Third parties and independent candidates since 2008


← →

Wagner’s LPO Group Files Motion for Summary Judgement

February 21st, 2013 · written by · 20 Comments

The attorney for the Libertarian Party of Oregon, led by chairman Wes Wagner, has filed a motion for a summary judgement in the lawsuit by the faction headed by chairman Tim Reeves. A summary judgement, according to Wikipedia , is a “judgement entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial.” The article continues, explaining that a party “applying for summary judgement is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious”.

For history of this long-running and contentious dispute, IPR has at least 50 articles, stretching back to March of 2011. You can find them by putting “Libertarian Party Oregon” in the searchbox.

In addition to the motion itself, there have been letters to the court written by the individual defendants. Those are available to read at the end of the motion.

Filed Under: Libertarian Party

20 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Krzysztof Lesiak // Feb 21, 2013 at 10:47 pm

    Looks like this has been going on for a while? Are they even remotely close to resolving this dispute?

  • 2 Jill Pyeatt // Feb 21, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    There has been a trial date set for July of this year. It’s possible this motion could settle things, but, whatever happens, of course the losing group can and probably will file an appeal. Mr. Wagner or Mr. Burke can correct me if I’m wrong.

  • 3 Jill Pyeatt // Feb 21, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    I’m SOOO glad I’m not an attorney. I don’t think I’d be good at it at all. It was fascinating to sit in the courtroom last week to listen to the appeals court, but otherwise I think the slow pace would drive me nuts.

  • 4 Nick // Feb 22, 2013 at 10:35 am

    It’s just like the Reform Party Collison-Blare fight. I’ve seen this happen before, and I’ll probably see it again.

  • 5 Wes Wagner // Feb 22, 2013 at 10:48 am

    Nick @4

    Not familiar with that incident… and my google-fu was weak.

    Highlights and links?

  • 6 NewFederalist // Feb 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    I guess only Milnes is really banned.

  • 7 Thomas L. Knapp // Feb 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    @6,

    “I’m so happy that we left the real world behind years ago …”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  • 8 Seebeck // Feb 22, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    @6: Whenever I hear someone talk about a new movement, I remind them to make sure they wipe and flush afterwards… :-P

  • 9 Bob Tiernan // Feb 23, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Jill Pyeatt (2):

    “…or Mr. Burke can correct me if I’m wrong.”

    The most he could do is to tell you what he wants it to mean. He’s been unable to honestly define simple no-brainers like what the LPO’s membership expiration dates were for any given member despite the super-clear text in the Bylaws that any 4th grader could understand.

    Bob Tiernan

  • 10 Richard P. Burke // Feb 26, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Jill @ 2,

    I don’t know what will happen when this is finally decided in July. I expect a lot will depend on the details. Concerning this particular motion for summary judgement, most of it deals with stuff that has already been ruled upon in previous motions. We are confident that it will meet with a similar fate.

    Richard P. Burke

  • 11 Jill Pyeatt // Feb 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    I think we have a fairly open month as far as the judgement goes. I know the Reeves’ attorney has a few weeks to respond, then Wagner’s attorneys have some rebuttal time. Any judgement will come after that.

  • 12 paulie // Mar 1, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    I guess only Milnes is really banned.

    No, just that no one caught it til now.

    The fact that a policy exists doesn’t mean that someone is always around to enforce it.

  • 13 Wes Wagner // Mar 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Hearing date is set for May 16th.

  • 14 paulie // Mar 1, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Do I hear a motion to postpone?

  • 15 Wes Wagner // Mar 1, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    P@14

    I have not heard of any such requests.

  • 16 paulie // Mar 1, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Yet?

  • 17 Dan Reale // Mar 4, 2013 at 1:46 am

    A motion for summary judgment is filed when one side believes there are no material facts in dispute and accordingly moves for judgment in its favor either on the entire complaint or part. A “material fact” in dispute is a fact that will make a difference in the outcome.

  • 18 Wes Wagner // Mar 4, 2013 at 11:35 am

    p@16

    Nothing yet.

  • 19 Dave Terry // Mar 4, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Paulie (14)

    You WON’T hear it from OUR side. It is the Wagner group that has been dragging their feet!!!

  • 20 Motion for Summary Judgement Heard in Oregon Libertarian Party Lawsuit | Independent Political Report: Third Party News // May 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    [...] Here is the text of the Motion for summary Judgement. [...]

Leave a Comment