Press "Enter" to skip to content

Knapp falls short in judicial committee bid, Allen Hacker elected

Thomas Knapp was defeated in his bid for a seat on the LP’s judicial committee. Those elected were Ruth Bennett, David Nolan, Nick Sarwark, Tom Stevens, Travis Nicks, Joe Cobb, and Allen Hacker. Ruth Bennett was made chair of the committee.


  1. John P Slevin John P Slevin May 31, 2008

    I had no opinion that Weigel was spinning the story. From what I saw on CSPAN, he was there all the time, blogging from that pathetic set-up the LP set aside for bloggers, or from some laptop somewhere in the hall.

    If the LP wants better coverage, and “better” correspondents, look first to the LP to make a much better effort to accomodate journalists…after all, they don’t exist to serve the LP, but to serve the interests of their employers.

    All that said, why worry about what Weigel writes, the guy writes for Reason…who cares?

  2. Allen Allen May 31, 2008

    Yes, Austin,

    Wow. Except, I wasn’t elected. I was re-elected. Doesn’t that make it a double-wow?

    Matt, are you stuck in the past, hopelessly out of touch? Doesn’t that hurt? FYI, I long ago appeared before the LNC re the campaign. They appointed a committee. Findings: No reason to proceed. Need any help getting that bullet out of your foot, you probably should call someone else. Meanwhile, you could get a long way away from ignorance by reading the bylaws. I know doing that hurts too, but a lot less than making yourself look like… whatever.

    Tom, thanks for the immediate clarification, although I don’t know what might be the value of doing homework for someone who doesn’t bother. Anyway, thanks for standing for the committee. I suspect it was the biggest field of candidates for the JC in…well, maybe ever. -:- I’m not sure what there was to contest. Did you mean, to take part in the contest? You’d have had a whopping 2 minutes for nomination and remarks. None of us got to say much. And Yes, there were a lot of great candidates.

    Jerry, despite Reason’s Weigel getting it all different from what George told me, your “figure” is mere fantasy. He was present and blogging every time I walked by his chair. Makes me wonder what else you “know” that isn’t true, and whether Baldwin would even want any support you might base on that.

    G.E., The guy wasn’t armed. I was with Tony when he tossed the guy with an arrest warning between the debate scene with George, et al, and when he slipped up onto the stage to interrupt Bill Redpath and got himself dragged away and jailed.

    Caroline, you did an excellent job all the way through. A lot of people were impressed. Take your compliments as well-earned.

    Austin (again), is this iteration going to be an improvement?


  3. cmarbry cmarbry May 31, 2008

    In answer to G.E.’s question, a man who was either inebriated or perhaps mentally challenged did come into the first unofficial debate and disrupt it with his many interjections while the candidates were answering the questions. I believe it was Thursday night. He tried to rush the stage when he became frustrated that the moderator was not going to let him speak, and as it happened, he was sitting right in front of George and rushed at George.

    My son and I, both being martial artists, had moved up closer when we saw him getting disruptive, especially with him seated right in front of my candidate. We got him off the stage and back to his seat and kept having to subdue him, mostly verbally. Finally I asked the moderator to let him speak for a few minutes. He spoke about nothing for 30 seconds and then settled for a while, but then he started disrupting the discussion again. I got security, but when they were there, he was pretty well under control for a while. He did get disruptive again, but by that time, the debate was almost over, and it was no big deal.

    Was he armed? It’s hard to know. He never went for a weapon, but he did have something under his shirt. So no telling.

    In any case, he was arrested the next day when he disrupted yet another event the same way.

    To Jerry’s statement, thank you. It’s very sweet of you to say.

  4. Jerry S. Jerry S. May 29, 2008

    Mr. Phillies, after hearing Weigel’s “reporting and commentary” over the weekend on C-SPAN I have NO RESPECT for what the man reports. I figure he spends most of his time in the bar or free hospitality sweets listening to lies, rumors and innuendos. Also, being fed copy by people like Gordon.

    As for Reason, I wised up over a decade ago and let it lapse. If I had a current subscription I would be attempting to get a refund after hearing Mr.Weigil’s “libertarian commentary” !

    As for your state, I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if you guys nominate you and work on your continued effort to build your Party within MA. I currently plan to support Baldwin in my state. I just can’t overlook everything we currently know.

    BTW, thanks for running. In four of the past 9 cycles you would have been the nominee. Bet you didn’t expect over a dozen opponents when you signed on for this, did you ?

    Also will say I was extremely impressed watching C-SPAN, with the lady who nominated you. Think her name was Carolyn Marbury (sic?). The Party needs to use her more. She would make an outstanding spokesperson and/or candidate for any office, possibly including up to POTUS (however don’t know her education background?). It was a shame you were left with such a short time to speak, but to face reality Barr was unstoppable. Enjoy some rest, you earned it.

    *I think you were one of the best debaters this year. You could nick an opponent up in so many ways. By the end, if it was a prize fight it would have been stopped due to the opponent’s excessive bleeding. You (and others) just didn’t have Barr in the ring enough times to finish him…

  5. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 28, 2008

    George – Can you please speak on the story that you were nearly attacked by an armed gunman on Friday night? No one has ever verified this, to my knowledge.

  6. George Phillies George Phillies May 28, 2008

    Weigel’s summary of my remarks is false.

    I most certainly did not suggest that L Neil Smith could possibly be a legitimate candidate for a Libertarian Party. The suggestion that *I* mentioned Smith is utterly inadmissable.

    I did state that a member of my state committee had requested a special state convention. A voting majority of my State Committee, not my State Delegation, is neopagan. I also noted that I am in the same position as a State Chair, a voting majority of whose *state committee* is African American, and whose national party has just nominated a Grand Wizard of the KKK. It’s a very difficult position to be in.

    Based on the number of times Reason magazine has misrepresented my positions, I urge that you question anything else they say, either.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp May 27, 2008

    Hi, y’all!

    I don’t know if it would have made any difference, but I wasn’t even there to contest the Judicial Committee election (I was traveling with others and had to leave).

    It looks like a good judicial committee to me.

    The Judicial Committee has no authority to “investigate the Badnarik ’06 campaign.” All it does is review actions of the national committee or the national convention on appeal. If such an appeal related to a campaign in which he was a principal, I’m confident that Mr. Hacker would recuse himself.

  8. MattSwartz MattSwartz May 27, 2008

    If Allen Hacker is on the judicial committee, it’s safe to guess that they aren’t going to investigate the 06 Badnarik campaign.

  9. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 27, 2008

    Peter – I heard the same thing, but I couldn’t remember if George told me in confidence or not, s I didn’t report it.

  10. Austin Cassidy Austin Cassidy May 27, 2008

    Wow… Allen Hacker….

Comments are closed.