Steve G.

George Phillies: “In Support of Angela Keaton, Part 4”

In George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Protest on October 17, 2008 at 10:16 pm

The following was written by George Phillies, and is posted with permission of the author.

In Defense of Angela Keaton, Part 4

In a prior post, I reminded readers that the Libertarian National Committee had voted to ask Angela Keaton to resign. They then considered a motion to expel Keaton from the LNC. It is inescapable that Keaton will soon need a coherent defense against the forthcoming motion of expulsion. In this and following messages, I offer such a defense.

In the prior post, I proposed that Keaton’s acts were far less serious than the acts of Bob Barr, who while on the LNC had through his PAC supported Republican Federal candidates.Here I turn to actions of National Chair William Redpath. When Redpath was not penalized for his acts, it is transparently unjust to penalize Keaton.

Acts of William Redpath.

1) Redpath is and was the Chief Executive Officer of the Libertarian National Committee. As such, under LNC Bylaws Article 7, Section 4 “The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs…subject to express National Committee policies and directives…”

In accord with its authority Under Article 8 of the Bylaws, the LNC has voted a series of policies. These National Committee policies from the current LNC Policy Manual, are listed in part below as Appendix A. The next several articles will examine what are in my opinion failures to follow these requirements, failures for which Redpath has not been sanctioned, leading to the conclusion that Keaton should not be sanctioned for her less serious actions.

We first turn to Policy Manual

ARTICLE III

B. The Chair serves as chief executive officer of the Party, reporting to the LNC, and in that capacity:

1. is responsible, along with the LNC, for ensuring the direction and management of activities, affairs, properties, and funds of the Party is consistent with the Party Bylaws and LNC policies;…

The most important of these bylaws statements is of course the Statement of Principles, eschewing the use of theft and fraud for political gain.

I begin with what is in my opinion an attempted use of theft and fraud, broadly defined as intended by the original authors of the statement of principles, for political gain, by the LNC, an attempt that in my opinion could not be continuing if Redpath had discharged his duties under B1. However, Redpath has not been sanctioned for what appear to me to be his failures here, so Keaton should also not be sanctioned.

I refer to the LNC lawsuit attempting to steal my ballot status in New Hampshire.

1. In my opinion there can be no reasonable doubt that this is an LNC action, even though the LNC is not yet named as a plaintiff in the suit.

First, the non-local attorney in the suit represented himself to me as having the LNC as his client. Furthermore, I am assured by eyewitnesses at an LPNH meeting after the suit was filed that LPNH state committee members did not know who the non-local attorney was, and, if this is true, it is scarcely credible that he was retained by LPNH. Also, the LPNH vote to adhere to the suit reads

From: Brendan Kelly
Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM
To: Seth Cohn, babiarz@endor.com, “Sandy C. Pierre”, Faith Cook, Avens O’Brien

At about 2:00 PM Aug.27th 2008 I’m calling a meeting of the LPNH E.C. for the purpose of addressing the question of our joining with national LP in their substitution suit. This meeting will be open until 2:00 PM on Aug. 28th 2008 or until an unbeatable up or down vote with a quorum has been reached.All internet response should be sent by reply all.

I Brendan Kelly as chairman call this meeting to order. I’d like to make a motion that the LPNH join the LP substitution law suit to be filed as plaintiff’s. Do I have a second.

That is a motion purely and entirely to join ‘the national LP’ suit. No attorney, presented with this motion, could have added LPNH as a plaintiff, as has been done, unless this was a national LP suit.

2. Point 15 of the LNC suit as filed reads

15: Upon information and belief, anticipating that he might win the nomination but have insufficient time to obtain the 3,000 valid nomination papers required for access to the New Hampshire ballot, Phillies caused the requisite number of nominating papers to be circulated and filed on his behalf prior to the convention.

These claims are false. Presenting them was an act of fraud in the sense of the statement of principles, though perhaps not as a matter of law. The National Chair was not sanctioned for allowing this act of fraud to go forward, and therefore Keaton should not be sanctioned for her alleged acts, which were clearly less serious.

Why are the claims false? In Spring, 2007, LPNH staged a nominating convention. You can read about it in the LPNH newsletter Libertarian Lines, Volume 32, Issue 3

http://www.lpnh.org/LPNH/Libertarian_Lines_files/LibLines_June07.pdf.

I didn’t attend the convention, but my campaign Treasurer Carol McMahon did. Liberty Lines page 1, bottom, “Nominations” says in part “The main item for the convention was candidate nominations for President down to Executive Council. We made nominations for each of these offices…In the end, our final list of nominees were: President: George Phillies,” Having identified me as a candidate, Liberty Lines then twice says “please start collecting petitions for our candidates.”

It was the LPNH State Convention that asked its volunteers to collect signatures for me. The claim that I caused nominating papers to be circulated and filed is a baldfaced lie. However, our National Chair has not been sanctioned for allowing these false claims to go forward, and therefore Angela Keaton should also not be sanctioned for less serious acts.

3. Point 21 of the LNC lawsuit claims “The plaintiffs have sought to substitute the Barr candidacy for the Phillies candidacy and to have Barr listed on the November ballot as the sole Libertarian candidate for President.” Point 22 claims in part “The Secretary of State has refused to permit such substitution…”

These claims are also false. Presenting them was an act of fraud in the sense of the statement of principles. The National Chair was not sanctioned by the LNC for allowing these false claims to go forward, and therefore Keaton should not be sanctioned for her alleged acts, which were clearly less serious.

Why are these claims false? First, Barr is already on the ballot, and therefore the proposed change is not “substitution”; it is my removal from the ballot. Furthermore, at no time prior to the LPNH ExComm vote to join the lawsuit did the LPNH ExComm vote to ask Secretary Gardner for anything of the kind.

4. Point 23 of the LPNH lawsuit claims that failure “to list Barr on the Libertarian ballot as the sole Libertarian Party candidate for President” would “unduly burdens their rights to cast their votes effectively” and “to associate for the advancement of political beliefs”.

The claim that you cannot vote effectively because someone else is on the ballot is absurd on its face. In fact, if this suit were to succeed, the right of attendees of the LPNH State Convention, not to mention my petitioners and supporters, to associate for the advancement of their political beliefs, would be stolen. This taking would be an act of theft in the sense of the statement of principles, if perhaps not in the legal sense. The National Chair was not sanctioned by the LNC for allowing this attempted theft of freedom of association to go forward, and therefore Keaton should not be sanctioned for her alleged acts, which were clearly less serious.

You may correctly assume that I could go on at great length about this suit, but I think I have made my point.

We’ll return in Part 5 to other LNC member acts whose actions were more serious than Ms. Keaton’s.

Appendix A. Segments from the LNC Policy Manual.

I first quote from the Policy Manual as to the duties charged by LNC vote to the LNC Chair:

ARTICLE III. OFFICERS

Section 1: POSITION DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL CHAIR

A. The Chair serves as the presiding officer of the LNC and of all National Conventions and, in that capacity:

1. guides the deliberations and activities of the LNC according to Party Bylaws, convenes an LNC meeting according to the Party Bylaws, serves as a full voting member of the LNC and serves as a nonvoting member of all committees appointed by the LNC;

2. guides the deliberations and activities of National Conventions according to the Party Bylaws and adopted Convention Rules.

B. The Chair serves as chief executive officer of the Party, reporting to the LNC, and in that capacity:

1. is responsible, along with the LNC, for ensuring the direction and management of activities, affairs, properties, and funds of the Party is consistent with the Party Bylaws and LNC policies;…

C. The Chair represents and serves as the chief spokesman of the Party as appropriate, including: representing the Party to the public, including the business community, media, other political and educational organizations, government agencies, and elected officials;

not to mention

ARTICLE VII. LP NEWS

Section 1: LP NEWS EDITORIAL POLICY

Article VII.1.C.2 The selection of articles, their layout and the graphics for LP News, the relative amount of space assigned to articles, advertisements, Party announcements, and regular features shall be the responsibility of the Chair except as detailed in this Policy Statement.

The exception for the LP News Editor makes clear that the responsibility of the Editor is for production, so that VII.1.A. 2. provides

Final responsibility for the production of LP News must rest with one person: the Editor. It is the responsibility of the Editor to produce the best possible publication within the guidelines of these policies.

Among the LNC policies that the Chair is responsible for carrying out are

Article VIII. Section 3: LIMITATIONS ON PARTY SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for public office prior to the nomination unless: (a) such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that nomination, (b) such information or services are generally available and announced to all party members, or (c) the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair.

Article VIII. Section 4: LIMITATIONS ON PARTY SUPPORT FOR PARTY OFFICE

Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for party office unless: (a) such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that office, or (b) such information or service(s) are generally available and announced all party members.

and

ARTICLE IV. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

Section 3: EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

A. Employees are bound by the Bylaws and the policies adopted by the LNC. A statement to this effect shall be included in all employment agreements and contracts between the Party and its employees.

D. Except as otherwise noted in this Policy Manual, no employee of the Party shall:

1. endorse, support, or contribute any money,

2. use his or her title or position, or

3. work as a volunteer, employee, or contractor

to aid (1) any candidate for public office prior to nomination, or (2) any candidate for Party office.

  1. Is Keaton Gate still a hot issue with the LNC? I support Angela as much as anyone else, but I thought this died down a bit?

  2. The LNC can retract their threats against Angela and apologize to the membership. Until there is an adequate act of contrition, their threat to expel Angela from the national committee must be viewed as still active. They tried to bully an LNC member into silence and must realize that her friends are going to be as thorough as we think is necessary in defending her.

  3. You’ll have to forgive me on this George, I’m just a bit out of the loop at the moment. Alot of things going on.

  4. Contrary to Dr. Phillies’ prediction, I think that Keatongate is over. At the last meeting, from what I’ve read, the Ms. Keaton’s expulsion looked like a certainty, UNTIL … the Barr campaign emailed Bill Redpath to tell him they didn’t want it to happen. Why not? Most likely — and I have to speculate here; I am NOT part of the Barr machine — they saw it (correctly) as a petty quarrel that would distract from the campaign, and thought (incorrectly) that their intervention would end such petty quarrels at least for the duration of the campaign. I guess that last only proves how unfamiliar they are with the Libertarian Party and movement!

    The more serious matter is the suit to remove George Phillies from the NH ballot. What is going on here?

    From George’s viewpoint, and that of his supporters, this must also look like an act of petty vengeance. After all, the Barr campaign has done its own petitioning, and is on the ballot as well (though at the cost of Maine and, possibly, Connecticut). So why remove George? Is the only reason because he’s been critical of the Barr campaign?

    Barring contrary information, I tend to look for the most charitable motive. That motive here is: The LP needs 4% of the vote in order to avoid the petitioning process in the future; and Barr, who has polled as high as 11% in the state in the summer, has a good chance of pulling that off. Not, though, if the LP vote is split two ways; in that case it’s 3% max for either candidate, and the LP has to start all over again in the 2010 elections.

    No doubt some in the Barr campaign see Phillies’ candidacy as a Boston-Tea-Party-inspired move to accomplish just that. And indeed it may be, from their end. However, assuming that motive on the part of George Phillies violates what I just said in the previous paragraph. So I’d say that his motive is: he’s spent a considerable amount of money, and his supporters a considerable amount of effort, on his campaign for President this year — he met the legal requirements to do so, in at least two states, and he wants to simply carry it through to conclusion, even if only in one state. He even voluntarily dropped off the ballot for Barr in Massachusetts; so why can’t they meet him half-way and let him finish his campaign here?

    Well, my second paragraph explained why. It’s sad, really — no matter how this suit goes, it can’t be anything but a loss for the LP.

  5. So if I understand correctly – two wrongs do make a right – according to Mr. Phillies?

    So if I murder someone, I am wrong, and lets say I get away with it. Then someone else murders someone. That person should go free too because I went free?

    Sure George, that salt air must be warping your brain back east. Get a clue. Please join the Boston Tea Party and show some principles and quit the LP once and for all, they could use a MA affiliate like you!

    Show leadership by resigning today!

    PS — As a presidential candidate in NH, are you participating in either presidential debate on Sunday? Were you invited? If not, you should show up and protest.

  6. These articles should really be titled “George Phillies: In Attack of Bob Barr, Bill Redpath, and the LNC, Parts 1-178“. They don’t seem to have anything to do with Angela Keaton.

  7. Er, Chuck … less than a week after denouncing Bob Barr for not re-arranging his schedule to attend an all-candidates’ debate that no other candidates were attending either, you’re now objecting to someone else’s equally gratuitous and scurrilous attacks on him? What gives?

  8. George Dance:
    You write “The LP needs 4% of the vote in order to avoid the petitioning process in the future; and Barr, who has polled as high as 11% in the state in the summer, has a good chance of pulling that off.”

    There is a minor technical obstacle you have no reason to have heard about. For the requisite 4%, only the races for Governor and Senator count. I could carry the state with a unanimous vote, and my 100% vote would have no effect on ballot access.

  9. Isn’t this the same George Phillies who complains our nominee won’t campaign with unhospitalized mental patient Cynthia McKinney and wants the Libertarian presidential campaign to travel on Greyhound bus tickets?

    Some people in this party are just stuck on Loser.

  10. No, I’m the Phillies who thinks you would do better to spend your Presidential campaign money on advertising, like mailing bumper stickers to every Libertarian the way I did in New Hampshire (nearly 2000 letters, two bumper stickers, 28 cents for the bumper stickers) as opposed to paying staffers at $120,000/year annualized rate out of a 1+million dollar campaign budget. Traveling by Greyhound is ineffective on the national campaign time scale. You must have some other Phillies in mind, perhaps someone running for Governor of a very small state.

    Similarly, I am the person who thinks that there is adequate overlap between parts of the Green and Libertarian platforms that some Green voters would rather vote a sensible person who supports GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY through equal justice under the law, NON-VIOLENCE that recognizes the need for self-defense and lasting personal, community and global peace, assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens, RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY, and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, those lines all being lifted from the Green platform, but who is also in his right mind, this being an advantage over a candidate who is a 911 and other conspiracy character.

    Of course, the second point also requires that the candidate is not a global warming denier fruitcake. Perhaps the issue will not come up.

    Again, you must have some other Phillies in mind.

  11. I just saw a headline on a big political blog, “Obama Roots for Phillies”, which gave me a start until I realized it was talking about baseball.

    As to the New Hampshire lawsuit, the purpose of the lawsuit is to win a decision that New Hampshire is violating the US Constitution by letting the qualified parties substitute a new presidential or vice-presidential candidate after the initial selection, but refusing to let the unqualified parties do it. New Hampshire let the Democrats withdraw Thomas Eagleton in 1972, and substitute Sargent Shriver.

    The purpose of the lawsuit is not to remove George from the ballot. I have been saying that for months. I think everyone must now agree that I was right. It is far too late to remove George from the ballot, and that was on purpose. We have won against Massachusetts and Pennsylvania recently on presidential substititon, and those precedents should help us win the New Hampshire lawsuit after the election, so we won’t have that to worry about in 2012 and future elections.

  12. Ain’t global warming.

  13. For those of you curious about where the LNC’s money went while they were busy with the fair Angela,

    http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2008/10/23/23406/548

    LNC Financials, September and Half of October.

    I quote from the opener:

    In September, the Libertarian National Committee received $172,292 and spent $178,677. In the first 15 days of October, the LNC raised a further $72,761 and spent $66,796. Total disbursements for the year through 10/15 were $1,529,817.

    How was all that money spent?

    Absolutely none of it went for limousine services.

    There was actual outreach.

    Outreach: The LNC spent $3100 for CPAC 2009 registration. $900 went for radio ads. The “LP Branding Project” spent $92. Meetup received a $72 annual fee.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: