided with national Americans Elect (which had decided to not run any candidates) over the OK AE affiliate (which had decided to give its ballot line to Johnson/Gray). But that was pretty obviously illegal and incorrect, OK Republicans just did it anyway to screw the LP.==
Not sure I understand that part, but I get it. Thanks for answering
===
I know you meant this as a hypothetical, but the national party did actually put out a statement denouncing his description of himself as a libertarian in 2001.===
I knew that actually from a debate I had with someone who was trying to tell me I was inconsistent in not advocating violence. But that raised the question to me, what if he was a member? It is easy to denounce non-members who claim to be vaguely libertarian.
==That concern seems quaint now, but it was a bit more pressing in the era of Patty Hearst robbing banks and Jim Jones leading people off into the woods in Guyana and the Weather Underground planting pipe bombs.==
Actually it doesn’t seem quaint to me. It seems as relevant as ever in defense against state accusations.
==Because that’s exactly what we need, Libertarians trying to kick each other out of the party for not toeing the line as to LNC’s interpretation of what the NAP pledge means.==
Good point on the LNC – but still for flagrant issues, I have no problem.
==That’s why we have a platform.==
Platforms are fickle. I would say that’s why we have a SoP.
“I think this thread may reach a record…. what is the IPR record? I know this is the longest one I have seen.”
We’ve got a ways to go before we reach that. I’ve seen ones with over 1,000 posts. I don’t know what the record is, but most of our monthly open threads reach a few hundred.
“insist that the membership oath has nothing whatsoever to do with the nearly universal libertarian value of non-initiation of force, but was simply a way to signal to the FBI that the LP wasn’t a bunch of violent terrorists preparing to overthrow the government.”
I’ve never heard it claimed that was the *only* reason for the pledge, or that is has nothing to do with libertarianism. Just that it was *part* of the reason why it was adopted.
“Just in general shooting out there: If National helped fund a ballot access drive (no idea if they did in OR) wouldn’t they have a claim to the ballot line?”
Nope, it attaches to the state party.
There is one case of a state election agency siding with the national party over the state affiliate, and that was in 2012 when Oklahoma sided with national Americans Elect (which had decided to not run any candidates) over the OK AE affiliate (which had decided to give its ballot line to Johnson/Gray). But that was pretty obviously illegal and incorrect, OK Republicans just did it anyway to screw the LP.
“Re: Expelling from Party
What if someone blatantly advocates/initiates political force… like what if McVeigh was a lifetime member?”
I know you meant this as a hypothetical, but the national party did actually put out a statement denouncing his description of himself as a libertarian in 2001.
That was actually a decent part of what the pledge was originally about- yes, it’s a statement of the basic libertarian premise, but it was also adopted as a CYA measure to prove to government agencies we aren’t a terrorist organization and don’t believe in violently overthrowing the government, shooting cops, and that sort of thing. That concern seems quaint now, but it was a bit more pressing in the era of Patty Hearst robbing banks and Jim Jones leading people off into the woods in Guyana and the Weather Underground planting pipe bombs.
“Might it be a good idea to give the membership oath real teeth?”
Because that’s exactly what we need, Libertarians trying to kick each other out of the party for not toeing the line as to LNC’s interpretation of what the NAP pledge means.
That’s why we have a platform.
Caryn,
Well, one thing to keep in mind about the membership oath is that a number of party members, including older ones who were around early on (even David Nolan before his death) insist that the membership oath has nothing whatsoever to do with the nearly universal libertarian value of non-initiation of force, but was simply a way to signal to the FBI that the LP wasn’t a bunch of violent terrorists preparing to overthrow the government.
That claim is clearly bullshit, but you’ll still hear a lot of people making it. Here’s a piece I wrote on the subject a few years ago.
And just to clarify… I am not referring to anyone specifically. I am just venting. When I am referring to specific people, I am not shy about saying it. I am not a passive aggressive type.
I think this thread may reach a record…. what is the IPR record? I know this is the longest one I have seen.
Tom,
==The bylaws don’t say that members can’t advocate initiation of force. They just say that you are a member if you’ve certified you don’t do so.==
Ack. I kinda think if that is the entrance exam so to speak, if you were lying, you haven’t passed the entrance exam.
==Might it be a good idea to give the membership oath real teeth? And to have a way to get rid of people who are clearly doing their damnedest to undermine the party itself.==
I am probably the wrong person to ask since I am so tired of Libertarians advocating aggression-based solutions, not as compromise steps with the end-game in mind, but having no end-game. The interim is the goal for them, and they are unapologetic about the force aspect. Drives. Me. Freaking. Nuts.
If anyone is indeed advocating in ways really blatantly in contradiction to the Pledge and the SoP why are they not called out more? And I am not talking about parsing the fine points of Libertarian purity, but very very blatant and long-standing deviations?
I suppose it is hard without a witch hunt atmosphere, which I detest. I am just venting. Though I think it pretty pathetic if the Party of Principle couldn’t expel Tim McVeigh. Houston there is a problem.
“What if someone blatantly advocates/initiates political force… like what if McVeigh was a lifetime member?”
The bylaws don’t say that members can’t advocate initiation of force. They just say that you are a member if you’ve certified you don’t do so.
Might it be a good idea to give the membership oath real teeth? And to have a way to get rid of people who are clearly doing their damnedest to undermine the party itself.
Sure … except that those people are substantially in control of the party right now, which means it wouldn’t be them getting kicked out, it would be the people fighting them.
Tom,
==I’m fine with the “reasonable man” standard … but let’s be clear on what that is. Like I said, when an employer fires an employee “for cause,” it means the employer is claiming the employee didn’t live up to the terms of employment. The employee was repeatedly late to work. The employee got caught with his hand in the cash register. The employee called in sick every Friday. That’s “for cause.” “I just took a disliking to his eye color one day” isn’t “for cause.”
Clearly, if the LNC disaffiliated a state party for violating its obvious commitments AS AN AFFILIATE, that would be “for cause.” The state affiliate said “screw the national convention’s nomination, we’re running Howdy Doody and a turnip for president on our ballot line instead” would obviously be “for cause.”
If the LNC disaffiliated and the affiliate appealed, I’d say the Judicial Committee should soberly consider whether or not the “cause” cited was reasonable, and that reasonable entails whether or not the affiliate actually did something inconsistent with its affiliation, not just something that pissed off the LNC.==
I find nothing to disagree with. And it would be questionable whether or not a question on the legitimacy of the bylaws would pass muster,but it would be the proper protocol.
I would vote for Howdy Doody and a turnip against the clowns we often have.
Just in general shooting out there: If National helped fund a ballot access drive (no idea if they did in OR) wouldn’t they have a claim to the ballot line?
==Thank you. Getting on the bus in that direction in about an hour if the bus runs on time and if I don’t get denied for having too many carry on items.==
Good luck! It was great speaking with you earlier btw, it is always nice to put a voice to the text.
Knowing that folks like you put so much effort into these essential activities makes the looming threats all the more distressing to me.
Re: Expelling from Party
What if someone blatantly advocates/initiates political force… like what if McVeigh was a lifetime member?
Correct. Hence “attempt to,” say via the LP helping Reeves et al on their side of the lawsuit, etc.
Good question. You may want to inquire with HQ to see if there was some mix-up with the targeting of the donation.
Thank you. Getting on the bus in that direction in about an hour if the bus runs on time and if I don’t get denied for having too many carry on items.
GP @ 5:54 pm
I was in Mass at the time, before and after the convention, and can confirm this part.
I believe my recollection of NH is the same as yours as well. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you personally petitioned for yourself there. You did agree to be a candidate there, way before the national nomination took place, and did appear on the ballot, as did Barr. I don’t kow whether you had to sign something after the national LP nomination that certified your willingness to appear on the NH ballot as a presidential candidate or not. I think some people had a problem with you agreeing to it at all, before anyone knew whether you would be the nominee or not. I also know why LPNH did it, given how their ballot access drives in 2004 and 2006 both failed.
SS 1:47 pm today
I can understand why you wouldn’t want to say his name, but I think it’s OK to identify that you are referring to Tom Stevens. I’m pretty sure he actually lived in NYC that whole entire time, too.
“IIRC, only tangentially. It was because Phillies petitioned separately in NH from the national ticket, having been nominated by the LPNH well in advance of Denver, and in Mass as a stand-in.”
Actually not quite. First, I did not petition in New Hampshire. The LPNH announced well in advance that it would be filling a slate and invited Presidential candidates to appear. They chose me; they did the petitioning. Each nominating paper is signed by one voter, and covers a stack of candidates, a fine arrangement; they were petitioning equally for me, a Senate candidate, Congressional candidates, etc. I did show up while they were still petitioning for their Congressional candidates, and helped collect signatures, but by that point I had enough signatures so the nominating papers that I was holding had Barr at the top of the ticket. I collected for my friends running for Congress anyhow.
We had in writing from the Secretary of the Commonwealth that substitution was allowed. The people who paid for most of the petitioning for Phillies – Bennett as stand-ins, putting down money well *before* the National Convention, were the LNC. Someone in the LNC did have a complaint about this, well after the National Convention, and was circulating accusations that I had tried to sabotage LP ballot access in Massachusetts, which was a outright lie.
I’m missing what you are missing. I referred to who posted it (Knapp by initials) and the time, to refer to a specific comment he left with that time stamp. Then I responded as if I had quoted the comment.
If I was responding to your comment here in the same way I would start out with CAH Submitted on 2015/08/16 at 1:55 pm rather than include the blockquote. We used to have a more convenient comment numbering system where I could say @386 or whatever the comment number is but that went away when Warren switched to a different theme, iirc in 2013.
Andy J @ 2:20 pm today
Maybe, although we have no way of knowing how many or few there may be.
TLK August 16, 2015 at 5:40 pm: True. “Should” does not necessarily mean “would,” though, I’m sure we can agree.
I hold the LNC to a higher standard than I would a cop or a judge. If the LNC is going to ignore clear cases of cause instead of asking the delegates to amend the bylaws to allow “fusion,” then they can damn well go to the trouble of drumming up a real, compelling cause when they DON’T want to ignore something. But that’s just my personal thing, not something I’m proposing as a legalistic standard.
I’m fine with the “reasonable man” standard … but let’s be clear on what that is. Like I said, when an employer fires an employee “for cause,” it means the employer is claiming the employee didn’t live up to the terms of employment. The employee was repeatedly late to work. The employee got caught with his hand in the cash register. The employee called in sick every Friday. That’s “for cause.” “I just took a disliking to his eye color one day” isn’t “for cause.”
Clearly, if the LNC disaffiliated a state party for violating its obvious commitments AS AN AFFILIATE, that would be “for cause.” The state affiliate said “screw the national convention’s nomination, we’re running Howdy Doody and a turnip for president on our ballot line instead” would obviously be “for cause.”
If the LNC disaffiliated and the affiliate appealed, I’d say the Judicial Committee should soberly consider whether or not the “cause” cited was reasonable, and that reasonable entails whether or not the affiliate actually did something inconsistent with its affiliation, not just something that pissed off the LNC.
Paulie wrote:
I think New York expelled Sam Sloan. They may have expelled Tom Stevens too. Mark Axinn can speak to that.
The next a cop pulls you over try telling him or the judge that the reason they can’t give you a ticket, arrest you, prosecute you, give you a fine or put you in jail or whatever, is because other people are violating the same laws or more serious laws and not being ticketed, arrested, prosecuted, jailed, etc. Failure to do anything in some other case won’t help you. I doubt it would help anyone in a JC case if the LNC removed an affiliate for whatever it defined as cause, although that would be up to the JC.
Every state affiliate has its own organizational principles and bylaws, and some of them have provisions for expelling members.
The LNC’s bylaws, on the other hand, say that you are a member of “the party” (by which it means the notional “national party”) if you’ve certified the non-initiation pledge. That definition ends with a period, not with exceptions like “unless the LNC decides you don’t belong.”
Where it gets interesting is with Robert’s. The bylaws say that Robert’s is applicable in cases consistent with the bylaws. The SMC cabal has tried to convert that into “Robert’s is applicable in any case where the bylaws doesn’t say the exact opposite of Robert’s, even if a plain reading of the bylaws is clearly inconsistent with what we want to do.”
So where the bylaws say a member is X, SMC would say that since it doesn’t specifically SAY they can’t add conditions to X, they can if they can find a hook to hang those conditions on in Robert’s.
Just like, even though the bylaws specifically list the qualifications of a delegate, with no stated or implied ability to add to those qualifications, SMC held that since Robert’s non-specifically mentions a “registration fee” in its section on meetings/conventions, they can add that as a condition.
Yes, as I said states can and have. CA is probably not the only one, although I don’t have other examples handy. But that says nothing about national membership, only state.
Must resist temptation to wisecrack, because it’s not really funny.
Paulie I agree with you.
Tom we disagree there. Cause is not defined and thus I think pretty broad and interpreted in a reasonable man standard. And since bylaws are required to be filed, if the LNC questions the bylaws legitimacy then it us a moral out to object to the capriciousness of the state. The JC could then be the arbiter of the reasonableness of it to a legitimate cause. Not every contingency can be spelled out.
I know the CA LP expelled someone named Paul Ireland maybe 10 years ago for repeated name-calling, indecent posts, and so on. I wasn’t involved int that, so I don’t know much about it.
The LPC CA Ex-Com voted to expel a certain person who is a registered sex offender because he was asked not to take a leadership position after the discovery of how many boys were involved, and that it was done as an assistant scout master. The person immediately took a leadership position in his county, so the Ex Com took fairly aggressive action and voted to expel him. At the same time, we voted to expel Bruce Cohen because he wouldn’t shut up about it. As a matter of fact, this very weekend Cohen is posting MB’s criminal info on FB. Well, both MB and Cohen took it up with our judicial committee, who allowed them both back in. Mark Hinkle was a member of the judicial committe who welcomed them back.
My husband and I were on the Ex Com during that unpleasant time, and I won’t do anything like that ever again.
Fast forward to 2015, Cohen is still around, but all he does is spread ugliness, much of it not being true. I believe most FB pages have removed him. MB (the pedophile) is still an active member, but is quite divisive and is a controversial character. He is, however, an excellent recruiter. He brings many young men into the party.
We currently have a very problematic character, but he’s never joined the party. We just need to continue ignoring him, and he’ll be completely shunned like Cohen is. Oh yeah, our new guy and Cohen are good buddies.
Dunno. I was just citing conceivable examples, not saying whether or not these specifics would be “cause” or not. What if state parties ignore their own bylaws completely? Get taken over by anti-libertarians, of whatever sort? Refuse to ever have conventions or allow leadership to be removed? Some combination of these? All of these things can exist on some slippery slope, too.
The bottom line is I see nothing that defines cause one way or the other in the bylaws. Maybe it’s in Roberts, which I don’t study and don’t want to. As far as I can tell though “cause” can be anything the LNC wants it to be as long as it meets the vote threshold and survives an appeal to the JC if there is one.
http://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Bylaws_and_Convention_Rules_w_2014_JC_Rules.pdf
Section 6.6 says nothing about what counts as cause and what doesn’t, as far as I can see, only what the rules for invoking and appealing it are, the voting procedures and time frames allowed.
7.7 does the same for LNC officers, but again does not define “cause.”
Ditto for 8.5 regarding LNC at large members.
Article 5 defines national LP membership, and says nothing about kicking anyone out, with or without cause, as far as I can see. So it appear I was wrong in thinking that kicking out national LP members (other than LNC members off the LNC, but that is different) is een possible. I don’t know on what basis George could have been threatened with having his membership revoked, unless that section read differently on this matter back then. IE I remember the issue, but I don’t see the mechanism.
Well, pretty much every affiliate doesn’t run candidates for at least SOME offices in at least SOME elections. What’s the threshold there for “cause” to disaffiliate?
There are affiliates that don’t have ongoing ballot access, and don’t seem to have resources to make any earth-shaking attempts to get it, except for the presidential slate when they can get assistance to do so (or at least there used to be — one of the Dakotas, IIRC). Do they get disaffiliated, or only affiliates where the LNC thinks that there’s an intention to avoid running candidates, rather than just not being able to, in play?
As long as the affiliate makes its ballot line available to the presidential ticket, I’d say that running or not running candidates is the affiliate’s business, not the LNC’s. And I suppose if the affiliate didn’t cooperate in “supporting” that ticket, that might rise to the level of “cause.”
The LNC itself ignores actual, real, bylaws-defined “cause” in the case of several states — the bylaws forbid affiliates to nominate candidates of other parties, which means that “fusion” is grounds for disaffiliation.
If the LNC is going to ignore plainly bylaws-mandated cause and not disaffiliate plainly offending state parties, I’d set a pretty high threshold for them to claim “cause” versus other state affiliates.
I’m not aware of the national party ever actually expelling anyone, although it can. I’ve seen it threatened.
I know state LPs have formally kicked at least a few people out, and threatened others, but that’s a separate matter.
I asked Richard before and he cited examples of states with more than one socialist party etc. Different laws in different states, I guess. Dunno bout Oregon.
Dunno. Conceivably, at least, it could apply to internal. Suppose for example that a few Marxists or Nazis joined the LP, showed up to the convention without letting it be known that they are anything other than libertarians, and took over the affiliate putting themselves in as officers. Now suppose after this point they would just refuse to hold conventions or let themselves be ousted. Or suppose they actually were libertarians but their real agenda unbeknownst to anyone while they were being seated was to keep the LP out of the way of their or their friends’ attempt to take over the NSGOP. Or suppose they were secretly the anti-voting kind of libertarians who would take over the LP just so it would not run candidates. Any number of possibilities exist – LPNV in the last days of Silvestri comes to mind. Say Joe Silvestri simply refused to schedule any conventions, and say the SOS and courts didn’t care what LP bylaws were. Could LNC disaffiliate for cause under any of these scenarios? “For cause” doesn’t say what counts as cause and what doesn’t.
“But you are saying there is precedent,but you don’t agree with the precedent?”
Correct. When they disaffiliated Arizona, I thought that the disaffiliation was in violation of the bylaws, for two reasons:
1) No “cause” was cited in the disaffiliation motion; and
2) The “cause” cited to me when I asked about that did not seem to me to meet the intended meaning of the term. Normally, for example, when someone is fired “for cause” from a job, that means they got caught stealing, or wouldn’t do their job. “I just can’t seem to remember the guy’s name no matter how hard I try, so I canned him because it bugged me” is not “for cause.”
But only the affiliate can appeal disaffiliation; I didn’t have standing. And the affiliate was not interested in appealing. They were just fine with going about their business independently and running L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz on their presidential ballot line instead of Harry Browne and Art Olivier like the other 49 state LPs.
So yes, if the LNC is going to disaffiliate “for cause,” I think they should cite said cause and that that cause should stand up under scrutiny.
I do not think that “we don’t like how they internally handled a bylaws controversy” would stand up as “cause,” because the bylaws require the LNC to respect affiliate autonomy. “Cause” would logically only apply to the terms of affiliation itself as the bylaws outline them, not to whether or not the LNC liked how an affiliate handled its internal affairs.
Wow, almost 500 comments in 48 hours! Clearly, I’m not the only person concerned about the judicial committee meeting. I consider that good news.
==Yes, that is incorrect. I raised a ruckus over cause in the Arizona situation precisely because that portion WAS in the bylaws.==
If I have further discussions with this person, I will raise that.
==The bylaws require the LNC to respect the autonomy of affiliates, with specific exceptions (e.g. nominating or endorsing other parties’ candidates). Internal bylaws struggles are simply not the LNC’s business. “Cause,” rationally defined, would have to relate to the affiliation, not to an affiliate’s internal affairs.==
But you are saying there is precedent,but you don’t agree with the precedent?
We agreed that they’re only cause would have been disaffiliation… on what grounds would you say? Or are you saying the LNC had no options? I am fine with that…. it is our voluntary bylaws, if we created a bed, we must lie in it, or as a friend like to say to me, Libertarians are awfully reluctant to sample our own wares. If this is our product, we must abide by it. And there would be only one rational way to respect the autonomy of the affiliate, define it in accordance with the state recognition they are organized under. This may be a harsh conclusion to Reeves supporters, but I see no authority to be arbiter over internal disputes.
Caryn,
“I was told by the friendly challenger (not here) that the ’cause’ portion of the bylaws was added after and the implication was, because of, the Arizona situation. Is that incorrect?”
Yes, that is incorrect. I raised a ruckus over cause in the Arizona situation precisely because that portion WAS in the bylaws.
“I think there is cause, and I think that questions of bylaw irregularity is cause.”
The bylaws require the LNC to respect the autonomy of affiliates, with specific exceptions (e.g. nominating or endorsing other parties’ candidates). Internal bylaws struggles are simply not the LNC’s business. “Cause,” rationally defined, would have to relate to the affiliation, not to an affiliate’s internal affairs.
“It must not apply to PACs since the Epstein PAC has a very similar name that contains the L-word and even “Party”.”
Wagner could speak to this better than I can, but I recall reading that law was only not enforced by the SoS because of the ongoing dispute. At some point the dispute must cease to be “ongoing”
“Not necessarily true, although it may be. I believe there are states where there are more than one parties with the word Socialist in their name, for example.”
That would be a question for Richard Winger. 😉 But I do know a lot of states have such laws, and that there have been problems before (though not currently) for new LP affiliates because of pre-existing parties that had “Liberty” in their name.
Tom
==You write:
“I have been challenged on whether there is a ’cause’”
If precedent is of any importance, that’s not much of a worry. In 1999, when the LNC moved to disaffiliate Arizona, I pointed to the “cause” provision in the bylaws and asked what the alleged cause was.===
I was told by the friendly challenger (not here) that the “cause” portion of the bylaws was added after and the implication was, because of, the Arizona situation. Is that incorrect?
==I think there is cause, and I think that questions of bylaw irregularity is cause.
It’s tempting to accept George’s proposal that they be expelled, but my understanding of the bylaws says that’s just not possible, and I’m not inclined to accept Carling’s parliamentary interpretation to the contrary even for purposes of booting his ass out.==
Does the party expel anyone? Our likely next Presidential candidate (Johnson) denies freedom of association. Another topic, another day. Isn’t WAR still a life member or did I miss something there?
Caryn,
You write:
“I have been challenged on whether there is a ’cause'”
If precedent is of any importance, that’s not much of a worry. In 1999, when the LNC moved to disaffiliate Arizona, I pointed to the “cause” provision in the bylaws and asked what the alleged cause was.
The response — I don’t recall from whom — was “well, we just can’t figure out which organization is the real one, so we’re disaffiliating Arizona and starting from scratch.”
That didn’t really seem to fit the usual definition of “cause” to me — I had assumed that “for cause” ran to things like “it says X in the affiliation agreement and they didn’t do X.” But the disaffiliation was not appealed, so there was never any way to have “cause” tested.
A sort of side thought, for your edification:
I was a Judicial Committee member from 2002-2004 (I’m trying to remember whether or not I served a second term — it was THAT non-eventful). At some point, I asked one of the people who’d been in the party from the beginning when the last time anything had been appealed to the Judicial Committee, and his recollection was that there had been a single case, some time around 1975, in the entire history of the party. I seem to recall that that was actually pursuant to the other function of the Judicial Committee, which is determining at the convention, on appeal, whether or not an act of the convention violates the Statement of Principles.
Offhand, I can think of FOUR cases since 2008:
– The attempted removal of Lee Wrights from the LNC by Starr/Mattson/Carling (they used a sock puppet, then-Secretary Bob Sullentrup, to do the dirty work; overturned on appeal to the Judicial Committee;
– the imposition of a poll tax on delegates, supported by, and characteristic of, Starr/Mattson/Carling (upheld by the Judicial Committee even though it clearly contradicts the bylaws — and likely to go back to the Judicial Committee at some point)
– the initial Oregon case, brought in response to the machinations of Starr/Mattson/Carling; and
– this case, brought by proxies for Starr/Mattson/Carling.
Are you detecting any common thread there?
It’s tempting to accept George’s proposal that they be expelled, but my understanding of the bylaws says that’s just not possible, and I’m not inclined to accept Carling’s parliamentary interpretation to the contrary even for purposes of booting his ass out.
It must not apply to PACs since the Epstein PAC has a very similar name that contains the L-word and even “Party”.
Not necessarily true, although it may be. I believe there are states where there are more than one parties with the word Socialist in their name, for example.
==“With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.”
I can not agree with this emphatically enough.===
I would word it differently. The available choices are accepting it as the state-defined OR entity or disaffiliating (if the LNC can… I have been challenged on whether there is a “cause”). I think there is cause if they chose to. For the record, I do not want them to choose too, merely stating what I think they have a right to do.
“With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.”
I can not agree with this emphatically enough.
Mark owns a company that puts safety fences around swimming pools, iirc. Aaron is a comptroller for a large corporation. I’m very sketchy on what Carling does for a living; I’ve been told he grew up poor, but I think I heard that second hand. Above, Mark Axinn says that Carling was some kind of teacher in Latvia, but what Carling himself told me that was that he owned a business there – I believe he said it was focused on helping landlords evict occupants of apartments who refused to move out. Axinn also says Carling moved to Israel; I have no idea what he does there, if so. Carling has a law degree, but I’m not aware of him actually practicing law. Alicia used to own a computer store of some sort when she lived in Tennessee and was married. Later, she divorced and moved to the Vegas area. She was some kind of employee, or more like contractor, for the defense department or some intelligence agency or something like that with the feds for a while, but more recently she told me she had moved on to become a full time professional parliamentarian as a business. That’s probably been a couple years now, so I don’t know if she still does that now or something else.
Nope. Hinkle and Mattson were. Starr was defeated for re-election in St. Louis in 2010. Carling has not been on LNC that recently, although I think he has been at some point in the past. Not sure when or even 100% if he was on LNC.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110126063201/http://www.lp.org/leadership
Agreed. However, that question will keep being brought up in LNC arguments, IPR discussions, probably legal case fallout, etc., so it can’t be avoided entirely.
Wes said: “I also have it on excellent authority that the errors and omissions insurance for the members of the LNC was lapsed at the time all this went down.”
This is significant. Hinkle and Starr seem to have good sources of income, although I doubt either of them are limitless unless the GOP is providing funds. I’d be surprised if Hinkle was in that category, but I wouldn’t put it past Starr (Caryn, did you know this CA character has funded the Oregon lawsuit in the category of $100,000 plus)? Carling seems to have family money, although I don’t know that for sure. I know nothing about Alicia or the source of her income (don’t wanna know, actually). Were those four all officers in 2011?
I don’t know who would be asked to pay damages if and when the court orders the losing people from the lawsuit to pay damamges. I imagine Starr would be asked to, since it’s easy to prove he funded it. Who else could be held liable for that, Wes? For example, the court could order Burke to pay damages, but if he doesn’t have money, that doesn’t really mean much.
IIRC, only tangentially. It was because Phillies petitioned separately in NH from the national ticket, having been nominated by the LPNH well in advance of Denver, and in Mass as a stand-in. OTOH, I don’t recall any threats to kick Tom Stevens out, even though he was on the ballot against Barr/Root as the Objectivist candidate in Florida and Colorado .. while serving on the LP national JC, among other LP titles.
Steve,
Oh, I’ll be there. I’m a member, I live 90 minutes from the national convention site, and I intend to stand for selection as a Florida delegate and if there aren’t enough open slots to start talking to friends in other delegations that accept “drop-ins” to fill their empty slots.
I just don’t anticipate running for Judicial Committee, unless someone happens to know that there’s precedent that contradicts my “a member for four years sequentially leading up to nomination” interpretation of the rule.
George, why did Carling want to kick you out of the party in 2008? I don’t recall hearing anything about it. My guess is, though, that it involved Root somehow.
The exact circumstances and pretexts are all very different. I’ve yet to see evidence that a challenge on this particular basis in Oregon ever would or could happen.
Yes, but I don’t remember that question ever being specifically litigated. They lost, iirc, for other reasons.
Seems highly umlikely. Republicans have wanted the LP out of other elections they considered to be important before, and never challenged the LP on this basis, as far as I know.
For oregon No. But there are a lot of examples of Republicans getting Libertarians kicked off the ballot. I suggest that the LP state parties toe the legal line so as to avoid giving the Republicans the opportunity to do so.
It would be a pitty to not do so and then have it happen if it could have been avoided.
Unreasonable is open to interpretation.
I don’t remember. I’ve seen various lists to that effect before. I am not arguing any side here, but if you are saying that this one thing puts them in compliance with the entire section 248, I know I’ve seen other people say otherwise and point to all sorts of other things in there that neither side in Oregon is een attempting to comply with.
Do we have any examples yet of any minor parties in Oregon being kicked off the ballot or threatened by the state with being kicked off, for not complying with anything in ORS 248? Why didn’t it happen for all the decades that LPOR operated under the old rules?
thats too bad Tom, if you were there at least the final reports would be fun reading.
Steve,
There’s a reason why your card is dated 1991, and why you would be eligible in any case:
The bylaws require Judicial Committee members to have been members of the party for four years. The bylaws define “member” as anyone who’s signed the membership pledge. Even if you are not a “sustaining” member — one who pays dues — you remain a member. IIRC, there are about 150,000 “members” by that definition; people who paid dues in the past but never voided their membership oath.
When I left the party, I left the party, period — I requested that the LNC remove my name from the list of those who had certified per the pledge. So I was a member from 1996-2010, then I stopped being a member, then I started being a member again in 2014 when I took the pledge again. So I’ve been a member for a total of 15.x years, but I’ve only been a member consecutively for the two years leading up to this convention.
If I ran for Judicial Committee and that was brought up when nominations were made, I don’t know which way the chair would rule. But I would not consider it unreasonable for the chair to rule that the meaning of the four years was “the four years prior to being elected,” and declare my nomination out of order. And I would neither appeal such a ruling to the body nor expect it to overturn the chair’s ruling if it did. Unlike some people, I respect reasonable interpretations of bylaws, convention rules and parliamentary points. So unless I hear of some precedent, the smart move to me seems to be to just not run.
I think the words “open participation” do block at least unreasonable dues.
What other rules in that section does the current LPO bylaws violate?
Ack, violated my own statement. Done arguing what they did as I agree that it is now pointless. What to do now, and the LNC can do is the question. I merely was supporting why I don’t see any pure victims here.
That wasn’t my question. The question again Has any minor party ever been kicked off the ballot or even challenged for not complying with any of these set of rules? Does the Wagner/Hedbor LPO comply with other rules in that section? referring specifically to ORS 248.
And if it does apply to minor parties, it is still for the then membership to decide to amend or risk consequences.
Paulie
==Read the context. Does it really apply to minor parties? ===
I think it does, but it does not prohibit a membership pledge – not obviously. That is for the present membership to decide.
==Has any minor party ever been kicked off the ballot or even challenged for not complying with any of these set of rules? Does the Wagner/Hedbor LPO comply with other rules in that section?==
No and no.
has any group or individual candidate every been kicked off a ballot for not being in compliance with election law?
Are you serious? A Good question for Richard 😉
The side that contends that paragrap 248.005 doesn’t apply to minor parties… this side wouldn’t be the side that lost in court would they?
This may be their real objective. The republicans may have been keeping a ballot access challange for when they had a chance to win an important election.
And where does it define what “party member” means for the purpose of this section?
With respect to affiliation, the ‘what they did issue’ is way off track. We have an affiliate right now. It actually puts candidates on the ballot. The available choices are keeping it and rejecting it.
section 248 has paragraphs that are specific to major parties and it has paragrapgs which are specific to minor parties.
“248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members”
see that it says Parties not major not minor.
248.006 Qualification and maintenance of status as major political party; loss of status as
major political party; calculation of number of party members
248.007 Organization of major political parties; applicability of ORS 248.012 to 248.315;
election of precinct committeepersons; notice to Secretary of State; use of primary election
see that when they want to talk about a major party they very clearly state major party.
and when they talk about minor parties they state so for example
248.008 Qualification as minor political party; party member registration requirement;
eligibility to nominate candidates; maintenance of status as minor political party;
loss of status as minor party
248.009 Process for nominating candidates by minor political party; notice to filing officer;
notice of nominating convention
This paragraph clearly speaks to both major and minor parties.
“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.”
Read the context. Does it really apply to minor parties? Has any minor party ever been kicked off the ballot or even challenged for not complying with any of these set of rules? Does the Wagner/Hedbor LPO comply with other rules in that section?
There are lots of states which have all sorts of similar rule lists for major parties which don’t apply to minor parties. In most of those, the threshold for major parties is so high that as a practical matter the LP doesn’t have to worry about those rules since we never meet the threshold. There have been a few times where alt parties found themselves in callenging situations by virtue of meeting major party threshold which imposed all sorts of new rules on the way they operate that they were unable to comply with. One example that comes to mind is the American Constitution Party in Colorado, which was briefly a major party after they ran Tancredo for Governor, and found themselves unable to comply with major party rules.
>> And LPOR operated under its prior rules for decades; the law did not just suddenly change recently to outlaw how the party operated for decades, as far as I know. >> appears to be at latest 1979… I could be wrong, I only glanced at it
That’s disputed. The other side says that this snippet of the bylaws does not apply to minor parties because it is taken from a section of other things that clearly only apply to major parties, not minor parties, so in context that is not the case. And LPOR operated under its prior rules for decades; the law did not just suddenly change recently to outlaw how the party operated for decades, as far as I know. Also, you’ll probably find that there are other minor parties that operate on the membership model or something else other than the ORS 248 rules for major parties (legally recognized as such) in Oregon.
>>248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members..
Not the portion I am talking about. I suspect you are repeating talking points and not really reading the issues. I could be wrong. But I posted what I wished and the reader can judge.
>>The inherent risk of ignoring the law, is that it opens your slate of candidates to being kicked off the ballot because they weren’t selected in compliance with state law.
That is the choice of the identified members. It is a risk they alone are qualified to make.
The inherent risk of ignoring the law, is that it opens your slate of candidates to being kicked off the ballot because they weren’t selected in compliance with state law.
…and even if that didn’t apply to PACs, it would certainly apply to parties. So no hypothetical LNC-backed group could ever establish a recognized party or petition onto the ballot under the name “Libertarian” or anything confusingly similar (states have reached different results on the question of if “Liberty” is too similar to “Libertarian”- but anything containing the actual word Libertarian certainly would be.)
the party bylaws giving preferential treatment to duespaying members was clearly in violation of state law. You have a beef? then change the law. Otherwise the bylaws are broken.
Regarding the name, it isn’t necessarily even a matter of trademark. Oregon law, like most if not all states, prohibits PACs and parties from adopting identical or confusingly similar name to an existing party or PAC. That should have prevented Reeves et al from registering their PAC (which they used to endorse Republicans) under the name “‘*The* Libertarian Party of Oregon.” – but the SoS declined to enforce that law because of the ongoing dispute. Once that is settled (and as a matter of OR law it is), the entirely proper and correct step would be for LPO to request TLPO-PAC’s approval be rescinded unless and until they change their name to something else. Just like I couldn’t file for a PAC in Oregon called “The Republican Party of Oregon” and then issue endorsements of Democrats or Libertarians under that name.
when the law talks about major political parties they use the term “Major Political Party”, when the law talks specifically about minor political parties they state “minor political party”.
this requirement leaves out the words major and minor implying it speaks to both.
“248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members”
Thus I continue to maintain, the quorum change was arguably justified. Better ways to handle however. The membership change other than potentially removing the dues requirement (I am granting that only for the sake of argument, I do not agree this could have been done unilaterally and disenfranchised life members) could arguably have been justified. Removing the pledge was not. This was something to be up to the current identified members. They could choose whether to remain a political party or suffer consequences etc. This was done all the wrong way.
All that being said, I am done arguing about it as I am not an OR finder of fact and I do not believe the LNC is authorized to be either. This is an OR matter. I am merely explaining why I do not believe Wes to be an innocent lamb in all of this. I agree with him ideologically.
For part of the problems, I cite a brief filed in relation to the 2011JC matter. You can’t pick and choose.
==Representatives of the Appellant have claimed that ORS 248.072 does apply to the LPO, yet the bylaws purportedly adopted on March 31 are not in compliance with other portions of ORS 248.012 to ORS 248.315. Notably, the alleged new bylaws do not provide for any county central committee representatives on their state central committee, even though that is how ORS 248 prescribes construction of the state central committee.
When specifically asked about this point during the July 17 teleconference with the LNC’s Executive Committee, the Appellant’s representatives explained that they had opted out of that aspect as permitted by ORS 248.007. That provision does allow major parties to opt out of the ENTIRE section from 248.012 to 248.315, but says nothing about piecemeal opting out of some portions and keeping others. If the Appellant opted out of other portions of ORS 248.012 to 248.315 regarding county central committee representation, they must have opted out of ORS 248.072 simultaneously. We do not know if the Appellant has actually followed the procedure specified in ORS 248.007 for how a major party opts out of the provisions in question.==
You are shifting the goal posts with regards to the quorum provision btw. Instead of copying and pasting, I require actual argument to consider. I am a paralegal, copying and pasting law doesn’t impress me. I see it every day. It is application that is important. If you want to quote the non-profit law, quote it and apply it.
Though I don’t dispute the right to fix the quorum (though there were better ways to do it). I dispute the right to unilaterally change the membership definition.
You are missing the point. The law didn’t change. It was that way since 1979. If the membership was invalid up to that point, it questions all the prior elections. You are now arguing in a circle saying it was valid because the members voted, but the identity of the members is the exact issue.
I reject for reasons other than my “liking” it or not. I do not understand what part of I “I’m a radical and support Wes’ overall ideological agenda so I am predisposed to be in favor of him” is unclear.
Correction: Florida only dealt with removing the NAP pledge. And that is not as clear cut as it made out to be. Even if we could argue that the dues thing should have went by fiat (I don’t agree) there was no authority to fiat remove the pledge.
As was argued in another discussion regarding the Florida proposal to remove the pledge:
“Since signing NAP does not require any monetary or financial contribution/encumbrance, this rule change has nothing to do with complying with the Law. There is no law prohibiting a pledge requirement for active membership, neither does the law prohibit a honorific sustaining membership for those who chose to participate in such a scheme. So that argument has no merit ”
Further, the law does’t state that membership can’t be broader to include convicted felons for example.
yes under Oregon law the non-profit laws apply. why because the law states that they do.
248.004
Powers of political parties; liability of
political parties and of officers, employees and members of political parties.
(1) A minor political
party or a major political party shall have all the powers granted to a
nonprofit corporation under
ORS 65.077.
(2) A major or minor political party shall be treated for purposes of
contractual, tort or other liability as a nonprofit corporation.
(3) Officers and employees of a major or minor political party, including officers and
employees of local subdivisions of the parties, shall be treated as
officers and employees of nonprofit corporations for liability for all
matters relating to the political party.
(4) Any member of a governing body of a major or minor political party, including local subdivisions of the parties, shall be treated as directors of nonprofit corporations for liability for all matters relating to the political party. If the bylaws of a party designate a central committee, such as a state, county or congressional district central committee, as the governing body of the party, then the members of the central committee shall be directors of the party for purposes of this section.
(5) Notwithstanding ORS 65.157, creditors of a major or minor political party may
not proceed against members of the political parties for liabilities members owe to the
parties arising from their party membership.
(6) This section does not affect the liability of political committee directors,
treasurers and candidates as provided in ORS chapter 260
That is the current law and when the law changes the political parties must amend the bylaws to stay in compliance.
The LPO also put it to a vote of its members as defined by Oregon State Law.
You don’t like it and so you reject. Well that and $3.50 will get you a coffee.
I do not think that everyone in the LP is a government plant. Most of the party is made up of good, well meaning people. If there are government plants in the LP, which there probably are, it is likely just a few plants in key places. This is all that it would take to seriously screw up the party.
excuse me 1979
Florida btw just faced this same issue and did it the right way. They put it to a membership vote and the membership voted NOT to expand membership. We shall see how that plays out, but it is their decision to make.
Steve:
==I argue, that under Oregon Law the old bylaws that restricted participation to dues paying members was in violation of the state law.===
I understand the argument, at this point I reject it. When was this law passed? The history looks like 1975.. then the original bylaws were invalid and the party nonexistent. The members voluntarily agreed to a certain formation. It was up to them to expand the definition to comply with the state law, choose to no longer be a political party or whatever other consequences.
==I also believe that Oregon Law with respect to non-profit organizations deals with the issue of what to do in the event a dysfunctional organization because of their inability to form a quorum.==
No that section deals with major political parties. There are certain opt-out provisions but you can’t opt-out piecemeal.
The quorum issue was real. There were several ways to solve it.
I argue, that under Oregon Law the old bylaws that restricted participation to dues paying members was in violation of the state law.
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/248.pdf
“248.005 Parties to insure widest and fairest representation of members”
GENERAL PROVISIONS 248.002 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(4) “Member” means an individual who is registered as being affiliated with the political
party.
I also believe that Oregon Law with respect to non-profit organizations deals with the issue of what to do in the event a dysfunctional organization because of their inability to form a quorum.
There as I recall, the state looks to the last executive board to fix the bylaws.
In my opinion the LPO under Wes was functioning not only legally when changing the quorum but also was bring the LPO’s bylaws into compliance with Oregon State Law.
===Okay, I didn’t see the post on the keyboard problem. Sorry.==
No problema:) It is also poor eyesight and insomnia typing on an iPhone. I can be a hot mess with issues.
Okay, I didn’t see the post on the keyboard problem. Sorry.
===TLK @ 2015/08/16 at 1:25 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos is correct on the facts of what would/will happen, though not necessarily of what should happen.==
I am obviously missing some protocol on posting here… what does that mean?
The JudComm requirement is *Member* not *Sustaining Member*. You must be a Sustaining Member to be elected. The LNC Requirement is “Sustaining Member” to hold office, but that is not the same.
And that my friends is the elephant in the room. All the temple-burning, people-handing language will not make that go away.
Crap, I do NOT believe his group’s wholesale bylaws replacement was justified
Steve
==Caryn, Can you blame Wes? the LPO has been under attack for the better part of a decade… It seems to me that the only way to really stop the attacks, given the failures of those doing the attacking, is to render the attackers inert.===
I do not find Wes innocent here. I don’t find anyone innocent, but no, my sympathies do not go in full when I believe his group’s wholesale bylaws replacement was justified.
The stuff going on before was typical political maneuvering it seems, and the way to counter it was not by unilaterally replacing the bylaws. This was the huge triggering event and I think it was absolutely wrong.
That being said, I do not think the LNC has the jurisdiction by its own bylaws (a flaw in its bylaws) to determine that. I have had a private correspondence where I was challenged on disaffiliation saying there was no cause. My reply: Then they are stuck and must go with the bylaws recognized by the officers as recognized by OR since the LPO is a creature of the state.
Caryn, Can you blame Wes? the LPO has been under attack for the better part of a decade… It seems to me that the only way to really stop the attacks, given the failures of those doing the attacking, is to render the attackers inert.
I am very happy I am not in his situation, but having been through something similar, though to a much smaller degree, here in Pennsylvania, (we had someone come in and attempt to dismantle the LPPA’s county committees and replace them with committees he could control) I learned that the only way to end the attack was to remove the attacker.
In our case, most of the people he recruited, we re-recruited and put to work in the original county committees. (total destruction of his efforts)
Anyway, the point is that I have been on that same road, and it sucks.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
I also wonder about this 4 years membership requirement. I haven’t paid dues for a few years. Buth recently I made a specific donation to help get Oklahoma ballot access. Then the mail arrives and in it is a new membership card? As if my donation to help a specific program which was to match the funds that Richard had promissed to help with Oklahoma ballot petitioning was included in with the general funds of the party?
Ok back to my new card. It states “Libertarian Since:8/12/1991”
Tom,
==Nope. Exactly the opposite.
All political parties are organized at the state level and receive ballot access from the state in which they are organized. That access goes with the state recognition, and affiliation with a national committee has nothing whatsoever to do with it.==
We are treading into waters here you are more knowledgeable than I so I will concede to greater knowledge at this point.
===The Libertarian ballot line in Oregon belongs to LPO. As part of their affiliation with the LNC, they agree to make that ballot line available to the LNC’s presidential slate … and if the affiliation goes away, so does that availability.==
Then how can they be stealing anything if it goes away? The LNC deciding that the Reeves group is the legitimate officers does not make it so as far as the state of OR is concerned.
==The name “Libertarian Party” also belongs to LPO in Oregon. A few years ago, the LNC filed some fraudulent applications for trademark on the phrase, but their trademark claims wouldn’t last a hot minute in court.==
Here is where I disagree. The LPO agreed to that when they accepted affiliate status. Whether that would hold up in court is one matter… whether it is a voluntary agreement that was made, well the side of the angels is not on the side of the LPO for this in the case of disaffiliation, arguably.
==So if the LNC disaffiliates LPO, it loses the ballot access, and it loses the name “Libertarian Party” for its affiliate. If it accepts the Reeves Gang as its affiliate, it will have to completely regain ballot access in Oregon, and it will have to choose a name other than “Libertarian Party” to run its candidates under.===
I agree it will have to regain ballot access. But if it does, isn’t stealing the ballot line. And I think it is very ethically arguable they have every right to the name. What the courts would say is another matter. I hate trademark and have no wish to defend it. I am defending the voluntary agreement.
Andy is one of the few non-government plants in the LP, maybe the only one? Pretty much everyone else, if not everyone are all government plants 🙂
TLK @ 2015/08/16 at 1:25 pm | In reply to Caryn Ann Harlos is correct on the facts of what would/will happen, though not necessarily of what should happen.
I have got to wonder if both sides of this Oregon dispute are government plants. Wagner’s refusal to do a Freedom Of Information Act request is a red flag. It would not surprise if they are all feds working together to sabotage the LP.
LPOR pre-existed its affiliation with national, from what I have been told. LNC will probably try a trademark case and will almost certainly lose. I don’t see how LNC could win on that, actually.
Tom and George, I was not discussing the mechanics of how to find a legitimate solution to this problem, just a broad general overview of the problem and that it needs to go away before the party is destroyed. (I believe we can all agree that something needs to be done regarding members of the Judicial Committee determining, all by themselves, what their jurisdiction is, and how they can work regardless of how corrupt they appear.)
I like George’s specific solution, and if I am qualified to become a member of the Judicial Committee, I would happily throw my hat in that ring. (I have been a Libertarian for decades, a member of my state party for 5-6 years, but I am not sure when I became a member of the LP (national)
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
I also have it on excellent authority that the errors and omissions insurance for the members of the LNC was lapsed at the time all this went down.
“If you know someone was not within the gambit of authority, you don’t make a group/person you know didn’t authorize have to defend against that. You go after the guilty person.”
The LNC knew his spending was rogue, were aware of it and failed to act on it. They own it now.
“Does the ballot line and the name belong to OR or the LP? I think it is pretty clear that this is an LNC/LP asset not an LPO asset. They have it on the basis of being an affiliate”
Nope. Exactly the opposite.
All political parties are organized at the state level and receive ballot access from the state in which they are organized. That access goes with the state recognition, and affiliation with a national committee has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Case in point: In 1948, several state Democratic Parties disaffiliated with the Democratic National Committee and affiliated together as the States Rights Democratic Party, running Strom Thurmond rather than Harry Truman on their ballot lines.
That’s why the consequences the LNC is playing with are so dangerous.
The Libertarian ballot line in Oregon belongs to LPO. As part of their affiliation with the LNC, they agree to make that ballot line available to the LNC’s presidential slate … and if the affiliation goes away, so does that availability.
The name “Libertarian Party” also belongs to LPO in Oregon. A few years ago, the LNC filed some fraudulent applications for trademark on the phrase, but their trademark claims wouldn’t last a hot minute in court.
So if the LNC disaffiliates LPO, it loses the ballot access, and it loses the name “Libertarian Party” for its affiliate. If it accepts the Reeves Gang as its affiliate, it will have to completely regain ballot access in Oregon, and it will have to choose a name other than “Libertarian Party” to run its candidates under.
Unless, of course, the LNC wants to waste six or seven figures of its donors’ money trying, probably unsuccessfully, to bully Oregon’s government into aiding it in its theft of the name and ballot access line. Which is probably what it would do. And that’s why Wagner has a pronounced tendency toward preemptively striking. If the LNC is going to waste its donors money, it might as well waste it on damages to an organization it has harmed instead of on doing further harm to that organization.
Tom,
==Wes’s bellicose rhetoric aside, I think there’s something you’re missing in his assertion that a disaffiliation of LPO would be followed by continued warfare.==
Bellicose is the right way to put it:)
==Let’s suppose that tomorrow, the LNC votes to disaffiliate LPO and affiliate the Reeves Gang. OK, so, it’s over, right? The LPO is left to do its thing and the LNC and its affiliate do theirs, right?
Nope. What would happen is that the LNC would back and fund the Reeves Gang’s continued attempts to steal LPO’s ballot line and its fraudulent claims to a right to replace LPO not just as the LNC affiliate, but as Oregon’s recognized Libertarian Party.===
Here is where we might have some disagreement, and I will be said to be slavishly devoted to rules. And that’s okay people can think that, and perhaps people will change their minds (me or others).
But the LNC has the right to disaffiliate and reaffiliate. It is the only thing it can do here. That is not a statement on my part as to what they *should* do, but rather what they *can* do legitimately. Does the ballot line and the name belong to OR or the LP? I think it is pretty clear that this is an LNC/LP asset not an LPO asset. They have it on the basis of being an affiliate, and the LNC retains the right to disaffiliate. LPO took this agreement on voluntarily and have to abide within the terms.
==If you know that war has been declared on you, and you know that the other side is not going to simply stop at a reasonable truce, the best solution may be to go on the offensive.===
I generally disagree with offensive strategies so this may be just a personal outlook. I am, after all, a personal pacifist. (people lose their minds over this, I do not deny anyone’s right to their own aggressive defense, I simply chose not to invoke that right for myself). Not claiming this has anything to do with violence, just that one area of own’s worldview impacts everything.
==LPO has a good case for damages against AT LEAST some particular members of the LNC. For example Hinkle, who, as chair, spent money trying to help the Reeves Gang replace the legitimate affiliate. While it’s true that Hinkle spent that money completely illegally and without LNC authorization, the smart move would be to sue the LNC for the damages and make the LNC be the ones to try to shift the blame to Hinkle as an individual.===
Here is where I would have an ethical problem though Tom. I work in law. I know the gamesmanship of this type of strategic suing, but I don’t think it is right. If you know someone was not within the gambit of authority, you don’t make a group/person you know didn’t authorize have to defend against that. You go after the guilty person.
==Every dime the LNC has to spend defending itself from a very legitimate damages claim is a dime it can’t spend attacking LPO.===
And it is given from LP members who either disagree or cannot be expected to aware of all this. Most people are not like me. Yes they can choose not to donate, and the ultimate loser here is liberty, and the end of the wonderful experiment in American politics I suppose.
== And who knows? — the LNC might even get smart and offer a settlement in which it agrees in some binding way to knock off the fuckery, the LPO agrees to let the financial damages go, etc. ===
Wes’ rhetoric seems to indicate that he would not be happy except with complete destruction.
==There’s really no way for the LNC to come out of this looking GOOD to the donors whose money it’s been blowing on this stuff, but like the guy in the bottom of a hole who wants to get out, it might finally occur to them to STOP DIGGING.==
Exercising their right to disaffiliate though I wouldn’t agree is an attack… it is a right they have and was agreed to by the parties.
I suppose we shall have to wait and see.
I won’t be running for LNC. Too much travel and expense involved. If I run for anything, it will be for Judicial Committee. Since I may be unqualified for that, I’ll just be looking for candidates to support. As you may recall from the 2008 presidential cycle, I’m pretty good at opposition research. And according to Steve Dasbach in 2004, I’m pretty good at dirty tricks, too 😀
Tom, You could run for At-Large. George
“the bylaws provide for no such thing’ Yes, thanks to SMC, they do. They inserted Roberts into the rear of…the Bylaws, so Roberts covers it. Roberts says members can be expelled, which is how I was threatened with expulsion from the Party at the 2008 New York Libertarian Convention. M Carling himself said so to me, and I have witnesses.
Tom is right on the other point.
State Chairs in my region are invited to contact me about Mr Scheetz’s comments and my solution.
George,
Interesting. I wonder if the “four years” requirement would be interpreted as four SEQUENTIAL years, or just four years?
I was a party member from 1996 through 2010, then left (not just in terms of paying dues, I formally rescinded my membership) and came back in 2014. So I’ve been a member for more than four years … just not four years in a row, leading up to the convention.
I was thinking about running for Judicial Committee next year, but I’d have to have an answer to that question first. I suspect most people would go with the “four years in a row prior to the convention” definition. And that definition is eminently reasonable.
As far as expelling members from the party, the bylaws provide for no such thing.
Also, there is a historical record as to how effective the Oregon group has been at attacking party finances. This happened internally, and the anti-Wagner faction had its income crash by a large amount within a short period of time. The Oregon party knows exactly how to do this, and undoubtedly has the resources available to do so if they choose.
Steve,
You write:
“At this point, I believe that the Judicial Committee, if they continue down the path with this meeting, needs to be disbanded, for being rogue, and replaced.”
There’s really no provision in the bylaws for disbanding/replacing the Judicial Committee. That could only be done at the national convention. Replacing its members is as simple as electing new ones. Disbanding it would require bylaws amendments …
… and would be a VERY bad idea. Absent a Judicial Committee, what would there be to stop the LNC (or the executive committee) from doing anything it damn well pleased, any time it damn well wanted?
If you want evidence that the Judicial Committee is a good and necessary element of party governance, you need look no further than the current situation: For years, the Judicial Committee stood in the way of various Starr/Mattson/Carling schemes … enough so that they realized they needed to take it over. Just like they took over the credentials committee in 2014 and 2012. Just like they insinuated themselves into party governance under the cover of being “parliamentarians” in cases where they couldn’t actually win party elections leading up to 2008.
What’s needed is for the gloves to come off at the next national convention. We need solid LNC and Judicial committee slates uninfected by the SMC taint, and we need a very public and very well-presented indictment of SMC and their co-conspirators such that nobody will be interested in voting for any of them for any office.
The only way to root this infection out without simply abandoning the LNC is to thoroughly cleanse the LNC and its sub-committees of Starr, Mattson, Carling and anyone known to carry their water.
I’ve been through this same fight over and over again. Personally, I’m finding it hard to get my blood up after several rounds of people insisting on treating this like a matter of collegiality. If it’s anything short of a bare-knuckle brawl, SMC wins as usual, because they don’t think twice about whether or not it’s nice to defraud nice people.
Steve is right. Alas, what he proposing is difficult to carry out before it is too late.
The LNC cannot impeach the Judicial Committee; no such power exists. However
The Bylaws say
The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members elected at each Regular Convention, and any five members shall constitute a quorum. No member of the National Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee. The members of the Judicial Committee shall select the Chair of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention. All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection. The remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.
Fortunately, there is a path, albeit a difficult one:
“The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members”
“All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection.”
The second sentence refers to the situation at time of election. The first is operative now.
Thus, if the LNC expels the five miscreants from the Party, they are no longer Party members and are no longer JC members. The remaining two JC members may then hopefully appoint a better Judicial Committee.
A two-thirds vote of the LNC would be needed.
Carny,
Wes’s bellicose rhetoric aside, I think there’s something you’re missing in his assertion that a disaffiliation of LPO would be followed by continued warfare.
Let’s suppose that tomorrow, the LNC votes to disaffiliate LPO and affiliate the Reeves Gang. OK, so, it’s over, right? The LPO is left to do its thing and the LNC and its affiliate do theirs, right?
Nope. What would happen is that the LNC would back and fund the Reeves Gang’s continued attempts to steal LPO’s ballot line and its fraudulent claims to a right to replace LPO not just as the LNC affiliate, but as Oregon’s recognized Libertarian Party.
If you know that war has been declared on you, and you know that the other side is not going to simply stop at a reasonable truce, the best solution may be to go on the offensive.
LPO has a good case for damages against AT LEAST some particular members of the LNC. For example Hinkle, who, as chair, spent money trying to help the Reeves Gang replace the legitimate affiliate. While it’s true that Hinkle spent that money completely illegally and without LNC authorization, the smart move would be to sue the LNC for the damages and make the LNC be the ones to try to shift the blame to Hinkle as an individual.
Every dime the LNC has to spend defending itself from a very legitimate damages claim is a dime it can’t spend attacking LPO. And who knows? — the LNC might even get smart and offer a settlement in which it agrees in some binding way to knock off the fuckery, the LPO agrees to let the financial damages go, etc. There’s really no way for the LNC to come out of this looking GOOD to the donors whose money it’s been blowing on this stuff, but like the guy in the bottom of a hole who wants to get out, it might finally occur to them to STOP DIGGING.
==Just try to remember… most your allies in the libertarian wing of the libertarian party are not “lawful” people … they are ethical people… but not lawful.==
Wes you do not know me well. I am not a “lawful” person in the way you mean either… but this is a voluntary association based upon voluntary rules. Part of the agreement to voluntary political party is to abide by certain rules, or laws if you will. I do not think you guys abided by your own rules and under color of law, ironically, went beyond what the law allowed. I see this as violative of the voluntary association. I do not know if the Reeves group did too. From Chuck’s recounting it appears they did. This I understand is in dispute, and I do not have enough information to tell. Assuming they were, what can be done about it now? I don’t know, but whatever it is, it is OR’s business.
This does not mean I do not think your group is not the Affiliate. I do not see the LNC as having jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.
Regardless of anything else, the current Judicial Committee has no jurisdiction in this matter. Like Chuck stated, this was handled a long time ago. The courts have, thus far, scratched their heads wondering why this topic continues to be an issue coming before them, and yet, NOW, an individual who has a vested interest in the Judicial Committee reversing the decision of a previous Judicial Committee has inserted himself into the position of doing exactly that.
This is just as corrupt as when the members of Congress started allowing themselves to invest their money in stocks that are dependent on their votes on Capitol Hill…. (legal, but DEFINITELY not ethical.)
Burke et al, as a group, has thrown an expensive temper tantrum because they can. There is no other way to say it. Certain members of their cause have put themselves in a position within the LP to continue wreaking havoc on the party, and from what I have seen / read, their cause has no merit. They have continued to act on their vendetta against the Wagner group and they, so far, have continued to lose, because their unethical vendetta is without merit.
At this point, I believe that the Judicial Committee, if they continue down the path with this meeting, needs to be disbanded, for being rogue, and replaced.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Immediate Past Chair, LPPA
Life member, Libertarian Party
Just try to remember… most your allies in the libertarian wing of the libertarian party are not “lawful” people … they are ethical people… but not lawful.
Bad spelling again- typing most of this on an iPhone – dare anyone to do better:)
Wes I will continue to find common cause where I can. I too consider myself part of the libertarian wing of the Lubertarian Party
Chuck,
What happened in Oregon was a populist revolution … and there is not even a deposed government that had a proper chain of custody because the people occupying the imperial palace and trusted with its care and custody were the ones who called for a populist uprising.
Burke and crew attempted to create a non-existent deposed government out of fantasy.
It is lunacy to try to back, either legally or politically.
Oregon is owned by the Libertarian faction of the LP. All those who attempted to oppose us have shown their loyalties.
You are a student of game theory and strategy… you know what is next.
Wes we have a procedure for that as a party – replacing peacefully.
Chuck that is about the clearest explanation I have heard. Thank you. Let me chew on that.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
My take on that is that the Reeves group is right that if new bylaws were not passed, the convention continues on the other day; if the convention continues on the other day, at the end of the convention the terms of all the officers expire (the term of chair is especially clear, because the vice-chair became the chair); if the convention continues on the other day, there is a state committee meeting immediately following the convention; and if that state committee meeting is proper (has a quorum and properly credentialed state committee members), then it can fill officer vacancies and the new officers as part of the new state committee could do party business, set the date/location of the next convention, etc.
Where the Reeves group goes off the rails is claiming that the state committee meeting was proper. They had no quorum. Even if they did have a quorum, there were many people voting who were not properly credentialed as state committee members: county chairs who had previously resigned their positions, other county chairs who had no proper documentation that their county was recognized or they were the proper representatives of that county, etc. The Reeves group later claimed that the only opportunity to object to lack of a quorum or improperly credentialed state members was at that “state committee meeting” itself, so it was too late after the fact. That’s nuts.
By the logic of the Reeves group, if a convention was planned at a certain location on a certain date, but a huge blizzard prevented most everyone from attending save a few random people who were not on the state committee, those people could replace the whole state committee by holding a fake meeting, claiming quorum, improperly credentialing themselves, and claiming there is no opportunity to object after the fake meeting.
So in my opinion both sides had dubious claims on a proper chain of succession.
At some point you have to admit that there is no perfect answer, make a definitive determination of who the proper affiliate should be, and be done with it, moving forward like adults. That was done long ago: the Wagner group is the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
“I do not agree to desire to carve out a pound of flesh”
You should think of it more like cutting out a pound of cancer.
We were talking in the context of leaving OR alone and letting the delegates choose to replace or not. You want lashes and I am not sure anything will satisfy your desire for that right now.
I am not a reformer. I am openly a radical. But my position is one if trying to get this settled peacefully and to move forward to liberty. actual liberty not conservative Republicanized liberty.
I agree that your group is the affiliate. I do not agree to desire to carve out a pound of flesh
Yes Caryn … really. We dealt with these people in Oregon and learned the process well. The National LP has to deal with them and dispose of them or it will forever be hindered, fail on its own accord, or be wiped out by reformers.
Your position and policy on how to deal with these matters has failed for over three decades and resulted in organizational decline. Ours is working.
Wes really? Perhaps a goat sacrifice too?
” If after that the LPO wants to disaffiliate that is their choice. And if they chose to engage in vengeance that is their choice too, an unfortunate one.”
Electing new leaders does not undo the damages done… reparations and penance must be paid for lessons to truly be learned and not repeated.
And I remember a wise person said Wes that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. I don’t live that way. I don’t thirst for vengeance or figurative blood. Maybe in a decade you will think as I do. I wish you much success in OR in your valiant fights for liberty and the good work you do.
Chuck
==Our choices are the Wagner group that did a series of things under one justification or the Reeves group that did a series of other things with another justification.===
But sequence matters does it not? Or does it… I am honestly asking… were the things the Reeves group did inappropriate presuming the Wagner new bylaws never existed?
It seems like they “might” have been appropriate under the bylaws.
I don’t know. I do know this, I do not find justification for scrapping the entire bylaws under the doctrine of necessity. This seems pretty clear to me.
But not an LNC issue to decide. If were an Oregon finder of fact, if the Reeves group also breached the prior bylaws then law and procedure would determine what follows… there has to be a procedure for determining who the officers are in the event of all the offices expiring and there being no valid officers.
But ultimately not an LNC issue. For right or wrong, the legal entity of the LPO, which is the legal affiliate is as it is identified by Oregon. That is the affiliate.
The best I hope for is to accept that and move on. And for the LNC to say out of OR’s business and for the LNC members to stop instigating things on a personal level for the good of the party. If they do, for the delegates to replace them. If after that the LPO wants to disaffiliate that is their choice. And if they chose to engage in vengeance that is their choice too, an unfortunate one.
I don’t forget… I have a decade of experience and know who our allies are, who our enemies are, and many of them wrap themselves in our flag and appeal to people who “are just here trying to help” .. hoodwink them, exploit them and use their moderate tendencies to protect the the perpetrators from their nefarious deeds.
The actions the LNC and members of the LP have taken in the past, they are liable for, they will not be forgotten and the consequences will be tolled.
That is what is necessary to have a society where sociopathy is punished rather than rewarded and the only path through which we will be liberated.
I have not forgotten why I am here … and perhaps in another decade you will think as I do.
Wes, sorry, I would love to communicate and will on the facts and issues, but really not a fan of this violent destructive imagery, particularly when part of it is aimed at a party I wish to preserve. We disagree.
I hope you are wrong on the extermination bit. That will be IMHO a sad day for liberty. And I think we are forget why we are doing this.
Caryn
When the LNC started interfering in our business, the concept of a fair and equitable meeting went out the window. One side brought in outside interlopers on multiple occasions… that is an act of war, and gets resolved via the rules of war… not law or democracy.
War also is not resolved until both sides are willing to sue for peace or one is exterminated.
Caryn Ann Harlos, I agree with you that under the doctrine of necessity the Wagner group should have just changed the quorum requirement back then rather than adopting entirely new bylaws. That would have made this entirely clear. Unfortunately, they didn’t do that. There are two groups with unclean hands. It’s not clear, it’s muddy. The choices we are presented with are not an ideal group and a less than ideal group (a hero and a villain).
Our choices are the Wagner group that did a series of things under one justification or the Reeves group that did a series of other things with another justification. And we are also presented with the Wagner group that has ballot access and engages in a lot of political activity vs. the Reeves group that does not have ballot access and doesn’t engage in much political activity. We are presented with the Wagner group that has won lawsuits and the Reeves group that has lost lawsuits. We are presented with the Wagner group that has no ties to the Republican party and the Reeves group that has many ties to the Republican Party. We are presented with the Wagner group that has been operating as the affiliate of the Libertarian National Committee for years and the Reeves group that has not.
The credentialing and stacking of delegations at the Libertarian National Conventions throws a monkey wrench in that clear series of reasons the Wagner group has the much better claim to affiliate status; however, as a firsthand witness of those conventions I would chalk the Reeves wins there up to shenanigans. The Libertarian Party of Ohio locked the doors of the convention halls and permitted only the Reeves group to leaflet every seat with their literature before people came in — right before the credentials vote. The Reeves group stacked the 2012 credentials committee with sympathizers who had conflicts of interest but refused to recuse themselves. The Reeves group hoodwinked the convention into seating a majority of Reeves delegates in the Wagner delegation in 2014, not advertising that they intended to immediately change the delegation chair and steal 2014-2016 LNC regional representation — it was clear the convention delegates just thought everyone should be seated, not caring or thinking about the gross affront to affiliate sovereignty this caused. And of course, Starr purchased the Ohio delegation for his personal amusement by spending over $10,000 to renew national LP memberships of Ohio residents, increasing the delegation size and stacking it with people who vote lockstep.
I’ve heard at length about the long history of problems in Oregon long before 2011. I’ve also witnessed shenanigans from Starr / Carling / Mattson both related and unrelated to Oregon going back many years. Like many others, I’m at the point where I view any act of Starr / Carling / Mattson with suspicion — fool me once, shame on you; fool me 8592306720487267489 times, shame on me.
==Of course, if the LNC does make a decision as to which group to recognize, then there unmistakably was a recent decision, and the Epstein petition is again of interest.===
My migraine is coming on again.
“The notion that in America you can win a contested major lawsuit in a month is amazing.”
They thought they were picking on the defenseless. It was more telling of their psychology than anything.
Of course, if the LNC does make a decision as to which group to recognize, then there unmistakably was a recent decision, and the Epstein petition is again of interest. With respect to laches, Epstein might try to claim to the JC that there was ongoing litigation that they did not want to confuse. Note key word “try”.
The notion that in America you can win a contested major lawsuit in a month is amazing.
1%
I was referring to the previous not-consummated purchase.
The new one is 50%.
The notion that an association of civil engineers–prior owners–did not have flow detectors on their sprinklers is a bit surprising.
And because I think all the points obscure this, I want to ;tldr again, I think the Wagner group is the affiliate (the LPO) as far as the LNC is concerned. I see no jurisdiction to do anything but disaffiliate if they don’t want to be associated with them. Yes the OR state law appears to be lacking but it is what it is. The LNC accepts this when they accept affiliates organized under state laws. Change the law. Or violent revolt. As a party we have chosen (and pledged) to the path of working in system…. so here we are.
Tom Knapp wrote:
Hagan was also an alternate when I was an alternate on the LNC (2004-2006). He can work with anyone and I’ve found he gathers information to make an informed decision rather than voting on any issue because his friends vote a certain way. I suspect he’ll side with the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wagner), but he’s not a factional guy and his votes are sometimes surprising.
As for Nevada, if I recall correctly he was a treasurer initially under Silvestri, then he was given the boot because he didn’t fall in line with the dictator. He joined the rebellion and is now treasurer under Pojunis. Hagan keeps good books as treasuer, doesn’t rock the boat, and votes his conscience.
Paulie wrote:
I also suspect Vohra will lean towards the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wagner). For Vohra radical vs. Republican is a factor in his decision as well. But his vote is less predictable than Mattson’s.
I don’t see my “influence” as being particularly relevant in any upcoming vote. Most of them are familiar with all the issues — including Vohra. If Sarwark asks me to talk to someone in particular, I will; otherwise, I don’t see much point beating a dead horse.
The only person I make a point of talking to about Oregon is Redpath. This isn’t because Redpath is particularly likely to listen to me — if anything, the opposite — but rather because Redpath talks regularly to M Carling and Alicia Mattson and has drunk their Kool-Aid, so I want to make sure he gets some perspective and facts that aren’t being filtered through the Carling lens. In particular, I’ve found before talking to me he wasn’t aware of some of the ballot access issues (surprising for Redpath), wasn’t aware the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wagner) uses proportional representation, and was convinced the lawsuit would be a slam dunk win for Reeves that would be over in a month.
It’s true that Lark didn’t recuse himself before, so may not in the future either. I’ve found Lark is very concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest though and abstains probably more often than any other LNC member, so it’s always possible.
Tom btw, I may change something I said above, I need to go read the old bylaws again… I am not in front of a computer I can do that at for a while.
Tom,
==I’ve been thinking about your line of reasoning, and I have a counter-argument to your contention that the Reeves Gang may have been the correctly elected group of officers back when.==
I am glad you said “may” because I really don’t know.
==As you correctly point out, the organization that has heretofore been the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon is the organization recognized under Oregon law as the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Not BECA– USE it is recognized under Oregon law; it just HAPPENS to be the same organization.===
Yes. This is a point that many seem to get really wrong.
==Now, your contention that the Reeves Gang were the correct officers relies on the previously existing bylaws.===
“May” have been….
== But those bylaws were established conditionally, under and subject to Oregon law’s definitions of political parties. And both Oregon’s Secretary of State and the Oregon courts have agreed on two things in the litigation so far:
1) That a “doctrine of necessity” supervenes party bylaws when it applies; and
2) That in this situation it DID apply, and that the Wagner faction correctly applied them.==
Here is where I go off the rails from your reasoning. I would need to see the case law and the state law I suppose, but let’s take this just as completely accurate for the sake of argument.
A doctrine of necessarily means only the means necessary to overcome the catastrophic hurdle. This would have been amending the quorum requirement. I would parallel to the MAP (minimization of aggression principle or as Block puts it, “in the gentlest way possible.”)
So I would say that the Wagner group overstepped their mandate from the doctrine of necessity and do not see by what authority they cancelled the schedule convention the following month (I believe it was the following month, going from memory).
That is another reason I asked about the timing of the mail-outs.
==In this particular situation, Oregon state law on political parties precedes, and overrides, internal procedures which conflict with it.===
This get a little hairy here, but I follow your reasoning. I would counter with… only if they wish to remain a political party. A group can decide not to, and the membership of that group needs to be presented with that decision. Which is why I reject a unilateral redefinition of membership, even if the statutes define membership differently. The voluntarily organized membership would have to decide to change or face the consequences.
== LPO’s resort to that law versus its internal bylaws was entirely appropriate. It would have been inappropriate if LPO had been a private group with a voluntary association agreement not organized under that state law. But that was not the case.==
See above for the little distinction I would take here. They are a voluntary association who agreed to be a organized as a political party. They can voluntarily decide not to be. Their agreement is not inalienable, they can, as a group, change their mind.
But I agree that the quorum issue was making it impossible to even be a group so that there was an emergency situation. Whether that should have been handled at an ExComm, I can see how it could be but I think the more prudent action would have been to take to a court who I understand under statute can override quorum impossibilities.
Good sense is unlikely to prevail. However, as you know, I believe it did prevail on the office purchase. Not sure where you get 1% from; it’s half of a building which is attached by a brick walkway/wall and parking lot with six other such buildings. You could call it half a building, which is what I would call it based on my observations of when I was there, or a twelfth, but certainly not 1%. I think that may refer to another unit we looked at and did not get. Anyway, much better than remaining at the watergate or continuing to sink money into rent at some other office around there. Moving out of the DC area was never seriously on the table, and I made arguments elsewhere on IPR why it shouldn’t have been. Regardless of all that, I think you are right that good sense is unlikely to prevail here.
===It basically has been, beacuse the court case is highly unlikely to go anywhere. Maybe the Epstein group will have a chance if they get a Republican SOS, but that probably won’t happen either.===
Which goes back to my saying Doug’s point on the legal status is persuasive for as far who the LNC must recognize or disaffiliate. Whether or not this is violative of a group’s right to self-define is another matter that the LNC does not have jurisdiction over.
Caryn,
I’ve been thinking about your line of reasoning, and I have a counter-argument to your contention that the Reeves Gang may have been the correctly elected group of officers back when.
As you correctly point out, the organization that has heretofore been the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon is the organization recognized under Oregon law as the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Not BECA– USE it is recognized under Oregon law; it just HAPPENS to be the same organization.
Now, your contention that the Reeves Gang were the correct officers relies on the previously existing bylaws. But those bylaws were established conditionally, under and subject to Oregon law’s definitions of political parties. And both Oregon’s Secretary of State and the Oregon courts have agreed on two things in the litigation so far:
1) That a “doctrine of necessity” supervenes party bylaws when it applies; and
2) That in this situation it DID apply, and that the Wagner faction correctly applied them.
In this particular situation, Oregon state law on political parties precedes, and overrides, internal procedures which conflict with it. LPO’s resort to that law versus its internal bylaws was entirely appropriate. It would have been inappropriate if LPO had been a private group with a voluntary association agreement not organized under that state law. But that was not the case.
===There’s also the concept of detrimental reliance that may be of interest to some people.
When a person or persons have acted in reliance on a decision for four years, there’s a reason that a court would not just rescind such a decision.===
Yes there are issues of equity no doubt.
====However, and Caryn in particular is completely missing this point, this is primarily a political question, not a legal or Roberts question. The core issue is “who should the LNC want to have as their affiliate? A group of people who ran a whole pile of candidates, or a couple of folks who do rather little?===
The bylaws do not permit this. Who they “want” as their affiliate is already decided. The LPO is their affiliate. The time for that “political” decision was done at the point of affiliation. The bylaws does not give them the right to interfere with an internal dispute by deciding pragmatically which group they like better. The LPO is who is legally recognized as our bylaws do not provide any other means for recognition. I have no problem with the LNC having the authority to decide these ethical issues IF THEY had the power. I don’t have a philosophical theoretical problem with it. I have the problem that is a voluntary group organized under voluntary rules and this isn’t one of their powers.
I’m not sure that Tim would consider Silvestri’s actions towards the end of his decade as LPNV chair to be part of a Starr/Carling/Mattson takeover or not. How did he vote on the Oregon-related motions earlier this term?
However, and Caryn in particular is completely missing this point, this is primarily a political question, not a legal or Roberts question. The core issue is “who should the LNC want to have as their affiliate? A group of people who ran a whole pile of candidates, or a couple of folks who do rather little?
I was on the LNC with Arvin, and he sided solidly with Reeves/Burke. You are friends with him so you may have some influence there? Redpath I think may be more concerned with the ballot access issue at this point. If Lark didn’t recuse himself before why would he now?
I would be surprised if Hagan didn’t vote with Sarwark. I can’t claim to know him WELL, but I have met and talked with him (IIRC he was an LNC alternate back in the day when I was). He’s from Nevada, right? And if I’m not mistaken, he was part of the rebellion against the Starr/Carling/Mattson takeover of THAT state LP, when they dissolved all of LPNV’s county affiliates and turned the state party into a moribund Wayne Allyn Root fan club. So he knows he’s dealing with snakes, and that’s a good start.
laches? As in, too bad, the door has swung shut and things clicked inside, a long time ago? (Yes, bad and tired pun)
I believe that Moulton is more or less right about the LNC vote. However, I expect Vohra will vote with Sarwark, assuming Sarwark supports the current affiliate.
On the other hand, the issue may be passed to the full LNC.
However, there was also a wrong lesson learned from Arizona, namely that if you as LNC decide to eject a state party the consequences will necessarily be minor and short-lived. It appears to me that the Oregon people believe that it is advantageous to have a national party, which we do, as witness national dues, a national committee, etc., and therefore they need to get one with a sound organization. Part of that getting will I expect be clearing out the parasite that ejected them.
Of course, if good sense prevails the current affiliate will remain as the affiliate. The smart money (see ‘the David Nolan 1% of a building’) is not on the LNC making the right decision.
It basically has been, beacuse the court case is highly unlikely to go anywhere. Maybe the Epstein group will have a chance if they get a Republican SOS, but that probably won’t happen either.
They also have potential consequences for lying, destroying evidence .. the list goes on and on.
Using just common sense alone, you already know that Alicia for one isn’t just going to leave it alone. Given how the votes relating to Oregon already went earlier this term does not create a cause for optimism here.
There’s also the concept of detrimental reliance that may be of interest to some people.
When a person or persons have acted in reliance on a decision for four years, there’s a reason that a court would not just rescind such a decision.
Another thing they have in real courts is claim and issue preclusion.
Paulie also I would argue that the bylaws provision for a convention vote are designed for the delegates to be belly to belly for a reason. A mail in vote IMHO to cover these bases would have to at a minimum be sent to all if the previous class, they have to have had an opportunity to oppose- they might have changed the mind of others. The knowledge that the votes were sent to all libertarians could gave influenced the prior class in avast that wouldn’t have happened otherwise…. We don’t know.
But yes, if the statistics and numbers are a fact that is a point in the Wagner’s group favor. This is an internal/OR dispute that has to be resolved there.
Another thing they have in real courts is a concept called laches.
It’s possible that might apply to sitting on a claim for four years until you can get the tribunal you want.
George Phillies wrote:
It is good that Carling did not vote on either motion, given his clear conflict of interest.
The vote is not surprising. Latham was on the JC that issued the rescinded decision, and back then he wanted to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On the second motion I suspect the ones who wanted to rule for Epstein thought it was moot (defaults to the Reeves crew with previous LNC decisions and no more JC decision — and even if it didn’t, a sympathetic LNC / EC will rule that way later this term) –, whereas the ones who wanted to rule against Epstein thought there was no subject matter jurisdiction — and even if there was, a majority of the JC would rule in favor of Epstein. It’s hard to pin down how people would behave in a counterfactual and what the reasoning of various people is in a vote… this is just my best guess.
George Phillies wrote:
George Phillies wrote:
The current LNC executive committee is:
Nick Sarwark
Sam Goldstein
Jim Lark
Alicia Mattson
William Redpath
Arvin Vohra
Tim Hagan
Of these Redpath, Lark, and Mattson voted for the Reeves crew in the above referenced motion from a previous LNC. Lark is a life member of the LP Oregon under the Reeves bylaws. Mattson was in Oregon for some of the earlier fireworks and sent a letter to the secretary of state supporting the Reeves crew.
Mattson will be solidly in the Reeves / Epstein camp. Lark will probably be in that camp, but there is a chance he may change his mind given the litigation history or abstain given his conflict of interest. Redpath will probably fall in that camp, but there is a chance he may change his mind given the near certain loss of Oregon ballot access and the fact that the Wagner bylaws use proportional representation (which Wagner has not emphasized enough to Redpath, who is a board member on FairVote).
Sarwark will support the Libertarian Party of Oregon (i.e., Wagner) given his past JC vote, statements, and actions as LNC chair.
Hagan and Vohra are harder to predict. I suspect they will be more open to persuasion from Sarwark than from others, but they are certainly independent people who will form their own conclusions.
I suspect Goldstein will vote for the Reeves crew given past conversations with him and the fact that he comes from Indiana, where he has been listening to the opinions of Rutherford, Sink-Burris, etc. about this matter for years. However, Goldstein also has an independent streak and has been open to Sarwark’s views many times before.
* still munching popcorn *
Although that doesn’t tell you how many did not vote (because they did not consider the election to be legitimate, or because they didn’t care – we don’t know).
Supposing that’s true that is a point in your favor. Of course it’s easier to vote by mail than to attend a convention, especially if it’s not even in your city, but even if it is.
A judicial body and an executive body have different roles.
We shall see what, if anything, happens next.
Tom I am pleased to see we agree on the main points vis a vis that disaffiliation was the only option they had.
Some of them may have been life members of LPO (old definition) and are still registered LP voters in Oregon (your definition). A few may be registered LP voters of Oregon who are also dues-paying members of the Burke/Reeves/Epstein group. So not necessarily none.
===Statistically there has to be more yes-es from the previous class of membership in the vote than nos. That is how math works. Also more previous members of the previous class voted than had attended any convention in the history of the party for as far back as anyone has records.===
I am not a statistician. I would love to see how you prove this, and how you calculate what members of the previous class were not coextensive with this one. Also how the bylaws deal with allowing this kind of vote versus what the state law says. I would think the bylaws allowed that everyone have the opportunity to vote and this mail in ballot did not do that.
When did this mail in vote occur? (I do not have this on my timeline I don’t think. What was actually asked?)
Of course all this is irrelevant to the LNC at this point as far as I am concerned they don’t have the right to decide on these disputes except to disaffiliate.
None because they haven’t paid dues and ceased doing so to maintain their class of membership long ago. 😉
“The only option the LNC has is to disaffilate.”
And that’s the only option they’ve ever had. Unfortunately, over the last decade or so, the Starr/Mattson/Carling group has been very cagey about manipulating things to create a general fog about whatever they’re up to.
If the LNC had disaffiliated Oregon in 2011 and chosen a new affiliate, there would have been consequences, but it would at least have been formally legitimate and a lot fewer people OUTside of Oregon would have taken a continuing interest in the matter.
That’s what happened in 1999 with Arizona. The LNC moved to disaffiliate the Arizona LP, on the same premise that they acted on Oregon in 2011: “We don’t know which organization claiming to be the AZLP is the real one.” [NB: That was bullshit; they knew which organization was the real AZLP but had reasons for wanting to replace it with a more pliable group; but at least they followed procedure] The disaffiliation cost Harry Browne presidential ballot access in the 2000 presidential election.
With Oregon, instead of just disaffiliating LPO, choosing their preferred organization as the new affiliate, and accepting the consequences, what happened is that the SMC cabal manipulated the executive committee, rather than the whole LNC, into using the “we don’t know who the real officers” argument into claiming the power to DECIDE who the real officers were, and pretending that what it was doing was not a disaffiliation. That’s what led to the appeal to the Judicial Committee and the ruling that the new Judicial Committee just pretended it had jurisdiction to overturn.
It was a mess. And that’s a lesson that needs to be learned:
Whatever their overall goal or goals may be, Starr/Mattson/Carling’s STRATEGY is to look for weak points on the LNC and in parliamentary procedure and then use those weak points to create fake controversies (e.g. pretending that R. Lee Wrights could be “automatically” removed from the LNC by having their pet LNC secretary “notice” a claimed irregularity in his dues payments) or to leverage real controversies into much larger and more divisive affairs than they have to be (e.g. trying to hide a disaffiliation as an EC administrative manner; discovering language in Robert’s that created a power to put a poll tax on convention delegates where it was quite clear in the bylaws and had long been a universally acknowledged fact that no such power existed; etc.). Making a new controversial mess every six months or so just to keep the party fighting internally instead of accomplishing real political goals may or may not be their end goal, but it’s certainly their preferred tactic.
How many of the old members are also current members (i.e., are now registered Libertarian)?
Wes makes an interesting point, namely that the plebiscite ballot did go out to a large number of members under the old definition, namely the ones who were also registered Libertarian, and the vote among that group was in favor of the new bylaws.
Some of the previous dues paying members were not eligible to vote in your plebescite (M Carling, for example). Others would have been eligible, but chose not to, since they did not consider it a legitimate question. That doesn’t mean that most of them were against what you did, but it also doesn’t mean most of them were OK with it – neither their lack of voting against it in your plebiscite, nor their lack of attendance at Burke/Reeves conventions, is definitive proof. Chances are a lot of them have lost interest in the LP altogether since then, either because of yoru feud, the many reasons people lose interest in the LP in any state, or a combination of both.
But the upshot of course here is that I think the LNC has to recognize the officers determined in accordance with the state or disaffiliate. And that the bylaws and propiety dispute is not within the gambit of the LNC. The organization has to work that out.
“Neither do you. The burden is on you to prove so. The members as defined by the existing voluntary organization had the right to ratify. You changing the bylaws have the burden to show they did before claiming consent of the governed.”
Statistically there has to be more yes-es from the previous class of membership in the vote than nos. That is how math works. Also more previous members of the previous class voted than had attended any convention in the history of the party for as far back as anyone has records.
Sarwark’s email triggering a new window is a moot point now, because that related to the Epstein petition, which was dismissed.
The question now is whether the JC in 2015 can simply open a case from 2011 for reconsideration. Carling did not recuse himself, and ruled that it can. A majority of the current JC upheld that ruling and voted to rescind the 2011 decision – and it’s true that Carling did not vote on those matters, but he didn’t have to, because he already had the votes. The more imporant matter was that it was him who decided that the JC could simply reconsider decisions from past terms any time it wants to begin with. There would have been no hearing if he hadn’t called it. The Epstein petition was just a diversion, bargaining chip, or trial balloon that didn’t fly. It may have been a way to distract opposition, or perhaps a way to get Rob Latham’s vote so M wouldn’t have to vote himself.
Mark Hinkle, Chair of the LNC, hired Tyler Smith (who was a republican lawyer and also then the son of the Oregon Republican Party vice-chair and now is the Oregon Republican Party vice chair) to give a legal opinion to the LNC Ex-comm about what to do. The money used to hire him was never lawfully authorized by the LNC and violated the set policies.
He then signed a conflict of interest waiver to release Mr. Smith to represent the Reeves group after they finally lost their bids to be recognized at the LNC so that Mr Smith could utilize the intellectual property the LNC paid for in pursuing litigation against us.
===When we ran the plebiscite we do not know how people voted because there was a secret ballot, but if you assume all the NO votes came from the previous dues paying members, and count how many previous dues paying members voted, you cannot even arrive at a majority of previous dues paying members voting no.===
Neither do you. The burden is on you to prove so. The members as defined by the existing voluntary organization had the right to ratify. You changing the bylaws have the burden to show they did before claiming consent of the governed.
(This also explains why the Reeves crew is never any larger than about 6-8 people who actually live in Oregon)
Wes
==The rightful owners of the party are and were the registered libertarians of Oregon, not the feudal class who had it usurped.===
You can’t usurp a voluntary agreement (the bylaws) unless you violate the bylaws. Arguably your group usurped it. That is for the original member group to pursue if they wish.
=== If national does not like the new government because it does not evince their ends of feudalism, hierarchy and nationalism — they could have always voted to disaffiliate instead of paying money to republican lawyers to try to take us over and put the dispossessed loyalists (who never did perfect their claims) back into control.===
Here we have agreement. The only option the LNC has is to disaffilate.
Still unclear who paid Republican lawyers – that was an individual LNC member not the LNC right? Do they live in OR? Of course someone can step in to assist people they think are right but I find it highly personally ethically problematic for an LNC member to do that when the LNC has entangled themselves.
I have no love for the Republicanization of our party or the insipid moderation of libertarian principles Wes.
The 2011 JC reasoning was sound.
When we ran the plebiscite we do not know how people voted because there was a secret ballot, but if you assume all the NO votes came from the previous dues paying members, and count how many previous dues paying members voted, you cannot even arrive at a majority of previous dues paying members voting no.
Yes and yes.
Pursue through what means, though? Reeves, Carling and the other plaintiffs in their case say that they are acting on behalf of the prior class of members through their lawsuit and through pursuing their case to the national LP. Whether they really do speak for most of the prior class of members is questionable. True, they do hold conventions where those of the prior definition of membership can vote, but as I understand it few people have attended those. It may be that most of the prior class of members are OK with the new rules or simply don’t care, or that it’s not a big deal to them, or that they actually like the change. If so, it’s not likely that they would bother to tell Burke, Reeves, et al, because it’s not worth their time and effort to do so.
As for the LNC’s right to disaffiliate, it comes with a loss of ballot access as well as provoking the nuclear option response from Wagner et al., wich may or may not be coming otherwise anyway. However, those on the LNC who believe Reeves et al is the proper affiliate don’t see it as a need to disaffiliate, because they don’t consider Wagner et al to be or have ever been the affiliate. The LNC would be smarter to leave well enough alone here, but there’s little chance that will happen, and slim may have just gone to none thanks to the Carling committee ruling.
“For the LNC to switch its affiliate to a group with no ballot access seeral years later just because that group (disputably) may have followed prior procedure seems unwise. ” So are you predicting that they will do it? One might suppose that the JudComm or part of it) thinks that they have already done it.
Back on the subject that started all this, Carling did not vote which is what was asked for as far is it goes. However it was he who decided that the issue could have heard to begin with – he should have passed the baton on that decision. That is a wrong decision is another matter. There was no standing to bring this. If there was a constructive disaffiliation of the Reeves/Epstein group (I dispute that- the internal dispute of the LPO has to be resolved by them in their state or the LNC had to disaffiliate from the LPO) it happened long before – Sarwark’s email did not trigger a new window.
Mr. Wagner;
Below is an email string between Tyler Smith and myself. As you can see, we see the
Libertarian Party of Oregon as an entity independent of any other organization. No matter
what the LNC does it will not impact the standing of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. The only
way the Libertarian Party of Oregon could be affected is if we were presented a binding court
decision that the Libertarian Party of Oregon could no longer use the word Libertarian in their
party name if a court were to decide that the LNC has exclusive rights to the use of the word
Libertarian.
I hope this clarifies our position. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
We will be expecting nominations for the 1st Congressional Special Election from you as Chair
of the LPO.
Stephen N. Trout
Director of Elections
Oregon Secretary of State
503-986-1518
[email protected]
The rightful owners of the party are and were the registered libertarians of Oregon, not the feudal class who had it usurped. If national does not like the new government because it does not evince their ends of feudalism, hierarchy and nationalism — they could have always voted to disaffiliate instead of paying money to republican lawyers to try to take us over and put the dispossessed loyalists (who never did perfect their claims) back into control.
Is it Groundhog Day again?
I’ve seen the case laid out that they did not have a quorum of current exec comm members during the post-quorumless-convention meeting that created the “Reeves group”, that they had people who had already resigned from the exec comm earlier voting there, people claiming to represent various counties with no evidence that they had been elected or appointed to represent those counties, at least one member of a Republican state or county committee, etc. I’ve seen details on this before but don’t remember where. I’ve also seen them deny this allegation.
Supposing it’s true, though, there are no rightful officers, if by rightful you mean following a chain of proper procedure under the prior bylaws.
Who the state party is on the ground in Oregon seems pretty hard to dispute – they’re recognized by the state (which seems unlikely to change), run lots of candidates, have been recognized as both the ballot-qualified party and the LNC affiliate for about four years now. For the LNC to switch its affiliate to a group with no ballot access seeral years later just because that group (disputably) may have followed prior procedure seems unwise. And from everything I’ve seen, it seems very unlikely that the SOS or the courts will change who the state recognizes, or that they will care who the LNC recognizes.
Wes – the organization was created voluntarily under certain rules. The organization is not like the state where it is a monopoly. The voluntarily governed are those who agree to the rules- and that includes the membership definition. You can’t just break the rules to change the membership definition and use that new membership definition to say see? We have the consent of the governed.
But I also think this is an OR matter and one for the prior class of members to pursue if they wish and the LNC has the right to disaffiliate if they wish.
So who all is on the committee to ensure that we rescind that whole US Constitution thing and beg the royal family of England to let us come back into the fold because that whole thing was illegal and not done according to the rules?
The proper leaders are the ones who have the consent of the governed. The fact that this is so hard to understand is very worrisome.
Sent you a PM. I got your blog through my blog reader and didn’t even think to go look at the actual site (please get on iTunes so I can get the podcast easier!)
Caryn,
The friend request is no longer pending — not sure why I hadn’t already confirmed it. I try to go through and confirm them all once or twice a week.
I can also be reached through the contact link at my blog (I’d post my email address here, but that would get it harvested by the spam bots).
Tom what is the best way to reach you privately? I have an old pending friend request to you on FB
Caryn,
I’m not an internal LP ideas/plans guy anymore — the necessity for that was a large part of what made me give up the LP for four years (2010 until last year). The only thing that brought me back was Nick getting elected chair. I figured that was a sign that at least SOME people were getting serious about setting things right.
I’m sure there are a few people out there already working on possible LNC and Judicial Committee slates. I’ll be trying to hook up with them at some point as a minor player (or, just maybe, as a candidate for the Judicial Committee). I’ll let you know when and if I do, and I hope you’ll tell me if you find them first 🙂
==Just because I’m defending the course that LPO/Wagner may take, that doesn’t mean I think it’s the only possible course, or even the best one. I’m all for trying to get good people onto the LNC and its various sub-committees to turn things around (and I’ve tried to be one of those good people a number of times, with a modicum of success — regional alternate on the LNC for a bit, and a term on the Judicial Committee).==
If you have ideas/plans for this I am all ears and a likely ally. I think we are friends on FB as this discussion, if you wish, should not take place here.
Tom my question is if neither group acted within the bylaws (you concede Wagner did not- I need to be persuaded that Reeves did not by citing actual bylaw provisions and events) then who would be the rightful officers?
Citing people abusing the bylaws in the past as justification to abuse the bylaws oneself is not persuasive to me under legal or libertarian grounds. This is a voluntary association who organized under certain rules. If Reeves et al abused them in the past action was to be taken within the rules or through the courts or through contacting libertarians and getting it changed. Or petitioning the LNC to disaffiliate for cause
Caryn,
You write:
“Tom this is where I disagree – though I think it is an OR matter. It seems to me that the Reeves group was elected under the bylaws.”
It’s been a long time since I looked at LPO’s old bylaws, but I think I would remember if they included a provision that allowed new officers to be elected by a fake “state committee” composed largely of people who, under those same bylaws, could not possibly be part of said committee.
“Tom this is where I disagree – though I think it is an OR matter. It seems to me that the Reeves group was elected under the bylaws.”
And I agree. NEITHER group acted in accordance with the then-existing bylaws.
One group, which had been abusing those bylaws for years in an effort to keep LPO from ever succeeding in the political arena, held a fake “state committee meeting” and elected itself in charge.
The other group, which had been fighting within the bounds of those bylaws for years in an effort to have LPO start succeeding in the political arena, finally said “obviously these bylaws do not work, and the doctrine of necessity requires us to come up with ones that do.”
If I see two cars going down the road well in excess of the speed limit, I’ll agree that they’re both breaking the law. But if I find out that one of those drivers is speeding to get his pregnant wife to the hospital, and the other one is speeding in hopes of seizing the opportunity to run down a pedestrian in the next crosswalk, I’m going to end up with a distinct preference in favor of one of those drivers and against the other.
For those of us without sufficient life spans to read this entire thread can someone provide a synopsis?
The ;tldr is this. The LNC has no power not to accept the Wagner group unless OR rules that way. It has the power to disaffiliate to protect its assets.
Tom this is where I disagree – though I think it is an OR matter. It seems to me that the Reeves group was elected under the bylaws.
Let’s say they were not and Wagner’s bylaw wholesale replacement was invalid- who would have been the officers?
Exhaust that then would be my position. I do not think what Wagner did was proper under the existing bylaws.
The quorum problem could have been dealt with by itself. Either through emergency powers (sketchy) or by appeal to the state to resolve under OR statute
Thank you for your clarification Tom. From what I know of you – you would be one of those good people.
“If this was not done right the whole enterprise fails and the Reeves group was elected.”
If this was not done right, I suppose it’s possible that the whole enterprise fails.
However, there are no circumstances under which the Reeves Gang was elected. Their “state committee meeting” election was the equivalent of me creating a new board of directors for Apple by calling up five other non-stockholders up and having them come over to my house for a “shareholders’ meeting.”
Specifically I read the 9/23/11 JC clarification (and original decision) and I think it is right in its interpretation as far as the power of National goes by our own governing documents
Caryn,
“Tom, in theory you are right. But why not advocate (if this is what is best for Libertarians and represents actual Libertarians) that like-minded people run for positions and turn things around? If that is not possible how do you suppose a new organization will do that? you will need the will of the parties to support a new organization and if you have support you can change the LNC…”
Just because I’m defending the course that LPO/Wagner may take, that doesn’t mean I think it’s the only possible course, or even the best one. I’m all for trying to get good people onto the LNC and its various sub-committees to turn things around (and I’ve tried to be one of those good people a number of times, with a modicum of success — regional alternate on the LNC for a bit, and a term on the Judicial Committee).
Paulie
==LNC has no jurisdiction over the state but it does have jurisdiction over who its state affiliate is. The Carling JC decision is that we are not bound to recognize the state-recognized party as the LNC affiliate. They will next post to previous LNC decisions that say the other side is the LNC affiliate.==
The affiliate is who it always has been– the one that has continuously statutorily existed as LPO is my argument and that it is not the job of the LNC to determine which group that is- it is done by OR. If the members or potential members in OR wish to challenge it seems they need to do so in OR or our Bylaws need to be changed to give the LNC that power. I am still reading more- Perhaps I will yet be persuaded differently.
That would make it the Wagner group.
But… All that being said, I now know the timeline (I am pretty sure unless something significant is missing) and I do not believe at this point the Wagner group assumed power properly. If it was the LNC’s job to determine which bylaws were in effect (and my interim opinion is that it was not) then it seems to me they came to the right conclusion on the bylaws.
I am willing to be persuaded either that it was the LNC’s job or that the Wagner group assumed power properly.
It pains me to say the Wagner group didn’t assume power properly so far as I understand right now. From every indication that I see, I think the intentions and believes (and motives) of the Reeves/Epstein group are antithetical to what I believe and the opposite of what I want for the Party.
So this brings us to the tyranny of the law argument by Wagner that an overthrow was just on moral principles. That is a tacit concession that the procedure was not followed but it was justified not to. While again, I am all about the ideologically firestorming – if I am anything it is a radical firebrand – if we are going to be a legal political party there are rules whether we like them or not. My views on the state are pretty well known.
It seems to me that if the LNC felt there was internal malfeasance, it is not their job to adjudicate it (someone show me the rules/bylaw/manual where it says it is?) but to disaffiliate to protect its assets.
Opinion subject to change but this is where I am at.
Brian,
National had a problematic group of people running the LNC in 2011. Many but not all of them were tossed. Enough of them are still there that there is an issue. Worse, they and probable friends appear to still be a majority of the ExComm. Some who were snet on their way moved over top the Judicial Committee. Amusingly, some of the ones who were sent on their way were put on the Judicial Committee instead. Thus, the issue is still here.
George
Paulie by national LP- does he mean collectively the states? You see the target of hostility here seems to jump from the LNC to the whole of the states/LP which casts any moderating attempts out the window
Jim what are you on about? I have poor eyesight and most of the time and one finger typing on my phone. You do better with errors in those conditions.
Or go all eye-spy and imagine some sweaty spy on a mission.
As the ExComm resolution in place on who the officers are has no meaning, the LNC ExComm may need to act again. The resolution on which bylaws are in place is problematic for the same reason.
Most delegates until recently received every second or so issue of Liberty for America, and had some detail on what was going on.
Differet people with different motivations.
For some it’s because they are friends and factional allies of Burke and want many of the same things on the national level that he does. For some it’s becase they believe it is a matter of principle, because they believe the Burke/Reeves side followed the 2009 bylaws and the Wagner side didn’t. For some, they don’t really care about any of that, they just see how hostile Wagner is to them, as far as they know or understand unprovoked. Most probably wish the whole thing would just go away.
Each side has their own bylaws. Epstein/Reeves have ones that have been somewhat amended since 2009, whereas Wagner/Hedbor have ones that are far more radically different than the 2009 bylaws. The argument of those on the LNC who side with Epstein/Reeves, who are probably a majority of the LNC, will probably be that the 2011 JC decision was the only basis for the LNC to recognize Wagner/Hedbor rather than Reeves/Epstein, and that in it absence other prior LNC rulings point in the other direction.
LNC has no jurisdiction over the state but it does have jurisdiction over who its state affiliate is. The Carling JC decision is that we are not bound to recognize the state-recognized party as the LNC affiliate. They will next post to previous LNC decisions that say the other side is the LNC affiliate.
Whuh ?!
From context, LP.
Jim, she already said it’s keyboard issues. I have them too.
Caryn Ann Harlos: You said, “I have am [sic] now a bit more familiar with this old timeline…”
People who are nervous make errors in their verbiage. You then said, “That being said, unless OR and it’s members have to resolve.” [again, SIC]
You apparently have a lot to be nervous about! Are you here on a mission?
While I can’t say I am familiar in detail with the history, I suspect you are wrong to have said, “If this was not done right the whole enterprise fails and the Reeves group was elected.”
Whether or not they WERE elected, that doesn’t mean they have legally remained elected since then.
The Burke cabal have been trouble-makers for as long as I was familiar with Oregon libertarian politics: 1995 and probably earlier. Ask people who were THERE.
Back in 1995 I was elected chair of the Libertarian party of Oregon and almost immediately found myself in the middle of a fight started by Mr. Burke. I ran offering to do three things.; develop a public relations program, outreach to the registered Libertarians and bringing those two things together to support LP candidates. Senator Bob Packwood resigned during my time as chair. I was in Colorado taking care of details after my stepson died. Burke and company had planned an executive committee meeting while I was out of town at which they were going to make Burke the executive director and sideline me. That meeting surprised him and his buddies when they got a recall petition handed to them. Meanwhile I had called Tonie Nathan asking her to start looking for a candidate for us to run and I quickly headed home with some of our work in Colorado left undone. As it turned out when I got back to Portland nothing had been done towards getting the work moving forward on selecting a candidate. I suggested calling a convention. Burke told me I did not have the authority to do so. Well I went ahead and did so not knowing what legal problems I was creating for myself. After we have a candidate on the ballot I decided to resign and avoid a nasty fight which I had no desire to be in. You see someone was calling my home and when my wife answered they hung up. Since she was dealing with a serious disability at the time I had no desire to put her through any more. This has been going on since the early 1990s and if you think this is going to stop any time soon well I have a bridge to sell you. Someone is going to have to go broke before they quit. And for what it is worth we had a number of people leave the party over this nonsense.
I have am now a bit more familiar with this old timeline than most and have to say I do not think those bylaws were amended properly and nor that ORS 248 section applies. If this was not done right the whole enterprise fails and the Reeves group was elected.
That being said, unless OR and it’s members have to resolve.
Still searching for justification on national getting involved. I don’t see it.
Libertarians like M Carling inspire me to thank God that our government is instead being run by Republicans and Democrats.
Wes what does that mean?
Knapp
The cancer and rot has spread beyond the LNC … a larger solution is necessary.
The structure and culture combined of the current national party makes reformation from within impossible. The average convention is composed of over 50% of delegates who have never attended a convention before typically… therefore they will via inertia refuse to make any radical changes to the organization because they lack the history of the organization to understand how necessary it is.
A convention specifically called for the purpose of reformation on the other hand would be effective because the people showing up would specifically be doing so for the purpose of restructuring and setting aside old problems.
Tom, in theory you are right. But why not advocate (if this is what is best for Libertarians and represents actual Libertarians) that like-minded people run for positions and turn things around? If that is not possible how do you suppose a new organization will do that? you will need the will of the parties to support a new organization and if you have support you can change the LNC…
It seems circular.
Bryan
National what?
“the LNC can, if it becomes necessary, be replaced by a different organization”
It has become necessary and hasn’t happened. National is to blame.
“I will not sacrifice the sovereignty of Oregon for the faintest hope of redemption of the LP – which no longer deserves any such consideration after their series of depraved actions.”
Goddammit, Wes, you of all people I should not have to keep reminding of this:
THE LNC IS NOT THE LP.
The LNC is one organization that serves some specific functions for the various state LPs, binding them together in such a way that it is reasonable to treat the aggregate as “a national LP,” but the LNC itself is not that “national LP.”
The quicker people — especially LNC members and national convention delegates — get it through their heads that the LNC can, if it becomes necessary, be replaced by a different organization to fulfill those functions, the less likely it will become necessary to do so.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that we’re past the point of no return, that the LNC is corrupted and dysfunctional beyond salvaging, and that the choice has become whether to replace the LNC or let the LNC drag the virtual “national party” down with it. But in neither case does the LNC itself constitute that “national party.” It’s just a single node in a much larger enterprise.
^^^^ is why I registered NAV when I left ORP even though I align with what Wes has done. I just switched to LPO yesterday because Wes convinced me no matter what National does, Reeves and those like him are never taking over.
==That’s when members of the LNC came to Oregon to interfere with the state conventions on behalf of Richard Burke to keep the bylaws from being change to include the registered libertarians which allow the LPO to maintain ballot access without having to petition for it every two years.==
Did they do this on behalf of the LNC? Or personally as individual Libertarians?
And Florida had this same issue with regards to membership. It isn’t as clear cut as that, though the wording of the OR law may be different from Florida. They handled it by voting on whether or not to change the bylaws to remove the pledge for instance. They voted against it. If there are repercussions from the state, they will have to handle that…
I don’t think you can unilaterally change the bylaws to change the definition of membership without the consent of the members as provided in the bylaws. I just don’t. This has nothing to do with the state or the “rule of law” but a voluntarily arrangement in an organization.
But this is an OR issue.
On every sngle ideological issue you mentioned, I absolutely agree with you. If the LPO before was advocating those sorts of things, they could have been disaffiliated for cause I would think.
^^^ This is a very very common story in Oregon
Of all the things I’ve read today, this saddens me the most.
As to who’s definition of party member is correct, in Oregon, membership in a political party is defined by state law. ORS 248.002(4) “Member” means an individual who is registered as being affiliated with the political party.
Also ORS 248.005 states, 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.
Richard Burke and the Reeves group are doing the opposite of the above.
As a resident of Oregon since 1996 and a registered libertarian I have watched Richard Burke and his faction (the Reeves group) drive the LPO into the ground. In 1996 when I moved to Oregon there were 16 active county parties and by the time this dispute happened in 2010 there were only 5 active county parties.
When I joined the LPO in 1996 and tried to get involved in the state and county parties I was told by Richard Burke that because of my support of medical marijuana I wasn’t welcome in the LPO and that the LPO supported the war on drugs.
From then on until 2010 I keep my membership in the national party and refused to support the state party while Richard Burke was still involved.
In 2010 I got an email from the Wagner group asking for help reforming and rebuilding the LPO. That’s when members of the LNC came to Oregon to interfere with the state conventions on behalf of Richard Burke to keep the bylaws from being change to include the registered libertarians which allow the LPO to maintain ballot access without having to petition for it every two years.
Since then I have let my membership in the national party laps and refuse to have anything to do with the national party until the national party quits interfering with the state of Oregon. Also because of this interference the state now seems to be only trying to recruit candidates for office and fight the interference of the Reeves group and the national party.
Because of this when I go to events like marijuana rallies, gay rights events, gun rights events, and other events, when I find people interested in the libertarian movement I give them Information about the Advocates for Self-Government instead of the Libertarian Party because I no longer trust the Libertarian Party to be the party of principals because of people like Richard Burke, M Carling and the people who support them.
Jill how would the LNC (or JC) have any right to tell them what their bylaws are?
do not intend on working for the destruction of anyone— ack I hate typing
Wes I am a nobody who just wants to work for liberty.
I will not argue with you any longer. I am a friend. I do intend on working for the destruction of anyone. I just want liberty for the country. I want libertarians t be actual libertarians ( know you want this too)
I don’t thnk national has jurisdiction here – the LPO as recognized by the state of OR is its affiliate as far as I can see
You will do what you think you need to do.
I would love to chat ideology with you some day.
If you discussed this earlier and I missed it, sorry, but what is the state of the bylaws now? Does the JC think they have installed the old bylaws, due to its recission of the 2011 JC decision?
“but you have ideological friends that you have in the collateral damage.”
Grab a banner and stand on this side of the field…
Go on a nice vacation and come back later to rebuild….
But it would be ill-advised to jump in front of the other side to protect them from the flames.
Wes suit yourself. We do disagree and perhaps one day someone’s mnd will be changed.
I don’t think at this point national has any standing here, and if they intervene they are not doing the right thing. Our disagreement is in how you should handle it if they do.
I enjoy a good fire breathing stump as much as anyone (anyone who follows me on FB knows that is an understatement) – but you have ideological friends that you have in the collateral damage.
I will not cease t reach out to you agan, as one radical to another.
And I have been known t change my mind. Radically.
Peace.
I’d like to know what national has to gain by sticking it’s nose in this. Reeves group is what? A dozen or so people trying to align LPO with ORP? I left ORP and have no desire to rejoin it under some fake faction calling itself LP that is actually RP. I don’t get how national thinks it has any business in the matter.
“===The moment they are vulnerable enough to figuratively murder, we will. Self-preservation and moral imperative demands it.===
No that is vengeance and it is terribly ugly.”
No, it is self preservation and the moral imperative of all living creatures. I will not sacrifice the sovereignty of Oregon for the faintest hope of redemption of the LP – which no longer deserves any such consideration after their series of depraved actions.
I think we are done here – I will no longer converse with you on this matter because it is clear we have radically different moral paradigms of responsibility and civic duty.
There are reasons the statewide plebiscite came in at 97% in favor … the reformation was done to take care of issues of equity, egality and to deal with some bad actors with finality.
The previous bylaws violated so many issues of equity and egalitarianism that the bulk of the party found them unlawful in construct (read Bastiat – The Law if this principle is not understood) … therefor unworthy of respect and was abandoned with all due disrespect when continuing the theater of following it was impractical and the enemies of our cause sought to use them to press us again into ineffectiveness and suppression.
The law when it has become a perversion no longer binds people to obey it. First moral principles are higher than the law — and the concept that the law and the rules should be respected as a matter of near religious indoctrination — which some people have been trying to spoonfeed members of the LP for a while now through parliamentarianism and “rule of law (conservative horseshit)” — is in fact a perversion of the precepts of the age of reason.
I challenge you to find many things 97% of libertarians agree on when asked.
Wes
==Do you think for a moment that the malefactors in the LP will just leave us alone in peace if we were to walk away? They have aggressed against us on multiple occasions over a decade.===
Yes. You are not innocent here Wes. I find your definition of aggression a bit troubling as well.
==Sorry, but at this point they have proven themselves militant, incapable of remorse, are not sorry, and will continue to interfere in our affairs. They have attempted coups against us, have figuratively attempted to murder our organization on multiple occasions by taking it and handing it to the enemy, and they will do it again.==
The “they” you are referring to includes ideological friends you seek to destroy with friendly fire.
===The moment they are vulnerable enough to figuratively murder, we will. Self-preservation and moral imperative demands it.===
No that is vengeance and it is terribly ugly.
===You lack the depth of history and understanding to interpret this as a reasonable positions, but someone like Tom Knapp does not. If you honestly think you can talk us out of it, use an ambassador we would listen to.===
I am speaking to you myself. One radical to another.
===I suspect he may refuse you, however, and recognize that it is impossible to talk moral people out of this course of action.===
I deny the morality of this part of your cause.
Here is right now (have a ton of material to review) I see it. The state recognized entity that is LPO is the affiliate that was recognized and by OR law it has continuity with the LPO that presently exists. Any irregularities that happened (and personally I think the way the bylaws were scrapped is more than suspect) is between OR libertarians and their courts. If there was such hanky panky that the actual LPO ethically doesn’t exist anymore or some other issue, let someone petition for disaffiliation for cause but that disaffiliation would be from the organization that exists – the LPO.
This is an Oregon matter. I do not see the natiotional jurisdiction here.
Will I want to torch the LPO is the wrong decision is made? No. I will disagree and try to find ways for peaceful voluntary resolution.
Caryn,
Do you think for a moment that the malefactors in the LP will just leave us alone in peace if we were to walk away? They have aggressed against us on multiple occasions over a decade.
Sorry, but at this point they have proven themselves militant, incapable of remorse, are not sorry, and will continue to interfere in our affairs. They have attempted coups against us, have figuratively attempted to murder our organization on multiple occasions by taking it and handing it to the enemy, and they will do it again.
The moment they are vulnerable enough to figuratively murder, we will. Self-preservation and moral imperative demands it.
You lack the depth of history and understanding to interpret this as a reasonable positions, but someone like Tom Knapp does not. If you honestly think you can talk us out of it, use an ambassador we would listen to.
I suspect he may refuse you, however, and recognize that it is impossible to talk moral people out of this course of action.
It is very hard to tell what happens next.
Caryn, please do your background reading on exactly what happened in the past before you conclude what should be happening now.
So, will anything really change at this point? I understand there will likely be an action by the LNC to decide who the correct leaders are, but does anything change in the meantime?
I would add- you are getting “abused” as you see it in a situation you are voluntarily staying in. I have been there and done that. I took my ball and played elsewhere and managed not to leave burning wrecks behind nor did I thirst to do so.
Your motivation for vengeance is duly noted and opposed.
And I would rather you didnt do that either. There are things I don’t like– I want to work to change those. I care very deeply about this party and this movement. I hate politics. I am here for one reason only. I utterly believe this stuff. We can’t have these circular firing squads- we are already too few.
Caryn,
You write:
“On a side issue, still very troubled by the Wagner nuclear option threat. I get trying to convince other states to disaffiliate. Freedom of speech and association. I think it is destructive but I get it. But suing the LNC when the people who end up getting screwed are those who donated money for things such as the building? No, sorry, that is unacceptable.”
Look at it from the perspective of self-defense.
The LNC has already spent a good deal of time, effort, and that same donor money you just referenced attempting to destroy its Oregon affiliate and replace that affiliate with a Republican impostor organization.
If LPO does disaffiliate (or is disaffiliated), it seems likely that the LNC will escalate, rather than end, its war on LPO — supporting the Reeves Gang’s attempts to steal its ballot line and so forth.
If someone is waging war on me and has declared his intention to continue doing so, and if I can reduce his ability to do so effectively (and cost-effectively) by filing a lawsuit that has merit, you’re damn straight I will do that.
The national convention delegates could have put a stop to this in 2012 or 2014. They declined to do so; in fact, they returned several known bad actors to office, or elected them to new office.
At some point, the only way to get the delegates to extract crania from recta may be to make it very expensive for them to not do so.
Wes they can want that, and it is destructive to those of us who don’t. Don’t force your will on everyone.
Here is what is ironic. I am a radical. I don’t like the Republucanizing of the party. We probably would agree on principles and be able to have a grand old time together working ourselves up in a fine frothy libertarian lather.
But that doesn’t give you the right to lead a destructive charge. Just disaffiliate if you feel you must.
In 2010 the leadership was elected with a charter for reform. The republican traitors asked national for help and interference to prevent its implementation.
They lost everything and will never be accepted back into the community again.
They labor under the belief that the LPO should be property of the LNC and dues paying members with divided loyalties or secret loyalties to the repubican party.
We believe the party is owned by the registered libertarians of this state.
There was a reform movement, a populist revolution when they blocked its implementation, and blowback for the national party when they attempted to support republican-aligned loyalists.
The national party’s reputation in oregon is so bad that the average member here wants it to die in a fire as a result of the attempts to press us into vassalage.
If my understanding is wrong, please let me know how you (anyone) sees it.
>>This is procedurally incorrect. The dismissal of the Burke/Reeves/Carling suit is a final judgment that preserves the SoS decision recognizing Wagner. It is being appealed, but it is not stayed.
So a final decision has been entered, but it’s possible that it will be reversed.>>>
I see where you got this, but my response assumed a greater context of my prior posts. The dismissal wasn’t based on an examination of the merits of the bylaws issues for instance, but a ruling of the presumption that they will only recognize a change in leadership if the chair of record signs off. The appeal is whether they will set aside this presumption based on extraordinary circumstances…. at least this is how I understand it. If this understanding is correct, my statement is procedurally correct in context.
This is procedurally incorrect. The dismissal of the Burke/Reeves/Carling suit is a final judgment that preserves the SoS decision recognizing Wagner. It is being appealed, but it is not stayed.
So a final decision has been entered, but it’s possible that it will be reversed.
That’s why LPO is PAC#622 and Reeves/Epstein are PAC#16869.
That numbering scheme alone is enough to tell you which is the much older one.
“Reeves/Epstein is also organized under state law, as a PAC. It’s not recognized as a political party, and most likely never will be.”
Yes, but that PAC is not recognized as being the same entity as the pre-dispute LPO. That corporate continuity question would arise under state law, regardless of if LPO (which is also technically a PAC, just one that has party status recognition) was recognized as a party. Like with my hypothetical Libertarian Club above. Though it does place the ball at least initially in the Secretary of State’s court, whereas at might otherwise go straight to judicial adjudication. I guess that would depend on what authority the SoS has over PACs vs. recognize parties in Oregon, which I wouldn’t know. The kind of Secretary of State I was running for has one employee in the Capitol basement and zero substantive authority.
bwahaha (kidding, but I think your suggestion is awesome)
>>I’m still hoping somebody will file a petition to rescind the oldest JudCom decision they can find. I’m talking “Is this Tonie Nathan interloper a member in good standing that we can nominate for VP?” old.>>
Let’s do it
>>They can according to the Carling interpretation of RONR which supposedly allowed them to rescind the 2011 decision, which rests on the premise that indeed they can be.>>
I disagree with Carling, but even so, that wouldn’t mean that that all injustices of any group can be. This group is a creature of the state, and follows the rules of the state. The statute for its existence isn’t RONR.
>>
The factions dispute who the members are; their definitions are very different…
Then the interested parties must find a way to resolve it. It is their issue.
>> But the state has already decided and does not seem likely to change that decision.>>>
Actually they really haven’t yet. that is what the appeal is about. The initial decision was a ruling of a rebuttal rule that didn’t decide anything on the merits.
Reeves/Epstein is also organized under state law, as a PAC. It’s not recognized as a political party, and most likely never will be.
I’m still hoping somebody will file a petition to rescind the oldest JudCom decision they can find. I’m talking “Is this Tonie Nathan interloper a member in good standing that we can nominate for VP?” old.
They can according to the Carling interpretation of RONR which supposedly allowed them to rescind the 2011 decision, which rests on the premise that indeed they can be.
The factions dispute who the members are; their definitions are very diferent. But the state has already decided and does not seem likely to change that decision.
I didn’t claim that their acceptance as an affiliate was dependent upon being recognized as the state. It is my understanding that either initially it was the organization which was already voluntarily a creature of the state that was the affiliate. Big difference.
>>>As far as I know LP affiliates don’t get affiliated on the basis of whether they are organized pursuant to the laws of any given state. >>>
I think you are misunderstanding my point. If I agree to contract with you. Who is YOU? Well it is the biological person that is YOU. The affiliate status was granted to an organization which was in existence as a legal entity under the laws of the state. That is its’ biological to analogize. The only kind of continuity such an organization has is that under the laws of its state.
“As far as I know LP affiliates don’t get affiliated on the basis of whether they are organized pursuant to the laws of any given state.”
They’re all organized under the laws of their respective states, they just might not be recognized *as political parties*.
As far as I know LP affiliates don’t get affiliated on the basis of whether they are organized pursuant to the laws of any given state. Some people have interpreted the now-supposedly-rescinded 2011 decision to say that is how we recognize affiliates but that is disputed.
“What is the parliamentary procedure if all the persons died in a plane crash?”
I haven’t got the faintest clue. I have a rough working familiarity with Robert’s Rules but I’m no parliamentarian.
On a side issue, still very troubled by the Wagner nuclear option threat. I get trying to convince other states to disaffiliate. Freedom of speech and association. I think it is destructive but I get it. But suing the LNC when the people who end up getting screwed are those who donated money for things such as the building? No, sorry, that is unacceptable.
“That whichever entity is the one that has legal continuity recognized by OR as the same entity that existed when affiliate status was granted is the affiliate.”
That would be Wagner et al. That’s why the other group isn’t recognized as a political party and doesn’t have the ballot access (which was established pre-dispute). Instead they filed for a totally new PAC that just so happens to be named “The Libertarian Party of Oregon.” (the name of the party doesn’t have a ‘the’ in it.)
For extra icing on the cake, TLPO-PAC then started endorsing Republican candidates with Libertarian opponents, even after they’d lost or not run in the Libertarian primary (Oregon is a fusion state, so other-party candidates can run for and also win the Libertarian nomination.)
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/09/libertarian-party-of-oregon-disputes-claim-that-they-have-endorsed-republican-candidate-jason-yates/
>>>Well, for one thing, because then you would still have a severe quorum problem.>>>
In that I think the Wagner group was correct that an emergency correction to the bylaws could be done.
>> For another there have been allegations of all sorts of improprities about who was allowed to vote, who wasnn’t, etc. etc, for many past conventions.>>>
All past issues cannot be revisited ad infinitum. Presumably if they had a quorum this wouldn’t have been an issue, or they would have handled internally. This shouldn’t be an issue now.
>>
The notion that the 2009 bylaws and/or membership rolls were pristine may be problematic. Lastly who is it that is to make such a decision?>>>
The Oregon courts or private arbitration. Not the LNC.
If that was what the LNC decided, Wagner et al would still be LPO as far as OR-SOS is concerned.
>>
To be decided by the Oregon government, by the LNC, or by each separately and independently of each other?>>>
The affiliate approved was already the creature of statute of the state. It is up to the members and OR to decide.
>>The terms would have expired by now, would be the immediate parliamentary hurdle to a “reset” I believe. Not to mention you’d be back to square one as regards the convention quorum problem.>>
What is the parliamentary procedure if all the persons died in a plane crash? Why would not that apply here?
Yes you would have the convention quorum problem, it should have been dealt with as precisely as possible then, and then regular procedure followed.
Well, for one thing, because then you would still have a severe quorum problem. For another there have been allegations of all sorts of improprities about who was allowed to vote, who wasnn’t, etc. etc, for many past conventions. The notion that the 2009 bylaws and/or membership rolls were pristine may be problematic. Lastly who is it that is to make such a decision? If that was what the LNC decided, Wagner et al would still be LPO as far as OR-SOS is concerned.
To be decided by the Oregon government, by the LNC, or by each separately and independently of each other?
I am reading through the National Bylaws and the affiliate status was granted to a qualifying organization. That organization would be one organized pursuant to the laws of the state of Oregon presumably since that is how they applied (anyone know this??) for affiliate status. That would be the same creature of statute that still exists today. Whether or not internally they violated their bylaws would be an issue for the people in that organization to take up legally. That is how it seems to me. That whichever entity is the one that has legal continuity recognized by OR as the same entity that existed when affiliate status was granted is the affiliate.
Again my mind can change, but this seems logical to me.
“Probably a stupid question, if both groups violated the bylaws, how come the just result wouldn’t be to just reset back just prior to the first violation, and follow whatever laws, bylaws etc would apply if the officers all had dropped dead or if they are still around and willing to serve, who they are and handle this the right way? The affiliate is unquestionably the entity. The question is whether or not the present people and bylaws are the legitimate ones.”
The terms would have expired by now, would be the immediate parliamentary hurdle to a “reset” I believe. Not to mention you’d be back to square one as regards the convention quorum problem.
“This is an Oregon issue.”
Yup.
However, a consideration of the ExComm membership says that the Epstein faction may win there 4-3 or 5-2. The nearly unprecedented act of the LNC last year in rejecting the chair’s request as to who he wanted on the ExComm may well finally bear its poisonous fruit.
“So… if both groups violated the bylaws, why are either of them right? Motives? It is okay to break the bylaws as long as you have a really really good reason and go beyond what your mandate might be?”
Wagner et al violated the bylaws as the excom. Reeves at al never were the party, and were no more capable of violating its bylaws than I am. Or that’s theory, I think.
Like I said, you’ve reached the limits of my knowledge of the matter by going that far back into it, long before I was writing here at IPR (though I was a sporadic reader and commenter). The original dispute (that happened around the same time I was busy graduating high school) isn’t so much my concern, it’s the impropriety of the JC’s behavior here and now in 2015.
*Even if* Reeves et al are 100% correct as to the original dispute, this was wrong. Procedure matters.
>But every competent authority that has reviewed the matter has sided with Wagner, so even if it was initially incorrect I consider the matter no longer up for review.
That is generally the feeling of every other state chair (or past state chair) too.
Probably a stupid question, if both groups violated the bylaws, how come the just result wouldn’t be to just reset back just prior to the first violation, and follow whatever laws, bylaws etc would apply if the officers all had dropped dead or if they are still around and willing to serve, who they are and handle this the right way? The affiliate is unquestionably the entity. The question is whether or not the present people and bylaws are the legitimate ones. This is an Oregon issue.
Andy…. help me, my imagination is burnt out.
I just received a response from Carling to my earlier message-
“I dispute that I am an “interested party” though I acknowledge that there may be an appearance of interest. For whatever it may be worth, I abstained on every vote, procedural and substantive.”
I’ll let the imaginative reader fill in the blank on what I think of that technically-true statement as contrasted with the minutes George posted.
>>>Welcome to the club.>>>
Andy that’s not helpful! I want their to be a clear hero and a clear villian!
However, the Excomm vote recognized a particular group of people as the officers, not the Reeves faction as the Party.
The original ruling was that the LNC ExComm could not unilaterally cut off the Wagner faction, that there had to be a disaffiliation vote. With that decision rescinded, the Chair or ExComm gets to decide. As neither Wagner nor Reeves is now a chair of something in Oregon, they need to make a decision.
THE LNC MOTION THAT HAS NOW BEEN REVIVED READS
) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the
Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended
March 14 15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party
of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since
March 15, 2009. (Vote was 6-1. Hinkle, Rutherford,
Mattson, Redpath, Knedler Lark in favor; Ruwart opposed)
2) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Libertarian National Committee recognizes as
the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon those people
elected by the State Committee during its meeting on May
21, 2011. They are: Chair: Tim Reeves; Vice chair: Eric B.
Saub Secretary: Carla J. Pealer ; Treasurer: Gregory Bur-
nett (Motion passed 6-1, same votes as previous motion.)
However, these people are not claimed by anyone to be the current LPOR officers. If the 2011 ExComm had the authority to decide who the LPOR is, so does the 2015 ExComm, and they have but to recognize the Wagner faction to make this issue go away.
It appears that with the JudComm motion, the decision is back in the hands of the LNC Chairman or ExComm, who could simply rule that the LPOR is currently the Wagner faction. Rescinding the 2011 decision means that the authority of the Chair or Excomm — someone else can sort it out — ,to decide where to send the datadump and link, has been restored.
From the standpoint of the Reeves faction, having the Epstein petition dismissed was a losing outcome.
So… if both groups violated the bylaws, why are either of them right? Motives? It is okay to break the bylaws as long as you have a really really good reason and go beyond what your mandate might be?
“It seems like there is no clean hands, and I have no idea what to do with that.”
Welcome to the club.
I can’t speak for LPO (aka “the Wagner group”). My recollection is not that they have said they did “nothing wrong,” but rather they admitted they were making the best of a bad situation while the Reeves Gang were trying to make the worst of the same situation.
The new bylaws were vastly different than the old ones
http://oregonvotes.org/doc/cand/bylaws_lib.pdf
And who got to vote on them was vastly different than the old definition of membership.
They claim that it was a state committee meeting that met after a failure of quorum at the preiously scheduled convention, that the exec comm had no authority to cancel the convention, that their terms in office had expired as officers so thus it was legal under the old (to them still current) bylaws for the exec comm to appoint new officers, and they also claim that they had a quorum of the exec comm and that those voting were exec comm members and eligible; which of course is disputed.
“It was the Reeves group that held a meeting right after yet another quorumless convention. The Wagner group had already (from its perspective) cancelled that convention and completely changed the bylaws at a previous meeting in between conventions.”
I knew I’d get something wrong once we got that far back into it. 😉
“IMO both sides have some issues.”
Absolutely.
“And that, right now, seems to me to be the elephant in the room. You don’t do that. ”
Won’t argue with you there. Like I said, the original dispute wasn’t really my interest and I haven’t paid all that much attention to the details of it. Whatever the situation, it’s Oregon’s mess to sort out.
==Well, that’s the thing — when LPO finally came apart at the seams over the convention quorum issue, there were two groups that came out of it claiming to be the “real” LPO.
One of the groups, the “Wagner faction,” admitted that the bylaws had created an insuperable barrier, so they discarded the bylaws and, operating on their prior authority as the elected executive committee, set up a referendum process and so forth to rebuild the organization.===
Why didn’t they just amend the portion dealing with the quorum to get a convention so that things could be done ordinarily?
==The other group, the “Reeves faction,” held a fake “state committee” meeting — so fake that one of the participants was, IIRC, actually a member of the state committee of an entirely different party (the Republican Party) — and announced that they had elected themselves as the new “officers” of LPO.==
If they didn’t get a quorum either and didn’t try to amend, that seems completely out of line too, agreed.
==It’s not like one group abided by the bylaws and the other didn’t. Both groups violated the bylaws — one group with the objective of rebuilding LPO, the other group with objectives that aren’t entirely clear but seem to run at the “best case” end to keeping LPO dysfunctional and out of the GOP’s way, and at the “worst case” end to destroying it entirely.==
But I see the Wagner group as saying they did nothing wrong. I think scrapping the bylaws in ExComm is not precisely right. Using emergency powers to remedy the situation just enough to actually remedy it would be right. If the other situation is as you say, yes, they did wrong too.
But when wrong is done in an organization the solution isn’t to look at motives…. though at this point I do not know what can be done. It seems like there is no clean hands, and I have no idea what to do with that.
“George isn’t the Wagner group the official affiliate? So wouldn’t that simply mean that the Wagner group remains the official affiliate?”
Not exactly.
The 2011 decision basically said “no, you can’t disaffiliate the affiliate by a vote of the executive committee, it takes a vote of the whole LNC.”
But that was logical and reasonable. The underlying case was, well, a bunch of bullshit.
The executive committee didn’t come out and say they were disaffiliating the LPO and affiliating the Reeves Gang.
What the executive committee did was something they’d done before (with Arizona in 1999). They did some hand-wringing about how “confusing” the situation was and how they “were not sure” whether the real LPO or the Reeves impostors were the “real” affiliate. Then they asserted that since they were confused, they just had to make a decision as to which group was the “real” affiliate, and that that group was the Reeves Gang, and that this wasn’t really disaffiliation, just a clarification of the situation.
So the Judicial Committee rescinding the 2011 ruling, if it had the power to do so (it does not), would have the effect of recognizing the Reeves Gang as the “real” affiliate.
The LNC has had votes in prior terms recognizing Reeves et al. They will now argue that those votes are still in effect. They’ll probably have a LNC majority to back that up, but we’ll see.
“And that, right now, seems to me to be the elephant in the room. You don’t do that. You don’t use failure to get a quorum as an excuse to emergency powers (totally legitimate) and then overstep the narrow exigencies.”
Well, that’s the thing — when LPO finally came apart at the seams over the convention quorum issue, there were two groups that came out of it claiming to be the “real” LPO.
One of the groups, the “Wagner faction,” admitted that the bylaws had created an insuperable barrier, so they discarded the bylaws and, operating on their prior authority as the elected executive committee, set up a referendum process and so forth to rebuild the organization.
The other group, the “Reeves faction,” held a fake “state committee” meeting — so fake that one of the participants was, IIRC, actually a member of the state committee of an entirely different party (the Republican Party) — and announced that they had elected themselves as the new “officers” of LPO.
It’s not like one group abided by the bylaws and the other didn’t. Both groups violated the bylaws — one group with the objective of rebuilding LPO, the other group with objectives that aren’t entirely clear but seem to run at the “best case” end to keeping LPO dysfunctional and out of the GOP’s way, and at the “worst case” end to destroying it entirely.
Also at IPR. Enter relevant search terms into IPR search box on the main page.
George isn’t the Wagner group the official affiliate? So wouldn’t that simply mean that the Wagner group remains the official affiliate?
Seems to me that we need to wait to see what the appeal results in OR. Since apparently that appeal if heard will deal with the actual situation of the bylaws…. which to me is the crucial thing here. If a court adjudicates on that, then it is settlement. The SOS didn’t really deal with the issues in its recognition.
Thanks for that update George.
Perhaps I should have said “rejects the Epstein petition”.
I am not sure where the JudComm members think this leaves the affiliation situation.
>>IMO both sides have some issues.>>>
I suspect that is the case. But simply deciding to use an exigent circumstance of failure to get a quorum to replace the entire bylaws does not seem right to me.
Judicial Committee Acts!
It rescinds its 2011 ruling, then rejects the Epstein ruling.
The draft minutes, all committee members being present.
Rule limiting debate to speaking twice per day on the same topic suspended by unanimous consent.
Moved and seconded to Rescind the Judicial Committee decision issued on August 25, 2011, including the amendment issued on September 23, 2011, in the matter titled Wes Wagner vs. the libertarian National Committee.
A point of order was raised on whether or not the motion to Rescind is order. The Chair ruled that
Rescind is in order. The ruling of the Chair was appealed. The ruling of the Chair was sustained 4-2, with the Chair abstaining.
A question of parliamentary inquiry was raised on the vote required to Rescind. Because notice was given in the call to meeting and because no member of the Judicial Committee voted in the majority (either of these two reasons sufficing to require a majority vote), a majority vote is sufficient to Rescind.
The votes on the motion to Rescind are 4 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: No, Power: No, Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to Rescind carries. Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee, and as amended, is rescinded.
Moved and seconded to dismiss the petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee. The votes are 6 in the affirmative and 0 in the negative. Carling: Abstain, Latham: Yes, Linnabary: Yes Power: Yes Sink-Burris: Yes, Visek: Yes, Wolf: Yes. The motion to dismiss carries. The petition of Ian Epstein vs the Libertarian National Committee is dismissed.
IMO both sides have some issues.
Dunno. Nor do I know what time they finish(ed) or when they plan to anounce their decision, although I have a sneaky suspicion that I know what it will be.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Judicial-Committee-Petition-Submission.pdf
Discussion at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/appeal-on-oregon-libertarian-effective-disaffiliation-filed-with-libertarian-national-judiciary-committee/
>>Wagner and friends wanted a more wholescale change.>>>
And that, right now, seems to me to be the elephant in the room. You don’t do that. You don’t use failure to get a quorum as an excuse to emergency powers (totally legitimate) and then overstep the narrow exigencies.
More information may change my mind. Earlier today, I was totally coming down in favor of the Wagner group, this sways me the other way.
Byalws, as interpreted…by M Carling, iirc. There are people who disagree with that interpretation.
Wagner and friends wanted a more wholescale change.
Thank you George, I will check those out.
Something is not sitting right with me with this whole replacing of the entire bylaws via excomm. If there was something in them that was preventing convention I do not understand why that wasn’t just addressed. Emergency situations require procedures we might not want to resort to, but the minimal amount of that required to actually address the problem is the solution. Sort of like proportionality with the NAP… yes you can use violence, but only the amount necessary to get rid of the threat.
It was the Reeves group that held a meeting right after yet another quorumless convention. The Wagner group had already (from its perspective) cancelled that convention and completely changed the bylaws at a previous meeting in between conventions.
However, that word membership is problematic. The old definition of membership was dues-paying pledge-signing LPO members. The new definition was registered Oregon LP voters. 97% or so of the new members were not members under the older definition. Some of the older-definition members were not members under the new definition – people disqualified from voting due to citizenship, age, or residence elsewhere, prior Oregon residents who had moved, people who refuse to register to vote, perhaps some people denied voting rights due to felony (not sure if Oregon does that but some states do), Oregon voters who for whatever reason register with another party or no party but want to remain involved in LPO under the old definition of membership.
===Not just some sneaky behind-closed-doors thing between conventions, and then as Wagner notes it was ratified by a postal membership referendum, which as an option OR provides to parties.====
Then why was a non-quorum at convention such an organization-destroying threat? They could have just done business, including modifying the quorum requirement, by postal membership referendum.
Why take away the opportunity for public discussion and debate by replacing the entire bylaws?
Caryn,
Much of the Oregon issue has been covered in my magazine Liberty for America LibertyForAmerica.com with the current cycle starting in April 2011 and advancing. Much else went on with the LNC in this period.
George
===That quorum requirement could normally only be modified by the convention, which couldn’t make quorum, creating a catch-22. The executive committee took the least-bad of their bad options on the table, in order to preserve the continued existence and functioning of the organization.=====
Was this quorum required by state law or by the bylaws? If by the bylaws, why not just by “doctrine of necessity” just amend the quorum requirement?
Thank you Paulie for that link… are the petitions to the JC actually public? And are there minutes of the deliberations?
Wes… >>While Judge Breithaupt did not rule on the legality of what we did .. he did agree with its legality in open court.>>>
That is called dicta and not persuasive. So it appears that the idea that this is res judicata – which is what I found persuasive is not quite so.
@Andy this isn’t going back 40 years to find continuity of a party or group. This is 6 years. And a still hot controversy. I highly disagree that such cannot be revisited to determine who has the right of the thing here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090617153201/http://www.lporegon.org/downloads/pdf/2009LPOBylaws.pdf
It should be added, while it was a “state executive committee” meeting, it was at/during (or just after?) a convention which had failed to make quorum. Not just some sneaky behind-closed-doors thing between conventions, and then as Wagner notes it was ratified by a postal membership referendum, which as an option OR provides to parties.
“So I guess what I want to know is this? Were the bylaws violated? By what authority were the bylaws replaced?”
My understanding (and others can speak to this much better than I can) is that it was basically by doctrine of necessity. LPO conventions had repeatedly failed to make quorum (defined as a certain % of all registered Libertarian in OR, a figure which had risen well into the five figures). That quorum requirement could normally only be modified by the convention, which couldn’t make quorum, creating a catch-22. The executive committee took the least-bad of their bad options on the table, in order to preserve the continued existence and functioning of the organization.
Is that correct? Iffy, perhaps. But every competent authority that has reviewed the matter has sided with Wagner, so even if it was initially incorrect I consider the matter no longer up for review. If you dig into the four-decade history of some of the older parties, I doubt you’d find the perfect chain of continuity of 100% bylaws compliance from the initial founding, as we might desire. But that doesn’t mean that group is no longer the LP of [state].
“In the case of LPO the SOS did not do that, they had their own rules about who they recognize irregardless of the LPO’s own self-defining bylaws because they are a political party. That does not make it de facto right in accordance with the LPO’s right to self-define. ”
That’s correct as to the SoS, and I agree that’s a bad rule, but I do believe this was the claim made in the court case that was dismissed and is now pending appeal, as well as by the prior JC ruling that Carling is purporting to overturn.
The bylaws were replaced by authority granted under ors 248 and OREGON non profit law if it applies, the rule of necessity, and a 97% plebiscite.
While Judge Breithaupt did not rule on the legality of what we did .. he did agree with its legality in open court.
So I guess what I want to know is this? Were the bylaws violated? By what authority were the bylaws replaced?
@Andy (and any time I am saying something out of ignorance of facts, someone jump on me) — no there is a substantial distinction here. In the case of LCNUSA, the court would be treating it quasi-contractual, and actually interpreting our agreement. In the case of LPO the SOS did not do that, they had their own rules about who they recognize irregardless of the LPO’s own self-defining bylaws because they are a political party. That does not make it de facto right in accordance with the LPO’s right to self-define. I do think that a just determination here requires a look at what happened in accordance (or not) with the bylaws. Your premise requires that the the state actually did look at their bylaws and rule on them, but my understanding is that such is not the case.
@Caryn
First point, LPO isn’t just a regular organization, they’re a state-recognized political party operating as such under the state laws governing political parties. But that aside, let’s say you and some friends incl. John Doe started Libertarian Club of Nowhere, USA. LCNUSA adopts its own bylaws- you’re absolutely right about- but when John Doe accuses you of not following the bylaws, their only recourse (once internal mechanisms are exhausted) would be to the state court of general jurisdiction, seeking an injunction, etc. For example (and I’m not a lawyer so this might be getting slightly beyond my expertise)- John Doe gives LCNUSA $1000 in membership dues under the bylaws, the bylaws allegedly get violated, John Doe’s claim that his $1000 was then taken from him illegitimately becomes the basis for standing to sue, etc. If not settled voluntarily some other way, the dispute (like any other) ends up in court before a judge.
Same is true here- LPO has the right to adopt its own bylaws (within some constraints imposed by law), but if John Doe says LPO isn’t following its bylaws or isn’t really the LPO, they would appeal first to the Sec’y of State (who runs elections), and then ultimately to the courts. Which is in fact exactly what happened, the Reeves lawsuit was summarily dismissed, and that dismissal (with Carling as a named plaintiff) is currently pending appeal.
>I’ll also weigh in on hoping that Sarwark will run again. I particularly like the fact that’s he’s accessible to us underlings. I don’t think I’d have had the nerve to contact Geoff Neals about anything, as I did yesterday.
Jill, I agree that Nick running again is a great idea. Two years go by in a flash, and it’s not enough time to achieve all the things he wants to do.
OTOH, I must disagree about the accessibility of former national chairs. I have corresponded privately and publicly with Jim Lark, Bill Redpath, Mark Hinkle and Geoff Neale. All of them were of great support to my state and to me when I was a state chair.
They preferred to decide that the Reeves group was already the affiliate, so no disaffiliation or reaffiliation would be needed.
True, I don’t think anyone has said it would (although they hope it would have some influence). They’re just disputing that this should be the determining question.
Anyone have a copy of the old LPO bylaws, post-Wagner Bylaws and Constitution?
Paulie>>> Wagner et al threw out the then existing bylaws in a state exec comm meeting and put in new bylaws which totally redefined the definition of membership, governance structure, etc.>>>
By what authority?
BTW I would like to give you a call tomorrow am, will you be around?
“I could see Roy Moore doing something like that…”
So can I. Difference is I wouldn’t expect it to work.
Andy I am not so sure I agree… I don’t disagree either… my head merely hurts:
==Yes they do, but any disputes over that are to be resolved (if LPO itself fails to do so), though the Oregon legal process. Their ability to adopt bylaws etc., is all a creature of Oregon law, not their affiliation with the national party.==
The state doesn’t grant an organization the right to create bylaws. I have been part of several groups that have had bylaws… we didn’t organize under the state. I think this right and separate and apart.
I think they are just going by Roberts Rules.
Wagner et al threw out the then existing bylaws in a state exec comm meeting and put in new bylaws which totally redefined the definition of membership, governance structure, etc.
It’s getting rather late, is this so-called Judicial Committee meeting still ongoing? Can we expect any news of what action, if any, they take this evening?
Yep!
I could see Roy Moore doing something like that…
The relevant Federal statutes concerning recusal of a Federal judge are 28 USC 144 and 28 USC 455. See: http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/judicialdq.pdf/$file/judicialdq.pdf
“This also is persuasive though there is something niggling at me that I can’t place my finger on. I am not entirely sure state law is all that matters. What about the bylaws of the LPO? Surely the organization has a right to self-define, particularly if the state does deal with that.”
Yes they do, but any disputes over that are to be resolved (if LPO itself fails to do so), though the Oregon legal process. Their ability to adopt bylaws etc., is all a creature of Oregon law, not their affiliation with the national party.
“They did not choose to do that, but even if they had, it would not have changed who the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as a political party.”
Not even if you respectfully demand it? :p
“So we seem to agree that IF we agree for sake of argument that they were constructive fully disaffiliated – that happened a long time ago by the very same grounds they are using to argue the Sarwark email is a disaffiliation?”
Exactly. .
“I am becoming very certain of this which would make two things I am certain of. Carling should have recused himself and this.”
That’s what I’m so outraged by, and I’ll add that it shouldn’t even be a matter of recusal, because Carling (who acted alone in this regard) should never have accepted the alleged “appeal” as even being proper to be heard. And he then did not even follow proper procedure for when a case has been accepted, i.e. proper notice to those who had to respond, as Nick explains above.
I have been indifferent to affirmatively apathetic about the Oregon dispute in the past, and I honestly still don’t care that much about who’s “right” in it. But this whole action by Carling et al is so flagrantly improper and lawless, it implicates if the national party can be trusted to follow its own rules at all, or if one middling sub-committee chair can just go rogue and start making it up as he goes along. It would be like if Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court tried to issue orders for the US Army to invade Canada because he has an investment in Vermont maple syrup which would benefit, it’s that far beyond the pale.
The LNC has the power to affiliate with state parties.
The LNC has the power to disaffiliate with state parties.
Whether the LNC chooses to affiliate or disaffiliate with a state party has little, if any, effect on the state party’s status under state law.
In 2011, the LNC could have chosen to disaffiliate from the Wagner group and reaffiliate with the Reeves group. They did not choose to do that, but even if they had, it would not have changed who the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as a political party.
===That raises another point of information- this isn’t even a dispute over affiliation. Everyone agrees that back in the 70s or whenever it was, the LNC recognized LPO as the Oregon affiliate. Neither the LNC nor LPO have ever revoked or disputed that. The dispute is over who *is* the LPO, i.e. the organization which exists under Oregon law predating (and which could exist without) any affiliation with a national party. That isn’t a matter for LNC (much less a rouge JudComm) to decide, it’s a matter for Oregon law to decide. It’s no more up to the JC/LNC than it would be for them to adjudicate disputed ownership of a cat or a coffee table between two ex-lovers who happen to both be Libertarians.===
This also is persuasive though there is something niggling at me that I can’t place my finger on. I am not entirely sure state law is all that matters. What about the bylaws of the LPO? Surely the organization has a right to self-define, particularly if the state does deal with that.
Damn spellcheck… Constructively not constructive fully
Andy – you let the vampire in your house:). Now I am going to bugging you.
So we seem to agree that IF we agree for sake of argument that they were constructive fully disaffiliated – that happened a long time ago by the very same grounds they are using to argue the Sarwark email is a disaffiliation?
I am becoming very certain of this which would make two things I am certain of. Carling should have recused himself and this.
“Andy can you please expound on what you meant by the constructive disaffiliation argument being BS?”
There is no such thing. There’s only disaffiliation by a 3/4 LNC vote, which never happened. The Reeves group was never disaffiliated, because they were never an affiliate, and even if they were their alleged “disaffiliation” happened years ago. The idea that an email from Sarwark simply repeating the status quo can open up the 30-day window for appeal of a disaffiliation, is what I believe lawyers euphemistically call a “novel” argument, and the rest of us would probably us stronger language to describe.
“This is very persuasive. I think I need to look into more the bylaws etc on how affiliates are recognized”
That raises another point of information- this isn’t even a dispute over affiliation. Everyone agrees that back in the 70s or whenever it was, the LNC recognized LPO as the Oregon affiliate. Neither the LNC nor LPO have ever revoked or disputed that. The dispute is over who *is* the LPO, i.e. the organization which exists under Oregon law predating (and which could exist without) any affiliation with a national party. That isn’t a matter for LNC (much less a rouge JudComm) to decide, it’s a matter for Oregon law to decide. It’s no more up to the JC/LNC than it would be for them to adjudicate disputed ownership of a cat or a coffee table between two ex-lovers who happen to both be Libertarians.
For example, the Independent Party of Oregon is not affiliated with any national party, but they’re just as much an Oregon political party as LPO is (actually moreso since they recently got major-party status recently, but that’s neither here nor there). If the Oregon SoS got a letter from some group calling themselves “the Independent Party USA” demanding that the IPO ballot line be transferred to them, they’d be told (in as many words) where to shove it. The same will happen if the LNC demands that the LPO ballot line be transferred to whoever LNC designates, on the grounds that LNC has disaffiliated the state-recognized LPO.
I’ll also weigh in on hoping that Sarwark will run again. I particularly like the fact that’s he’s accessible to us underlings. I don’t think I’d have had the nerve to contact Geoff Neale about anything, as I did yesterday.
I know who all of them are except Stein. You are right, that is Sullentrup. They are inviting the 2011 JC – I think you missed Jim Gray, who is on there too. But I’m not sure if they are actually inviting all those people to the call or just letting them know it will happen and then only inviting the JC members themselves.
Andy can you please expound on what you meant by the constructive disaffiliation argument being BS?
Some of that is because national is more effective at fundraising than most states. There are exception, Texas for example. Some is because most states don’t have a lot going on – not much in the way of media, I may not be on their lists, etc. If they do put something out, I’m a lot less likely to see it than something from national. Most states don’t have any staff, and the few that do, in most cases it is only one person. Most states don’t have an office. If I look for Libertarian news, I’ve got one link for the LP in the IPR sidebar. I guess we could have links to every single state party, but really, how many people would check those as often as just one link? Suppose you are a news reporter and want comments on a story from the LP, Greens and Constitution Party, which state LP would you call? Would state parties without a national LP have the FB team that we have? Even though the FB team is volunteer, someone had to put that together, and people had to be in various places to see that it exists to want to join in. And so on. A lot of people only pay attention to national politics, or even only the presidential election, as far as they pay attention to politics at all. Rightly or wrongly that is the big ticket item. So yeah, national does get attention more.
It came about because some people with a connection to Oregon – M was at the center of it – brought in their national LP friends to help them out, ostensibly to help sort out a mess. Naturally people in the national party care about what goes on within affiliates to some extent.
It should be, but on the other side they say what if some anti-LP SOS recognizes some rogue faction, etc. I’ve seen cases where some outgoing factions refuse to acknowledge they lost an election. The SOS could theoretically side with them. The Reeves/Burk side contend that is what happened here.
Overwhelming the first one, IMO.
Sure; the Reform Party in some form came out on the other side, too.
Yep.
“Cc: johannstein at gmail.com, lhedbor at gmail.com, “Tim Reeves (
timothy.reeves at tenthamendmentcenter.com)” , wes.wagner at gmail.com, “” , Alicia Mattson ,
rwsully at att.net, jimpgray at sbcglobal.net, Bill Hall ,
rleewrights at gmail.com, Brian Holtz ”
The list of CCs appears to interesting. The complaint is Epstein v LNC. The people invited are Hedbor and Wagner from the LPOR, Stein and Reeves from the other people, Sarwark, and then Mattson, Brian Holtz, Lee Wrights, and an email that I believe is Bob Sullentrup.
I’m not aware of any threats on their part like that.
What are Reeves/Epstein threatening if they lose?
FYI–I believe Judge Gray is on vacation. (as per an email he sent out yesterday).
==If the courts and the process under Oregon election law (under which LPO’s existence is governed) says one group is the LPO and the other group is just a group of random posers, that should be it. (and no I’m not interested in ‘we shouldn’t let the state decide’ – we’re a political party operating under the state’s election and campaign laws, that’s the whole point). And if I understand correctly, Wagner et al are the party recognized as holding the “Libertarian” ballot line in Oregon and being the legitimate continuation of the pre-dispute LPO. I don’t understand why that isn’t end of story.===
This is very persuasive. I think I need to look into more the bylaws etc on how affiliates are recognized.
That was from a forward by Alicia Mattson.
The original distribution was:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: M Carling
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Notice of Meeting: Saturday, August 15, 2:00pm MDT, 3:00pm CDT,
4:00pm EDT
To: steven r Linnabary, Rebecca Sink-Burris <
rebecca.sinkburris at gmail.com>, AR Wolf , Rob Latham <
freeutahns at gmail.com>, Rob Power , ”
dianna.visek at gmail.com”
Cc: johannstein at gmail.com, lhedbor at gmail.com, “Tim Reeves (, Alicia Mattson ,,
timothy.reeves at tenthamendmentcenter.com)” < timothy.reeves at tenthamendmentcenter.com>, wes.wagner at gmail.com, “< chair at lp.org>”
rwsully at att.net, jimpgray at sbcglobal.net, Bill Hall
rleewrights at gmail.com, Brian Holtz
I guess he must have meant they would be provided to JC members.
===Notice and opportunity to be heard are typically things that one expects from judicial proceedings====
More so from a libertarian proceeding.
“Database, press inquiries, member communications – all the various things we do now.”
Fair enough. Like I said there are other things, I didn’t mean to minimize them, nor do I want them to not be done. But it does sometimes feel like national- which is responsibly for running two candidates in one election- sometimes gets a bigger share of the attention and focus than the state parties- whose job it is to run candidates in every other election.
” As it is, we are already a fairly loose confederation”
That’s the theory, it’s hard to reconcile that with the actions sometimes. A loose confederation would not be involved in either side of the Oregon drama at all. If the courts and the process under Oregon election law (under which LPO’s existence is governed) says one group is the LPO and the other group is just a group of random posers, that should be it. (and no I’m not interested in ‘we shouldn’t let the state decide’ – we’re a political party operating under the state’s election and campaign laws, that’s the whole point). And if I understand correctly, Wagner et al are the party recognized as holding the “Libertarian” ballot line in Oregon and being the legitimate continuation of the pre-dispute LPO. I don’t understand why that isn’t end of story.
If persons on/with the LNC or in other states don’t like who’s running a state affiliate, they have their informal options to call on Libertarians in that state to do something about it, and ultimately to disaffiliate. An option they don’t have, is to simply appoint a new state chair and cmte. for LPO, any more than they could do so for LP-WI or LP-AL.
“It’s just that a lot of states don’t have all that much going on on their own, and might cease to exist entirely without the little bit of help they get from national. Other states are better organized, and probably in most cases don’t realize that there is a ripple effect from being a national party that has affiliates in and a presidential ticket on the ballot in all or almost all states, which leads to a lot of people looking into the LP and getting involved in their states, or already knowing what the LP is when they are approached. Thus, what national does for the weaker states helps the stronger states stay strong, and most states go through phases of weakness.”
I agree with this, though I do wonder how much resources get marshaled to the states by LNC vs. how much is diverted *to* the LNC that would otherwise go to states. It’s probably a net gain, I don’t really doubt that, but it isn’t necessarily obvious or certain.
“Eight years later, and still not to the level of the LP by most measures even now.”
True, but most of the growth and success did come after the feud between what it is now the main Green Party and “the Greens/GPUSA”
In any event, I’m not disagreeing on the substance. Just that as bad as it would be, I wouldn’t call it the end of the LP. The LP in some form could, and probably ultimately would, come out the other side of the whole mess. But I wouldn’t call it a sure thing, or that it wouldn’t be catastrophic in the short- and medium- term.
Notice and opportunity to be heard are typically things that one expects from judicial proceedings.
That those things are not being provided in this instance is, shall we say, atypical.
By win I take it you mean in the Oregon courts, not just the national JC.
They believe most party members will support whoever the official state party is, new ones will be recruited and some previous ones will come back. Some people would go away, but they don’t think that is bad in some cases and are willing to live with it in others.
Nick, I am glad you are considering running again btw. Neglected to say that.
Tom, I will look into pre-2011 when I am sure I have a handle on what is going on now.
Speaking with Paulie I am sure will help.
If the call-in details were provided, they were not provided to me.
Sorry Wes
>>They work hard to have all their efforts destroyed in the end by these people. It has happened over and over again.>>>
So you will be the vanguard to deliver the mercy kill?
I am sorry, this destructive path is wrong. I am a worker bee and I don’t want this kind of help.
Also, since it’s noon on the west coast, has the JC meeting happened? It was supposed to be for 1 o’clock, but I don’t think I know what time zone that was.
Formal Notice of Meeting
The Judicial Committee will meet Saturday, August 15, 1:00pm PDT, 2:00pm
MDT, 3:00pm CDT, 4:00pm EDT 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.
Call-in details to be provided.
M Carling
Chair, Libertarian Party Judicial Committee
Database, press inquiries, member communications – all the various things we do now. As it is, we are already a fairly loose confederation. It’s just that a lot of states don’t have all that much going on on their own, and might cease to exist entirely without the little bit of help they get from national. Other states are better organized, and probably in most cases don’t realize that there is a ripple effect from being a national party that has affiliates in and a presidential ticket on the ballot in all or almost all states, which leads to a lot of people looking into the LP and getting involved in their states, or already knowing what the LP is when they are approached. Thus, what national does for the weaker states helps the stronger states stay strong, and most states go through phases of weakness.
Eight years later, and still not to the level of the LP by most measures even now.
And that’s if we’re lucky.
Maybe, but I think they will make good on it sooner or later. And allegedly, Wagner is actually one of the more moderate people on his side, as far as escalating the conflict goes.
It was a mess all along and limped along for years, never getting much traction, but inspiring endless reams of animosity and bickering. The LP may operate at that lower level, or somewhere in between, without the structure we have in place nationally. It’s possible the structure has been holding us back, but probably not.
Also, if the LNC does get dynamited, you may have various different groups all claiming to be the national party trying to get different states to affiliate with them, or starting competing affiliates in various states, suing each other, etc, etc. Which one will reporters call? Which one will nominate the presidential ticket? Will they nominate the same presidential ticket?
They work hard to have all their efforts destroyed in the end by these people. It has happened over and over again.
If nothing is done another generation will show up and waste a decade .. leave dejected and nothing changes.
Wes
>>You are not winning this battle surrounded by disloyal allies who constantly stab you in the back, undermine you, etc. This is just unfortunate reality that not everyone involved is a friend.>>>
And these threats take down friends as well. I very well understand there are destructive people within. I have been appalled at some of the moves. But the nuclear option takes out too many of the good guys and destroys the enterprise IMHO. the average Libertarian does not even know of this (or care) – they are working for Liberty in the best way they know and the LP is the best thing around for them. This state war harms all of them and is short sighted IMHO. Nolan wept.
Caryn,
Thanks — you made my day. Enjoy the hair-pinking!
“There has been a lot of worse dysfunction in alt parties. I’m sure you remember how things worked out with the BTP”
Yes, I do.
In particular, I remember that when it stopped working, we stopped trying to pretend it DID work.
Paulie, I will give you a call- let me get with my husband to see what our plans are. Getting my hair re-pinked right now.
Tom, I am glad we smoothed things out. My compliments were genuine. You have helped me be a better libertarian.
Grass is greener mentality. There has been a lot of worse dysfunction in alt parties. I’m sure you remember how things worked out with the BTP. I’m sure you have read what happened with the Reform Party. Etc.
It’s not obvious whether anyone else can. There are a lot of steps involved.
Maybe, but we have yet to see how it will work out in practice. I expect chaos, and possibly falling flat. Even if there is a detailed plan it doesn’t mean it will work. And as poorly as existing things work, it’s often unappreciated how well they work compared to many other potential attempts to get those same things done. It may be, but is not necessarily, that the reason we are doing better than other existing alt parties in ballot access and most other respects is because of our ideology. Or it may be because of that “dysfunction” you speak of and are fully ready to discard because you just assume that what will replace will not be even more dysfunctional. Never mind all the lists and everything else that will be lost in transition, all the contacts that will go stale, etc., etc.
Just because some of you want to tear it down doesn’t mean that it can’t be saved, only that it won’t be. Building from scratch may be better, but more likely not. Just like some mutations are advantageous, but most are not.
>>My grandma used to collect State Plates from state’s she visited. Does M Carling collect LP state memberships? Just how many state’s is he a member of their party? I recall seeing his name mentioned in New York, and of course there is Oregon. Where else?
>Off the top of my head, California. Although last I heard, he actually lives most of the time in either Latvia or Lithuania, I’m forgetting which.
M has been a member of LPNY for decades, as he used to live in Manhattan. My understanding is that his last residence was in Tel Aviv as he left his teaching position in Latvia a while ago.
M is not the only New Yorker on the JC. Rob Power is also a member of the Committee.
I don’t believe that they will vote the same way on the Oregon situation, but I am glad to have both of them as members of LPNY.
Caryn, the threats to the LNC disturb me also. I do know, however, that the legal fees due to the silly lawsuit have been well over a quarter of a million for the Wagner group, which is a figure I knew about many months ago. It’s undoubtedly much more. My state party (CA) would have trouble overlooking that.
However, I also wonder if the current people of the Libertarian Party of Oregon still wish to go forward with the threats Mr. Wagner has outlined. He isn’t chair anymore–is it conceivable at all they’ll just take their disaffiliation and choose to work without the LNC, efffectively just ignoring them?
“if one email from the Chair is what triggers this 30 day window then why did not the three executive orders from other Chairs recognizing Wagner trigger the window?”
That is an excellent question, and yet another reason why their theory of “constructive (i.e. de facto) disaffiliation” is a house of cards.
Regarding “going nuclear” etc., at this point I am starting to think the LP would work better as a looser confederation of state parties, which is what LNC is *supposed* to be. Their only real job, such as it is, is to put on the convention so the state parties can agree on a presidential ticket and platform, to help that ticket have nationwide ballot access, and to charter affiliates in states that don’t yet have one. I’m sure I’m missing one or two other things, but that’s the gist of it.
However, I agree with Paul, a formal split with different states (and different factions within the same state) being affiliated with different national parties is not the answer. Unless the LNC- be that Convention or Committee- agrees and approves of the change, too much would be lost and the acrimony would run too deep for too long. It would not be the relatively quick and seamless transition where all 50-ish state parties disaffiliate from LNC and re-affiliate with each other in some Federation of Libertarian Parties. Whether or not that’s the fault of LPO or LNC, I’m inclined to say the latter at this point. The vast majority of the rank-and-file membership still have no idea about the whole situation, and as we’ve seen at national conventions (which are relatively more involved and informed than the membership at large) they don’t react kindly or positively to having Oregon’s mess dumped on their lap on the other side of the country.The typical response is something to the effect of a parent trying to tie two petulant bickering children together with a rope to teach them their lesson (I know because that was my former response to the situation). But of course LNC is not a parent and LPO is not their child.
I don’t think it would be the end of the LP- the Greens went through something similar and came out the other side of it more-or-less OK. But it would certainly set us back and take upwards of four or five years, if not longer, just as we were starting to get going again after a mostly-wasted decade.
Also, since it’s noon on the west coast, has the JC meeting happened? It was supposed to be for 1 o’clock, but I don’t think I know what time zone that was.
By the way, June 22 to July 23 is only within 30 days for very generous readings interpretations of 30 days.
Caryn,
Your understanding of the post-2011 situation seems to be sound. But to repeat, until you examine the previously existing situation, a lot of key information on what is at stake and who’s done what is going to be missing. You don’t have to flatter my work to get me to calm down. But it helps, so thanks 😀
Paulie,
With respect to the LNC, I think you’re leaving half the equation out. Yes, there’s institutional memory — of at least 20 years or so of complete organizational dysfunction. Yes, there’s the ability to get ballot access — but the key factors in that are money and skilled workers, and it’s not obvious that only the existing LNC could tap that money or persuade those skilled workers to do the work.
It is my considered opinion, knowing what I know of what Wagner has done in the past, how he’s done it, and how he plans and prepares for things, that an entirely new national committee organization is already sitting in a box under his desk, ready to launch complete with initial funding, a ready-to-go appeal to key states to choose a new affiliation center, and a plausible plan for raising money and getting the ballot access job done for the presidential election following his push of the big red button. Frankly, I think he’s been patient to a fault with respect to declining to push that button so far.
It’s sad to put a lot of money over a lot of years into a house and wake up one day to realize that it’s long since become structurally unsound and can’t be saved. But not as sad as ignoring that situation and having it fall in on top of you. If the LNC is a teardown, it’s a teardown.
I keep asking this, and I suppose it appears to be rhetorical, but I’m really curious as to what Carling and Company think will happen *if* they ever win.
Bear with me–remember, I’m an artist, and I’m mostly a visual person–
So, they win, and Tim Reeves, Ian Epstein, Aaron Starr, M Carling, Dave Terry and, just for fun, let’s throw in Roger Stone, join arms like they did in “Wizard of Oz”, and skip toward the “Land of Oregon”, whereby they are greeted by delighted servants of the castle, pampered from their long trip, and treated as if they’re royalty?
Seriously, what will happen when they get there? It seems the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon have been fairly happy the past four years.
I know a fair bit of it, but it stretches way before my time – into the early 1990s and I have been told even into the 1980s.
Yes, although those are actually two separate matters.
That’s why it’s “constructive” or de facto disaffiliation, which was also what Wagner et al claimed in 2011.
They would have, except that the appeal wasn’t filed. Obviously they wouldn’t have appealed to the 2011 JC because that was the one that just ruled against them. I don’t know why they did not appeal in 2012-2014; probably because they didn’t have the votes on the JC to win, or because they were hoping they would win in Oregon courts first or some other reason or excuse or combination. I guess they can say they exhausted all their other options with the LNC, took time to put together their case, etc. And by executive orders I don’t mean there was an Executive Order number so and so issued on such and such a date; rather, informal or off the record conversations between chair and staff, in most cases. Some of it may have been on the record – I’m not sure. Mostly it’s just been continuity of operations.
Caryn, I think you have a general understanding of what has occurred since 2011. I am not an attorney, so my writing of the events were a bit simplistic in this article. I came onto this situation around 2011, and I don’t have specifics of what happened before then, and don’t feel like filling in that void. It’s clear to me who the troublemakers are, and I clearly have taken up a side, which is probably not good since I’ve done much of the reporting on Oregon here, but because of that understading, I definitely side with the Wagner group.
You can give me a call at 205-534-1622 if you feel like it.
Caryn
You are not winning this battle surrounded by disloyal allies who constantly stab you in the back, undermine you, etc. This is just unfortunate reality that not everyone involved is a friend.
>>As Wagner lays out his case above, and as Knapp agrees, they believe that going nuclear against the LNC will be in the larger interests of the party. I think the party will crash and burn. I guess we’ll have to find out the hard way.>>>
I agree with you, and I hope it is worth it to them if they go that route. Because it seems pretty damned rotten from here. Throw the rest of the corpse of our freedoms to the dogs.
Thank you Paulie, that clarified things a LOT. I will have to chew on that.
And yeah I know the right spelling of Sarwark, but my eyes aren’t so good on this little keyboard and I mess up.
Another puzzlement though…. I understand Carling’s position that they can revisit JC decisions at any time pursuant to RONR, but it seems the Reeves faction is claiming that they are within the bylaws timeframe because they requested this within 30 days of Sarwark’s email “disaffiliating them”—– I thought it took a whole vote of the LNC to disaffiliate them if that is what happened…. if one email from the Chair is what triggers this 30 day window then why did not the three executive orders from other Chairs recognizing Wagner trigger the window?
Correct in practical effect. Wagner et al are being treated as the LNC affiliate by executive order of three successive national chairs to HQ staff (the first one, Hinkle, sided with the other side, but concluded that he needed to defer to the JC even though he thought they were wrong). That is being listed in the listing of state chairs, on the LP national website, given monthly data dumps, etc. The full LNC on the other hand has voted in the other direction, and has never rescinded its resolution that the other side is the affiliate. As of last term when HQ took over the statechairs list from the LSLA, Wagner also replace Burke and Reeves on the statechairs list. As far as I know Wagner’s successor Hedbor has never posted on that list, so I can only assume he is on there lurking. As far as convention seating goes the question was undecided in 2012, and the delegates sided against Wagner. In 2014, it was technically Wagner et al’s delegation, but the other side moved to seat themselves in that delegation against the delegation’s wishes. Chair Neale ruled that to be in order, and his ruling was upheld by the delegates. The other side took over the delegation by 3-2 and chaired it from then on.
Yes, although it’s Sarwark (no c).
As you said above – they consider themselves to be the valid affiliate because the LNC ruled that the JC decision lacked authority in the bylaws and lacked jurisdiction to take the case because according to them Wagner et al were never the legitimate affiliate so had no standing to bring a case to the 2011 JC. Thus, they conclude that they should have been treated as the legitimate affiliate all along. Additionally, they point to the actions of the delegates in 2012 and 2014 essentially siding with them. Finally, M Carling contends that Roberts Rules allow any JC to reconsider any decision by any past JC with no time limit.
He has been one of their officers several times, on their state JC and as chair of their conventions. He is a plaintiff in their lawsuit before state courts in Oregon. So yeah, he is biased towards his own faction, LOL.
Yes, despite Tom’s caveat that the LNC is not the LP. If someone nuked DC I would say they had gone nuclear against the US even though DC is clearly not the whole US.
As Wagner lays out his case above, and as Knapp agrees, they believe that going nuclear against the LNC will be in the larger interests of the party. I think the party will crash and burn. I guess we’ll have to find out the hard way.
Caryn,
The LPOR views the LNC as an organization that has repeatedly tried to destroy it. This situation is a two way street.
Their fundraising antipublicity will I expect emphasize how badly the LNC spends its money, at least until their suit against the LNC finishes.
With respect to party splits, persuading state parties to switch affiliation may take time, like next state convention. My state’s party bylaws let us affiliate with as many groups as we see fit.
You will be able to identify the serious groups after the split, because they are the ones that will move vigorously to launch affiliates in states where the local LP stayed with another faction.
George
Tom is intimately aware of the details of the who did what to who and could give a blow by blow account with less bias.
When it comes down to it, it is as simple as this… 97% of the registered libertarians voted in Oregon that they approved of and supported our new structure. (800+ votes cast) We ran record numbers of partisan candidates in 2012 and set a new record in 2014. Per capita we run more candidates than any other state.
The other side has the Oregon Republican Party Vice Chair as their lawyer and is suing to overturn the will of the registered libertarians of Oregon.
If you can’t figure out which side is which from that… we have larger problems.
That invitation is open to Tom as well, who’s work I have greatly admired.
As someone who has no clue who is right here, it just seems that the threats and the expulsions and all that just are not what is best for the cause we all believe in.
I would love to know very in detail what happened. Do you want to explain it to me? I would welcome a phone call.
They survive because new naive people keep entering the meat grinder and can’t figure out quickly enough that there are honestly very bad people within the organization intentionally making it ineffective and occasionally using its resources to attempt to suppress libertarians – but mostly just wasting them.
Caryn
Some of us are not.. some of us are traitors and are not here for the good of the cause, and the national party has strayed so far from the path, institutionally they have become an enemy to the cause as evidenced by their actions.
>>At least someone understands what is about to happen.>>>
Nice threat Wes. Because of course we are all in this for liberty right?
Were anyone from the Reeves faction seated as delegates last convention? Were they refused? If they thought they were the legitimate affiliate wouldn’t THAT have been notice of disaffiliation? Sorry if that is a beginniner question it came to mind…
“If you keep breaking into my house to steal my stuff and I keep escorting you to the door and threatening to shoot you if you don’t knock it off, when I finally DO shoot you it’s your own damn fault.” -Knapp
At least someone understands what is about to happen.
Tom
>>I know that you want to limit the discussion to events following the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling, but that’s just impossible to do.>>>
I only want to limit it until I understand what happened post 2011. I have to take this in chunks or it is overwhelming.
Tom no need to ignore, I enjoy your comments (both here, on your blog, and in your podcast). I am sorry if you don’t see how you are getting a bit too riled up from someone asking questions, but this is complicated to learn.
So do I, despite the distinction Tom draws above regarding the difference between the LNC and the LP. He believes as he said above that what the LNC does for the LP can be easily replaced. And as I said above, I disagree on that point.
Paulie — Let me just repost it, as I am going to need to update it with information Nick just gave:
I am going to beg tolerance once as I am new to this and been diligently working at keeping up. Right now, I am ignoring the history prior to the 2011 JC decision. To me, that is kind of the reset point and that what went on before is irrelevant (will eventually learn that). So the 2011 JC decided in favor of the Wagner faction against the Reeves faction. The LNC disagreed, but eventually had to capitulate so that the Wagner faction is the official affiliate? Is this correct so far?
The Reeves faction sued in OR to get themselves recognized which was denied October, 2013. They are appealing that decision. In June 2015, the Reeves faction wrote Chair Sarwarck demanding recognition pursuant to the LNC refusal to recognize the 2011 JC decision. They considered themselves as an affiliate since that LNC decision. They take Chair Sarwarck’s reply as an official disaffiliation notice and are appealing.
Now, many years later, the Reeves (now Epstein but going to call it Reeves for continuity) faction is appealing the 2011 JC decision. On what grounds? And under what theory of jurisdiction?
And Carling is biased towards the Reeves faction…. if a decision is granted in favor of the Reeves faction, the Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP (which I have a lot of problems with that threat btw–some of us are in this because we actually believe this stuff and what is best for people, not this power bullshit– just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you should and screw everyone up the yahoo )?
roll calls. the lack of pause for edit is distracting, though lass bad than Facebooks inconsistent uses of “enter”.
role calls
Caryn,
I’m not sure why you think I’m being “aggressive” with you. I’m not looking for allies. I’m just discussing an issue. Feel free to ignore me, and I’ll do my best to remember to do likewise if it makes you feel better.
I may be forgetting, but I do not believe the National Convention does tole calls, except for the Secretary verifying a count during certain events at a recent NatCon.
I miss comment numbers 🙁
(For those of us who have been here long enough to remember them.)
Refresh my memory, what time stamp comment are you referring to? I can probably answer your question.
>>>That’s not all. What has been hinted at also includes lawsuits and nationwide publicity to minimize LNC donations, working to get other states to disaffiliate from the LNC, etc.>>>
Yes Paulie that is what I was getting at. I see that as a distinct threat to the LP.
I thought it was roll call, but it may have just been standing count.
Tom I am sorry you are getting so aggressive with me. I am a potential ally. Still am.
Can you let me know if my rendition of the facts post-2011 is correct? And despite objections to my terminology, I feel the need to use it for my own clarification until I get my head around this thing.
If Tom does not wish to say whether my understanding of the post-2011 facts are correct will someone else? I don’t want to proceed any further in trying to understand without knowing if I screwed up somewhere there.
Thanks!
My larger point stands.
“he convention delegates by and large did not understand the ramifications of that vote.” That’s why I said “identifiably”. the delegates who voted that way are not identifiable.
“especially from people who do not agree with you” For example, people who do think you should consider the next step, like Paulie.
“Fortunately, or perhaps not, the LNC does have substantial assets” There was a reason I said “or perhaps not”
“What has been hinted at also includes lawsuits and nationwide publicity to minimize LNC donations, working to get other states to disaffiliate from the LNC”
But none of those constitute “going nuclear on the LP.”
The LNC is not the LP. It never has been and it never will be. It is a mutual affiliation mechanism through which the LPs — all 50-odd of them — do certain things.
If the LNC follows the likely prescriptions in Carling’s forthcoming ukase, it will be the LNC that is “going nuclear on the LP.”
Caryn,
This isn’t a matter of me “not liking your terminology.”
The “Wagner faction” IS the Libertarian Party of Oregon. That’s a simple and irrefutable fact established several times in court. And that fact has consequences. If the Judicial Committee and/or the LNC disaffiliate LPO, the consequences that cannot be properly blamed on LPO or described as LPO “going nuclear.”
LPO owns the name “Libertarian Party of Oregon.” The LNC does not.
LPO owns the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon. The LNC does not.
Those are just facts.
I know that you want to limit the discussion to events following the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling, but that’s just impossible to do.
The LNC’s executive committee attempted to disaffiliate LPO in favor of the Reeves Gang, even though it had no power to do so — disaffiliation requires a vote of the entire LNC. That was why the Judicial Committee came into the matter in the first place.
The LNC spent member money on lawyers to assist the Reeves Gang in its legal attempts to fraudulently wrest control of LPO’s assets from LPO through the courts.
Four five years or so now, the LNC has fairly routinely made war upon its Oregon affiliate. That affiliate’s response has been to defend itself and to “threaten” the LNC with the obvious ultimate consequences of its actions.
If you keep breaking into my house to steal my stuff and I keep escorting you to the door and threatening to shoot you if you don’t knock it off, when I finally DO shoot you it’s your own damn fault.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Judicial-Committee-Petition-Submission.pdf and see discussion at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/appeal-on-oregon-libertarian-effective-disaffiliation-filed-with-libertarian-national-judiciary-committee/
My most recent comment may be caught in the spam filter. It had some email headers.
The text is reproduced in the petition, but it’s easier for me to copy from my email, since I was one of the participants in the exchange. See below:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.41.208 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:12:11 -0700
Subject: Re: LP Oregon snafu
From: Nicholas Sarwark
To: Ian Epstein
Cc: “[email protected]”
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11c2883010318e051925ebc1
–001a11c2883010318e051925ebc1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28830103180051925ebbf
–001a11c28830103180051925ebbf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear Mr. Epstein,
Thank you for contacting me.
It is my understanding that your group’s lawsuit to establish your status
as the Libertarian Party of Oregon was dismissed at summary judgment on
October 25, 2013 and that you are currently appealing that ruling.
Additionally, it is my understanding that your group has requested that the
Oregon Secretary of State recognize it as the Libertarian Party of Oregon
and that the Secretary of State has both declined to do so and required
that you operate as a political action committee (see attached letter).
As such, I will not comply with your demands. Please do inform me if the
legal situation changes.
Yours in liberty,
Nicholas Sarwark
Chair, Libertarian National Committee
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Ian Epstein wrote:
> Dear Chair Sarwark,
>
> The Libertarian Party of Oregon held it’s 2015 Annual Business Convention
> at the Red Lion Inn on Saturday, March 21, in the city of Pendleton. The
> convention was properly noticed and held in accordance with LPO Bylaws
> adopted by members in properly noticed conventions.
>
> At that convention I was elected to the position of LPO Chair and
> currently serve in that capacity. Unfortunately, your staff continues to
> recognize another organization as the LNC’s Oregon affiliate. This is
> despite numerous resolutions adopted by the LNC and it’s Executive
> Committee during the previous LNC term saying that the organization I
> represent is the legitimate LNC affiliate in Oregon. From what I
> understand, none of those resolutions have been rescinded or reversed by
> the current LNC.
>
> I understand that the National Judicial Committee, which you chaired in
> the previous term, ruled to defer a question to the Oregon Secretary of
> State which they have refused to adjudicate, specifically whether the
> legitimate LNC affiliate organization in Oregon is the one operating under
> governing documents adopted by members at properly noticed conventions or
> the organization operating under governing documents purportedly adopted at
> a March 31, 2011 State Committee meeting.
>
> This being the case, I respectfully demand that you instruct your staff to
> follow LNC resolutions still in force by recognizing our organization as
> the legitimate LNC affiliate in Oregon (the one operating under governing
> documents adopted by members in properly noticed conventions) which has
> been the LNC’s Oregon affiliate since the 1970s. I further demand that
> staff be instructed to make all necessary changes to the LNC’s Internet
> presence and all other relevant administrative policies in order to be
> consistent with this recognition.
>
> For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the minutes of the March
> 21, 2015 LPO Annual Business Convention. Thank you.
>
> Ian Epstein, State Chair
> Libertarian Party of Oregon
>
> Attachment
>
> cc: Alicia Mattson, National LP Secretary
>
That’s not all. What has been hinted at also includes lawsuits and nationwide publicity to minimize LNC donations, working to get other states to disaffiliate from the LNC, etc.
Tom I am using the names for my own clarify, not imply no one is legitimate. I DON’T KNOW!!! I am trying to figure this out. So until then I hope you will excuse my terminology it is not meant for anything else other than clarity for me.
And I am sorry Tom, it was worded as a threat. And I didn’t say they didn’t have the right to make it. I was asking if they should make it.
I have a lack of familiarity with the whole thing, admitted. I am not yet interested in going prior to the 2011 JC ruling as I want to understand properly what happened after.
So other than not liking my terminology or my objection to what I saw as a threat, were the facts right? Can you correct me where I am wrong on the facts?
It is obviously you have a side in this and that is fine, but I don’t yet. It may yet be your side, but that won’t happen except by patient explaining. I really just want to learn.
“I believe Marines are also fond of the 6 Ps,”
Seven — Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Caryn,
You write:
“if a decision is granted in favor of the Reeves faction, the Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP (which I have a lot of problems with that threat btw”
It’s somewhat untrue to treat it as a “threat.”
What you’re calling the “Wagner faction” has a formal name. It is the Libertarian Party of Oregon. It will remain the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and it will control access for the Libertarian Party ballot line in Oregon, regardless of anything the Judicial Committee or the LNC does. All the LPO is saying is that if the JC/LNC disaffiliate it, it will act accordingly. If it’s not the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, for example, it has no obligation to put the LNC’s presidential nominee on the Libertarian ballot line in Oregon.
You mention a lack of familiarity with the situation prior to the 2011 ruling. In brief, that history includes several instances of the LNC itself, the LNC’s executive committee, and certain persons associated with both, aiding and abetting the Reeves Gang impostors in their attempt to destroy LPO, steal its LNC affiliation without even the formality of a vote of the full LNC, etc.
So far LPO has talked mean but played nice. At some point it is not unreasonable to expect that they’ll start defending themselves instead of just hoping the LNC and the Judicial Committee do the right thing.
In addition to this giant mess, the fundraising and membership trends issue needs to be effectively addressed. Biggest relatively easy thing that has to be done on that is get HQ to push monthly pledges way, way, way more. Large scale prospecting would be great, but it does take some money to get rolling with that.
It’s possible to have some contigency plans.
Carling, Visek, Wolf, and almost certainly Sink-Burris are solid votes on their side. I don’t think M would have even bothered taking the case unless he knew he had the votes lined up. Setting himself up for a defeat wouldn’t have been smart.
And please don’t tell me we can’t predict which way Carling will vote, LOL.
Certainly understandable, but the fallout from this one will be huge. Contigency plans are important, as I think would have been a clarification from the 2011 JC. Oh well.
I believe Marines are also fond of the 6 Ps, although I don’t know whether that’s specifically a Marine thing or just more general. Knapp might could fill us in on that.
===To be more clear, the claim is that my email to Mr. Epstein was a disaffiliation and that they are appealing that within the 30 days.===
To be sure I am following, where is the text of this email exchange?
I am going to beg tolerance once as I am new to this and been diligently working at keeping up. Right now, I am ignoring the history prior to the 2011 JC decision. To me, that is kind of the reset point and that what went on before is irrelevant (will eventually learn that). So the 2011 JC decided in favor of the Wagner faction against the Reeves faction. The LNC disagreed, but eventually had to capitulate so that the Wagner faction is the official affiliate? Is this correct so far?
Now, many years later, the Reeves (now Epstein but going to call it Reeves for continuity) faction is appealing the 2011 JC decision. On what grounds? And under what theory of jurisdiction?
And Carling is biased towards the Reeves faction…. if a decision is granted in favor of the Reeves faction, the Wagner faction has threatened to go nuclear on the LP (which I have a lot of problems with that threat btw–some of us are in this because we actually believe this stuff and what is best for people, not this power bullshit– just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you should and screw everyone up the yahoo )?
Somebody should dig up some JC ruling from the 70s or 80s (if the archives even exist) and try to appeal it for reconsideration by Carling et al.
That’s one of their claims. They also claim various ongoing actions (not getting monthly dumps, not being on statechairs list, not being listed on the website, etc). The underlying premise is that they are the legitimate affiliate as expressed indirectly by the votes of the delegates and more directly by the LNC motion which passed in 2011 saying the JC ruling then is null and void because it lacked jurisdiction and authority.
Also they claim they have unlimited time to reconsider any ruling by any past JC, in this case the 2011 ruling.
“I am likely to seek re-election as Chair. Like all things likely, that is subject to change if circumstances dictate. There are good reasons to stay Chair and good reasons to step down, but the former outweigh the latter at present.”
At least that’s some good news today. 😉
To be more clear, the claim is that my email to Mr. Epstein was a disaffiliation and that they are appealing that within the 30 days.
Regardless of merit, it’s important to correctly state their position.
You’re dreaming.
The will to make it happen, knowing how to plan it and execute it, knowing how to fundraise, credibility with donors … donor base is just one of many elements.
In the meantime, all the other things I mentioned happen.
Highly unlikely.
Many of the states don’t care about the states without ballot access. In fact that is one of their perpetual complaints about the LNC. There are a lot of things that have been built up by trial and error, institutional knowledge… that will all be gone.
And they most likely will still be in disarray four years later.
“They are saying they have been de facto disaffiliated”
Yeah — more than 30 days ago. They had 30 days from disaffiliation to appeal. It’s been what, two years? Three?
“How long will it take to replace all that?”
Everything except the donor base? A week or so.
Of course the donor base is necessary to providing for ballot access in states with tough laws and/or not especially strong affiliates. And it might take years to rebuild that donor base. Or it might turn out that there are lots of former national donors out there who are ready to become donors again if the LP straightens the hell up; and people who’ve declined to donate in the past due to the ongoing foolishness who might take a flyer on a new organization that seems to have its shit together.
The best time for state affiliates to leave the LNC and set up a new affiliation apparatus would be the day after a presidential election, giving them four years to get handle on presidential ballot access for the next one.
Clarifications for those who may be interested:
I am likely to seek re-election as Chair. Like all things likely, that is subject to change if circumstances dictate. There are good reasons to stay Chair and good reasons to step down, but the former outweigh the latter at present.
My not seeking advice at this time is not because I don’t want or appreciate it, it’s because this situation is fluid and it seems premature to spend a lot of time planning for unknown future events. I know that many of the commenters here are very confident that they know what is going to happen next; I am less so.
Additionally, much of my time in the last couple of weeks has been taken up with the actual work of being Chairman of the LNC, like fundraising calls, communication with staff, responding to Libertarian Party members, etc. I also work and have a family. The time I budget for shenanigans is a relatively small amount.
As a Marine I used to work with liked to say, “Semper Gumby,” i.e. stay flexible.
The Marines have another saying that’s also apropos, “Adapt and overcome.”
They are saying they have been de facto disaffiliated, just like Wagner et al did in 2011.
“An action of the LNC has to be appealed to the Judicial Committee by a certain number of members or national convention delegates before the Judicial Committee gets the power to consider it.
“Or by a state affiliate.”
Nope. At least not according to the bylaws. The only thing state affiliates get to appeal is disaffiliation.
Why would you presume I disagree with him? I’m on his side on this and was hoping to help him plan. That’s OK though.
No one was discussing chemtrails here, and it’s not a particular hobby of mine. I was going to help strategize about possible responses to the present situation. Clearly my advice was not wanted.
Off topic, but what’s so great about the UN?
He said he hasn’t decided. I would not blame him for not taking another two years to devote to such a huge volunteer task when he he has a growing family and business to take care of, nor for being fed up with crap like this and much else, but he hasn’t actually said he is unlikely to run, only that he hasn’t decided.
Geoff Neale likewise claimed to be undecided about running again, until he announced, although it seemed clear to me and many othesr that he had and was running again.
Yes, but they will suck up a lot of money and good will in the meantime, as will the publicity campaign and the ballot access domino effect.
I agree.
“The 2011 LNC caimed this was the case with the 2011 JC.”
And those claims were absurd, as the judicial committee explained to them that the officers and agents of a legal entity remain that legal entity no matter what fantasy they want to believe. There is objective reality and the 2011 LNC was trying to ignore it.
The 2011 LNC caimed this was the case with the 2011 JC.
“Yes, but in this matter there is disagreement over who is right. The question is who gets to decide? If an act of Congress and the President is appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court rules against them, should Congress and the president be able to say the court lacked authority? ”
If the court took a case about regulations requiring veterinarians to have certain qualifications and in turn issued a ruling ordering the president to launch a nuclear strike against china… ?
So next we will have a bloody ‘Mascara’.
Sadly, I don’t see it happening.
Yes, but in this matter there is disagreement over who is right. The question is who gets to decide? If an act of Congress and the President is appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court rules against them, should Congress and the president be able to say the court lacked authority?
The other side has counterarguments to all those points, and arguments for why they believe the 2011 ruling lacked standing and exceeded authority by ruling on a basis not covered in the bylaws. The LNC agreed with that counterargument. The question is who gets to decide?
Or by a state affiliate. According to them, Epstein, Reeves, Burke et al are the legitimate state affiliate, as recognized by various votes of the LNC and convention delegates; the 2011 decision is null and oid and lacked jurisdiction and authority to begin with; etc.
And Carling accepted that logic in taking the case. Naturally, since he probably wrote or co-wrote it.
Clearly M Carling has gone ‘Rouge’ and leading the JC down that path as well. This is from what I see, M Carling though the JC is taking control of the LNC though judicial fiats.
It is now up to the LNC Board to stand up and counter M Carling or will backdown and become his submissive.
Good luck. It’s not as easy as that. Putting all those lists and databases and other existing infrastucture back together will be a massive task, and quite likely impossible. In the meantime, we will fail to get ballot access in multiple states, some states will lose existing ballot access, some will cease to have LPs of any kind at all. Many states don’t even have their own database other than what national gives them, and don’t have anyone that will create and consistently maintain one. There won’t be much of a mechanism for states to help each other out with ballot access. A chunk of our national press release/media interviews – out the window. Sorry, office closed, no one to call. Who does the national media call about national issues if they want the LP’s opinion…some state party? Which state? Many states don’t have a newsletter – LP News is the only communication a lot of members ever see. That will be gone. Many states don’t do their own fundraising; LP national fundraising is all that people ever get. And when they don’t get emails, snail mail, etc, the lists get stale. People move, lose interest, etc.
How long will it take to replace all that? Can it even be done at all?
“If the JC issues that ruling and the JC is the ultimate authority”
The second clause there is fantasy. The JC is the ultimate authority ON CERTAIN THINGS and UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. It’s not just some magical ultimate authority on everything.
The bylaws say what the JC’s jurisdiction is.
Its jurisdiction does cover actual disaffiliation of actual affiliate parties, provided that the disaffiliated organization appeals the disaffiliation to it within 30 days.
In this case, there was no actual disaffiliation, since the Reeves Gang was never an affiliate party. And even if the Reeves Gang HAD been an actual affiliate party and HAD been actually disaffiliated, the 30-day appeal period within which the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction applies ran out a long time ago.
The LNC is not “directed” in the bylaws to do whatever the Judicial Committee says, just because the Judicial Committee said to do it. There are specific rules for disaffiliation, just as there are specific rules for other situations. For example, if the LNC does something M Carling doesn’t like, M Carling doesn’t get to just convene the Judicial Committee and overturn it. An action of the LNC has to be appealed to the Judicial Committee by a certain number of members or national convention delegates before the Judicial Committee gets the power to consider it.
That’s rather a lot of people. And the convention delegates by and large did not understand the ramifications of that vote.
Fortunately? I don’t think so.
I agree. The question is what happens if the LNC and JC disagree whether the JC has jurisdiction or not. In 2011 after the JC vote, the LNC passed a resolution that the JC did not have jurisdiction and had exceeded its authority in recognizing the Wagner group as a group with standing to bring the case, and in issuing a ruling that they believe is not supported by the bylaws. Supposing the shoe is now on the other foot… If it’s up to the LNC to decide whether a particular JC ruling was within the authority of the JC, that makes the LNC, not the JC, the final arbiter. Atthat point you can reasonably say that the JC is toothless and should not even exist as it serves no practical purpose – appeal an action of the LNC, lose at the JC, LNC overrules it.
It was on this basis that Starr and allies advanced a bylaws proposal to eliminate the JC altogether last year.
Listening to advice, especially form people who do not agree with you, is good up to a point. You need to stop before you reach the chemtrail nuts, the out of the UN because it is the chief threat to our liberties folks, etc., at least on the topic of their lunacies.
Mr Sarwark has already dropped at least two hints that he may not be running for re-election. At some point, when you reach that class of conclusion, you decide to look ahead and let current matters take their course. However, like all hints, perhaps they need a different interpretation. Lawsuits take sufficiently long to resolve that the catastrophe may take years to occur.
I have had several of our party’s competent attorneys try to explain to me that an Oregon suit for court costs would go no where. This explanation lasted until I explained that the entire process is occurring under Oregon law, not Federal law, and Oregon law apparently has somewhat vigorous shields against straw litigants.
Mr Wagner’s remarks about criminal law protections of his organization’s property should in my opinion be taken seriously.
Yep. But, additionally, by all past indications, most of them will actually agree with that decision as well. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.
If the JC issues that ruling and the JC is the ultimate authority, isn’t the LNC directed to do all those things? Wouldn’t failure to do them just lead to another JC appeal?
I don’t see that happening. Even if it did, they would then have to reaffiliate with the Wagner group, and who says the Wagner group would decide to reaffiliate with them? I am guessing the answer would be no.
Yep.
I asked Nick what his next move was after the JC rules as I expect they will. He said he can’t control what other people do. If he’s thinking even one move ahead, he clearly does not want my advice on strategy. I also suggested that I thought it would help if the winning side of the 2011 JC vote which is being reconsidered (Wrights, Nick, and Judge Gray) clarified as Bill Hall already did that “..the group recognized by the SOS is the state affiliate…” just means the Wagner group in that particular case, not any state party recognized by any state SOS in any state at any time, as the Carling/Starr/Burke/Reeves/Epstein argument contends.
I don’t think there is any way to head them off at the pass, but I do think that if the winning majority of the 2011 JC decision went on record about this it would help with the public relations nightmare and lawsuits which will follow from this.
If the current JC can’t say that they did not see a clarification from the JC whose ruling they are supposedly reconsidering, it will be easier to counter-argue against their case.
Nick said he will not engage them at this time, Lee asked me what the hell is going on (a few minutes ago), and Judge Gray did not respond (at least yet).
As an illustration of their side of this argument the Epstein/Burke side got Mike Lawson to write the JC:
Supposing Mike Lawson did in fact seriously do this, him and his daughter would be recognized by AL-SOS *as a PAC*, not as a party. The current LPAL is already recognized by AL-SOS as a PAC. We are not recognized as a *party* — but then neither would Lawson and daughter, unless they got about 35,000 valid signatures certified as such by the SOS not later than March 1, 2016, and comply with various other requirements of being recognized as a party. On the latter score we haven’t done that since 2000 – but they will not have, either.
“Although last I heard, he actually lives most of the time in either Latvia or Lithuania, I’m forgetting which.”
That’s the first thing I’ve heard about this fiasco which makes any sense.
“So the JC can do literally whatever it wants and issue any order it wants, in the total absence of any authority to do so, and the LNC will just rubberstamp it because they’re the JC?”
The possibility of such a rubber stamp does indeed exist.
It would be easy to just blame Starr/Mattson/Carling and their accomplices and dupes for that mindset, given their efforts over the course of more than a decade to destroy the LP by exploiting its institutional dysfunctions.
But those dysfunctions were already there to exploit.
Off the top of my head, California. Although last I heard, he actually lives most of the time in either Latvia or Lithuania, I’m forgetting which.
Dunno. It’s certainly going to be a very big problem moving forward.
I’m not sure where you think you’re disagreeing with me.
Yes, the Supreme Court can accept any case where a plaintiff has standing and the Court has jurisdiction. But as I pointed out, in this instance the plaintiff lacks standing and the Judicial Committee lacks jurisdiction.
M and Burke are running the same game at national which caused the abolishment of the judicial committee as an institution in Oregon. I would not be surprised if the next national organization had no judicial committee.
“he justices can decide to “take up a case”” Yes, you can file directly with teh SC, and in cases where they have first jurisdiction they may even take it up.
“There is a majority on the LNC that will say the JC decision must be respected under the bylaws, whether or not they agree with the decision (or think the JC has gone insane).”
So the JC can do literally whatever it wants and issue any order it wants, in the total absence of any authority to do so, and the LNC will just rubberstamp it because they’re the JC? Why even bother having written by-laws at all then, if JC can just make it up as they go along and nobody can do anything about it?
“The most sensible thing for the LNC to do after the JC violates the bylaws recognizing the Reeves group without subject matter jurisdiction would be to immediately introduce and pass a motion disaffiliating the Reeves group.”
…which they never voted to affiliate with in the first place.
Oh yes, any member of the current Judicial Committee who votes to support the Reeves faction. And be sure that the other JudComm members are in position to appoint, immediately, replacement JudComm members so that when the expelees appeal their earned fate, well, they earned it.
Alternatively, prepare to organize a new national party. “Liberty for America” based on Hayekian Libertarianism comes to mind.
I just renewed my “national membership” this morning (I’ve been meaning to do it for a month and kept forgetting). I guess I’m just a die-hard bitter-ender, but the election of Sarwark as chair gave me new hope that the LNC could be straightened out. That hope may have been false, but I intend to fight for it at least one last time next year in Orlando.
Quoth Paulie:
“or that the JC has the final say (which, to be fair – if they don’t, why do we have one?)”
The Judicial Committee has an explicit jurisdiction, laid out to a reasonable level of detail in the bylaws. That jurisdiction does not include acting as a “keep reconsidering as often as we please” appellate court versus prior Judicial Committee decisions on the basis of untimely complaints (if the Reeves Gang ever had been an affiliate, the bylaws gave them 30 days to appeal their disaffiliation) by parties without standing (the Reeves Gang was never an affiliate).
The US Supreme Court has “final say” within its jurisdiction, too. But that doesn’t mean the justices can decide to “take up a case” that consists of the Comptroller of Argentina calling up John Roberts and saying “you really ought to outlaw cake.”
The effective alternative is to go down the list, namely the people on the original ExComm who voted to recognize the Reeves faction, the 14 LNC members who made a supportive statement to the last JudComm, anyone who identifiably supported the last two Oregon delegation travesties, and any people who manage to get the LNC sued if this actually happens, and expel the lot of them from the National Party. And return their current dues, of course.
Fortunately, or perhaps not, the LNC does have substantial assets that the legitimate Oregon Party and its officers may recover if they sue successfully for damages: A Treasury, possibly with positive dollar contents. A building. Various pieces of literature. Intellectual property. All copies of multiple mailing lists. Oh, yes, various trademarks. Ownership of the corporate structure. The right to file with the FEC as a “political party” rather than a PAC.
Email dated 6/4/2011 to Mary Ruwart:
Mary,
Mr. Knight is correct. The entire idea that national has any leverage on the Libertarian Party of Oregon is just the wishful dreams and hopes of some individuals at national who like to inspire fear and threaten state parties into line. These are the actions of an organization and people who believe they hold the power to decide who gets to have fiefdoms and if those feudal lords do not act as they desire, then they of course have to be disposed of.
Unfortunately, as in most great lies, the reverse of the message being perpetrated by the liar is often the truth. That happens to be the case in this instance. National has absolutely no authority under Oregon election law whatsoever, and previous threats (ones which you are being simply echoing because you are hearing them) are vacuous.
The intent behind those threats, however, speaks volumes of the woeful misguidance of party “leadership”. National already declared war on the Libertarian Party of Oregon, through the actions that occurred prior to the November 2010 convention, actions that were discussed and almost taken in 2007, and a few other issues. However, this latest interloping was far beyond the pale.
I will however, out of the respect I have for you personally, settle down the sabre rattling in order to allow you to try to seek a favorable outcome and give our board time to take formal action on this matter.
However, bear in mind that the typical national response of playing ostrich and pretending you do not have bad actors amongst your mix and hoping that no one will notice after a giant blunder like this occurred and that somehow it will blow over will not be considered acceptable and the issue will be pressed. Mr. Burke and his ilk tried that path in Oregon, and you have seen how that turned out for them. All they have now is a begging bowl, and some people at national seem inclined to repeat their mistakes.
Ultimately though, this is the way it really is: If national does not take visible corrective action in an open and transparent manner, self-preservation and principle alone would compel us to respond, lest we continue to invite more abuse by behaving like a co-dependent cowed abused subordinate.
In short, public seppuku is in order. If the individuals involved do not have that much honor, than the national party at least needs to regain their honor by making it involuntary seppuku in order to gain theirs back.
Abiding them and doing nothing makes the entirety of your organization bear their guilt. If the national LP does not have the courage to take out the trash in their own organization, they cannot be trusted to deal appropriately with the D’s and the R’s, and thus are of no value. We learned this lesson in Oregon and it took way too long – but we will hold national to this standard now that we know better.
Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
There is a majority on the LNC that will say the JC decision must be respected under the bylaws, whether or not they agree with the decision (or think the JC has gone insane).
I actually agree that the LNC can’t just ignore the JC. When the JC rubber stamps the Reeves group, the LNC would need to switch data sharing to the Reeves group. On the other hand, I do not see any reason the LNC should be forced into writing letters to a domain registrar, the secretary of state, Facebook, or Meetup. They could leave that be.
The most sensible thing for the LNC to do after the JC violates the bylaws recognizing the Reeves group without subject matter jurisdiction would be to immediately introduce and pass a motion disaffiliating the Reeves group.
Andy
The problems are institutional, and they reflect a culmination of culture that has been allowed to develop over 30 years. This does not get solved in a convention… it is solved by all the productive members of the organization leaving the scum behind and restructuring in a manner that is aligned with the core principles shared by those producers.
In reality the states own all the assets, the people in those states are the only value the party has. Everything else is nothing more than theater to benefit the bureaucrats, the game players, the apparatchiks, etc. The system is designed to allow them to pretend at being important, to play politics, while accomplishing nothing.
This has been significantly deleterious to our ability to be effective in actually advancing our ideas in the marketplace of public thought. If one invests the time to consider what the national LP does, who is voted into control, why they are voted into control, how we manage our own finances, etc.,one would come to the conclusion that institutionally we are not significantly different than the people we claim we want to displace in congress and other branches of government.
This is core as to why we fail … we fight the wrong war with the wrong structure using the wrong army and we allow our perversion to compound every election cycle.
We have earned and deserve failure … but the pissing match regarding Oregon is just the symbol most ordinary and productive people who don’t dwell on these considerations needs to make the root of the problem so painfully obvious for them that they can no longer continue.
The LNC was bankrupt long ago — this series of what may eventually be considered fortuitous events if we take the right actions resulting from them — may ultimately be something that is considered as having saved libertarianism in American politics rather than destroyed it.
The difficulty level: a majority of producers need to come to the rational conclusion that the temple must be razed.
If there really is a majority on the LNC that intends to go along with this insane scheme, then we’d do better picking names at random off the membership roll than what we have now.
The issues with the LNC cannot be solved by voting at a convention. The powerful states who are in alignment with the true principles need to break away and form a new confederation.
Anything less will cause us to wallow in turpitude until we die.
Paulie wrote:
Exactly! I completely agree with everything in this comment and have been saying this in bits and pieces elsewhere since the convention (most recent piece here).
The LNC doesn’t understand the ramifications of what is going on with this judicial committee hearing and the “remedies” (except for Nick Sarwark, who has been sensibly trying to stop the trainwreck). The convention didn’t understand the ramifications of snubbing the Wagner delegation repeatedly. M Carling understands exactly what will happen — I know because I conversed briefly with Starr and Carling about Oregon before the bylaws committee “meeting” (dubbed an informal drafting session) last month and when I pointed out the probable reaction of the Wagner group Starr said any blame for bankrupting the national LP should fall on Wagner et al. not the people provoking him. A majority of the judicial committee (to be later rubber stamped by a majority of the LNC) will poke the bee’s nest, then blame the bees.
In my anger I used a double-negative, obviously that first sentence should read the opposite.
Seriously though, how can anybody look at this mess with a straight face and say the LNC is worth supporting? We need a clean sweep in Orlando, desperately. If I want to support ballot access, I’ll give directly to the relevant state party. Beyond that? What exactly am I paying for that couldn’t be done better by my own state and county parties? I can’t be the only one thinking that. And I’m about as diehard a loyal Libertarian as you’ll find.
“Unfortunately, I predict most of the LNC will disagree.”
If that happens I will not be renewing my national membership (which happens to have just lapsed), until *none* of the persons who vote in favor of this are no longer on the LNC. The only exception being if I decide to attend Orlando myself to help vote them out.
To see a smart and capable chair like Nick, repeatedly frustrated by a bunch of ignorant and self-interested clowns who contribute *nothing* to the cause of getting Libertarians elected, does not make me want to hand over any more of my money to them.
My grandma used to collect State Plates from state’s she visited. Does M Carling collect LP state memberships? Just how many state’s is he a member of their party? I recall seeing his name mentioned in New York, and of course there is Oregon. Where else?
You got me on that one. Dunno. I think it’s a phone meeting, but I don’t know if they will let the public listen in or keep a public recording of the call.
Of course not. All of his interests point in the same direction, so where’s the conflict? LOL.
He isn’t stupid.
Most of our comment community is not on his side on this or other intra-party controversies, as well as some public policy issues (see above regarding foreign policy, for example).
Is this the end of the LP then? Even the Prohibition Party survived the Dodge fiasco.
The stated rationale of the Epstein group is that they hope the SOS and Oregon courts will yield to the LNC on this. If the court were to defer to the lNC, responsibility for paying rather substantial lawyers fees and court costs will go to the plaintiffs; if they don’t, to the defendents. Carling is in fact one of theh plaintiffs. He has a direct personal financial stake, which is actually quite significant, here. Additionally, he is a member of the Epstein et al group and has been one of their officers on several occassions (judicial committee, convention chair, etc). How is it even remotely plausible for attorneys, or anyone, to argue that he has no conflict of interest? And if RONR considers that to not be a conflict of interest that should require recusal, that’s a serious defect of RONR. I would guess, offhand, that whatever jurisdiction LNC Inc’s corporate charter is with, as well as the Oregon and Federal courts, will all agree it is a blatant conflict of interest when (not if) they get to take up this matter.
Typing at 7:30 in the morning isnt the best..lost a whole portion of a sentence in my head..and I will slap the follow up paragraph in here as well. Hopefully the moderator sees both and DELETES the first post by me.
Regarding Mr Carling recusing himself. The is nothing from a Parliamentary standpoint, speaking strictly regarding RONR (11th ed.), when applied to this situation that says Mr Carling MUST recuse himself.
That said..
While I said above, that there nothing that says Mr Carling MUST recuse himself in RONR, There may be one that says he SHOULD recuse himself. That means its strongly suggested.
“ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. RONR (11th ed.) p.407, ll. 21-25.”
If Mr Carling was a member of one of the factions being ruled upon in this hearing by the JC, that certainly strikes me as a direct personal interest. Throw in that he is named in a lawsuit in an actual court case and he may even have a pecuniary interest in the case. That SHOULD recuse himself is getting a bit on the loud side.
Unfortunately, I predict most of the LNC will disagree. After which we will all be in for a world of hurt, including the LNC being sued by Wagner et al (who have a lot of money for lawsuits – remember that as much as Starr has spent on the Oregon lawsuits, they actually spent several times more, whereas the LNC is already hurting financially; a widespread publicity campaign by Wagner et al to get people to not give money to LNC, which is already in trouble on that front; and a big new ballot access hurdle we didn’t have before – Oregon is not an easy state to qualify, but in recent decades we didn’t have to worry about it; now we will — all while we are going into the presidential election cycle with no surplus set aside for ballot access, unlike the hundreds of thousands we had set aside in the past, and fundraising already sucking tailpipe.
Unfortunately, I predict the LNC majority will not understand all this when they force compliance with what I am predicting will be the inevitable JC ruling (in fact, I am thinking it’s already written, too). They will fall for the arguments that the Oregon SOS and judges, facebook, ISPs, etc. will just listen to them, or that it’s the right thing to do on principle, or that the JC has the final say (which, to be fair – if they don’t, why do we have one?) … there will probably be a lot of naive thinking going around that LNC will prevail in a trademark infringement case against Wagner et al, which the LNC will lose.
This is like being on a train that you know is about to wreck soon and not having any way to stop it. For someone like me who has put many thousands of hours over many years into trying to build the LP it is very depressing. On the other hand, I saw this coming over a year ago when the JC was elected, and actually expected it to happen sooner than this. Although, August is smart timing on their part (lots of people in summer vacation mode) and August 15 has some symbolic historical relevance in various ways (look it up).
Exactly.
Oy vey!
On M Carling’s facebook page (which I looked up to write a respectful demand of my own) is the following-
“Stop the Iran deal!
The Iran deal is weaker than the 1994 deal that helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons. It’s also weaker than the 1938 deal between Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler. Both of those deals were worse than no deal. Adolph Hitler and Kim Jong-il didn’t believe that nuclear armageddon is the key to eternal paradise. Iran’s ayatollahs do seem to believe that. Allowing zealots who believe that nuclear annihilation results in ever-lasting life to have nuclear weapons is not a good plan.
Please sign this petition. ”
Along with nonsense about how how Muslims in Minnesota “want sharia law” and other assorted Islamophobic tropes.
*THIS* is the person who’s going to adjudicate “libertarian principles”?!
https://www.facebook.com/m.carling.5
“a. Write to the Secretary of State of Oregon with a respectful demand that she recognize Ian Epstein as the sole legitimate chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”
“d. Write to FaceBook, MeetUp, the domain registrar of “lporegon.org”, and any other relevant Internet companies that Epstein, Reeves, Burke, and Burnett are the legitimate officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”
Say they get what they want, and JC “orders” LP officers to do this- the correct response from both the OR SoS and FB et al will be “so what?” None of them have any reason to care whether or not the group they recognize or do business with is an affiliate of the national LP.
oy
From what I can tell, the Judicial Committee and M Carling have as much authority to order me to wear a purple shirt on Thursdays, as they do to adopt any of the proposed “remedies.”
TK said “even though there’s no support whatsoever for my position to be found in either the bylaws or Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, my position is correct because I’m a parliamentarian and I say so.”
That certainly seems to be Carling’s MO. I guess they think they’re smarter than we are, and we won’t notice.
Yeah, well we noticed.
“And do we really want each term of the LNC/JC occupied with factional fights among the various groups in the various state affiliates?
Is that the door these combatants want opened? Are they some sort of anti-Libertarian infiltration group designed to split this party (again) from within?”
That is, admittedly, not the ONLY plausible explanation for their antics.
It is, however, seemingly the MOST plausible explanation for their antics.
To the best of my recollection, in every dispute in which they’ve been involved in the last decade or so in which the question has been “should we do X, which is good for the party or Y which is bad for the party,” the Starr/Mattson/Carling position has been “we should do Y which is bad for the party.”
With respect to questions of parliamentary procedure, I do not recall the specifics but I do recall one instance in which Alicia Mattson cited the bylaws and/or RONR and supported abiding from them. In every other instance I recall in which she has addressed parliamentary questions, her position has been “even though there’s no support whatsoever for my position to be found in either the bylaws or Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, my position is correct because I’m a parliamentarian and I say so.”
Btw.. just so we are clear.. criminal charges will be filed if anyone from the national office attempts theft by deception of our assets.
The requested remedies from Mr. Epstein’s petition, should anyone care to read them:
That’s what he specifically asks for.
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if granting one or more of those requests would be personally beneficial to the Chair of the Judicial Committee.
Thomas L. Knapp @ August 14, 2015 at 7:38 pm wrote:
“Given the Judicial Committee’s lack of jurisdiction in the matter, its opinion on the matter is as relevant, and as qualified for recognition/hearing by the LNC, as the Domino’s delivery man’s report on how well the wedding party in the meeting room next door tipped him and whether or not that one drunk bridesmaid gave him a kiss.”
And if a majority on the LNC votes to hear a JC report, and then recognize Snow White or whoever as Chair of the LP Oregon, then president will be set for the next JC/LNC to overturn that in the first meeting of the new LNC/JC in Orlando.
No way, I think, will these clowns have ballot access come November 2016.
And do we really want each term of the LNC/JC occupied with factional fights among the various groups in the various state affiliates?
Is that the door these combatants want opened? Are they some sort of anti-Libertarian infiltration group designed to split this party (again) from within? Where is Roger Stone in this?
etc, etc, etc . . .
In the time I have known him.. M only appears to have damaging the party as his primary motivation.
Latest email chain:
Dear Ms Harlos,
Mr. Sarwark’s claims are based on premises that range from dubious to absurd. I reject the implication that having served as a volunteer for the party creates a personal interest in the outcome of the case before the Judicial Committee.
Regards
M Carling
Dear Mr. Carling:
I respectfully disagree and note that you omitted the one I highlighted as personally most problematic- you are a named party in present litigation involving the same parties and issues. So it appears though we now agree that your prior email stating my you have only heard “vague and nonspecific allegations” was not accurate. You disagree with Chair Sarwark but he certainly was not vague or nonspecific.
And I repeat, being involved as a party involving the same factual locus and parties is grounds for recusal in our court system, the standard should be even higher for Libertarians. Put the Party first, please. Thank you.
[to me, he omitted salutation]
Mr. Sarwark does not specify how “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.” Mr. Sarwark only makes general and unsubstantiated assertions. There are no specifics, because none exist in fact.
Regards
M Carling
Dear Mr. Carling:
It is specific as to your potential bias. With all due respect, that was the context of my email. If you were personally involved with some of the parties, you stand to benefit— this is standard grounds in legal and review proceedings. Also, I once again point out that you omitted my very specific reference to your being named as a party in pending state litigation.
Once again please put the Party first. This isn’t about you. It is about the Party, and this is incredibly damaging.
Yawn. Carling, seeing no conflict in being cop, jury, bailiff, judge, executioner, funeral director, and janitor.
Bah. Who the hell is surprised.
He’s so predictable.
Mr. Carling wrote me back, and this is our exchange
On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:48 PM, M Carling wrote:
Dear Ms Harlos,
I generally do not read Independent Political Report. Exactly what “personal interest” do you claim that I have in this case? I keep hearing vague and unspecific allegations, but have not seen any specific basis for claiming a personal interest. I have a well-known history of seeking that justice be done in this matter, just I hope any Libertarian would do. Certainly that is not a cause for recusal.
Regards
M Carling
Dear Mr. Carling:
I do believe Chair Nicholas Sarwark laid out the personal interests very well in his prior email to you. I really have no opinion at all on which party is right in the ultimate dispute. It is this portion I am referring to (being a named party in pending litigation involving the same parties is really enough without the other details—one cannot avoid the appearance of bias and personal interest when one a party in interest in related litigation):
==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.==
With all due respect, I find it a bit problematic when you say you have not seen any specific basis for claiming a personal interest. Chair Sarwark sent that recently. While you may disagree with him, he certainly presented a specific basis for this position. This very strong presumption of bias due to this entanglements is very certainly a cause for recusal. A desire for peace in the Party with the decision, as much as is humanly possible, is a cause for recusal.
Thank you for writing back. I once again do not mean any contention or disrespect. Full disclosure: I post as a commenter at IPR and have been posting my emails as a matter of Party interest. I believe in full transparency to a much greater extent than the Party presently gives. That is not a critique of you, but a general critique of Party culture.
Will this gem be live streamed, or will we wait for the tape or will it be a secret meeting?
I wrote Mr. Carling as follows:
Dear Mr. Carling:
I am aware that several people have written you on this, and I have just read the article on Independent Political Report. It is very apparent to me, legal wrangling aside, that a desire to avoid the appearance of impropriety in this matter should move you to recuse yourself. I am not a lawyer, and far be it from me to know anything about the technical requirements of this, but I have witnessed in my several decades of experience as a paralegal decisions by people in matter of justice being asked to recuse themselves, and this is way within those bounds. You may be right (as you say the lawyers have advised) in the letter of the law, but not right in the libertarian spirit of what we members expect. It is a matter of simple sense that your personal interest in this renders it impossible to be unbiased…. at the very least, even if a right decision was reached, it would be forever tainted by these suspicions. I do not yet even have an opinion as to which of the factions is right in this dispute. It is clear to me though that your recusal in this matter is more than in order. With the utmost respect, please reconsider your decision.
In Liberty
Caryn Ann Harlos
LP member Colorado
Tom, that proposal is fairly ingenious, but a majority of the LNC has to support that ‘ignore” option. One would hope that there was such a majority,but I recall the outcome when the Excomm was chosen last year. Also, Sarwark actually has to do this, and the record here is chairs making unfortunate decisions, starting with the LPOR chair failing to rule, years and years ago, that the previous State Convention did not vote to change their quorum rule, at which point this entire line of idiocy would have been stopped dead in its tracks. Then there were several LNC chairs.
If anyone would like to email Mr. Carling with an opinion or request, his email address is: [email protected].
And, in the interest of transparency, my email address is: [email protected].
That’s actually what I’m thinking, Thomas. From what I know of the Judicial Committee rules, there is nothing in the bylaws to indicate they have the right to revisit this. Therefore, the LNC doesn’t need to recognize any ruling they come back with.
It looks to me that you’re “seeing” things very clearly so far, Caryn.
“Of course, the Wagner faction may piously hope that the LNC will do something about the situation, though no mechanism is apparent, and then blame the LNC when they find that there is nothing that they can do.”
Actually, there is an apparent mechanism that’s easily done, only dependent upon one LNC member to do, and the response to which should clarify the position of the LNC vis a vis whether it intends to abide by the bylaws or not.
When and if the Judicial Committee issues an opinion on the matter, it will presumably need to be formally called to the attention of the LNC.
At that point the chair can simply refuse to recognize any attempt to report on the subject on the eminently reasonable basis that such a report would be out of order. Given the Judicial Committee’s lack of jurisdiction in the matter, its opinion on the matter is as relevant, and as qualified for recognition/hearing by the LNC, as the Domino’s delivery man’s report on how well the wedding party in the meeting room next door tipped him and whether or not that one drunk bridesmaid gave him a kiss.
Of course, the ruling of the chair could be appealed and overturned. But it would at least be an OPPORTUNITY for the LNC to let a lawless Judicial Committee be reined in.
bad glasses… a couple of decade of “experience”— I hate seeing poorly
Gee, how long does it take for the LP membership to realize that Carling is one of the biggest cancers in the party?
Jill thank you. I am really trying to get up to speed on this. Common horse sense demands recusal… being beyond reproach should be the standard, as much as is possible, with persons in position of trust. I am not an attorney (but I am a paralegal with a couple decades of appearance) and it seems to me in an ordinary case this would have certainly been grounds for a Judge to recuse himself– certainly for a request, and as a member of the public I would look at this a fishy eye if a Judge did not. A matter of equity and right decision should never be a matter of not wanting to relinquish personal power. I am sure the lawyers who advised Carling believe they have the letter in their favor and being lawyers they would know better than I as a non-lawyer, but it does not seem to me they have the spirit of what I would expect in personal ethics from libertarians in their favor. I do not yet have an opinion (still gathering information and reading voraciously) as to what side on the two factions has the right of it. But it seems to clear to me that a recusal is in order.
Agreed, David. I was pleased to see his email.
Whether you love or hate Sarwark as a Chair, you have to admit – he is definitely a competent lawyer.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Tom, there is nothing in Roberts that says you must use base 10 arithmetic. (8^)) Perhaps our glorious Judicial Committee is using base 500 arithmetic.
The situation is totally absurd, but like the Titanic after the ship broke in half it is not clear what can be done about it.
The LNC is already under significant financial stress, and it may be about to get considerably worse. For starters, they are about to need another 100Gs that they do not have for ballot access.
Of course, the Wagner faction may piously hope that the LNC will do something about the situation, though no mechanism is apparent, and then blame the LNC when they find that there is nothing that they can do.
I’m not able to clarify that, Caryn. I’m impressed that you seemed to catch up on the story to that point!
Is he saying that two of them opined on both and the third only opined on one of the issues?
I am confused. Carling’s first email stated:
“1. The three lawyers on the Judicial Committee are of the unanimous opinion that I do not have a conflict of interest in the case of Ian Epstein vs. the Libertarian National Committee, either in the legal sense or in the RONR sense.”
His subsequent email referencing that earlier email to Pyeatt stated:
“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.”
How did it go not only from no recusal or conflict of interest (which he attributes to bad memory… though I wonder at relying upon memory in such an important issue) to the number of attorneys giving this opinion from three to one?
There is no point in time where the Reeves group had actual legal custody/control of the LPO in Oregon. There is a brief time where the LNC-Ex-Comm who lacked the authority to recognize another group (The Reeves Group) attempted to do so. That act was nullified. From a practical standpoint – the Reeves group has never held the affiliation of the national party at any point in time either.
Even IF the Reeves Gang was once the legitimate affiliate and was “constructively disaffiliated,” the period for appeal of disaffiliation per the bylaws is 30 days. It’s been a LOT longer than 30 days. So in addition to the Judicial Committee having no jurisdiction in the matter (the bylaws do not provide for a Judicial Committee power to overturn previous Judicial Committee decisions), even if it did have jurisdiction the deadline for it to exercise that jurisdiction is long past.