July 2014 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-10: Oregon Resolution v2
by SAM8074＠aol.com 20 Jul '14

20 Jul '14

I vote No on this motion. Live Free, Sam Goldstein At Large Representative Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Mobile sam.goldstein(a)lp.org Email In a message dated 7/20/2014 2:36:02 A.M. US Eastern Daylight Time, agmattson(a)gmail.com writes: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 29, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Dan Wiener, Vicki Kirkland, Tim Hagan, Guy McLendon Motion: Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and Whereas, a dispute over the Oregon delegation was placed before the Credentials Committee, which subsequently presented a report to the Libertarian Party National Convention on June 27, 2014 which did not describe the details of that dispute, and Whereas, a motion was made to amend the Credentials Committee report to include three individuals as delegates within the Oregon delegation, and Whereas, in response to a Point of Order the Chair of the National Convention ruled that the proposed amendment was in order, the Chair’s ruling was appealed, the Chair’s ruling was sustained by a vote of the assembly, and the assembly subsequently approved the amendment, and Whereas, the 11th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, which is the Parliamentary Authority for the Libertarian Party as stated in Article 16 of its Bylaws, states (p. 483) that “In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, II. 23-33).”, and Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee nevertheless regrets the situation wherein some delegates believe the above decision was incorrectly decided, therefore Be it resolved that it is the sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey those regrets to the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

updated 2014 bylaws
by Alicia Mattson 19 Jul '14

19 Jul '14

Attached is an updated version of the 2014 bylaws. The amendments made at convention resulted in a need to update some cross-references in Article 9.2, and the previous version I distributed didn't have those updated. The attached version fixes that oversight. No other text has been changed in this edition, only the cross-references in 9.2.b, 9.2.d, and 9.2.g. Please use the attached version to replace the prior one in your personal records, and staff please update the website with the attached version as well. Since I caught it first, no points will be awarded. :-) Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Oregon Resolution - is Wes Wagner chair of the Oregon affiliate
by Nicholas Sarwark 19 Jul '14

19 Jul '14

Moving this to Business to smooth the switch of lists going forward: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There are a few things that I find interesting from reading the Chair's > message below: > > 1. I noticed the Chair referred to the JC ruling as "Judge Gray's opinion", > but Mr. Sarwark's name is at the bottom of that opinion as well. Perhaps > Judge Gray drafted it, but when one consents to put their name on it, one is > agreeing with it. All the signers of that opinion get to take ownership of > it regardless of who drafted it. > I agreed with the decision, but I would have drafted it differently. Nothing more or less. > 2. This is the Chair's motion, but he is not inclined to debate the merits > of the underlying assumptions inherent in the motion. > The motion is a resolution. It doesn't take action and it doesn't mention individuals in Oregon, only the Libertarian Party of Oregon. If I had proposed a resolution to apologize to an individual, I would happily debate whether that was the right individual. Since the LNC doesn't have the power in the bylaws to adjudicate internal disputes within state affiliates, it would be inappropriate to debate such a dispute. You are free to disagree. > 3. I received no reply to my question about whether the new "rule" cited in > the JC ruling will be applied to other affiliates who have no official > recognition from their respective secretaries of state. The JC ruling went > out of its way to say they saw it as a general rule for all state affiliates > and thus it also applied to the specific case of Oregon. I suppose I am > left to assume for now that even the Chair intends to not fully comply with > the alleged new JC "rule" that he himself signed, and he intends to apply a > different standard to the Oregon affiliate than is applied to other > affiliates. If one of the signers of the ruling won't even abide by it, why > should the rest of the LNC be expected to do so? > The question appeared rhetorical. Since you indicate it was not, I'll answer it. Political parties are regulated by state law. I doubt the Louisiana LP would have quite as complex a governing structure as it does without being required to by the state ( see the org. chart here: http://lplouisiana.org/party_organization ). In absence of an internal resolution to a dispute (the Libertarian Party of Oregon judicial committee was vacant at the time of this dispute), and given the LNC has no authority in the bylaws to resolve an internal dispute in a state affiliate, the next step is to look at the opinion of the state government and courts who regulate the political party. The Secretary of State in Oregon determined Mr. Wagner was the Chair. Mr. Reeves sued to overturn that decision. That suit was dismissed (as noted in the order you forwarded to this list), which returns the issue to the posture prior to the suit, i.e. the Secretary of State recognizes Mr. Wagner as the Chair. If a similar situation arose in another state and the Executive Committee of the LNC acted similarly, I would hope the Judicial Committee would abide by the previous ruling. But our Judicial Committee, like courts generally, does not seek out disputes, it only decides those brought to it. So no, I don't think the national office should contact each Secretary of State to see if the affiliates have their paperwork up to date. If a dispute came up, it would be an appropriate inquiry, however. -Nick P.S. Sorry for putting my vote at the bottom of discussion before. > -Alicia > > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <nsarwark(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> The Judicial Committee decision was made. The arguments you lay out >> were made during the hearing prior to that decision. You may not find >> Judge Gray's opinion persuasive, but it was the decision of the >> Judicial Committee. >> >> The 2011 LNC passed a resolution indicating that they disagreed with >> the Judicial Committee decision. That resolution had no legal effect >> other than to express the opinion of the LNC (like the resolution >> presently before the LNC). That LNC could have disaffiliated the >> Wagner group by a 3/4 vote and affiliated with the Reeves group. They >> didn't. >> >> There have been 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of >> subsequent litigation. The Reeves side has, to this point, lost in >> the courts. While I can see the obvious desire for the Reeves side to >> go back to 2011 and try to re-argue their case, I am not inclined to >> do so. >> >> -Nick >> >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Yes, let's discuss the Judicial Committee ruling regarding Oregon. I >> > have >> > attached it for the benefit of those who have not seen it before. >> > >> > Wes Wagner appealed to the Judicial Committee the decision of the LNC's >> > Executive Committee to recognize Tim Reeves as the Chair of the LP of >> > Oregon. Mr, Wagner claimed it was a disaffiliation of his group. >> > Obviously, for it to be a disaffiliation, his group would have to >> > actually >> > be the affiliate, and the brief from the large group of LNC members >> > argued >> > that he was not. >> > >> > The party bylaws put limitations on what the Judicial Committee can do. >> > If >> > it were a case of disaffiliation, the operative bylaw would be Article >> > 6.6. >> > If you take out the timeline language and strip it down to the core >> > elements, that article states: >> > >> > "The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any >> > affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National >> > Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause >> > must specify the nature of the cause for revocation. The affiliate party >> > may >> > challenge the revocation of its status by written appeal to the Judicial >> > Committee within 30 days of receipt of notice of such >> > revocation...[snip]...At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest >> > upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the >> > National >> > Committee's revocation of affiliate party status or order reinstatement >> > of >> > the affiliate party...[snip]" >> > >> > In a disaffiliation case, the Judicial Committee options are limited to >> > to >> > either a) affirming the revocation, or b) reinstating the affiliate. >> > The >> > majority of the JC stated, in reference to the recognition of the Reeves >> > group, >> > >> > "This action was beyond the authority of the LNC or EC based on the >> > bylaws, >> > and is void." >> > >> > In deciding whether something is a violation of the bylaws, logically, >> > the >> > standard to be used should be the bylaws themselves. But the majority >> > of >> > the Judicial Committee stated the basis for their decision was, >> > >> > "We find that the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case >> > the >> > State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of >> > state, >> > in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon." >> > >> > Mr. Sarwark, can you show the LNC where this "rule" is found in the LP >> > Bylaws, thus can be used as a standard by the Judicial Committee? Our >> > delegates have not agreed to this standard for identifying who our >> > affiliate >> > is. >> > >> > Since that "rule" is not in our bylaws, can you show the LNC where the >> > LP >> > bylaws grant the Judicial Committee the authority to legislate from the >> > bench and construct this new "rule" for affiliate governance? >> > >> > Article 6.2 of the LP Bylaws give the LNC, not a secretary of state, the >> > power to create affiliates. It gives the LNC, not a secretary of state, >> > the >> > power to revoke an affiliate status. The same body that can affiliate >> > or >> > disaffiliate naturally has the power to later identify who it is they >> > have >> > affiliated. >> > >> > Application of this "rule" in this particular case would directly >> > interfere >> > with the autonomy of the Oregon affiliate, in that the LPO members >> > operating >> > under the bylaws to which they mutually agreed selected one set of >> > officers, >> > but the Judicial Committee has declared that the affiliate is instead >> > whoever is on file with the Secretary of State's office in Oregon. >> > Article >> > 6.5 of the LP Bylaws states: >> > >> > >> > >> > “The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be >> > abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, >> > except as provided by these Bylaws.” (underline added for emphasis) >> > >> > >> > Autonomy, by definition, is the right of self-rule, and an acceptance of >> > that statement in the Judicial Committee decision would in this case >> > effectively deprive the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon of >> > the >> > right to choose their own officers. >> > >> > Thus the LNC adopted the resolution spanning pages 11-13 of the December >> > 2011 LNC minutes (found at http://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives) >> > calling >> > the Judicial Committee's ruling an "arrogation of power". >> > >> > This Judicial Committee ruling itself violates the bylaws, thus is null >> > and >> > void. >> > >> > Additionally, as was referenced in the email we received from Tim >> > Reeves, >> > the Oregon Secretary of State has been advised by their legal counsel >> > that >> > Oregon state law forbids from them doing what the Judicial Committee >> > prescribed. Thus they filed a declaration in the court case that, >> > >> > "The Secretary of State's Elections Division has not and will not >> > enforce or >> > adjudicate disputes about political party bylaws. We have told the >> > parties >> > that they have to go to court to adjudicate this matter if there is to >> > be >> > any change because we do not adjudicate this type of dispute." >> > >> > Spanning pages 3-4 of RONR 11th ed. you will find that, >> > >> > "Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of >> > an >> > assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to >> > applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law >> > and >> > would be null and void if in violation of such law." >> > >> > The Judicial Committee prescribed a procedure for identifying our >> > affiliates >> > which would be in violation of Oregon state law, thus it is null and >> > void on >> > those grounds as well. Oregon is not the only state in which state law >> > would prohibit the Secretary of State from adjudicating this sort of >> > dispute >> > over the leadership of a political party. >> > >> > Mr. Sarwark, now that you are national chair, should we expect you to >> > broadly implement compliance with this "rule" you helped write and seem >> > to >> > believe is binding? The ruling claimed it applied to any state, not >> > just >> > Oregon. You could direct staff to remove from our website all the >> > listed >> > affiliates. Then they could call all the secretary of state offices >> > around >> > the country and ask them whether they recognize the Libertarian Party as >> > a >> > political party in that state. The only affiliates to be added back to >> > the >> > website will then be those who are recognized by their secretary of >> > state >> > offices. >> > >> > We would likely lose a number of affiliates that way. You could try out >> > a >> > couple by first calling the secretary of state of Oklahoma, then Alabama >> > and >> > see what they say. I would like to be a fly on the wall when you >> > explain to >> > these state chairs that we don't recognize those affiliates because they >> > have no legal status with the secretary of state. >> > >> > How soon should these state affiliates expect you to implement this >> > Judicial >> > Committee-created rule? >> > >> > -Alicia >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair(a)lp.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Subsequent to the 2011 decision mentioned by Alicia above, the >> >> Judicial Committee reversed the decision of the LNC Executive >> >> Committee recognizing Reeves without a disaffiliation vote of the >> >> entire LNC. The LNC never took such a vote. Mr. Wagner is >> >> recognized as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon by the >> >> Oregon Secretary of State. Pursuant to the Judicial Committee >> >> decision, he is recognized as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of >> >> Oregon by the LNC unless or until (a) the LNC takes a vote to >> >> disaffiliate the Libertarian Party of Oregon or (b) the Oregon >> >> Secretary of State or the Oregon Courts decide someone else is the >> >> Chair. The Reeves group did sue in Oregon court and had their case >> >> dismissed at summary judgment. They are presently appealing that >> >> decision, but the decision is not stayed. >> >> >> >> In 2012, the Libertarian Party of Oregon placed Gary Johnson and Jim >> >> Gray on the ballot for President. The Libertarian Party of Oregon >> >> will be able to place a Presidential ticket on the ballot in 2016. >> >> Unless something changes drastically in the courts, the Chair will be >> >> Mr. Wagner or his successor. >> >> >> >> For those members of the Committee who were not around in 2000, I >> >> would urge you to contact Bill Hall of Michigan to discuss what >> >> happened when the LNC decided to disaffiliate the group in Arizona >> >> that held ballot access. If we ignore the lessons from that episode, >> >> we risk cutting off our ballot access nose to spite Mr. Wagner's face. >> >> I have yet to hear the argument that action would be in the best >> >> interest of the Libertarian National Committee. >> >> >> >> I will, under separate cover, forward to the list a message from Mr. >> >> Moellman from Kentucky. >> >> >> >> -Nick >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > As I have stated before, I do not agree that Wes Wagner is the chair >> >> > of >> >> > our >> >> > Oregon affiliate. This motion under consideration implies that he >> >> > is. >> >> > It >> >> > suggests the event for which we are apologizing violated the autonomy >> >> > of >> >> > the >> >> > affiliate with Wes Wagner as its chair. >> >> > >> >> > For those of you new to the story, I cannot re-explain it better than >> >> > has >> >> > already been done. Attached you will find three documents that lay >> >> > out >> >> > the >> >> > story in great detail. >> >> > >> >> > The LNC's Executive Committee in 2011 voted to recognize the Reeves >> >> > group as >> >> > our Oregon affiliate. Wes Wagner appealed this decision to the >> >> > Judicial >> >> > Committee claiming that he represented the affiliate, thus the >> >> > decision >> >> > to >> >> > recognize Reeves was essentially a disaffiliation. These three >> >> > documents >> >> > were filed with the Judicial Committee as a defense of the action. >> >> > They >> >> > lay >> >> > out the argument that Wes Wagner ceased to be the chair of the LP of >> >> > Oregon >> >> > in May of 2011. >> >> > >> >> > The story plot after this JC appeal was told fairly well in the >> >> > 4-page >> >> > document distributed by the Reeves group at this convention. If you >> >> > didn't >> >> > get to read it but would like to do so, just ask. I can scan in my >> >> > copy >> >> > and >> >> > send it to you. >> >> > >> >> > -Alicia >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Lnc-discuss mailing list >> >> > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Lnc-discuss mailing list >> >> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lnc-discuss mailing list >> > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-discuss mailing list >> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >

3 2

Re: [Lnc-business] Result of state affiliate IT survey
by SAM8074＠aol.com 19 Jul '14

19 Jul '14

Rob, Thanks for your effort and the update. I'm somewhat disappointed that only 15 of 51 affiliates responded to the survey of the current IT platforms when one of the major critiques of the national party is that we don't do enough for them in this area. I would encourage state chairs to add their affiliate's information as quickly as possible since the IT Committee will soon be starting phase one of the project to update/improve the LP's information and communications systems. As of today we have received over 50 applications for the 5 non-LNC spots available on the IT Committee. Over the next few days Rich Tomasso and I will review the applicants and will present a list of finalists to LNC Chair Nick Sarwark for his selection of the committee members. Those who don't get one of the appointments will still be involved, if they want, in working groups centered around the several aspects of the project. One of the first items of business will be a another survey of the affiliates, however this time we will be asking for their input as to the future direction of the LP's IT platform. Live Free, Sam Goldstein At Large Representative IT Committee Chair Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Mobile sam.goldstein(a)lp.org Email In a message dated 7/19/2014 8:14:41 A.M. US Eastern Daylight Time, rob.lptx(a)gmail.com writes: For those who responded, it's very much appreciated. For those who didn't get to it, I will maintain this list for the next few weeks and would be delighted if you're able to provide the requested information. The purpose is to provide the newly reconstituted LNC IT Committee with some data points. LNC members serving on the Committee are Sam Goldstein (IN) and Rich Tomasso (NH), and I understand non-LNC members will be appointed later this month. Thanks; please phone anytime if there are questions. ---------------------------------------------------------- Rob Lapham State Libertarian Executive Committee, SD18 Libertarian Candidate for Congress, Texas CD-22 281-750-5342 _http://roblapham.com_ (http://roblapham.com/) _http://lptexas.org_ (http://lptexas.org/)

1 0

Request for email ballot co-sponsors for Oregon resolution
by Daniel Wiener 19 Jul '14

19 Jul '14

I move to adopt the following resolution, and request co-sponsors for an email ballot: *Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and* *Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and * *Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and* *Whereas, a dispute over the Oregon delegation was placed before the Credentials Committee, which subsequently presented a report to the Libertarian Party National Convention on June 27, 2014 which did not describe the details of that dispute, and* *Whereas, a motion was made to amend the Credentials Committee report to include three individuals as delegates within the Oregon delegation, and* *Whereas, in response to a Point of Order the Chair of the National Convention ruled that the proposed amendment was in order, the Chair’s ruling was appealed, the Chair’s ruling was sustained by a vote of the assembly, and the assembly subsequently approved the amendment, and* *Whereas, the 11th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, which is the Parliamentary Authority for the Libertarian Party as stated in Article 16 of its Bylaws, states (p. 483) that “In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, II. 23-33).”, and * *Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee nevertheless regrets the situation wherein some delegates believe the above decision was incorrectly decided, therefore* *Be it resolved that it is the sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey those regrets to the Libertarian Party of Oregon.* Daniel Wiener Region 4 Representative

4 5

My Conversation with Wes Wagner-Oregon
by Daniel Hayes 18 Jul '14

18 Jul '14

This is my exchange with Mr Wes Wagner the Chairman of one of the possible Oregon State Affiliates. This has given me all the clarity I need on the matter. Daniel Hayes LNC Region 7 Alternate Representative Begin forwarded message: > From: Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> > Subject: Re: Oregon > Date: July 18, 2014 at 2:20:05 PM CDT > To: Wes Wagner <wes.wagner(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Joseph Buchman <drbuchman(a)gmail.com>, George Phillies <phillies(a)4liberty.net> > > Mr Wagner, > > and there you were absolutely wrong.. > > The NLP IS top down..just look at how they operate. They are. Perception is reality. Period. How do you change that..change perception. > > You shot at people that had nothing to do with it. You shot at people that had similar feelings to yours to one degree or another. I came to NatCon and had no idea I would end up on the LNC. It was my first convention. My intent was to get my sealegs and keep my focus on my own state and then to work in the future to reform national…but here I am. > I have been the contrarian to much of Mr Sarwarks endeavors. I have been the sole voice of dissent at times on matters outside of Oregon. > Whether by design as one of your traps or otherwise, you have shown Nick Sarwark in his first act as Chairman, to my understanding, to have compromised or at least used a compromise argument to sell your story to a bunch of people that had no idea. The compromise argument was that we might loose ballot access in 2016 for the Presidential election.. AND? The few million bucks we might put towards a Presidential candidate could run dozens of “fully funded” conventional campaigns for state legislative offices. > I think if the LNC owes anybody an apology, it’s to the 2014 Convention for suggesting they did something wrong while acting in good faith. Especially, when reality is on paper based either on Robert’s Rules of Order or NLP Bylaws Article 11.5.e. the Convention acted properly. and has nothing to apologize for. > > Daniel Hayes > LNC Region 7 Alternate Delegate > > On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Wes Wagner <wes.wagner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have forwarded your recommendation to our board - which is of course inclusive of the entire conversation chain. >> >> I will differ on two main points that underpin your arguments: >> >> 1) The National LP is not top down and never was by instantiation. It has just been twisted and perverted in the minds of its representatives that the LP is the master of the affiliates and not the other way around. We are your bosses. >> 2) the National LP shot first. >> >> -Wes Wagner >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> wrote: >> Mr Wagner, >> >> I find it curious why people hell bent on not being under any sort of affiliation join organizations with affiliation. I find it curious why people don’t understand that there is nothing wrong with contractual agreements. If you don’t proscribe to the agreements don’t join the organizations that hold those agreements. My friend Walter Block makes the point that the part that was bad about slavery was not the whipping, not subjugation, etc..people can engage in all those things and do so willingly, the problem with slavery is the compulsory aspect. Now I am sure you will take this as affirmation of your arguments, however such is not the case. You joined the LPO which had agreements with the NLP. You have the right to CHOOSE to join that organization or not. Now as leadership, you have the right to quit the LPO or lead those members of the LPO by disaffiliating from the NLP as you have threatened. >> >> Let me be blunt Mr Wagner, you and i both know that you have no actual intention of disaffiliating from the party. If you did so then you couldn’t engage in your activity setting your traps and of attempting to destroy the NLP. >> >> I agree with you that the NLP is out of touch, etc. Its a top down organization in a Party that has had increased success from the Bottom up. Where we differ Mr Wagner is, I agreed to become a member of the LNC with the hopes of correcting against the problems we both see within the NLP and LNC. You on the other hand seek to destroy our parent organization. I find it rather interesting that, you went to Mr Sarwark with your proposal to apologize or you would disaffiliate. Mr Sarwark, at least to what I have heard from his own mouth and fingers is that he is working so hard to issue you an apology to avoid losing the ballot access out in Oregon. Its not so much that he thinks what was done was wrong. He’s doing it cause he isn’t willing to live with the consequences. For me, it was always about what was doing what was right. I don’t cater to blackmail. I don’t cater to tricks and games. When I wrote you I listened openly and honestly, but you soon confirmed what I suspected. You are not looking for peace. You claim you went to National with the intention of brokering it..but you did not. When things before the convention didn’t go the way you wanted..you didn’t argue cogently, you didn’t argue informatively… You put a little piece of paper on the table of every delegate that most of them likely didn’t get to read cover to cover if at all. I was chairman of my delegation of 12 and 11 of us had never been to NatCon before. That included myself. I am sure that many delegates were first timers, many others were not that actively engaged in the activity coming out of Oregon. Most hate the unpleasantness and prefer not to deal with it. They acted in that manner. Which by the way…were fully within the bylaws of the NLP and 11.5.e and Robert’s Rules. No Rules were broken, and even if they were, the Convention acted in good faith. I don’t think that can be said about you based on your own words. >> >> Mr. Wagner, do you believe that Mr Sarwark and those that are willing to “apologize” for the sake of ballot access are part of the moral corruption that exists in the NLP? >> >> Mr Wagner, it is disingenuous to claim you came to the convention with any hopes of “Peace”, if you had you would have done a better job of arguing your point. I knew from a strictly educated gut instinct that the “better” thing to do to avoid a lot of controversy was to suggest the other contingent join another delegation that Oregon. Your words say you seek the destruction of the NLP. That means you don’t believe in what it is doing. Your course of action is clear. Have your board vote to disaffiliate. The action on your part is clear. Stop violating the “contractual" agreements implied and otherwise by remaining an affiliate of the LP. Previously, I had virtually no knowledge of the Oregon matter. I do however, have knowledge of your admitted aggression against the members of the convention. >> Do the right thing Mr Wagner leave the party you don’t agree with. That is the step towards peace. You claim you don’t need the National. Prove it. We both know you won’t leave. If you did so it would remove your ability to inflict further harm on the NLP. >> >> Also, on one final note, you argued about others being brought in to your convention, yet you did the same right here in our conversation that I started between you and I. People from outside your state. One of who tells me to look in the mirror. One of who makes aspersions my way simply because I am a member of a body he doesn’t like.. despite my having not planned to acquire my position and not having knowledge of this situation. >> You enacted aggression against a bunch of people that had no knowledge of what they might have done to aggrieve you. >> >> Let’s face it, you’re all full of it and yourselves. If you were not and you really did believe in absolute autonomy from the NLP and that you have been aggrieved, you and your “Board” would have left a long time ago. >> >> Disaffiliate or shut up. I can say that because I am NOT morally bankrupt and I don’t need your ballot access. My first concern is for Louisiana. I can care less at present about “President” and Gary Johnson or George Phillies or anybody else attempting to run for “Supreme Overlord”. I care about growing my state party and I am proud to say I have taken a significant role in doing so. The NLP for all it’s problems is the glue that binds us together. You don’t want to be part of us so LEAVE. It is YOU that is now the parasite. I can only hope that my salty words dislodges it. I don’t really hold much hope for that though. You love being right where you are. More and more will see it. I am however curious about your feelings on Mr. Sarwark as I asked above. Hopefully I can get an answer on that…and I await a Christmas card(or sooner) voted on by your classy board. >> >> Daniel Hayes >> LNC Region 7 Alternate Representative >> >> >> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Wes Wagner <wes.wagner(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >What does the below portion mean relative? >>> >"except as provided by these Bylaws. “ >>> >>> I could pass a set of bylaws that say you have authority over the people of Albania except as provided in your bylaws ... but it does not give you any actual authority over the people of Albania. In my reviews of the LP bylaws it would appear that the national LP has only one real recourse against affiliates, which is disaffiliation. Exercise the freedom of association if you so desire. On a side note, I am not exactly sure why so many people who claim to be libertarian rise to positions of authority in the LP who are so hell-bent on having formal power structures based on subjugation and react so emotionally when they are challenged. I have often likened it to how many people who go to church are hypocrites who are trying to get over their sickness. Some actually get better, and others are terminally ill. >>> >>> >You claim to set “traps” for people from National is it? So, essentially, you are saying that you are engineering this discord buy design them right? >>> >Also, let me get this clear, you seek the destruction of the National Libertarian Party am I correct? >>> >>> The discord is the natural consequence of having started a war against a moral and ethical entity. It will correct itself when you have become moral and ethical people. I will accept either outcome, either the ethical and moral reformation of the LP or its destruction. Anything in the middle is parasitic and pointless. I can't take a preference -- that would bias the outcome. >>> >>> >Since you don’t want anything to do with National apparently, why did you send a delegation? >>> >>> We did not really send a delegation. Most people in Oregon could not be bothered enough to show up for the purpose of spitting on you. Why waste the time and money given the LP's past conduct? Jeff and I came to attempt, as always, to be present to potentially broker peace and reconciliation. The national LP failed that test miserably. I did not waste an ounce of political capital asking people to show up to attempt to influence the outcome of the Ohio convention. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> wrote: >>> Mr Wagner, >>> >>> I still have questions. >>> You stated that you see no limit to the autonomy of the affiliate. Yet the NLP bylaws state this: >>> Article 6.5 Affiliate Parties >>> >>> 5. The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these Bylaws. >>> >>> >>> What does the below portion mean relative? >>> "except as provided by these Bylaws. “ >>> >>> >>> You claim to set “traps” for people from National is it? So, essentially, you are saying that you are engineering this discord buy design them right? >>> Also, let me get this clear, you seek the destruction of the National Libertarian Party am I correct? >>> >>> Since you don’t want anything to do with National apparently, why did you send a delegation? >>> >>> Please don’t equivocate on your answers. >>> >>> Daniel Hayes >>> LNC Region 7 Alternate Representative >>> >>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Wes Wagner <wes.wagner(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The reason Mr. Buchman typed a harried and emotional email on his phone, the contents of which can just barely be discerned, is because the type of questions a person asks often reflects their underlying morality. He has for quite some time been gravely concerned about the absolute dearth of morality and ethics in the LP. Your chosen set of questions did not assuage him, as they deal primarily with the consequences of the decisions made not the ethics behind why a particular decision should or should not be made. >>>> >>>> This is a highly emotional issue, because the national party has for a long time been guilty of figurative rape of one of its affiliates. Instead of being sorry for the rape, there have been continual efforts to attempt murder and surreptitious disposal of the body. This obviously makes a large number of people upset. Your questions in that framework, are taken to be offensive at first glance, because they come from an agent of an organization that is unrepentant and more concerned about the consequences of penance rather than the attempt to reclaim a center of morality. >>>> >>>> On a high level, the members of the libertarian party are very aware of the offenses the national party has committed against them - and in polling if you were to combine attitudes from "burn the fuckers down and lay waste to their organization (and possibly their progeny and anyone who ever said something nice about them)" to "we should just quietly disaffiliate so we don't have to deal with these people anymore and let them do themselves in", you have about 75% of the active membership. >>>> >>>> I will answer your questions. >>>> >>>> 1. Do you see there to be any limits on your LPO’s autonomy from the National Libertarian Party? >>>> >>>> First it is not my party; I don't own it; so the use of a possessive pronoun is inappropriate. The answer is no. We are free people who can choose to not associate with the organization of which you are an alternate representative (and there is reciprocity of course). The National Party has no jurisdiction here. The insertion of your party officers at our convention in 2010 (clearly for the benefit of one side of a conflict) was regarded by most as an act of war. >>>> >>>> 2. If you were to disaffiliate from the NLP, what would be plan for your LPO organization? >>>> >>>> To continue to prove that we have more virtue and because of that, greater accomplishments, than the NLP until such time as it is reformed or destroyed and a new confederation takes its place. We are, by all objective standards(candidates vs population, activists vs population, etc etc), the national party's most successful affiliate in spite of the LNC having gone to war against us and having made an attempt on our organization's existence. I can only imagine what we could accomplish without the national party since for the past decade and a half it has only concerned itself in our affairs when a belligerent faction (seemingly led by Aaron Starr) needed some of its agents to show up to protect people who were intentionally sabotaging our organization (and were thusly aligned). >>>> >>>> 3. What are the feelings of all of the various candidates seeking to run for office in Oregon as Libertarians on the matter of disaffiliation from the NLP? Are they all aware of your demands of the LNC and threats of disaffiliation if your demands are not met? >>>> >>>> They are almost all on our facebook discussion group and are for the most part very aggrieved and disappointed in the national party and its leadership. I believe your own objective performance measures should indicate the confidence the libertarian movement (which is growing rapidly) has in your organization. In fact, since the LP has gone to war with us, member recruitment has been easier in this state. When people show up and ask about the national party, we do not have to attempt to make excuses for the national LP anymore in an effort of solidarity. Our frank commentary on the LP and its worthlessness (or rather negative net worth) actually inspires people to stay and get involved. It is as if they have met the last honest people on the face of the planet and are not alone anymore. >>>> >>>> 4. If your LPO was disaffiliated, would you put up a candidate for President in 2016 and if so, would that be the candidate picked by the NLP at convention in 2016 or someone else? >>>> >>>> That is a decision for our members and the next board they elect. I suspect the natural predisposition would be to not reward the aberrant behavior of malefactors. >>>> >>>> 5. You mentioned that all of the legal documents relative to the matter are on your ScribD account. Are these available to members of the LNC and if so how do those of us unfamiliar with ScribD go about accessing them? >>>> >>>> www.scribd.com/wes_wagner/documents >>>> >>>> 6. If an apology were to be issued to you by the LNC and/or the LSLA, would you use that in any potential upcoming legal proceedings between these organizations and your LPO? Assuming it to be legal and would actually be binding, would you be willing sign an agreement with these organizations to never use any sort of an apology issued on their part to you as a leverage or item of evidence against them? >>>> >>>> Moot. Their lawsuit was lost before it was ever filed. It was a trap to see how many vermin would commit suicide by trying to attempt to steal the party. It was even more effective than I had imagined it would be and the collateral damage extended much further than I had ever anticipated. It may turn out to be the seminal act that set into motion the entire destruction of the National Libertarian Party. The rats really just can't help themselves - they lack the self-actualization to do anything else. I often wonder if I will ever see one not take the bait ... pause for a moment and walk away. It hasn't happened yet, but I still can dream. >>>> >>>> -Wes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Joseph Buchman <drbuchman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Daniel, >>>> >>>> IMO you have crossed a line here. It is one thing to ask for facts, it's another to ask about strategy got the legal defense one must raise too defend oneself from aggression. >>>> >>>> So here's my question for you. >>>> >>>> Whose side are you on? And why? >>>> >>>> You already have diffident facts to answer that, if you have a mind. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Jul 18, 2014 5:27 AM, "Daniel Hayes" <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> wrote: >>>> Mr Wagner, >>>> >>>> Some more questions, >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Do you see there to be any limits on your LPO’s autonomy from the National Libertarian Party? >>>> >>>> 2. If you were to disaffiliate from the NLP, what would be plan for your LPO organization? >>>> >>>> 3. What are the feelings of all of the various candidates seeking to run for office in Oregon as Libertarians on the matter of disaffiliation from the NLP? Are they all aware of your demands of the LNC and threats of disaffiliation if your demands are not met? >>>> >>>> 4. If your LPO was disaffiliated, would you put up a candidate for President in 2016 and if so, would that be the candidate picked by the NLP at convention in 2016 or someone else? >>>> >>>> 5. You mentioned that all of the legal documents relative to the matter are on your ScribD account. Are these available to members of the LNC and if so how do those of us unfamiliar with ScribD go about accessing them? >>>> >>>> 6. If an apology were to be issued to you by the LNC and/or the LSLA, would you use that in any potential upcoming legal proceedings between these organizations and your LPO? Assuming it to be legal and would actually be binding, would you be willing sign an agreement with these organizations to never use any sort of an apology issued on their part to you as a leverage or item of evidence against them? >>>> >>>> Thank you for your attention, >>>> Daniel Hayes >>>> Region 7 Alternate Delegate >>>> >>>> On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Wes Wagner <wes.wagner(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mr. Hayes, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for being the 6th person in over 4 years who has written/called to make an inquiry about Oregon from the LNC. >>>>> >>>>> >1. When did your current term start, and when does it end? >>>>> >>>>> I was reappointed chairperson after board elections in 2013 unanimously by the board. My term technically runs until the next board is elected and seated in 2015, but I serve day to day at the pleasure of the board. Pursuant to LPO bylaws Article 4 Section 1, my position as the chairperson may be replaced ay any time by a simple majority vote of the board. >>>>> >>>>> >2. What specifically is the mechanism by which the present board was constituted and how was that implemented in practice? >>>>> >>>>> Mail ballots are sent to all members who participated in our most recent party primary. That was approximately 800 members in 2013, who selected board members via single transferable vote. There were only 10 interested candidates for 9 vacancies at that time. We anticipate greater interest in 2015. >>>>> >>>>> >3. What plan if any do you have to heal the seeming rift in Oregon and get the party focused in the right direction.? >>>>> >>>>> None. The situation is Oregon is not dissimilar to what happened with Joe Silvestri in Nevada, or "Dr" Tom Stevens in Pennsylvania, except instead of fading into obscurity after a populist revolution, because the person in question was aligned with Aaron Starr, the entire apparatus of the LNC was brought to bear to try to force Mr. Burke's small handful of associates back into power. They are persona non grata in this state and represent only about 5 "active" people who never added much value anyway. In comparison over 1000 people participated in our recent party primary and we have nominated around 50 candidates for partisan office (we are still wrestling with all the paperwork). That is up from 5 in 2008. Their absence has allowed this organization to flourish. Imagine what we could have accomplished if the LNC had not gone to war against the Libertarians of Oregon. >>>>> >>>>> An alternate history allegory might also help you make sense of why you initial question may be ill-founded. >>>>> >>>>> Imagine if the American Colonial Government after sending the Declaration of Independence to king George never petitioned France for naval assistance and money. Let's say in theory they thought the principles of having no entangling alliances were more important that the material support they might receive. Alternatively, Benedict Arnold agreed to claim he was the legitimate leader of the colonies despite having no real claim, went to France and asked them to support suppressing rebellion in the colonies. France, instead of honoring the principles of the age of enlightenment, decided that the risk to its own colonial power was too great to allow such a revolt to stand, and entered the war on the side of England. England of course was happy to honor this claim because it would continue their vassalage of the colonies. >>>>> >>>>> Despite absolutely impossible odds, the colonialists won anyway. The combined forces of England, France and Benedict Arnold's anti-insurgency were tossed back into the sea and no formal armistice or peace treaty was ever signed. Instead of returning to England, Benedict Arnold stayed, declared the existing government illegitimate and continued to work for the benefit of England, and England, not wanting to admit defeat, just pretends that the colonial government, despite possessing all the assets and the support of the people, is illegitimate and pretends that Benedict Arnold and his associates are the ruling government in the Americas. >>>>> >>>>> Every once in a while the colonial navy sinks a few ships of France as a result of trade route disputes. Maybe the French started that little battle, maybe they didn't. It is hard to tell because things like that are unclear in the fog of war. It could be that the colonial government is just trying to live in peace, but some zealous naval captains like to start a little kerfuffle here and there. Who knows? Sometimes a few assets of value to England just explode. Things just continue on like that for a while. >>>>> >>>>> Well every two years there is an international assembly of nations, where every nation sends delegates and France is always the host country. The first such assembly, after that more obvious war, the French simply accepted Benedict Arnold's assembly as the legitimate leadership of the former colonies. This led to much consternation and was not without its political costs. So the next time, France simply added Benedict Arnold and his representatives to the colonial delegation and still claimed plenary authority to do so. >>>>> >>>>> Later that year, a single diplomat from France arrived to ask some questions of the actual colonial government. He was only the 6th such ambassador that the colonial government had seen in the duration of this entire conflict. That diplomat inquired as to what the colonial government's plans were to heal the rift between themselves and Benedict Arnold and his small handful of people. It seemed a very odd question from the colonial President's perspective. >>>>> >>>>> >4. What’s your response to the allegation that you removed the requirement that members subscribe to our Statement of principles before being allowed to vote on matters of party policy, leadership and structure? >>>>> >>>>> Article 6.2 of the National Party Bylaws requires that all affiliates requesting affiliation adopt the Statement of Principles. While that requirement is poorly written because it does not require continuance of that requirement, the LPO does support the spirit of the requirement as stated in Article 2 of our bylaws. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally if there is a question of commitment, please refer to our 2012 Voter Guide Statement, which cost the party $1200 to publish: http://oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov62012/guide/english/votersg… and was sent to every voter in Oregon. >>>>> >>>>> >Please feel free to include any information you think relevant. >>>>> >>>>> The entire saga is fairly well detailed on IPR which has somewhat become the official record of the dispute: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=libertarian+party+of+oregon >>>>> >>>>> My Scribd account has almost all the legal documents from the case that happened as a result of the LNC hiring the Oregon Republican Party's general counsel, paying him to do initial legal research with unauthorized funds, then signing a conflict of interest waiver so that Aaron Starr could use The Republican attorney to bring a lawsuit against us. (Finding an attorney to actually take this case would have been near impossible in my personal opinion unless someone were politically motivated and ignorant enough. Starr has a way of finding people like that.) >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Wes Wagner >>>>> Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> wrote: >>>>> Mr. Wagoner, >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to garner more information and make informed decisions about your situation in Oregon. What can you explain about what is going on that you think has been improperly characterized. A few items of specific inquiry for me are: >>>>> >>>>> 1. When did your current term start, and when does it end? >>>>> 2. What specifically is the mechanism by which the present board was constituted and how was that implemented in practice? >>>>> 3. What plan if any do you have to heal the seeming rift in Oregon and get the party focused in the right direction.? >>>>> 4. What’s your response to the allegation that you removed the requirement that members subscribe to our Statement of principles before being allowed to vote on matters of party policy, leadership and structure? >>>>> >>>>> Please feel free to include any information you think relevant. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel Hayes >>>>> Region 7 Representative Alternate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Wes Wagner >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Wes Wagner >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wes Wagner >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Wes Wagner >

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Email Ballot 2014-08: Oregon Resolution
by Nicholas Sarwark 18 Jul '14

18 Jul '14

Our affiliate is the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Who the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon is has been adjudicated by the Oregon courts. As a party, we do not affiliate with individuals, we affiliate with other organizations. -Nick On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The LNC can only disaffiliate a group that is an affiliate. To say we are > allowed to disaffiliate the Wagner group is like saying a guy has to divorce > a woman he never married in the first place just because she claims to be > his wife. > > -Alicia > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair(a)lp.org> wrote: >> >> A couple of points of information: >> >> Decisions of the convention delegates can not be appealed to our >> Judicial Committee. Nobody has the authority to act contrary to the >> convention, nor is a resolution an act. >> >> The situation on the ground in Oregon is actually rather >> uncomplicated. Wagner is the Chair of the Libertarian Party of >> Oregon. As an Oregon political party, it is regulated by Oregon state >> law. Reeves brought an unsuccessful lawsuit to ask the Oregon courts >> to rule that he is the Chair. Reeves is appealing that loss. In the >> interim, the Libertarian Party of Oregon has ballot access and will >> nominate +/- 50 candidates this election cycle. >> >> Lastly, there's nothing in the bylaws that allows the LNC to resolve a >> dispute about who is Chair in Oregon or what the proper bylaws are. >> The bylaws are explicit about the LNC not being allowed to abridge the >> autonomy of a state affiliate. The LNC is allowed to disaffiliate >> from a state affiliate for cause. That is the only action available >> to the LNC. >> >> -Nick >> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Ron Windeler <rowindeler(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > Some, perhaps a majority of the LNC do not feel that an >> > apology, or even an expression of regret is appropriate in regards to >> > either >> > group claiming to be the LPO. Those that do are free to apologize, >> > express >> > their regrets, or get down on their knees and beg forgiveness if they >> > want >> > to. >> > Many of us believe that the members of the convention >> > are >> > the most important arbitrators of our bylaws and the LNC should take no >> > action that conflicts with their decisions. If someone thinks that the >> > convention acted improperly, their appropriate remedy would be an appeal >> > or >> > other complaint to our JC. The LNC doesn’t have the authority to act >> > contrary to the convention. >> > Passing either of the Oregon motions will not resolve >> > the >> > situation, only complicate it. There are at least two paths forward to >> > a >> > unified LPO. One is my proposal that the competing chairmen both resign >> > voluntarily and the remaining officers of both groups hold a special >> > convention to elect a new, undisputed LPO group of officers. The other >> > would >> > be for the LNC to accept the decision of the Oregon JC that the Reeves >> > group >> > is the legitimate LPO. I favor the second solution, as it gives the >> > most >> > respect to the state party. >> > >> > Ron Windeler >> > rowindeler(a)aol.com >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Norm Olsen <region1rep(a)doneDad.com> >> > To: lnc-business <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> >> > Sent: Sun, Jul 13, 2014 9:18 pm >> > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-08: Oregon Resolution >> > >> > Aye! >> > >> > Norm >> > -- >> > Norman T Olsen >> > Regional Representative, Region I >> > Libertarian National Committee >> > 7931 S Broadway, PMB 102 >> > Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710 >> > 303-263-4995 >> > Norman.Olsen(a)lp.org >> > >> > "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, >> > then >> > you win." -- Gandhi >> > >> > From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of >> > Alicia Mattson >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 2:01 AM >> > To: lnc-business(a)lp.org >> > Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-08: Oregon Resolution >> > >> > We have an electronic mail ballot. >> > >> > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 19, 2014 at 11:59:59pm >> > Pacific time. >> > >> > Sponsor: Chair Nick Sarwark >> > >> > Motion: >> > Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a >> > Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each >> > affiliate >> > party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and >> > >> > Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each >> > state-level >> > affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these >> > Bylaws, >> > determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” >> > (Article >> > 6, 3), and >> > >> > Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of >> > the >> > affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the >> > National >> > Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and >> > >> > Whereas the Chair of the National Convention incorrectly ruled that it >> > was >> > in order for the convention to vote to seat three delegates in the >> > Oregon >> > delegation over the objection of the affiliate party chair, and >> > >> > Whereas the motion made did not challenge the report of the Credentials >> > Committee as to who was the affiliate party chair, and >> > >> > Whereas the convention delegates subsequently voted to seat those >> > delegates >> > over the objection of the delegate chair, >> > >> > Be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee apologizes to the >> > Libertarian Party of Oregon for the erroneous ruling of the National >> > Convention Chair. >> > Alicia Mattson >> > LNC Secretary >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lnc-business mailing list >> > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lnc-business mailing list >> > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-discuss mailing list >> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >

4 5

Events today
by Joshua Katz 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

I would urge the national party to put out press releases on both the plane shot down (hopefully indicating that the US should not increase involvement, and should decrease it) and the subsequent ground attack on Gaza - probably launched with a major story in the news to decrease coverage. I can provide a draft if that will help. Joshua A. Katz Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National Committee Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut

1 0

CONFIRMED - book your flights Fwd: 09/20-21 LNC Meeting
by Wes Benedict 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

We don't have methods for you to book your hotel yet. But We have reserved the hotel for the meeting in Alexandria. It's the hotel almost next door to LPHQ. We'll have the new office Grand Opening Saturday evening, Sept 20. It's fine to book your flights now. I suggest arriving Friday evening any time, and departing Sunday late afternoon. The Washington Reagan National (DCA) Airport is closest. Robert Kraus should have a link to book your hotel reservation plus more details early next week. A few more details below. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 09/20-21 LNC Meeting Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:29:48 -0400 From: Robert Kraus <robert.kraus(a)lp.org> To: 'Nicholas Sarwark' <chair(a)lp.org> CC: 'Wes Benedict' <wes.benedict(a)lp.org> See attached. Only three hotels near HQ were able to accommodate us for weekend of 09/20. Per your instructions, I’ve closed the deal with the Residence Inn at Duke St. I will send out to the LNC full details once the reservation code and on line link have been set up (sometime early next week). Meanwhile feel free to share this information and the attached so travel arrangements can be made. I also expect to hopefully have some options to share in regards to New Orleans in the next couple days. Right now, just the Hyatt (of convention suitable properties) has available meeting space and can do $139 or less for the weekend of 12/6-7. Live Free! /*/Robert/*/*/ /* Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations Operations(a)LP.org Libertarian National Committee Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231 Fx: 703.935.8015 */*** WE HAVE MOVED ***/* *//* */PLEASE NOTE: Effective June 1^st our address is /**/1444 Duke Street, AlexandriaVA22314. Please help us with this move by donatiing today here: /**/http://www.lp.org/office-fund/**//* *//*

1 0

Email Ballot 2014-07: Fall LNC Session
by Alicia Mattson 16 Jul '14

16 Jul '14

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 15, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Sam Goldstein, Vicki Kirkland, Evan McMahon, Bill Redpath *Motion:* to set the date/location of the next LNC meeting as Alexandria, VA the weekend of September 20-21, 2014 at a hotel within walking distance of the Libertarian Party headquarters. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

17 19