Resolution adopted at it’s September 2, 2015 Board of Director’s Meeting, the Libertarian Party of Oregon by a vote of 7-0, with 2 absent:
“Be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of Oregon shall boycott the Orlando 2016 National Convention; that we shall not be bound by the Convention’s Presidential nomination; that if any delegation presents itself as the Oregon delegation, they shall be disclaimed.”
Present Chair Lars D. H. Hedbor gave an explanation:
In a nutshell, at the last two national conventions, our delegation has been tampered with – in one case, completely replaced, and in another, “only” taken over – by people associated with the attempted hostile takeover of the LPO by the Oregon GOP.
Since we have been denied the ability to select our delegation, we cannot possibly be expected to be bound by the decisions of the Convention.
This resolution brings me no joy, but it was forced on us by this repeated pattern of abuses.
Multiple articles detailing this ongoing situation have been published here at IPR.
If anyone wants to learn or revisit all the history and arguments, go to the IPR search box and put in “oregon libertarian” and “libertarian party of oregon” (separate searches) and read those threads. The search box is in the right hand column where the links and so on are, above categories and below social networks.
You can see even more related threads by just searching for Oregon, without LP, but then you’ll have to scroll past threads regarding other Oregon parties and independents.
There is ongoing litigation…well, there was an appeal, but the decision being appealed was not stayed, so the Wagner group currently is the state party. The losing side is now waiting for the decision on the appeal to be written. The winning side is running people for office.
There appears to be a peace. I don’t know if it’s temporary or permanent. They did boycott the convention, and the other group was not seated as a delegation this time. Then they put Johnson on the ballot, Nick was re-elected national chair, and as far as I can recall this term of the LNC has not had to deal with Oregon, at least so far. If that holds that will make them the first LNC to not have to deal with Oregon controversies in, probably, a decade or so.
Wow, I feel dumb. I didn’t realize this was from 2015 when I posted and thought this was a totally new thing. The “2016” in the headline probably should have tipped me off but I guess I wasn’t paying much attention to the dates, considering I read through all of those comments without noticing the whole “2015” part of the dates.
How’d the whole thing end up shaking out? I assume some kind of peace was made because Johnson was on the Oregon ballot.
Dunno. I sent you a friend request and will try to add you once that’s approved.
Second question, i have sent a join request to the Facebook group for the LPOregon group… when will that get approved? Lol
Glad to be of some service.
I have asked this question so many times… Thank you Paulie.
That’s what the Secretary of State and LP.org says. The other side will give you a convoluted story about how the LP website is being mismanaged in this respect by office staff acting at the behest of a national chair they say is rogue on this matter, that the SOS is deferring to the courts, and the courts are deferring to LP.org. But I’d still go with what LP.org says about who the LP affiliate is, and with what the SOS says about who the LP of Oregon is.
Correct.
So the Burke/Ipstien group is not recognized by either the State or the LP? While the grouo with Lars Hebdor and Kyle Markley is legit?
Just Some: how does it work? There is a lot of litigation at the moment. Both sides are waiting for a decision to be handed down, following which there will be an appeal.
It’s a very, very long story. You can find at least a hundred old stories, and probably tens of thousands of comments, beating it to death and beyond by typing “Oregon Libertarian” (in quotes) into the IPR comment box.
Actually, I haven’t heard from the Burke faction lately (the one that is not recognized by either LPHQ or the OR SOS) so they may be laying low.
There have been other such disputes, both in the LP and other parties, at various times in the past.
So there are two organizations claiming to be the affiliate of the Libertarian Party in Oregon? How does that even work?
Go to LP.org and look up state affiliates. I’d go with that one.
This all seems soooo convuluted. I just want to know which Oregon Libertarian Party lines up with the LNC and which one to join, support, and contribute to.
Meanwhile, all the energy spent on such games means less time and energy to work on the many real world policy issues and injustices we face.
Paulie:
.
“If true, any JC that wants to prevent itself from being second-guessed by some future JC just needs to rule the opposite of what they intend to rule initially, then reconsider that decision a few days later. Voila, they are now reconsideration-proof!”
.
You know, that’s exactly the kind of thing Burke is capable of doing and then reminding everyone about how “legal”
his methods are.
.
B. Tiernan
It makes my eyes glaze over too, and I’m going to live with that.
I think he did… my recollection could be wrong. Robert’s Rules makes my eyes glaze over, but I know I have to get over that.
I’d have to find his comments again, but I’ll take your word for it.
But see my solution above, if it’s true.
Burke quoted the rule I think.
All I can say is nice work if you can get it.
I have no idea where that comes from. In fairness, I know nothing about Roberts Rules and don’t pretend that I do.
RE: Only one reconsideration… they all just make shit up and hope people buy it.
Except that as per Burke (presumably speaking for Carling) there can only be one reconsideration of a given issue. See above, and prior thread.
Perhaps before then there will be a new Judicial Committee to do another reconsideration.
Perhaps the LNC position is “…the document we received within ten days is binding. Have a nice day…”
They waited for the JC they wanted to do the “reconsideration”. Maybe now they will wait for the LNC chair they want to report the “results.” After all, this is Oregon we’re talking about here. The fight has gone on for decades, so what’s waiting just a few more short years?
This would not be the first procedural irregularity surrounding this issue.
there were leaks
Steve, Everyone knows because their were leaks from the Judicial committee. That includes the leak that at least one JC member indicated that corrections to the minutes might be needed.
“Thomas L. Knapp
September 3, 2015 at 11:17 pm
‘the split in the Libertarian Party of Arizona in 2000, which resulted in the faction of the party that had ballot access placing L. Neil Smith on the ballot instead of the actual nominee chosen at the LP National Convention that year,’
Um, no, that is not what happened.
The LNC disaffiliated the Libertarian Party of Arizona.
There was not a “split. ‘There were no ‘factions of the party.’ There was the real LPAZ and an impostor organization claiming to be the LPAZ.”
Thanks for the history lesson, Tom.
I’ve been in the LP since 1996, so I was around back then, and I remember the controversy in Arizona, but I did not follow every detail of what all went on there.
Regardless of what happened, I think that is a shame when situations like this prevent our candidate for President from appearing on the ballot nationally, as in all 50 states plus DC.
Incidentally, I actually went to Arizona in August of 2000 to gather petition signatures to place Harry Browne on the ballot as an independent. This petition drive was paid for by LP national (I don’t know if the Harry Browne campaign kicked in any money for this or not).
It was past the deadline to get on the ballot in Arizona as an independent candidate, but it was thought at the time (possibly at the suggestion of Richard Winger) that we could win a law suit if we collected enough valid petition signatures as was required in Arizona to qualify an independent candidate for President.
I flew to Arizona with another Libertarian petition circulator out of Baltimore, Maryland. We only ended up working there for a week. I am not sure how long the petition drive had been going on before we arrived.
We did end up with more than enough valid petition signatures to place Harry Browne on the ballot for President in Arizona as an independent, but when they went to court about the deadline, our side lost the first round. We won on appeal, but by that point the election was over. The plus side was that it did force the state government in Arizona to move the independent Presidential candidate deadline to a later date.
It was hot as freaking blue blazes that week in Arizona. I still managed to collect around 1,000 signatures.
“When the Committee reaches a decision, the Chair shall notify the petitioner(s) who
requested the ruling, any respondent(s) to the petition(s), the National Chair and the National
Secretary. Preliminary notification may be made orally, either in person or by telephone; official
notification shall be made in writing, as soon as all participating Committee members have voted on the matter in question or 10 days after the meeting, if all members have not voted.”
And yet, regardless of the sua sponte aspect of the JC action, somehow, everyone knows what was decided despite the fact that there was no “official notification” given to the LNC.
What this means, in the grand scheme. With no official notification (apparently none is required until someone actually feels like notifying the LNC at somepoint whenever he/she feels like it) then this JC decision will sit, in limbo, within easy grasp of the JC Chairman, who has a vested interest in it, and who, himself, may take said decision to the courthouse in Oregon in order to have some court decision there influenced by the LP’s JC.
MEANWHILE, the LNC has decided that it can do nothing about it because they have not been officially notified.
Sorry, but that answer simply is not good enough. Neither is speculating about behind the scenes discussions about whatever possible actions might possibly happen at some point in the indeterminate future whenever/ifever the JC decides to notify the LNC.
The analyst in me is screaming at me to say that I do not trust the LNC to do the right thing, given past performance and given its current stasis. There was time, during their conference call when something could have been mentioned, nothing was mentioned.
I would like to be proved wrong on this matter, but it looks pretty bleak from what I have seen thus far.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
It is over here.
http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/kangaroo-court-1.jpg
Your image isn’t showing Paulie
Paulie,
==Not familiar with that phrase, but from context I gather that is the Latin for what I said in English==
Basically:) It is actually pretty standard language in the courts for such an action. And I gotta show that I really do have a legal edumakation
From Wikipedia: “The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties.”
Not familiar with that phrase, but from context I gather that is the Latin for what I said in English 🙂
Paulie it is my understanding as well that it was sua sponte
According to Richard Burke in a past thread, the JC can take as many days, weeks, months, years or decades to reconsider a past JC decision as they wish, but they can only do so once – no reconsidering again and again.
If true, any JC that wants to prevent itself from being second-guessed by some future JC just needs to rule the opposite of what they intend to rule initially, then reconsider that decision a few days later. Voila, they are now reconsideration-proof!
According to Carling’s interpretation of Roberts Rules (I know ugatz about Roberts Rules, so those of you with parliamentary education/training can discuss whether he is right or wrong about this) they don’t need a petitioner for the JC to reconsider a decision that the JC made previously (including a past term’s JC, not just the present JC). The JC can do that on its own any time it wants… at least as per Carling and friends. I don’t know, but I am guessing that they will say that the notice rules with this are different than when they respond to a petition as well.
Who was the petitioner who requested the reconsideration?
Paulie, if you reread their rules there is a requirement that the National chair and National Secretary be informed, and I do not hear that that has happened.
Maybe that’s being done outside of public fora?
The decision that was allegedly reached by the JC was allegedly a reconsideration of the 2011 JC ruling, not a response to petitioners Epstein et al. The JC did also allegedly rule on that petition – I was told it was a unanimous rejection – and I don’t have any reason to assume that the JC failed to notify Epstein et al of the decision on their petition.
And just so I don’t get accused of being too negative, in the same article I also wrote:
This decline is happening at the same time that the LP nationwide is growing its voter registration faster than any other national party, had its best presidential ballot access retention following a midterm election in the party’s 43 year history and the best of any alternative party in a century, is on the winning side of most public policy issues as seen by the results of ballot initiative votes all over the country, was the only nationally-organized party to get more votes in 2014 than 2010, got the party’s best numerical results (out of 11 attempts) and a close second in percentage terms for its presidential ticket in the most recent presidential election… a time when record numbers of Americans are telling opinion pollsters that a new major party is needed and that government is way too big.
(See original for embedded links).
As I wrote a few months back….
National LP needs a website that doesn?t suck (I know this is being worked on but results are what count and for now we (LP national) have a website that is terrible, as was discussed at the last LNC meeting. We need updated outreach materials. Again, being worked on, but not here yet. We need training in all the basics of local organizational and campaign management for our candidates and state and county leadership, promoted heavily. Materials exist, but need to be updated and promoted much, much, much more. The database needs a lot better management, as has been discussed at length on past LNCs. We need states and national LP that see their relationship as synergy rather than competition, and which all encourage rather than discourage people to participate at the national, state AND county/parish levels. We need to get with the modern age and how people like to do things these days and push monthly, rather than yearly, donations and push them heavily and constantly. Among other things they are opt out, as opposed to opt in as with the yearly ones, and psychologically less painful for equal annualized amounts of contributions. We need to get a lot better at leveraging our volunteer database, as much or more than our donors. Above all we need prospecting. Passive recruiting does not work. If you don?t ask you don?t get.
Steve, The front end problem is the 2010-2012 Executive Committee, or at least the 6 that voted for the Reeves faction: Hinkle, Rutherford, Mattson, Redpath, Knedler, Lark; the 14 2010-2012 LNC members who supported them Mark Hinkle , Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson, Bill Redpath, Kevin Knedler, James Lark, Randy Eshelman, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Wayne Root, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Dianna Visek, Dan Wiener, Andy Wolf.
We appear to be advancing with glacial slowness, in that people are insisting on waiting for the JC to report, and the JC is taking its time on things. One could propose that the Judicial Committee is in violation of its own rules of procedure, namely
“When the Committee reaches a decision, the Chair shall notify the petitioner(s) who
requested the ruling, any respondent(s) to the petition(s), the National Chair and the National
Secretary. Preliminary notification may be made orally, either in person or by telephone; official
notification shall be made in writing, as soon as all participating Committee members have voted on the matter in question or 10 days after the meeting, if all members have not voted.”
namely we are more than ten days out and the National Chair has apparently not been notified.
Mark, I am not looking at this from an Oregon / LPO standpoint, instead, I am looking at it from a JC going rogue standpoint. Everyone knows they met, everyone knows what they discussed and voted on, and… Oh never mind, I feel like whatever I typed next would be beating a dead horse… nothing is going to change at this point. I have made it clear where I stand on this issue, and that is that.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Mark,
The Wagner group objected to having the LNC intervene in its affairs, and to having been substantially disaffiliated, as has now happened again, though not by LNC vote. The LNC might reasonably be considering alternatives like
Special campaign to raise $100,000 for ballot access for the Presidential campaign in Oregon
Disaffiliation of Oregon Parties
Neither of these are the things that the Oregon Party objected to last time.
Mark. Nailed. it.
And we can be sure they are informally talking – at least amongst the various coalitions.
George wrote:
>Discussion of the less than outstanding membership numbers would also be of interest.
And far more appropriate for an LNC meeting.
>Regardless of anything else, the LNC should have made this issue its business in a very proactive way.
Steve, that is exactly what the Wagner Group objected to when the LNC pro-actively was involved in Oregon before.
If there is no report yet, then there is nothing for the LNC to even react to. Perhaps prudence, which may have not been consulted the last time around, would dictate going slowly and not interfering in Oregon internal matters at this time.
It is entirely positive for a group to begin contingency planning once you know about what is happening.
I should have read this one first.:) The latest membership trend report is dismal. I do believe the LNC is working on it…. I just am not sure they know what to do.
Ah, I see what Steve Scheetz’s cryptic comment on the SD thread is referring to now.
IPR is not official reporting of JC results. The LNC can’t do anything because it hasn’t been officially told what happened.
There is a timeframe for draft minutes to be official- that isn’t odd at all.
George of the many-hands is right, the membership numbers are more troubling and ripe.
On one hand, I gather that the national chair has been active on the issue. On another hand, I am aware that the accuracy of the draft minutes may not at least at first have been uniformly accepted within the Committee. Using a third hand, the LNC has mostly ignored LPUS membership counts, which have been an issue for rather longer than Oregon.
The fact that it has not been “officially published yet” is a VERY feeble excuse… One worthy of the establishment.
It is obvious to everyone reading IPR that the decision was made. One faction in Oregon was doing cartwheels for weeks now over this decision. Regardless of anything else, the LNC should have made this issue its business in a very proactive way. Since it has not, YET, the decision has been circulating all over creation, many will not accept the “not officially released” line.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
So far as I can determine the JC has not yet published a decision. This statement will eventually be out of date. However, the decision is known, so there might have been some discussion of it. Discussion of the less than outstanding membership numbers would also be of interest.
I wasn’t surprised or disturbed it wasn’t mentioned, it is premature to do so and was not on the agenda
My understanding is that the JC decision has not actually been formally published yet. The decision was made and the minutes were posted here informally, but the LNC hasn’t been presented with any actual JC decision or order yet.
It’s possible that happened and I missed it, but I think that’s still the case. So it’s no surprise that something that technically hasn’t happened yet isn’t on the LNC agenda. What’s the hold up on that? Your guess is as good as mine, but it’s on the JC end, not the LNC.
The reason why I stopped donating to the LP has to do with the fact that the JC did what it did, and there was no mention of it on the conference call by the LNC. That fact proves that the LNC does not care that the JC went rogue, and if they did care, they did not care enough to discuss what to do about it.
Everyone who continues to support the LNC and the LP after that, is either good with this decision, is ignorant of this decision, or does not care.
In any event, I do, and I will spend, (in this case NOT spend) my money accordingly. (this does not mean I will not be supporting local candidates, and frankly, I will be part of the PA delegation in Orlando, but that does not mean I am supportive of the LNC or the party as a whole, but I do believe in our Libertarian Candidates here in PA, and I will do whatever I can to help them in any way that I can.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
You could equally claim that the people signing the ballot access petitions become the new owners of the party. If not, why not? Of course, in reality, most people who sign ballot access petitions aren’t libertarians, and from what market research I’ve done, many people who register as Libertarians aren’t either. Aside from assertion I see no reason to believe that the prior class of party members is replaced by virtue of either doing a ballot access petition or receiving the status of a party that voters can register with the state with.
This presumes that people who checked a box on a government form are the ones who are the producers. I contend that they are actually the consumers of the work done by dues payers, pledge signers, activists, and contractors hired thanks to dues payers and activists. The people that just check a box on a government form are benefiting from the work done by the folks who got the party to the stage where it gets that box.
paulie
Where registration exists, and such registration confers ballot access, those registrants have the ultimate right over choosing its manners, rules and governance on how it is administrated.
In states where ballot access is petitioned regularly, the organization doing that petitioning most likely has a superior claim over deciding how to handle its administration.
The core of the issue is that the producers have a superior claim to the disposition of how the results of their production is administrated. In Oregon they were disenfranchised — and attempts to enfranchise them through the existing system were rebuffed with skullduggery and external interference even after democratic victories were achieved. That is the core of why it ended so badly.
I don’t see any way such a claim derives from libertarian ideology nor do I necessarily accept that L registered voters are the lowest level. How about libertarians who live in states that don’t have a LP registration option (about half the states), are they lower or higher? What about those prevented from being registered voters? Lower or higher? Why is registration lower or higher than pledge signing?
Registration may be a byproduct of ballot access that we don’t even choose in some states. Maybe a way to advertise, perhaps a database we can try to use. But I see no reason to assume it displaces the prior definition of who is a LP member, especially since it’s an inconsistent option between states.
Voter registration is actually not necessary at all, much less by party. It’s just a way to suppress eligible voters from actually voting. Among US states only North Dakota has gotten rid of it, but I hope the other states all follow. Many foreign nations have no voter registration yet manage to conduct elections and determine on the spot who is eligible to vote, just as ND does, as well as any number of states that have election day voter registration.
Paulie
Once you create a registered voter base.. you become the servants .. not the masters. The moment you do that it is not a provate dues paying club anymore, you exist to serve them and they have the right to determine how they are governed.
Power resides at the lowest level.. not the top.
RTAA
There are not enough people with real principles in the LP for that to happen, which is precisely why we don’t deserve to be elected.
We need to change first in order to earn that.
It would be nice if other state LP’s announced that they too would …
1. boycott the 2016 national LP convention, and
2. join in a separate national nominating convention with the Oregon LP,
UNLESS the LNC passed a satisfactory resolution recognizing the Oregon LP as the legitimate state LP of Oregon, and renounced all its past actions/statements to the contrary, and apologized for all such past actions/statements, and guaranteed that the current Oregon LP’s delegates would be recognized at the upcoming national convention.
It would be very nice indeed if a good chunk of state LPs simply ignored the LNC’s convention and candidate.
Some say that might be bad for the LP’s 2016 vote totals, but it might be better in the long-run, if that’s what it takes to repair the dysfunctional LNC.
The voluntary association of individuals who have pledged to oppose the initiation of force came first, creating a political party as a vehicle to work incrementally through the flawed existing force-based political system to minimize and hopefully eventually eliminate force-initiation as an acceptable way of doing things. We did the hard work to become a state-recognized political party in many states, work which is still going on in many places since we have to re-qualify repeatedly. About half the states allow voters to register as Libertarians, regardless of whether they agree with our views, regardless of how they understand the term libertarian etc. They can only do that because the voluntary association did the hard work to give them that option. The registered voter option – in some states but not others – came later, thanks to the work of the voluntary association. Who is trying to rule over who in this scenario again?
Let us recall that in 2000 the real LPAZ indicated that Browne was welcome to appear in Arizona and ask for their nomination. The private indications I have heard is that if he had appeared and asked, he might well have been given their nomination.
In Oregon, the folks who want to pay dues and have a club are allowed to do so. They even have a PAC to hold the money. They have two paths to ballot access, namely petitioning and asking the real LPOR for a ballot position. In fact, they are collecting dues and meeting now. The real LPOR has done nothing to keep them from continuing to function, and they are doing so. Well, as well as they ever did.
We may contrast this with what happened in Massachusetts in 1998-2000, when Eli Israel, Carla Howell, and their cronies went the same route as seen in Oregon, but then willfully destroyed the dues-collecting organization. We are still recovering from the evil these people did.
Not eggs.. treasonous individuals who think they have the right to rule over people they considered their lessors, who thought themselves superior, acted on it regularly, and were part of a cult.
Yes Wes I know…. To make an omlette you gotta break a few eggs. Even if those eggs are NAP-affirming fellow Libertarians.
That’s how libertarians do things.
No.
Carry on. I am just determined that someone remember that part in this whole vainglorious mess.
BTW- no word from Richard.
And lastly, I was appalled by the defense of Goldstein of that email. The only response should have been… I was wrong and I applogize.
Yes it is….and it is the first step to a libertarian organization that cna function.
Wes,
If the national LP does that- I can consistently oppose.
I think I understand the philosophy just fine, but at least least this suggestion is more productive than your earlier one to me 🙂
And nope, disenfranchising NAP-pledge affirming Libertarians still isn’t acceptable.
If the national party continues on the path ot has been.. you can almost rest assured you will find yourself on the wrong side of a revolt.
I really suggest you read Bastiat and some other age of reason writers.. you seem to be missing an entire school of libertarian philosophy.
Sorry Wes – the new justifications are not working. We have been at this rodeo before. As I said if you can justify that, there is no reasoning with you on it. But I am not an OR member, my concern is the group I am a member of – the national LP and that it follows its own rules or goes through the proper means to amend them. Hopefully a few won’t wrest control and summarily decide one day I am not a member.
With pledge-affirming Libertarians.
Caryn
There are registered libertarians in oregon, there was a group of dues paying people who thought they had dominance over them.
The latter group was wrong and on top of it were poor stewards of that trust.
Learn from this fast or it will happen again.
Wes,
That makes no sense. But carry on. If you can justify disenfranchising a whole class of NAP-affirming Libertarians, I can’t reason with you on that. But that still doesn’t mean the LNC had a right to breach the autonomy of an affiliate. It does mean that I don’t see you as some kind of crusading hero. But on the ultimate issue of the LNC’s decision, we agree.
You can’t keep two legal classes of citizens and expect it to go well.. especially when one group treats the other poorly.
The rules that were imposed on one group by another never were agreed to.
Sorry.
Wes… your rhetoric isn’t working. I voluntarily joined this organization and expect it to follow the agreed-upon rules.
If I were in OR, I would have expected the same including not disenfranchising a whole class of members.
Sorry… your righteous rants don’t work with me. Of course, once again, all of that isn’t relevant to whether the LNC had the authority to do what it did.
You see, I am consistent about wanting people to follow their own rules.
Caryn
Voluntary organization of who ? Feudal lords or peasants?
Nick,
LOL
==I did. It went well. The LNC authorized $15K for South Dakota ballot access.
Also, a particularly well-run meeting. ?==
We have the absolutist humblest Chair:)
Wes… here you go again….
==That they are more concerned about procedure rather than whether people have the right to choose how they wish to structure their government.===
Voluntary organizations choose to organize under certain rules. So yes, I am concerned about rules in VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS.
What amazes me is that after all this time there are people who argue about rules rather than rights. That they are more concerned about procedure rather than whether people have the right to choose how they wish to structure their government.
It really speaks to whether we have the allies we need to accomplish what we really want to do.
I did. It went well. The LNC authorized $15K for South Dakota ballot access.
Also, a particularly well-run meeting. 😉
“the split in the Libertarian Party of Arizona in 2000, which resulted in the faction of the party that had ballot access placing L. Neil Smith on the ballot instead of the actual nominee chosen at the LP National Convention that year,”
Um, no, that is not what happened.
The LNC disaffiliated the Libertarian Party of Arizona.
There was not a “split.” There were no “factions of the party.” There was the real LPAZ and an impostor organization claiming to be the LPAZ.
To the LNC’s credit, it did went the semi-honest way — instead of pretending that the impostor organization it favored was the real LPAZ and that that impostor organization was the LNC affiliate, it took the required formal step of disaffiliating the LPAZ and installed the impostor organization as its affiliate (something it could have done with Oregon and accepted the consequences of, but that its executive committee decided to fraudulently simulate instead).
And, of course, the real LPAZ retained control of its own ballot line.
And since the real LPAZ was not represented at the LNC’s national convention that year, it had no obligation whatsoever to put that convention’s presidential ticket on that ballot line.
Just like any other party, it chose its own ticket. That anyone would expect it to choose the ticket of a national organization which it was not, by that national organization’s own choice, associated with, boggles the mind.
Jeez, I’ve read about half of the comments on the old article about Scott Lieberman, and I’m so discouraged that we haven’t moved forward from the stupid battle of strong wills in Oregon. I love (most of) my fellow Libertarians, but, dang, we can be so stubborn sometimes!
Thanks, Wes. That’s the article I was remembering.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/07/ca-lnc-alternate-rep-suggests-johnson-campaign-should-sacrifice-ballot-access-to-unseat-wagner/
Speaking of the California rep to the LNC, Jonny, Scott Lieberman was caught telling Ron Nielson from the Johnson campaign that it was okay not to have ballot access one year so that they could blame it on Wes Wagner.
Does anyone remember the details of that? I did a quick search here, and didn’t find anything.
Thank you Chuck! I wanted to attend but had another commitment.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I did.
They just talked about South Dakota. No mention of Oregon.
And to be more precise…. it was the decision that the JC could deliberate to rescind their prior decision that Carling ruled in order. He recused himself from the decisions decision. The Epstein petition was then dismissed.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/lp-judicial-committee-meets-tomorrow-to-reconsider-prior-jc-decision-re-oregon-affiliate-carling-will-not-recuse-himself/
Johnny,
==Any member of the JC who was involved with the Oregon litigation clearly should have recused himself/herself from the reconsideration proceedings. Did they?==
Technically yes. But that technically is scant comfort since Carling (named in the ongoing suit) is the one that deemed that the reconsideration was in order. He recused himself from the actual JC vote.
George, thank you for the capsule summary. I was not paying close attention in 2014 and seem to have missed the real story. The whole dispute has a long and convoluted history, difficult to remember accurately for those on the sidelines.
Knapp’s remarks about ballot access seem right on to me. If I can do anything positive to bend the CA LNC rep that way, I will do it. That Sarwark is already on the phone with Wagner gives me some hope that the LNC Chair is of the mind to work out something that will keep the Oregon party with ballot access engaged in the 2016 convention. Although the JC might muck that up with its decision on Reeve’s reconsideration request.
Any member of the JC who was involved with the Oregon litigation clearly should have recused himself/herself from the reconsideration proceedings. Did they? What was the basis for the request for reconsideration? Was it a sufficient basis for undoing what had already been decided?
Thomas Knapp said: “Yep, that’s a fifth option.
In that ends up being necessary, though, I hope the party’s presidential nominee will use that bully pulpit to ask the convention delegates to throw out the LNC bums who put the cost of doing so on the campaign’s tab.
Let’s be very clear here: If the LNC costs the presidential ticket ballot access in Oregon next year, that will be the second time it has knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally robbed the presidential campaign of ballot access in a state in 16 years (it did so in Arizona in 2000). The LNC’s job is to support the presidential campaign, not to fuck it over.”
I believe that the Libertarian Party should have ballot access in all 50 states plus DC, and that the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket should be on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC. Given the split in the Libertarian Party of Arizona in 2000, which resulted in the faction of the party that had ballot access placing L. Neil Smith on the ballot instead of the actual nominee chosen at the LP National Convention that year, Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party has not had ballot access for its officially nominated presidential ticket in all 50 states plus DC since 1996.
I think that it would be absolutely disgraceful if we go for yet another election cycle without 50 state plus DC ballot access, and without having our officially nominated presidential ticket on all of those ballot. If we do not achieve this, then it will mean 20 years since we’ve been a real national political party (a real national political party is on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, and it has its officially nominated presidential ticket on all of those ballots).
Having said this, if it is necessary to do a petition drive in Oregon next year in order for the officially nominated presidential ticket to appear on the ballot in that state, this petition drive could easily end up costing the party $100,000 or more, and there is also a possibility that the petition drive will fail (the petition drive could be a success, but it could fail due to mismanagement, or due to lack of money to pay what it will take to ensure success).
My recommendation is that the LNC do whatever is necessary to ensure that the officially nominated presidential ticket will have access to the ballot in Oregon next year, and that this access will come without having to conduct a ballot access petition drive, as in make a real effort to work things out with the state LP affiliate that has ballot access.
Jonny,
In the 2014 convention the National Convention voted to install the fake delegates from Oregon inside the real Oregon delegation, over the protest of the real Oregon delegation. The newly installed people then claimed they had elected a new Oregon delegation chair, a member of the fake delegation, and National Secretary Blau went along with the claim. If you did not know the guilty parties, you may have supposed that the people were just being seated someplace, and not realized that Oregon’s right to choose its own delegation was being trampled.
In 2012, the faux Oregon delegation was seated as the Oregon delegation, and the real Oregon delegation was voted the chance to be seated with other states, though at least some Oregonites in the real delegation declined the offer.
As I read the letter from Lars Hedbor, the Oregon Party is not disaffiliating, they are simply serving notice that they will not be attending the convention.
George
I would expect that there will be at least one vote, so that you can tell who or the good people and who are the bad people.
In 2011 this identification was relatively easy:
Letter from 14 LNC members (enough for a disaffiliation) supporting the claim that the Reeves faction is the real affiliate. The 14 members were “LNC Executive Committee Members: Mark Hinkle, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson** , Bill Redpath** (Treasurer), Kevin Knedler, Dr. James Lark** Other LNC Members: Randy Eshelman, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Wayne Root, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Dianna Visek, Dan Wiener*, Andy Wolf”
While I may have miscounted, of the 14 only four are still on the LNC. They are marked with an asterisk. Three of them also voted for the original Excomm motion. They are marked with a double asterisk.
The vote to disenfranchise the Arizona party was “”The motion on disaffiliation passed with 14 affirmative votes: Bergland, Bisson, Butler, Dehn, Dixon, Franke, Fylstra, Givot, Hall, Lark, Neale, Ruwart, Schwarz, and Smith. Buttrick and Tuniewicz voted against the motion. Savyon abstained.” One person (Lark) who voted for the Reeves faction has been on the LNC all these years and also voted to dump our Oregon Party.
I’m just a lowly member from an uninvolved state with no dog in the fight. For reasons expressed by others in this thread, I would be dismayed if the LNC voted to disaffiliate Oregon, whether or not Oregon changes its decision to boycott, just based on what I have read here and vaguely remember from earlier threads.
I was at Columbus – Not sure I remember correctly but recall a couple of delegates from the other Oregon group being seated, but as guests of a different state delegation, with permission of the delegates as a whole (presumably over the objections of the official Oregon delegation). Could somebody set the record straight on that?
Quoth Andy:
“Another option is that the LP Presidential ticket could try to get on the ballot in Oregon as independents.”
Yep, that’s a fifth option.
In that ends up being necessary, though, I hope the party’s presidential nominee will use that bully pulpit to ask the convention delegates to throw out the LNC bums who put the cost of doing so on the campaign’s tab.
Let’s be very clear here: If the LNC costs the presidential ticket ballot access in Oregon next year, that will be the second time it has knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally robbed the presidential campaign of ballot access in a state in 16 years (it did so in Arizona in 2000). The LNC’s job is to support the presidential campaign, not to fuck it over.
Actually, the current Judicial Committee ruling seems not to have been published yet, either. George
This case has a very low priority in the appeals court … there are people who are arguing over matters involving life and death, and of course sitting in prison attempting to undertake appeals. It is hard to say when we will see anything, and to be honest, if the other side planned to essentially abandon their desire to prosecute their claims, it would have been considerably less anti-social to have withdrawn the appeals.
Wes,
Thank you. I really need to get back to reading that court file.
Caryn,
Oral arguments were waived by both sides in the appeal. Generally that is perceived by the court that the appellate really doesn’t care to have their appeal considered anymore with any seriousness.
Arguments would have been this month had they been held.
Currently the summary judgment stands. It could be 1 month to 3 years before we get a ruling on the appeal. An affirmed without opinion would come in months, an opinion would come in years.
9/3 @2:10 PM Jill, there are also a few comments attached to those articles.
Wes,
What is the status right now of the appellate court case?
Jill,
==Anyone who wants more background can put “Oregon LP” or something similar in the search box, and can have plenty of new weekend reading. I believe there are 60-ish articles of background.==
In the article, I put the link in to an IPR “Oregon” search.
Jonny,
Please catch up on what has been going on with the JC. Your suggestion is abstractly meritorious but has some fact-based practical issues.
For those of you who have not been around as long, there is extended coverage in Liberty for America magazine going back to 2010. See data list at bottom of article.
The problems are at the national end, so saying “Oregon should solve this” is wrong. Oregon did solve this. There was litigation, and one side won. (This being America, there are always appeals.)
Oregon might equally have said ‘we take note of the repeated National Party decisions that we are not their affiliate in Oregon, and therefore are not the LNC affiliate in Oregon.’.
I believe that the correct statement is that the National Party effectively disaffiliated our Oregon Party six times.
In 2010-2011, the LNC ExComm voted to decide for the Oregon Party what the Oregon Bylaws are. They then voted to recognize the Reeves group as the Oregon Affiliate.[1, below] (That vote was for a while overturned.) That vote was a disaffiliation of the Wagner group.
There was a Judicial Committee appeal. 14 members of the LNC, enough for a disaffiliation, petitioned the Judicial Committee, saying the Reeves Faction was the real party. 14 members is effectively a disaffiliation, it being 3/4 members saying so, on the record. That act was a disaffiliation of the Wagner group.
In 2012, our Oregon affiliate showed up with a delegation at the National Convention. The Credentials Committee and National Convention instead seated a delegation from the Reeves faction. That vote was a disaffiliation of the Wagner group.
In 2014, our affiliate again showed up with a delegation. Once again, the Reeves faction showed up with people. This time, the convention committee said “no”, but the convention as a whole seated the Reeves people in the Oregon delegation. That vote was a disaffiliation of the Wagner group.
Then National Secretary Blau allowed the Reeves delegates (3 of them) to take over the delegation by electing what they claimed was the delegation chair. That action was disaffiliation.
In 2015 the Reeves faction asked the Judicial Committee to reconsider. They did. While their final decision has not been released, the leaked draft decision indicates that the Judicial Committee has restored the old ExComm motions, meaning that the LNC currently recognizes the faction whose chair is Mr. Reeves. That vote was a disaffiliation of the Wagner group.
[1] The ExComm motions, which are currently valid, were
1) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended March 14 15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since March 15, 2009. (Vote was 6-1. Hinkle, Rutherford, Mattson, Redpath, Knedler Lark in favor; Ruwart opposed)
2) Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee recognizes as the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon those people elected by the State Committee during its meeting on May 21, 2011. They are: Chair: Tim Reeves; Vice chair: Eric B. Saub Secretary: Carla J. Pealer ; Treasurer: Gregory Burnett (Motion passed 6-1, same votes as previous motion.)
(Readers will note that there is currently no faction that has Mr. Reeves as chair.)
Old Liberty For America Issues and content, all at
libertyforamerica.com/liberty-for-america-magazine/
November 2010 Oregon State Party Officers Blast LNC For Disrupting LP Oregon State Convention
April 2011 Oregon Affiliate Adopts new Bylaws
July 2011 Debate as to who our affilate is.
August 2011 LNC ExComm Intervenes in Oregon Claims It Chose State Party Bylaws and Officers
Page 6, Letter to Doug Craig from Mark Hinkle, in which Hinkle said “Doug,
Sorry, but that just is not true. Do you really think for no reason at all, that Alicia Mattson and I traveled to Portland, OR to attend their special election last November?” This note from the National Chair is of interest in that at other times people were suggesting that Hinkle just happened to be in Oregon.
Letter from 14 LNC members (enough for a disaffiliation) supporting the claim that the Reeves faction is the real affiliate. The 14 members were “LNC Executive Committee Members: Mark Hinkle (Chair), Mark Rutherford (Vice Chair), Alicia Mattson (Secretary), Bill Redpath (Treasurer), Kevin Knedler, Dr. James Lark
Other LNC Members: Randy Eshelman, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Wayne Root, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Dianna Visek, Dan Wiener, Andy Wolf”
September 2011 Oregon Wins JudComm Appeal! Hinkle Defies Judicial Committee! He Substantively ReDisAffiliates Oregon
October 2011 LNC Continues to Defy JudComm
November 2011 LNC Votes to ignore JudComm Decision that Wagner is the real faction. Hinkle spends LNC money to retain an attorney in Oregon. New Wiener Motion to Call Judicial Committee Names.
Is anyone going to attend that conference call tonight?
Wes,
==Did you think that perhaps at the time you appointed him it was not wise to appoint someone involved in litigation to a committee that would be influencing and deciding issues such as that?==
A better question is if Carling should have accepted such an appointment. No.
Wes,
==So in short go fuck yourself.==
Thank you for the invitation. My opinion on how you have been milking this situation as some kind of grand drama isn’t new. I see you are back to your explosive reactions. I can’t help that. Tactically, I think this a really bad move on your group’s part. And you also know that my opinion is that the LNC had no power in its original 2011 decision and that your group is the legitimate affiliate unless they officially disaffiliate or are disaffiliated
Johnny,
==There is nothing in the Bylaws (that I know of) that requires disaffiliation because of a convention boycott.==
I never said there was. I only said that they have given potential cause if the LNC decides it needs an excuse.
==I would not vote for disaffiliation on the facts and rumors I have heard, and I expect that at least 25% of National committee members at convention would feel the same way. ===
From what I understand, it is a LNC vote not a vote at convention.
==If the LNC has not been honoring Bylaw 6 with respect to the Oregon party, that needs to stop. I wonder whether it might be more productive for Oregon to submit their grievances over delegate tampering to the JC prior to boycotting, but in the end it is their decision.===
The JC right now is not a friend to the current LPO. I do not think the LNC (in the past— and likely in the future) has honored Bylaw 6 with regard to the autonomy of the affiliate. That was detailed out in excruciating minuteness on that thread Wes just linked to.
Mark
You returned M to the credentials committee in 2014 even after what happened in 2012.
Sorry… you have problems that no amount of holding up all the great things you have done in your state will wash clean.
Another option is that the LP Presidential ticket could try to get on the ballot in Oregon as independents.
ww: So in short go fuck yourself.
me: An escalation from the flaming middle finger of year’s past.
Exhausting…
For those who are asking who, they are M Carling and Rob Power.
Technically, M did not vote to overrule (he abstained) while Rob voted against the motion. But as others have written ad nauseum, M did not have to vote for the result he desired to be obtained.
Wes,
Actually, M was the Alternate from New York in 2012 and 2014 and no one else wanted the job.
I was surprised when the New York rep. to the Credentials Committee resigned just a few days before the 2014 Convention (he took ill and cold not go to Columbus), meaning that M got his position, from which he then resigned!
I am sorry (actually I couldn’t give a rat’s ass but it sounds better to say I am sorry) that you think I am corrupt. It’s such an idiotic position to take about me that it’s actually laughable. I have spent literally thousands of hours working for the LP in the past twenty years, and am likely the single largest financial contributor from my state. If that makes me corrupt, so be it.
For what it’s worth, I never, ever considered Oregon LP in any decision I made as a State Chair. Why would I?
But I did take, and still do, the position that the JC having considered the Oregon matter when it came up four years ago, then its decision should stand (even if I did not agree therewith). Obviously others disagree with me on that, as the JC just voted to overrule its own decision.
For what it’s worth, I supported the two New Yorkers on the current JC,who voted against one another.
“There is nothing in the Bylaws (that I know of) that requires disaffiliation because of a convention boycott.”
There’s nothing in the bylaws that requires disaffilation for any reason at all.
However, the resolution includes clear cause/grounds for disaffiliation if that’s what the LNC wants to do. It says that the affiliate “shall not be bound by the Convention’s Presidential nomination.” This leaves the LNC with at least four choices and ten months in which to consider those choices.
Behind Door #1: The LNC proper could make a genuine effort to correct its behavior toward its Oregon affiliate. There’s plenty of time for LPO to reconsider its boycott of the national convention.
Behind Door #2: The LNC’s national convention delegates could refuse to seat the impostor organization’s phony Oregon delegation, decline to elect or re-elect supporters of the impostor organization to the LNC and Judicial Committee, and pass a resolution of apology to the LPO and resolve never to put up with this kind of shit from the LNC again. In that case, I suspect LPO might decide to go with the same presidential slate as the other state LPs as a gesture of goodwill pending evidence that the situation has genuinely changed.
Behind Door Number #3: The LNC can escalate, and out itself as irredeemably corrupt, by moving immediately to proposals to garner ballot access for the impostor organization.
Behind Door #4: The LNC can ignore the situation, pretend nothing is going on, and later on feign surprise and outrage when it turns out that its real affiliate was serious and that the impostor organization has no ballot access.
My money is on #3 or #4. Probably #3, because I don’t think the timing of this resolution is as coincidental as someone pretends above. The LNC’s executive committee has a ballot access conference call tonight. Oregon would likely have come up in the context of the wreckers’ attempt to boost the impostor organization anyway. Now it’s probably going to become a central topic and LPO will get some early data on whether the LNC intends to continue to shit on its affiliate, or maybe, just maybe, get off the pot.
Anyone who wants more background can put “Oregon LP” or something similar in the search box, and can have plenty of new weekend reading. I believe there are 60-ish articles of background.
Mark,
Did you think that perhaps at the time you appointed him it was not wise to appoint someone involved in litigation to a committee that would be influencing and deciding issues such as that?
Over the years I have gone from thinking you were obtuse to actually downright corrupt – to be quite frank.
My suggestion as to how to resolve this to Mr Sarwark last night in a one on one communication was that the delegates in convention need to recognize the issues they created and adopt proper rules and safeguards that would prevent future recurrence.
Since they broke it, it is their responsibility to fix it.
How can National make that assurance.
There will be a Credentials Committee at the Convention like always, and its role is to determine delegation qualifications.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Carling and Mr. Burke walked out of the last Credentials Committee meeting when it ruled in favor of the “Wagner” group. I found that to be particularly interesting, since I appointed Mr. Carling to that committee!
Things might be different if national could credibly assure us that in 2016 our delegation would not be tampered with. But twice in a row it has been, over our strong objections, so our very reasonable expectation is that it would happen again. If the Oregon delegation won’t be respected, there’s no point in sending one.
Incidentally, this resolution is not related to the recent JC meeting. The timing is coincidental. At our new board’s first meeting, the new folks didn’t have enough background yet to comfortably make a decision about this, so we moved it to our second meeting, which occurred last night.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/lp-judicial-committee-meets-tomorrow-to-reconsider-prior-jc-decision-re-oregon-affiliate-carling-will-not-recuse-himself/
(The current chair of the JC that is)
Did you see the recent JC thread how the current chair is a party to the lawsuit against us to put an GOP-backed group in control of our affiliate?
I would not vote for disaffiliation on the facts and rumors I have heard, and I expect that at least 25% of National committee members at convention would feel the same way. If the LNC has not been honoring Bylaw 6 with respect to the Oregon party, that needs to stop. I wonder whether it might be more productive for Oregon to submit their grievances over delegate tampering to the JC prior to boycotting, but in the end it is their decision.
There is nothing in the Bylaws (that I know of) that requires disaffiliation because of a convention boycott.
When someone who is an abusive relationship decides to shed the co-dependent role and not show up anymore… that is not them ceasing to ride the martyr pony — it is self-empowerment.
So in short go fuck yourself.
They will care in such that they really were riding the martyr pony hard. If now they have given cause, they lost that.
If that leaves the disaffiliated group as the LP recognized by the Oregon Secretary of State, I doubt that they care. It will do the LNC no good to have as its affiliate a group that is not recognized by the SoS as constituting the LP in Oregon.
Way to give the LNC cause to disaffiliate.