I am writing you because I have received new facts that may change your interpretation of the Oregon issue. 

In brief, as reported to me, there was an exchange between my State Chair, David Blau, and the National Chair, Mark Hinkle.  The full messages follow this text. 

Mr. Hinkle was represented to me as having said, as part of a much longer message: 

"And the reason the LNC EC took action was because Wes Wagner threatened disaffiliation of the Oregon Party from the LNC and to take the 13K+ registered libertarians with them.  I have a voice mail message from Wes Wagner threatening to do this.  He said that would cause the LNC to spend $300-500 thousand to regain ballot status in Oregon.  He's wrong of course, but that's been par for the course with Wes Wagner." 

Here Hinkle says that a disaffiliation threat from Oregon caused our Executive Committee to act.  Oregon State Chair Wagner tells me that he ahd not heard this before. The near-50-page statement by 14 LNC members seems to omit disaffiliation by Oregon as an issue. 

In my opinion, these statements are significant for two reasons. 

First, due process. Wagner, et al. thought they were defending themselves against parliamentary process issues related to state committee and convention actions.  According to Hinkle, Wagner was believed by the Executive Committee to have done something entirely different -- threatening to disaffiliate. Wagner did not know this was an issue.  Indeed, if Mr. Hinkle's verb tenses are precise, the Wagner group appears was convicted of the accusation before the ExComm process began. 

Second, Hinkle's remarks imply that the defense of the ExComm motions is inconsistent with Article 4 of the Bylaws and the Statement of Principles. 

The 14 LNC members represent that the ExComm decision arose from parliamentary analysis, and therefore that parliamentary analysis is relevant to deciding if their action should be overturned.  Mr. Hinkle's statement to my State Chair and the LNC says a disaffiliation threat was the issue.  Now, the Judicial Committee must decide what to believe.  If you don't believe what Hinkle wrote to Blau, there is no issue here. However, which is more credible:  A long, carefully crafted statement, or near-spontaneous remarks by a key witness? 

Some authors of the ExComm defense are on the ExComm. If Hinkle were right, the defense is a post-facto arrangement made to defend actions undertaken for completely different reasons.  Failure to reveal those different reasons, if the reasons determined the Executive Committee actions, deceives the Judicial Committee. 

The two letters now follow: 

*********************************************** 

Letter One: LNC Alternate and Massachusetts State Chair David Blau wrote to the LNC  : 8/1/2011 4:07:12 PM 

“For the record, this is the first I'm hearing about this. [ED: The 

context is my message to the LNC Judicial Committee] Perhaps Mr. 

Phillies is trying to protect me?  In any event, I generally agree with 

his argument, if not his approach. 

My concern here is more with the process by which things were handled. I am much less concerned with the actual outcome, for other reasons 

that I won't go into here. 

Speaking in my capacity as a state chair, the recent EC actions are 

quite troubling.  Despite the fact that Massachusetts has no "succession crisis" or "quorum crisis" and none is remotely foreseeable, I have to wonder what other reasons might be conjured up to act in this manner should a cadre of LNC or EC members decide that my particular state committee (or any other state leadership group) aren't being "good Libertarians".  It seems to me that the power of the LNC to "recognize" one faction over another is a vast one indeed, and susceptible to misuse, as has been alleged by others on this list. 

Speaking as an LNC alternate, following the recent motions, what assurances do our affiliates have that we won't come in and (for 

whatever reason) replace their leadership with others of the LNC's 

choosing?  Or even, of the choosing of a hastily-called session of a 

small subset of the LNC?  We have a provision in our bylaws to 

disaffiliate, and based on my reading of the traffic on this list, a 

motion to disaffiliate the Oregon party (led by Mr. Wagner) for cause 

likely would have passed.  It would then have been a simple matter for 

Mr. Reeves and his group to apply as the new Oregon affiliate, an 

application that would likely have been accepted, and we would have 

avoided quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Is there a reason this wasn't done?” 

*********************************************** 

Letter 2 Mark Hinkle’s response of August 1, 2011 to my State Chair and 

the LNC, as provided to me: 

David, 

George Phillies should check his facts. 

As usual, George is totally wrong on all of them. 

The situation in Oregon does not involve disaffiliation. 

Period! 

The LNC EC does not have that authority.  And none of the resolutions 

that were passed even mentioned disaffiliation. 

I have no idea what the URL discussion is all about, but no one is 

trying to take anyone's URL or domain name. 

The Wagner group can keep any domain names they own.  They just can't 

fraudulently claim to be the Libertarian Party of Oregon on any of 

them.  Any other content is none of our business, just don't claim to be 

the duly recognized affiliate of the LNC. 

The LNC Executive Committee didn't replace any leadership in Oregon, we 

simply recognized the leadership duly elected or appointed per their Bylaws. 

Neither the LNC nor the Executive Committee has any interest in 

overturning leadership in any state affiliates that are functioning 

entities. 

However, it should be clear to anyone even remotely knowledgeable with 

Oregon, that it was in trouble. 

Somebody needed to step in and be an adult and separate the two 

squabbling factions. 

The troubles confronting Oregon started in Oregon. 

And the reason the LNC EC took action was because Wes Wagner threatened 

disaffiliation of the Oregon Party from the LNC and to take the 13K+ 

registered libertarians with them.  I have a voice mail message from Wes 

Wagner threatening to do this.  He said that would cause the LNC to 

spend $300-500 thousand to regain ballot status in Oregon.  He's wrong 

of course, but that's been par for the course with Wes Wagner. 

At some point, the  LNC was going to have to decide which faction to 

recognize.  Even LSLA potentially was   going to have to decide who, 

from Oregon, to recognize as the duly elected Chair.  The LNC EC just 

saved them the trouble.  Later on, the LP's Credentials Committee would 

also have to decide on who, from Oregon, are the duly elected delegates 

to the Presidential Nomination Convention next year in Vegas. 

So, sooner or later, the LNC was going to have to make the decision. 

And since the Bylaws give that authority to the LNC and since the LNC 

has delegated, between meeting, such authority to the EC, we acted. 

And let it be known, that most members of the entire LNC backed the 

decision of the EC even before the decision was rendered by the EC. 

BTW, everyone on the entire LNC was invited to call into both LNC EC 

tele-conference calls.  Did you not get that invitation? 

Since 10/27/10 of last year, I count 264+ email notes to/from various 

people concerning the problems in Oregon in my LNC email folder.  This 

is NOT a new problem. 

Unlike Congress, the LNC EC wasn't going to kick the can down the road. 

Lastly, I would ask why do you think George Phillies and/or Wes Wagner 

want to avoid "wailing and gnashing of teeth"?  They seem to live for it. 

And for George in particular, his publication would be practically void 

without it.