Earlier, we reported that Sean Haugh — in violation of Massachusetts electoral law — ordered valid petitions to get the LP presidential candidate on the ballot be burned. Worse yet, these petitions were paid for by the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, not the national party, giving Mr. Haugh no claim whatsoever to them.
Haugh instructed Carol McMahon, over whom he has no authority, to break the law as part of a personal vendetta against veteran petition circulator Gary Fincher. Fincher has reportedly filed a complaint with the police and will pursue charges against Mr. Haugh. He is also taking the matter up directly with the LP Judicial Committee.
Below is Mr. Fincher’s letter to the committee. In it, he says he hopes “some real action” will be taken against Haugh for “openly advocating a criminal act.”
Dear [Judicial Committee member]
I’m writing this to you in your official capacity as member of the Libertarian Party judicial committee. I’m writing to call your attention to recent misconduct by our national political director, Sean Haugh, in hopes of some real action being taken against him.
This past Friday I was alerted to a very disturbing email (which I’ve copied and attached with this letter), written and sent out by Haugh to LP petition circulator/activist Mark Pickens. Make no mistake about it – this email was written in Haugh’s official capacity as Libertarian Party national political director.
In the email, Haugh cites a personal disdain for me as justification for promising to instruct LPMA officials to burn (Haugh uses the qualification “quite literally†for emphasis) my recently turned in 2,000 signatures (estimated ballpark 90% validity). I am a seasoned veteran libertarian activist/consultant/circulator (since 1991) and have never seen anything so unprofessional and reckless coming from someone who holds a national staff title. Here is one of our national staff members openly advocating a criminal act!
It is unclear from this email whether or not I should actually fear for my safety, or fear being a victim of violent vandalism from somebody, acting under the direction of our political director. However, I will be taking this matter to the police for investigation. Wording on the Massachusetts petition states: “Warning – criminal penalty for unlawfully signing, altering, defacing, mutilating, destroying or suppressing this petition; fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.â€
This threat is nonetheless real: a credible source just informed me that Haugh followed through with his threat and phoned LPMA ballot drive coordinator Carolyn McMahon (whose name is actually on the petition, as a presidential elector) and instructed her to not pay me and to burn “literally†any petitions she gets from me. I have a contract with the state party for payment so Haugh is acting illegally on a couple of different fronts.
In 1992, at the urging of then Libertarian Party national ballot access committee chairman Bill Redpath, I became involved too in assisting other third parties struggling to get on state ballots, and so these organizations became my clients for-hire. I worked throughout 2004 to get Nader on the ballot in several states, and received a glowing recommendation for my work from Nader’s campaign manager, Jason Kafoury. However, it was recently brought to my attention that Sean Haugh – again, acting in his official capacity as national LP political director – attempted to direct Kafoury and the Nader campaign to refuse to hire me, an attempt that ultimately failed. The point here is, the LP political director has no business interfering in contractual relations between a free-lance circulator and a client of a completely separate political organization. This is way out of line.
For that matter, what business does Haugh, at national, have interfering between a free-lance circulator and a state party affiliate in a mutually-satisfactory arrangement? Or, even for that matter, why should a political director be unilaterally “blacklisting†a perfectly good petition circulator who is prolific and does high-quality work for no legitimate reason other than he has a personal disdain for that circulator? Yet Haugh has done exactly this at least three times (known to me) in the weeks since the Denver convention alone!
In addition to his curious blacklisting of me right after the convention, Haugh also decreed that Andrew Jacobs, another longtime LP activist/circulator, who has done excellent work in multitude states with impeccably high validity was not to work on any petitions from now on. Then, of course, this email highlights Haugh’s penchant for unprofessionally flying off the handle to take punitive measures in a figurative “off with your head†gesture to Pickens, thereby blacklisting him. The irony is, Haugh’s guilt-by-assocation pretense to fire Pickens was not true: Pickens is currently in Colorado working on state ballot initiatives there, and I was turning in my signatures directly to LPMA chair George Phillies in Worcester, Mass. Pickens does not deserve to be blacklisted any more than I do.
I actually have a very long list of petition coordinators in and out of the party who not only would love to have my services on petition drives, but could vouch for not only my productivity but the high-quality of my work. One of these, of course, is the aforementioned Phillies, but I have others, and I will list them at the end of this letter.
Haugh, on the other hand, apparently has a long track record of disparaging good activists for highly suspect reasons at best, and then going another length to attempt to ensure that they suffer further, as evidenced by Haugh’s recent overt support for one of LP Susan Hogarth’s Republican congressional opponents in N.C., Haugh’s public smearing of LP candidate Kevin Barrett of WI, and Haugh’s hand in the infamous anti-Ruwart press release. As for that press release, I have also included documentation that Haugh was probably the principal crafter of that press release; if Shane Cory resigned over that release, why hasn’t Haugh also?
Haugh rarely confronts directly his targets, and to be sure, won’t talk directly to me (I asked him face to face in Denver to sit down like gentlemen and discuss his points of contention with me but he flatly refused). But I’ve heard through the grapevine from his talking to others that he is citing three things about me, all of which are either false, ridiculous or flimsy.
One, he is citing a 10-year-old controversy from N.M. over a voter registration drive I was part of. While this controversy is over and behind me, it is sure to get resurrected upon Haugh’s confronting, so a very brief sympopsis is in order.
In that N.M. VR drive, my production of LP voter regs (with my late wife Karen) was so high that the elections bureau started leaking rumors to the effect that so many people could not possibly be registering Libertarian, but “had to†have been tricked into doing so. The tricking allegations were completely false – LPNM coordinator Ron Bjornstad secretly watched us work and concluded no one was tricked, and an investigator hired by LPNM interviewed Bernalillo County Elections Director Robert Lucero, who said that he visited our registration booth posing as a new registrant and wasn’t tricked – but I did make a strategic blunder on that drive regarding SSNs on the forms, a mistake I called attention to with then-national director Steve Dasbach. Steve instructed me to make amends for my error which entailed me to undergo a one-year probation period after which time I would be able to get paid the balance for my N.M. work, then resume working on future drives for the party. The year was up in 2001 and while I worked again for the party in 2004, I didn’t receive my pay as promised…until I wrote a letter to national chair Bill Redpath, briefing him on the entire story, start to finish. Redpath responded to my letter by instructing the national office in April 2007 to finally pay me the balance (without interest) for my 1999 NM work. This was done after ballot access expert Richard Winger reminded Redpath that all my NM voter regs ended up counting despite the controversy, and also that good circulators who are also solid libertarians do not grow on trees and should be treated right. (In fact, Richard is the one who provided me with the list of judicial committee members I am using for this letter, and the one who encouraged me to write to you guys in the first place, over Haugh’s obstructing me from working on LP petition drives.)
To top matters off regarding NM, I talked to Steve Dasbach at the Denver convention, who told me that the NM ordeal is over and done, and should be behind us. Steve, who was national director at the time of NM, told me he even informed Haugh of this. Yet Haugh still continues to make special phone calls to state party officials telling them to interfere with my work and citing NM as one of the justifications (Carolyn McMahon, for one). I find this outrageous.
Two, Haugh is citing an event from last summer in N.C. when I was there teaming up with another circulator who was contracting with the LPNC for signatures. We were circulating the LPNC petition for pay, but carried voter registrations only as a courtesy to those voters who weren’t already registered, who could then sign the petition. One woman filled out a registration form with me and signed the petition but during the course of the interchange asked me where she would actually go vote. I told her that I didn’t know but that she’d probably get something in the mail. Realizing that I may have given her incorrect information (I had received voter cards in the mail that didn’t include actual voting location), I called her later to offer to look up that information for her, if she wished. She actually said that she would appreciate that, and gave me her email address for me to email her that information. Even though all the information on a voter registration form is public information, including the phone number I used to call her, she nevertheless called up the elections office, as well as the Wal Mart location where she’d registered with me, that next day to complain that I had her “private†information! This turned into a brouhaha that shouldn’t have, as this voter expected the Buncombe Co. elections office to actually already know everyone out there collecting voter registrations, which is not the case. Upon learning that I was an “unknown†source to the County, she proceeded with her crusade to stop me from working on registrations. Apparently this even led to Wal Mart’s calling the police, who came out and investigated me and then cleared me. Please note that I was cleared by the police.
Sean Haugh’s retelling of the story, however, contains the embellishment that I “sexually harassed†the woman, something that is not even remotely true. Incredibly, Haugh’s rise from NC to national has compounded this misunderstanding and allowed it to reach a status that it never should have enjoyed. I did absolutely nothing wrong in that episode, let alone something that should merit my not being allowed to work on petition signatures or call my work into question.
And finally, Haugh is bothered by “waves†I’ve created within the party over a drive I worked on in Nebraska in 2006 where fundraiser Scott Kohlhaas embezzled funds that were supposed to go to paid circulators. Circulators who go for months without receiving thousands of dollars in pay tend to complain, as was the case with me (and Andrew Jacobs). In short, after six months of not receiving my pay for signatures, I complained loudly and often, and made no uncertain terms of my dissatisfaction with the situation and with Kohlhaas. It actually took almost a year for us to start to get any appeasement at all on that NE pay situation but the multitude complaints and “rocking the boat†left me looking somewhat of a “bad guy†in Haugh’s eyes. Hence, the personal disdain.
I have shared the information of Haugh’s criminal threats with my Nader contact in the state, and he has said that it is very “disturbingâ€, and agreed that it is unprofessional and not acceptable.
Getting to the bottom line, I am writing to request that Sean Haugh be removed or asked to resign his national staff, and be eligible for no other national staff position. The open advocacy of a criminal act should not be tolerated, I understand there are others calling for his removal and he has a long list of creating turmoil. My belief is that things will only go from bad to worse as long as he’s in that position.
The other thing I’m requesting is that I be reinstated as a potential circulator/contractor for the party, at all levels. A consultation with the very respected Richard Winger is really all that is necessary to confirm that this should happen, I think. But I am also going the extra mile to provide you with a list of other references.
I have never forged signatures, cheated or turned in bad work in my long career. I have always had some of the highest validity in the business, and my volume has often been spoken highly of. For instance, I just turned in 2,000 LP petitions in a period of a week and a half. During that same period, Freedom Petition Management, who has a crew of 30 circulators, turned in 4,000 LP petitions. A simple calculation of the math should say something about my value as a productive circulator.
I appreciate your time and attention in reading this letter, and I thank you in advance for your swift and thoughtful action.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Fincher
Update: Gary Fincher has sent a second letter to the LP Judicial Committee. His first was sent back on June 29; this one is dated today, July 4.
Dear [Judicial Committee Member]:
I am following up on my letter to you of last week, regarding Sean Haugh’s actions on June 27.
First, as I was advised, I passed on a criminal complaint to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth/Elections Division, the Dartmouth , Mass. , police, and the Durham, N.C. County (where Sean Haugh lives) Board of Elections, for investigation. I am also including for your perusal a copy of the actual Massachusetts statute that not only makes it a crime to willfully destroy nomination papers or petitions, but also makes it a crime to do an act toward commission of a crime, even if it fails.
For better or worse, this issue has been tossed about and discussed among dozens, if not hundreds, of Libertarians, on message boards, email and phone over this past week, which has brought up some more serious (to the long term welfare of the party, at least) offshoot issues stemming from or related to Sean’s actions.
Carolyn McMahon has now publicly stated that Haugh used his position as political director to attempt to procure her cooperation in the destruction of valid nomination paper, in violation of Massachusetts law. (Although, the interstate nature of this may in fact make this end up being a federal crime, but I’m only speculating.) Haugh separately announced his intent in a documented email and the phone call to McMahon, ruling out any excuse of temporary loss of reason. The fact that he threatened it in an email, then later followed through on his threat is convincing enough that this was a premeditated crime, and that his intent was to see the crime through to the actual destruction of the nomination papers.
What’s disturbing to me and many other Massachusetts Libertarians who are basically among Haugh’s victims (as well as countless other decent Libertarians across the country) is the fact that Sean Haugh felt comfortable enough in the commission of this crime to carbon-copy his intentions to Robert Kraus, acting national director of the Libertarian Party, and ballot access staffer Scott Kohlhaas. Why would Haugh do this? Why would he feel comfortable enough with these gentlemen to actually share such knowledge with them? Another question would be, when these gentlemen received the email (especially Haugh’s boss, Robert Kraus) what actions did they take? Did Kraus censure Haugh? Did Kraus turn the email over to the authorities for investigation? Did Kraus discipline or fire Haugh? Did the national office issue a press release condemning the advocacy of a crime (especially one that hits to the core of a political party such as destroying nomination papers geared toward ballot access paid for by donors’ funds) by their political director? Did Kraus fire or otherwise discipline Haugh for his misconduct? If not, then why not? Are we seeing a cover-up of a crime, right at the top of our national party, or does Kohlhaas and Kraus claim that the email somehow got overlooked? (Both of them!) As this issue spreads among the party, I’m quite sure that members are going to want some answers to these very significant questions.
This crime is not the same as if Haugh was caught for drunk-driving, for example, or knocked over a liquor store. Those crimes (in my hypothetical-only example) have nothing to do with Haugh’s official duties as political director, or, more deeply, the mission, function and spirit of our political party. This crime, in my opinion and as I see it, strikes at the core of what the party is all about. In fact, I would like to assert that officially advocating the destruction of donors’ resources and the destruction of valid, viable ballot access instruments is the one cardinal sin a political party operative can commit!
We all make mistakes; but it seems to me that this one not only demonstrates malicious, premeditated attempt, but is of such an egregious nature (reckless disregard for ballot access instruments and donors’ funds) as to demand it not be swept under the rug.  I don’t see how a political party can allow someone with such contempt for its fundamental functions to continue to be in any position of authority – I just can’t fathom it.
I don’t think my first letter to you underscored enough the issue of intent to defraud LP donors. Haugh’s primary focus may have been to screw over me (I believe I may have a civil case against him or his position) but given that he clarified his intent to include destruction of the signatures “whether they paid for them or notâ€, he is showing reckless disregard, if not actual contempt for, thousands of dollars in precious donors’ funds, at a time of financial hardship (I’m told) for the party.
I just received word from Carolyn McMahon that a preliminary validity screening was done on my 2,000 signatures. She told me that, using an old database (from a couple of years back), my worst sheet had 70% validity; best sheet had 82% validity. When my signatures ultimately get verified by the various town clerks, using up-to-date voter databases in towns where the clerk even knows some of the voters, chances are those figures will get a 10 percentage point boost, placing my validity on those 2,000 signatures well over the threshold of generally acceptable validity (70-75%). I also just got word from my Constitution Party client that, when they examined the thousands of signatures I turned in, and compared them to those brought in by the petition firm who’s retained by not only them but by Sean Haugh for LP signatures, their volunteer told their national coordinator, “Why can’t the petition firm’s signatures be like Gary Fincher’s?â€
Ironically, my higher-quality signatures were submitted at a discounted rate: my consulting fee amounted to $1.50 per signatures, while the petition firm got $2 per signature from Haugh. Please note that Sean tried to burn my signatures, and not the petition firm’s signatures. Therefore, if my 2,000 signatures had been burned, I would have received $3,000 in party funds (donors’ money) legitimately, and another $4,000 of donors’ money would have had to been outlaid by national for the petition firm to collect signatures that had already been paid for, unnecessarily, to pay to replace my high-validity signatures with a batch of lower-validity signatures!
Does the national director, the national chair, or the LNC find this in any way acceptable? Can Sean Haugh actually try to defraud donors out of thousands of dollars and feel satisfied of no repercussions? But this was Haugh’s actual intent! Has hard-gotten donors’ funds become that expendable, that they can be wasted in such a manner?
Anyone who is not thoroughly disgusted by this doesn’t understand the importance of donors’ funds and their relationship to ballot access and running candidates. I have already heard from multiple donors that this incident has either made them take a harder look at donating in the future, or made them express regret for having just donated funds to national.
So I ask of you: please, please, for the sake of the party and its donor base, do not sweep this aside. And look into the possible conspiracy/cover up at the national office is Kraus did in fact receive that email but did nothing.
I am available for assistance in any way I can be of help.
And thank you once again.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Fincher
“richardwinger // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Sean Haugh is a dedicated Libertarian who works very hard for the Libertarian Party. So is Gary Fincher. They are almost identical in their kunckleheaded determination to injure each other, even to the point of injuring the very cause they have been working for, for decades. They have both made mistakes; who doesn’t? We should forgive them both and they should forgive each other.”
Gary is 100% in the right. Gary did absolutely NOTHING to Sean Haugh. The entire problem was caused by Sean Haugh’s unstable, vindictive attitude.
Sean Haugh is a guy who shows up at a lot of meetings and acts like a “nice guy” and kisses lots of people’s rear ends, especially the rear ends of those he thinks are important, however, this does not mean that a darker side of his personality does not exsist.
The first few times that I interacted with Sean Haugh I had ASSUMED that he was a good guy as well. My assuming that he was a good guy ended after he stabbed me in the back and screwed me over.
Sean Haugh is like one of those guys that you hear about who committs a heinious crime and people who know him get interviewed and say things like, “But he was such a nice guy, I can’t believe that he’d do something like that.”
Well believe it. The email where he says to burn petition signatures “(quite literally)” and blackballs Mark for no legitimate reason gives one a peak into the darker side of Sean Haugh.
FOR THE RECORD:
Despite the comments in support of me, I am NOT bashing or criticizing national chair Bill Repath.
I have merely reported that thus far, he has not responded to any of my solicitations of feedback from him.
“We should forgive them both”
Forgive me for what?
And why forgive Sean Haugh for PURPOSELY and MALICIOUSLY trying to injure me?
Please note that I NEVER tried to injure Sean Haugh. Where do you get that from? In fact, I tried to calmly and reasonably talk to him in Denver, to sit down and ascertain what his issues are with me, and perhaps iron them out. But he refused to talk to me, probably because he had this criminal threat in mind instead.
Sean Haugh, in using his positiion to officially instruct state party operatives to destroy viable ballot access instruments and to defraud donors out of thousands of dollars, has committed the ONE cardinal sin of a political party official.
I’m surprised that you’re taking this lightly, Richard. Sean Haugh has openly announced that he seeks to impair ballot access, to the point of willingness to commit a crime; I am trying to DEFEND that assault on ballot access.
How in the world can I be faulted, and how in the world can Sean Haugh be defended?
Richard wrote: “Sean Haugh is a dedicated Libertarian who works very hard for the Libertarian Party. So is Gary Fincher. They are almost identical in their kunckleheaded determination to injure each other, even to the point of injuring the very cause they have been working for, for decades. They have both made mistakes; who doesn’t? We should forgive them both and they should forgive each other.”
With all due respect, I beg to differ. I have made mistakes, but never have I committed a crime, let alone one of such a cardinal nature as Haugh just made.
I am a dedicated Libertarian who minds my own business and collects signatures and doesn’t bother anyone until they cross the line.
Sean Haugh is NOT a dedicated Libertarian – he is dedicated only to destroying those he doesn’t like (there was never any reason to dislike me in the first place!).
We are nothing alike. Let the record show this.
I would never instruct anyone to destroy party instruments, and defraud donors out of money. Ever!
This was maliciously done, not a “mistake”.
I have never been malicious in my life; I am only now in the position of defending myself from malicious actions toward me (and other party members and voters).
This Woolsley character wrote:
“Fincher’s side of the story where he explains that he called up a voter and she called the police, etc. Well, that provides more than enough explanation for me that the national LP would never want to have this guy associated with an LP ballot drive again.”
What the hell kind of logic is that?
First of all, I stated that the WAL MART called the police, not the woman. The police cleared me in a matter of minutes, after interviewing me. This should have been the end of the matter.
But are you even smart enough to realize just how illogical, contradictory and hypocritical you are being, in this one post??
You also wrote: ” Anyway, Fincher’s behavior in this situation just provides further evidence that National should never pay a dime to him again. His behavior at this time (calling the police) is another reason why the LP shouldn’t pay him a dime ever again.
Unbelievable!
Let me see if I have this straight: I call a woman to offer to assist her in finding her voting location and [she?] calls the police with no evidence of a crime (good thing). ..then, Haugh embellishes the story with no evidence, proof or even lead, blacklists me for no reason pursuant to the new false story, and later commits a real crime stemming from an empty rationale existing only in his mind, I go to the police with absolute hard evidence of this, corroborated with another credible witness (bad thing)?
If my “punishment” for turning over real, hard evidence to the police that proves someone committed a real crime is to be permanently blacklisted, then what, pray tell, should have happened to Wal Mart for calling the police based on some flimsy notion that making a helpful phone call fell into criminal territory?
Are you on acid or something?
Richard wrote: “This may even be used against us in court. ”
If it does, then it’s Haugh’s fault, not mine. Don’t you remember that I was simply up here in MA minding my own business, gathering good signatures, when Sean committed his egregious act? If he’s fired and the LP distances himself from him, then that would go a long way toward not having this being used against the LP in court. If the LP doesn’t, then couldn’t it be said that they are INVITING such a thing?
“Although I agree that Sean did a very, very stupid thing,”
This is not only stupid, but deranged and criminal. It was also not just an “error” or “mistake”, which would have been the case if he didn’t realize he was doing something to potentially hurt me. No, even a cursory reading of his email (sent from his official position in the party, and cc’d to the executive director) will show any reasonable person that this was a MALICIOUS, intentional act meant to cause harm to me, the LPMA donors and the 2,000 voters who signed the petition.
His intent is glaringly obvious.
” and I understand Gary’s emotions,”
Well, I appreciate your understanding of my emotions, but my going to the police with this evidence has nothing to do with that. I’ve been in petitioning for 17 years, and have had many, many people say or do things to me that have angered or upset me. And I didn’t even come CLOSE to turning them into the state, almost universally. Everyone that ticks me off doesn’t lead me to turn evidence over to the police; I only do that when there is conclusive evidence that a crime has occurred, and even then after I’ve been pushed way into a corner needlessly.
This is the case with Sean Haugh.
” I still wish he had not contacted anyone in the Secretary of State’s office about this.”
I actually agree: I too wish I hadn’t had to contact the Secretary of State’s office about this.
But the Attorney General’s office is the one who directed me to contact them, based on the evidence that I had. The Secretary of State’s office initially directed me to the District Attorney’s office. Had the DA’s office taken my evidence (they did not), the Secretary of State’s office would not have been contacted a second time.
” I hope the LP Judicial Committee will handle it instead.”
I sent out letters to the judicial committee, over the issue of Haugh keeping or losing his job. (yet I’m told now that the judicial committee has no authority in these types of matters).
But in the criminal matter, internal party organizations or committees do not take criminal complaints; state authorities do.
” It is always far, far better for us to take our internal disputes to our own Judicial Committee.”
I took the internal part of the dispute to the Judicial committe, and took the EXTERNAL part of the dispute to external sources.
” And if the Judicial Committee members feel they can do nothing, I will be dismayed.”
I too, will be dismayed if the LP does nothing. I conduct myself in a manner that does not direct people under my purview to commit crimes, and I expect others to conduct themselves in that manner as well.
Interestingly enough, the only other alternative to taking the criminal matter to the state authorities is vigilante justice, as some seem to be suggesting I resort to.
I am trying to do the civilized thing.
How do you suggest I handle the criminal aspect of this, Richard?
Sean Haugh is a dedicated Libertarian who works very hard for the Libertarian Party. So is Gary Fincher. They are almost identical in their kunckleheaded determination to injure each other, even to the point of injuring the very cause they have been working for, for decades. They have both made mistakes; who doesn’t? We should forgive them both and they should forgive each other.
Richard wrote: “That’s why the real enemy is the Massachusetts Secretary of State. The very person who said we can’t substitute, is the person Gary Fincher has been talking to. So now our enemy must be laughing her head off at this internal in-fighting”
Richard, keep in mind that there are now two enemies: the MA Secretary of State and Sean Haugh. So realize that I am being put in the very awkward position of having to take action on someone who is threatening my safety, well-being and professional livelihood. Sean Haugh is a more immediate threat than the Secretary of State, in my own personal life.
Yeah, in some larger, general sense, the State is all of our’s enemy. But Sean Haugh just made a malicious threat that, reading between the lines, could cause me trouble and danger in my immediate, personal and professional life for months or years to come.
Most reasonable people, libertarian and non-libertarian alike, will take crimes made against them to state “authorities”. If my signatures had contained forgeries, and Haugh found out about it, you can darn well bet that he would have turned over evidence to the state. Probably Robert Kraus would have as well. In fact, people turn me into the state (Joe Knight) even when there is NO evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Why is there now a double standard?
Commission of a crime is BEYOND the scope of internal party business.
Also, keep in mind that I went to the Massachusetts State Police first with my evidence, not the Secretary of State’s office. It was actually the Attorney General’s office who directed me to contact the Secretary of State’s office.
And finally, if the S of S is actually the enemy, and is to be avoided for contact, why is Sean Haugh turning ANY signatures into them? Why is my signatures being ruled out for burning (and thus not coming into contact with the enemy S of S)?
For anyone who did not not notice the update here
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/gary-finchers-second-letter-to-judicial-committee-re-haugh/
See also
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/voices-from-comments-tom-knapp-explains-how-things-work-at-lphq/
I guess the LP Bylaws provide that the Judicial Committee has the authority to go after errors committed by the Legislative Branches of the Libertarian Party, but not to go after errors committed by the Executive Branches of the Libertarian Party. It is as though the US Supreme Court were allowed to strike down unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, but to have no power to curtail abuses of the President and his cabinet. If the LP is going to have a judicial committee, it seems its authority should be expanded so that it is symmetrical.
“Mr. Haugh’s actions don’t fall into either of these areas[?]”
That’s correct.
The Judicial Committee reviews actions of the LNC or of the national convention on appeal.
Mr. Haugh is not the LNC.
Mr. Haugh is not the national convention.
Therefore his actions aren’t subject to appeal to, or review by, the Judicial Committee.
That’s not to say his actions in this matter weren’t wrong, reprehensible actionable, etc. — just to say that if they are wrong, reprehensible, actionable, etc., the Judicial Committee is no more the place to go for relief than the board of your local ASPCA is. The Judicial Committee does certain things, and this is not one of those things.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
A question was asked about how ballot access petitioning is usually done in Mass…
The number of signatures needed varies considerably depending on the particular office, and whether the party has “Major Party” status at the time or not – Under current Mass. law, most offices are HARDER to petition for when you are a major party than when you are a “political designation” (The official term for a minor party) – When a party makes major status, the number of signatures required for a given office goes up, the petitioning window shrinks, and the number of people eligible to sign petitions goes down… Any registered voter can sign a minor party petition, but only members of that party, or “unenrolled” (aka independent) voters can sign a major party’s petition.
(I once ran for Ward Committee Member – I was required to get 10 signatures, with only TWO registered Libertarians in my ward…)
Currently I’m an elected Town Meeting Representative – I had to get 10 valid signatures, which I did going door to door in my neighborhood… No problem.
Other offices can require hundreds or thousands of signatures – which are typically gathered by the candidate, or volunteers.
The state-wide offices have high numerical requirements, and “distribution” requirements – these are normally collected via the state party, including volunteer and some paid petitioners, with NO national involvement normally.
In this case, where we are primarily gathering for the Presidential candidate, but can (and do) list our US Senate candidate on the same petition, we are getting some help from National, as we need 10,000 valid signatures, or about 15-17,000 raw in order to have a sufficient margin. (The party preferred R candidate for US Senate just failed to make it onto the ballot by only a few hundred signatures because he underestimated the required margin…)
Because it was a Presidential race, we asked for help from National as our treasury was not up to supplying the money needed to pay for the required signatures. Originally it was going to be a 50-50 split on the cost. However after Barr was nominated may of our Libertarian pledgers cancelled their commitments, and consequently we have had to ask National to pick up a larger share… (As a side note, the Phillies campaign was one of the larger donors, and has contributed sizeable sums to the drive, AFTER Denver…)
National also agreed to the plan to petition with Phillies / Bennet as the candidates, based on the assurances that we would be able to substitute if needed. It was not until AFTER Denver when we inquired about the steps we needed to do the substitution (admittedly with great reluctance) that the Secretary of State reversed itself and said we wouldn’t be allowed to substitute. At that point National made the decision to finish the partially completed drive and litigate, rather than starting over with a new drive…
ART
“My plan is to wait until Political Director is the job no one wants – then I make my move.”
Fuckin’ A!!!
My resume against your’s and Jeff’s!
You’ve made a powerful enemy today my friend.
“Bill, there is a point at which your questions became so abusively insulting not to mention silly that I suggest you put them in a place where the sun does not shine. Of course, your head is in the way.”
LOL!!!
“Bill Woolsey // Jul 4, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The story makes no sense, but I suspect that is because there are some missing pieces.”
The only thing that makes no sense is that Sean Haugh still has a job with the Libertarian Party.
“And, that perhaps Haugh has said that National doesn’t want any of its money used to pay this Fincher character?”
Sean Haugh is NOT LP National, nor is Sean Haugh the Libertarian Party. Sean Haugh is an EMPLOYEE of the Libertarian Party’s National Office. The money is NOT Sean Haugh’s money, the money is the Libertarian Party DONORS’ money. Part of Sean Haugh’s job is to make sure that the Libertarian Party gets enough petition signatures to make it on the ballot in the states where they have to petition. Ordering that 2,000 good validity signatures get burned is DESTRUCTIVE to these ends.
Who in the HELL is Sean Haugh to say that Fincher’s signatures are no good, especially when he hasn’t even checked them? I’d be willing to bet money that Gary could petition circles around Sean Haugh. Sean has got a HELL of a lot of nerve for abusing his position – to the detremint of the party – to carry out petty personal grudges (that he created) to blackball some of the best actual Libertarian petitioners that the party has (and there are only a small handful of people who are good petitioners and actual Libertarians).
“And then, this Fincher character made some kind of legal case about it? ”
This is what people in our society do when they are the targets of fraud and force by other people.
“Fincher’s side of the story where he explains that he called up a voter and she called the police, etc. Well, that provides more than enough explanation for me that the national LP would never want to have this guy associated with an LP ballot drive again. That is, National will never pay for any of this guy’s signatures. ”
This is a completely ABSURD statement and I can tell that you are a person who has had little involvment with petitioning.
1) Petitioners having the police called on them is a pretty common occurence. I can’t think of one person that I know who has done a lot of petitioning that has not had the police called on them.
2) It is NOT illegal to call up a voter. Phone numbers on voter registrations are public information. Political parties calling up voters is actually a pretty common practice. The Libertarian Party has even done this. In fact, I did some volunteer fundraising for the Libertarian Party of California a few years ago and during part of these fundraising efforts we called up people who were registered to vote under the Libertarian Party banner to try to get them to join the party as dues paying members. The party rented out a phone bank and there were several volunteers making calls. Some of these calls even turned into….GASP!!!….social conversations.
3) The woman in question was friendly and asked Gary where her polling place was. Gary simply responded and then then the woman engaged him in conversation and that was it.
4) The woman called the local county elections office the next day to see if her form had been processed yet (to have expected the form to have been turned in and processed the next day is just plain stupid) and when the form had not been turned in and processed yet she freaked out and assumed that Gary was an indentity theif (another stupid assumption).
5) So she called the Wal-Mart where Gary was petitioning (note that it was Gary’s resoursefulness that got him to be able to petition at the Wal-Mart in the first place, as Wal-Mart’s are usually difficult to get in most states) and she told them that she thought that there was a guy in front of their store who was an indentity theif. Then either her or the Wal-Mart (it was most likely the Wal-Mart) called the police. The police came out and ran a make on Gary and since they found nothing and since they saw that he was just gathering petition signatures and registering people to vote they cleared him and left. This did result in Gary being kicked out of the Wal-Mart though (however, petitioners getting kicked out of places happens on a regular basis).
6) North Carolina is one of the few states where the state prints a phone number for the party/proponent of the petition right on top of the petition sheets. So the State Chair of the NC LP – Barbra Howe – did get called and this is the ONLY reason that this ridiculous story has blown up to much more than it really was.
7) I happen to know for a fact that there are other petitioners who have had similiar things happen, including one mercenary petitioner who is working for the Libertarian Party right now.
8) To hold this against Gary as if this is some kind of horrible “offense” – or even any kind of offense at all – is COMPLETELY STUPID.
“Anyway, Fincher’s behavior in this situation just provides further evidence that National should never pay a dime to him again.”
This is an ABSURD statement from somebody who doesn’t know jack squat about ballot access petitioning and who has probably done very little of it, if anything at all.
Also, the Libertarian Party is a group of individuals who have come together to form a political group whose goal is to increase freedom. The employees at the Libertarian Party National Office do not speak for the entire party, nor does the LNC. I am a dues paying Libertarian Party member and I think that it is outrageous that Gary (who has been involved with the Libertarian Party for around 20 years) would be blackballed from petitioning on such flimsy grounds. Who in the HELL is Sean Haugh to dictate which Libertarians may gather petition signatures (and note that the majority of the people that Sean has hired to gather signatures are NOT even Libertarians, they are mercenaries) and which Libertarians may not? The Libertarian Party is NOT a dictatorship and Sean Haugh is NOT our dictator.
“His behavior at this time (calling the police) is another reason why the LP shouldn’t pay him a dime ever again.”
Sean Haugh’s actions were CRIMINAL. If not calling the police, are you suggesting vigilante justice? Do you really believe that Sean would not have called the police on Gary had the situation been reversed?
“That’s why the real enemy is the Massachusetts Secretary of State.”
Libertarian philosophy is not so much anti-government, but anti-force and fraud. Sean Haugh attmepted to committ force and fraud against Gary, the candidates on the petition, Libertarian Party donors, and the voters of Massachusetts.
The only recourse that we have in our society is to use the government police and courts. Unless of course you are suggesting vigilante justice, which could lead to even more trouble.
Does anyone here believe that Sean Haugh himself would not have called the police on Gary if Gary had engaged in similiar actions? If so then you are naive.
I confronted Sean Haugh at the National Convention in Denver (Gary was with me but I did almost all of the talking) about some issues that I have with him and Sean’s response was to run away and crybaby to retired cop and current LNC member Tony Ryan in an attempt to get me thrown out of the Convention (even though I was a delegate). This was for merely asking Sean Haugh a few questions, questions which he refused to anwser. Fortunately Tony Ryan was a reasonable guy and I explained the situation to Tony and then nothing more happened. Gary tried to discuss his problems with Sean Haugh when he saw him at a restaurant near where the Convention was held and Sean’s response was to turn away from Gary and say, “I don’t want to talk to you.”
“The very person who said we can’t substitute, is the person Gary Fincher has been talking to. ”
Gary has been forced into this situation because the rest of LP National and the LNC have ignored previous complaints about the wrong doings of Sean Haugh.
“So now our enemy must be laughing her head off at this internal in-fighting.”
The in-fighting is the fault of Sean Haugh since he is the one who instigated it.
“This may even be used against us in court.”
If it does then Sean Haugh is the one to blame, as well as those at LP National who have kept Sean Haugh on staff.
“Although I agree that Sean did a very, very stupid thing,”
It was not just stupid, it was also EVIL.
“and I understand Gary’s emotions,”
I challenge anyone here to go out and gather 2,000 petition signatures with the thought that you are going to get paid for your efforts and then have somebody try to interfere with that.
“I still wish he had not contacted anyone in the Secretary of State’s office about this.”
So you think if Gary had done something similiar to what Sean has done that nobody would have called the state on him?!?!?!
This story has been out for more than enough time for Sean to have been fired, yet at this point he still has not been fired. I find this to be highly disturbing and so should everyone else.
“I hope the LP Judicial Committee will handle it instead. It is always far, far better for us to take our internal disputes to our own Judicial Committee. And if the Judicial Committee members feel they can do nothing, I will be dismayed.”
The Judicial Committee must know about this by now, and thus far no actions have been taken. This is a very open and shut case. There is “smoking gun” evidence. So why is it that Sean has yet to be fired?
I think that Sean’s offense is so egregious that firing Sean doesn’t go far enough.
Woolsey writes (my answers interspersed)
“The story makes no sense, but I suspect that is because there are some missing pieces.
For example.. Is the National LP paying for signatures from Mass?”
They paid the people with whom they contracted. We paid the people with whom we contracted.
“And, that perhaps Haugh has said that National doesn’t want any of its money used to pay this Fincher character?”
He said that, and he got his wish.
“And that Mass. was going to use National’s money to pay him anyway?”
Bill, there is a point at which your questions became so abusively insulting not to mention silly that I suggest you put them in a place where the sun does not shine. Of course, your head is in the way.
LPMass *does not have* any of National’s money, so it would be impossible for us to use their money to pay anyone. In fact, teh signatures were paid for by Phillies 2008, which is to say, me. After all, I apepar on the nominating paper *twice* as a candidate, once as an elector and once as the Presidential candidate.
“And that that this guy has already collected signatures in Mass. And when Mass. said that they needed to be paid for…”
We said nothing of the kind. As we had planned in advance they were paid from here.
“…, Haugh said to just burn them?…”
No, he wanted them burned even if they had been paid for.
“And then, this Fincher character made some kind of legal case about it?”
No, he filed a criminal complaint.
This particular case is so abundantly clear, with no ambiguity, that I can’t imagine those defending the Haugh/Redpath axis of evil would have anything bad to say about our “leadership” if Haugh were caught with a “God created Adam and Eve, not Steve” t-shirt on…. Oh, wait. I’m sure Bill Redpath would do a “great job” ensuring that it would never happen again.
I am firmly convinced that there is literally nothing that the parasites at LPHQ could do that would provoke the disapproval of their many apologists. Redpath, Cory, Haugh, Starr, and the rest of them have carte blanche, and anyone who calls them out for their crimes is castigated as a troublemaker. It’s pathetic.
The story makes no sense, but I suspect that is because there are some missing pieces.
For example.. Is the National LP paying for signatures from Mass?
And, that perhaps Haugh has said that National doesn’t want any of its money used to pay this Fincher character?
And that Mass. was going to use National’s money to pay him anyway?
And that that this guy has already collected signatures in Mass. And when Mass. said that they needed to be paid for, Haugh said to just burn them?
And then, this Fincher character made some kind of legal case about it?
Fincher’s side of the story where he explains that he called up a voter and she called the police, etc. Well, that provides more than enough explanation for me that the national LP would never want to have this guy associated with an LP ballot drive again. That is, National will never pay for any of this guy’s signatures.
Anyway, Fincher’s behavior in this situation just provides further evidence that National should never pay a dime to him again.
His behavior at this time (calling the police) is another reason why the LP shouldn’t pay him a dime ever again.
Richard:
They’ve already said they can do nothing, that it is outside their jurisdiction.
Massachusetts Secretary of State Legal Director wrote a letter in 1995 saying it is OK for unqualified parties to list a stand-in presidential candidate. In 2000 a new Legal Director modified that and said the stand-in must be a bona fide person who is trying to get the nomination. That’s why we used George Phillies as our stand-in. But after Massachusetts had permitted substitution in 1980 for John B. Anderson’s v-p, and after having written those letters in 1995 and 2000, and after having told Ralph Nader in 2004 that he could use a stand-in on his petition for v-p, this year Massachusetts says we can’t substitute the real candidate for the stand-in. That’s why the real enemy is the Massachusetts Secretary of State. The very person who said we can’t substitute, is the person Gary Fincher has been talking to. So now our enemy must be laughing her head off at this internal in-fighting. This may even be used against us in court. Although I agree that Sean did a very, very stupid thing, and I understand Gary’s emotions, I still wish he had not contacted anyone in the Secretary of State’s office about this. I hope the LP Judicial Committee will handle it instead. It is always far, far better for us to take our internal disputes to our own Judicial Committee. And if the Judicial Committee members feel they can do nothing, I will be dismayed.
One other comment that has been thrown in the mix (in an other blog) of this controversy is whether Presidential candidate Bob Barr will be in the ballot in Massachusetts or will George Phillies will be on the ballot. They are upset that signatures have been (are being) collected for George Phillies and not Bob Barr. What is the story?
How do candidates typically get on the ballot in MA?
Do the candidates get their own signatures, does the LPMA finance the collection, or the national finance it?
“Even though it was a long time ago, that is disgusting that you had a delay of several months in getting paid for petition work. I don’t know if your delay was caused by incompetence or corruption, but whatever the case was the result was the same.”
Yeah well, my contact or guarantor was Steve Fielder. We all know where he is now. 🙂
“Why is it that some people seem to think that it is OK to delay pay for petition circulators but not for other lines of work?”
I just marked it as a bunch of mostly volunteers that were well meaning, but mostly nonprofessional or maybe just with lackadaisical attitudes.
I try to think the best of people. Especially when we are supposed to be on the same side.
PEACE
Steve
I’m still waiting for Haugh to apologize for his racist smear bullshit attack against Dr. Kevin Barrett.
“Earlier, we reported that Sean Haugh — in violation of Massachusetts electoral law — ordered valid petitions to get the LP presidential candidate on the ballot be burned.”
This petition also has a candidate for US Senate on it, Robert Underwood. He has commented on Sean Haugh wanting to burn 2,000 petition signatures to get him on the ballot and he is not amused.
“G.E. // Jul 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The real enemy is a leech who lives off my membership dues and then instructs people to break the law in the name of keeping the LP, for which he works, off the ballot.
If that isn’t an ‘enemy’ I don’t know what is.”
GE just hit the nail on the head. Why would anyone want to send money to an organization that misuses the funds?
This money is not meant for Sean Haugh to play games with and to play out personal vendettas which he created. This money is not meant to line somebody’s pockets for more than their work is worth.
Money is the lifeblood of politics, and yes, it is necessary to hire people to perform certain functions, however, those people are entrusted to use the funds properly and to do their duties in an ethical manner.
Does anyone here really believe that Haugh was making proper use of donors’ money by ordering that 2,000 petition signatures be burned (which is a violation of the law), whether Mr. Fincher had been paid for them already or not, which would have meant that LP donors would have had to have paid the mercenary petition coordinator in Massachusetts $4,000 to collect 2,000 more signatures?
There are no moral, legal, or rational justifications for the actions of Sean Haugh in this case.
If Haugh is not removed from office over this then the Libertarian Party is SERIOUSLY screwed up.
“And, FWIW, I have gone out of state to petition. And it did take several months to get paid. At a time when I had a pregnant wife at home.
And I don’t think there was any intentional delaying action by people in the Ron Paul ‘88 campaign or the LNC or the LP of Kentucky that made it so hard to get paid. It was just the lack of co-ordination on everybodies part that made my (lack of) reimbursement possible.”
Even though it was a long time ago, that is disgusting that you had a delay of several months in getting paid for petition work. I don’t know if your delay was caused by incompetence or corruption, but whatever the case was the result was the same.
Why is it that some people seem to think that it is OK to delay pay for petition circulators but not for other lines of work?
Gary and I had a 10-11 month delay in getting paid for petitioning work done for the LP of Nebraska in October-November of 2006. I left the state being owed around $10,000 and Gary left the state being owed around $4,000. We had been told that we’d get the pay while we were in Nebraska, then we were told that we’d get it after a week in December, then we were told that we’d get it by the end of December, then we were told that we’d get it by the end of January. We did recieve a few payments from around late January or early February up until late March or early April. I recieved around $4,000 and Gary recieved around $1,000. However, we had also been told that we’d recieve all of the money by the end of February and then when that didn’t happen that we’d recieve all of the money by the end of March. We actually did not recieve the rest of the money until September 1st, 10-11 months after the work was done! This delay was something that neither of us had agreed to and it went against what we were told, in that we’d be paid for our work while we were still in Nebraska.
This delay in pay was caused primarily by fundraiser Scott Kohlhaas (who conviently paid himself). Our complaining about not getting paid for months and months and our confronting Kohlhaas about it is the REAL primary reason that we are being blacklisted (to the detriment of the party).
“My recounting of any events peripheral to this issue is detailed and consistent, no matter how many times I am asked to tell it. Go ahead and try the same thing with Sean – see where that goes.”
Sean Haugh changed his stories about me multiple times (5 or 6 to my knowledge), and this illustrates his lack of credibility.
“GE- I really don’t know what to think. I’ve met Sean, and we got along wonderfully. I consider him to be a friend and ally.
So, I am conflicted. I don’t want to believe the allegations against him.”
Well, in my first few interactions with Sean Haugh he SEEMED like an OK guy as well. It wasn’t until he stabbed me in the back that I realized what an asshole he is.
Just because somebody shows up at meetings and kisses people’s rear ends it doesn’t mean that he’s always a good guy. People can put up false fronts and hide different elements of their personality.
This reminds me of those times when there is a murderer who gets caught and people who know him are interviewed and say things like, “He seemed like such a nice guy.” or “I can’t believe that he’d do such a thing.”
Remember, people aren’t always what they seem to be on the outside. Just because you saw one side of Sean Haugh, it doesn’t mean that a more sinister side of him does not exsist.
The real enemy is a leech who lives off my membership dues and then instructs people to break the law in the name of keeping the LP, for which he works, off the ballot.
If that isn’t an “enemy” I don’t know what is.
“Worse yet, these petitions were paid for by the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, not the national party, giving Mr. Haugh no claim whatsoever to them.”
I don’t think that Haugh would have any grounds to burn them even if the money did come from LP National, nor do I think that Haugh should have any grounds to reject valid signatures just because he doesn’t like somebody (and note that Haugh instigated the situation with Fincher and with myself for that matter). This money came from Libertarian Party DONORS, not from Sean Haugh. Sean Haugh is merely an EMPLOYEE of the National Office. He is not some kind of dictator.
“Petitioning is a hard, thankless task that is only required of oppostion political entities.”
Actually, in some states the Democrats and Republicans have to gather petition signatures for ballot access as well. Massachusetts happens to be one of those states.
“I don’t know who to really believe in this mess,”
You don’t know who to believe?!?!?!?! All of the EVIDENCE is on the side of Mr. Fincher and points to Mr. Haugh being guilty. This case doesn’t exactly take a Sherlock Holmes or Dick Tracey to figure out.
“but I do know that Sean Haugh cannot defend himself, as his contract with LNC prohibits him from doing so.”
Haugh has popped up on message boards numerous times since he became the Political Director. Haugh’s silence is due to the fact that he KNOWS that he’s guilty.
“But I ask folks to remember:
‘The enemy is not here. The enemy is out there. The enemy is not our fellow Libertarians.’- George Phillies
‘Can’t we all just get along?’- Rodney King”
Sean Haugh is the cause of the infighting in this case. Get rid of Haugh and this particular infighting will stop.
GE- I really don’t know what to think. I’ve met Sean, and we got along wonderfully. I consider him to be a friend and ally.
So, I am conflicted. I don’t want to believe the allegations against him.
And while the allegations against Fincher and others seem to be reasonable at first glance, are easily refuted.
And, FWIW, I have gone out of state to petition. And it did take several months to get paid. At a time when I had a pregnant wife at home.
And I don’t think there was any intentional delaying action by people in the Ron Paul ’88 campaign or the LNC or the LP of Kentucky that made it so hard to get paid. It was just the lack of co-ordination on everybodies part that made my (lack of) reimbursement possible.
I just wish we could all focus on the real enemy that is out there.
PEACE
Steve
One word to Steve:
The enemy of Libertarians is anyone who initiates force or fraud, not the government per se, or Democrats and Republicans, per se. The only reason we come off as anti-government is that the fact of the matter is that the government is the most prolific violator of our force or fraud prohibition.
Sean’s actions of threatening vandalism of the fruits of my labor and ballot access instruments, and attempts at defrauding donors out of thousands of dollars is CLEARLY outside the spirit of libertarian principles, and can rightfully be classified as “an enemy”.
In fact, right this moment, Sean is more of an enemy to peaceful and honest libertarians than the State of Massachusetts is, at least in the narrow scope of my life and the LPMA in specific.
Steve wrote: “I don’t know who to really believe in this mess”
My recounting of any events peripheral to this issue is detailed and consistent, no matter how many times I am asked to tell it. Go ahead and try the same thing with Sean – see where that goes.
Also, no police department will corroborate any of Sean’s claims against me. Yet, how is it that I am confident enough in Sean’s guilt in this matter to personally visit several different prosecutorial entities, including the MA state police and the State Attorney General.
Doesn’t that tell you anything? Has Sean brought any of HIS gripes about me to the actual police/prosecuting bodies?
Also, G.E., I seem to think that Steve was actually SUPPORTING petitioners like myself, at leasst from my read of his post. But you are indeed correct that Haugh is the one that is causing the trouble, not me. In fact, I was just up here minding my own business and collecting signatures up till I found out about Sean’s attack. And I have lost several consecutive days of petitioning work now because of it – costing me thousands of dollars in lost fees.
Sounds like the idiots who want “Libertarians for McCain”
Knapp wrote: – “It reviews actions of the national convention alleged to conflict with the party’s Statement of Principles on appeal from x% of the delegates.
Mr. Haugh’s actions don’t fall into either of these areas”
Last time I checked, fraud is a violation of the Statement of Principles.
BTW, I just finished penning a 2nd letter to the judicial committee, one that strikes more to the heart of this matter from the perspective of the party, although no one has posted it yet (it’s also shorter and a more interesting read).
another good reason to start “Libertarians for Baldwin!”
Steve – I don’t understand the logic you’re employing here. Haugh orders petitions to be burned. Either he really did that, or else a whole bunch of credible people are lying. And yet you want to blame Fincher for being “divisive?” The ten-years-ago thing is Haugh’s doing, not Fincher’s. We can all get along just fine — just as soon as soon as the LPHQ stops its treachery. Why should we appease and be compliant with the parasites?
I’d say we’re at that point =)
I am alternately distraught and/or disgusted with some Libertarians that continue to divide our tiny party over things that may or might not have happened up to ten years ago. We are not big or strong enough to continue this intra party infighting, it only benefits the democrats and republicans.
Petitioning is a hard, thankless task that is only required of oppostion political entities. Petitioners really do need to be supported, both financially and emotionally.
I don’t know who to really believe in this mess, but I do know that Sean Haugh cannot defend himself, as his contract with LNC prohibits him from doing so.
But I ask folks to remember:
“The enemy is not here. The enemy is out there. The enemy is not our fellow Libertarians.”- George Phillies
“Can’t we all just get along?”- Rodney King
PEACE
Steve
My plan is to wait until Political Director is the job no one wants – then I make my move.
“He is also taking the matter up directly with the LP Judicial Committee.”
Well, not exactly. He’s trying to take the matter up directly with the LP Judicial Committee, but that’s not how it works.
The Judicial Committee has two areas of jurisdiction:
– It reviews actions of the Libertarian National Committee on appeal from x% of the membership or, in the case of suspension of an LNC member or presidential/VP candidate, on appeal from the suspended person.
– It reviews actions of the national convention alleged to conflict with the party’s Statement of Principles on appeal from x% of the delegates.
Mr. Haugh’s actions don’t fall into either of these areas, and at this particular time I don’t see any route of appeal that would likely lead to the Judicial Committee.
The political director answers to the executive director. The executive director answers to the chair. The chair answers to the LNC, and the LNC answers … well, to each other, for two years at a time unless they do something that the membership can appeal.
Regards,
Tom Knapp