Here’s the latest in the ongoing dispute in the Oregon Libertarian Party. The Reeves group has filed a motion to expedite the trial.
This is at least the fortieth article about this situation. For history of the dispute, IPR recommends putting Oregon Libertarian Party in the search box, and read backwards from March, 2011.
Motion to Expedite Trial_ (P0292102) (1)
Comments removed from this thread; see archive.org to find them.
UPDATE: The judge has declined to schedule a hearing for the motion to request an expedited trial because the case is not at issue.
Wes @45 – I encourage you to document as thoroughly as you can how the Oregon LP has done better by using free meeting spaces and keeping overhead down, than it did by spending lots of money on these things. A well-documented case study could help convince Libertarians to waste fewer resources on unnecessary or even counter-productive assets in the name of “image”, “professionalism”, and so on.
@57 – Sadly, the views put forth by some members of the Libertarian National Committee, as well as the split voting at our convention, clearly show that some Libertarians do not believe in openness and transparency when it comes to our party’s governance. I hope they will come around.
Note to the DC office staff of the LNC:
We have an official Oregon LP affiliate.
That affiliate has nominated a large number of candidates – sorry, I don’t know the exact number, more than 30 IIRC.
These candidates have been certified to the Oregon Secretary of State, meaning they are now our official Libertarian Party candidates in the State of Oregon.
You should get them listed on the LP website immediately – that is one of the duties of your employment after all.
AH @60
I sent instructions to Bob Johnston on how to sync up with our candidates by using the Oregon Secretary of State website and let him know as soon as he was up to date i would send him incremental changes.
I did not even get an email response from him whether that would work for them or not.
I have had several interactions with the staff in D.C. since the convention and each time they tend to convince me that they desire to continue to follow the failed policies of the previous LNC.
I suspect we will have new staff before we have a new LNC.
No LP candidates from either faction listed at http://www.lp.org/candidates-12
Has anyone tried to get listed there?
AH@58
Indeed.
“It will happen if people are willing to learn from this dark period in LP history …”
That’s a big if.
paulie @56
It will happen if people are willing to learn from this dark period in LP history that we cannot keep among us as ‘friends’ people who care more about trying to control the apparatus of the party and remake it in their image rather than simply applying the principles we believe in of openness, transparency, voluntary cooperation, and all the ethics that necessarily go with those concepts.
Key to it as well is accountability. It is not easy but you must hold people accountable and reject them for their immoralities. The only true method we have to accomplish that in an open society such as ours is shunning – which requires continual education and continual vigilance.
If we can’t win this battle inside our own party, we will not win it in Washington D.C.
We must also learn to reject adherence to the law over adherence to justice. We know this inherently in that we accept members who have been persecuted for unjust laws without question. We must also learn to understand this internally…. that rules which have been perverted to create injustice should be eschewed (Bastiat)
This organization has allowed those who pervert the law to undermine our principles. This is contrary to our underlying culture, and we have withered and suffered as a result.
The national party suffers as Oregon once suffered. A willful choice ofmtaking the ethical path (which is not easy and requires much discernment) can stop short the cycle of decline and rebirth … if the LP can see that and make that choice willfully, then it can have political relevance.
If not then we are not the people who can sell that same idea to a country which also faces this same difficult choice, and we would be no more fit for positions of responsibility than the people we seek to displace.
That would be nice but I won’t count on it.
BR @53
And now after a year and a half, people have finally figured out what us in Oregon already knew.
Perhaps we can move on now.
@53 is completely correct.
The LNC only refused to commit in adance to an unknown amount to pay for legal fees, court costs etc. Hopefully nothing will happen and there will be no costs. Should there be some challenge or court costs to pay, the LNC can vote to pay some portion thereof at that time.
(And George P: Please stop trying to cause and crow calamity. You raise unnecessary alarm.)
The sad part is that all of this drama and expense and waste of time ever happened at all. A small group of outsiders and LNC members joining forces with two self-serving, power seeking … (yikes! – all they have is leadership of the LP to strive for? – pathetic pair!) … losers … And what damage they have caused.
But, it is easier to destroy than to build.
Time for Wes, the Oregon LP and those on the LNC who intend to build the LP – finally – to get on with it and put the Reevers out of our misery.
Despite the remnants of negativity, the LP is finally getting ready to build, grow and move forward.
Well, I’m crossing my fingers that no one challenges Johnson being on the ballot, and I’m also hoping someone is able to come up with either signatures or cash to put ballot statements on the ballot. Of course, I don’t have any idea of how either the Republicans and Democrats operate in Oregon. I’d be surprised if the Reeves group challenged it, although I’m shocked that they’re actually hoping to remove Wagners’s 32 candidates and replace with their 4. If this were California, the Republicans don’t have their act together enough for such a challenge, and, of course, the Democrats are so certain of victory in our state they wouldn’t even bother.
George @ 49
You wrote: ” given that they declined to pay for costs associated with the issues that they created”
I stand by my comments to you above.
I hope one of them does.
@47 My statement was EXACTLY accurate. It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that the LNC voted to refuse to indemnify LPOregon and its officer and board.
I quote the current draft minutes, visible on StarChild’s LNCDiscussPublic Yahoogroup
“The motion to decline to indemnify Mr. Wagner passed with 10 ayes and 5 nays. Voting aye: Mr. Wrights, Mr. Hagan, Ms Bennett, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Vohra, Mr. Root, Ms Mack, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Pojunis, and Dr. Lark. Voting nay: Mr. Redpath, Starchild, Mr. Olsen, Ms Visek and Mr. Myers. Abstaining: Mr. Neale, Ms Kirkland and Mr. Tomasso.”
Apparently you do not understand the difference between “fund defense” and “indemnify”. The issue in “indemnify” is that Mr Wagner and others may owe court costs or legal fees of the other side as damages, not that there may be legal expenses before the suit is settled.
Furthermore, if there is a legal action against LP Oregon to nullify their appointment of electors for Johnson, which hopefully wll not occur, that may be an action against LPO, and if LPO chooses to yield the point — for example, in return for an agreement that they are not liable for damages, etc. — that’s up to them if they are the defendants.
The above vote, and the absence of a motion offering to pay legal expenses, means that the LNC appears to have shut itself out of the discussion of how or whether to proceed legally.
A Presidential campaign that is already massively in the hole, and whose fundraising to date has been weak by Libertarian standards, is not in my opinion a credible source of legal expenses.
@48 Excellent question. Fortunately, I am advised that there is a timing issue such that there will be public information on whether or not enough signatures were filed, rather before the money is due, so it will be known in plenty of time whether or not the campaign or the LNC will put down the cash.
Given that the National Convention refused to seat the LP Oregon delegation, it is a rather good bet that the LP Oregon will not be covering the costs.
Is either the campaign or the LNC going to spend the voters guide money?
George @ 43
“The current LNC has refused to indemnify the LPOregon against the costs of defending its Presidential ballot line.”
That’s not quite accurate. They did indeed refuse to pro-actively indemnify. They did not proactively conclude they would not fund a defense if any legal challenges arise. In fact the discussion in the moment indicated they would prefer that over proactive indemnification.
At least that was my impression.
Personally I expect there will now be lawsuits filed, by R, D or other forces. Whether the LNC or the GJ Campaign can respond quickly enough to be successful in any defense will be seen at that time.
But one benefit, as I see it, of Mr. Wagner’s requests was to be sure everyone is on notice and looking at the issue.
Joe
“there are long tales that can be told about that”
Shoot.
Starchild @44
In the 2004-2006 timeframe the LPO has an office that cost $3000 per month inclusive of utilities, etc.
During that time the party had the appearance of success and was able to convince many people at national that we had our act together, so much that the national convention was held here. (there are long tales that can be told about that)
We now have no paid staff, and our overhead is the cost of a PO Box.
We meet in free spaces and via skype.
This year we doubled the previous record for nominating partisan candidates. We collect no dues and all our fundraising is done by voluntary efforts.
Oregon is a small state by population (7 electoral votes) yet we are fielding more partisan candidates than Ohio if the list on lp.org can be believed.
Our hat is off to Colorado though… they have quite the bench. We will try to challenge their performance for 2014!
zapper @42 – To be fair, the $2500 cost for an LNC meeting cited by Robert Kraus presumably includes costs other than the meeting room itself — perhaps even including the cost of flying himself and LP executive director Carla Howell to the meetings.
But still. Even $250 is too much to pay for a meeting room in my opinion, when as you say there are spaces available at no cost.
Some of them are more analogous to bread than to cake, and that’s okay. Revolutionaries shouldn’t need cake.
Who am I as a donor going to be more confident in sending money to support, a group that pays good money to meet in a fancy room in order to keep up “professional” appearances, or a group that meets in whatever space they don’t have to pay for, in order to make sure their funds are spent on things that actually make a difference, like ballot access, advertising, and outreach materials?
With respect to Oregon, readers should note that while the two Oregon factions are agreed on putting Johnson on the ballot, the serious challenge would come from the Democrats or Republicans (or, perhaps more likely, from no one). The challenge would be based in part, it appears plausible, on legal research for which the LNC paid $4000 last LNC term. The current LNC has refused to indemnify the LPOregon against the costs of defending its Presidential ballot line.
Given that the LNC (and its National Convention, by failing to seat our affiliate’s delegation) contributed substantially to the obvious grounds for a challenge, and given that they declined to pay for costs associated with the issues that they created when they rejected the position of their own Judicial Committee, in my opinion it is highly plausible that the LPOregon will decline to defend their filing putting Johnson/Gray on the ballot, particularly if the challengers agree to waive court costs and other claims against the LPOregon State Committee.
There are meeting rooms available at far lower cost. Whoever does the advance planning for LNC meetings should be shopping for meeting rooms under $250. Although more difficult to locaate, there are even some meeting rooms available at no charge.
Fred @16 – I’m not saying it was a wise thing for an LP state chair to do, nor am I defending the overall position of Tim Reeves or his faction in the Oregon dispute, but yes, in libertarian terms I think it’s legitimate for a Libertarian to have registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul and then switched back to the LP again.
As I’ve often said, loyalty to the libertarian movement — i.e. the cause of freedom and those who are fighting for it — is what matters most, not loyalty to the Libertarian Party. The party is just a vehicle, as are all other organizations. When sticking by it is the best way to promote freedom, we should do so. When it isn’t, we shouldn’t.
I didn’t reregister GOP to vote for Ron Paul myself, but I can respect those who did as having made a decision for which a reasonable libertarian case could be made.
Libertarian Girl @19 – I don’t think he’s nuts, however he is possibly the most argumentative, contrarian libertarian I’ve encountered. I have difficulty imagining him as a candidate out on the stump not continually getting into petty arguments with voters.
Jill @27 – Seen in a certain light, it is side-splittingly funny. Being able to step back and laugh at some of this from time to time is essential to keeping one’s sanity! After having a good lol about it though, I must ask the following question:
What’s worse for the freedom movement — having your meeting in a parking lot (or a park), or spending $2500 for a room to meet in?*
To me the answer to that question is blindingly obvious. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is a phrase that comes to mind. Yet there are apparently a number of people in our party to whom it is not only not obvious, but who insist that eating cake is indispensable to getting rid of the monarchy.
That is something else that makes me feel like laughing hysterically, crying, or dosing the meeting coffee pot with LSD. (For better or for worse, I’m too much of a libertarian to seriously consider the latter.)
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
*According to what LP operations director Robert Kraus told me in Las Vegas when I started asking questions about the cost of the continental breakfast we were provided each morning at the July 15-16 Libertarian National Committee meeting, that is the average cost of an LNC meeting. Read and weep. But we complain that membership is down and we don’t have enough revenue. Oh, it is lol rich all right!
Sideways.
@ 37 and @38 —
I encourage everyone to work together.
If that’s not possible, then I gather the secretary of state will accept the FIRST group up there that is able to get the required sigs and photos turned in to meet the Voter’s Guide expectations.
If you all want to make it a contest; I’ll persoanlly buy two dozen Voodo Donuts of the winning team’s choice (whoever meets the Voter’s Guide requirements first), and I’ll come up to celebrate in person next time I visit our daughter who is in her third year of medical school at OSHU.
That said — at least for the VOTER’S GUIDE, can’t allyoualls get along up there for a couple of weeks to make that happen as a unified team?
Maybe something stronger than the Bacon Maple Bar is required for that — ?!?
🙂
Regardless, if there’s anything I can do to help from down here in SLC, let me know.
Joe
Joe
Maybe some independent effort can put together the money and/or volunteers for the voters guide?
I’m not trusting the two dudes in the parking lot caucus to gt it done.
JB @36
I think you will find anyone who has known Burke for a while to not want to take the risk of their efforts going to waste.
@ 34–
Oregon Libertarian,
Richard Burke is the Gary Johnson 2012 State Director for Oregon. I’d encourage you as strongly as I can to work with him on the Voter’s Guide and other issues related to the campaign.
Please.
The issues of who is, or who should be, the LPO chair are ones that will, apparently, be decided in the courts up there.
But for the campaign, any help you can offer with that Voter’s Guide would be greatly appreciated.
And anything I can do to help with that, just drop an email to me:
[email protected]
Joe
So, if their entire group is two guys in a parking lot, would this be top-down or bottom-up organizing?
With only two stooges they can’t make a movie, but it would be easy to get 7/8 to change the Statement of Principles though, perhaps that is the ultimate goal … shrink the LP until they can hold the national convention in a parking lot and amend it.
Joe Buchman @33
I don’t see how Mr. Burke is going to collect the needed signatures when most of the Libertarians who are active in the party are well informed of his mischief and Republican ties. Seriously, I know that I am glad Gary Johnson is on the ballot, though I am hesitant to donate to his campaign while Mr. Burke is still the State coordinator – and I know that I speak for many Libertarians who are aware of what he is doing.
I am totally willing as a individual to go out and collect signatures for Gary Johnson, but I won’t work with Mr. Burke. Perhaps the Gary Johnson campaign should ask someone else to spearhead the signature gathering campaign in Oregon.
Wes,
Thanks. For the record I thought your requests prior to doing this were entirely reasonable.
IMO many of the attacks here on IPR regarding that process, and apparent delays, were entirely uninformed, particularly those by Dr. Leiberman, and were essentially unreasonable and utterly unwarranted.
Your act in immediately submitting the Governor and Judge to the secretary of state’s office in Oregon, despite the denial of every request you made for protection against the liabilities that may arise from that, and despite being blamed here and elsewhere for delays and/or the normal process inside the campaign in getting you that paperwork, is, in my personal view, admirable.
We will now begin the process of vetting the candidates identified by the secretary of state as running as libertarians, and, on behalf of the campaign, I want to express our gratitude for all the information you’ve provided about the Byzantine process up there both for getting on the ballot, and in the Voter’s Guide — the latter process, which Mr. Burke will be managing between now and the August 28th (minus the time for signature validation, so call it August 18th or so) deadline.
I wish all of you in Oregon who are focused on advancing the cause of Liberty, and maximizing the number of votes for Governor Johnson on November 6th, nothing but the best.
For those opposed to those goals, to those who have worked against seeing Governor Johnson on the ballot in all 50 states, plus DC; and/or who are working right now in opposition to us being in the voter’s guide and/or maximizing our impact in that guide . . . please go directly to . . . well you know. IMO, you’re already there.
Joe
(And yes, Dr. Leiberman, that includes you. I call . . . as a lifetime member of the LP, not in my role with the campaign, I call on your state chairs to remove you as an LNC Alternate over your email to Mr. Burke. SHAME on you.)
LOL @30
I heard no reports of the inanimate vehicles participating in the nomination process.
Did they at least put flyers on the other car windows in the parking lot?
JP @27 and LOL@28
Now don’t forget… the ex LNC officers figuratively died to the last person defending these people, bootstrapped their lawyer, their case, and as best as I can conjecture Mr. Starr has spent tens of thousands of dollars to uphold this fine institution of 2 men nominating republicans in a parking lot.
@27 My point exactly.
So, their convention consisted of two men standing in a parking lot???
Oh my goodness, I can’t stop laughing! You can’t make this stuff up!
To say this is retarded would be unfair to the developmentally challenged.
Okay. I think a better time to make an announcement here is when the SOS says A-OK!
Then I’ll really wonder what the Reeves group is trying to accomplish (besides their four candidates, of course.)
Somehow this reminds me of the special olympics, but not nearly as inspirational.
JP @20
I confirmed with them yesterday that they received everything they require. They were also in the process of validating the data and asked me a couple questions about it.
I have been keeping an eye on the database to see when it has been officially certified by the SoS.
@3 Hello Wes,
Thank you for putting Gary Johnson and Jim Gray on the ballot in OR.
Keep up the good work for Liberty.
This exchange has appeared on Facebook:
George Phillies: Wes, may I please have the publishable evidence that Reeves and others in that group are actually registered Republican?
Wes Wagner to George Phillies:
This is from a research analyst at the lawfirm:
“The forwarded message is from Jan Flowers at Oregon SOS w/ screenshots of audit logs of records their office has on file for LPO plaintiffs. I’ve replied to Jan with some clarifying questions and seeking some additional screenshots, but I don’t anticipate that her answers or documents will change these conclusions.
Reeves is currently registered Libertarian. Prior to 4/24/12 (and probably at least as far back as 1/1/11 – this is what I’m confirming w/ Jan), he was registered Libertarian. On 4/24/12, he changed registration to Republican. On 6/5/12, he changed his registration back to Libertarian.
Saub is currently registered Libertarian. Prior to 6/6/11 (and probably at least as far back as 1/1/11), Saub was registered Republican. On either 6/6/11 or 10/6/11 (or both), he changed his registration from Republican to Libertarian.
Burnett is currently registered Libertarian. Prior to 5/26/11 (and probably at least as far back as 1/1/11), he was registered Independent.
Pealer is currently registered Libertarian and there are no records of changing registrations between 1/1/11 and now.
Terry is currently registered Republican. He changed his registration on 3/21/12 from Libertarian to Republican. Prior to 3/21/12 (and probably at least as far back as 1/1/11), Terry was registered Libertarian.
Burke is currently registered Libertarian and there are no records of changing registrations between 1/11/11 and now.”
More from Wes: Found the update with the more accurate information:
I received some more information and screenshots of SOS records for plaintiffs, confirming that:
Timothy Lynn Reeves – was registered Libertarian except between 04/24/12 and 06/05/12 when he was registered Republican.
Eric Saub – was registered Republican from 04/12/04 to 05/23/11, Libertarian from 05/23/11 to 06/07/11, Republican from 06/07/11 to 10/04/11, and Libertarian from 10/04/11 to current date.
Greg Burnett – was registered Republican from 10/4/04 to 4/23/10, Independent from 4/23/10 to 5/26/11, and Libertarian from 5/26/11 to current date.
David Terry – was registered Libertarian until 3/21/12, when he registered Republican.
Carla Pealer – is and was registered Libertarian for relevant period.
Burke – is an was registered Libertarian for relevant period.
NOTE that the voter history tab screenshots show which primaries the persons have voted in.
Wes, re: Johnson on the ballot: Will you be notified that’s he’s been accepted by the Secretary of State, or is it essentially done?
Dave Terry is effin nuts!
SC @12
RE: The 4 candidates
Their candidates are:
Tom Cox for Treasurer, who is the GOP nominee (after winning the republican write-in) and is registered republican (was not present at the convention)
James Buchal for Attorney General, who was the GOP write-in winner and is registered republican (was not present at the convention)
David Terry for Oregon State House, who at the last time we checked was still registered republican. (was not present at the convention)
James Foster, Libertarian, Previous Candidate for Congressional District 1, Who reports as having once had a phone call with Mr Burke saying he would be willing to run if there were not other people willing, was not present and was a little surprised when I spoke to him last that he had been nominated. (was not present at the convention)
Further I have reports that the only attendees were Mr. Burke, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Booth. Mr. Booth is actually a candidate for Oregon State Senate under the primary we ran. He reported that the library would not let them on premises because it was a political event and thus the convention was run in the parking lot.
Not to point out the obvious, but with the filing, now any attempt by the Burke/Reeves faction to block it goes against the wishes of the entire LP membership who nominated Johnson/Gray in the first place. That takes the wind out a lot of their sails legally and even more politically.
Seriously, they are just falling over themselves at every step. This is like a political-legal version of the Keystone Kops.
@12 Starchild,
Do you really think that someone who is claiming to be the chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, changing his party affiliation to Republican “was a perfectly legitimate move in libertarian terms”?
Wagner wouldn’t be using the law against Reeves. The SOS of Oregon may disqualify his participation in Libertarian nominations, But Wagner has no authority to do anything about it.
Way to go Wes! Let us know when Oregon puts Gary on.
The paperwork for Johnson and Gray was filed 2 days ago by yours truly. The day after it was received by me. (I needed time to get it notarized)
Thank you!
I need to get ready for work but someone should write an article about that.
Wes @3 – Are you going to be issuing any formal announcement about this filing?
Wes @3 – Right on, delighted to hear it! Thank you for doing the right thing despite the LNC turning down your request to pledge to cover the legal costs if you were sued.
I can’t believe whoever is acting on behalf of the Reeves faction would really try to knock 30+ Libertarian candidates off the ballot to replace them with 4. I don’t think anyone doing that is going to find much sympathy with the rest of the party.
Re Wes @1, however, if Reeves re-registered Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, I think it is unfair and wrong to seek to use any law regarding that against him to limit his participation in the LP, since such a re-registration was a perfectly legitimate move in libertarian terms.
I would assume though, that Reeves as well as these 4 candidates are *now* all Libertarians? Or are the candidates running for non-partisan office? I can’t imagine the Reeves faction would be putting forward registered Republicans as its candidates for statehouse or Congress. But more importantly, how libertarian are their beliefs and the positions they are taking in their campaigns?
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
It appears to me the real reason is to knock Wes’s 30 + candidates off the ballot and replace them with their 4.
Steve@9
The same reason Hinkle, Mattson and M hopped off that plane in 2010 and kicked off all these festivities… they wanted control of the state because this used to be a puppet of Starr’s empire and for a small period of time they were portraying it as a crown jewel of the empire with the fancy office, the hosting of the national convention, etc etc, all while hiding the obscene debts and the sleeze tactics that were used to maintain iron-fisted control.
They lost control of it and have ever since been trying to find a way to get control back.
This wasn’t about putting GJ on the ballot. What is the real reason?
Aaron Starr: You really need to come here and explain this action. I can’t imagine why you’re spending money for attorneys for this, now that Wes has put GJ on the ballot.
JP @5
Don’t forget that three of them are registered republicans, and the one libertarian (Foster) didn’t even know he was running! 🙂
So, why on earth would the Wagner group agree to expediting the trial?
So, the Reeves group really does want the large quantity of Libertarian candidates from the Wagner group replaced with their measly 3 or 4 candidates??? This is absolutely hilarious!
WW @ 3: Yay!!!!!
The paperwork for Johnson and Gray was filed 2 days ago by yours truly. The day after it was received by me. (I needed time to get it notarized)
I see the Reeves faction is still using the Oregon Republican Party’s lawyer to represent them.
They are also claiming that they are the legitimate faction because they were selected by the Libertarian National Convention.
They are also claiming that “Defendants’ leadership group and their delegates were not seated at the Libertarian National Convention where Gary Johnson and Jim Gray were nominated and therefor defendant very easily could in retribution refuse to place the winners of that nomination on the ballot.”
They are also claim an additional slate of state candidates could be refused to be placed on the ballot.
It is worth noting that they nominated 3 republicans and 1 libertarian in abstentia … which is what they desperately need an expedited trial to get on the ballot instead of the slate of 30ish libertarians.
Further apparently at said nominating convention, according to Herbert Booth, only Mr. Burke and Mr. Reeves attended.
On top of that Mr. Reeves re-registered republican to vote in the republican primary, thus his participation in a lawful nominating convention, should one have actually been held would be a violation of OAR 165-010-0120: Prohibition Against Participating in More than One Nominating Process
http://oregonvotes.org/pages/publications/manuals/state_candidate_individual/introduction.html