[Lnc-business] My Conversation with Wes Wagner-Oregon

Fri Jul 18 17:34:22 EDT 2014

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 at icloud.com>
> Subject: Re: Oregon
> Date: July 18, 2014 at 2:20:05 PM CDT
> To: Wes Wagner <wes.wagner at gmail.com>
> Cc: Joseph Buchman <drbuchman at gmail.com>, George Phillies <phillies at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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/votersguide.html#Libertarian%20Party 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 at 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140718/f8416c7a/attachment-0001.html>