Personal Freedom Party Faces Challenge In Ballot Access Drive

The Personal Freedom Party is an essentially nonexistant politcal party in New York State without a website, formal organization, bylaws, more than a handful of legitimate members, state recognition of any kind or anything else. The “party” has a mere four likes on Facebook. Tom Stevens, an attorney who founded the Objectivist Party and ran as its presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012, is the leader of this frivolous political organization.

The paper organization announced in May at what was termed a nominating convention that it would run professorial chess player and 2012 Libertarian Party presidential contender Sam Sloan for Mayor of New York City, Stevens for for NYC Public Advocate, and Richard Bozulich for Comptroller. Two paid petitioners were hired to collect 7,000 signatures for the ballot access drive.

Apparently, according to Stevens’s blog, the slate of candidates tried to also get on the ballot as Republican Party candidates. New York is one of only eight states were electoral fusion is legal, meaning that candidates may appear on the ballot more than once as members of multiple parties. However, the only other states that typically practice fusion are South Carolina and Connecticut. The GOP line needed 3,750 signatures. The blog post explained that Sloan spent $22,900 to hire several petitioners, several of whom were flown in from out of state.

In total, 4,517 signatures were filed, but they were challenged. A hearing was held at the New York City Board of Elections on July 30th, at which the signatures were rejected because the witnesses to the signatures were not members of the Republican Party.

According to Stevens, Sloan may discontinue financing the drive to get the Personal Freedom Party candidates on the ballot.

Source:

http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2013/07/sam-sloan-switcheroo-sinks-personal.html

36 thoughts on “Personal Freedom Party Faces Challenge In Ballot Access Drive

  1. Mark Axinn

    Chris–

    The headline needs to be changed.

    It’s much too soon to come to any conclusion about the Personal Freedom Party as the first date to submit petitions for independent bodies and new start-ups like PFP is not until August 13. (The last date is August 20) Accordingly, you can only report that Sloan’s slate has been challenged and thrown off as potential Republican candidates.

    BTW, Sloan filed a lawsuit (shocker!!!) against BOE and has a hearing scheduled for Monday. All of his forms had non-compliant witness statements (way to go Sam, spend $20K on petitioning and don’t bother to find out what the damn form is supposed to say before you start), and his likelihood of success is somewhat less than zero.

  2. Dr. Tom Stevens

    It is obvious to me now that Krzysztof Lesiak is a complete idiot.

    First, he is no journalist and is very biased – saying the Personal Freedom Party is “virtually non-existent”, a “frivilous political organization” and a “paper organization”. Just because a group doesn’t have a presence online doesn’t reflect its real strength. He should not be writing as if he is a reporter.

    Second, the article is completely inaccurate factually. As Mark Axinn pointed out, the deadline for submission of petition signatures is in the future.

  3. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Despite my request never to be mentioned on IPR again, writers can’t stop posting all sorts of links about my involvements and accomplishments.

    On the one hand, I am said not be newsworthy and yet the gnats can’t help but be attracted to the fire.

    “Live or perish in flame!”

  4. Thane Eichenauer

    I agree with Dr. Tom Stevens in his objection to the description of the Personal Freedom Party (of New York state) as “virtually non-existent”, a “frivolous political organization” and a “paper organization”.

    The Libertarian Party and its candidates (not to mention most third parties in the last 3 decades) have in the past been labelled with similar terms that disparage the passionate, principled and very real efforts that people put into its behalf.

    So long as a person is willing to attempt to place a political party and its candidates on the ballot it should be given fair and dispassionate coverage on IPR or any other media. An aspiring political party may not have a “website, formal organization, bylaws, more than a handful of legitimate members, state recognition of any kind” but so long as it is possible for it to qualify it should not receive coverage of this sort.

    “state recognition”? Come on now, that is what the bureaucratic endeavor is intended to accomplish.

    I think that IPR and Krzysztof Lesiak can and will do better in the future.

  5. Steve Scheetz

    I believe the only difference between the PFP being and not being on the ballot is a couple of days. I am pretty sure it is not legal for them to use the same signatures for two different attempts at getting on the ballot, and given the quality of signatures they have produced to get on the ballot as republicans, they will be thrown out if they actually do attempt to get on the ballot.

    As it is, I am in favor of any small party attempting to buck the system, even if it is someone as incompetent as Tom Stevens, because the system is so corrupt it does not deserve to be respected, and I am certain that the good doctor, if nothing else, will bring a large number of laughs and an appropriate level of respect to the process…

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  6. Dr. Tom Stevens

    I would like to see the “over the top” comment made by the author. Please send it to me at DrTomStevens at aol.com

  7. Don Heiley

    So tom stevens is violating his own edict in posting where he did not want anyone to post about a subject that he did not want anyone to cover.

    Anyone reading his silly blog will see that he writes his opinion as if he is a news reporter covering what someone else is saying.. LOL this has to, at the very least, inspire laughter at his juvenile responses to being called out on his bad petitioning.

    BTW, if ever there were a video to capture tom stevens, it is this one, and one will see why within the first 15 seconds of the video. ENJOY!

    DH

  8. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @21

    Also, nothing in your article even attempted to refute that your Personal Freedom Party is a bullshit organization that exists in theory only. It’s been around for a whole three years? Wow! I’ve been national chairman of the Supreme Pizza, Porn and Pot Party for the last five years. Ha! I’ve got you beat in that regard. See how easy that was?

  9. johnO

    Is Kristin Davis still running on this line or just trying with LP for NYC Comptroller race?

  10. The Rev. Professor Councilman Former Blackboard Monitor Erik Viker

    The many political parties created by Tom Stevens are very entertaining. IPR staff, please never stop covering these “organizations.”

  11. William Saturn

    @24

    I was recently reelected to the Wikinews Arbitration Committee, but I haven’t done anything for it because no disputes have arisen since I was elected two years ago.

    I thought of doing a Stevens-esque blog report about it, but then I realized, there are better ways to use my time.

  12. Thane Eichenauer

    Re: Krzysztof Lesiak // Aug 4, 2013 at 9:53 am

    If your contribution to IPR is to write articles that are clearly biased about certain people and their political endeavors then you have done that and done it well.

    Several of the disparaging terms in the above article are only true in some people’s opinion, some, perhaps most may be true and yet still be clearly biased in their use. How many of the terms are relevant when it comes to discussing, describing and covering the issue of the quest for ballot access for a new political party in New York? I would assert that few to none of the terms are topic relevant. If any of the disparaging terms are relevant as far as ballot access and the legal hurdles involved certainly your article does nothing to point out which are and which are not. Those terms that are potentially not relevant should either be omitted or modified so they are neutral and descriptive and not clearly disparaging.

    You then further comment that the “Personal Freedom Party is a bullshit organization that exists in theory only.” There are two claims packed into that sentence. I would assert that a person could argue either side of “Is the PFP or is not the PFP a bullshit organization?” and have a 50%+ chance of persuading any given audience as to the truth or falsity of the claim. As for “exists in theory only” I would say that as soon as someone hired two paid petitioners that the Personal Freedom Party ceased by any reasonable measure to exist in theory only.

    I believe it would be possible to write an article on the effort of Stevens to qualify the PFP for the New York ballot which accurately describes the party and the likelihood of success (or lack thereof) of its ballot access effort without using terms that Stevens or I would object to. What is it that prevents you from doing so? Are you unable or just disinclined? If you are capable of writing a article full of facts such that neither Stevens nor I can dispute the accuracy of then I strongly encourage you do to so.

    I live in Arizona and have minimal first hand knowledge of New York state ballot access laws. I am haven’t met Dr. Tom Stevens. I would prefer to read unbiased news reporting on any political party especially those that claim to wish to advance freedom so as to accurately identify people and groups worth supporting. Your article and comments only muddy the water in this regard due to your mix of what may well be facts and other information which is clearly included because of your personal opinion.

  13. Reality Watch

    re — “Personal Freedom Party is a bullshit organization that exists in theory only.”

    Couldn’t the same be said about the Libertarian Party of New York at this point?

  14. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @32

    “Doctor” Stevens is a dangerous person to the LP and he needs to be ostracized from it at all costs. What I said may have been biased and opinionated, but it is true nonetheless. A political party is not some stupid Facebook page run by some deranged moron that has only four likes. LOL

    @33

    At least they run candidates who get on the ballot. They may win tiny percentages, but they’re at least trying, and could get 50,000 votes in 2014 to qualify for full ballot access in the state, even though it will be a very difficult task. New York would have a qualified political party if it weren’t for the slimy gang of Roger Stone/ Kristin Davis/ “Doctor” Stevens who did everything they could to defame Warren Redlich and ran Davis on some made-up line. Davis won 22,000 votes, Warren had 48,300 IIRC. If the madam hadn’t been in the race, you can bet that Warren would have crossed the threshold.

  15. paulie

    I agree that the language in the post itself is unnecessarily biased. The post should have been more objective, and the opinions posted in the comment section.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *