Press "Enter" to skip to content

Report: Haugh ‘wastes more LP donors’ money’

IPR has received reports from reliable sources that Libertarian Party Chairman Bill Redpath is “highly upset” with Sean Haugh over the Massachusetts petition burning scandal, and has taken “appropriate steps” to ensure something of that nature won’t happen again. Well, according to a well-known petition gatherer — who admittedly has bad blood with Mr. Haugh — Haugh is continuing to “waste Libertarian donors’ money” in pursuit of his vendetta against several of the movement’s most respected petition circulators.

Breaking story just in: I heard that Sean Haugh plans to waste a lot of donors’ money on the Libertarian Party ballot access drive in Rhode Island. There are currently petitioners who just finished up working Massachusetts (which borders Rhode Island), but Sean is not allowing any of them to work the petition in Rhode Island. Instead, he is planning to fly in Scott Kohlhaas all the way from Alaska and pay him top dollor for his signatures as well as paying for his motel and rental car (note that the petitioners in Massachusetts have their own vehicles so if they did the job there’d be no need for rental cars).

Kohlhass himself has been accused of embezzling thousands of dollars during ballot access drives. One story says that Bill Redpath and other LNC members covered up for Kohlhass’s embezzlement when confronted by unpaid petition circulators at an LNC meeting by paying the circulators out of their own pockets.

Update: Sean Haugh is unable to speak in his own defense since, as an LPHQ employee, he’s forbidden to post on blogs. An unlikely source of support, however, comes from frequent LPHQ critic, Angela Keaton:

My days as an apologist for the LPHQ and the LNC are behind me so please give me due consideration.

1.) Fincher has a criminal history with regard to violence against woman. The statement shall stand alone.

2.) As a former staffer for the LPC, it is essential that the staff be allowed to choose its own vendors. If Redpath is unsatisfied with Haugh’s work, Haugh can be fired. If Haugh blackballs too many petitioners, he will find his choices limited and change his policy.

3.) Based on past experiences with Fincher, including a stalking incident, Haugh blurted out something he shouldn’t have said (e.g. “burn the signatures.”)  Fincher essentially turned Haugh into the police state based on hyperbole, however sincere he may have been in that request. As an anarchist, I cannot condone using the police to resolve our internal conflicts.

3.) In June, Kraus forbade LPHQ staff to comment on public blogs. Fincher is given several fora in which to make his case. Haugh is not allowed to respond. This makes a fair judgment of the situation impossible unless one has done as I have attempted, however clumsily, to make phone calls to the witnesses.

4.) In July of 2007, I witnessed as Fincher and Jacob tried to manipulate facts to extort personal money (not LNC money) from Starr, Redpath, Sullentrup and several other donors in Pittsburgh. I cannot trust Fincher to relay facts correctly. Fincher has already made comments which suggest he is not satisfied with his LPMA pay. Professor Phillies has made it very clear that Fincher has been paid in full.

5.) We need to be selective in our grievances. Whether or not Fincher’s behavior is problem is not a radical or reform issue. I refuse to sacrifice credibility by allowing Fincher’s behavior to be protected by those of us who have been critical of this administration, ticket and former LPHQ staff.

6.) If we wish to indict via public opinion, note that highly respected radicals such as our former Vice Chair Lee Wrights and New Hampshire activist Joseph Knight have sided with Haugh based on specific and documented experiences. Further, the fact that Tom Knapp has repeatedly taken a point by point approach to Fincher’s arguments and found them lacking and that Susan Hogarth has implored Fincher not to further involve the LPNC in this matter should be strongly considered. Knapp and Hogarth are not ones to blindly side with Haugh or the LNC. Theirs are not considerations are ones I would ever dismiss out of hand.

7.) The public record is being shaped in such a way that Fincher and Jacob are put in the same category as an outstanding family man like Chris Bennett or a dedicated much beloved activist like Paulie Cannolli. I won’t have any part of that.

100 Comments

  1. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 10, 2008

    So do I. Some of them still get the impression I’m coming off as Carney. Maybe it’s the endless repetition. Or trying to gran a lot of people from a crowd and move therough them quickly.

  2. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 9, 2008

    Paulie wrote, “Why? When dealing with a large number of people all day, it’s hard not to come off as carney. ”

    I deal with large numbers of people all day and I don’t come off as a carney…I speak directly to every single voter, and with eye contact.

  3. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 8, 2008

    Paulie, there was sinister undercurrents in the eminent domain initiative. As I mentioned before, the legislated remedies that were written into it, were heavily slanted towards the gigantic landholder, and those tend to be collectivist business entities. The remedies also made a mockery of “just compensation” as mentioned in the 5th amendment. It allowed for fantasies used for land use potential to assess land valuations.

    There is also a concern in my mind regarding vertical space ownership in some instances. If land is purchased next to an established airport, there should be no expectation of owning the approach space. If the previous owner owned the land before the airport’s planning, then that owner possibly has a valid complaint, but this is not something that should be vested in deed transfer. that’s a nightmare.

    If you purchase a plot of land in an area that is entirely single story family dwelling, it does not come vested with skyscraper sized vertical land rights.

    The eminent domain initiative was not an attempt to secure individual property rights, but was portrayed as such.

    Certainly, there are problems like that with initiatives – the devil is often in the details. IMO, it’s even worse with the legislative process. Much worse, even. Legislation with great-sounding names is whisked past legislators who don’t have time to read it and who are mostly looking out for which lobbyists have more clout and raising money for their re-elections.

    Legislation tends to be much longer and more complicated than initiatives, with all sorts of extraneous riders attached (initiatives are limited by single subject limitations). Then if your elected representative votes for some heinous piece of legislation, you have to weigh that against all the other legislation he or she has voted for on a cumulative basis, and against an opponent who is likely to be making vague and/or misleading campaign promises. That’s if there even is an opponent; many state legislative races don’t have one.

    And when it comes to the US Congress, something like 99% of incumbents seeking reelection get reelected in most years recently. The idea that you can vote them out is largely an illusion due to the many advantages of incumbency.

    This is supposed to be better than the initiative process?


    Medicinal marijuana is less of a concern for me. I’ve not smoked weed in a very long time. I felt it impaired my ability to fulfill some goals, and left it behind. It is still not the government’s damn business.

    I feel the same way. The initiative wasn’t medical, but I have worked on several of those. There’s an added compelling dimension that putting sick and dying people in jail for their medicine is absolutely unconscionable, and forcing them to sneak around like criminals is reprehensible.


    Did you work the Vegas metro area? I am piss-poor at names, but very good at faces, and if the pictures I’ve seen tagged as being you are representative, I do not believe you petitioned me.

    I was there. UNLV much of the time. DMVs. Election day at the polls. Stores a few time, not much. Some festivals. Kerry’s speech (I think – maybe it was Clinton or somebody on his behalf – maybe both). ETC. Andy was there with me – we got about 3,000 signatures.


    Inequality of money is a different thing, because it often is the result of an accident of birth, not any Natural inequality. Inheritable property is not an inherent Natural Right. It is instead a gift of the state.

    I would say it is a natural right of people to give their property to whoever they wish, including their children as is often the case. If you can’t decide who to give it to, is it really yours?

    Athletic ability and other talent are often in large part an accident of birth. Eloquence and the ability to relate to people are partially a function of genetics and upbringing. Having the time to engage in free speech is partly a function of how much free time one can afford – which in turn is a function of all the above. So, money is hardly unique in sometimes (but not at other times) hinging on an accident of birth.


    That comes from a very good authority, BTW:

    It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac Mcpherson, August 13, 1813, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Definitive Edition”, Albert Ellery Bergh; Editor, 1907; Volume XIII; pp 326-338

    Well, Jefferson wasn’t always right.


    I’ve got some things that need attending, and have been spending far too much time here anyway. I’ll look around for a more secluded contact point though. I’d like to hear what your reflections were about my full-contact with the aforementioned persons. I’m not trying to be mysterious, just protecting other pseudos. I enjoy anonymity, and traverse varied places, both in real life, and on the net. In some cases, they could work against each other.

    I have the same problem myself.


    I’ll touch base somewhere in a week or two.

    OK – talk to you then….

  4. pdsa pdsa July 8, 2008

    Sorry about the fat thumbed post…

    Paulie, there was sinister undercurrents in the eminent domain initiative. As I mentioned before, the legislated remedies that were written into it, were heavily slanted towards the gigantic landholder, and those tend to be collectivist business entities. The remedies also made a mockery of “just compensation” as mentioned in the 5th amendment. It allowed for fantasies used for land use potential to assess land valuations.

    There is also a concern in my mind regarding vertical space ownership in some instances. If land is purchased next to an established airport, there should be no expectation of owning the approach space. If the previous owner owned the land before the airport’s planning, then that owner possibly has a valid complaint, but this is not something that should be vested in deed transfer. that’s a nightmare.

    If you purchase a plot of land in an area that is entirely single story family dwelling, it does not come vested with skyscraper sized vertical land rights.

    The eminent domain initiative was not an attempt to secure individual property rights, but was portrayed as such.

    Medicinal marijuana is less of a concern for me. I’ve not smoked weed in a very long time. I felt it impaired my ability to fulfill some goals, and left it behind. It is still not the government’s damn business. Did you work the Vegas metro area? I am piss-poor at names, but very good at faces, and if the pictures I’ve seen tagged as being you are representative, I do not believe you petitioned me.

    Inequality of money is a different thing, because it often is the result of an accident of birth, not any Natural inequality. Inheritable property is not an inherent Natural Right. It is instead a gift of the state.

    That comes from a very good authority, BTW:

    It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac Mcpherson, August 13, 1813, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Definitive Edition”, Albert Ellery Bergh; Editor, 1907; Volume XIII; pp 326-338

    I’ve got some things that need attending, and have been spending far too much time here anyway. I’ll look around for a more secluded contact point though. I’d like to hear what your reflections were about my full-contact with the aforementioned persons. I’m not trying to be mysterious, just protecting other pseudos. I enjoy anonymity, and traverse varied places, both in real life, and on the net. In some cases, they could work against each other.

    I’ll touch base somewhere in a week or two.

  5. pdsa pdsa July 8, 2008

    @That makes it sound very sinister. Yet what ulterior motives?

  6. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 8, 2008

    “It is right that you take care in choosing to aid only initiatives that you believe in. I’d be willing to wager that you have a higher success rate in signings, when it’s for a cause you embrace too.”

    “No. When I worked on causes with which I disagreed, it was easier to keep myself from getting into arguments with non-signers (or sympathetic conversations with interested signers, which can be just as bad or worse). Such arguments detract from getting signatures, and do far more to keep issues and parties off the ballot than quick and decisive refusals to sign.”

    Not me, I definitely have a better success rate when I’m working for a cause in which I believe. Of course, I haven’t done that much work on causes in which I didn’t believe, but the few times that I have I found it more difficult.

    One of the reasons that I have only rarely worked on something that I didn’t believe in is because I find it more difficult to stand there and ask people to sign something that I would not sign myself. I just don’t feel any passion for it and it makes me feel like an asshole for working on something like that. It is harder for me to get motivated and especially deal with taking crap from people (espeically cops, security gaurds, government bureacrats, and store managers) if I don’t believe in or care much about the cause.

    I’ve worked on a hell of a lot of stuff. Almost everything that I’ve worked on has been stuff in which I’ve been a believer.

    There are some things that I worked on where I was nuetral, as in initiatives that I didn’t really care about but were just barely acceptable for me to work, and I would also put working on other parties outside of Libertarian Party in this category.

    I’d generally prefer to work on ballot access for another minor political party or independent candidate than I would want to work on a ballot initiative or referendum where I did not agree with what it did. Why? Because with most of the minor party and independent candidates I have quite a few areas where I agree with them (even though I may have several disagreements with them), and they are usually better than the average Democrat and Republican, plus I know that they don’t stand much chance of winning. So I’d feel much better about working for the Constitution Party or the Green Party than I would working for some crappy ballot initiative, because the ballot initiative is just one issue and that’s all it is so if I disagree with it I can’t find anything good about it, but with the Constitution Party and the Green Party I can find areas where I agree with them and focus on that stuff. I place putting another minor party or independent candidate on the ballot in a similiar category as putting an initiative or referendum on the ballot where I’m nuetral.

  7. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 7, 2008

    As to you mentioning the self-evident: that inequality is a reality; I can be a most arrogant SOB, if you’ve not figured that out yet. Care to discuss Nietzsche?

    Only if it is of great importance to you. I confess to not being a fan.


    This has no relevance when discussing equality as a natural right though. That pertains to how a legitimate state acts towards huumans. Another swirling difference.

    Yes, but why would inequality of money be different, in this respect, than inequality in any other factors mentioned?


    Maybe another time, in a more private setting, you’d be amused to hear some stories about my aggressive forays into web-spaces where some fairly powerful Russian-Americans frequent.

    Sure. Name the place.


    I’ve found them to be more amenable to logical arguments that the native born, btw.

    Yes. Cultural difference.

    Except at certain times.

    It’s difficult to explain.

  8. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 7, 2008

    When I encountered some of the for pay petitioners for Nevada’s eminent domain initiative in ‘06, I was actually offended by the carney feel they exuded.

    Why? When dealing with a large number of people all day, it’s hard not to come off as carney.


    The medicinal marijuana petitioners weren’t as greasy, but they did not seem to be believers.

    Not sure how believers “seem.” I’m a big believer in MJ legalization/decrim (the NV initiative is not medical, that already passed there years ago), although I may not come off that way when I am working (you may have seen me there, even). Basically when I am working I try to keep interactions with individual people short, because otherwise I am losing signatures. It may make me seem callous and flip. You get to see a different side of me here.


    It flies in the face the idea, that these are grass-roots initiatives. They are not, and are funded often by unseen hands with ulterior motives.

    That makes it sound very sinister. Yet what ulterior motives? People with interest in reducing harm caused by drug policy donate to an organization such as MPP and/or its NV partner, CSMP; they hire me; I get signatures from voters who are willing to let the issue be considered by the public rather than the legislature. MPP/CSMP then have to convince the voters, going up against opposing interests.

    The same process takes place with legislators and lobbyists – but is far more removed from having anything to do with grassroots.


    It is right that you take care in choosing to aid only initiatives that you believe in. I’d be willing to wager that you have a higher success rate in signings, when it’s for a cause you embrace too.

    No. When I worked on causes with which I disagreed, it was easier to keep myself from getting into arguments with non-signers (or sympathetic conversations with interested signers, which can be just as bad or worse). Such arguments detract from getting signatures, and do far more to keep issues and parties off the ballot than quick and decisive refusals to sign.


    You don’t strike me as the Carney type, although communication through web methods alone can be greatly deceiving.

    True. I can definitely come off that way when petitioning. That’s not the whole me, though.

    Thanks for the historical links. I love that kind of stuff.

    -p

  9. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 7, 2008

    Statement by Gary Fincher

    Re: Haugh’s actions on June 27-28, 2008

    Sean Haugh has chosen the “smear the messenger” route out of trouble rather than mount a defense of his actions or deny them. This has entailed much false mudslinging I’ve had to defend myself against. The truth is, I’ve openly admitted all my genuine faults & mistakes, while categorically denying the false rumors. Richard Winger has agreed that the mudslinging is not deserved, nor is germane to the case.

    Whatever Sean Haugh’s disdain for me (which baffles me), Sean Haugh DID IN FACT a) write an email threatening to call up LPMA officials and instruct them to “quite literally burn” my signatures worth $3,000, and b) follow through with this threat with a call to LPMA political facilitator Carolyn McMahon, asking her to destroy my work.

    Sean Haugh carbon-copied acting director Robert Kraus and ballot access operative Scott Kohlhaas, likely because he felt comfortable including them in on a conspiracy, whether that comfort was warranted or not.

    Sean Haugh has also used his position to try to illegally interfere with my contractual relations with non-LP clients, such as Ralph Nader for president, potentially a dischargeable offense itself.

    Sean Haugh’s current actions that are, in my view, dischargeable:

    1. Using his official office as political director to direct state party officials under his purview to commit a crime, namely MA election law that provides for a one thousand dollar fine and one year imprisonment; A reading of Massachusetts statutes also suggests that failed directive to others to commit a crime may be a crime as well.

    2. Possibly placing acting executive director Robert Kraus and ballot access functionary Scott Kohlhaas in co-conspirator territory, if it is deemed that they received the email and did nothing. (When did they know and what action did they take?)

    3. Attempted to defraud me out of $3,000 and, when that failed, attempted to defraud LP donors out of same amount. (the email stated “whether they have been paid for or not”)

    4. Attempted to destroy viable Libertarian Party ballot access instruments, with full knowledge of such.

    If these are not dischargeable offenses, then I don’t know what are.

    Gary L. Fincher

  10. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 7, 2008

    Rachel wrote: “Mr. Torrey, et al – before the LNC could do anything, Mr. Fincher had to bring it to us. And we were the last ones he brought it to. It had been in the blogs for about a week, and then the JudComm letter, before he bothered to contact us.”

    Rachel, the very first thing I did was write a letter to the Judicial Committee, a hard-copy letter, and sent it out via USPS to each member. This was done pursuant to advice by Richard Winger, even before this issue reached the magnitude it has by Haugh’s actions.

    The story broke over the message boards independent of me, since I was not the one who was the recipient of the initial email. It had already been leaked to others.

    As you know, the postal service takes time to get letters to their destination, so no doubt the story got widespread distribution prior to reception by Judicial Committee members.

    As a result of some of the postings, I realized that the LNC may be the more appropriate body for my complaint, so it was redirected (but by email, not as of yet by USPS).

    This is why it seemed like you, and the LNC, was the “last” to get it.

    It should also be noted that even before I redirected my letter to the LNC, I had been emailing Bill Redpath, to inform him of Sean Haugh’s actions. Redpath is, of course, chair of the LNC.

    In all fairness, Richard Winger informed me over the telephone that Bill has been out of town on vacation and might not have had access to his email.

    Please note that I am NOT faulting the LNC for responding or not responding, despite the fact that others are drazwing their own conclusions.

    The only people I have been faulting are Haugh and those who have been spreading false reports about me and my character. Even though I am not the one who should stand scrutiny in this case, I nevertheless have freely and openly talked about any faults of mine that may be associated with my activist career, character, or life in general.

  11. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 7, 2008

    Rachel,

    Check your email inbox. But just in case you are here first instead of checking email:

    I’m very sorry. It seems that I am only responding to this because I just read your post on Independent Political Report saying that you sent me an inquiry, an inquiry which I did not receive in my email inbox. That prompted me to scramble to check my Spam folder (I do not check this very often, sometimes never) and found that it resided there, for some strange reason.

    My first order of business is to conscientiously send this apology out to you, and, when I get finished catching up on that thread, I will send you what you’ve asked me.

    I honestly didn’t know a message from you sat in my spam box (and have no idea why).

    Thanks for your concern.

    Gary

  12. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 7, 2008

    Knapp, you should know that

    1) once I turn over evidence to the prosecutorial authorities, it is up to *them* to determine if this falls into criminal territory, not to me. If they determine Haugh has committed a crime, it does not fall to me to “drop” it;

    and

    2) I will be consulting with an attorney to discuss all my options. If the attorney feels that, legally speaking, I have recourse via civil processes, then I will have two options, pursue or not. Either option will then be legally and morally at my disposal.

    You make it sound like I am a legal engineer or something.

  13. pdsa pdsa July 7, 2008

    @ paulie cannoli

    You have to answer for yourself, what your underlying intents are. I just did a quick scan of an about page listed under your name linked from elsewhere. This TV ref might be too far before you time: there is a vast difference between a gunslinger and Palladin. There are many differences swirling about all of this. In ’72 I attended a few anti-war demonstrations, as a vet, not so much as what usually fits the general picture as a protester though. I tended to be up at the barricades well before the event began, attempting to talk to the National Guard and Police, to let them know that I understood about duty, and that my duty meant that I must at least try to portray the absolute futility and preponderate needless death that was the War in Vietnam before I could go home again. As the demonstrations began, I’d request a pass through their barricades, and was always granted one. It was during this time that I learned to have an affection for the real left, but this is not to be confused with the New Left. The only thing the New Left was good for was that their events tended to have many females in attendance with a fine stash in their purse, and a desire to help a returning son chill. For a bit of understanding, read the first section of this article, and then read the relevant bastard’s unapologetic self-confessed act of treason. Liberals are self-deluded arses, the right-side is self-willed evil. More of the swirling differences.

    I am in agreement with you about securing ballot access. it is a valid goal. this does not change what I said about a movement’s vitality though. I am old-school, I guess, about some of this. When I encountered some of the for pay petitioners for Nevada’s eminent domain initiative in ’06, I was actually offended by the carney feel they exuded. The medicinal marijuana petitioners weren’t as greasy, but they did not seem to be believers. It flies in the face the idea, that these are grass-roots initiatives. They are not, and are funded often by unseen hands with ulterior motives. It is right that you take care in choosing to aid only initiatives that you believe in. I’d be willing to wager that you have a higher success rate in signings, when it’s for a cause you embrace too. You don’t strike me as the Carney type, although communication through web methods alone can be greatly deceiving.

    As to you mentioning the self-evident: that inequality is a reality; I can be a most arrogant SOB, if you’ve not figured that out yet. Care to discuss Nietzsche? This has no relevance when discussing equality as a natural right though. That pertains to how a legitimate state acts towards huumans. Another swirling difference.

    Maybe another time, in a more private setting, you’d be amused to hear some stories about my aggressive forays into web-spaces where some fairly powerful Russian-Americans frequent. I’ve found them to be more amenable to logical arguments that the native born, btw.

  14. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 7, 2008

    Chuck, with all due respect given to your post of yesterday, let me add a couple of things.

    First, you list valid criteria as possible reasons for not hiring petitioners. But the truth is, I am probably one of the easiest petitioners to deal with, as my m.o. is generally to pick up a stack of petitions and then autonomously go into the field to collect them with minimal contact with coordinators until time to turn in my work, which generally is of high-production and always of high-validity.

    Ergo, when such criteria is applied to me, my aggregate ratings as a good petitioner would place me at or near the top of every list.

    One factor I cannot control is false trash being said about me, and while I do spend time trying to do damage control which ends up getting me in the limelight of infamy more than I wish to, I don’t believe your criteria included being fraudulently accused of things, including things that have nothing to do with petitioning.

    Sean Haugh is using off-topic criteria (including not liking me for reasons I have no idea) to exclude me from a contractor list I have enjoyed being on for many years (except, that I sent in a resignation letter on 9/29/07 for working petitions through national, a fact Haugh seems to forget).

    Try to discredit the messenger all he wants but that doesn’t excuse directing state party officials to commit a crime.

    Also,

    Haugh’s actions are more than just a “mistake”; he used his official position to direct state party officials under his purview to commit an actual elections law crime (which would have resulted in defrauding LP donors out of money). How could Haugh *not* be discharged for such a thing? (note that his initial motivation was to defraud ME out of $3,000).

    Haugh has made himself a target of a civil case, and, if not discharged, is risking that civil suit including the whole party.

    And finally,

    Haugh cc’d Robert Kraus and Scott Kohlhaas on his email announcement to direct state party officials to violate election law and defraud donors. Inaction would place Kraus and Kohlhaas into “accomplices” realm, and subject them to legal action too. (although, in all fairness, I am not privy to whether or not Kraus and Kohlhaas took any action)

  15. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 7, 2008

    I prefer to NOT do this myself, but if somebody wants to do this I’m not preventing anybody from doing it.

    Of course not. I said you convinced me – not that you forced me. As you know, I reserve the right to change my mind on a case by case basis.

  16. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “My ideology is that making money is not a bad or dirty thing.”

    Making money is bad only if it involves the initiation of force and fraud.

  17. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “I also have gathered signatures to put issues on the ballot. At this time, Andy has convinced me to shun issues I disagree with. Does getting paid to put good issues on the ballot make me an evil mercenary?”

    If you want to work on issues in which you disagree, go for it.

    I prefer to NOT do this myself, but if somebody wants to do this I’m not preventing anybody from doing it.

  18. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 7, 2008

    Because it is antithetical to The Nation’s very foundation, which posited the revolutionary idea that All Humans were created equal.

    “Created equal” does not mean equal. Some people are more eloquent than others. Some people are more attention-grabbing than others. Some people have better connections than others – perhaps they know reporters personally.
    Some people have more time than others. Some people have more money than others. Some people emote and relate to people better than others do.

    These are all factors in making the dissemination of viewpoints possible.

    Money is no different from any of the other factors in this respect.

    Created equal just means that we have the same right to disseminate our viewpoints as anyone else. It does not mean we have the same opportunity.

    We also have the same right to make a living as everyone else; but of course some people are born with inheritances and family connections, some are natural athletes or have some other talent, etc.

    That being said; when I first posted my feelings about mercenaries being used to secure ballot access, I was unaware that many of those who the LP paid were also libertarian activists. Clearly, in those instances, it is not mercenaries who are being used, but instead members being compensated for duties performed beyond the norm. I would have made the distinction, had I been aware of it, and apologise for any unintended slur you might have felt from the post.

    That was actually what I thought you meant.

    It was only later, when I encountered the other interpretation being commented on, that it even occurred to me.

    But given this distinction, where do we draw the line? I’m not a member of the Constitution or Green parties. They also hire me to get on the ballot. I believe that as long as we have partisan elections, they should be on the ballot.
    In fact, I find the ballot access restrictions which make this line of work possible to be outrageous and entirely contrary to what this country is supposed to be about.

    I also have gathered signatures to put issues on the ballot. At this time, Andy has convinced me to shun issues I disagree with. Does getting paid to put good issues on the ballot make me an evil mercenary?

    At one time I worked on a broad range of issues. I believed at the time, and to some extent still believe, that the initiative process – imperfect as it is – is superior to the legislative process, and that taking issues out of the hands of the legislature is a good thing in itself, even when the particular issue is bad.

    Did that make me an evil mercenary?

    My ideology is that making money is not a bad or dirty thing.

    All sorts of people get paid to do what they do; legislators, lobbyists, journalists, ministers, teachers – does that make them people who don’t care about what they are doing, are they “only in it for the money”?

  19. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “I’m new to this, I don’t claim to know enough, but an order to commit an illegal act by a major functionary of a political party is extremely serious.”

    Yes it is, so why has Sean Haugh yet to be fired?

  20. pdsa pdsa July 7, 2008

    @ paulie cannoli – Why not?

    Because it is antithetical to The Nation’s very foundation, which posited the revolutionary idea that All Humans were created equal.

    It should be viewed for what it is. Money is not speech, but when it is used to effectuate protected speech, it assuredly is deserving of protection. It still should be identified for what it is; an opportunity purchased, and not obtained as a free and equal being.

    That being said; when I first posted my feelings about mercenaries being used to secure ballot access, I was unaware that many of those who the LP paid were also libertarian activists. Clearly, in those instances, it is not mercenaries who are being used, but instead members being compensated for duties performed beyond the norm. I would have made the distinction, had I been aware of it, and apologise for any unintended slur you might have felt from the post.

  21. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 7, 2008

    At its very foundation, lies the concept that the wealthy have an inequitable extra right to engage in protected speech. If this had been the standard during the mid 19th century, would we even know of the Yankee libertarian, Henry David Thoreau?

    Why not? No one asserted that money is the only form of protected speech.

  22. pdsa pdsa July 7, 2008

    @ Arthur Torrey

    You make some valid points, and admittedly, the state in which I was born, now reside, and have been the most politically active in, Nevada, has easier ballot access laws presently than many of the other states. I sttill took part in securing ballot access voluntarily, when it was a requirement every major election cycle. I am not one who enjoys the public spotlight, in fact most often, would rather shy away from it. Still the experience was one I consider to have been an education, for more than just facing an often uncaring public. There were times when several persons would man a table, and we’d have discussions about our different ideations of liberty. There were other times when I or someone else would bring along a non-libertarian acquaintance who believed that ballot access was an onerous obligation, and discussions at those times would often take tangential directions.

    This has served me well. In ’96 I returned to Nevada after a several year departure due to employment elsewhere, and at the DMV attempted to register as a LP member, but was denied by the clerk. I immediately journeyed to the county registrar of voters, where I received a heartfelt apology from the elected official, and expressions of shock from the regular employees. I would be surprised if anybody at the DMV was as ignorant today. Hell came to their house, because of this.

    Money is NOT a form of speech. It can be used to provide opportunities for speech, or a better platform from which speech is projected, and as such, when used for these purposes, deserves protection, but it cheapens the very concept of free speech, to claim that money represents a form of it. At its very foundation, lies the concept that the wealthy have an inequitable extra right to engage in protected speech. If this had been the standard during the mid 19th century, would we even know of the Yankee libertarian, Henry David Thoreau?

    I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe–“That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

    Henry David Thoreau, “Resistance to Civil Government”, 1849

    Obviously, another one of those radical anarchist libertarian purists…

  23. George Donnelly George Donnelly July 7, 2008

    Chuck: WADR, “a mistake” and an order to commit an illegal act, are not one and the same. The latter is considerably more serious.

    I’m new to this, I don’t claim to know enough, but an order to commit an illegal act by a major functionary of a political party is extremely serious.

    Had this come out before I made my latest donation, I would have held that donation until this was resolved. I will be holding future ones until there is some official LP comment or action on this.

  24. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “As far as I can tell, the business decision to ‘fire’ me was based entirely on my limited defense of Gary on this message thread. ”

    Which illustrates what a vindictive asshole Sean Haugh really is.

    So let’s get this straight, Paul posted the truth on some message boards and he gets “fired” and “blackballed” for doing this, yet Sean Haugh orders a CRIME to be committed in burning petition signatures in Massachusetts, and Sean WASTES donors’ money on several occassions, and this is OK.

    Something is SERIOUSLY WRONG with this picture.

  25. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “He also claimed that I had put the information about Rhode Island in the blogosphere. That too is false. It’s true that I talked about it with Andy on the phone. If I was ever asked to keep that particular conversation confidential, I don’t recall anyone asking me to do so. ”

    Why should the information about the LP of Rhode Island petition drive be kept secret? Don’t the members of the party (you know, the actual people who donate the money) have a RIGHT to know how their money is being spent?

    Libertarians often call for transparency in government, so how about some transparency in the Libertarian Party?

    “So far, it has cost me a good friend and a major client. We’ll see what else it costs me as this continues to deteriorate. ”

    Angela Keaton obviously was NOT a very good friend if she would turn on your and stab you in the back over something like this.

    Sean Haugh could very well be on his way out.

  26. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “paulie cannoli // Jul 6, 2008 at 9:13 am

    Finished Andy Book #1 (comment 32), everything besides the dates when Sean posted at LFV is correct.”

    Sean posted on the Antiwar.com blog after the death of Vince Miller. I know that it was after a death, but none the less, he posted on a blog in June.

  27. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “Arthur Torrey // Jul 6, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    PDSA, you have some not unreasonable remarks about the use of ‘mercenary petitioners’ essentially that a party / cause that can’t raise it’s own signatures with volunteers is a failure… ”

    The term mercenary petitioner – at least my use of the term – means a person who gathers petition signatures only for the money and doesn’t give a damn about what causes they gather signatures for or about anything else other than making a buck.

    Getting paid to gather petition signatures does not necessarily make one a mercenary if one actually believes in the cause.

    So if Gary, Paul, Mark, or I are gathering signatures for Libertarian Party ballot access for pay we are not mercenaries because we are all Libertarians (even though we aren’t happy with some of the stuff that the LP is doing right now).

    If we gather signatures for a pro-liberty ballot initiative or referendum we are not mercenaries because we believe in the cause.

    I think that a better term to describe us is activist-pro.

    Mercenaries generally do lower quality work because they don’t give a damn about the causes and are more likely to “cut corners” to make a quick buck.

  28. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 7, 2008

    “Sean Haugh should be fired as a matter of principle. Who they hire to replace him is not revlavent to the fact that he needs to be fired.”

    AGREED.

  29. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “Third, the national LP had no legal liability whatsoever in Nebraska; the contractually responsible parties were the Nebraska libertarian affiliate and Scott Kohlhaas. The LNC decision in Pittsburgh to intervene and pay the petitioners was a generous gesture to keep good terms between the LP and dedicated petitioners; it was not in any way legally required.”

    The LNC planned on doing ballot access in Nebraska anyway. There was an email to the LP mailing list that came out around September where Shane Cory was soliciting donations, and one of the causes that he was soliciting funds for was ballot access, and one of the states that he specifically mentioned was Nebraska.

    The LNC paid some woman by the name of Diane Gentry to finish the ballot access drive in Nebraska. Go read the LNC FEC reports and you’ll find payments from LP National to this woman in Nebraska for ballot access.

    Scott Kohlhaas was on the LNC payroll during this time period where he owed us money. Go check the FEC reports (at FEC.gov) and you’d see that Kohlhaas was getting paid $5,000 per month by LP National.

    While it is great when anyone donates to a libertarian cause, the LNC paying for ballot access is not something out of the ordinary, and the entire LP budget is made up of donations, and everyone in that rooom and probably everyone on this thread is on the LP donor list.

  30. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “I mentioned in the public comments at that meeting and/or in private conversations with several people on the LNC that Andy and Gary had not been paid for Nebraska, and asked that the LNC consider a way to get them paid. Since that did not happen, I think Andy drew the conclusion that you all voted against it. I can certainly believe that no vote took place, and that my remarks may have not been heard and/or understood by some. ”

    As I said above, Bill Redpath himself is the one who told me that the LNC voted to not pay us. He even told me two specific names of LNC members who did not want to pay us. If my account of the story is not completely accurate then perhaps Bill Redpath’s story was not clear enough or perhaps there is a detail that I’m missing.

  31. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “I’m not going to be vindictive here. There are certainly things Sean has done, ranging from “firing” me and people I know to attacking some of our candidates and potential candidates, that I really don’t like.

    Before we make this all about firing Sean, I have to ask who they will hire instead. For all we know, the next person may be even worse. As a practical matter, I highly doubt they will fire Sean in the middle of petition drives, and, if they do, they will probably have Scott Kohlhaas manage all petition drives. I don’t see how that would be an improvement.

    Even if they bring in someone new entirely, can we know whether that person will be better or worse than Sean?

    That’s not a defense of Sean, either. It’s a practical consideration that we should keep in mind.”

    Sean Haugh should be fired as a matter of principle. Who they hire to replace him is not revlavent to the fact that he needs to be fired.

  32. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 7, 2008

    “6. There has been an allegation that the LNC discussed the Nebraska matter in executive session during the Orlando meeting and voted in secret not to pay petitioners. That allegation is entirely false.”

    Chuck, I was just relaying the story that Bill Redpath himself told me about the LNC meeting in Florida. He told me that he took it to the committee to get a resolution to pay the petitioners that were owed money from the Nebraska petition drives (Gary and I) and that it was voted down. He even told me the names of two people who voted against paying us (I won’t reveal those names right now).

    This is the story that Bill Redpath told me so if it is not accurate take it up with him.

  33. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    I think the contractors who the LP is currently choosing not to work with minimized costs as opposed to many of those the LP is currently happy to work with, some of whom are getting a higher rate and more expenses while getting lower validity rates.

    rate = pay rate per signature, if that was not clear.

  34. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Chuck,

    1. Hiring and firing petitioners is a business decision, not a political one. Obviously most petitioners are self-interested entrepreneurs who seek to maximize their own profit. Similarly, the Libertarian Party is a self-interested entity which seeks to minimize its cost. Due to concentrated benefits and distributed costs it would be a poor idea for selection of petitioners to be made through some sort of membership vote. Although no one has outright said it, I see the implication in some comments above that these decisions should be politicized and I wanted to refute that fallacy.

    I think you are correct. I think the contractors who the LP is currently choosing not to work with minimized costs as opposed to many of those the LP is currently happy to work with, some of whom are getting a higher rate and more expenses while getting lower validity rates.


    2. The business decision of whether to hire or fire petitioners can rightly be based on a large number of criteria: past validity rates, past speed (signatures/day), legal residency, libertarian leanings, LP membership, work ethic, professional attitude, etc. Different people may accord different weights to those considerations when they are the ones tasked with making the hiring/firing business decisions. However, my point is that some of the comments above seem to imply that LP allegiance or past validity rate should be the overriding consideration; on the other hand, I believe it is entirely appropriate for petition coordinators to give weight to other factors.

    Correct again. And, again, I think that – for example – Andy is by far one of the best deals for the LP by all those criteria.


    3. Let me elaborate on “professional attitude” a bit. I have many close friends who have had extensive dealings with petitioners in the course of petition drives. Experiences they conveyed to me included: a) petitioners calling them at 2 AM to demand immediate wires of money, b) petitioners re-negotiating deals after the fact holding complete petitions hostage, c) petitioners who turned in invalid signatures (fields not filled out or filled out improperly) and/or invalid petitions (incorrectly notarized) yet still demanding to be paid in full, d) petitioners who refuse to cooperate with tax forms (which could expose the national LP or state affiliates to liability), etc. (I’m not alleging any of the petitioners in this thread fall in those categories.) A petition coordinator may make a valid business decision resting on a firm economic foundation by taking into account the time and energy he would have to devote to dealing with a particular petitioner’s idiosyncrasies. If the cost of dealing with a particular petitioner exceeds the benefit, “blackballing” a petitioner may be an appropriate approach.

    All true.


    4. I lack the personal knowledge to form any opinion as to whether Sean Haugh’s decision of not dealing with the petitioners referenced above could be supported by valid business reasons such as the factors I mentioned. I also lack personal knowledge to form any opinion as to whether I would make a similar decision if I were in his place.

    As far as I can tell, the business decision to “fire” me was based entirely on my limited defense of Gary on this message thread.


    5. I’m not going to defend Sean Haugh’s burning comment. However, firing Sean for that one comment may not be the appropriate response. Robert Kraus and Bill Redpath must weigh all the benefits of Sean Haugh working for the LP against all of the costs when making a decision of whether to retain or fire him. The burning comment is a strike against him. I’m aware of several other such strikes, including his comments about Susan Hogarth. But I’m not going to fault Kraus or Redpath for making a cost/benefit analysis (with a lot of information I’m not privy to) and coming to the conclusion that firing Sean Haugh would not be appropriate at this time. If we fired every staff member who made a mistake we’d be an all volunteer party. And if we dismissed every volunteer who made a mistake, the LP would dissolve.

    Right again. As I said on the thread about “firing” me:

    I’m not going to be vindictive here. There are certainly things Sean has done, ranging from “firing” me and people I know to attacking some of our candidates and potential candidates, that I really don’t like.

    Before we make this all about firing Sean, I have to ask who they will hire instead. For all we know, the next person may be even worse. As a practical matter, I highly doubt they will fire Sean in the middle of petition drives, and, if they do, they will probably have Scott Kohlhaas manage all petition drives. I don’t see how that would be an improvement.

    Even if they bring in someone new entirely, can we know whether that person will be better or worse than Sean?

    That’s not a defense of Sean, either. It’s a practical consideration that we should keep in mind.


    6. There has been an allegation that the LNC discussed the Nebraska matter in executive session during the Orlando meeting and voted in secret not to pay petitioners. That allegation is entirely false. First of all, no votes are allowed in executive session. Second, most of the LNC had no knowledge of the Nebraska situation until the Pittsburgh meeting.

    I mentioned in the public comments at that meeting and/or in private conversations with several people on the LNC that Andy and Gary had not been paid for Nebraska, and asked that the LNC consider a way to get them paid. Since that did not happen, I think Andy drew the conclusion that you all voted against it. I can certainly believe that no vote took place, and that my remarks may have not been heard and/or understood by some.


    Third, the national LP had no legal liability whatsoever in Nebraska; the contractually responsible parties were the Nebraska libertarian affiliate and Scott Kohlhaas. The LNC decision in Pittsburgh to intervene and pay the petitioners was a generous gesture to keep good terms between the LP and dedicated petitioners; it was not in any way legally required.

    True. However, the things Andy said about this are true as well.


    7. My comments should not be construed as to doubt the truth of most of what the petitioners have said in this thread. I am very grateful to our hard working petitioners for their contributions on getting the LP ballot status around the country. However, because the national office has decided not to defend itself, I felt I should step in and convey the opinions above.

    Thanks!

  35. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Rachel,

    Your point is well made. I hope no one considers anything here as an attack on you.

  36. Rachel H Rachel H July 6, 2008

    Art Torrey said . . .
    ” but I DO think that the response to it by LNC (or lack thereof) . . . does give clear indication that there are problems w/ LNC…

    I would be FAR happier about this mess if Redpath or other responsible LNC officers made it clear that there was an investigation ”

    I must object to Mr. Torrey’s allegations.

    On July 2nd, I asked Mr. Fincher, by eMail, to send me the letter that he had offered to readers of some blogs, outlining his case. I received no response.

    On July 5th, I received that letter, as part of a mass email to the LNC. Note that I said 5th of July – a national holiday weekend.

    And before that day is even over, indeed, the very same day – July 5 – Mr. Torrey is posting the above . . .

    Mr. Torrey, et al – before the LNC could do anything, Mr. Fincher had to bring it to us. And we were the last ones he brought it to. It had been in the blogs for about a week, and then the JudComm letter, before he bothered to contact us.

    These demands for immediate judgment, without any fact-finding, trouble me . . .

    Y’all have a gentle day . . . I’m back to petitioning! :o)

  37. Arthur Torrey Arthur Torrey July 6, 2008

    PDSA, you have some not unreasonable remarks about the use of “mercenary petitioners” essentially that a party / cause that can’t raise it’s own signatures with volunteers is a failure…

    I used to share your opinion, but over time, some of it spent slaving over a clipboard myself, I have changed my opinion…

    1. The LP has a great deal of background in economics – including the economics of specialization – does it make more sense for a person that makes large sums on his regular job to spend time collecting signatures, arguably less efficiently than a pro petitioner, or for him to take the money he makes at that job, and pay a pro to gather the sigs for him?

    2. Money is really a form of speech – is a brilliant thinker with a speech impediment making a bad choice when he hires someone to read a speech that he wrote? Is a shy person making a bad choice to hire a petitioner to collect sigs for him, instead of standing out in front of the people himself?

    3. It takes serious personal courage to stand out in a public place and ask for signatures KNOWING that you will, at best, be ignored by many people and treated with varying degrees of rudeness and personal abuse by many more… I am not a small person, and look somewhat formidable, yet I’ve had people try to physically intimidate me while I’ve been collecting – I imagine a small woman would have an even harder time… (Never mind the new names I’ve gotten and the interesting words I’ve been taught….) – might it be a sense of discretion to prefer to pay someone else to take the abuse?

    4. Is there REALLY a difference between collecting and submitting some number of signatures yourself, vs. donating the cost of paying a pro to collect the same number? While in some cases there can be rich people / organizations that “buy” themselves a ballot question or nomination, most are funded by donors who might otherwise have collected the sigs themselves…

    So really I don’t see a huge amount of difference between volunteer signature gathering and voluntary cash donations to hire a pro (Who may also do a far better job of it…)

    ART

  38. Steve LaBianca Steve LaBianca July 6, 2008

    Ah yes, we live in interesting times (as Marc Montoni has said so often!) and I can’t help but think that with the nomination of two non-libertarians to the presidential ticket, itself a symptom of the tumultuous aspect of the LP, and the totally scrapping of a comprehensive, concise platform in favor of one which “our candidates can run on” (i.e. a pseudo-libertarian wouldn’t have to run away from), is either a precursor of things to come (a conservative pseudo-libertarian war mongering party) or a wake up call for true libertarians to regroup and take back the “Party of Principle”.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp July 6, 2008

    GE,

    I encourage Gary Fincher to stop thinking in terms of litigation — criminal or civil — entirely.

    There’s an easy way to handle this.:

    – Lay out the allegations, supported with evidence to the highest degree possible.

    – Demand satisfactory redress — offhand, the termination of Mr. Haugh’s employment by the LNC and an apology from same sound appropriate given the particulars.

    – Give the demand teeth: 1) Seek endorsements from known and respected LP activists, blogs, etc.; 2) Encourage known paid petitioners to refuse LP contracts; and 3) Encourage known ballot access donors to withhold financial support, until the matter is settled.

  40. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 6, 2008

    Rothbard and Walter Block saw slander as a non-crime.

    Non-violent extortion, too.

    I encourage Gary Fincher to drop the slander suit against Angela Keaton and focus his energies on the real property crime conspired by Sean Haugh.

  41. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Quoth Gary Fincher:

    “I shall now be including Angela Keaton in a slander/defamation of character suit! This is going over the line, Angela.”

    Please tell me what I have to say to be included in that suit as well. I do try to stay in good company whenever possible.

    Well, you could say that Gary has a criminal history of violence against women, for example – unless he actually does, and he has challenged anyone and everyone to investigate for themselves.

    Tom, you are a good researcher – maybe you can uncover what Angela is referring to. Despite her wanting nothing to do with me, I want no harm to come to Angela, so I sincerely hope she has not made any such serious allegations without hard evidence.

  42. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    I’ve strived to be honest and fair to all parties, including Sean and Scott. I pointed out those things which I knew to be false (that Sean had allegedly posted on blogs since June and that Scott was going to be paid a per signature rate in RI).

    To be clear, I don’t actually know whether Scott will be paid a per signature rate in RI. I do know that Sean told me he would not be.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp July 6, 2008

    Quoth Gary Fincher:

    “I shall now be including Angela Keaton in a slander/defamation of character suit! This is going over the line, Angela.”

    Please tell me what I have to say to be included in that suit as well. I do try to stay in good company whenever possible.

    I’m beginning to think the best way to solve this whole thing is to tie you and Sean Haugh together inside a sack and hang it over a clothesline. That would let you settle the matter between yourselves AND keep you both the hell out of everyone else’s hair.

  44. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    By the way Sean also said I had lied to him and said I was not working with Gary any more.

    That was in fact true. I’m not working with Gary anymore. As I said elsewhere, that is over personal matters and has nothing to do with his performance as a circulator.

  45. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Well, that was fast.

    I’m banned from working with the LP. (Sean chose to use the term fired, although technically I’m not an employee).

    Allegedly, something I said in this thread was false. He did not find whatever it was.

    He also claimed that I had put the information about Rhode Island in the blogosphere. That too is false. It’s true that I talked about it with Andy on the phone. If I was ever asked to keep that particular conversation confidential, I don’t recall anyone asking me to do so.

    Andy was the one who posted about it first in a thread at LFV. GE posted about it here.

    My instincts were to keep out of this thread. Andy insisted I get involved in this thread, and I did, despite my reservations.

    So far, it has cost me a good friend and a major client. We’ll see what else it costs me as this continues to deteriorate.

    I’ve strived to be honest and fair to all parties, including Sean and Scott. I pointed out those things which I knew to be false (that Sean had allegedly posted on blogs since June and that Scott was going to be paid a per signature rate in RI).

  46. chuckmoulton chuckmoulton July 6, 2008

    I’m a glutton for punishment, so I’ll add my 2 cents here. I lack personal knowledge about most of this stuff, so I’ll limit my comments to a few points.

    1. Hiring and firing petitioners is a business decision, not a political one. Obviously most petitioners are self-interested entrepreneurs who seek to maximize their own profit. Similarly, the Libertarian Party is a self-interested entity which seeks to minimize its cost. Due to concentrated benefits and distributed costs it would be a poor idea for selection of petitioners to be made through some sort of membership vote. Although no one has outright said it, I see the implication in some comments above that these decisions should be politicized and I wanted to refute that fallacy.

    2. The business decision of whether to hire or fire petitioners can rightly be based on a large number of criteria: past validity rates, past speed (signatures/day), legal residency, libertarian leanings, LP membership, work ethic, professional attitude, etc. Different people may accord different weights to those considerations when they are the ones tasked with making the hiring/firing business decisions. However, my point is that some of the comments above seem to imply that LP allegiance or past validity rate should be the overriding consideration; on the other hand, I believe it is entirely appropriate for petition coordinators to give weight to other factors.

    3. Let me elaborate on “professional attitude” a bit. I have many close friends who have had extensive dealings with petitioners in the course of petition drives. Experiences they conveyed to me included: a) petitioners calling them at 2 AM to demand immediate wires of money, b) petitioners re-negotiating deals after the fact holding complete petitions hostage, c) petitioners who turned in invalid signatures (fields not filled out or filled out improperly) and/or invalid petitions (incorrectly notarized) yet still demanding to be paid in full, d) petitioners who refuse to cooperate with tax forms (which could expose the national LP or state affiliates to liability), etc. (I’m not alleging any of the petitioners in this thread fall in those categories.) A petition coordinator may make a valid business decision resting on a firm economic foundation by taking into account the time and energy he would have to devote to dealing with a particular petitioner’s idiosyncrasies. If the cost of dealing with a particular petitioner exceeds the benefit, “blackballing” a petitioner may be an appropriate approach.

    4. I lack the personal knowledge to form any opinion as to whether Sean Haugh’s decision of not dealing with the petitioners referenced above could be supported by valid business reasons such as the factors I mentioned. I also lack personal knowledge to form any opinion as to whether I would make a similar decision if I were in his place.

    5. I’m not going to defend Sean Haugh’s burning comment. However, firing Sean for that one comment may not be the appropriate response. Robert Kraus and Bill Redpath must weigh all the benefits of Sean Haugh working for the LP against all of the costs when making a decision of whether to retain or fire him. The burning comment is a strike against him. I’m aware of several other such strikes, including his comments about Susan Hogarth. But I’m not going to fault Kraus or Redpath for making a cost/benefit analysis (with a lot of information I’m not privy to) and coming to the conclusion that firing Sean Haugh would not be appropriate at this time. If we fired every staff member who made a mistake we’d be an all volunteer party. And if we dismissed every volunteer who made a mistake, the LP would dissolve.

    6. There has been an allegation that the LNC discussed the Nebraska matter in executive session during the Orlando meeting and voted in secret not to pay petitioners. That allegation is entirely false. First of all, no votes are allowed in executive session. Second, most of the LNC had no knowledge of the Nebraska situation until the Pittsburgh meeting. Third, the national LP had no legal liability whatsoever in Nebraska; the contractually responsible parties were the Nebraska libertarian affiliate and Scott Kohlhaas. The LNC decision in Pittsburgh to intervene and pay the petitioners was a generous gesture to keep good terms between the LP and dedicated petitioners; it was not in any way legally required.

    7. My comments should not be construed as to doubt the truth of most of what the petitioners have said in this thread. I am very grateful to our hard working petitioners for their contributions on getting the LP ballot status around the country. However, because the national office has decided not to defend itself, I felt I should step in and convey the opinions above.

  47. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Of course, I’ll honor Angela’s request, and I will not be calling or emailing her anymore.

    I’m saddened by her decision, but I will take it as final.

  48. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Correction, I will not be helping Angela on a side job.

    She just called me and told me to never talk to her again, and that she would make sure I, along with Andy and Gary, would never petition again.

  49. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    If Gary were the horrible person Angela makes him out to be (and I don’t believe he is, but I can’t say for 110% sure since I only met him in late May) then it would justify Haugh’s unwillingness to work with him.

    Angela does not know Gary too much better than you do. She told me that she did not attempt to contact any of the people who Gary lists as his references

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/gary-finchers-letter-to-lp-judicial-committee-re-sean-haugh/

    to get the positive side on Gary. I am not pushing her to do this, I know she is super-busy right now
    (in fact I will be helping her on a work project as a side job the next couple of days), but anyone who wants to know the whole story can check Gary’s many references for themselves.

  50. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    It really sucks when people you respect and admire are on opposite sides of a feud.

    I feel the same way about this situation.

  51. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    We should have made a wager. I would have taken the over on 1,000 words. It ended up by 3,919!

    You didn’t think he was done at that point, did you?

  52. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    33, 34 and 35 are correct as well.

  53. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Finished Andy Book #1 (comment 32), everything besides the dates when Sean posted at LFV is correct.

  54. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    Why didn’t Robert Kraus issue an order to not burn petition signatures, especially given that Sean Haugh had copied him on that email?

    Good question.

  55. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 6, 2008

    “1.) Fincher has a criminal history with regard to violence against woman. The statement shall stand alone.”

    THIS IS A TOTLAL LIE! Gary does NOT have a history of violence against women.

    This LIE stems from a story told by an ex-friend of Gary’s named Roger. Back in 2004 Roger, Gary, and a woman by the name of Crystal did some petitioning together. Crystal had a volitiale personality and one day in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant in New England Crystal and Gary got into an arguement and the manager asked them to leave. This story later got twisted into being a violent altercation but this is not true. For evidence that this is not true, consider that no arrests were made and consider that Roger, Gary, and Crystal continued to work and travel together!

    If this was true, why would Roger and Crystal have continued to have worked and travelled with Gary? If this was true, why wasn’t Gary arrested?

    I have no idea whether this was what Angela was referring to. However, let me add that Roger is far from being a reliable source.

  56. Mike Guess Mike Guess July 6, 2008

    What a mess! The LP is going down in flames.

  57. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “If Gary were the horrible person Angela makes him out to be (and I don’t believe he is, but I can’t say for 110% sure since I only met him in late May)”

    The funny thing is that Angela Keaton interacted with Gary much less than you did.

  58. pdsa pdsa July 6, 2008

    Maybe the LP membership should take a long deep introspective look inside of themselves, and ask what can be intimated about the rectitude of a political movement’s intent, with an anemic member base incapable of securing its own ballot access internally.

    A dependence upon mercenaries is generally an indication of systemic turpitude. It is understandable that initial penetration may require the use of externalities, but Massachusetts, and Rhode Island? Have the corruptions of empire become so insidious as to affect even persons tied by birthright to John, John Quincy, Abigail, and Samuel Adams, to the point that they have not the temerity to arise, act up, and speak out in defense of their own personal liberties? Have Rhode Island’s residents now become so alienated from their very foundations, that they no longer can comprehend what Roger Williams’ gift to all of America was?

    It is no wonder that the LP has become the refuge of fainéant Republicans, fleeing from their proper share of responsibility for the manifestation of evil that is the present-day GOP.

    While this America
    settles in the mould of its vulgarity,
    heavily thickening to empire.

    And protest,
    only a bubble in the molten mass,
    pops and sighs out,
    and the mass hardens,

    I sadly smiling remember
    that the flower fades to make fruit,
    the fruit rots to make earth. …

    Robinson Jeffers, “Shine, Perishing Republic”

  59. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    G.E. // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    “P.S. I’ve gotten word that Andy is working on a response to this. Given his prolificacy with the pen (or keyboard) and vituperatude over Angela’s allegations, I’m preparing for a response the length of which would make Tolstoy blush.”

    This deserves an LOL!:)

  60. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “IT WOULD NOT, however, justify the ordering of petitions to be burned, and for that alone (if not among various other things), Sean Haugh should be fired. I lose respect for Bill Redpath every single day Haugh still has a job.”

    If Gary were the worst guy on the planet (which is FAR from reality), it still would not justify Sean Haugh ordering those petition signatures that were collected by Gary to be burned. The ONLY justification to burn them would be if they were all forged, but even then you would have to PROVE that they were all forged.

    Sean Haugh did not ask Carol McMahon to do a validity check on them and to only burn them if they were all forged, he just said to burn them without even knowing what the validity was.

    Also, it would really be up to the Massachusetts elections officials to determine if all of the signatures were forged.

    Destorying petition signatures is a CRIME anywhere in this country, and in Massachusetts it actually says that it is a crime right on the freakin’ petition!

    There is NO justification for Sean Haugh’s calling for these petition signatures to be burned. Sean or whoever else crawls out of the woodwork can try to smear Gary all they want but it still does not make Sean Haugh right.

    Sean showed ZERO regard for not only Mr. Fincher, but also the candidates on the petition, the Libertarian Party donors, and the voters of Massachusetts.

    Sean Haugh’s actions are CLEARLY grounds for termination. The fact that he is still on staff after pulling this stunt is something that should disturb every Libertarian in the country.

  61. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 6, 2008

    It really sucks when people you respect and admire are on opposite sides of a feud. Andy and I go way back — he and I butted heads all the time when I was developing as a libertarian, and I credit his Tolstoyian posts (which I always enjoy) for bringing me to libertarianism. He gave me a hard time for my statism, unlike some others, and also unlike others, he has never once given me flak for coming around to rather doctrinaire libertarianism (where I’ve been for over a year, and yet I still have people saying “two months ago you said this.”)

    Andy has an open feud with Lee Wrights, who was my boss on the Ruwart campaign, and from what I can tell, is a good and admirable person and did a great job working for Mary. And of course, I think the world of Angela Keaton, a true beacon of liberty even if she is (or at least appears to be from my vantage point) mistaken on this particular issue. I do not know Gary, but it seems that Angela’s assessment of him misses the mark.

    I posted Angela’s comments, with permission, to try to add balance in defense of Sean Haugh since Haugh cannot defend himself. Gary pointed out to me that this was more of a “smear” against him than a defense of Haugh, but the two are really one in the same. If Gary were the horrible person Angela makes him out to be (and I don’t believe he is, but I can’t say for 110% sure since I only met him in late May) then it would justify Haugh’s unwillingness to work with him. IT WOULD NOT, however, justify the ordering of petitions to be burned, and for that alone (if not among various other things), Sean Haugh should be fired. I lose respect for Bill Redpath every single day Haugh still has a job.

  62. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “AngelaKeatonDoherty-2 // Jul 6, 2008 at 12:00 am

    Just reread my email. Joe Knight is from New Mexico.”

    So Angela didn’t even know that Joe Knight is from New Mexico. This is not suprising. It is obvious that Angela did not have her facts straight. People who don’t know what they are talking about should not engage in smears.

  63. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    G.E. // Jul 6, 2008 at 2:21 am

    “He has reassured me it will be very brief and to the point.

    We should have made a wager. I would have taken the over on 1,000 words. It ended up by 3,919!”

    I copied Angela Keaton’s smears into the comment space and started responding. By the time I spoke to Paul I was already in the middle of the longest response. So I finished that one and there didn’t seem like that much more to respond to so I just said, “What the heck!” and finished the response without breaking it up into different posts.

    If not for the fact that I was already typing the longest response when I spoke to Paul I probably would have broken up into different posts.

  64. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “paulie cannoli // Jul 5, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Angela has told me that this has taken up way too much of her time. She is working on a major fundraising push at antiwar.com and does not have any more time to devote to this discussion.”

    Well thanks Angela, for taking time out of your busy schedule to post a bunch of LIES about myself and Gary. You obiouvsly must be too busy to do any actual fact checking, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good smear? You must be a fantastic person since you take time out of your busy schedule to smear people whom you barely known and talk about subjects where you have limited knowlege.

    And to think that Gary and I actually voted for you for LNC. Now this is what I call WASTED votes!

  65. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 6, 2008

    He has reassured me it will be very brief and to the point.

    We should have made a wager. I would have taken the over on 1,000 words. It ended up by 3,919!

    Sorry if some people think that the post is too long

    No need to apologize, Andy.

  66. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “circulators at an LNC meeting by paying the circulators out of their own pockets.”

    “It is true that LNC members paid them out of their own pockets, and did not have to do that. ”

    Something needs to be clarified about these statements about “LNC members paid us out of their own pockets.”

    While their donations were certainly appreciated, it should be pointed out that these are all people who are on the Libertarian Party donor list anyway, as am I, as is Gary, as is Mark, as is Paul, as is probably everyone else on this thread.

    Anyone who has ever donated money to the Libertarian Party is on the Libertarian Party donor list.

    So, if Scott Kohlhaas had done his job as a fundraiser, and if he had not renegged on his agreement with the LP of Nebraska, all of those people on the LNC who donated to pay us at that LNC meeting in Pittsburg are all people from whom Scott Kohlhaas could have solicited donations from anyway.

    It is not like this was some kind of charity as they were planning to do a ballot access drive in Nebraska anyway and they were paying us for work that we did, and as I said in a post above, our efforts in Nebraska in the fall of 2006 actually saved the party money and got them ahead of where they would be now. The Libertarian Party of Nebraska recently regained ballot status mostly due to our efforts.

    Also, they did not have to limit the fundraising to the handful of people sitting in that room. They have a big email list and regular mail list from whom they could have solicited donations. They made a choice to limit the fundraising to the handful of people who were sitting in that room.

  67. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “Later, we learned (second hand) that he worked Nader in 04 himself.”

    Scott also called Paul and I around December of 2005 or Janaury of 2006 to try to get us to come to Alaska (he offered to fly us in, put us up in a motels, and rent us a car) to gather signatures for some ballot initiatives on which he was a petition coordinator. There were 5 of them and 2 or 3 of them were anti-Libertarian issues. We turned it down because it was winter and we were in Florida and the weather was nice while it was freaking cold in Alaska.

    Scott has got no room to play the “holier-than-thou” purist act.

  68. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “He has reassured me it will be very brief and to the point.”

    I ended up including my responses to all of the misinformation that Angela Keaton posted in one post.

    Sorry if some people think that the post is too long but I wanted to refute each bogus claim posted by Keaton. The post actually could have been longer as I was holding back.:)

  69. TheOriginalAndy TheOriginalAndy July 6, 2008

    “My days as an apologist for the LPHQ and the LNC are behind me so please give me due consideration.”

    Your days as an apologist for Sean Haugh are obviously not behind you.

    “1.) Fincher has a criminal history with regard to violence against woman. The statement shall stand alone.”

    THIS IS A TOTLAL LIE! Gary does NOT have a history of violence against women.

    This LIE stems from a story told by an ex-friend of Gary’s named Roger. Back in 2004 Roger, Gary, and a woman by the name of Crystal did some petitioning together. Crystal had a volitiale personality and one day in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant in New England Crystal and Gary got into an arguement and the manager asked them to leave. This story later got twisted into being a violent altercation but this is not true. For evidence that this is not true, consider that no arrests were made and consider that Roger, Gary, and Crystal continued to work and travel together!

    If this was true, why would Roger and Crystal have continued to have worked and travelled with Gary? If this was true, why wasn’t Gary arrested?

    “2.) As a former staffer for the LPC, it is essential that the staff be allowed to choose its own vendors. If Redpath is unsatisfied with Haugh’s work, Haugh can be fired. If Haugh blackballs too many petitioners, he will find his choices limited and change his policy.”

    Gary, Mark, and I are not just Libertarian Party vendors, we are long time Libertarian Party members.

    The Libertarian Party budget is NOT Sean Haugh’s budget, it is the MEMBERS’ buget which is made up of their DONATIONS (including donations from myself). The Libertarian Party is not a dictatorship and Sean Haugh is not our dictator.

    Also, Haugh’s decisions are completely arbitrary (see his blackballing of Mark because he accused Mark of sneaking Gary into Massachusets, nevermind the fact that he had no evidence and that it was not true and that it there was no reason to blackball Gary in the first place) and are based on his unstable, vindictive personality.

    The fact that Haugh would order 2,000 petition signatures to be burned “(quite literally)” should give everyone a view into just how warped this guy really is.

    “3.) Based on past experiences with Fincher, including a stalking incident, Haugh blurted out something he shouldn’t have said (e.g. ‘burn the signatures.’) Fincher essentially turned Haugh into the police state based on hyperbole, however sincere he may have been in that request. As an anarchist, I cannot condone using the police to resolve our internal conflicts.”

    There was no stalking incident. This is another LIE!

    Haugh’s calling to burn the signatures can’t be written off as mere hyperbole because in the email Haugh typed “(quite literally)” and because Haugh backed this up by CALLING Carol McMahon up on the phone and ORDERING her to burn the signatures.

    Angela’s anarchist arguement against calling the police is completely bogus. We should all know damn well that if the sitaution were reversed that Haugh would call the police. What else is Gary supposed to do, enact vigilante justice? Is he supposed to go to the anarcho-capitalist courts that do not exsist?

    Does Angela Keaton drive on roads? If she does, wouldn’t this make her a hypocrite because she is driving on government roads and as an anarchist she doesn’t believe in government roads?

    Did Angela Keaton fly to the National Convention in Denver out of airports that recieve tax payer funding, and are they regulated by the FAA? If so, how can she have done this as an anarchist?

    “3.) In June, Kraus forbade LPHQ staff to comment on public blogs. Fincher is given several fora in which to make his case. Haugh is not allowed to respond. This makes a fair judgment of the situation impossible unless one has done as I have attempted, however clumsily, to make phone calls to the witnesses.”

    Yet according to Elfninosmom at Last Free Voice, Sean Haugh was still posting on Last Free Voice in June.

    Also, Gary sent an email to Sean Haugh and Sean Haugh never responded. Gee, I wonder why…

    Why didn’t Robert Kraus issue an order to not burn petition signatures, especially given that Sean Haugh had copied him on that email?

    “4.) In July of 2007, I witnessed as Fincher and Jacob tried to manipulate facts to extort personal money (not LNC money) from Starr, Redpath, Sullentrup and several other donors in Pittsburgh. I cannot trust Fincher to relay facts correctly. Fincher has already made comments which suggest he is not satisfied with his LPMA pay. Professor Phillies has made it very clear that Fincher has been paid in full.”

    Angela Keaton’s account of that LNC meeting is a complete DISTROTION OF REALITY.

    What really happened is that Gary, Mark, Paul, and I worked on a Libertarian Party ballot access drive in Nebraska from October-November of 2006. Scott Kohlhaas was the fundraiser for this petition drive. Scott had told us that we’d get paid while we were in Nebraska. We turned in signatures while we were there but we recieved ZERO pay while we were working and when we did our final turn in it turned out that there was only about $1,900 to pay us, and Gary and I only recieved $313 each of that.

    Mark and Paul were really desperate for cash and could not afford to have a further delay in pay, so I took it upon myself to actually PAY THEM OUT OF MY OWN POCKET, with the understanding that I’d be reimbursed for it shortly by Scott Kohlhaas. SO I PAID PAUL AND MARK AROUND $6,000 OUT OF MY OWN POCKET! I was owed like $4,000 myself, so I left Nebraska being owed a staggering $10,000!

    Gary left Nebraska being owed around $4,000.

    We were told that we’d get a check for the rest of the money would be mailed to us in a week. It never arrived. So I started calling Scott Kohlhaas about it and when I finally got through to him he said that it would come at the end of December, and that it would be like a “big Christmas present”. The end of December came and we still didn’t get it.

    Then Scott Kohlhaas said that we’d get the rest of the money by the end of January. That came and we still didn’t get the rest of the money.

    Now we did get some small payments between around early February and late March or early April of 2007. During this time period I recieved around $4,000 and Gary recieved around $1,000.

    In early February, Gary was travelling through New York and his older model vehicle broke down. He took it to a garage and the mechanics told him that the repair bill was going to far exceed the value of the car, not to mention the fact that it was going to take several days to get it fixed (parts had to be ordered). Gary was on a work related trip to Arizona. So he called up to find out how much longer it was going to take to get the money for the work he had done in Nebraka and we was told that he’d get the full amount within 4 days. So based on this information, Gary decided to send his car to a junkyard with the plan of purchasing a new(er) vehichle once the $4,000 that he was owed from his work in Nebraska arrived.

    Gary ended up getting on a train and continued on his trip with the hopes of having the money and then purchasing another vehicle while he was in Arizona. Unfortunately, the money did not arrive as promised and Gary end up being stuck in Arizona wondering where the money was as he was counting on it to purchase another vehicle.

    Gary is a diabetic and diabetics are prones to getting sores on their feet which can become infected, and if the infections get bad enough, they can actually lead to amputations. As bad luck would have it, Gary started to develop a sore on his foot not long after this.

    Due to not recieving the $4,000, Gary had to rent cars in order to work, and he recieved no reimbursement for his rental car expenses. His foot sore got worse and became infected. The problem with the foot sore limited his ability to work as well as he would have otherwise. (Note that the foot sore was caused by having to walk more since he was without a car of his own.)

    Getting back to the pay situation, I attended a diner in late December with some members of the Libertarian Party of Maryland and some fellow petitioners and Bill Redpath came up from Virginia for this diner. During the diner I told Bill Redpath that Gary and I had not been paid most of the money that we were owed from the Nebraska petition drive and that Scott Kohlhaas was claiming that we’d get it at the end of December. Bill said to call him if we didn’t recieve it and that he’d talk to Scott Kohlhaas. When we didn’t get it at the end of December I called up Bill.

    As I said above, we were then told that we’d get it by the end of January and we didn’t it.

    We had a conference call with Scott Kohlhaas, Bill Redpath, and some members of the Nebraska LP in February and then we were told that we’d get all of the money by the end of February. It still didn’t come.

    Then March came and we were told that we’d recieve the money by the end of March and we even had another conference call on March 10th. The end of March came and we still didn’t recieve all of the money.

    The March 10th conference call is also signifigant due to the fact that it was the last time that I spoke to Scott Kohlhaas for over a year. Why? BECA– USE SCOTT KOHLHAAS STOPPED RETURNING MY PHONE CALLS!

    I called Scott a bunch of time in March after the conference call, and I called him a bunch more times in April, but by around late April or early May it became apparent that he was purposely ducking me so I didn’t bother to call him anymore after that.

    For some strange reason, Scott called me one time in April of 2008 (over a year after he had stopped returning my calls) but by that time I didn’t really want to speak to him after what he had done so I didn’t take the call.

    When I confronted Scott Kohlhaas at the National Convention in Denver the first thing that I said was something like, “Hey, it’s Scott Kohlhaas, the guy who ripped us off on the Nebraka pay. Why did you stop returning my phone calls after that March 10th conference call, Scott?” Scott’s response was to say, “I called you a bunch of times.” This was a PURE LIE and I called him out on it. I asked him if he’d like for us to check the phone records to see how many times he called me and he refused to anwser me about this.

    There was an LNC meeting in Florida that Paul attended. Bill Redpath told me that he was going to present the Nebraska LP ballot access drive pay situation to the LNC and try to get a resolution passed to pay us. Apparently, this vote was taken in secret and a majority of the LNC members voted to not pay us.

    So the money stopped arriving around early April. Gary and I were getting really irritated so around late June and early July we started talking to a lawyer.

    In early July Bill Redpath told us that he had a coference call with Scott Kohlhaas and some members of the Nebraska LP and they had resolved to pay us, however, this “agreement” did not include the bulk of the expense reimbursements for which we had been promised. This was unacceptable so I told Bill that unless we recieved all of the pay including the motel & travel reimbursements that we were PROMISED that we were definitely filing a law suit. Bill agreed that it was not right to cut us out of the expense reimbursements that we were promised – especially after waiting so long to get paid – so he said that he’d work on that.

    Gary, Paul, and I happened to be in Ohio in July of 2007, and we found out that there was going to be an LNC meeting in Pittsburg, so we decided to attend the meeting to confront the LNC about us not getting paid.

    We showed up at the hotel where the meeting was at at night and when we arrived there several of the people attending the meeting were hanging around outside the hotel, in the lobby, and in the hotel bar.

    Incidentily, it was in the hotel bar that evening where I met Angela Keaton for the first time and she seemed friendly as my brief conversation with her was cordial. My only other interactions with Angela Keaton were a brief phone conversation in early July of 2007 – Paul was talking to her and he put me on the phone with her for a few minutes to talk about Libertarian radicals – and my other interaction with her was (very) briefly at the National Convention in Denver. Both of these interactions were cordial as well.

    On a side note, I ACTUALLY VOTED FOR Angela Keaton for the LNC at the National Convention, and Gary VOTED FOR HER AS WELL, and now that she has launched this unprovoked lie-filled smear campaign against us we REGRET having wasted our votes on her.

    So to wrap this story up, our case was presented to the LNC and Bill Redpath suggested a round-the-room fundraising effort to pay us and that’s what happened. Everyone in the room did not donate, however, enough did donate to pay us the principle of what we were owed.

    Now the reason that I said principle is because due to the long delay that we went through in getting this pay, Bill Redpath had told us before this that we should recieve “credit card style interest” of 18% for every month that the pay was late. Before Scott Kohlhaas had gone out of contact with us he had talked about giving us a .50 cent per signature bonus due to the pay being so late. So I got up to ask about the late fee, but there seemed to be no interst in this and that was it.

    During the public comments period which was held at the end of the LNC meeting I got up and said “Thanks” to the people present who made a donation towards getting us paid. If you go through the meeting minutes which should be posted on the LNC website you should see this.

    So how in the HELL could Angela twist this story into Gary and I extorting money out of the LNC? This is an EXTREMELY TWISTED interpetation of the events. It is not as though Gary and I stuck guns to anybody’s head, and it is also not as though we were not legitimately owed a debt for gathering Libertarian Party ballot access signatures in Nebraska.

    Also, keep in mind that during the time period that we were owed money that Scott Kohlhaas was on the LNC payroll. Go check the Libertarian Party FEC reports and you will see that Scott Kohlhaas was getting payments of $5,000 per month (and this does not include any money that Scott made off of deals with state parties or off of things going on in Alaska such as ballot initiatives).

    Another interesting thing to consider here is that the LNC hired some petitioner named Diane Gentry to finish the LP of Nebraska petition drive. If you check the LNC FEC reports from earlier this year (go to FEC.gov and there are links you can use to get to these reports) you’ll see that this person was paid money by the LNC to finish the Nebraska ballot access petitioning effort.

    When we were in Nebraska we did about 70-80% of the drive. We actually SAVED the party money by getting those signatures when we got them as if we hadn’t gathered these signatures in 2006 that would have meant that the Libertarian Party would have had to have started the Nebraska drive in from a point of having zero signatures in 2008. This would have cost the party more money and would have jeporadized ballot access drives in other states, and there is also a good chance the the LP would have failed to make the ballot this year in Nebraska if it had not been for us.

    There was recently an announcement posted on the LP National website about how the LP of Nebraska requalified for the ballot. Well, as Paul Harvey used to say, “And now you know the rest of the story.”

    “5.) We need to be selective in our grievances. Whether or not Fincher’s behavior is problem is not a radical or reform issue. I refuse to sacrifice credibility by allowing Fincher’s behavior to be protected by those of us who have been critical of this administration, ticket and former LPHQ staff.”

    Fincher’s behaviour is not being protected by anyone, and for that matter, there is nothing to protect about his behaviour.

    “6.) If we wish to indict via public opinion, note that highly respected radicals such as our former Vice Chair Lee Wrights and New Hampshire activist Joseph Knight have sided with Haugh based on specific and documented experiences. Further, the fact that Tom Knapp has repeatedly taken a point by point approach to Fincher’s arguments and found them lacking and that Susan Hogarth has implored Fincher not to further involve the LPNC in this matter should be strongly considered. Knapp and Hogarth are not ones to blindly side with Haugh or the LNC. Theirs are not considerations are ones I would ever dismiss out of hand.”

    LOL! Lee Wrights is as mentally unstable as Sean Haugh. Him siding with Sean Haugh should come as no suprise.

    As for Joe Knight, he has been lying about Gary for years. Also, Joe Knight is from New Mexico, not New Hampshire, so you don’t even have your facts straight. Joe continuelly gets told that Richard Winger investigated the situation and said that Gary’s voter registrations were indeed processed by the New Mexico Elections Office. He also has been told on multiple occassions that Ron Bjornstad of the New Mexico Libertarian Party ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND WATCHED GARY COVERTLY (SOMETHING WHICH JOE KNIGHT NEVER DID), AND THAT RON BJORNSTAD SAID THAT GARY DID NOTHING WRONG. Ron Bjornstad even worked with Gary a little bit. Now who are you going to believe, Ron Bjornstad, or Joe Knight who NEVER even saw Gary work? If you believe Joe Knight then you must be calling Ron Bjornstad a liar. You also must being calling Robert Lucero from the Bernalillo County Elections Office a liar since he said that Gary was actually too insistent about registering Libertarian if anything when he investigated Gary undercover (which REFUTES the “tricking” charges). On top of this, the State of New Mexico NEVER even pressed any charges against Gary because there was no evidence that he had committed a crime!

    The bottom line is that the state government didn’t like the fact that more people were registering as Libertarians and they did not want to see the LP become a major party, so they conducted a smear campaign in the media. Gary offered to go to the media in Alburquerque (where he worked) to give his side of the story and Joe Knight told him not to do this. Then Gary ended up leaving the state and Joe Knight used him as a scapegoat.

    Ironically, Scott Kohlhaas did Libertarian Party voter registrations in Las Cruces around the same time period and there were also accusations of fraud in Las Cruces, but nobody – including Mr. Knight – ever attacked Scott Kohlhaas for this. (IN ALL FAIRNESS TO SCOTT KOHLHAAS, ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT HE ENGAGED IN VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD IN NEW MEXICO ARE LIKELY FALSE AS WELL.)

    Mr. Knight should put these BS attacks on Gary to rest. Gary started petitioning in 1991. He is still petitioning in 2008. He worked on many campaigns before and since this incident in New Mexico and has not engaged in fraud or even been accused of engaging in fraud to my knowledge. I have worked with him on several occassions and I even hired him a few times when I got to be in more of a coordinator role, and he NEVER once did bad work.

    If there were any truth to these allegations against Gary from almost 9 years ago in New Mexico, wouldn’t Gary have similiar charges around the country? How is it that Gary just turned in a batch of 2,000 high quality signatures in Massachusetts? How is it that Gary gathered a good chunck of the signatures to get the Libertarian Party back on the ballot in North Dakota and Nebraska for this election cycle? How is it that Gary gathered a good chunck of signatures to get Carla’s End the Massachusetts State Income Tax on the ballot and to get another initiative on the ballot to Reduce Penalties on Marijuana Pocession? Why is it that Gary has petitioned in Massachusetts 16 times? Why is it that Carla Howell invited Gary to petition in Massachusetts 6 times (and those are just the times that he accepted the invitations)? Why is it that Gary was invited to petition again in Massachusetts by George Phillies (whom Gary had petitioned for before as well)?

    I think that the evidence clearly indicates that Gary is a good petitioner (the same goes for myself for that matter).

    I’d be willing to bet that Gary and I could petition circles around Sean Haugh, Lee Wrights, and Joe Knight.

    As for Tom Knapp, the only comments that I’ve seen from him have been about procedure.

    I know that Tom was calling for the removal of Shane Cory due to that ridiculous anti-Mary Ruwart “kiddie porn” press release smear, and since it has come out that Sean Haugh was involved in that press release, and has actually defended it, I would imagine that Tom would probably want Sean Haugh removed from office as well, but whether or not Tom Knapp favors removing Sean Haugh from office has NOTHING to do with Gary or myself.

    I know that Susan Hogarth has had problems with Sean Haugh (such as Sean endorsing her “FairTax” Republican opponent and mocking her in public as the Political Director), but as with Tom what Susan does has nothing to do with Gary and I.

    Whatever Tom and Susan do is up to them.

    “7.) The public record is being shaped in such a way that Fincher and Jacob are put in the same category as an outstanding family man like Chris Bennett or a dedicated much beloved activist like Paulie Cannolli. I won’t have any part of that.”

    LOL! Paul is a friend of mine who I have worked with extensively and who I have help out on multiple occassions. He knows that these accusations are BS.

    I’ve spoked to Chris Bennett on the phone a few times and I’ve seen him on the blogs but I’ve never met him in person. Chris seems like a great guy to me and I think that he knows that Gary and I are in the right and that Haugh should go, along with some other people at LP National.

  70. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 6, 2008

    …and we will hide the key to the chairmans office somewhere around the country! Whoever finds it will lead our party to perpetual awesomeness!

  71. AngelaKeatonDoherty-2 AngelaKeatonDoherty-2 July 6, 2008

    Just reread my email. Joe Knight is from New Mexico.

    G.E.–Can’t seem to make any of my log in names or emails work on this site. Probably on my end but if there is anyway you can reset my log in for “AngelaKeaton,” that would be great.

  72. Arthur Torrey Arthur Torrey July 5, 2008

    A note on signature validation in Mass….

    There are several levels of validation in Mass, and this may be relevant to the discussion…

    Each of our 351 cities and towns has it’s own Registrar of Voters, who maintains the list of voters for that town, with the actual voter signatures.

    A master list of all the voters by name, address, party, voting history, etc. but NO signatures is compiled by the Secretary of State’s office. This list is available (with restrictions) to candidates and parties, or single town lists of the same sort can be obtained from local registrars.

    This list is the tool that is used to “validate” signatures by petition collectors, but it is limited – I can look at a given signature, and try to read the address… If I can, then I can look at the voter list and see if I can find it… If yes, I can then look to see if there is a name registered at that address which appears to match the signature…

    If I fail anywhere along that line, then the signature is potentially invalid.

    However assuming that I have a sort of legible signature that matches “Joe Blow, 123 Big St., Thistown” I can only presume that it’s valid, as I don’t know how “Joe” signed his name when he registered.

    Given the realities of the numbers of signatures involved, only spot checking will be done to this level of detail. Mostly a sheet will be looked at primarily to see if the addresses are legible, then if the sigs are reasonably so.

    This is about all the petitioners can do. When I’ve mentioned validation rates in connection with Mr. Fincher and other petitioners, this is the level I’ve been referring to.

    Since there are no master lists with signatures, when petitioning it is necessary to keep a separate sheet for each city and town, which must be later submitted to the individual registrars for their validation.

    This is the validation that really counts, and is done by comparing the actual signatures which must be “Substantially as registered” to the petition sheets. Obviously this is somewhat up to the discretion of the individual registrars, but (to give the gov’t credit for doing right!) there is little reason to suspect bias from having much to do with validation results. The registrars indicate on the sheets which signatures they accept and which they don’t. This can be more or less than what was expected, but is usually pretty close.

    I’m not expecting any problems, but we will very likely be looking at the sheets we get back from the registrars and seeing if there are any significant differences in the approval rates on the different petitioners sheets…

    Once the registrars have validated the sheets, the petitioner is responsible for gathering them from all 351 cities and towns, and getting them to the Secretary of State’s office. The SOS then counts up all the valid signatures and announces whether or not you made it…

    One problem is that there is no requirement for the registrars to validate ANY sheets until after the petition window closes – thus there is no way to get an “official” read on how you are doing, and if you come up “short” there is no way to make up for the missing sigs.

    This means that to be sure you will make it onto the ballot you realistically need to get AT LEAST 150% of the requirement, preferably 175-200%

    Thus while on paper we “only” needed 10,000 sigs, we actually have to collect closer to 17,000.

    (In my own very local races, I need 10 sigs, but have never turned in less than 18…)

    ART

  73. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 5, 2008

    Excellent. So Fincher’s record aside, none of these actions are justified?
    Now the Keaton defense threw me off on if he actually meant burning.

  74. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 5, 2008

    Fincher has defended himself here, provided his full name and DOB and asked anyone to check out his criminal record (or lack thereof).

    No matter what, it does not justify Haugh ordering petitions to be burned; itself a crime.

    No matter what, it does not make sense for Haugh to use MY MONEY (and yours if you’re a dues paying member) to fly in a guy from Alaska to Rhode Island to do a petition drive when there are dozens (if not more) qualified petition gatherers in the New England area who could do the job just as well for less.

  75. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 5, 2008

    Ok. Let’s try and whirl my idiot brain into a mush of common sense.
    If Finch a credible source for reports of this nature to be taken seriously? There appears to be two different sides of his past.
    That being said, would Haugh’s grudge be sensible?

  76. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 5, 2008

    Mike Theo – I really don’t understand what you don’t understand. You’re the only one who seems to have any trouble following…

  77. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 5, 2008

    I’m just being vague. So far, they’ve left too many questions to be punctually answered. If not, they are not doing that well with it.
    Don’t stop on me, I’m just the village idiot chiming in. Every place needs one now and then.

  78. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    reading is fundamental.

    asking specific questions may help.

  79. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 5, 2008

    I am just so lost?

    What the hell is going on?

  80. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    P.S. I’ve gotten word that Andy is working on a response to this. Given his prolificacy with the pen (or keyboard) and vituperatude over Angela’s allegations, I’m preparing for a response the length of which would make Tolstoy blush.

    He has reassured me it will be very brief and to the point.

  81. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    Angela has told me that this has taken up way too much of her time. She is working on a major fundraising push at antiwar.com and does not have any more time to devote to this discussion.

  82. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    In response to Angela: Although you may categorize them differently, my understanding is that Paulie and Chris Bennett themselves would gladly lump themselves in with Gary and Andy. Am I wrong? Someone please say so.

    I’ve worked extensively with Andy and Gary on petition drives all over the country.

    I’ve also been Gary’s coordinator on some petition drives and have also handed his petitions into a state office and received his official validity reports.

    I have never seen any problem with their work.

    Their numbers and validity have generally been very good. They are also libertarian activists — unlike many petitioners who will work on anything that pays (admittedly, I have at times fallen in that category) and some of whom will flat out lie about what they are having people sign, and will not ask people if they are registered voters whenever they get a sense their validity is not being checked promptly and rigorously.

    I’ve ridden with Chris and his family to several LP state conventions in the midwest when he was running for the VP nomination.

    I’ve been friends with Angela over email, phone, and occasionally in person.

    I’m sorry to see them go at each other.

  83. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    The rest of ART’s post seems to be correct.

  84. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    Angela alleges that Fincher has expressed unhappiness with his payment from LPMA.

    Gary has probably pointed out that the other parties were paying him more in Mass., and that the LP was paying a petition coordinator whose crew averages lower validity than he gets at a higher rate.

  85. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    3. There have been repeated claims that LNC staff are prohibited from commenting on public blogs. While I can understand such a rule, the fact remains that Haugh (or someone undisputedly claiming to be him) HAS posted on blogs in the past, as has been pointed out on LFV, with dates…

    Angela said the policy is as of June.

    Sean’s comments on LFV, TPW, etc., predate that.

  86. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 5, 2008

    P.S. I’ve gotten word that Andy is working on a response to this. Given his prolificacy with the pen (or keyboard) and vituperatude over Angela’s allegations, I’m preparing for a response the length of which would make Tolstoy blush.

  87. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 5, 2008

    In response to Angela: Although you may categorize them differently, my understanding is that Paulie and Chris Bennett themselves would gladly lump themselves in with Gary and Andy. Am I wrong? Someone please say so.

  88. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 5, 2008

    Thank you, Art; that was EXTREMELY well said.

    For the record, I have been arrested in the past, but none for commission of crimes that would be crimes in a libertarian society. The ones that are recent (1990s or 2000s) involve being arrested for petitioning at a time and place where petitioning was legally upheld by courts, and one for wearing Libertarian clothing while trying to vote, yet Ron Paul, Mary Ruwart and George Phillies (3 2008 pres. candidates) contributed to my legal defense in that case.

  89. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 5, 2008

    “3.) Based on past experiences with Fincher, including a stalking incident, Haugh blurted out something he shouldn’t have said (e.g. “burn the signatures.”) Fincher essentially turned Haugh into the police state based on hyperbole, however sincere he may have been in that request. As an anarchist, I cannot condone using the police to resolve our internal conflicts.”

    You are NOT an anarchist, if you believe in condoning initiating force and fraud (as Sean has done); you are NOT a libertarian.

    Any stalking incident was perpetrated by Haugh, not by me. I never stalked anyone in my life.

    Angela does not know what she is talking about, plain and simple.

  90. Arthur Torrey Arthur Torrey July 5, 2008

    First off, what I know as an Officer in the LPMA – and NOT from Fincher…

    1. We hired Fincher as a petitioner, based on past good experiences and his reputation.

    2. Fincher collected approx 2,000 signatures, for which he was paid in full by LPMA and or Phillies for President campaign funds.

    3. Spot checks of the turned in petitions against a non-current voter registration list showed a validity rate well within expectations, and signatures clearly made by different people. While we have not yet put them to the “acid test” of getting them accepted as valid by the Registrar’s of Voters in our cities and towns, we have every reason to expect them to be quite acceptable. I know of NO reason that the LPMA (or the LNC) would be unhappy with the quality of Mr. Fincher’s work on THIS ballot drive.

    3. LPMA Political Facilitator Carol McMahon, acting in her role as petition coordinator received a phone call from Sean Haugh, in his official role of LNC Political Director, instructing her to burn the petitions collected by Fincher.

    4. It is a violation of state law to destroy signed petitions. It is also a violation to ATTEMPT to get others to destroy signed petitions, REGARDLESS of whether or not the attempt succeeds.

    My feelings about the other issues in this thread…

    1. I have seen postings on the blogs of what has been purported to be a copy of the e-mail where Haugh urged the petitions be burned – it isn’t PGP signed, but I have NOT seen ANYONE question it’s authenticity. Carol McMahon, whom has been a reliable person in my experience working with her on the LPMA State Committee has confirmed receiving the ORDER (not a request) to burn the petitions from Haugh, independently of Fincher. This represents *TWO* SEPARATE communications, an e-mail and a phone call. ONE communication I can accept as “hyperbole” or a moment of anger, TWO I see as a definite planned effort.

    2. I don’t have specific reasons to doubt Angela, but she alleges in her comments 1 and 3 that Fincher has a record of violence against women, and of stalking. While I don’t see that either is inherently an issue w/ regards to his petitioning appropriately, Fincher has said that he was cleared of any charges of wrongdoing in every incident that I’ve heard mentioned that relates to petitioning. Being accused of something, investigated *and cleared* does NOT indicate wrongdoing.

    Given that proving a negative verges on the impossible, the bare allegation that a record exists is in my opinion HIGHLY inappropriate as it amounts to a non-defensible smear. Before I regard Angela’s allegations as relevant I’d demand that she DOCUMENT them, in the form of time, place, event, AND a record of non-innocent disposition…

    3. There have been repeated claims that LNC staff are prohibited from commenting on public blogs. While I can understand such a rule, the fact remains that Haugh (or someone undisputedly claiming to be him) HAS posted on blogs in the past, as has been pointed out on LFV, with dates…

    In addition, I know of NO prohibition on Mr. Redpath or other LNC members posting – I’d love to see Redpath post and describe the “Measures he has taken to ensure there are no repeats”

    4. Angela alleges that Fincher has expressed unhappiness with his payment from LPMA. I’ve spoken personally with Fincher, and got no complaints (and as a member of the LPMA State Committee, I’d think I’d be one to complain to…) Nor has George said anything about hearing a complaint. Closest to a complaint was the comment that Fincher was paid a mutually agreed upon amount that was LESS than what the petitioners hired by Haugh were getting… The context was quite clear that he felt that LNC was being overcharged, not that he should have gotten more. (Though its reasonable to assume he wouldn’t have minded getting more…)

    5. I agree that Fincher’s problem is not a “radical vs. reform” issue, but I DO think that the response to it by LNC (or lack thereof) in addition to the other issues of improper petitioner activity (where is the investigation into the alleged Haugh hired petition firm wrongdoing in IL? Where is the investigation into the alleged embezzlement by Kohlhaas) does give clear indication that there are problems w/ LNC…

    I would be FAR happier about this mess if Redpath or other responsible LNC officers made it clear that there was an investigation (either finished or being performed) into the allegations raised, and then a DETAILED report made of the results, and appropriate action taken against those found to have been guilty of wrongdoing…

    6. I agree that mailbombing the LPNC or the NC elections officials is not appropriate, however given that Haugh is A) Accused of a CRIME involving elections law, which may make him ineligible to run for office, and B) Currently running for office in NC, it seems appropriate that these facts be drawn to the attention of the NC authorities – IMHO it would do less damage to the LP’s reputation if this is done A) quickly, and B) by the LP itself as opposed to some other gov’t agency like the Mass elections officials… If we are claiming to be the party of principle, and opposed to force and fraud, we ought to be walking that talk and policing our own…

    8. While there are aspects of the entire mess that are possibly in doubt, particularly some of the past history, the simple and independently verified facts that I mentioned at the start of this (admittedly lengthy) post suggest that the LNC needs to do far more to address the matter than the deafening silence that so far has been their only VISIBLE response…

    My personal opinion is that there may or may not be adequate evidence to sustain a criminal charge; but there is certainly enough to sustain the idea that Haugh should be promptly fired, for cause, and without future reccommendation.

    ART
    LPMA Operations Facilitator, speaking mostly for myself.

  91. libertycrusader libertycrusader July 5, 2008

    Angela Keaton wrote: 1.) Fincher has a criminal history with regard to violence against woman. The statement shall stand alone.

    This is total BULL and is made up to be a smear against me.

    Go ahead – do a criminal background check on me and you will discover this is false. My full namee is Gary Lynn Fincher and my date of birth is 11-30-61.

    I have NEVER been arrested for, or even charged with, a crime involving violence against women.

    I shall now be including Angela Keaton in a slander/defamation of character suit! This is going over the line, Angela.

  92. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    In July of 2007, I witnessed as Fincher and Jacob tried to manipulate facts to extort personal money (not LNC money) from Starr, Redpath, Sullentrup and several other donors in Pittsburgh. I cannot trust Fincher to relay facts correctly.

    I was there too. I don’t think Andy and Gary tried to extort any money.

    They were trying to collect damages for the pay being late by a year, which caused daily chaos in all our lives (including mine) in trying to deal with this situation.

    In addition to the time and lost opportunity costs in spending a year in trying to recover the money (Andy paid me himself, but I still had to spend time helping them get their money, every day, for almost a year) , there were real costs.

    For instance, Gary chose not to repair his car, thinking payment was imminent, as Scott told him. He ended up without a car.

    He delivers RVs when he does not petition.

    He ended up with real motel, car rental, bus trip and other costs he would not have otherwise had.

    He also had to do a lot of walking he would not have had to do had he repaired his car, or bought a new one as he was planning to do if he had been paid.

    As a result, he developed a sore on his foot that ended up causing him to spend a month in the hospital. That, in turn, affected me and now (almost a year later) he still owes me a lot of money from that job. In addition to losing that month of work, and much more, he almost lost his foot.

    This is just one of the examples of many of why Andy and Gary were seeking damages.

    It is true that LNC members paid them out of their own pockets, and did not have to do that.

    However, that was not the only way it could have been handled. The party could have fundraised to finish the LPNE drive, paid them with that money, finished the drive AND paid damages, for example.

    By the way, Scott did pay himself the full projected 40% commission for the whole Nebraska drive up front and then stopped raising money, rather than paying himself 40% a week as called for in his contract. He also started paying the LPNE treasurer $100 a week, which was not in the contract; the LPNE treasurer subsequently changed his name (not for the first time) and disappeared.

    Scott is currently ballot access director for LP National.

  93. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    As an anarchist, I cannot condone using the police to resolve our internal conflicts.

    What choice did he have? All factions on the LNC are apparently lined up against him. The Judiciary committee considers this outside their jurisdiction per the bylaws.

    I have been told by a reliable source that Sean will not be fired “unless he murders someone”.

    It’s not like the party seems likely to do anything about it.

    Nor is there a private arbitration system to turn to. Vigilante justice is not viewed favorably by the police state.

  94. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    3.) Based on past experiences with Fincher, including a stalking incident,

    What stalking incident?

  95. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    2.) As a former staffer for the LPC, it is essential that the staff be allowed to choose its own vendors. If Redpath is unsatisfied with Haugh’s work, Haugh can be fired. If Haugh blackballs too many petitioners, he will find his choices limited and change his policy.

    There are plenty of petitioners. Unfortunately, some of them are like the company hired in Chicago which had 1,500 valid signatures out of 5,500 which was hired by national.

    This situation would have continued if Chris had not caught it.

  96. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    1.) Fincher has a criminal history with regard to violence against woman. The statement shall stand alone.

    What is this history? I’m not aware of it.

  97. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 5, 2008

    Kohlhaas is slated to be working on salary in RI.

    However, it is true that some of us were in MA and did not need flights, rental cars or motel rooms in RI.

    If Scott was needed to get signatures, he could have been flown in to any state in the country.

    It so happens that RI is the one state I know where LP, Greens, CP and Nader all needed signatures simultaneously.

    Scott made a big stink over other petitioners working on more parties than just LP (even though many Libertarians, including Bill Redpath, encourage this).

    Later, we learned (second hand) that he worked Nader in 04 himself.

Comments are closed.