Steve G.

The LNC shows its true agenda

In Boston Tea Party, Censorship, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Protest on November 27, 2008 at 12:19 am

The Agenda for the December LNC meeting – which looks like someone has quite an agenda indeed – has listed 30 minutes for “Discipline of Angela Keaton”.

How strangely interesting that Angela Keaton was unaware of this item until the agenda was released. Quite the contrary, in fact, since she was under the impression that the “discipline” discussed at the last meeting was now moot.

There are several theories floating around about that agenda item, and one of them is that Angela is being disciplined for wearing a Boston Tea Party t-shirt. It appears that at least one LNC member snooped around her Facebook until he found the allegedly incriminating photo.  Why on earth would someone do that, unless they had a predetermined agenda?

Problem is, though I had seen the picture numerous times, to the point that I knew exactly which photo was in question even before I saw it, even I didn’t know it was Angela in the t-shirt, since the photo doesn’t show her head or face.  Honestly, I thought it was Miche modeling the t-shirt.  That being the case, how could it possibly be a breach of duty even if, arguendo, it is Angela?

The other theory is that during the last LNC meeting, Angela was given ten days to apologize, but she has not done so; and as a result, rather than the item being moot, it is being revisited.  I did not believe then that the LNC acted professionally or with the best interests of the LP at heart in their behavior during the last LNC meeting, and I still do not believe they acted appropriately.  

One thing is abundantly clear, and must not be forgotten: Angela Keaton is a two-term elected member of the Libertarian National Committee. She is the most active LNC member by far with regard to keeping the membership apprised of party actions and business.  As such, she is irreplaceable.  To even attempt to remove her yet again, will cause irreparable damage to the morale of many libertarians at a time when the LP can hardly afford to spread ill will.  

Last but certainly not least, this silly vendetta makes the LP look grossly unprofessional to those who are outside looking in.  We don’t see the major parties comporting themselves in this manner regarding strictly internal questions, because they know how damaging it would be not only to their personal reputations, but the reputation of the party they represent.  The LP doesn’t have a built-in constituency like the GOP and the Democrats.  The LP cannot afford behavior which makes them look like they’re coming apart at the seams from the inside, yet that’s exactly how this appears.

It is one thing when libertarians fuss and fight with each other.  It is something altogether different when the elected governing body is engaging in that behavior.

This is not how such internal problems – assuming it is a problem at all, and in my opinion it is not – should be handled.  Furthermore, I don’t understand why 30 minutes is being set aside for the LNC to publicly humiliate an elected representative, while far less time is set aside for far more substantive matters.

Frankly, I am disappointed.  I was under the mistaken impression that the LNC is comprised of adults. Instead they appear to be perpetually in kindergarten, where they put people in “time out” for alleged offenses, then keep badgering them until they apologize even when they don’t believe they did anything wrong.

Seriously, LNC, is badgering Angela Keaton worth 30 minutes of your meeting time, when your presidential candidate fell so far short of his pre-nomination promises that the end result was nothing short of humiliating? Is it worth it to burn up that time when you should be discussing the fact that your presidential candidate gave money to Republicans running against Libertarian candidates? Is it worth it so you don’t have to discuss your VP candidate’s racist comments in Reason Magazine?  Is it worth it to burn up that time when the LP is, financially speaking, the rough equivalent of the Titanic?  Or is burning up time the whole point, since “disciplining” Angela Keaton will eat up time more enlighteningly spent analyzing and discussing what went so terribly wrong with the Libertarian Party this election season, and what part the LNC played in that failure?

The LNC already ate up a great deal of its only pre-election meeting with “disciplining” Angela Keaton, when they had far more important things to discuss; and perhaps if they had spent their time doing what it is that they were elected to do, the election would have fared far better. How long is this vindictive agenda against Ms. Keaton going to continue? Why wasn’t this discussed on the LNC talk list, rather than dragged out into full public view? There is really only one possible reason for that, and that reason is to publicly humiliate Angela Keaton.

Why should anyone take the LNC seriously, when they repeatedly waste precious quarterly meeting time trying to remove an elected LNC member, rather than discussing the important issues which affect the party as a whole?  I find the LNC’s behavior on this subject to be extremely distasteful, and downright embarrassing.  

Nevertheless, Angela Keaton has every right to appear at that meeting fully prepared to refute the charges against her.  However, that will prove difficult since she has not been formally apprised of the specific charges against her, nor has she been apprised of the identity of her accuser(s).  

What kind of kangaroo court does the LNC plan to hold in San Diego?  Again, it disgusts me, as it should disgust all libertarians.  It is an act of aggression against a woman elected by the membership, through its delegates.  This is not Ms. Keaton’s first term, so it’s not as if they didn’t know exactly who they were electing, or why they were electing her.  Ms. Keaton was elected to do exactly what she has done to get her into this predicament, which is to represent the voiceless within the LP through whatever means necessary.  That was the will of the membership.  Now, she is paying a heady price, and to what end?  What does the LNC stand to gain from her departure?  That is a question best posed to the LNC member behind the agenda item in question, as well as for any other LNC member who supports this action.

One thing is for sure.  This insistence by the LNC to continue its vendetta against Ms. Keaton will only harm the Libertarian Party, its members, and the libertarian movement as a whole.  Longtime respected libertarian activists are rebelling already; and without the activists, the LP may as well not even exist.

For the above reasons, I respectfully suggest that those who keep pushing this anti-Keaton agenda should be the ones disciplined, for openly engaging in a public vendetta against a fellow elected representative, thus causing serious harm to the party they are duty-bound to protect.

  1. Hi, Brad. Surprised? No, not at all. Disgusted? Absolutely.

  2. With the exception of naming names as to who the snooper and the photographer are (and I know who both are), I couldn’t have said it better myself!

    However, I also know that the photos of her and her with Carolyn were around various spots, and it wasn’t exactly a secret anyway.

    And even so, it’s irrelevant, people can wear what they want. If that’s what they’re going after her for, they got nothing.

  3. Great post, ENM.

  4. Mike, please toss me the names. I have my suspicions, but I’d like to know for sure. Also toss me links to the other pics, I’d like to see them.

    Angela’s choice of attire is a First Amendment issue, as far as I’m concerned. Even if they make the claim that she is wearing a shirt advertising another political party, that particular shirt does not directly advertise anything.

    If this is indeed all about the shirt, they are truly grasping at straws and should be disciplined.

  5. Thanks, Miche. 🙂

  6. […] Last Free Voice: The LNC shows its true agenda […]

  7. The LNC should drop this issue. Instead the LNC should draft a resolution calling for a national inquiry into the possible war crimes of the Bush administration, or words to that effect.

    What’s more important?

    MHW

  8. Can somebody please quote these “pre-nomination promises” from the Barr campaign? Does nobody see the irony in propagating what appears to be an urban legend in a post decrying trump-ed up charges?

    I repeat what I wrote in September:

    Lots of people involved in this contretemps are shooting themselves in the foot, but as Chuck Moulton says, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are breaking a rule in some actionable way. Libertarians, of all people, should know that not all ill-advised actions are (or should be) against the rules.

    I don’t like Angela allegedly breaking executive session confidentially about contract discussions, but I tend to like the idea of LNC members live-blogging their meetings. LP convention delegates are grownups who can decide for themselves whether to keep Angela on the LNC, and whether her commendable dedication to transparency outweighs public comments like this (at http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/back-from-the-rally-for-the-republic/) :

    “they need to put more effort into those displays if they want to be taken seriously. Not by me of course. I gave up months ago. The LP is hopeless.”

    Angela, please issue the narrowest and most succinct apology you can muster for this alleged breach of executive session confidentiality, and then stay on the LNC. The LNC needs to keep hearing you speak for your constituents, and all of us members need to keep hearing your reports on what the LNC does. If you want to give up on the LP, that’s fine, but those of us who haven’t given up think it would only hurt the Party if you accept the martyrdom that was offered to you.

  9. Hey Mom:

    My understanding looking in as an outsider was that your Ms. Keaton broke a confidentiality rule (apparently multiple times) while also making sexually inappropriate comments about employees of her organization for all to see on her blog.

    Not only would both these actions be unprofessional to say the least, but if these actions were proven to be true (and so far Ms. Keaton admits to all that care to read that they are), depending on the state, her organization may be subject to losing their charter and being negligent in a civil matter. If she is out to destroy the LP, well I guess that’s all good — I’ve asked her to join the BTP and resign from the LNC. She might wear our shirt, but she needs to take a principled stand — it is not right to remain on the board and purposely break their rules. I can not respect someone like that.

    It’s only appropriate that her organization take disciplinary actions so that other members on the board understand there’s a price to pay for being irresponsible. To do nothing is to be co-negligent and possibly seen as approval of her misdeeds. If she behaved like this even on the BTP Board or any other non profit or political organization, then she would and should expect the same treatment.

    You all have good Turkey Day!

    PS — Like I’ve said before, join the BTP on principle and send in your LP resignation today!

  10. Of course, one of the items on the agenda is the budget.

    Do I need to tell people to go to

    http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2008/11/27/213816/59

    to find the numbers? Notice that we are now 4 years out from a Presidential election campaign, and there is no plan to accumulate a cash reserve to pay for ballot access.

    And, after years of discussing project-based budgeting, the signs of projects are ‘unclear’.

    George

  11. ENM, what you said…agreed.

  12. NotABarrFan, Inotabarrfan2. Let’s see the LNC be more specific & if there are any state charter etc. consequences before rush to judgement.

  13. Damn it to hell. I was planning on attending the LNC meeting, but a last minute opportunity (a very rare opportunity, I may add) arose for me at my place of employment which will be held on that exact day. Figuring I shouldn’t pass up said opportunity, I had decided to NOT go to San Diego, then the issue of Keaton being “disciplined” pops up a couple days later.

    Now I find myself wanting to attend the meeting. Since I do not have to be at work until 1PM that day, I just MIGHT drive down early that morning, hang out for a couple hours and then head back to be at work on time.

    What to do…what to do…

  14. My impression as far as the LP goes is that there are no official rules about participating in other parties as long as you’re not compromising your principles t do so. As the Boston Tea Party appears to be a libertarian-minded group, where’s the problem?

  15. Nov 26th, 2008

    To: Libertarian Party National
    Committee
    Subject: Angela Keaton

    In regards to the upcoming LPNC meeting
    to be held Dec 6th and 7th in San Diego, CA. An
    agenda has been published at:

    http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/11/agenda-san-diego-lnc-meeting.html

    This published agenda includes the line
    “Discipline of Angela Keaton 30 minutes”.

    I am deeply disturbed by what appears
    to be a very autocratic and arbitrary action by the LNC against one
    of its members who was elected by the party members at a national
    convention.

    The LNC operates its meeting under
    Robert’s Rules of Order. The Libertarian Bylaws State

    ARTICLE 13:
    PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
    The rules
    contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly
    Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are
    applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws
    and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.

    Robert’s Rules of Order require that
    notes be taken and that the meetings minutes be drafted and approved.
    Robert’s rules go on to state

    The minutes should
    show:

    All main motions
    (except such as were withdrawn) and motions that bring a main
    question again before the assembly, stating the wording as adopted or
    disposed of, and the disposition–including temporary disposition
    (with any primary and secondary amendments and adhering secondary
    motions then pending;

    From the September LNC minutes (not yet
    appearing at http://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives

    but can be found at
    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/an-error-in-the-september-lnc-meeting-minutes/
    and at
    http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/10/minutes-of-sept-mtg-lnc.html )

    Angela Keaton
    After a break, the Chair announced
    Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had
    been revealed in executive session.
    Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela
    Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice
    website.
    Angela Keaton left the room after
    having admitted to the transgression.
    Michael Jingozian read the passage to
    the body.

    Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion:
    It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for
    having disclosed material in executive session.
    Everyone in the room voted for the
    substitution.

    First having reviewed the minutes as
    published I can not find where the meeting went into Executive
    Session in compliance with Section 2 Paragraph F. of the Libertarian
    Party Policy Manual. To be in an executive session during an LNC
    meeting a motion must have been made and seconded and voted upon and
    passed by by a majority or by 2/3 of the voting LNC Members depending
    on if all the reasons given in the motion are among the list of
    reasons in Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 “Identified Topics
    for Discussion in Executive Session”

    In the published minutes the LNC
    entered Executive Session

    Campaign Finance Litigation
    The LNC entered executive session to
    discuss potential campaign finance litigation with Alan Mura and the
    LP membership list rental.

    Coming out of executive session, Jim
    Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for
    his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.

    It is expected that to have entered
    into this Executives Session that the minutes would note that some
    member of the LNC made a motion, the minutes would state what the
    motion was, the minutes would state who seconded the motion; the
    minutes should state that the motion passed by some method of voting
    or another and what the vote total was or if the vote was unanimous
    or at least no objections. But the minutes as presented have no
    motion, no second and no vote thus no Executive Session under the
    Libertarian Party Policy Manual.

    This same (at least according to the
    minutes) non-entry into a Executive Session happened twice more

    Counsel’s Report, Continued
    The LNC entered executive session for
    the remainder of Counsel’s report.
    Coming out of executive session, Sean
    Haugh wanted it reflected in the minutes that he had preferred to
    discuss matters involving him in open session.

    and

    The LNC entered
    executive session to discuss the Barr Root campaign and personnel
    matters.

    Now what could Angela have blogged
    about that could have happened in one of these policy violating
    “Executive Sessions”?

    Could it have been

    Quick: Dead guy gave us money. More
    than FEC allows. Sue to claim that dead people cannot be corrupted.
    Patriot Alan Gura of the Heller Case
    (frm. IJ intern in his law school days) will on the cheap challenge
    the Fascist State on this issue. We are discussing on to whether to
    move forward.
    Gura is offering to wave certain fees
    and cap others so the costs are about 15K. If the suit drags on for
    several years, he might charge UP TO an extra $7500 (Make sure you
    actually read the minutes b/c it is harder to type and keep track.
    Sullentrup may be a closet Republican but he does do something quite
    difficult very very well.)
    if it was how different is this then
    what the Minutes reported as

    Coming out of executive session, Jim
    Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for
    his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.
    Aaron Starr moved to proceed with
    campaign finance litigation engaging the law firm of Alan Gura, to
    sue the FEC to overturn the contribution limits for bequests left to
    the LNC, budgeting $15k in 2008 for that purpose with disbursements
    beginning no earlier than November 2008.

    Could it have been about the Barr
    Campaign when Angela blogged

    Said in ExSession.  I’m within
    my rights to reveal this:
    We don’t have a contract b/t the
    Barr Camp and LNC b/c….Cory asserted to both Carling and Redpath
    that they were afraid that someone would reveal data.  I didn’t
    know what the hell they were talking about until it was further
    explained that Cory was afraid that I would misuse “data.”
    Why this is ExSession? No idea. 
    To Redpath’s credit, he, Ruwart and several other believed that
    this was an excuse.  That I am a scape goat.

    Lets take this apart. For this to be a
    topic of a discussion within an executive session it would have had
    to have been part of the motion to enter that executive session. What
    motion? Second it has to be one of the stated reasons in
    and as such it might fit under Section
    2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 or the motion must have the support of
    two thirds of the voting membership.

    Strategic issues (only
    those requiring confidentiality)

    But to do so it would have to require
    confidentiality. What would be the reasons for requiring
    confidentiality? To protect Angela? Not likely since she is the one
    who released the information. To protect the accuser? Since when have
    we (other then the despised patriot act and military tribunals)
    allowed an accuser to remain anonymous?

    On to the motion to kick Angela off of
    the LNC. The motion was revised to read

    The LNC shall
    suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching
    confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section
    5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and
    commit to never repeating the offense again

    Article 8 Section 5 states that the LNC
    may suspend the membership of an at -large member for cause. What is
    missing from this motion is a detailed statement of what the cause
    is. The lack of a clear accusation and supporting evidence makes this
    motion appear arbitrary and capricious.

    Stephen Meier
    Fremont, CA

  16. Nov 26th, 2008

    To: Libertarian Party National Committee
    Subject: Angela Keaton

    In regards to the upcoming LPNC meeting to be held Dec 6th and 7th in San Diego, CA. An agenda has been published at:

    http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/11/agenda-san-diego-lnc-meeting.html

    This published agenda includes the line “Discipline of Angela Keaton 30 minutes”.

    I am deeply disturbed by what appears to be a very autocratic and arbitrary action by the LNC against one of its members who was elected by the party members at a national convention.

    The LNC operates its meeting under Robert’s Rules of Order. The Libertarian Bylaws State

    ARTICLE 13: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
    The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.

    Robert’s Rules of Order require that notes be taken and that the meetings minutes be drafted and approved. Robert’s rules go on to state

    The minutes should show:

    All main motions (except such as were withdrawn) and motions that bring a main question again before the assembly, stating the wording as adopted or disposed of, and the disposition–including temporary disposition (with any primary and secondary amendments and adhering secondary motions then pending;

    From the September LNC minutes (not yet appearing at http://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives but can be found at http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/an-error-in-the-september-lnc-meeting-minutes/ and at http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/10/minutes-of-sept-mtg-lnc.html )

    Angela Keaton
    After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.
    Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.
    Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.
    Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.
    Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.
    Everyone in the room voted for the substitution.

    First having reviewed the minutes as published I can not find where the meeting went into Executive Session in compliance with Section 2 Paragraph F. of the Libertarian Party Policy Manual. To be in an executive session during an LNC meeting a motion must have been made and seconded and voted upon and passed by by a majority or by 2/3 of the voting LNC Members depending on if all the reasons given in the motion are among the list of reasons in Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 “Identified Topics for Discussion in Executive Session”

    In the published minutes the LNC entered Executive Session

    Campaign Finance Litigation
    The LNC entered executive session to discuss potential campaign finance litigation with Alan Mura and the LP membership list rental.
    Coming out of executive session, Jim Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.

    It is expected that to have entered into this Executives Session that the minutes would note that some member of the LNC made a motion, the minutes would state what the motion was, the minutes would state who seconded the motion; the minutes should state that the motion passed by some method of voting or another and what the vote total was or if the vote was unanimous or at least no objections. But the minutes as presented have no motion, no second and no vote thus no Executive Session under the Libertarian Party Policy Manual.

    This same (at least according to the minutes) non-entry into a Executive Session happened twice more

    Counsel’s Report, Continued
    The LNC entered executive session for the remainder of Counsel’s report.
    Coming out of executive session, Sean Haugh wanted it reflected in the minutes that he had preferred to discuss matters involving him in open session.

    and

    The LNC entered executive session to discuss the Barr Root campaign and personnel matters.

    Now what could Angela have blogged about that could have happened in one of these policy violating “Executive Sessions”?

    Could it have been

    Quick: Dead guy gave us money. More than FEC allows. Sue to claim that dead people cannot be corrupted.
    Patriot Alan Gura of the Heller Case (frm. IJ intern in his law school days) will on the cheap challenge the Fascist State on this issue. We are discussing on to whether to move forward.
    Gura is offering to wave certain fees and cap others so the costs are about 15K. If the suit drags on for several years, he might charge UP TO an extra $7500 (Make sure you actually read the minutes b/c it is harder to type and keep track. Sullentrup may be a closet Republican but he does do something quite difficult very very well.)
    if it was how different is this then what the Minutes reported as

    Coming out of executive session, Jim Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.
    Aaron Starr moved to proceed with campaign finance litigation engaging the law firm of Alan Gura, to sue the FEC to overturn the contribution limits for bequests left to the LNC, budgeting $15k in 2008 for that purpose with disbursements beginning no earlier than November 2008.

    Could it have been about the Barr Campaign when Angela blogged

    Said in ExSession.  I’m within my rights to reveal this:
    We don’t have a contract b/t the Barr Camp and LNC b/c….Cory asserted to both Carling and Redpath that they were afraid that someone would reveal data.  I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about until it was further explained that Cory was afraid that I would misuse “data.”
    Why this is ExSession? No idea.  To Redpath’s credit, he, Ruwart and several other believed that this was an excuse.  That I am a scape goat.

    Lets take this apart. For this to be a topic of a discussion within an executive session it would have had to have been part of the motion to enter that executive session. What motion? Second it has to be one of the stated reasons in
    and as such it might fit under Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 or the motion must have the support of two thirds of the voting membership.

    vi.Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)

    But to do so it would have to require confidentiality. What would be the reasons for requiring confidentiality? To protect Angela? Not likely since she is the one who released the information. To protect the accuser? Since when have we (other then the despised patriot act and military tribunals) allowed an accuser to remain anonymous?

    On to the motion to kick Angela off of the LNC. The motion was revised to read

    The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again

    Article 8 Section 5 states that the LNC may suspend the membership of an at -large member for cause. What is missing from this motion is a detailed statement of what the cause is. The lack of a clear accusation and supporting evidence makes this motion appear arbitrary and capricious.

    Stephen Meier
    Fremont, CA

  17. Last I heard, the issue was that Keaton was supposed to have leaked information from an executive session. Executive sessions are supposed to be confidential, since they are the place where the committee discusses things like strategy in litigation and the like.

    For the record, I’m a member of both the Libertarian party and the Boston Tea Party, though I’ve never seen a BTP candidate on my ballot.

  18. Ms. Keaton not only admits she broke the rules, but says she would do it again. Thus, I have no issue with the LNC disciplining a board member for breaking their own rules. If you do not like the rules, either change them or quit. Simple.

    This is why I’ve been publicly and privately urging her to leave the LNC for the BTP. I would say that anyone who has a problem with the LNC enforcing their own rules do the same. I’ve done it. If you do not like the rules of one organization, then go to another where you do enjoy not only the more open atmosphere but people who are more attuned to your own view of libertarianism.

    Here is my letter to the membership director sent after the Sept. fiasco:

    Due to the actions of the LP over the last year or so and in particular the treatment of Angela Keaton, I hereby resign my membership in the LP in favor of the BTP. Please remove me from all lists and do not bother contacting me again for any reason.

    Respectfully,

    Feel free to use my wording and resign yourselves. If enough people resign between now and next weekend perhaps that would send a message.

  19. Gene, you’re a morning lark, and hell, you’re not THAT far north… remember the 15 between your favorite border checkpoint and Escondido iis a freaking raceway which regularly moves at 90+mph.

    Get up early. Geesh, you’re almost as bad a hermit as Gene B. these days. And you’re not a vampire. You won’t melt in the sun, honest.

    Do it!

  20. Gene, if they stick to schedule, the flogging begins at NLT 10:26, assuming that Root shuts up in time.

  21. This would be useful, except that The Keaton has asked repeatedly what she is being charged with, and no response.

    So it could be the tank top, which would be a huge laugh, it could be the last meeting, or it could be something as simple as telling the truth about things.

    All in all, it’s a giant joke, and there will be a good level of support for The Keaton next Saturday.

  22. It is very disappointing to see something like this linked with the Libertarians. I agree, this is not a time where the party needs to look like a bunch of school children.

    The Libertarian party is at a turning point in its short history. Americans are more frustrated with the two big parties than they have been in a long time. Perhaps this 30 minutes could be used on something useful, such as continuing to work on overcoming the image as a group of radicals. There are millions of voters out there ripe for the taking if the party can show themselves to be what their platform says they are. But this goes against everything in that platform. We know the two big parties are hypocrites. We expect better from the LP.

    I hope people will come and read some of the thoughts around this on my blog. We could be at the start of some change that we really can believe in. Come visit at:
    http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com

  23. Several of the comments in this thread were delayed after being caught in the spam filter. That usually happens due to links in the posts, it’s a default action for Akismet. My apologies to those affected.

    Always feel free to toss me an email if your comment doesn’t show up, because chances are it got caught in the spam filter for some reason. My email address is in the right-hand column, fourth item down “Contact the LFV Editor”.

  24. In my opinion Angel is isn’t of violating confidentiality because the LNC was never in an Executive Session.

    This really is a due process issue. The rules are very clear in the LNC Policy Manual. To enter an Executive Session there must be a motion which states what the issues to be discussed are. The Motion must be seconded and must be voted on.

    The LNC follows Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised which states that the minutes should show all main motions of which the motion to enter an Executive Session is certainly a main motion. The minutes clearly show no such motion, no required second and no vote.

    There is no other method for entering an Executive Session other then by this process. Which according to the meetings minutes did not occur.

    If there was no real Executive Session then there could be no expectation of confidentiality.

    The LNC has no cause against Angela!

  25. Lidia: it’s not that I’m a hermit, I just have different priorities these days. These priorities are things such as enjoying my private life, spending time with family and friends, and generally doing whatever the heck I want to do that makes ME feel good and enriched. LP involvement tends to be way too dramatic and negative and rarely brings anything positive.

    For those who knew me back in the 1990’s and up to about 5-6 years ago, this is a drastic change of attitude on my part, considering I sacrificed many years and dollars for the LP.

    Anyhow, I’m leaning toward going that morning. You and Mike touch bases with me mid-week next week and let’s organize.

  26. “There are several theories floating around about that agenda item, and one of them is that Angela is being disciplined for wearing a Boston Tea Party t-shirt. It appears that at least one LNC member snooped around her Facebook until he found the allegedly incriminating photo. Why on earth would someone do that, unless they had a predetermined agenda?

    Problem is, though I had seen the picture numerous times, to the point that I knew exactly which photo was in question even before I saw it, even I didn’t know it was Angela in the t-shirt, since the photo doesn’t show her head or face. Honestly, I thought it was Miche modeling the t-shirt. That being the case, how could it possibly be a breach of duty even if, arguendo, it is Angela?

    Elf Ninos Mom”

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

    C’mon Mom. At least get the facts correct.

    Angela Keaton wore a Boston Tea Party T-shirt on Sunday of the September 2008 LNC Meeting. She was wearing the shirt while she was participating in the Meeting. I know – I saw it with my own eyes.

    I have no idea if anyone is going to even mention this FACT at the upcoming LNC Meeting. Even if it comes up, no LNC member is going to officially discipline Ms. Keaton for wearing that T-shirt. However, I suppose it is possible that a few LNC members might give her an off-the-record verbal rebuke for wearing that particular shirt in that particular venue.

    FWIW – I have no idea who submitted the agenda item regarding Ms. Keaton. All I know is – it wasn’t me.

  27. Gene, I’m down there Friday afternoon and all weekend.

  28. Scott, the photo in question wasn’t taken at the September LNC. It was taken in October at the San Bernardino County (CA) LP convention.

    Also, do you have any idea what the charges are? Redpath has been silent, and nobody seems to know.

  29. “November 28, 2008 at 9:34 pm, by Mike Seebeck

    Scott, the photo in question wasn’t taken at the September LNC. It was taken in October at the San Bernardino County (CA) LP convention.”

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

    I wasn’t commenting on the photo. I was commenting on what I saw with my own eyes at the Sept. LNC Meeting.

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

    “Also, do you have any idea what the charges are? Redpath has been silent, and nobody seems to know.
    Mike Seebeck”

    I have no idea what the charges are.

  30. Thanks, Scott. That means you are one of a growing crowd on both the LNC and the membership.

  31. If Ms. Keaton is to be punished for wearing a BTP tee shirt, I think her punishment should be no more severe than that which Bob Barr received as a member of the LNC after his PAC donated millions of dollars to Republicans who were running against Libertarians.

  32. In addition, the claims of a “breach of ES confidentiality” are ridiculous. A controversial and baseless accusation was made against Ms. Keaton.

    If it had been stated in an “executive session” that Aaron Starr was a crook who falsifies the books of his clients, and Starr had publicly denied that baseless charge, that would be well within his rights — regardless of “secrecy.”

    What Keaton did was quite similar. A baseless charge was made against her, she publicly repudiated it, and Starr and Co. attempted to remove her from the LNC for publicly disputing their baseless slander outside of “executive session” (which apparently they’re attempting to transform into some bush-league equivalent of a Soviet secret court.)

    The real question Libertarian party supporters have, at this juncture, is why continue to waste time and money on this organization?

  33. What is your evidence that concern about Keaton’s access wasn’t the reason why the Barr campaign did not want to have a data-sharing contract with LNC? The only evidence I know of is Angela’s own claim that “Redpath Ruwart and several other believed that this was an excuse. That I am a scape goat.” If we take Angela’s report at face value, then her reputation was already defended in the executive session, and her leak then seems to be an attempt to embarrass the Barr campaign.

    It’s quite reality-impaired to suggest that Angela is the patron saint of protecting the reputations of LNC members from nasty things said secretly in front of only the LNC.

    Does the assumption embedded in your closing question mean the Secretary of the Outright Libertarians is giving up on the LP, as Angela says she has?

  34. What is your evidence that concern about Keaton’s access wasn’t the reason why the Barr campaign did not want to have a data-sharing contract with LNC?

    Bri, surely you know by now that it’s a logical fallacy to demand that someone prove a negative.

    You’re getting rusty, old bean.

    Does the assumption embedded in your closing question mean the Secretary of the Outright Libertarians is giving up on the LP, as Angela says she has?

    One can give up on the LNC without giving up on the LP. I strain to think of a single worthwhile thing the present LNC (and its predecessor) has done to “advance the cause of liberty” or even get more votes or access for LP candidates.

    As a business oriented guy, I put my energies towards those things that have a return on investment. If the LNC is to become a tragicomedy of high school assembly politics, then there are other pursuits within and outside the LP umbrella to which I can devote my time and resources.

    It would also be quite silly to assume I, or Keaton, or any of the various others who have raised their voices on this topic, are alone in that belief.

  35. Fear not, “Bri”, there’s no mistake you could make that I would think you’re original enough to be alone in making.

    Let’s calibrate here. What has your favorite past LNC done to “advance the cause of liberty or get more votes or access for LP candidates” that this LNC isn’t doing? And what precisely are these “energies” of yours that you have ever “invested” in a past LNC that you’re thinking of withholding from this one?

    You’re the one who said the charges against Angela — that her access was the reason why the Barr campaign did not want to have a data-sharing contract with LNC — were “baseless”. Either you have some reasons why we should agree with you that the base does not exist, or you don’t.

    Miller posts dripping with strained condescension — a dime a dozen. Miller posts where he self-diagnoses his own logical fallacy — priceless.

  36. I love the Holtzgrams.

    They’re always so entertaining.

    We have to prove that Ms. Keaton didn’t do something, then we have to prove her innocence from secret charges by a gang of boobs.

    I guess this would explain some of our policy differences. I happen to come from a camp that states that “charges” must be clearly made, that it’s up to an accuser to prove an individual’s “guilt” to a reasonable degree through evidence (while giving the accused plenty of time to cross-examine her accusers), and who notes that a gang who have already launched a series of baseless charges in the past against the same individual probably aren’t operating from the purest motives.

    But I do find your boundless trust in the institutions of Libertarianism (not to mention your persistent use of the royal “we”) to be charming as always, Bri.🙂

  37. Brian, my “we” just presumes that I’m not the only one reading your excretions here. Given their nature, I’ll concede that’s a dangerous assumption.

    I have no dog in this fight. I’ve written that trying to “discipline” Angela for her little live-blogging indiscretion is just as self-defeating as the indiscretion itself was. Then you came along and made the positive assertion that the in-camera statement about Angela — that she was the reason why the Barr campaign wouldn’t share data with LNC — was “baseless”. I’m just curious what grounds you might have for making that assertion. If you have none, then just say so, and spare us the song and dance about how “baseless” is now apparently supposed to be a synonym for “presumptively false in any proceedings where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven”. That dog won’t hunt.

    Of course, the in-camera statement about Angela wasn’t a formal “charge”– Angela’s account tells us it was simply an explanation about a non-contract in an executive session discussing why the contract hadn’t happened. The formal “charge” is that she leaked the explanation, not the explanation itself. Do try to keep them straight.

    It’s typically mendacious of you to suggest that I have inferior standards for the rights of the accused. I’m the guy who made sure that language about “the rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty” came back into our 2008 platform and were generalized beyond their backwater category of the 2004 Internal Security plank. I’m the guy whose model platform goes well beyond any past LP platform and says “Those accused of aggression have the right to 1) be presumed innocent, 2) be free from arbitrary searches and incarceration, 3) know and understand the charges against them, 4) have assistance of counsel, 5) examine incriminating evidence and confront incriminating witnesses, 6) subpoena exculpatory witnesses, 7) abstain from self-incrimination, 8) be present at a fair speedy public trial by an impartial jury in an impartial court, 9) be free from ex post facto charges and double jeopardy, and 10) be free from cruel and unusual punishment.”

    But of course, the above are merely facts. Don’t let such inconvenient things get in the way of your hilarious little attempts at character-assassination-via-rebounding-bullets.

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: