Steve G.

Posts Tagged ‘LNC’


In Activism, Austrian Economics, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Drug War, Iran, Iraq War, Libertarian Party-US, Media, Middle East, Minorities, Music, Nanny State, Police Brutality, Presidential Candidates, War on December 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm

For more information:
Brian Irving, press secretary
Phone: 919.538.4548

Wrights pledges a ‘wise and frugal’ principled campaign
BURNET, Texas (Dec. 4) – In the four months since R. Lee Wrights began exploring the idea of seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination he has become even more convinced how critical it is for the Libertarian Party to be the anti-war party in 2012.

“The Democrats have not just completely failed to stop the ever expanding cycle of war, they continue to enlarge the cycle,” he said. “When the Republicans take control of the U.S. House, there will be no one left to speak for peace, no one but Libertarians,” Wrights said.

“When I announced formation of an exploratory committee on July 4, I said the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war.” Wrights said. “Since then many Libertarians have told me they agree, and some have signed on to the campaign to help make it so.”

Thomas Hill, of Charlotte, N.C. has known Wrights for 10 years. He agreed to chair the exploratory committee because he said Wrights has proven to be a consistent and principled libertarian.

“He has never been afraid or ashamed of the axiom of non-aggression,” Hill said. “A true patriot through and through, Lee loves our great country and sincerely wishes to not only restore our once great Republic but to guarantee all men and women are truly free to live their lives and pursue their peaceful and honest dreams.”
“You cannot lead a nation into peace and prosperity while constantly initiating aggression against other nations,” said Norman Horn, who signed on as webmaster. “War is the ultimate evil and must be vigorously opposed by all true libertarians.”

Other members of the committee include: Brian Irving, press secretary; Robert Butler, treasurer; Julie Fox, assistant treasurer; Sean Haugh, events coordinator; Zachary Smith, campus coordinator, and; Katie Brewer, social media coordinator.

Wrights said he intends to run a campaign that will mirror the way a Libertarian president would govern. “I plan on running what Thomas Jefferson would probably call a ‘wise and frugal’ campaign,” he said. “It will be professional and well-run, a campaign all Libertarians can be proud of, but we won’t waste money on frills and we will rely heavily on grassroots activists.”

He said he is determined that whoever wins the 2012 nomination is totally committed to proclaiming the message to stop all war. To that end, Wrights has pledged to commit ten percent of all donations to his campaign to gain ballot access in all 50 states.

The committee also wants to ensure the 2012 nominee is equally committed to running on an unequivocal libertarian platform. “We need a candidate who is not ashamed nor afraid to proclaim the true libertarian message of individual liberty and personal responsibility, without compromise, without watering down and without pandering to those who are afraid of freedom,” said Irving.

Wrights, a Winston-Salem native, is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All.

EXCLUSIVE: More LP Executive Session Info Leaked

In Activism, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Personal Responsibility, Politics, Protest on December 9, 2008 at 10:45 pm

This is the letter I just sent to the LNC.


December 9, 2009.

To the LNC:

In open session on Sunday, December 7, LNC Region #7 Representative Rachel Hawkridge was observed inadvertently mentioning Executive Session material. She immediately realized her mistake and publicly apologized.

It is in the best interest of the LNC to not pursue any sanctions of any sort against Ms. Hawkridge in this matter, because it will open another can of worms the LNC does not want to deal with. Please remember that I was present, not only broadcasting the meeting over the Internet, but also recording the broadcast and Twittering it out as well, where the Twitters were captured and blogged. In terms of what happened, I am an expert witness, and the events in question are well-documented.

That recording indicates that while Ms. Hawkridge undoubtedly leaked Executive Session material, she was not the first to do so. That would be the Treasurer, Mr. Aaron Starr. I also noticed it myself and Twittered the event.

To quote myself directly from the Twitter feed, in chronological order, typographical errors and all:

Starr just leaked that ES was about “staffing changes”. You draw the conclusions. 11:20 AM Dec 7th from web

Hawkridge also leaks ES on “staff cuts.” Mea cupla for her. But Starr already did it earlier. 11:37 AM Dec 7th from web

The words on the Twitters are quoted accurately, and the taped evidence of the open session confirms it, and is easily available to the public for viewing.

The difference in the words is irrelevant, as anybody who watched the budgetary part of the open session could plainly deduce that the “staffing changes” Mr. Starr refers to is the “staffing cuts” that Ms. Hawkridge refers to—the worst-kept secret in the room, in any case.

The only other difference is that Ms. Hawkridge expressed remorse for her accident and immediately apologized. Mr. Starr neither indicated remorse nor apologized. The conclusion is easily drawn that Mr. Starr’s actions were intentional and contemptuous of the rules. If they were not intentional, then Mr. Starr’s lack of awareness of leaking Executive Session material indicates an incompetence level unworthy of the office of LP Treasurer, and Mr. Starr ought to consider resigning in favor of someone more aware.

If the LNC chooses to pursue action against Ms. Hawkridge for an accidental slip of the tongue, then it is obligated to pursue more severe action against Mr. Starr for a deliberate one—perhaps even the actions sought in the most recent deliberate instance, meaning those sought in the shameful kangaroo case brought against Ms. Keaton, which if I recall correctly, was suspension from the LNC.

So the LNC is faced with four options.

Should action be pursued against Ms. Hawkridge and not Mr. Starr, then the membership will conclude it to be further evidence of a “purge” within the LNC—the very thing that further erodes the credibility of the LNC as a leadership body.

Should action be pursued against Mr. Starr and not Ms. Hawkridge, then the membership will conclude it to be Justice for past issues which may or may not have any bearing on the current situation.

Should action be pursued against both Ms. Hawkridge and Mr. Starr, then the membership will conclude it to be consistent but evidence of further unproductiveness, further eroding credibility of the LNC as a leadership body.

The only tangible and credible option left is to drop both matters completely and move on to much more important matters, perhaps with an appropriate public apology by Mr. Starr for his transgression.

At the end of the public comments section that day, I warned the LNC that while videotaping the meetings could produce evidence of liability, it could also provide exculpatory evidence, and that it all depended on how the LNC conducts itself. Here we see a perfect example of what I was referring to in how the body conducts itself. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video is worth a million pictures.

I am very sure the LNC does not wish to further expand on its current public relations disaster by pursuing this now or any time in the future. It is in the best interest of the LNC to simply let both matters drop, and I strongly encourage that route of inaction. Discretion is the better part of valor, and sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.


Michael W. Seebeck


Ironic, though, it bounced on Sullentrup, who had his email changed recently.  They can’t seem to get contact info for the officers updated very fast, but they wasted no time at all in removing Ms. Keaton from the page…and Mr. Squyres, who has also resigned, remains up as well.  Nice priorities!

View the LNC Meeting LIVE here.

In Libertarian on December 5, 2008 at 3:47 am

I was hoping that you could view the live webcast of the LNC meeting here. Unfortunately, and WordPress don’t play well together.

So, in lieu of that, you can view it at my own blog, which also has the Twitter feed next to it if you follow TeamSeebeckM. Please Digg it, too.

You can also view it at this page.

Apologies for the way this works–it’s kinda crude. You might hear some sound issues and a slight broadcast delay.   And I can’t pan or zoom for crap. But it’s as close to live as we can get.

Air times will be 7:30 AM each day for the 8:00 meeting start.  All times PST.

Call to Arms: Resolution of Discipline against Angela Keaton

In Activism, Boston Tea Party, Crazy Claims, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Lies and the lying liars who tell them, Politics, Protest on December 1, 2008 at 10:15 pm

The charges against Angela Keaton have finally been disclosed (well, leaked, LOL) and Stewart Flood is behind them.  He wrote it, and he plans to present it on Saturday.

Grab your popcorn, folks, because this one is a doozy.  Strangely, it reflects far more upon Stewart than it does on Angela.  After reading it over, it’s my opinion that Stewie needs both a humor implant, and a life.  It must have taken him forever to dig up all this crap on Ms. Keaton, and most of it obviously was just a joke on her part, an exaggeration on his part, and/or taken completely out of context.  The rest I’ll have to check into, but as far as I’m concerned, just glancing over it based upon what I have seen, the charges are a joke.

Of particular interest is the allegation that Ms. Keaton provided material support to another political party (assumably the BTP).  What exactly was Bob Barr doing, both when he sat on the LNC and was the LP’s presidential candidate, while his PAC contributed thousands to Republican candidates, if not providing material support to another party?  Why wasn’t he brought up on disciplinary charges? 

The resolution is to suspend her, but the suspension will be rescinded if she submits a written apology to millions of people within seven days, on about 20 differerent alleged “offenses”, to be published in LP News.  This is clearly in my opinion nothing but an attempt to humiliate her, given the very weird nature of the charges, and force her to bend to the demands of the reformers.  

So, here’s your assignment, LFV contributors and readers.  Dig up all the dirt you can on every single person she has allegedly harmed, according to the resolution.  I know there’s a lot out there, because I have received a lot of it over time.  I’m talking everything, from Stewart allegedly claiming to have been a Unabomber suspect, to men on the LNC calling Angela a “fucking bitch”.  Post it in comments.  

Here’s the “Resolution of Discipline”:  resolution-of-discipline-for-angela-keaton

LNC member Scott Lieberman urges factions to compromise for the greater good

In Libertarian on December 1, 2008 at 12:43 am

Scott Lieberman, LNC Alternate Representative, posted the following to the LNC discussion list today.

As I mentioned a while ago, 98% of all of the elected offices in the United States are at the local level. The majority of those are non-partisan.

That means that your constituents can run for those local, non-partisan offices, or apply for a Board or Commission, regardless of how effective the National LP is.

And yet, the LNC is at war with itself over – basically – who was (or will be) our Presidential Nominee, and, to a lesser extent, the National LP Platform.

Why are we fighting so hard over what are basically outreach tools? Although I disagree with these statements, even IF Bob Barr ran a “conservative-libertarian” campaign, or IF the National LP Platform just barely makes it to the 70-70 point on the Diamond Chart – do either of those conditions make it impossible for you or your constituents to serve as elected or appointed officials in local offices? Are all of our anarchist/Radical members going to all of a sudden govern or advise their City Councils in a socialistic or fascist way just because the National LP Platform is not an Anarchist Manifesto?

My point is – after you watch the live web-telecast of next weekend’s LNC Meeting (which I assume will be done by an audience member due to the nature of this Meeting), I suggest that your constituents surf the Internet, look up their town’s or county’s list of Boards and Commissions, and download an application form. And then – fill it in, and send it to your Town Clerk. You don’t need any permission or any help from the National LP to do that.

In the meantime, I am going to see if the Town and Country Resort will let me sell peanuts and popcorn in the LNC meeting room, because it looks like we are going to have a sell-out crowd.

Scott Lieberman LNC Alternate, R2

Is Executive Session Overused or Abused in the LNC?

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on November 13, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Well, George Donnelly made an attempt to find out.

He posted his results here.

But I’ll respectfully disagree with his findings, in part because of what happened to Angela Keaton in September, but also because of what happened to three other highly-respected Libertarians back before the 2008 LP National Convention. A report has come out that at the spring LNC meeting, in Executive Session (ES), Aaron Starr, Shane Cory, and M Carling were bashing BetteRose Ryan, Tony Ryan, and Michelle Poague because of Shotgun Willie’s co-sponsoring of the Convention in Denver.

Now, to be clear on the disclosure, I will quote myself from the past:

“I’ve known BetteRose Ryan for years. Ditto her husband, Tony, and her sister, Michelle Poague. I consider them my friends. They are great people, first class all around. BetteRose and Tony have both served the LP with distinction in both LPCO (BetteRose as state chair and predecessor to my state chair, John Berntson, Tony on the LPCO Board with me), and as LNC representatives (BetteRose as at-large, and Tony currently in a region). Michelle has also served on the LPCO Board in 2003-4. I was busy being a dad at that time as my son was born 4 days after the 2003 LPCO convention, which I helped organize, following the BetteRose “Cookbook” for conventions. I stepped down from the LPCO Board at that point for exactly that reason–parenting called.

“Shotgun Willie’s is the premiere club in Denver metro, in the unincorporated Glendale district. A lot of the girls there are LPCO activists, including Michelle. They co-sponsored the LPUS Convention. To Coloradoans, we know them as the “Glendale Ballet”, and they have been mainstays in the LPCO, especially at election night parties, for years.

“If the Starr Chamber is pissed over the Glendale Ballet at the LPUS Convention, then perhaps they ought to untwist their prude panties and go to a show. I’ve known that outfit for years; it’s high class, and they are regulars on the LPCO circuit–hell, an institution, even!–and not just for sex appeal either–some of them are bona fide party activists! That and BetteRose Ryan, Tony, and Michelle are all well-known as class acts bar none, which seems to be lost on the Starr Chamber, since they seem to lack it. The Glendale Ballet is what the LP is all about–free enterprise, free expression, and free minds and bodies.”

It should be noted that the “Cookbook” was used to make Denver as successful as it was.

This case illustrates a clear abuse of the Executive Session by the previous LNC.

But while that points out problems, the bigger question remains as to what the scope of the Executive Sessions should be. I’m not referring to what is written in the revered and until-recently mysterious LNC Policy Manual (of which I do have a current copy, thanks to Rachel Hawkbridge). I’m referring to general principles. I would posit that the answer to my own question is “Yes.”

In my own experience in both political and business management circles, the types of meetings that are Executive Sessions by any name tend to revolve around exactly two types of situations: personnel decisions and legal issues. 90% of all Party activities are neither of those; therefore Executive Session shouldn’t apply to them. That includes using Executive Session to bash longtime and well-respected Party members.

“So, Seebeck,” someone will undoubtedly snarkily ask, “How would you make it better?” I’m glad you asked.

In the case of the limited public meeting times the LNC has at present (different discussion), the use of ES should be even LESS than what it is. I’ll be the first to admit that a goal of no ES at the public meetings is not logical nor feasible. But, the ideals of minimal and proper use is not, and in fact should be the goal. Most ES issues can and should be resolved ahead of the public meetings. Doing so is not difficult, whether it be by a simple private email list, teleconference, videoconference, or something web-based such as Yahoo Messenger or NetMeeting. The LNC meetings are for the public membership as much as it is for anyone, and that focus should be respected.

As for the proper use, it should be noted that the bovine biosolids (I’m trying to be polite here!) that happened at the September LNC meeting were a direct result of improper use of the ES, both in the ES that Angela Twittered about and the subsequent ES where the attempt was made to expel her without giving her the chance to defend herself. LNC members are elected by the delegates, and they are not hired staff. As such, there is no personnel matter there that falls under ES purview, Policy Manual be damned. If the delegates decide to remove a LNC member, they can do so, and it is relatively easy for the LNC to ask the delegates to do so–all it takes is a delegate list and a mass mailing/emailing with a deadline attached. LNC Regional Representatives can already be recalled by their respective state affiliates. The LNC needs to remember that there is a huge difference between elected members and hired staff. HR can’t fire the Board of Directors; only the stockholders can. We, the delegates, are those stockholders.

Also, every person has the legal right to disclose any part of an ES that pertains directly to that person. It’s called an implicit waiver of confidentiality, and every person has that right in all cases.

So the solution for the LNC is rather simple to implement, once people get past the mental blocks of paranoid secrecy: Get most of the ES work done prior to the public meeting, and keep the scope limited to what it is supposed to be about and nothing more. They might even find the public meetings themselves are more productive uses of their time.

It’s that mental block thing that appears to be the problem.

On a related side note, I’m not certain if the BTP policy of no ES is the right answer, but I applaud them for trying it. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen.

So, LP Bylaws Committee, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it: Propose a Bylaws change for St. Louis 2010 that makes elected LNC members removable from office only upon a 2/3 LNC vote on a resolution of the LNC to ask the delegates from the last convention to remove the member by a 2/3 delegate vote. The resolution should require a deadline to vote, and the ability to vote in a secure manner.

If the LNC plays that right, it can also serve as a model for secure voting to use elsewhere, like in regular elections, perhaps. That could be a nice political feather for the LP should they wisely choose to go that route.

In the meantime, LNC Chair Bill “Where’s My Gavel?” Redpath better rein in the improper use of, and entrance into, Executive Session. We The Delegates will be watching, especially next month.

One Final Note: All LP members are strongly encouraged to attend the next LNC meeting Dec 6-7 in San Diego. I know that quite a few are coming out for it. I will be there myself.

December LNC meeting details

In Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on October 21, 2008 at 11:21 am

Here are the details for the LNC Board Meeting 12/6-12/7 in San Diego CA:

The location is the
Town and Country Resort
500 Hotel Circle North
San Diego, CA 92108

To make a reservation, please call 800-772-8527 & ask for the $99 special
“Libertarian National Committee” Room Rate (effective 12/3-12/9). On line
reservations are available this link:

This is a major convention resort with 1,000 guestrooms and suites, over
205,000 square feet of meeting and exhibit space, 5 restaurants, 3 lounges,
4 pools, 27 hole golf course, 15,000 sq ft day spa and fitness center,
connected to Fashion Valley, with easy access to San Diego’s light rail
trolley station.

If you have any problems or special requests, contact:
Rosa I. Myhra
Convention Sales Manager
Phone 619-297-6006 x 4886
Fax 619-725-5233

We will most likely have a walk through tour for our convention committee
and any one else that is interested from 5:30-6:30 pm on Fri 12/5. Please
meet us at 5:30 pm by the Tiki Pavilion next to the gift shop across from
the Terrace Café.



George Phillies: In defense of Angela Keaton, Part 3

In Corruption, Iraq War, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Personal Responsibility, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Protest, Republican, Torture, War on October 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

The following was written by George Phillies, and is reproduced with permission.

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. [With thanks to Elfninosmom for some text that I am borrowing.]

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. However, the LNC did not subject Barr to any penalty. When Barr was not penalized for far more serious acts, it is transparently unjust to penalize Keaton.

Of course, for this defense to be valid, there is one key question:

Did Barr’s PAC actually support real Republicans?

Search the Bob Barr Leadership Fund filings for the current Congressional cycle. A list of Republicans running for Congress as incumbents and supported by Barr’s PAC includes the names Gingrey, Ros-Lehtinen, Flake, Hayes, Hensarling, Kingston, Pryce, Rehberg, Jones, and Shays. Barr’s PAC also supported incumbent Republican Senators, including Chambliss, Specter, Coleman, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Sessions, Smith, and Sununu.

Yes, that is the same Sununu who is running against my good friend Libertarian Ken Blevens for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire.

Every one of these Republicans was elected from a state with an organized Libertarian Party. A loyal Libertarian would want every one of those Republicans to face a Libertarian Party opponent. A loyal
Libertarian would never have dreamed of supporting Republicans, all of whom would hopefully have Libertarian opponents.

In fact, while Bob Barr sat on the LNC, Barr through his PAC supported every Republican I named above, yet faced no penalty from the LNC for his acts.

One might try to argue that some of these Republicans turned out not to have Libertarian opponents. If they had no Libertarian opponents, you might try to argue that support for the Republican made no difference, because the support did not cause a Libertarian to lose.

In 2007, you couldn’t predict which Republicans would not have Libertarian opponents.

Besides, when you donate to a candidate, your money counts twice. It counts once for that candidate. It counts again for the candidate’s party. When Bob Barr through his PAC donated to Republican candidates, he was strengthening his Republican Party, at the expense of our Libertarian Party.

The LNC did not respond to Barr’s actions by imposing any penalty, so therefore it would be unjust for the LNC to impose a more serious penalty on Keaton when her deed was less severe.

Finally, you might seek to argue that those Republican Congressmen were libertarians in disguise, flying a false flag to enhance their chances of election. Such a claim is devoid of merit.

Nine of those ten Congressman opposed leaving Iraq. Nine of ten supported military kangaroo courts. Eight of the ten voted to give Federal Courts jurisdiction over the Terry Schiavo case, voted to support warrantless wiretaps on your telephone, and voted to pervert the Constitution to install a ban on burning the flag. Torture is supported by a majority of these Congressmen.

These Congressmen were in no sense Libertarians. See Appendix B for more detail.

Every Senator I list as being supported by the Barr PAC voted to allow warrantless wiretaps and monitors of virtually every form of communication in America. Every Senator listed voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Every Senator listed voted for a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning. Eight of the nine voted to fund the war. Seven of nine voted against an antiwar withdrawal motion. Six of nine voted to advance a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage.

These Senators were in no sense Libertarians. See Appendix C for more detail.

However, the LNC did not take punitive action in Barr’s case, so therefore it would be unjust for the LNC to take punitive action in Keaton’s less serious case.

APPENDIX A. Here, name by name, are the Congressmen Barr supported and a table showing their individual votes on some critical issues

Flake 1 2 3 4
Gingrey 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hayes 2 3 4 5 6
Hensarling 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jones 5 6
Kingston 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pryce 1 2 3 5 6
Rehberg 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ros-Lehtinen 1 2 3 5 6
Shays 1 2 3

(1) Vote 836: S 1927: The bill gives U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States.

(2) 7/12/07 Vote 624: H R 2956: This bill would require the president to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq 120 days after its enactment and would require most troops to be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.

(3) 9/29/06 Vote 508: S 3930: Military Commissions Act

(4) 12/14/05 Vote 630: H R 2863: Supported a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces

(5) 6/22/05 Vote 296: H J RES 10: This vote approved the proposal of a Constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag.

(6) 3/21/05 Vote 90: S 686: Gave federal courts jurisdiction in the Terri Schiavo dispute.

APPENDIX B: Here are Senators the Barr PAC supported with a table showing individual votes.

Chambliss 1 2 3 4 5 6
Coleman 1 3 4 5 6
Craig 1 2 3 4 5 6
Graham 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hagel 1 2 4 6
Sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Smith 1 2 4 5 6
Specter 1 2 3 4 6
Sununu 1 2 3 4 6

(1) Vote 309: S 1927: This amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 passed 60-28 on August 3. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States.

(2) 5/24/07 Vote 181: On the Motion: Fund the war. This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24.

(3) 3/29/07 Vote 126: H R 1591: This $122 billion war spending bill calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer.

(4) 6/27/06 Vote 189: S J RES 12: This vote would have given Senate approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to ban “desecration of the American flag”.

(5) 6/7/06 Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment.

(6) 3/2/06 Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

LNC Falls Short of Own Policies on Transparency, Due Process

In Libertarian Party-US on September 17, 2008 at 8:45 pm

The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Policy Manual, 44 pages of rules, responsibilities and procedures for the LNC and LP headquarters, was released this week by Marc Montoni of the Virginia LP. Dated June 26 of this year, a close reading of the manual reveals significant differences between policy and practice in the national Libertarian Party.

I.2.A: Meeting Agendas

At I.2.A, the policy manual states:

The agenda [for LNC meetings] shall also be posted on the LP.Org website at least seven days prior to the meeting.

According to Louise Calise of LP headquarters “agendas are under the tab of Party and LNC Meeting Archives.” However, the latest agenda I found there is for the August 19-20, 2006 meeting. At the time of publication, there was no comment from any LNC members I queried as to whether the September 6-7 meeting’s agenda was distributed in accordance with this policy.

I.2.C: Recordings of Meetings

The Director shall be responsible for recording all LNC meetings on audio or video medium, providing a copy to the Secretary, retaining the recordings for one year at LPHQ, and making copies available to any other member upon request at cost.

I emailed LP member services and was told by LP Director of Operations Robert S. Kraus that “The policy manual has been recently revised and copies of the recordings are for internal use only.”

Decision to Cease LNC Meeting Recordings

At-Large Representative Angela Keaton documented this decision at the September 6-7, 2008 LNC meeting

Sullentrup moves to eliminate the policy that we video tape the meeting. …

Starr than says that all meeting should be recorded by [sic] destroyed after the minutes are approved. …

Kraus: costs of tape, plus staff member is too much. He doesn’t want to be responsible at meetings for tending to this.

Starr, Colley, Karlan, Flood, Dixon, Sink-Burris, Hinkle, Jingozian vote to destroy records as soon as the minutes are approved. It passes.

Region 5 – North Representative Dan Karlan explained his vote as follows:

The point of the minutes is to record what happened. Normally, that should be sufficient, and if that is the case, recordings become superfluous. Retaining them can readily become a filing nightmare, and it is certain that whoever has that task will be routinely called on to make copies of meetings going way back. That isn’t appropriate, as a policy.

Ms Keaton responded to Mr Karlan’s statement:

It’s typical parliamentarian drivel which does not address any of current problems the LNC has with regard to abuse of the Executive Session privilege or how RRON is used to manipulate and distort the interests of the membership.

What does the term “appropriate” mean? What are the actual metrics as to how often people ask for records? As a non practicing lawyer, I find it irresponsible bordering on idiotic that LNC does not keep tapes of the meetings.

Mr Karlan added:

However, I will report that we also had a mail ballot since the meeting, in which the motion was to preserve specifically the tapes of THIS meeting for longer, and I voted for that motion, overriding the POLICY when special circumstances warrant it.

Recordings from the Past Year Never Made

I emailed Mr Kraus again, asking if the policy manual revision applied to recordings of meetings from the past year as well. “We have not recorded meetings for several years. Sorry.” said Mr Kraus.

Mr Kraus confirmed that the Sep 6-7 meeting was the first one taped in years, adding: “We have an excellent secretary whose minutes have been unquestionably accurate.”

According to copies of the LNC Policy Manual dated March 1, 2005 and December 10, 2007, this exact same recording policy was in effect on those dates as well.

Recordings for Executive Sessions not Falling Under Limits

Recordings were also mandated for LNC executive sessions not falling under the limits set in I.2.F.3, saying in I.2.F.5:

With regard to Executive Sessions relating to topics not enumerated above [I.2.F.3, see below], recordings shall be made and minutes shall be taken. Immediately upon return to Open Session, the LNC may either – by majority vote – treat those recordings and minutes consistent with i [I.2.F.3] (destroy them) or to treat those recordings and minutes consistent with ii (to maintain them as non-public records subject to possible future release upon a vote of two-thirds of those LNC members present at a future meeting).

The absence of recordings presumably means that the LNC believes all executive sessions over the past year have fallen under the limits set for them in I.2.F.3, which are:

  1. Legal matters (potential, pending, or past)
  2. Regulatory and compliance matters (potential, pending, or past)
  3. Contractual compliance
  4. Personnel matters (including evaluation, compensation, hiring, or dismissal)
  5. Board self-evaluation
  6. Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)
  7. Negotiations (potential, pending, or past)

However, former LNC Vice-Chair Chuck Moulton, who served on the LNC from 2004-2008, said that executive session is overused. “In my opinion the restrictions are not tight enough.” he added.

I.8: Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition

I.8 details what is considered offensive behavior and how it will be dealt with. At the September 6-7 LNC meeting, Ms Keaton reported that accusations of “sexual violation” were brought against her.

Starr: Motion to direct Angela Keaton to apologize two the sexually violated employees. #

The charges that I violated ExSession and that I sexually violated two employees. Yes, you read that right. #

The Policy Manual states that, among other things, the following conduct could constitute harassment:

  • off-color jokes
  • sexual innuendoes
  • unwelcome comments about a person’s body

And dictates the following course of action to deal with accusations:

In response to every complaint, LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the matter and will protect the individual’s confidentiality, as much as possible, recognizing the need to thoroughly investigate all complaints.

According to Region 7 Representative Rachel Hawkridge at least a partial investigation was conducted:

There was printed copy of blogged material handed out. When asked if she did it, Angela said “yes”. So, yes there was some investigation. The more telling, and more important point? Did anyone ask the two young staffers involved? Apparently, not until later.

Alleged Sexual Violation Victim “Seemed Flattered”

According to Mr Moulton, who was present at the meeting, one of the victims of Ms Keaton’s alleged “sexual violation” “seemed flattered” and said that “it was no big deal” in response to Ms Keaton calling him “very sexy”.

III.2.A: Position Description of National Secretary

According to III.2.A, minutes for conference calls or “other technology that permits remote access” “shall be mailed or e-mailed to all LNC members not more than 10 days after each meeting.” And III.2.E says that LNC conference call minutes shall be posted “to an archive section on the LP.Org website.”

According to Mr Moulton all conference calls are Executive Committee meetings, the minutes for which are not confidential. The minutes at for the Dec 31 2005 and earlier conference calls support this claim.

But the policy manual has different rules for executive committee minutes, limiting their distribution only to LNC members. From VI.1.C:

Minutes shall be kept of Executive Committee meetings … Executive Committee minutes shall be distributed to all LNC members … within 7 days of such approval.

“I have not seen any evidence the policy manual is not being followed in this area.” said Region 6 Alternate Representative Jake Porter.

At the time of publication, however, there was no comment from LP Secretary Robert Sullentrup and another LNC member I queried. I have not been able to confirm that the Executive Committee minutes are indeed being distributed to LNC members.

In any case, there have been at least nine conference calls since Dec 31, 2005, including:

  • June 1, 2006
  • November 5, 2006
  • May 23, 2007
  • September 30, 2007
  • January 27, 2008
  • April 5, 2008
  • May 4, 2008
  • May 10, 2008
  • July 16, 2008

Sources: 1, 2, 3.

And no minutes for these meetings are available at the archives. I did find minutes for the July 16, 2008 meeting.

Minutes for “other technology that permits remote access”

The LNC Discuss email discussion list qualifies as “technology that permits remote access”, but no minutes are posted for list activities and the archives are closed to the public. At the time of publication, there was no comment from Mr Sullentrup on this issue.

Supporting Materials List from LPHQ

According to III.2.H.:

The Secretary shall assure that LNC agendas, minutes, mail ballots, resolution updates, and other supporting material shall be sent without charge to all LNC members … Any Party member may obtain these materials at his or her own cost. A list of such material shall be available from LPHQ on request …

At the time of publication, there was no comment from LP HQ as to whether this list exists.

V.1.C. Contracts with Independent Contractors

Independent contractors doing business with the LNC are required to sign formal contracts which clearly set forth the parties’ intention that they be treated as independent contractors.

However, according to Paul, a veteran LP petitioner, this policy has not been implemented:

… there were no signed agreements [during the 2008 ballot access drive]. We are independent contractors.

We were contracted by LPHQ in most states. In Mass., I was first contracted 50/50 by the state and national parties, and later by the state party only. …

In IL and AL I was contracted by the national party (subbed through Pickens officially), and the same was true in PA with Mark and Andy.

However, earlier in the year in UT and AZ I dealt with the state/local parties directly. In all other states where I discussed going in, it was all through LPHQ. UT was the only written contract.

“Our attorney has asked me to not make any comments about these petitioners for publication. Sorry.” said LP Politicial Director Sean Haugh, in response to inquiries.

At the time of publication, there was no comment from Scott Kohlhaas, who reportedly also played a role in managing the LP 2008 ballot access drive.

LNC Member Fundraising

According to the leadership page:

Perhaps one of the most important task [sic] that is expected from a board member of the Libertarian National Committee is to raise funds for the organization through a combination of personal contributions and funds raised through personal solicitations.

However, there is no mention of this responsibility in either the bylaws or the policy manual.

“It appears to have been added after the new website was launched. I do not know who added it, but in the past I have requested it be removed.” said Mr Porter.

At the time of publication, there was no comment from any other LNC members I queried on this issue. LP HQ staff replied that they had forwarded the question to Mr Sullentrup. At the time of publication, there was no comment from him, either.

Related Files


This article (only) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

The Starr Resolution

In Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Wayne Allen Root on September 16, 2008 at 7:53 pm

The following is the letter Aaron Starr proposed the LNC send to Ron Paul, offered in response to the letter of apology suggested by Rachel Hawkridge.

September 13, 2008

The Honorable Ron Paul
Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
837 W. Plantation
Clute, TX 71531

Dear Dr. Paul:

The Libertarian National Committee is disappointed to learn that you have recently urged those in the freedom movement to vote for the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin, none of whom truly grasp the meaning of Liberty.

More than before, we remain committed to our nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root. We believe both of them boldly present the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom to the American people.

We invite you to restore your commitment to Liberty by supporting the only candidates on the ballot this year who understand the Constitution and are prepared to restore our republic to what the Founders believe

Toward Liberty,

The Libertarian National Committee:

What LNC Should Have Said To Ron Paul

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics on September 16, 2008 at 7:14 pm

In the wake of Libertarian nominee Bob Barr declining to attend Ron Paul’s press conference last week for “principled” third-party candidates, the Libertarian National Committee reportedly will neither apologize to Ron Paul nor formally urge Paul’s support of its ticket.   If LNC wanted to say something formally to Ron Paul, it should have said something like this:

The Libertarian National Committee regrets that last week you and Bob Barr missed a chance to stand together for liberty.  Many in the freedom movement are disappointed that you urged Americans to “send a message” by voting for “principled candidates” like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin — or by being a “principled non-voter”.  Examining the principles of these candidates makes us even more committed to our Libertarian nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root.  Unlike their opponents, our nominees boldly proclaim the fundamental principles of your Campaign For Liberty — especially “that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well”.

In American politics there are many who campaign against the Establishment, and seek to infringe on our individual rights in a somewhat different way than does the current two-party duopoly.  There are very few in American politics who actually campaign for liberty.  In the presidential election this fall, there will be only one choice available to voters who want to be counted both as supporting the Constitution and as opposing the nanny state’s efforts to protect us from our own personal and economic choices. We urge you to campaign for liberty by supporting the one presidential ticket that is most faithful to the enduring libertarian principles of your 1988 and 2008 races for the presidency.

Robert’s Rules And a Plea to Angela

In Libertarian Party-US on September 10, 2008 at 11:50 am
Brian Miller wrote:
An individual sitting on the body cannot be ‘removed from the room’ unless he or she is also removed from the body through a 2/3 vote. […]  LNC has one of two options — it can pass a resolution condemning Ms. Keaton (which she has full right to debate and participate within, including a vote, as a sitting member). Or, it can vote on expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee. It may not ‘kinda expel’ a member.
RRONR pp. 626-628 discusses “Breaches of order by members in a meeting.”  It says in part:
A motion offered in a case of this kind can propose that the offender be required to make an apology, that he be censured, that he be required to leave the hall during the remainder of the meeting or until he is prepared to apologize, that his rights of membership be suspended for a time, or that he be expelled from the organization. The offending member can, by majority vote, be required to leave the hall during the consideration of his penalty, but he should be allowed to present his defense briefly first.
It’s arguably a breach of order to divulge information from an executive session in near-real-time (i.e. before the weekend’s meeting ends, and more executive sessions are possible).  The LNC Policy Manual excerpts at make it clear just how serious the LNC is about confidentiality of such sessions.
Miller also wrote:
As a finalist in the Northeastern Parliamentary Debate Society for several years in the mid and late 1990s, and a semifinalist in the world competition, I am quite familiar with Roberts’ Rules. […] RR is not a difficult book. It’s about 90 pages long. Read the damn book and get to know it.
RRONR is 704 pages long.
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 :

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.

CALL TO ARMS: LNC at it again, voting on whether to ask Angela Keaton to resign

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on September 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm

This is a follow up to Angela’s liveblog for today, as well as the statement re Cory.

The LNC has removed Angela Keaton from the room, and are voting on whether to ask her to resign.

I have spoken with Angela, and she has stated that she will not resign.

This is the second day in a row that the LNC has attempted to remove this elected representative from the LNC.

Twitter updates from Angela Keaton:

Sitting in exile with Gene Hawkridge. Will I be excommunicated? You get better due process when three rabbis or the holy see meet.
14 minutes ago from web

Then it got really WEIRD…the Barr campaign sent message to Redpath to request to keep me on the LNC.
5 minutes ago from web


Lee Wrights and I spoke in the hall.

He asked me to that if the offer is made for me to apologize to do it b/c he needs me.

Shane Cory sent me a text telling me not to step down.


Updates from Twitter:

Meeting adjourned. Told by Redpath after the fact that the motion was that body should ask me to resign. That’s all. 9 minutes ago from web

Have no idea what the wording is or how anyone voted. Stewart Flood is out of my life. 8 minutes ago from web


From Twitter:

Knapp: please report. My hotmail is done. I may owe Cory an apology. He may never have said those things. Curious. 21 minutes ago from web

Cory scapegoats Angela Keaton to get out of entering into contract between LNC and Barr campaign

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Lies and the lying liars who tell them, Politics, Presidential Candidates on September 7, 2008 at 10:08 am

The following is part of Angela Keaton’s Day Two liveblog of the LNC meeting. However, due to its importance, it rates a post of its own.

Then it got weird.

I left an executive session. I had no idea this was coming.

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.

Well, doesn’t that beat all?


(Later message from Angela)

Kafka? Oh for the love of G-d! I’m about to be censured for blogging about the accusations against me.

I’ve been kicked out of the room b/c I blogged about the Cory accusations against me.

Oh, Afghanistan Res passed easily! While I sat in exile along in the hallway, the Admiral took his bags to the airport. “Hang in there,” he smiled.

UPDATE: The LNC is taking a vote on whether to ask Angela Keaton to resign.
From Twitter:

I was allowed back into make a brief defense. They are now going to vote to ask me to resign.

Angela Keaton: Day 2 LNC meeting liveblog

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on September 7, 2008 at 10:03 am

This is Day Two of LNC member Angela Keaton’s liveblog of LNC meeting. You can see Day One here.

Same disclaimer applies as yesterday. If you want a goddamn transcription, make it yourself.

These are my words and mine alone. –Keaton

8:10am Agenda

Carling on Audit
Boring monotone. Explains the audit co purpose. They are happy with …/Wilcock (sp?)

Asked Kraus to negotiate K. Saved 1k. Reviewed by staff.

Starr: What is cost per year? 11k for 2008 plus 2k for midyear review.

Redpath: Any sort of mang report w/ comments, will there be one issued?

Carling: yes. Unlike last audit, “big thumbs up.”

Report from Barr/Root Campaign

Carling: Obv media is doing great for Campaign. Barr is getting more and better and root is getting better than our past Pres. Fund Raising is sig better than past campaigns, but not nearly as good as the media coverage. Several people have vol to make calls including Root, Carling. Promised by Shane Cory a list of names. Did not get it. Told by Cory that Carling was not needed since they had “plenty of money.” (Carling quoting Cory.) Claims that Root, Bruce Cohen and others received similar treatment.

Redpath: That is contrary to what Cory said.

Flood: That’s not what Russ (Verney) told me.

Starr: Is there any particular agreement with the Barr/Root campaign and us?

Redpath: There is not. Spoken to Cory several times. Better with me to talk to Shane. There seems to be no interest in such.

Lark: Seemed to remember in Denver such was agreed upon. Need to flesh out.
Was this an “F-U”?

Carling: It was polite.

Redpath: if we explore it further, we have to go Ex Sess

Wrights: I want to hear it.

Lark: not subject guests to ExSess again until later

Jingozian: Why is there is no mention of Libertarian party on signs, bump sticks, website, carries more
recogn than the name Barr. Link it to something to some clout.

Carling:would have to get back to you.

Redpath: Wants answer to that question ASAP.
Asks Carling to call Cory.

Sullentrup: my sign says both Barr and Lib.

Wrights: It is a concern for website but not as important stickers/signs.
Everyone knows Obama is a dem. If we are running the campaign to mirror big two…

Starr: Agreement with Wrights.
Typically pols will put on signs and website that which get them votes.
Will focus on name and party where party will not help.

Jingozian: Now most americans don’t like two parties, they would find LP a pleasant alt.

Starr: The premise is that they would be more happy with us.

Redpath: Verney wanted to run campaign that would appeal to independents. We can stand to benefit by appealing to independents. 3% to retain ba status. If we get 3% we would get ba in many places.


Ruwart: LNC vote for law suit.
First heard of it when Phillies told me about it. Haugh reported it to last term but not new. Should we be voting for entering lawsuits? Always potential for backlash. I would like opp to discuss any lawsuit in any case where I am a plaintiff.

Dixon: The co should vote unless it is urgent and EC then can vote on it. Aware in Tx that
Obama/McCain lawsuit over missed deadline.

Starr: 2 issues. Question of size. If it is the equiv of small claims, no reason. Budget line item,
do I use cts to change public policy? (Starr’s voice like Carling’s is lower than usual. Can barely hear.)

Lark: Tech speak
Policy manual that the very requirement of budget and spending is part of the Co. LNC should vote.
Anytime LP takes legal action, at least EC.

Dixon: How many lawsuits per year? Do we need to stream line?

Kraus: report from Hall.

Hall: We pay for some law suits where we are not the plaintiff (LP Ohio, example)

Dixon: how many?
Hall: 2 suits.

Starr: Should Lark work on resolution for next meeting on law suits?
(This is quite manipulative–AK)

Jingozian: Wait, Wrights is waiting to say something.

Wrights: The issue is not money. My butt is on the line. Trying to help, but there is anticipated suit. I had to get this info from a member while I sit on the board. What does our name go on?

Redpath: I want to apologize to anyone who did not know and if I contributed to it. I deal with it everyday. I apologize for any problems that caused. It is controversial for some people but not for me. There is one ticket for the LP coast to coast. I would do the same if it were Mary Ruwart or Daniel Imperato.

Is there is a move to extend for 5?

Starr: bring it back to next meeting.

Open LNC list.

Can’t type this b/c it is my issue.

Starr, Karlin and Flood don’t want it.

Dixon wants to know if list can be divided b/t that is ExSess and other discuss.

Starr thinks that people won’t use the list b/c years ago someone used to forward the list.
No one will keep open discussion.

Wrights: we have two lists in NC. Read only one list. Everything on EC list is read only for any
member who wants it. Chair uses other list for confidential.

Karlin: everything should be treated confidential b/c accidents with scroll down lines one too many.

Hawkridge: blogs, members would be friendlier if they knew what was going on. It is a meeting.

Dixon: Does everyone use NC exclusive list because…?

Haugh: I have resentment b/c secret list was were my overthrow as NCED was plotted.

Hinkle: Basic problem. Perception of closeness and not enough information. If there is a perception
by members, we need each LNC member to solve that one on one to let members know what is going on. Solution in search of a problem. Two lists will not solve.

Starr: Would like to move on to next item of business.

Dixon/Hawkridge objection.

Move to extend.

Lark: Torn. I try to keep everyone informed. been both at large and regional. Too easy to make accidents. List is really for biz. Not sure how large a problem.

Dixon: Hinkle has it right. Self regulating. Regions can remove non-open members. At Large should not be reelected.

Starr: No win. We either don’t disclose or members don’t really understand the issues so you spend all your time justifying. People just bash you.

Folks, you are not going to get an open list. Your only solution is to stop reelecting the same people to the LNC. You elected these people. You are responsible.–AK

Flood: someone started meet up list to communicate with regions. These meeting would be much longer if we did not have the ability

Kraus: This would be an absolute burden for staff. You would have to pay to have someone do this. Who would stay in that job for more than a week?

Wrights: to Kraus, you are making something more complicated than it needs to be.

Tom Stevens.

Hawkridge: T.S. Member of Jud. Co. Stevens wants to funnel votes. He has no party loyalty. Was member of BTP. Hawkridge explains Stevens camp history.
Would like to ask him to resign?

(I don’t care about this issue. Some old kook is party hopping to from one fake party to another including this one. It’s just the LP, folks. Just the LP.–AK)

Starr has RR objection. Two types of offenses. One in meeting, one out of meeting.
In order to discipline, you have to give notice, have them show up….this motion out of order.

Debate b/t Wrights and Redpath over whether Carling can speak on the narrow parl issue.

Wrights make heroic stance by demanding that RR quotes come WITH citations.
Someone asks if the LNC even can remove someone from Jud. Co.

Starr suddenly decides that asking someone to resign is a big deal (unless you are me of course. These people are movement bottom feeders.)

Lark says it makes him queasy. Take it up in December.

Wrights: Jud. Co is indy committee which is elected by delegates. We have no ability other than ask (Hall nods head.)

Redpath: Why make a decision when we can punt? (That’s leadership, boys.)

Sullentrup: Send him a letter to find if he is a member of another party.

Postponed. Starr is beginning to run rough shod over Redpath.

End of tape.


Starr wrote a “shut Keaton up” motion. It’s not actually going as far as he thought. Wrights and I don’t want any part of it.

Dixon, Hinkle, Fox, Jingozian, Hawkridge, Sink-Burris think it is either a.) overbroad, 2.) already addressed in RR, 3.) other ways of handling this.


Bylaws Results

latham, karlan, moulton, h. scott, redpath, sarwark, oates, starr, bennett, hawkridge and manske


Kafka? Oh for the love of G-d! I’m about to be censured for blogging about the accusations against me.

I’ve been kicked out of the room b/c I blogged about the Cory accusations against me.

Oh, Afghanistan Res passed easily! While I sat in exile along in the hallway, the Admiral took his bags to the airport. “Hang in there,” he smiled.


I was allowed back into make a brief defense. They are now going to vote to ask me to resign.


CALL TO ARMS: LNC trying to censure Angela Keaton for writing on blogs

In Activism, Constitutional Rights, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on September 6, 2008 at 5:46 pm

I just received a call from Angela Keaton, and the LNC is attempting as I write this to censure her for writing on the blogs.

I heard their bullying of her for myself, with my own two ears (well, one ear, it was on the phone).  They clearly didn’t want me to hear what was going on, but as she openly pointed out to them, she needs to protect herself.

Why should the LNC care what Angela Keaton does, unless of course they really are hiding something as many have suggested?

If Angela Keaton is censured for exercising her First Amendment rights in the so-called “Party of Principle”, the LP should be censured by its members.  No money, no support for the Gestapo organization that it has become.

I will keep readers updated.

Breaking News: LNC NH lawsuit to be filed in the morning

In Courts and Justice System, George Phillies, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates on August 28, 2008 at 11:39 pm

According to an excellent source, the New Hampshire ballot lawsuit has been authorized by Libertarian National Committee Chair Bill Redpath, and will be filed in the morning (Friday 8/29).

As previously discussed, the lawsuit is expected to seek the removal of George Phillies from the ballot, and the placement of Bob Barr on the ballot. New Hampshire ballot law does not allow for substitution, and George Phillies is currently the LPNH presidential nominee.

Professor Phillies is already ballot-qualified, according to the New Hampshire Secretary of State. However, Professor Phillies says he will not step down, because he feels he has an ethical obligation to those who signed the petitions placing him on the ballot.

LFV will update as more information becomes available.

Seth Cohn: “A history of the LPNH, NH ballot access issues, and why this lawsuit is a mistake (part 1)”

In History, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on August 28, 2008 at 4:20 pm

The following was written by Seth Cohn, and is published on LFV with the permission of the author.

This is written for those with little or no background in this issue, which includes many LNCers, and perhaps some of the current LPNH Exec Comm.

I’m going to highlight important points with *this*.

Let’s start our timeline back a bit, but not too far back: 1997, a mere 11 years ago

Oh, wait, we must mention the Sec of State (SOS), Bill Gardner, in power for over 30 years now.

We’ll come back to him…
652:11 Party. – “Party” shall mean any political organization which at the preceding state general election received at least 4 percent of the total number of votes cast for any one of the following: the office of governor or the offices of United States Senators.
Source. 1979, 436:1, eff. July 1, 1979. 1997, 253:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1999.

Note that date: in 1997 (effective by 1999), the percentage required was raised from 3 to 4 points. The LPNH lawsuit brought in 2005-06 has more details for those who want them… lots of juicy legalese, and lots of failure to make a dent, by legal means.

In 2000, Don Gorman, of NH, loses the LP nomination with 166 votes (19%) for second place, to a second attempt by Harry Browne at 56% of the convention voters.. The “Browne Cloud” affair ends up being both an ethical and financial sore point for the LP for many years to come. George Phillies, a professor of physics, would be the central force in excising the Emerling (aka Cloud) influence from his own state several years later. (Those wondering why George is the preferred target of certain people still in LP, your question is answered – if you name names and point out the dirty laundry, and those names and those who worked alongside them remain in the org after you’ve done so, they certainly will hold grudges in the future.)

The entire story of this part of this history can be pieced together from lots of googleable posts like this:
and quite importantly George’s own book,
(Those interested in a ebook or paper copy should contact George.)

NH election results – *Effect in NH: Due to Harry’s failure to campaign in NH (or much of any place else), Ballot Access as a party is lost, when the only qualifying downstream candidate, Governor candidate Babiarz gets no supportive bump from a active Presidential Candidate, in fact, Browne does worse than Babiarz by more than 2 to 1. As a result, party status is lost, and won’t be regained thru 2008, present day. *

2002 –

Babiarz doubles his numbers to over 13K votes, but still short of 4% Senate candidate Blevens does over 9K, but also not enough.

2004 – Badnarik fails to make the ballot at all, due to short petition numbers. Blevens also fails to make the ballot for the other Senate seat, makes 100+ tallied write in votes.  *LP National complains, for years later, that Babiarz and others are solely responsible for the ballot failure (which should have ‘easy petition drive’, in part because Babiarz won’t run against Gov. Benson (who has friendly to libertarian causes, like the Free State Project).*

Benson loses, as well.

2006 – Gov candidate Kahn fails to make the ballot. Blevens, despite not being the convention nominated candidate for Congress District 2, petitions, and successfully makes the ballot as Libertarian. The ‘official’ LPNH nominee, Lapointe, FAILS to make the ballot. *The question of renaming Blevens from L to Indep is raised. The Sec of State, refuses to do so, saying there is nothing he can do… the petition said Libertarian, so that is what Ken will be listed as.* Ken makes 3K votes.

Post 2006 – In the light of past petition failures, and *National’s insistence that a post Denver convention group of local petitioners, perhaps with some paid help, can make the ballot ‘easily’, the stirring of the current issue are created.*

When I say “National”, I include Shane Cory, Stephen Gordon, Sean Haugh, and others who in various conversations with me, either via email or phone, all either questioned WHY NH failed in 2004 with a eye to blame NH folks like Babiarz, and repeated that NH petitioning wasn’t hard as we claimed, after all it was only 3000 sigs required, far short of states with 10x that amount needed. Oh how little they understood….

To be continued in part 2 (at the least, since this is going to get long and drawn out as we delve into the current mess and find the realities that few want to admit..)

Angela Keaton responds; says LP members should have open debate about integrity

In Activism, Courts and Justice System, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on August 20, 2008 at 2:20 pm

The following is a statement written by LNC At-Large member Angela Keaton.

Without a discussion as to the merits of this lawsuit, the members of the Libertarian Party should have an open debate as to whether the officers of the LNC have the necessary integrity to lead the party of principle.

Angela Keaton
At Large Committee
Libertarian National Committee

Ruth Bennett’s “Unhidden Agenda”

In Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on May 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm

From Ruth Bennett for LNC Chair:

Ruth Bennett, candidate for LNC Chair, today released her “Unhidden Agenda” highlighting her plans for the LNC and Libertarian Party if elected chair.

“Too many campaigns for office involve hidden agendas,” said Bennett. “That’s why I thought it was to turn things on their head and present an unhidden one.”

“These are the areas where I would like the LNC to focus its attention.”

1) Elections. So much of the material I see coming from Libertarian candidates is, well, just not very good. I would like us to develop a “Candidate in a Box” with a CD of basic brochures, principled text on a wide variety of issues, sample press releases, buttons/stickers/yardsigns, etc. We have some incredibly talented artists and designers and writers in the LP. When I was State Chair we produced two brochures that I will be distributing around the Convention. Take a look and see if they are the kind of thing you’d like the National LP to produce. Let’s engage the talented people we have in our Party to help make it easier for candidates to have a professional, polished appearance without a huge cash outlay!

2) Election and Ballot Reform — I support freer and fairer ballot access across the country. I have worked with and lobbied the state legislature for a better ballot law in Washington and am willing to carry that issue to any state that needs help. Ranked Choice Voting, IRV, and proportional representation are all possible antidotes to our election problems and we need to build on the small successes we have had to get more jurisdictions to expand their ballot access and reform their elections.

3) Lobbying — Lobbying at every level is an important part of our election process and should never take a back seat to just getting Libertarians elected. Toby Nixon, a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, was a Republican State Representative in Washington. Toby told me that he was surprised that when he really explained the consequences of a particular piece of legislation, he could often change a fellow Representative’s vote. We need to be lobbying our state and local legislative bodies on all kinds of issues to explain the consequences. This is a way to slow down or stop the increase of government in our lives and a great opportunity to show that Libertarians can actually accomplish something! Lobbying usually takes place outside of the election cycle, so it is a good way to keep volunteers involved and engaged. It is a fantastic outreach tool. It shows that we care about the same issues that others care about. I have successfully lobbied my state legislature and regulatory boards on issues related to the rights of families to care for their own dead. Sounds depressing, but it was exciting to help keep the state from taking power from families and giving it to funeral directors. Now I have a reputation in the community for being a person who cares. That, too, will help me should I run for office again. I also have a much better understanding of the legislative process and that is useful information.

4) Ballot States — without ballot access, the Libertarian Party becomes irrelevant. While this is Bill Redpath’s passion, he told me that the current LNC has not been as supportive of ballot access as he thought necessary. I want to make ballot access a top priority, so it is up to you, the delegates, to send a loud message to the LNC that you want ballot access support! Be sure to ask candidates their position on ballot access, take notes, and then hold them to it!

5) Outreach and grassroots activism — Fair booths, Google ads, and meet-ups; there are many ways to reach out, to educate, and to engage. I would like the National Party to seek out best practices from around the country to make them available to state and local affiliates. I also want to encourage Libertarians to get more involved with their communities. Join your local community council, fraternal or civil organizations, churches, and/or non-profits. We will gain contacts and learn about the issues from the ground up. As much as I consider myself a “principled” Libertarians, not everything is as black-and-white as some Libertarians seem to believe. Getting involved in your community is a way to see how the “real world” works… and it makes us better candidates! I had a full-page article about me and my work to get a cremation tax removed on the front page of the local homeless newspaper, “Real Change.” Do you think this will be valuable should I again decide to run for office? You bet it will!

“These are the issues I will work on over the next two years to set a better stage for the Libertarian Party in election season in 2010 and beyond. This is my Unhidden Agenda. Will you join with me?”