Reeves Oregon Group Explains Their Decision to Incorporate

This letter was sent to the members of the Libertarian National Committee this morning.
 

January 15, 2013
Subject: Updating the Status of the Libertarian Party of Oregon activities

Dear Members of the Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

We understand that you have recently been contacted by Mr. Wagner and his
attorney regarding our recent decision to incorporate the Libertarian
Party of Oregon. We want to make sure that you understand our current
circumstances and why we took this course of action.

As you are most certainly aware, there are two factions claiming to be the
rightful leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. One group, the
“Wagner Group,” was implicitly supported by last term’s Judicial Committee
when they chose to recognize whomever the Oregon Secretary of State would
recognize. Our group, the “Reeves Group,” was implicitly recognized by
the Convention in Las Vegas when they decided to seat our group’s slate of
delegates.

The Oregon Secretary of State has decided that it can’t legally enter the
fray and will only recognize a new set of officers if the outgoing Chair
(Wagner) signs paperwork acknowledging the new officers or if there is a
court order. Obviously, the normal course is not available to us, so
regretfully we are going to court to seek remedy.

We look forward to having our day in court so that we can overturn the
horrible injustice that Mr. Wagner did to our membership when his gang of
five canceled our convention and discarded our bylaws. We know the law is
on our side and we are frustrated by the technical maneuvers by the
defendants to delay our day in court since we filed our lawsuit one year
ago.

We had heard through the grapevine that Mr. Wagner’s group had a backup
plan upon our prevailing in court – they intended to form a corporation to
deny the rightful affiliate of Oregon the exclusive right to the name
“Libertarian Party”. And then we and the Libertarian National Committee,
Inc. would have a very expensive trademark suit to defend our rights. We
decided to preempt them. And it appears that our instincts were correct,
given that Mr. Wagner’s team bothered to research the matter recently and
found that we had acted before they had an opportunity to do so.

We find it interesting that Wes Wagner had previously asserted that the
Libertarian National Committee does not have a right to the name
‘Libertarian Party’ in Oregon because the LPO’s use allegedly predates the
LNC’s trademark filing, and yet he now wants the Libertarian National
Committee, Inc. to get legally entangled in this matter by suing us based
on the LNC’s ownership of the name.

To alleviate any concern and clear up any misconception, we want to assure
you that we created the corporation to protect the Libertarian National
Committee. You’ll note that in our articles of incorporation that we made
the Libertarian National Committee the recipient of all the assets of the
Libertarian Party of Oregon, Inc. in the event of the dissolution of the
organization. We weren’t required to do that. That was done purposely
because among the assets of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Inc. is its
name and we want to make sure that the name is protected for the use of
the Libertarian National Committee and its rightful affiliate.

In the unlikely event that we were to lose in court (including any
appeals), then we would turn over the assets (including the name) of the
Libertarian Party of Oregon, Inc. to the Libertarian National Committee,
Inc. We assume that Wes Wagner would not want to operate under this
corporation because by doing so he would be agreeing that the Libertarian
National Committee, Inc. has the sole right to the trademark of the name
Libertarian Party.

Assuming our opponents do not take further action to delay justice, we
believe that we will soon prevail and lift the cloud that interferes with
our rightful recognition as a political party in the state of Oregon.

Sincerely,

Tim Reeves,
Chair LPO

There is more discussion of the Oregon request for incorporation here .

20 thoughts on “Reeves Oregon Group Explains Their Decision to Incorporate

  1. From Der Sidelines

    I hope IPR has some good hip waders for this high level of shit…,

    Either that or a lot of dirty laundry to apply a massive overdose of Downey for this spin cycle…

    Thanks for the good laughs.

  2. Be Rational

    Despite continual promises that the end is near, this stupid and expensive lawsuit drags on and on. It is a drain on LP resources, a waste of time and money, alienates members, supporters and donors and only helps the statists in the Republican party – perhaps the real intent.

    The Reeves group assault on the LP really needs to come to an end. If the members of the Reeves group actually cared about liberty they would have dropped it or never begun.

    If the other members of the OR LP wanted Reeves et al in leadership they could be elected in convention or by mail ballot or whatever. Perhaps they know they would lose and so they keep their legal assault going.

  3. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I think the Oregon saga is more entertaining than a soap opera, although it is indeed a drain on time and money. I love the hubris of the letter writer. He thinks all he has to do is explain himself, and throw in some derogatory comments toward Wes while simultaneously praising his own good intentions, and everyone will naturally agree with him.. This is absolutely hilarious to me.

  4. Paulie

    On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Wes Wagner wrote:
    Paulie,

    This is outright fraud and they would not be able to produce a single document or conversation to back their claim that we had any intent to do the things they allege.

    Their incorporation came up and we researched it because we were looking for legal reasons why they would believe they could continue to solicit and deposit funds in the name of the LPO.

    Please forward this to the LNC.

    Wes Wagner

  5. Paulie

    From Lee Wrights:

    Mr. Reeves,

    Where in the LP By-laws do they give the authority to overturn a JC decision to the Crendentials Committee? Furthermore, where in the LP By-laws do they give authority to the Crendentials Committee to officially recognize affiliates?

    Thanks in advance for your attention to these queries.

    Lee Wrights
    Vice Chair
    Libertarian Party

  6. Paulie

    Also from Wes Wagner, subsequently forwarded to LNC by Lee Wrights:

    Paulie,

    Up until this point in time we have been referring to this filing as the work product of Saub and have not been attributing it to the entire Reeve’s group and only mentioning Saub in our messages to the LNC. We had some thought that Saub was a rogue agent given his criminal background iof a financial nature.

    From Counsel:
    “This may not help us create a theory of “why,” but it suggests that Saub may be in the minority when it comes to incorporating a nonprofit corp. In the Dodds’ documents (DO00044), which contains the Reeves’ faction meeting minutes from 10/16/12, one of the new business items is “Incorporate the Libertarian Party of Oregon – Eric.” The minutes indicate “The LPO decided we would not sponsor the incorporation of LPO.” That is all that’s there. ”

    The fact that Reeves is now taking credit for it in the style of Mr. Burke’s prose puts another wrinkle in it.

    -Wes
    PS: This can be shared.

  7. George Phillies

    @AllOTA – ummh, the Reeves group voted that they would not sponsor incorporating an LPO, but there is now an LPO incorporating that for sure is not the Wagner group.

    Does that mean that there are not THREE “Libertarian Party of Oregon” groups?

  8. paulie

    Reeves has now sent out email in support of the filing by his vice chair, which long time observers of Burke’s writing style seem to believe was actually written by Burke, so it appears that their entire team is behind this incorporation despite what their minutes say.

  9. Bob Tiernan

    Paulie:

    “…which long time observers of Burke’s writing style seem to believe was actually written by Burke”

    Me:

    Burke has a long, long history of writing for others (i.e. doing the thinking for them).

    Lee Wrights:

    “Furthermore, where in the LP By-laws do they give authority to the Crendentials Committee to officially recognize affiliates?”

    Me:

    Sounds like Burke must have had enough friends on that alleged Credentials Committee and lobbied them to do what he has done in Oregon in the past.

    In 1996, as the state convention neared and he realized that a lot of “unfriendly” LPO members would not have their memberships expire until after the May 19 convention date (due to the Bylaws making the memberships expire a year from the next “first of the month” following payment, i.e. in the this case June 1st, rather than “May 12″, the anniversary of when Burke loyalist Steve Dodd as membership director had listed the expiration date when they paid en masse in mid-May 1995. This inaccurate expiration date was put down in 1995 to show that those members had paid in time – 30 days prior – to take part in the June 11, 1995 convention. Dodds should have listed the correct expiration dates on the roster and produced a separate list of eligible delegates based on the 30 day rule, but he didn’t, and no one thought the dates of “May 12″ would be an issue until Burke realized he and his gang would be outnumbered at the May 19 1996 convention).

    What Burke and his fiends did was to call an emergency “credentials” committee meeting (made up of his friends) to determine if those “May 12″ members were still members thru June 1st or not, although they had no authority to do this. But they did the dirty deed and planned on making it stick by forcing his opponents to overturn this at convention with an impossible 2/3rds vote considering the minimal turn-out he needed for the 1/3rd plus one. What was really sick was how Burke defined this — he said that the “May 12″ members (who were members until June 1st, as the Bylaws clearly say) were still members of the LPO until June 1st, but that between May 12 and June 1 they were “in arrears” and thus “not in good standing” and therefore ineligible to vote at convention.

    That this sick, twisted criminal is still influencing a faction of the LPO all these years later is a travesty.

    Bob Tiernan (maybe the biggest Burke-hater in the whole, God-damned world).

  10. paulie

    I think Lee’s point was narrower than that. Here’s how Tom Knapp explained it a couple of weeks ago:

    “If the delegates had wanted to overturn the LNC’s decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC, then a delegate would have made a motion to overturn the LNC’s decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC, that motion would have been seconded, that motion would have been debated, and then that motion would have been passed.

    Acceptance of the credentials committee’s recommendation as to what delegates to seat was no more an action to overturn the LNC’s decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC than it was an action to put a man on the moon, to order pizza, or to declare solidarity with the Alliance of Roller-Skating Zoophiles.”

  11. Oranje Mike

    I hope someone has been keeping thorough notes on this saga. This would make for an interesting book or documentary film.

  12. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    OM @ 11: There are about 50 articles about the Oregon dispute, and I do think most major developments have been covered here. Even though I think most people are tired of hearing about it, I feel compelled to continue the record here. I really don’t think it will go on much longer than the lawsuit, which should be settled within the year. Of course, the writer of the above letter made sure to mention that they’ll appeal if they lose.

    So, I guess that means the Reeves group has unlimited access to funds to pay their attorney.

  13. johnO

    Why doesn’t the national Libertarian Party just cut Oregon’s 2 0r 3 factions loose and start from scratch? Say we will not accept Oregon’s dues from any and not give whichever group money until house in order?

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    johnO@15,

    “Why doesn’t the national Libertarian Party just cut Oregon’s 2 0r 3 factions loose and start from scratch? Say we will not accept Oregon’s dues from any and not give whichever group money until house in order?”

    It takes a 2/3 vote of the entire Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate a state party.

    Apparently the votes weren’t there to do that, which is why the Reeves gang’s supporters tried to disaffiliate the LPO without saying they were disaffiliating the LPO (by getting a majority of a smaller group, the Executive Committee, to “recognize” the Reeves gang’s “officers” instead of the affiliate’s officers).

    As far as dues are concerned, usually individual members of the LNC’s membership program (which styles itself “the national Libertarian Party”) pay dues directly to it rather than those dues going through a state organization.

  15. Wes Wagner

    TK @17

    We receive no money from the national party, and require no dues for membership in Oregon.

    If you were to poll all our board members I would expect to the person they would say that the LNC Inc. is more of a liability than asset to the Libertarian Party.

  16. Fred Jabin

    The Reeves group continues to promote the notion that convention supported them over the Wagner faction. It seemed to me that most of the delegates were merely voting to accept the ruling of the credential committee on which faction to seat. They were not making any declaration about which faction was the correct faction. Most of the delegates were unaware that two of the members of the committee were members of the Reeves faction and named in the lawsuit (on the Reeves side).
    Most of the delegates were also unaware that the Reeves faction did not make it well known to Oregon Libertarians that they were sending a delegation. When they claimed that they would compromise and make a delegation of both factions–they meant they would include all the delegates from the Reeves faction and allow the remainder of their open spots to be filled by members who signed up with the Wagner faction.

  17. Steven Wilson

    I thought James Madison covered the pros and cons of factions, and yet this party seems to ignore truth when it interferes with an agenda of any size.

    Pathetic. Between the building fund, the magic keyholders of Valhala, and Oregon the only hope for the national is that a Lance Armstrong gives a speech on moral fiber. A joke this old can’t still be funny.

Leave a Reply