The Motion for Summary Judgement was heard yesterday in the dispute between the two factions of the Oregon LP. Following are some comments from the defendants’ side. I invite anyone who attended that represented the Plaintiffs to give us their comments from yesterday’s court hearing.
Here is the text of the Motion for summary Judgement.
Here is the Motion for Summary Judgement which was filed by the Plaintiffs, with a court date in the future.
The following comments were found on the Oregon Libertarian Party Facebook page .
Bruce Alexander Knight:
After taking 3 pages of notes at today’s 2-hour hearing, while observing the body language of the principals in attendance, I can report that the plaintiffs (Reeves, Burke, Carling, etc.) left unhappy. The defendants (Wagner etc.) seemed much more heartened by the proceedings.
The judge won’t rule for another week or so, but my not-so-humble opinion is that the defendants won. Stay tuned for official results.
Harry Heyoka:
Today’s Clackamas County Circuit Court hearing on motions for summary judgment in Reeves et al. v. Wagner et al. (LPO lawsuit) went well, with the judge asking hard questions of the plaintiffs’ attorney Tyler Smith — and sometimes complaining that Mr Smith had not answered his question.
Judge Thom seemed unimpressed with the plaintiffs’ reasoning; more than once he warned Smith, converning certain of plaintiffs’ arguments, that if Smith insisted on going there “…we’re done here.”
The judge did not rule on the motions but took the arguments under advisement, promising to put the case “on the top of my burner”, and said he would try to rule within “a week to ten days.”
Burke @ 97:
You two keep bringing up stuff that happened eons ago that have already been hashed to death.
Bob T:
Hashed to death or not (I say not), they are the real story of what you are all about.
Burke:
Turns out I confused elements of this convention with the 2005 convention and 1999 convention. I apologize for this mistake. It was a long time ago.
Bob T:
Don’t compare your memory to mine.
Burke:
Indeed, there were about 80 people at the 1995 convention as you claim, which is just under what we had in La Grande during the 2000 convention [but] not all of those who attended were LPO members eligible to be registered as delegates. A number of them were people who showed up simply to see Harry Browne.
Bob T:
The number “81” has always stuck, and they were all registered, valid LPO members at the business meeting which is all we are concerned with here. If I recall, Michael Wilson was elected Chair by, oh, 47 to 34 or so, defeating your guy, Paul Smith.
The number 81 did not include non-members.
The Harry Browe event was later, and of course the story on that one was that your people boycotted it, save for Paul Bonneau. He had, at that time, a little decency left. But he eventually got worse and he, too, deserved to strung up from a lamp post like Mussoline following your 1996 criminal act.
Burke:
So I can stand by my claim that this [La Grande], supposedly the most inconvenient convention, featured the most delegates at any business convention since at least 1990, maybe ever.
Bob T:
No, not “ever”. I know more about 80s conventions that you do, but you think history started with your arrival.
But you miss the point about La Grande, 80+ people or not. It was incredibly stupid to schedule a convention at that location for anytime from December through the end of March.
The number of people who showed up had nothing to do with convenience, but with the efforts to get people there in order to outnumber the other side. Without such faction fighting (which would be how it ought to be), it would have been a flop, and a flop because of the location and the time of year.
Among the people you brought along to vote for you were some disgruntled Republicans who brought along their ignorant pro-life, prayer in school, Ten Commandments in the courthouse agenda which they believed ought to be in the LP platform.
Burke:
Other than that, I provided my responses years ago and a few of them on this thread.
Bob T:
You’re as wrong today as you were then.
One reason why you have trouble recalling a lot of things is that you were lying. Michael Wilson and I have little trouble because all we have to do is recall facts. When you lie, and lie again and again to cover earlier lies once your stories start to crack, it’s then hard to recall “facts” because you’d have to remember which lie you using on which day.
Burke:
Beyond that, I just don’t have time for this right now and I know we will never convince each other of the rest.
Bob T:
I don’t need to convince you of anything. You already know what the facts are. You just don’t want to fess up.
B. Tiernan
Nicholas @ 105,
When I said “Nope,” I wasn’t referring specifically to either of the options Fred was talking about. We will digest this one and decide how to proceed. There are more than two possibilities.
Rich
I wonder if Wagner’s group will try to collect legal fees from the Reeves group? If that’s the case, the more the Reeves group litigates, the more money they might need to pay should they lose again.
Michael Wilson @ 82:
What was that phrasing you used “let’s how them we don’t need to run a candidate”?
—————–
What Burke said, caught on video-tape btw, was:
“We’ve already shown that we can run candidates. Now let’s show that we cannot”.
Classic!
At that convention we had 91 just from the US House district alone, plus others to watch. I think we far exceeded the legally allowed number of people for that room, but management wasn’t keeping track.
Bob T
to Richard P. Burke,
Your name may not be George, but the central message of the song below is apropos …
“… please …
… please, fucking stop.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVBNCjylE0Q
@102: When you say “Nope,” is it in response to the suggestion of Mr. Jabin that we “stop fighting against each other and work on issues or support candidates that promote PEACE and FREEDOM.”?
Thanks in advance for clarifying.
No. But you’re warm. Stay tuned…
Richard P. Burke
@102: Are you referring to the statement that the Judicial Committee’s ruling on quorum, whenever that occurs, would be final? If so, it’s been a couple of years – chances are, any Judicial Committee assembled now would probably find in favor of Wagner’s crew.
It’s easy to forget when you’re rules lawyering, but judges and Judicial Committees are people, too.
Nope.
The judgement, from the surface, seems a victory for the Wagner group. And for the moment, it might be. But if you carefully read the first page of his judgement carefully, one sees that the judge provides the Reeves group with a BIG win as this case goes forward.
Richard P. Burke
It appears that the lawsuit is over–unless the “Reeves group” appeals.
I will get back on my broken record message.
Please, don’t pursue further legal action. Lets stop fighting against each other and work on issues or support candidates that promote PEACE and FREEDOM.
If there has been too much hostility to work together–then work separately.
But there is no need to compete–Just do something of value.
George Phillies writes:
Here is their press release
Antiwar.com vs. the FBI
In all our 18 years, Antiwar.com has never needed your support like we need it now.
Two years ago, we revealed to our readers the shocking news that Antiwar.com, its founder Eric Garris, and its Editorial Director Justin Raimondo had been the subject of an extra-legal FBI surveillance campaign. Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the FBI monitored Antiwar.com under suspicions that we constituted “a threat to national security,” possibly “on behalf of a foreign power.”
Today the ACLU filed a lawsuit on our behalf against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, demanding the receipt of records in their possession regarding surveillance of Antiwar.com, and key editorial personnel. For the sake of our devoted supporters, and ourselves, we are determined to get the truth.
At this very moment, the Obama administration is embroiled in a scandal over efforts by the Department of Justice to spy on dozens of Associated Press journalists in a leak case. Separately, it was revealed this week that a Fox News reporter who used a State Department official as a source is being accused of criminal behavior simply for obtaining information from a government employee.
This used to be called journalism. Now, it’s “a threat to national security.”
“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy, whether it’s the Associated Press or Antiwar.com,” said Julia Mass, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “Government surveillance of news organizations interferes with journalists’ ability to do their jobs.”
Our legal battle with the FBI is surely in its early stages. These things take a lot of time and a lot of resources. But we can’t fight this war for the sanctity of the First Amendment if we don’t have your support.
The Associated Press and Fox News are livid about the infringements on their journalists’ rights. But we don’t have their resources. And the chilling effect of Big Brother has already had its effect: we’ve lost several major donors following our publication of the FBI documents.
For nearly two decades, Antiwar.com has worked tirelessly to cut through the war propaganda of the mainstream media and provide hard-hitting non-interventionist viewpoints to a wide readership. We are still the Internet’s leading source for antiwar news and commentary – and we have very big plans for the future, provided you help us.
Antiwar.com can’t fight this fight alone. We’re up against the pro-war press on the one hand, and the warfare state on the other.
We need your help. Join us in the long fight to get the truth. Take a stand against government surveillance of independent journalism. Make your tax-deductible contribution today.
Sincerely,
John Glaser
Editor
Antiwar.com
Ruling is out – 1st amendment – all plaintiffs claims dismissed.
IPR has a copy.
Amen. Let’s get on with working for liberty, instead of self-aggrandizement.
Nicholas @ 95,
Hilarious. I didn’t know about that reference. Seems apt.
Mr. Tiernan and Mr. Wilson,
You two keep bringing up stuff that happened eons ago that have already been hashed to death.
Bob – concerning the 1995 convention, turns out we were both right and both wrong. I pulled out the article you wrote, “State Convention Post-Mortem”, and the one that Gene Nanni wrote, “LPO Convention Boycott?” from the July 1995 edition of “The Oregon Libertarian”.
Turns out I confused elements of this convention with the 2005 convention and 1999 convention. I apologize for this mistake. It was a long time ago.
Indeed, there were about 80 people at the 1995 convention as you claim, which is just under what we had in La Grande during the 2000 convention (the 2001 convention was in Newport, not La Grande as I thought). But in 1995, not all of those who attended were LPO members eligible to be registered as delegates. A number of them were people who showed up simply to see Harry Browne. In your article, you were concerned about this and wrote, “I’d prefer to see every LPO member seated in the front rows (accompanying kids and a few other would be OK). Everyone else needs to be seated behind these rows.”
So there were about 80 there as you claimed. But I was also right in that the La Grande convention featured 84 delegates, all of whom were LPO members. So I can stand by my claim that this, supposedly the most inconvenient convention, featured the most delegates at any business convention since at least 1990, maybe ever. Not candidate nominating conventions, which are an entirely different animal, but internal business conventions.
Other than that, I provided my responses years ago and a few of them on this thread. Beyond that, I just don’t have time for this right now and I know we will never convince each other of the rest.
You can continue to hate me and use four-letter words in reference to me.
I simply don’t care. I’m too darned busy with important things relevant to today.
Regarding the current case, all lies within what passes for the justice system now. It is likely that whoever wins in the end will claim vindication and whoever loses in the end will contend they god screwed. But hopefully we will all get on with our lives and contribute toward advancing the movement in whatever venue we find for ourselves, be that the LPO or something else.
Richard P. Burke
NS @95
WOOHOO… Game on!
@94: Well, in that case, do carry on your caucus race.
NS @92
To be entirely fair to NSoE , he and I are arguing about an issue that is not actually under consideration in this legal hearing that the judge is concerning himself with at the moment, and likely will never get a ruling from an Oregon court on this item.
JP @91
Given that the only 2 third parties to weigh in on this issue in this thread sided with my interpretation, and I presume they are native speakers of english… I will probably just leave it there.
As a friendly reminder, IPR readers are not the Judge who will decide this case, unless that Judge is reading these comment thread.
You can keep arguing about who is right, but the Oregon taxpayers are employing a guy in a black robe to decide that issue, so it might not be worth everyone’s time to try to convince each other.
Hmmm, I wonder if this argument will go one more than 24 hours like the thread with Hypocisy Police did a couple months ago? I suspect NSoE doesn’t like anyone to get the last word, even when the other party has clearly won the debate.
suddenly a quorum is established
Notice for the May 21 meeting was given at the March 12 convention.
deals precisely with the core of the issue
The core of the issue remains whether a credentials challenge to a meeting’s quorum is in order after the meeting ends. If you agree with me that native speakers of English can read the RONR quotes given above and decide this question for themselves, then you don’t need to respond further.
NSoE @88
Your quote deals with quorum in the same meeting once it was already obtained.
My section regards continuing breach that affects the rights of absentees – and is more specific and deals precisely with the core of the issue.
The problem is you think that somehow if someone shows up with a few friends who don’t have credentials, that suddenly a quorum is established… it is an action so absurd no rational person would ever attempt it, which is why it does not commonly happen and is not written about commonly. (hence your argument from silence)
I officially promote you to “Holtz”-level. I am done with you troll.
Argument from silence? I’ve quoted RONR saying that even in the same meeting, the default case is that “a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action”.
I’ve repeatedly challenged you to
You haven’t, because you can’t cut and paste what doesn’t exist.
Your citing of the Clackamas not-enough-bodies quorum problem was an obvious red herring. The ringing silence here is your inability to cite an example where there were enough members present to have a quorum, but after the meeting a quorum failure was found due to credentials problems of some of the members.
Also what he is attempting to do is called the argument from silence when doing legal arguments … whereby unless an example of an absurdity has been argued before (which it hasn’t because no one has ever been that absurd to suggest it before) somehow it has merit.
Since Roberts does not explicitly list every absurd permutation whereby someone could screw over the rights if absentees … then clearly absentees have no rights to protest.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
BR @84
Yes … I know NSoE jumped the shark and landed in Holtz-ian territory of absurdity.
Native Speaker of English…
I have a dilemma I have been struggling with for years….
it goes….
If a wood box is a box meant to hold wood and a wooden box is a box made out of wood…. then clearly a cardboard box is a box meant to hold card boards? if the box were made out of cardboard it would be a cardboarden box.
The problem of course is that the English language is filled with ambiguities…
It’s OK Wes, stay calm, you are correct.
Native Twister of English is wrong – verbose, argumentative, misleading, fallacious, obfuscating and despite his great effort, clearly wrong.
WW @81: Your example is one in which they made no claim to have enough credentialed members present to constitute the required quorum.
What you need is an example where there were enough members present to have a quorum, but after the meeting a quorum failure was alleged due to credentials problems of some of the members.
re: Burke @ 38 Besides, I have never worked against a legitimately nominated Libertarian candidate in a general election. And, given our legal dispute and my previous posts on this venue, it should be pretty clear that I don’t regard the 2012 candidates nominated through your mail process to have been legitimately nominated, however fine people they may be (many of whom were registered Republicans and Democrats).
Richard you may want to remember that it was earlier that you tried to get a number of Multnomah Co. Libertarian candidates tossed off the ballot. I believe that was 1994. Then as I mentioned you told me I did not have the authority to call a convention to nominate a candidate for the special election for U.S. Senate in 1995. Then there was your comment in 1996 where you tried to keep the LPO from nominating a candidate to run against Bill Witt the Republican. What was that phrasing you used “let’s how them we don’t need to run a candidate”? As I recall Witt wanted to execute drug dealers. Yeah he was a special kind of libertarian and you supported him. Sure you have a special relationship with Republicans. Time to fluff dry this laundry.
Reference this example of what happens when a board intentionally does businesses without a quorum.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/clackamas-water-district-votes-not-valid-due-to-lack-of-quorum/
There are a lot of articles on it.
NSoE
It is not eternal… but the right to raise a point of order protecting the rights of absentees ( which in this case is a hypothetical meeting which never had a valid quorum) does exist until said point of order is raised in a session.
At that time the issue of ratification or rescission must be considered.
There are reasons why the rights of absentees are so strong and burdensome in parliamentary law, Roberts rules, English common law and most states statutory laws.
Nothing you’ve quoted says that a meeting’s quorum breach continues beyond the end of the meeting. If you want to assert that you have in fact done so, then I’m happy to let that be the last word and rest my case with our audience of native speakers of English.
I repeat: We are in violent agreement that a breach of quorum is in the category of “breaches that are of a continuing nature”. That is, the breach continues as long as the meeting continues without a quorum.
Where we don’t agree is that a breach of quorum is in a category of “breaches that are of an eternal nature”.
NSoE @75
I will requote the section for posterity… feel free to use a dictionary for each word and draw sentence diagrams on your own. If you can’t figure it out, you have either cluttered your mind with bias or the academic institutions which provided you your training failed you.
—
RONR (11th ed.), p. 251, ll. 3-24
“The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:
[snip]
e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (pp. 263-64).”
—
NSoE @75
I already quoted the section, and explained to you the grammatical construct of:
—-
This is an exception. This is a list of examples that define this exception:
A)
B)
C)
…
—-
Are you sure English is your native language?
hint hint….. coulda shoulda woulda…. The bank is now open to taking bets on whether…. debate will continue after the judge rules…
never mind that is a certainty…. Might as well bet on taxes increasing…
WW @71: Notice clearly deals with the red herring of 1 person holding their own random meeting.
I once again refer you to Robert’s definition of continual breach
You’ve quoted nothing in Robert’s that says a breach in the quorum of a meeting is a breach that outlives the meeting. By contrast, I’ve quoted Robert’s saying that even in the same meeting, the default case is that “a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action”.
Steve M @73
On Thursday the judge inquired about our various trial and depositions dates and such, intonated that he wanted to do what he could to limit unnecessary litigation expenses, said he would put it on the top of his pile and see if he could do something in 7-10 days.
That being said, there is not really a hard and fast rule and he might get busy or want to take more time with it, or a number of other things.
how many more days till the court rules?
WW @ 71 to NSoE @ 69: “I swear you are almost as daft as Hypocrisy Police.”
LOL
NsoE @69
Notice does not deal with issues where a meeting is held whereby not enough people who attend could even constitute a quorum.
I once again refer you to Robert’s definition of continual breach which as nothing to do with quorum inside a convened meeting, parliamentary law, english common law and statutory law.
I swear you are almost as daft as Hypocrisy Police.
Richard and all others who are following this post:
I apologize for my last entry. My tone was angry and aggressive. That is unnecessary. I recognize that I let my emotions get the better of me and it was unfortunate.
Part of the reason why this conflict has lasted so long is because people have acted on their emotions. Reviewing any of the posts on this subject it is easy to see that people are quite upset and there is a type of life in anger.
I don’t want to be caught up in the fight between factions. Unfortunately, that has been part of being involved in the Libertarian Party of Oregon. None the less–my words here were spoken in anger and frustration. I immediately wished I had edited my text instead of pressing “submit”
I only hope that this does not add fuel to the ongoing battle.
My hope is that after the law suit is resolved, the party can get on with its real business of putting candidates on the ballot and growing the party and not waste our time and energy on fighting against each other.
I regret that my last statement was more about fighting with each other, than growing the party and getting people elected.
again I apologize for the distraction.
WW @66: We are in violent agreement that a breach of quorum is in the category of “breaches that are of a continuing nature”.
Where we disagree is whether a breach of quorum is an eternal breach, or whether the breach ends when the meeting ends.
p. 349 21-27 makes it clear that a belated finding of a quorum breach does not normally affect prior action even during the same meeting. The only exception requires “a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal”. When the meeting ends, so does the quorum breach — along with the opportunity to object to the quorum breach.
Otherwise 1 person could hold a meeting, claim they had quorum, and then claim that no one objected.
No, that problem is already covered by the rules requiring notice (pp. 121-124).
Burke @ 45:
I wanted to enforce our bylaws and respect the bylaws of our county party aggressively
Me: What a joke! It’s hillarious to think of you as someone who cares about following bylaws. You’ve been twisting them out of all recognition whenever you’ve needed to. Your effort to keep scores of valid members from voting at the 1996 convention, by inventing a new definition of “Member in Good Standing”, and de-interpreting the clear-as-crystal Bylaws section regarding membership expiration, should have ended with you hanging from a lamp post like Mussolini.
You are filthy, fucking lying bastard. Always were; always will be.
Bob Tiernan
Fred Jabin @ 63:
I recognize that you [Burke] may have been doing what you thought was the best for the LPO
Me: Whoa! That’s a serious mistake to think that Burke at any time thinks he’s doing what;s best for the LPO. It’s all about HIM, HIM, HIM.
Since 1990 or so.
Bob T
NSoE@65
No… it goes on to explain all those items which would be considered a continual breach.
Go read it again.
WW@59:
No, it said “can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach”. The quorum breach ends when the meeting ends.
Q: If a quorum call happens in a forest and no one is around to hear it because the meeting has been over for months, is it in order?
A: Only in Oregon.
Anyway @49 is 100 percent correct.
Mr. Burke,
you can side me with the group of people who’s faulty memories have a very different recollection than your apparently perfect memory.
I just stated the violation–you are now claiming that you didn’t say the thing that I clearly remember you advocating for.
Additionally, it would be incorrect to state that the state committee “did not agree with (my) interpretation of events.” The State committee didn’t have a hearing about “my interpretation of the events”. They simply chose not to remove you at that time.
I don’t believe that my actions at that time were errors that need any excusing. You may believe that I asked for concessions from your side and not from Wagner’s {though I’m not sure how you could come to that belief–and I doubt you really hold it– though some people suggest (considering recent Lance Armstrong revelations) that a person can lie so much they can actually convince themselves that something they knew was false is true}
But if you do believe it, let me now assure you that is not even close to accurate. I adamantly talked to both sides about concessions. What I discovered is that Wagner and his side were willing to make some concessions if you also made some concessions. Despite multiple attempts to get you to try to see other points of view, to discuss possible solutions, or to negotiate a peaceful resolution–It was only you who showed no willingness to budge.
It was you who told me, that even if the bylaws committee (that you, Wagner, myself, and the others were apart of) were to come to a resolution that you would use everything in your power to get the members of the LPO to vote against it.
You repeatedly argued that we should ignore the other side and/or use any authority we could to limit them. You suggested that (even as we were attempting to find a way to work together with the other side) that we would be better off if half of the party left and started up a chapter of The Boston Tea Party and left the Libertarian Party to your group.
Richard, It was not my efforts to find a peaceful solution that were in error. It was your continual dismissal of a large part of the LPO that was in error. In the end, you won your battle with me. I was not able to help negotiate any peaceful resolution–the conflict that followed which included you losing your position and Wagner’s faction gaining control of the LPO–were not an act of my asking for you to make concessions or to try to come to a peaceful solution.
They are a result of your failure to allow for a peaceful resolution. They are the failure of your attempt to maintain your shrinking power base. They are the results of your unwillingness to work together with others.
You are not involved in a lawsuit and out of power because I tried to negotiate some sort of peaceful compromise–You are out of power and suing the party because you dismissed the views of a large group of people in the party and created many enemies along the way.
I recognize that you may have been doing what you thought was the best for the LPO–but please don’t try to say you were doing it as a member and not as the Executive Director. You held the meeting in the LPO office (which you had access to because you were the director) and you brought in specific people to the meeting that you thought would be able to accomplish your goals. Any other member would have had to appeal to the State Committee–Which is of course the group that might have had the authority to do what you proposed.
I once again give you the suggestion that you leave me out of this fight.
Your fading power and reputation are not enough to protect you. If you really want a public rehashing of all of our conversations than I am willing to go there, but I have spared you from telling the fullness of the story for the last several years, do you really want to do this on a public forum??
Fred @ 61,
I don’t think you were explicitly acting on behalf of any faction, but the practical impact of your actions have consistently been to seek appeasement from our side for the benefit of Wagner’s side. That is something I had to react to – not because of the factional battle per se, but because of it’s impact on the LPO.
You were new to the party at the time, so one can excuse your errors. I was not asking that the LPO chair disaffiliate a chapter. No chair has the ability to do that. But a body can refuse to credential one not acting in the fiduciary interests of the body he or she is on in accordance with state law. As the LPMC and LPCC were demonstrably in support of litigation against the LPO, which the LPO later won, it was reasonable for me (not as Exec. Dir. but as an LPO member) to raise the question of a conflict of interest. Surely, one cannot represent a chapter led by people suing the LPO and represent the LPO simultaneously without there being some conflict of interest.
That being the case, I am still waiting to hear the article and section I am allegedly guilty of violating, especially given that the State Committee as a body did not agree with your interpretation of events.
Richard P. Burke
@45
The bylaws of the party that you were proposing breaking were to have the chairman disaffiliate county parties and remove people from the state committee when he had no authority to take those actions.
The even greater concern, in my opinion, was that the executive director was suppose to be serving at the will of the executive committee. The E.D. (as per his contract) was paid to do what the state committee directed him to do. Never once did the state committee direct the E.D. to try to eliminate members of the State Committee.
An employee who tries to negate the authority of the people he reports to–is not a value to the organization.
I agree that Frank Dane is a not an evil man–which is probably why Frank didn’t agree to the E.D.’s suggestions that he take a side on an issue before it was even brought to the judicial committee.
Its a bit disheartening that even after multiple conversations that I have specifically mentioned which bylaws I was concerned about, you consistently go back to saying that nobody can state which bylaws were broken.
It is also concerning that you seem to believe that everyone is either part of your faction or part of the Wagner faction.
Most people I know and talk to don’t see themselves as part of either faction. But it would appear that as soon as someone says that you are in the wrong–you label them as part of “the Wagner faction”
For the record. I have not supported Wes Wagner in a single internal party election. I have actively campaigned against him on more than one occasion. And I have suggested several times that he should resign.
As I have stated multiple times–I am against the lawsuits that both his side and that your side have initiated.
I truly wish that you would stop trying define people with the limited options that you seem to see.
I didn’t oppose you because, I am on the Wagner side. I opposed you because what you were doing was bad for the LPO, bad for the state committee, and bad for Liberty. I thought you were standing on extremely shaky ground, and (as a member of the state committee) I didn’t want you to be our hired employee or contractor.
I would suggest that you keep me out of this fight. Should Mr. Wagner (or anyone else) bring up my name–it would be in your best interests to say, “that is Mr. Jabin’s opinion” or “you would have to talk to Fred about that” or some other such phrase that doesn’t attempt to discredit my statements.
I (in my opinion) have done a pretty good job at trying to stay neutral and support people regardless of their factional positions. I have friends and political allies in both your faction and Wagner’s faction. Mark Delphine (for example) was the only candidate that I gave financial support to. I also have friends and political allies in the group of people who don’t consider themselves part of either “faction” (which seems to be the biggest group).
I, with out hesitation, can tell you that for various reasons I supported the new bylaw actions which I don’t see either as a coup or an illegal action.
But, I at no time supported the idea of choosing one group of Libertarians over the other and I strongly supported adding sections into the bylaws that don’t allow any Libertarian from being kicked out of the party.
This would even include you.
If you want to have honest, open debate about which set of bylaws is valid and why I would choose one set over the other–I would be happy to have that debate.
If you want to find ways for the two sides to come together and end the dispute–I am (as always) happy to engage in that discussion.
If, however, you are attempting to claim that I am acting with some sort of factorial bias, or attempt to dismiss my comments as unexamined assertions with out backing–I think you will find that you have made an error.
Sir, the most negative things I have ever said about you publicly were written in the letter above. You can comb through this forum and any other Libertarian forum and try to find a place where I didn’t give your opinions consideration and hearing.
I have intentionally and willfully attempted to stay impartial to the fight and try to consider both (or more accurately-all) sides.
This does not mean that I haven’t voted my conscience or participated with the group that still has the ballot access in Oregon.
I am well aware of your pointed name calling against me, and of your intentions of trying to label me as an enemy of “your side” to various people.
That is your choice, and what you do amongst your friends doesn’t concern me much. I will not return the favor and I will not call you names or try to discredit you to my friends.
But I will once again suggest that it isn’t in your best interests to try to discredit me publicly.
Wes @59,
It is going to be very tough for you. It is you, not us, that put off the convention until May 21 and, as Chair, you had a duty to participate and appear as the other officers did. You purported to cancel this convention, but as the 2009 bylaws show, the State Committee does not have that power and must act according to the direction of the convention. This has all been argued already and is only for the benefit of those reading now.
If the judge fails to see this because he is new to the case, he might be subject to appeal. As he reads the briefs I expect he will figure this out and likely deny all motions. But there is no way to predict with any kind of certainty. We will see.
Richard P. Burke
NSoE@58
Your cited passage deals with issues of quorum during a meeting. (as I previously pointed out)
My cited passage deals with objections which are not timely. (and can be made at an indeterminate point any time in the future)
You can indeed at any time during a meeting move to suggest the absence of a quorum at that meeting.
However, the default is that belated recognition of a quorum failure does not invalidate prior actions even in the current meeting. RONR (10th ed.), p. 338, l. 22-28:
For obvious reasons, you cannot ever move to suggest there was an absence of a quorum at a previous meeting. The only way I can think of to dispute what happened at a previous meeting is to dispute/amend the minutes of that meeting before approving them.
Wes @ 54-56,
We’re not going to show our cards on IPR.
You can have your attorney contact ours at your convenience.
Rich
NSoE @55
Do reread it and use your native understanding of punctuation and grammar.
Actions taken that are in violation of the rights of absentees constitute a continuing breach until ratified.
The text quoted specifies that is a type of action that is a continuing breach.
“Instances of this kind occur when: …” (list defined)
Actions taken without a proper quorum present as a class of e, which is defined as continuing breach by the paragraph preceding it.
I believe most native speakers of english should understand the following construct:
Exception described. List of things meeting this exception:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
…
“at any time during the continuance of the breach”
== at any time during the meeting whose continuing quorum is contested
!= months or years later
Otherwise 1 person could hold a meeting
If only one person shows up at the announced time and place of your (post-)convention meeting, then you’ve got problems more serious than faux quorums.
The recent Nevada usurpers were a little smarter than those in Oregon: they kept the venue booked and barred entrance to would-be quorum members.
Would you please have M Carling post his professional opinion on the quorum issue? I noticed he did not file a declaration in the case, whereas you did.
I would be more interested in M Carling, who has a vested stake in his reputation, going on the record.
Wes @49,
I have to make a concession to Mr. Wagner. I did fail my National Association of Parlaimentarian exam. There was a section where you had to match up questions with answers. It was the sort of thing where if you get one wrong, you get the whole section wrong. It had to do a lot with what are subsidiary motions. Totally screwed it up. Not too worried about it though. I don’t plan on chairing meetings anytime soon and when I need to know something I just call a professional registered parliamentarian. M Carling, a plaintiff in the case is one, and get the information I need.
Richard P. Burke
Wes @ 49-51,
Well, our opinions regarding all of this don’t mean much right now. We will see what the legal system comes up with.
Rich
And again WRT the 4 questions, they have been asked and answered. These actions were done by a group, that group has posted an answer in legal filings and forms.
You may find it in my scribd account. We have a lawyer you can contact if you want a group explanation of that groups actions.
RONR (11th ed.), p. 251, ll. 3-24
“The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:
[snip]
e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (pp. 263-64).”
Quorum is a rule protecting absentees.
Richard is factually and legally incorrect regarding quorum. His point is not well taken and he misunderstands the rules regarding quorum in a meeting after quorum has already been established.
A meeting where there are not enough people present with valid credentials cannot ever establish quorum.
Otherwise 1 person could hold a meeting, claim they had quorum, and then claim that no one objected. There are also other legal absurdity arguments that could be raised, but the simple fact is that both parliamentary law, case law and statutory law regarding quorum is all quite clear on this matter.
It is also amusing to note that Mr. Burke failed his entrance exam to the national association of parliamentarians.
I think I understand why.
All,
Mr. Wagner also fails to answer the numbered four points relating to the behavior of Wagner and his supporters at the March 31, 2011 meeting as outlined @ 45. That is what lies at the heart of the current dispute and is directly related to the subject of this thread.
Richard P. Burke
Wes Wagner @ 46,
Rather than debate my point, Mr. Wagner again changes the subject. Assuming Mr. Wagner is referring to the State Committee meeting held after the May 21 session of the LPO convention (which Mr. Wagner made the motion to hold at the March 12 convention), I refute his claims and believe a valid quorum was present.
If Mr. Wagner or anyone else who was an LPO member at the time disputes that, they should have come to the meeting and objected. At the time, the Clackamas, Marion, and Multnomah county LPO affiliates held seats on the State Committee. Anyone familiar with RRO knows that objections relating to quorum need to be made at the meeting at issue.
Richard P. Burke
Our response to those allegations is a matter of public record. Please search my scribd account for all the filings.
On another note, I am glad Mr. Burke cares so much about the chain of custody of county affiliate credentials.
🙂
He will surely drop his claims in this lawsuit now instead of continuing to pretend that the May 2011 meeting of 5 individuals had a quorum of proper county delegates, seeing as 2 were illegal proxies, and another 2 admitted in depositions as to not having any records regarding their credentials.
Wes @44,
I gave Tom no such advice and advocated for using a professional precisely because I am not expert. Had the truth been otherwise, Tom would have been quite justified in firing me or withholding pay. He did neither. Your faith in “common belief” concerning this matter is rooted in people who are known to be my political opponents, so their speculation is not surprising. They were dealing in speculation, and could simply have asked Tom. But they didn’t even do that much.
And then you change the subject AGAIN, an excellent tactic when the debate isn’t going well for you. The meeting Fred Jabin referred to in his email concerned whether or not we would enforce our bylaws, and respect those of our county parties, with respect to who was recognized on the State Committee. What you refer to as “technicalities”, for instance, were pretty big things. For example, the Lane county bylaws called for replacements for representatives on the state committee to be selected at a county party meeting. Tonie Nathan, in contrast, asked the Lane county chair over the phone for an appointment, and it was given in violation of those bylaws. Any LPO member would have valid reason to question the seating of someone in this way. Similar circumstances were connected with the other issues Fred mentioned in his email. Fred did not like my raising these issues and was offended by my tone in raising them. That’s his right. Frank Dane was not, and nobody has suggested that he is “evil”. And while Fred (along with so many of the people in the Wagner crew) accused me of breaking bylaws, nobody actually ever pointed out the bylaw I allegedly broke.
I wanted to enforce our bylaws and respect the bylaws of our county party aggressively, and that is what the meeting was really about.
This seemed a reasonable defence to those who voted against firing me after Fred called for my ouster, and I believe it is the reason I was not fired in the end.
Since Wagner can continually change the subject, now I will take a turn. Let’s now let’s return to the subject of this thread and talk about how Mr. Wagner and his friends, who successfully moved to continue our March 12, 2011 convention to May 21, 2011 to give us a chance to meet quorum, then pulled a coup on March 31, 2011 by:
1. Purportedly adopting bylaws outside of convention and without notice to the membership at a state committee meeting,
2. Purportedly elected themselves to new terms of office under these bylaws and,
3. Purportedly cancelled the May 21st session of the 2011 convention which the state committee is not empowered to do as it is subordinate to the will of convention.
4. Attempted to justify their actions by invoking the force of the state via statute, 248.072, which only applies to major parties anyway.
The LNC Executive Committee, the full LNC, and the LSLA all condemned these actions, and the neither the national convention nor the national credentials committee opted to seat the Wagner delegates. Not even the national Judicial Committee said that what Wagner did was right, opting to abdicate to the Secretary of State which is barred by law from making decisions about who is in charge. Only the State explicitly supports Wagner among all these entities, which should raise flags for all.
I’m saint, I’ll admit, but I never did anything like that.
Richard P. Burke
Whereas it is common knowledge and belief in Oregon that Mr. Burke advised Mr. Cox that he did not have to file during that time period because Mr. Burke alleged that the LPO did not have primaries… and Mr. Cox knew that nothing useful would come of arguing that in front the Oregon Secretary of State… we will just have to disagree on that matter. Burke could have written his response as, I made a mistake, I learned and know better now… instead of being a classic narcissist.
So let’s move on to this gem:
Fred Jabin Email about Burke’s invitation-only meeting
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Jabin
To: [email protected],
“LPO Volunteers’ List” ,
LPO Announcements List
Cc:
Subject: [Statecomm] Termination for Just Cause
Dear state committee members and Libertarians:
Last night I attended an invitation-only meeting held by Richard Burke. The topic of discussion
was how to eliminate the problems of aggression against the party.
In the meeting Richard Burke outlined a plan which included removing members from the party for actions deemed destructive to the party, disaffiliating Multnomah county, circumventing the party’s
bylaws, removing the representatives from Deschuttes county and Lane county on technicalities,
and ostracizing members who did not “play nice.”
His intentions were to conspire with the party chairman, Don Smith (whom he claimed has the
power of God over the party) and Frank Dane who presides over Jud com. to make sure that the unwanted members had no voice to keep causing trouble.
Thankfully, no one attending the meeting seemed interested in pursuing the goals that Mr. Burke was promoting. Still, it is my opinion that it is unacceptable to have a paid contractor attempt to silence several members of the state committee, and break the party’s bylaws in an effort to achieve his political agenda.
That is why I have asked for discussion of Richard Burke’s contract to be terminated for just cause added to the state committee agenda.
The people who were in attendance at the meeting were Don Smith, Frank Dane, Jeff Weston, Inessa Hamiltonlee, Tom Cox (left early), Alfredo Torrejon, Richard Whitehead, Richard Burke and myself.
I am not a member of the reform group and I disagree with all of the lawsuits against the party. I am taking this action because I personally believe that the party can not move forward with an Executive Director who is willing to take those actions.
I have enclosed a copy of the draft I sent to Don Smith
In Peace and Freedom
Fred P Jabin
Chairman Marion County
Wes @ 42,
You are hilarious. You blame me for something I wasn’t even allowed to be involved with, then suggest I am somehow unscrupulous for pointing that out using your evidence.
And given that all of this is public record (you seem to have found it), it is difficult to see how it was me that somehow threw Tom under the bus. Campaign finance reporting can be tricky, and there are many ways to go wrong. I think it speaks well for Tom that he took responsibility for it and didn’t blame anyone else.
You might do better to read the reports you cite and ask a few questions before making accusations with them.
Richard P. Burke
We had a side bet going whether or not your first instinct would be to throw Tom under the bus… well we tried to have a side bet. No one would take the “stick up for Tom” side of the wager.
Wagner @ 40,
A change of subject, but OK. The documents themselves show that Tom Cox served as his own campaign treasurer and filed the reports himself by his own insistence. It was not in the scope of my management contract and I did not do that particular work.
I advocated for hiring a professional campaign finance consultant to do the work and Tom elected not to take this advice. I farm out all of my campaign finance reporting to professionals now now demand it as a condition of my working for anyone (this was another reason I resigned from the Buchal campaign… he insisted that his secretary do the reporting).
I actually use this example as a cautionary tale for anyone who expects to raise significant money and do their own reporting.
Richard P. Burke
Burke managed the Cox campaign into some pretty serious fines:
Over $7k
http://oregonvotes.org/doc/cand/campaign_finance/ce_cases/L7783_fo.pdf
$10k (statutory maximum)
http://oregonvotes.org/doc/cand/campaign_finance/ce_cases/L7782_fo.pdf
That is some seriously “fine” campaign management there Lou.
Wagner @ 35,
Regarding Cox’s 2012 Republican race for State Treasurer, you also fail to point out that Cox was the Libertarian nominee for governor in 2002 and that he was credited by Republican nominee Kevin Mannix with costing him the election that year. Same thing happened when Cox, with his 9% of the vote, cost Republican Mary Gallegos her seat in the legislature in 2004. A Republican lobbyist actually punched me at the capitol for that.
When I ran Libertarian Mitch Shults’ campaign in 2000, his $250,000 campaign loan and endorsement from the Salem Statesman Journal crippled Republican John Kvistad’s fundraising, facilitating his drubbing by Democrat Randall Edwards.
I do not claim that I am the best campaign manager, but given that I ran all of these campaigns, it makes a mockery of any charge that I am somehow a Republican plant. Though perhaps equally ridiculous, it might be more credible to call me a Democrat plant.
Richard P. Burke
Wagner@35,
Teresa de Bellis, who you relied on for so much and who you are relying on now, has since said that she deeply regrets her involvement in that DVD and your campaign against me. She has said that while she did not support some of the things I did, that you have become what you seek to destroy and wants nothing to do with your work in the Libertarian Party. Don’t believe me? Ask her.
Regarding working for Republican candidates, I have a photo of you holding up a Ron Paul for President sign while he was running as a Republican. I’m OK with that, and maybe a lot of other people on this list are too. If you can work for a Republican who you think is libertarian during the Republican primaries, why can’t someone else?
Besides, I have never worked against a legitimately nominated Libertarian candidate in a general election. And, given our legal dispute and my previous posts on this venue, it should be pretty clear that I don’t regard the 2012 candidates nominated through your mail process to have been legitimately nominated, however fine people they may be (many of whom were registered Republicans and Democrats).
James Buchal and I are cool with each other. We did not have a “falling out”. I resigned his campaign. The rhetorical style of campaign he wanted to run (though not his issue stands) was not, in my opinion, helpful to his establishing credibility with voters as a potential AG. Most of the work I did for him was drafting a campaign plan and securing media interviews, work he was generally happy with. We have interacted several times since then, most amiably.
When it has been possible, I have worked for Libertarian candidates. Mitch Shults, the late Richard Morely, and Tom Cox during 2002 and 2004 are to name a few. You know this.
Concerning the Freedom and Responsibility PAC (FaRPAC), which was formed in consultation with Ms. de Bellis after your infamous video, FaRPAC has only worked on legislative issues such as the reform of Oregon’s $17 billion underfunded public pension system and the boondoggle Columbia River Crossing project. These FaRPAC projects are completely consistent with Libertarian principles and are on the same side of these respective issues as the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute.
I get paid for doing these things and I don’t know why I should apologize for that given the capitalist nature of our movement. That is the career I have chosen, and I am trying to pursue it in a way that advances libertarian policy. I will work with almost anyone as long as we are aligned on issues, just as you were willing to work with Republican Ron Paul.
Incidentally, these days I am also an unpaid lead spokesperson for the NO on Fluoride campaign, speaking as an elected water commissioner. Check this week’s “Your Voice, Your Vote” on the KATU website (they’ll post it soon).
I’m out there trying to move policy in a libertarian direction and am having some success. What have you been doing lately?
Richard P. Burke
@33 In recent years we have been in Worcester or Marlborough, i.e., dead center in the state. These places are about equally inconvenient for people coming from all directions.Marlborough (on route 495&290) is perhaps a bit better, but site searches have been unsatisfactory. Boston also satisfies the “equally inconvenient” except it is “so inconvenient I would not drive there” for many people outside of Boston.
Video from the 2006-2007 disputes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS45qvnf3F8
Fact check:
The Beaverton office was about $3000 per month including utilities and misc expenses associated with just the office.
There was a buy a month program of major donors who would often pay the $3000 buy a month program. There were sometimes gaps, not many, and on this point Mr Burke should be given some credit that most months he did bring in a buy a month donation to cover the office.
The months he didn’t were a primary reason why the debt owed to Mr. Burke for commissions on his other fundraising (buy a months were considered non-commission-able) continued to accumulate.
When a major leadership transition occurred in 2007 ( http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-10088-sweeping_changes_for_oregon_libertarian_party.html ) there were over $40,000 in liabilities that had accumulated — some of which were not obvious or known to the board at the time this article was published.
Mr. Burke frequently tries to seed false facts about the nature of where the debt came from by complaining that it was all a result of the activities of the Libertarians for Reform, a group who sapped the fund raising of the LPO during the factional disputes of 2006-2007.
This is highly disputed by past treasurer, Teresa de Bellis, who Burke once started an intimate relationship with. When she started to become adamant about reporting the actual financial status of the LPO to the State Committee, Mr. Burke and Adam Mayer started a character assassination campaign against her in order to try to front-run the reports and discredit her, by claiming she was insane and had “herpes of the brain”. This revelation came out at the 2007 Sunriver convention on camera.
So taht is the past… but what is Burke doing today?
Well for one, he is suing to take control of the LPO using the Oregon Republican Party lawyer (who he/Starr also convinced national to solicit their legal opinions from during the initial dispute, which _suprisingly_ don’t match the actual letters he received form the Oregon SoS)
And he was and still is taking money for himself and his friends from Republican candidates:
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=16112
(Burke is Prime one political consulting)
This past election cycle the Reeve’s group as you may recall nominated the GOP top of the ticket slate (Cox, Buchal and Knute B.)
Buchal ultimately had a falling out with Burke, but not before:
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/gotoPublicTransactionSearchResults.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchPageIdx=0&cneSearchContributorTypeName=&cneSearchTranTypeName=&cneSearchTranSubTypeName=&cneSearchTranPurposeName=&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=&cneSearchFilerCommitteeTxt=buchal&cneSearchFilerCommitteeTxtSearchType=C&cneSearchTranStartDate=&cneSearchTranEndDate=&cneSearchTranFiledStartDate=&cneSearchTranFiledEndDate=&transactionId=&cneSearchTranType=&cneSearchTranAmountFrom=&cneSearchTranAmountTo=&cneSearchContributorTxt=prime+one&cneSearchContributorTxtSearchType=C&cneSearchContributorType=&addressLine1=&city=&state=&zip=&zipPlusFour=&occupation=&employer=&employerCity=&employerState=
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/gotoPublicTransactionSearchResults.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchPageIdx=0&cneSearchContributorTypeName=&cneSearchTranTypeName=&cneSearchTranSubTypeName=&cneSearchTranPurposeName=&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=&cneSearchFilerCommitteeTxt=buchal&cneSearchFilerCommitteeTxtSearchType=C&cneSearchTranStartDate=&cneSearchTranEndDate=&cneSearchTranFiledStartDate=&cneSearchTranFiledEndDate=&transactionId=&cneSearchTranType=&cneSearchTranAmountFrom=&cneSearchTranAmountTo=&cneSearchContributorTxt=burke&cneSearchContributorTxtSearchType=C&cneSearchContributorType=&addressLine1=&city=&state=&zip=&zipPlusFour=&occupation=&employer=&employerCity=&employerState=
If you spend more time in the Oregon campaign finance database you will find more examples of Burke’s income for “political consulting”. They have this peculiar pattern of all being Oregon Republican Party candidates, organizations, pacs, etc., aside from the Freedom and Responsibility PAC Burke operates, which seems to get all its money from ORP individuals as well.
Also, just so everyone knows, all of these connections to the Oregon Republican Party were known by LNC leadership when they went to extraordinary means to try to support the Reeve’s faction junta.
It was pointed out to them… they just did not care because they wanted an Oregon delegation from Burke for the national convention.
That is the great and wonderful Libertarian National Committee Inc. Is there any wonder why the voter’s don’t trust Libertarians?
We can’t even root out corruption in our own organizations, what chance do we have in D.C. ?
Burke @ 20:
People on both sides believed there were factional advantages and disadvantages to having business conventions in Portland or elsewhere.
Bob T:
People on my side (the good faction) never showed any interest in using location for any advantages. And you can’t imply that we didn’t want to go out of Portland — in 1997 or so we had a slim majority of the state com, and we considered having a convention in the state’s second largest city which had a number of party members in it: Eugene. Your faction killed the idea in favor of Bend even though the choice of Bend was premature, as acknowledged even by those in Bend. But you were planning on using the choice of Bend to help you out in that you were hoping that your buttered-up new Bend LP members were still “impressed” with your generosity that they’d help elect your slate. Well, they caught on just in time, and we walked away with the majority, slim though it was.
You point out that UMP was passed. So what. I was one of the five smart people who saw right through that one, and that all of the hoopla you spewed on its behalf was so much bullshit, as the fact and time proved after only a few years.
Man, I can still you friend Adam saying that Washington State LP had so many new members that they needed to hire a person to handle all of the new memberships. I asked for a few years after Oregon adopted UMP: “When are we going to hire our own?”, and there never was an answer. That’s because it was a flop. All you were interested in was getting half of the dues money of those National-only members who had been refusing to join the LPO. And UMP failed nation-wide because of people like you running the state parties — you were all too lazy to do your part in membership recruitment. You also blew most of the money on stuff that got us no where, like over a thousand dollars a month for an office. Name one person who joined because he was impressed that we had an office. If you can, that’s still only one person. A billboard with an LPO message (changed monthly) would have been a lot better. But you were never interested in that, perhaps because it was not you idea but someone else’s.
Bob Tiernan
George Phillies @ 21:
one might have suggested that in-person conventions could be scheduled for, say, May and not February. Massachusetts figured this out a while ago.
Bob T:
That’s the decent attitude to have – for everyone concerned.
By the way, ever hold a state convention in Norwood?
Bob T
Burke @22:
Because we have them, Oregonians are used to mountains.
Bob T:
Misinformation again.
Most delegates are located in the Portland metro area, and these urban dwellers are notorious for freaking out over a few snowflakes. Mr. Phillies might be surprised to know that in Portland and surrounding burbs, schools are closed when there’s just an inch of snow on the ground, or even the threat of an inch. People see a snow covered mountain all year, but they can’t handle a flurry at home. You must know that by now. But then, you always lie for short term gain. The short term gain this time is to get Mr. Phillies and others to believe that mountains in February would mean nothing to Oregonians, and that gee, you must be right so if the discussion ends with that, your word remains the last. But it’s not.
Burke:
As mentioned before, that particular February convention (2001) had the highest attendance of any business convention held since at least 1990, maybe ever, including the ones held in Portland.
Bob T: That’s hard to believe. The one in the Monarch in 1995 had more people. The La Grande convention wasn’t even close to the best. If it was, it left a very unimpressive memory of the crowd.
Bob T
Burke @22:
The roads were fine, and I-84 goes around the Cascades anyway. Folks got a minor dusting of snow on the way home, and most of the folks from the other faction enjoyed a ride on a chartered bus sponsored by one of their own.
Bob T:
More un-facts from you.
I-84 does not go around the Cascade mountains at all. The Cascades go on up into Washington State and the highway goes through them within the Columbia Gorge. But the Columbia Gorge is a wind tunnel and very icey for a few hundred miles even if surrounding areas are merely wet. Here at the western end of the Gorge in Troutdale many trucks are blocked from going further east because of the weather. Not many sections of the entire interstate system are closed off like this. But I-84 is. I’ve seen it here in the Troutdale/Gresham are just a little drizzly and 40 degrees while just a little into the Gorge it’s low 30s and covered with ice, with no traffic allowed in.
You also forget that the mountains that were actually referred to by me are the Blue Mountains just beyond Pendleton, with a section of highway known as Dead Man’s Pass. You might recall that just last year a tourist bus from Canada slid off the highway while crossing the Blue Mountains, killing some people. The point is that when the convention was scheduled you had no way of knowing what the weather would be like when the time came. Sure, some of us chartered a bus (we all chipped in – it wasn’t paid for by one person), but we still did not have enough and we could not leave as early as you and your friends left. We counted on a number of other people making it on their own, but they were unable to make it – a fact we did not know until convention time. La Grande in February was a real stupid idea.
Bob Tiernan
Burke @ 24:
Your recollection is as faulty as it was concerning the convention of 1995.
Bob T:
Wrong! Michael Wilson was elected Chair at the 1995 convention held at the Monarch. There were, if I recall correctly, 81 voting delegates which was a helluva lot more than attended the 1993 convention where you were elected chair in a smashing 9-8 vote. 17 people! And you campaigned with hand-outs and all that while your opponent (Gene Nanni) was nominated at the last minute by people who wanted anyone but you since something about you turned them off. No campaign time, and he lost by one vote.
I was in South Africa at the time but had I been there I would have voted against you and then we would have had a coin toss.
Anyway, you became chair because you received a number of votes not even as numerous as the fingers on my two hands. You then started a new era of LPO chairmanship by using Roberts Rules as a club (much of it fiction, apparently) to run roughshod over opposition. I recall one long time member refer to you as a “dictator”, and thought that odd because I’d yet to attend any state com meeting or even run into you, save for our initial meeting which you probably do not recall at all, which was quite neutral.
In 1994 Gene Nanni defeated you. The highlight of that convention (in Hillsboro) was when you went to the front of the room to tell us why you deserved to be re-elected, and part of that act was to claim you were like Errol Flynn (!) in a swashbuckler film, and you pantomimed like you had a sword in each hand and were fencing two opponents at the same time (!), with those two being your LPO opponents trying to block your plans to make the LPO a better party. I mean, you were a real ass in front of everyone.
A year later (1995) is when Michael Wilson was elected, after which with your five puppets on the state com (to M. Wilson and three others)
immediately went to work not only blocking everything Michael wanted for the party, but in pushing your agenda with every smoke and mirror trick you could think of. Yes, the Michael Wilson era could have been a very good one for the LPO because we were rarin’ to go with all kinds of initiatives for party outreach and activities, but you cut him off right from the start. No wonder your five friends were recalled – all legally, of course. Your cheating afterwards may have changed the results, but not the facts of the legality. Don’t fprget that one of your five puppets – Thomas Marks – was at that very time involved in embezzling in his alleged professional life and was being watched by the FBI, and was then arrested, tried, and sent to prison. And to think that he was your idea of a good LPO fundraising chair!
Burke:
The special convention you called was not called in the manner required by our bylaws because of the notice requirement. I was not opposed to holding a convention, but was opposed to calling one in a way that could be challenged by the nominees of other parties.
Bob T:
Wrong ( I mean, “Liar!”)
You tried to get our US Senate candidate by means of a mail ballot. But you failed to acknowledge that the bylaws provided for a mail ballot method ONLY if a nominating convention failed to nominate a candidate, and the mail ballot method was valid ONLY with a two-thirds vote for a nominee. So had it been done your way (and you had some votes, but fortunately Michael Wilson was still chair and worked with those who wanted to do it properly), we would have either failed to get a candidate with 2/3rds, or would have wound up with one only to have it nullified when it was revealed that the Bylaws had not been followed in a major way (and perhaps this was your plan — one never knows, and the fact is that with this episode you were revealed as either very stupid, or very dishonest. Either way, you were and still are someone to avoid.
Bob Tiernan
Richard you were wrong about the location of the convention in 1995. You just don’t wish to admit it. Read what I said again. I never said you were opposed to it. All thought I am pretty sure you were.
You doubtfully don’t know what I am talking about when I refer to your hollering because you were unaware that we could hear you and I was at least 100 feet away with a closed set of doors between us.
Btw do you have any idea how many people have told me that the reason you spend so much time walking around during the conventions is so that people will pay attention to you and that it is a control thing that you do? It is quite obvious.
Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com
Gur Abegujrfg Sebag qbrf tbbq jbex hc va Bertba naq fbzr arneol fgngrf.
Frr uggc://abegujrfgsebag.bet/ sbe zber vasb.
Tired of Trolls @ 25,
All one needs to do is to go through the contemporary LPO newsletters produced by members from both factions. I’m sure you have your copies just as I have mine, so go look it up. Original official supporting documentation is in Orrin Grover’s garage.
Besides, I’m not the one making charges here. I am just defending against charges made against me. If there is any burden of documentation, it rests with the accuser.
Richard P. Burke
@22 I am happy that you had good weather that time, but that somewhat misses the point. We have had good weather in December and March, some weekends, but we do not schedule our convention then.
Richard P. Burke says, “Fortunately, I have written records of this stuff.”
All we here from this Richard P. Burke is that ‘Everyone is wrong” but him, and he ‘denies everything!’ (Typical Troll behavior!!!)
So, this Richard P. Burke needs to put up or shut-up. Post your records or back down!
Michael @ 23,
Your recollection is as faulty as it was concerning the convention of 1995. The special convention you called was not called in the manner required by our bylaws because of the notice requirement. I was not opposed to holding a convention, but was opposed to calling one in a way that could be challenged by the nominees of other parties.
About my yelling, I don’t know what you are talking about. But it seems to me that there has been plenty of that all around. Unfortunate.
Every time I correct the record on things you simply change the subject. And you seem to be living in the past. Some of this stuff is over 10 years old, which may help to explain why your recollection is colored by your feelings. Fortunately, I have written records of this stuff.
Richard P. Burke
Richard 1995 was the year I was elected chair. That was the year Packwood resigned from the Senate and we had to call a special convention. That was the convention you told me I did not have the authority to call but we went ahead and had a convention regardless of your opinion and we put a candidate on the ballot.
Btw remember when the votes were announced that I had won and you and my opponent went out into the hall way to discuss that outcome. You were hollering so loud that you could be heard at the front of the room we were in and everyone knew I was going to have a problem with you. A number of people mentioned that specific problem before you came back into the room.
George @ 21,
Because we have them, Oregonians are used to mountains. As mentioned before, that particular February convention (2001) had the highest attendance of any business convention held since at least 1990, maybe ever, including the ones held in Portland. Candidate nominating conventions sometimes attracted more, but they were almost always held in Portland anyway.
The roads were fine, and I-84 goes around the Cascades anyway. Folks got a minor dusting of snow on the way home, and most of the folks from the other faction enjoyed a ride on a chartered bus sponsored by one of their own.
Richard P. Burke
Given that Oregon does have mountains — been there, beautiful place — and winter weather, one might have suggested that in-person conventions could be scheduled for, say, May and not February. Massachusetts figured this out a while ago.
Michael @ 18,
Check your records. The 1995 LPO Business convention was in Bend. There were 55 delegates. It was the convention where UMP was adopted. There was a candidate nominating convention late that year in Portland, which is an entirely different animal. During those years almost all of the candidate nominating conventions were in Portland. You have made my point and underscored it.
Regarding Frred’s comment. People on both sides believed there were factional advantages and disadvantages to having business conventions in Portland or elsewhere. Given the attendance figures, it appears to be a wash. But if we are to be a statewide organization, we need to organize statewide and we need to be present and active as an organization statewide.
Richard P. Burke
Richard P. Burke
There are good and bad reasons to have your convention either in the area where there are currently the most Libertarians or around the less populated areas of the state.
Bad intentions are a separate issue–if the reason the conventions are being planned in a specific location is to limit the attendees or choose specific attendees than the problem that needs to be addressed isn’t the location–its the intentions of the people who are doing the planning.
The 1995 convention in Portland had over 90 people attending.
All,
I disagree with Mr. Tiernan and Mr. Wilson on virtually all points. Neither will I call them prejudicial names like “sociopath”.
During years when their friends were not in power, conventions (both nominating and internal business) were held all over the state, including Salem, Portland, Ashland, La Grande, Bend, Newport, and so on. This was done because we believed that the LPO needed to be active statewide, that the LPO needed to be demonstrated to be a statewide party, not just a Portland metropolitan party.
Mr. Tiernan and Mr. Wilson also fail to tell you that the La Grande and Bend conventions they complain of were among the best attended conventions for internal business ever held by the LPO. La Grande’s count of over 80 delegates has yet to be broken since I’ve been a member (joined in 1990).
Mr. Tiernan and Mr. Wilson also fail to tell you that, in terms of expense, it was just as hard for those on our side to travel as it was for theirs. Both sides had “low income” libertarians, but sponsors on both sides provided transportation and lodging assistance. And, as stated above, both sides found a way to make it.
Ironically, the business conventions held in Portland have been consistently poorly attended by comparison. Perhaps, laying in their own beds, some people intending to go hit their snooze bars too many times or simply decide they have things they need to do. This doesn’t happen when the conventions are out of town.
Mr. Tiernan and Mr. Wilson are both partisans in this spat every bit as much as I am. But if they are to be believed, they should at least account factually for what I have written above.
Not sure how that applies to Oregon – Wagner et al are running more candidates than in other recent elections, despite the lawsuit – but in general you are correct. And: people who want to be a rump caucus of the Republican party should be encouraged to that from within the GOP rather than as LP members. And: people who want to practice agorism and countereconomics should be encouraged to that as well. I see all those things as being good things people should be encouraged to do, rather than fighting over the crumbs of the LP. To the extent we can keep things friendly, it’s nice to have the LP be a hub tying all these spokes together, but none of them should waste their time trying to take over the LP, much less waste their time preventing the others from doing so.
Dave, Bob sums it up pretty well. I don’t have time to go into this because I have been dealing with local issues and the state legislature is in session which requires that I pay attention to their work. I will point out that much of this problem began as early as 1993. It became obvious then that Burke had little or no idea what needed to be done. Having run three campaigns I knew a little bit about how they should be organized. Burke however was not willing to listen to anyone else. he knew it all then and still does today. Besides Burke is not a Libertarian. He is into self promotion. He is desperate for the attention.
David @ 13:
As I understood, the convention was kept in Portland to keep the leadership elected. The impression that the leadership wouldn’t fair well in places like Bend back in the 90?s.
——————————————
The Burke majority voted to have the convention in Bend in 1998 or so because they felt that the recently new old Deschutes County LP members would be very pro-Burke (in the short term, i.e. just long enough) due to the attention given them by Burke & Co. as if there was no one else.
On top of that, they had been doing their best to bad-mouth their rivals so that the Bend area people would be suspicious of the anti-Burke people. What Burke hadn’t counted on was that a number of the key bend people were long time libertarians with friends in the Portland area, and who therefore were not empty headed newbies prone to brainwashing by drek like Burke.
Some Burke people also let slip their real interests. One Deschutes Co. libertarian who had been following e-mail in-fighting discussions grew sick of people like yours truly and openly said that people like me were bad for the party. Later, some weeks prior to the start of the convention in Bend, one of Burke’s inner-inner-circle members was in Bend talking with this guy and the latter pointed out that they felt down there that it was too soon for a Bend state convention because the party was not built up enough yet, and that on top of that, he was very familiar with a lot of the lower income members in the greater Portland area and said that a lot of them had cars that would not be able to make it to Bend, to which the Burke operative said, “That’s the idea”.
Whoa there! Ain’t that interesting! Well, the decent libertarian from Deschutes County realized right then and there that everything he’d been hearing about the Burke gang was true, and he wrote to me soon afterwards and said that I was welcome in Bend anytime.
Lots and lots of Burke’s followers are very short term people because he uses them for short term power grabbing gains before they drift away after they catch on to what an egotistical, lying sociopath he is. He then has to recruit more people for the next round.
In 2000, the Burke people scheduled the state convention in La Grande, Oregon, on the other side of the Blue Mountains, in February. Northeast Oregon has lots of snow and ice in winter, and their plan was to get all of their people in La Grande first and hope that many of his opponents would not risk the trip or would actually be delayed by bad weather which could strike at any time there. Really stupid place for a February convention.
One member – a Burke opponent – had driven all the way out there, showed up at the convention site only to find it locked because it was too early, and then got some breakfast in a nearby cafe before returning only to find that the
meeting had been called to order and the Burke majority refused to call the lunch break a recess or to break to allow late-comers to register and participate (an old tradition of the LPO which Burke squashed every time he could). So this guy had driven the 300 or so miles to La Grande only to be denied entry into the entire day long convention.
B. Tiernan
As I understood, the convention was kept in Portland to keep the leadership elected. The impression that the leadership wouldn’t fair well in places like Bend back in the 90’s.
Burke: “I am swamped these days and haven’t spent much time online.”
You have less time now for online porn?
Oh sure!
Right!
Bob Tiernan
Ken@9
When we file for recovery of our fees it will become obvious to all that this dispute is not at all about what you think it is/was.
Until this time the character and reasons why the plaintiffs are doing what they did have not really been relevant to the merits of the case. It will become relevant soon so the facts will come out soon.
Although this is an internal party fight … it is not at all about the factions some people have been trying to paint it as to provide cover for what has really been happening.
The first major clue you should have to that point is that the Wagner faction, as they call it, has members of every faction in it and even board members from most every discernable faction.
This has been quite a bitter internal party fight, but it is not entirely internal, and it has been about something other than the traditional faction battle that has plagued the LP.
It will become clear soon.
David,
I’m not sure if you are advocating for or against the idea of the convention staying in the Portland area. While the majority of Libertarians are in the Portland area, its certainly nice for those of us who aren’t to have the party activities come to our areas from time to time.
I learned a lot at my first LP National Convention in Oregon, in 2006. I have a huge amount of respect for people on both sides of this fight. I understand, in large part, why it’s happening.
But it’s just stupid. Oregon should serve as an example to all of the other affiliates of how not to operate.
Just think of all the good that could have been done, if these energies had been focused on fighting the good fight, rather than each other. It’s so sad.
In Kentucky, whenever someone wants the party to become a mechanism for education, rather than political activity, I simply show them the advantages of being a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4, over being a 527, for that purpose. I WANT a state-based 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 out there, pushing public policy and educating the public. I understand the necessity for both activities. We need everyone, in the role that they WANT to be in, and in a place where they can be the most effective. It’s all-hands-on-deck.
As leaders and as friends, we need to work to help individuals find the proper outlet for what they want to do, and encourage them to do it. That’s what I do, and we have no problems with factions here in KY. We (now) all get along, and we all are working toward liberty in the capacity in which we’re comfortable.
Probably should have been the 90’s. But 94 or 95 stands out when Harry Browne spoke at the Portland convention. Back then the balance of power required the convention to stay in the Portland area, rather then go to Bend, Medford or Eugene.
Someone give Burke some Downy before his spin cycle gets all static! 🙄
I was not a member of the LPO or a registered Libertarian during the 1980s.
Richard P. Burke
Burke seems to have too much baggage, after his take over of the LPO back in the 80’s. So there’s plenty of people out there who just can’t trust Burke.
Jill,
Sorry, I don’t. I am swamped these days and haven’t spent much time online.
Rich
Thanks for weighing in, Richard!
Wes sent me a message that I posted the wrong link to the Motion for Summary Jugement that your group filed. Do you have the correct link?
All,
Throughout the long history of litigation taking place within the LPO, those on Wagner’s side always leave thinking that they won. Although it may or may not be so in this case, they have not (in the end) ever won.
By his own admission, the judge had not done a thorough review of the briefs before the hearing and many of the questions he asked were typical of those new to the controversy (“Why can’t you settle this internally”, for example). Tyler kept trying to bring the judge to what was in the briefs, but that wasn’t what the judge wanted to hear. That lead to a tug-of-war between them, and it was frustrating to all of us.
The bad news for us is that this made for a rocky performance by Tyler even though he did well at the end on important issues like standing. The good news for us is that it may not matter – the judge said that he would spend the next 7-10 days going over the briefs and exhibits Tyler hoped would be discussed at the hearing. The fact that he is going to take that time indicates that the judge deems it worth taking.
The judge seemed to be looking for a way to dismiss the suit right there, citing jurisdictional, standing, and other issues, but he did not do so. That is also good news for us.
Judges do not like to be appealed and overturned, and we speculate (and, yes, it is just speculation), that unless he finds any motion to be particularly compelling, he is unlikely to grant any important motions from either side.
If I am right, then we will simply have to battle the issues (again) in court. If I am wrong, the case may or may not go forward depending on what motions are granted.
As always, anyone wanting the full history can search for “Libertarian Party of Oregon” in the search tool at the top of the right hand column.