<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">Having read the recent Judicial Committee decision
regarding Oregon, and Nick Sarwark’s response, I have several comments to make:</span><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The fundamental dispute in
2011 was over the LNC Executive Committee’s motions which (1) recognized that
the state Bylaws in effect since March 15, 2009 were in fact the Bylaws of the
Libertarian Party of Oregon; and (2) that based on those Bylaws and the
available evidence, the slate of officers led by Tim Reeves were in fact the
officers of the LPO. It was the position
of the LNC that no disaffiliation had taken place; the LPO remained the state
affiliate, and the LNC was simply identifying who the legitimate officers
were. The Judicial Committee (including
as one of its members Nick Sarwark) instead ruled by a 4-3 vote that the LNC
had “constructively disaffiliated” the LPO, and that the state affiliate was
whoever the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as the state affiliate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The Oregon Secretary of State’s
office understandably did not want to be caught in the middle of an intra-party
dispute. The SoS’s default position was
that it recognized whoever the last known Chair of the LPO reported to them to
be the current or new Chair. When that
failed to resolve matters, the SoS issued a brief letter on September 29, 2011
(see attached) which said <i>“We understand
that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to
this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the
state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”</i> On that basis, the SoS continued its default
position of recognizing Wagner as the Chair of the LPO.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The Judicial Committee has now
rescinded the Judicial Committee decisions of August 25, 2011 and September 23,
2011, and ruled that <i>“Rescinding our
ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee leaves standing the
2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive
Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Those decisions found
that on May 21, 2011, Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the
Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.”</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">2. POTENTIAL PROCEDURAL DEFECTS</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Nick claimed</span></u><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">: <i>“</i></span><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">There are a number of
procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee came to meet, whether notice
was proper, whether the issue they took up was actually authorized by the
Bylaws, whether the explicit enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes
rescinding a prior decision four years after the fact, etc. Any one or
more of those would make the decision we received invalid.”</span></i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">My response</span></u><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">: Although Nick does not spell out details of those claimed defects,
I’m sure there will be considerable argument by people on both sides as to
whether they exist. Similarly, back in
2011 there was a great deal of criticism (some of it from me) regarding
procedural defects in the original Judicial Committee’s actions. In fact the Libertarian National Committee
passed a resolution by a 12-5 vote on November 21, 2011 in which it expressed
the <i>“</i></span><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">sense of the Libertarian
National Committee that the decision by four members of the Judicial Committee
in its 4-3 declaration regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon constituted a
violation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and that the Judicial Committed has
acted outside of its limited authority, which is clearly and explicitly defined
in the Libertarian Party Bylaws”. </span></i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">The entire text of that
resolution is attached.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">Notwithstanding those procedural defects in the 2011 Judicial
Committee ruling and the LNC’s strong disagreement with the Judicial Committee’s
actions, <u>the LNC nonetheless abided by that decision</u>. The LP’s web site lists the Wagner group’s
web site under its Oregon page, and they have been receiving data dumps from
national. I personally have supported
that position, and I also authored a resolution immediately after the last
national convention which tried to tamp down the controversy over the
credentialing of delegates in the Oregon delegation by expressing the <i>“</i></span><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">sense
of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey its regrets to
Libertarian Party of Oregon.”</span></i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> The entire text of that resolution is also
attached. It required a lot of wordsmithing
and compromising to come up with language which could obtain a majority, but in
the end I managed to get a 9-7 vote in its favor.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Regardless
of whether we agree or disagree, <u>the LNC needs to abide by the Judicial
Committee’s decisions</u>.</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
Under our Bylaws there is no higher body to appeal to, other than the
next national convention which has the power to alter the Bylaws and elect a
new Judicial Committee.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">3. DIRECT EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE’S DECISION</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">As noted above, the Judicial Committee specifically stated that
its rescission “</span><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">leaves
standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its
Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon</span></i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">. That means that there was no “constructive
disaffiliation” and that the LPO Chair at that time was Tim Reeves, not Wes Wagner. It also voids the Judicial Committee’s finding
in 2011 that <i>“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.” </i>And it voids the JC’s 2011
assertion that <i>“the LNC must by default
recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the
affiliate’s secretary of state, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6
disaffiliation power to do otherwise.”</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">So where does that leave us now?
Based on the JC’s latest decision, Lars Hedbor is not currently the
Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, since he has not been elected
under the rules and procedures of the LPO Bylaws which the LNC Executive
Committee’s motion recognizes as being in effect. And Tim Reeves no longer is the LPO Chair.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">The Judicial Committee’s current decision suggests that <i>“common sense would indicate that any
process that respects the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the March
2009 Bylaws until March 9, 2013 and the March 2013 Bylaws thereafter) should
produce a legitimate successor to Tim Reeves as Chairperson.”</i> And that may well be “common sense”. But note that the Judicial Committee
carefully refrained from identifying who that “legitimate successor” is. Maybe it’s Ira Epstein, if indeed he was
elected Chair according to the LPO Bylaws currently and legally in effect. It’s an internal matter for the Libertarian
Party of Oregon to determine, and the only way it would reach the LNC is if
that determination is seriously called into question. In that case the LNC will have to identify
the correct LPO officers and web site for the purposes of sending data dumps
and listing the LPO web site on the national page. (As the JC noted, Bylaws Articles 6, 8, 11,
and 12 also contain provisions which require such identification.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">The immediate actions which I believe should be taken are as
follows:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">The Secretary of the Libertarian Party should convey the
information to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office that the Judicial
Committee has rescinded the previous decision that “</span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">has
left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be
recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon</span></i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">.”</span></li><li><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">The national office should delete <a href="http://www.lporegon.org/">http://www.lporegon.org/</a> from its <a href="http://www.lp.org/state/oregon">http://www.lp.org/state/oregon</a> page, and
cease sending data dumps to the individuals listed at <a href="http://www.lporegon.org/index.php/state-committee">http://www.lporegon.org/index.php/state-committee</a>.</span></li><li><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">Let’s remember that there was a third motion in 2011: </span><i style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">“The Executive Committee of the Libertarian
National Committee urges the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work
together to resolve their disagreements.” </i><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">How about if we make one more
stab at implementing that?</span><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"> </span><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">Maybe we can
find one or more people to serve as neutral arbitrators or facilitators, who
would be acceptable to both factions (I can think of some possibilities).</span><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"> </span><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">There’s a huge amount of bad blood and
personality conflicts on both sides, so it would probably be best not to
include Tim Reeves, Wes Wagner, Richard Burke, and perhaps others who I’m not
familiar with in the negotiations.</span><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"> </span><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">To
the extent that the LNC will be involved, we should also exclude Nick Sarwark
and Alicia Mattson.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">4. CONCLUSION</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">We are all sick and tired of dealing with the Oregon dispute, and
wish it would just go away. But it isn’t
going away. I don’t hold out a lot of
hope that further negotiations or arbitration can produce an acceptable
solution, but I think it’s at least worth another shot.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><span style="color:black;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">Daniel Wiener</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><br></p></div></div>
</div>