George Phillies: In Defense of Angela Keaton

Libertarian Party presidential candidate George Phillies writes:

At the last LNC meeting, the LNC passed a motion “It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.” which passed unanimously, Regional Representative Hawkridge abstaining.

The LNC then considered a motion: “The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again”. The motion was then withdrawn, pending a report by Mary Ruwart on a conversation to be staged between her and Angela Keaton.

We are now well more than ten days beyond the end of the last LNC meeting. If the LNC were a serious body whose members were competent to sit upon it, then, having spent a considerable part of its face to face meeting on this topic, a reasonable man would expected that the LNC would now be proceeding to vote on the “suspension” (a term of art effectively meaning ‘expulsion’) of Angela Keaton.

Angela is busy with a serious anti-war group, namely Anti-War.com. Given her many services to our Libertarian movement, it is only just that her fellow libertarians rise and speak to her defense.

I shall now do so.

Read the rest.

76 thoughts on “George Phillies: In Defense of Angela Keaton

  1. TheOriginalAndy

    I lost all respect for Angela Keaton after she spread a bunch of lies about Gary Fincher and myself in an unprovoked attack and then ran off like an intellectual coward when she was unable to back up her slanderous lies.

    My opinion of Angela Keaton went down even further when she lashed out at Paul for the “offense” of telling the truth in response to the lies that she spread.

    Angela Keaton is a crazy fucked up bitch.

    Gary, Paul, and I all voted for her for LNC at the LP National Convention in Denver. Talk about wasted votes.

  2. Michael Seebeck

    Whether Andy’s opinion about what may or may not have happened over petitions has any validity or not, it is irrelevant to the LNC meeting.

    Personally, petition work is not my field, and I won’t even begin to claim to understand it.

    Seebeck’s Law of “he-said, she-said”:
    Given any situation involving X people, there are always X+1 versions of what happened, with the extra being what actually did happen.

    Corollary: Good luck in figuring out which one that is.

    But I recognize good people when I see them, meet them, and spend Q-time with them, and Angela is good people. That’s my opinion, and I stand by it, and her.

    George is focusing not on character here, but actions. Best to try to keep the two separate.

    Many in the party, including myself, seem to struggle with that.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If the LNC were a serious body”

    But we already know that it isn’t.

    “Snubgate” established, finally and beyond any reasonable doubt, that the LNC per se is either not interested in, or else incapable of, acting in the Libertarian Party’s interests.

    The attempt to remove Ms. Keaton was one of those passion plays the LNC occasionally puts on to kill time. Why call their attention to the fact that the gun displayed on the wall in the first act hasn’t been fired yet in the second? It’s not like it was a serious production in the first place.

    And by the way: Andy, go fuck yourself.

  4. George Phillies

    The opinions on various petitioners were not brought up by the LNC with respect to the Ms. Keaton.

    Incidentally, my state committee has yet to receive a response from the LNC with respect to burnthemgate. I will not be surprised if this is one of several issues raised at our state convention with respect to a motion that the LNC has disaffiliated itself from the Libertarian political movement.

  5. paulie cannoli

    Personally, petition work is not my field, and I won’t even begin to claim to understand it.

    How about this: when you accuse someone of having a criminal history of violence against women, have some facts to back it up. That should be easy to understand.

    The national political director of a party should not be instructing a state party to illegally destroy the signatures of 2,000+ voters for ballot access. By the way, that state party paid for it with their own money, and the signatures turned out to have a high validity rate. Still with me?

    Now, this may be super-complicated, but: some allegedly bad voter cards from 10 years ago should not be used as an excuse to blacklist someone now, along with everyone they work with or have worked with in the last few years.
    (Particularly when the national chair of the LP paid for those allegedly bad voter cards last year, upon advice from Richard Winger, the world’s #1 authority on this, that they did in fact count and the voters were registered.)

  6. paulie cannoli

    But I recognize good people when I see them, meet them, and spend Q-time with them, and Angela is good people. That’s my opinion, and I stand by it, and her.

    So did I, until she flipped on me for no good reason.

  7. paulie cannoli

    At the last LNC meeting, the LNC passed a motion “It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.” which passed unanimously, Regional Representative Hawkridge abstaining.

    Given that people like Mary Ruwart voted for it, I have to think that there was a real basis in fact for this motion, not just a faction fight.

    Angela’s behavior at LNC meetings now is intentionally disruptive. She has publicly said she wants to destroy the LP, and now believes its existence as a political party is detrimental to the cause of liberty. This is a valid point of view, and a lot of people I respect hold this view.

    People who hold this opinion, whether it is correct or not, ought not, however, be on the Libertarian National Committee. Particularly when their stated purpose for remaining is to win a pissing match with other committee members. Thus, it makes good sense why radical LP members such as Ruwart would, with regret, vote for the motion.

    “Snubgate” established, finally and beyond any reasonable doubt, that the LNC per se is either not interested in, or else incapable of, acting in the Libertarian Party’s interests.

    True, but that does not apply to all past and hypothetical future LNCs necessarily. It may or may not.

  8. paulie cannoli

    I will not be surprised if this is one of several issues raised at our state convention with respect to a motion that the LNC has disaffiliated itself from the Libertarian political movement.

    Then the LNC will charter a new affiliate in Mass.

  9. G.E. Post author

    George Phillies’s secessionist movement proves he is a racist neoconfederate. Obviously, his desire to disaffiliate and use “states’ rights” means he endorses slavery.

  10. George Phillies

    I have no interest in seceding from anything. I just get to sit there as chair and have people tell me in advance–some of them, so I am not taken by surprise– what motions they may be bringing.

  11. G.E. Post author

    It reminds me of a Trotskyist I knew in the Green Party: “I’m against privatizing anything.”

  12. G.E. Post author

    To be clear, I support George Phillies and the LPMA and all secessionist movements everywhere, no matter what they are or what they’re seceding from.

  13. antiwar

    Only one relevant comment, the rest are just a bunch of stupid attacks by GE on Phillies, asserting that support for anti-federalism=racism, and Paulie reminding people that he is still hurt by Angela’s snub of him.

    Does anyone at IPR stick to the issues of the posts?

    (I now expect a bunch of irrelevant attacks on me.)

  14. paulie cannoli

    Paulie reminding people that he is still hurt by Angela’s snub of him

    Not really hurt. It just opened my eyes to a side of her I had been ignoring. I think my comment 7 was to the point. The rest are related, although only tangentially.

  15. G.E. Post author

    antiwar – I was being sarcastic. It is Phillies who labels anyone who’s pro-secession as a racist neoconfederate apologist for slavery.

  16. BrianHoltz

    People need to chill out and think of Angela as a performance artist. She doesn’t use words in the literal way that most Libertarians do, and so many of her inflammatory statements cannot be classified as authentic Angrytarianism. (Angrytarianism is when a libertarian viciously and personally criticizes the character of a fellow self-described libertarian without providing the kind of detailed supporting evidence that such criticism demands.) Until she announces she’s giving up on the LP, the LNC needs to keep hearing her speak for her constituents, and all of us members need to keep hearing her reports on what the LNC does. Libertarians are grownups — we can filter what she says appropriately.

  17. TheOriginalAndy

    “And by the way: Andy, go fuck yourself.”

    Wow, this is a “rational” response from Tom Knapp…NOT!

    Perhaps Tom has a memory problem, but as some of you who visit this site on a regular basis should know, Angela Keaton posted a bunch of (false) accusations about Gary Fincher and myself after the deranged Libertarian Party Political Director illegally tried to burn 2,000 high validity Libertarian Party ballot access petition signatures that were collected by Gary in Massachusetts. Not only were Haugh’s actions a violation of Massachusetts election law, they were also a clear attempt to defraud Libertarian Party donors and/or Mr. Fincher out of money.

    When the Haugh petition burning scandal was a hot topic (pun intended) on this site, Angela Keaton (a person with little to no knowledge of the facts) jumped in and made a bunch of false accusations about myself and Gary, accusations which we refuted and which she NEVER backed up.

    When Paul (a person who acutually did have a lot of knowledge about the facts) joined the discussion and refuted Angela’s false accusations, Angela’s response was to freak out and attack Paul. Prior to this Paul had regarded Angela as a friend. Some “friend” she turned out to be.

    I had interacted with Angela Keaton before this on three occassions. All of the interactions were brief and friendly. I spoke to Angela briefly at the LP National Convention in Denver and she acted as though she were a friendly acquintance, and as I said above, Paul, Gary, and I all wasted our votes by voting for Angela Keaton to be on the LNC.

    Angela’s “gratitude” for this was to spread lies about us and lash out at us in an unprovoked attack.

    Angela’s actions illustrate that she is a liar and a backstabbing two faced weasel. I also think that she is mentally unstable.

    All of this should be on the record in the archives of this site.

    Now does any of this mean that I’m siding with any other faction on the LNC? NO. I’m disappointed with some of the things that the LNC has done and I am truly disgusted with some of the people at LPHQ.

    Just because Angela Keaton is fueding with other factions on the LNC it does not make her a wonderful person. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

  18. antiwar

    GE: Sorry. It is hard to recognize sarcasm when you post six replies in a row, it sounds like you are replying to yourself. And as usual, 90% of the comments on this blog make no sense to people who don’t read every single post every single day.

  19. George Phillies

    For the benefit of the thread-weary, the LNC attack on Angela Keaton was not related to the disagreement over petitioners.

    Nor was it related to burnthemgate. My Party State Committee has memorialized the LNC about this issue, and had no response.

    Nor was it related to the memorandum I forwarded to another LNC member, proposing that certain events could be argued to be evidence of theft of party resources and Fraud by Wire during the presidential nominating campaign. That memo was to have been raised during the meeting, and was not, so we will be going the public route instead.

  20. TheOriginalAndy

    “23 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 27, 2008 at 12:08 am

    Andy,

    I’m sure you wish I had a memory problem. I don’t. Go fuck yourself.”

    Gee Tom, this was a “rational” response. Please tell me what exactly I said that wasn’t true, and please back it up with some actual facts (and: “Go fuck yourself” does not constitute any facts or a rational arguement).

    Perhaps you should consider changing the name of Rational Review to Irrational Review.

    George, I know that your post had nothing to do with the Masscahusetts petition burning scandal. I was just pointing out that I lost respect for Angela Keaton when she attacked Gary, Paul, and myself for no reason and spread lies about us. Angela’s actions speak louder than words and her actions tell me that she is not to be trusted. It takes a person of low character to put out false accusations about somebody (such as the false claim that Gary has a history of violence against women which is absolute bullshit) and then run away when called out about it. Did Angela ever come back and post a retraction or apologize? NO. What does this say about her that she’d lie about people and then run away like an intellectual coward when asked to back up her accusations? I’ve got low opinion of people like that.

    Having said this, some of the stuff that Angela Keaton is saying about the LNC may very well be true, but this just goes to show you that even a broken clock like Angela can be right two times a day.

  21. TheOriginalAndy

    Here is another relevant link.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/another-veteran-petition-circulator-fired-and-blackballed-by-sean-haugh/#more-572

    Note the part where it mentions that Anegela Keaton lashed out at Paul and said that she was going to get him blackballed from working on Libertarian petitions.

    Angela actually called up Paul and screamed and cursed at him on the phone and then hung up on him just because Paul spoke the truth in regards to the false allegations that she made about Gary and myself.

    Does this sound like the behaviour of a decent rational person?

  22. paulie cannoli

    Where this is relevant to the LNC meeting is, what precipitated Mary Ruwart and other radical LNC members to vote for the motion?

    I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure. But Angela’s behavior towards me indicates that Mary Ruwart, et al., may have been correct, and not showing any lack of resolve as some have speculated.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You seem to think that an admonition to go fuck one’s self in some way implies substantive factual claims or argument contra factual claims you yourself have made.

    For example, your most recent response implies that I have accused you of saying something that’s not true and requests that I support that accusation.

    Thing is, I didn’t accuse you of saying anything untrue. My allegations/arguments weren’t “irrational,” because I didn’t make any allegations or arguments. I just told you to go fuck yourself.

    Explaining why would take all the fun out of it.

  24. Spence

    “Angela’s behavior at LNC meetings now is intentionally disruptive. She has publicly said she wants to destroy the LP, and now believes its existence as a political party is detrimental to the cause of liberty.”

    More power to her then. It’s not just a “valid point of view”, it’s the truth. I demand restitution from those that have damaged the cause of liberty, which includes everyone on the LNC. The party as a whole needs to just die.

  25. G.E. Post author

    I demand restitution from those that have damaged the cause of liberty, which includes everyone on the LNC. The party as a whole needs to just die.

    Agreed.

    My dues are still current, as are many members who feel as Spence does. We have a right, so long as those dues are current, to have our views represented, and Angela does a wonderful job at that.

  26. TheOriginalAndy

    “30 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2008 at 12:23 am

    Andy,

    You seem to think that an admonition to go fuck one’s self in some way implies substantive factual claims or argument contra factual claims you yourself have made.

    For example, your most recent response implies that I have accused you of saying something that’s not true and requests that I support that accusation.

    Thing is, I didn’t accuse you of saying anything untrue. My allegations/arguments weren’t “irrational,” because I didn’t make any allegations or arguments. I just told you to go fuck yourself.

    Explaining why would take all the fun out of it.”

    Then perhaps you KNOW that I’m right and you are just angry that I exposed Angela Keaton.

  27. paulie cannoli

    My dues are still current, as are many members who feel as Spence does (that the LP should cease to exist). We have a right, so long as those dues are current, to have our views represented.

    And those members who want the party to live and continue to hope it will accomplish something useful should take defensive measures to keep their national committee from being piloted on a suicide mission.

    If I was to run for and win a place in Congress as a regime abolitionist, I could either make polite floor speeches about the value of abolishing the regime, or engage in “performance art” from the floor and accept my inevitable (and, I imagine, quick) removal. I certainly would not expect the rest of the body to accept me being intentionally disruptive of its proceedings on an ongoing basis, regardless of whether I think it should exist or not.

  28. Spence

    Ah, hope… the limitless resource. Well, by all means, continue to hope that something will come of it, but I would say that your own members at a high enough stature don’t just suddenly crack and change their personality over night, not without good reason. The LP is a failed brand. They don’t make “polite” of any matter it seems anymore.

    Wait. When have they ever? -.-

    The LP is a failed brand, pure and simple, a fad among kooks and political junkies without a proper home who are together lumped into one giant club, where they set about creating their own microcosm where they are in control of their own state.

    Either circumvent politics altogether or get your act together, but you can’t have both (ie) be a meaningless protest party keeping up 30-year old appearances, grandly charading around as being the GOP’s little brother.

  29. paulie cannoli

    You can think whatever you want about the utility of the LP, and you may well be right.

    But, if you think it should not exist, why participate in it at all? Unlike the regime, which makes participation mandatory, you can very easily simply ignore it; after all, most people do.

    You can also agitate against it from the outside; there are certainly many libertarians who prosletyze to LP members that there is a better way to advance liberty.

    Or you can stage a noisy protest on your way out.

    What you can’t expect is to be allowed to continuously disrupt an organization. Rightly or wrongly, many people do think it has value. These people for a voluntary organization, and have the right to enforce some decorum in their proceedings, regardless of your opinion of the value of said organization.

    Honestly, the part of me that considers the LP to be detrimental has no desire to destroy it. If/when that view becomes dominant within me, I think I’ll devote my time to non-LP related pursuits, seeing how the LP is not really the most important thing in existence.

    To her credit, Angela is already doing that with her work at Antiwar.com, from which the LP can only be an unnecessary distraction.

  30. Spence

    Perhaps that’s exactly the point of what she’s doing. Note nowhere did I say I endorse Angela Keaton’s actions. I do, thoroughly side w/ her issue w/ transparency on the executive sessions. Under other circumstances I’m inclined to agree with you.

    I can only trust that she has some plan all her own to do as much damage she can, and none of that really bothers me, as the LP is about as effective as Robert Milnes would be selling campaign merchandise.

    However, what is happening here is disenfranchisement plain and simple. If you accept the legitimacy of the LNC’s decision, you by way of comparison, also accept that the LP has been forcefully drowning out those who have dissented it for years now.

    In my opinion, quitting and going home should be the last option on the table, yet even though I feel that time has come, others remain in the LP because they may feel they don’t have the resources to start their own proceedings, etc.

    The argument that one should leave simply because a few corrupt decisions ruin it for everyone else begs the question: what entitles the corrupt decision-maker to more than his fair share?

    The way I see it, Angela Keaton and others like her are still legitimate Libertarians, and her credibility taken into account before these incidents speaks volumes that this is something of her own last resort to try and show the LNC for what they are: corrupt, defrauding, parasitic.

    Take the Republican Party for example. The same thing is happening there. At the turn of the century, the party was still for very much of what Ron Paul advocates today. Then it got hijacked somewhere down the line by a bunch of liberals…

    So should Ron Paul leave? Should he be discredited immediately because his way no longer valued amongst other Repugnicans?

    I’m not being rhetorical. I really want to know. If you don’t think so, then there’s clearly a double standard at play here.

    There are times when leaving such an organization peaceably is appropriate. Other times, when the dissent has been drowned so much and the opposition disenfranchised, what better outlet are you going to have than a firestorm at the HQ?

    It’s about principles here. Voluntaryism and integrity. And yes, there is overlap. One needn’t run from their party and feel spineless because it didn’t make a difference.

  31. Richard Shepard

    As one who has been in the trenches since 1980 on the Clark campaign, and generally avoided the LP at the national level, until now, I long ago came to the discouraging conclusion that the LP is a political party that does not want to be a political party. But it hangs on in its schiophrenic existence, year after year, by eating its young for breakfast.

    In my state, and except for a handful of diehards like Ruth Bennett, there has been a nearly complete turnover in membership every 10 years or so. New members come in, all fired up, ready to fight for liberty, only to discover they have joined a glorified debating club bent on establishing a litmus test for “true” libertarians.

    More time is spent in debate, whether we should abolish the Fed, or whether Angela Keaton should be kicked out of the LNC, than in doing the hard work of building a political party.

    The purpose of a political party is to aggregate, organize and present a unified political message. But all attention is focused on the last factor, as if a large collection of people can be unified without first coming together and getting organized.

    We are a party of wonks who love ideas but hate work. We figure, erroneously, that if we have the right ideas people will flock to us. The problem is that once they arrive the only thing for them to do is join the catfight.

    How many readers have organized a supper club? How many readers have spent the time it takes to organize a Libertarian Meet Up? How many readers have spent 4 Saturdays in a row handing out campaign flyers on a street corner?

    Typically, when I ask these kinds of questions I get an answer that goes something like this: “Well, I would, but…”; then comes some critique of the candidate’s position on abortion, or some excuse relating to time, or even inexperience.

    Meanwhile, those who do put themselves out, by serving as a county chair or state secretary, are constantly under a barrage of what Marshall Fritz used to call the “let’s you do this” syndrome.

    I can remember when I was Washington State chair in the early 90s I was constantly being told, by one party member or another, what the state party needed to be doing. My response was to say I would create a committee and appoint the person with the idea as chair. Nobody ever took me up on it.

    Nonetheless, as someone said above, I still have hope that someday the LP will finally get its act together, recognize that it is a political party and that, as such, it must do what political parties do — and that is to do whatever is necessary to get people elected, even if they don’t satisfy somebody’s litmus test.

  32. darolew

    It must be nice working for the Democrats and Republicans. Since neither of those parties gives a damn about principle, they have nothing to distract them in their quest for more power.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    1. No, I don’t know that you’re right. Rather, to be specific: There are certain respects in which I know you’re wrong, other respects in which I suspect you may be right, and still others in which I just don’t have any particular interest.

    2. No, I’m not angry. I’m bored.

    3. You haven’t exposed Angela, but if you can talk her into exposing herself, I bet Hefner would pay good money for the publication rights.

    Now, go fuck yourself (or at least Google the phrase so that you can get the joke and quit puzzling over why I’m telling you to).

  34. Richard Shepard

    darolew, I would not know what it is like working for the Ds or Rs. But I do know that the LP has an identity crisis, and it is either a political party or it is a PAC. And once it decides which it is, it will be a lot more successful.

  35. Gene Trosper

    Richard Shepard writes:

    How many readers have organized a supper club? How many readers have spent the time it takes to organize a Libertarian Meet Up? How many readers have spent 4 Saturdays in a row handing out campaign fliers on a street corner?

    Done all that and way, way, way more. I got sick and tired of doing pretty much all the work myself because — truth be told — Libertarians are generally lazy creatures who would rather talk than act. They can talk a good talk and debate with the best, but when it comes to actually doing something for liberty, they can’t be bothered because they are either masturbating in their mother’s basement, deciding which pair of white socks goes best with their Birkenstock sandals, or preparing to debate grammar usage at a platform debate.

    I know…a little over the top, but I’ll admit to some level of bitterness. After accomplishing much and hearing lazy libertarian assholes either criticize me or try to tear down my achievements (like they have any room to talk), the only motivation one has left is to gather enough energy to look at them square in the eye and say “fuck you and the horse you rode in on”.

    I quit the party once before, but was talked back into joining by some wonderful folks in the San Bernardino County LP and also due to the promise of an excellent presidential campaign.

    Well, the campaign is a farce and the LP still is made up of childish whiners who would rather tear down than build.

    My dues are current, but there is no way in hell I am going to renew or take part in the LP anymore beyond my current obligations. I’ve got better things in life I can be focusing on than the perpetual Jerry Springer drama going on.

  36. TheOriginalAndy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Andy,

    1. No, I don’t now that you’re right. Rather, to be specific: There are certain respects in which I know you’re wrong, other respects in which I suspect you may be right, and still others in which I just don’t have any particular interest.”

    Then tell me where specifically you think that I’m wrong, Tom.

    My contentions are as follows.

    1) Angela Keaton had little to no knowledge about myself and Gary (she barely knows us nor has she ever worked with us), or ballot access petitioning, or the dispute in question.

    2) Paul had regarded Angela Keaton as a friend and she freaked out on him and stabbed him in the back for no legitimate reason. I had spoken to Angela Keaton briefly on 3 occassions, each of which was friendly. Angela would have only seen Gary in passing on a couple of occassions and barely spoke to him. Angela acted friendly to all of our faces.

    3) Angela spread several negative allegations about myself and Gary. These allegations were refuted by Gary and I and are blatantly false. After being called out on this Angela ran away.

    4) Angela never retracted any of the false claims that she made nor did she ever apologize.

  37. TheOriginalAndy

    “Agreed.

    My dues are still current, as are many members who feel as Spence does. We have a right, so long as those dues are current, to have our views represented, and Angela does a wonderful job at that.”

    Perhaps when she’s not spreading lies about people and stabbing people in the back.

    If Angela Keaton is the best representitive for radical Libertarians than this party is truly fucked right now.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Then tell me where specifically you think that I’m wrong, Tom.”

    Read what I wrote. I didn’t say I think you’re wrong. I said I know you’re wrong. Big difference.

    I told you very specifically where you were wrong in one respect the first time I noticed you were wrong in that respect. Your disinclination to listen, and your obsession with gnawing on a meatless bone, creates no obligation on my part to repeat myself.

  39. TheOriginalAndy

    “Read what I wrote. I didn’t say I think you’re wrong. I said I know you’re wrong. Big difference.”

    Tom, don’t just tell me that you “know” that I’m wrong, point out specifically what I said that was wrong.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Like I said, I already did. Some time ago. I believe it was on LFV. It was a relatively minor thing, and apart from that, I don’t have any dog in the “mistreated petitioners versus LPHQ incompetents” hunt (I generally consider myself on the side of the petitioners, although that will change if they — read you and Paulie — keep trying to make it about Ms. Keaton).

    Since you seem to really be wrapped around the axle about the whole “go fuck yourself” thing, and seem to think it’s related to your complaints about treatment of petitioners, I’ll go ahead and explain myself. Here’s a paste from a private email I sent earlier:

    “[M]y admonition to [Andy] to go fuck himself was a meaningless joke … I just felt like channeling Dick Cheney as part of my preparation for executing the office of the vice-presidency should I happen to be elected, and he happened to be the first person to catch my attention while I had that urge.”

    IOW, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any of your allegations vis a vis Fincher, Haugh, etc.

  41. TheOriginalAndy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Andy,

    Like I said, I already did. Some time ago. I believe it was on LFV. It was a relatively minor thing, and apart from that, I don’t have any dog in the ‘mistreated petitioners versus LPHQ incompetents’ hunt”

    Everyone who is a member of the party SHOULD have a dog in the “mistreated petitioners versus LPHQ incompetents” hunt. Why? Because it effects whether or not the party makes it on the ballot and whether or not they make it on the ballot efficiently.

    “(I generally consider myself on the side of the petitioners, although that will change if they — read you and Paulie — keep trying to make it about Ms. Keaton).”

    It was Angela Keaton who made it about Angela Keaton by sticking her nose into it and spreading a bunch of lies. Prior to this I had no ill will towards Angela Keaton as I didn’t know her very well and the brief contacts that I had with her were cordial.

    You are acting as though Angela Keaton is some kind of saint who should be exempt from criticism. I don’t respect a person who spreads lies about people and stabs people in the back.

    And by the way, if it wasn’t for Paul and I the Boston Tea Party would not be on the ballot in Tennessee, and probably would not be on the ballot in Florida either. One could say, “But you guys got paid.” and this is true, however, one must also consider that we did not have to take the jobs, and one must also consider that we did the jobs RIGHT (unlike some people…see the LP drives this year in West Virginia and Maine for examples). We also didn’t really make any more money than we were already making elsewhere, in fact, we probably made less money if anything by doing those Boston Tea Party drives. We did it more for the “adventure” of it and just because it sounded like a cool thing to do.

    “Since you seem to really be wrapped around the axle about the whole “go fuck yourself” thing, and seem to think it’s related to your complaints about treatment of petitioners, I’ll go ahead and explain myself. Here’s a paste from a private email I sent earlier:

    “[M]y admonition to [Andy] to go fuck himself was a meaningless joke … I just felt like channeling Dick Cheney as part of my preparation for executing the office of the vice-presidency should I happen to be elected, and he happened to be the first person to catch my attention while I had that urge.

    IOW, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any of your allegations vis a vis Fincher, Haugh, etc.”

    You should be more clear about stuff like this in the future. People reading your posts who weren’t “in” on your joke would have no idea about which you were refering.

  42. paulie cannoli

    Will you guys let this go? This is dumb. I’ve said what I had to say about this. If it wasn’t clear, I’m sorry, it’s not worth the trouble of explaining further.

    Spence and Gene Trosper are right.

    Now, everyone go fuck yourselves and each other. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You write:

    “You are acting as though Angela Keaton is some kind of saint who should be exempt from criticism.”

    Stipulated. There’s actually a good deal more nuance involved than that, but the bottom line is that I’m not interested in debating it.

    I’m not going to play the “but you got paid” card on the work you did for BTP. You did good work, and I’m grateful for it. I had high confidence that that was exactly what would happen when I told Charles Jay “call Paulie, discuss the job, get a price from him, pay it and then stay out of the way.” I’ll give any future BTP candidate the same advice, and I hope that you guys will be hard-nosed and make every dime you can off of the BTP. You earn it.

    However, that is precisely WHY I decline to have a dog in the LP v. petitioners hunt. If I did, it would be the wrong dog.

    On the face of the matter, it would be better for the BTP if the LP continued to keep its head lodged up its ass as regards treatment of petitioners. That would make the BTP look better by comparison, and give the BTP a competitive advantage in petitioner recruitment in future election cycles.

    However, I don’t want the BTP’s attractiveness to depend on the LP’s incompetence, nor do I want petitioners to have a harder time finding good work.

    So, I’m pretty much staying out of that argument.

    As far as the joke is concerned, half the fun is being obscure and waiting to see if anyone catches on.

  44. Gary Fincher

    All I can say is that Angela Keaton did something terribly, terribly wrong and wreckless, as there is nothing worse than being falsely accused, publicly. It’s indefensible behavior, any way you slice it.

    As Andy said, there was no reason for it, and it was a broadside, due to our having had nothing against her prior to her mudslinging, and having done nothing to her whatsoever.

    It’s bizzarre, really.

  45. Gary Fincher

    2 Michael Seebeck // Sep 26, 2008 at 3:25 am

    Whether Andy’s opinion about what may or may not have happened over petitions has any validity or not, it is irrelevant to the LNC meeting.

    Personally, petition work is not my field, and I won’t even begin to claim to understand it.

    Seebeck’s Law of “he-said, she-said”:
    Given any situation involving X people, there are always X+1 versions of what happened, with the extra being what actually did happen.

    Corollary: Good luck in figuring out which one that is.

    “But I recognize good people when I see them, meet them, and spend Q-time with them, and Angela is good people”

    LOL…that’s what I thought too – until I got unprovokedly slandered by her for no reason whatsoever.

    I challenge you to “stick with” that opinion of her after she publicly accuses you of having a “history of violence with women” (assuming that you don’t, of course). I’ll bet you wouldn’t think she was so ‘good’ *then*!

  46. Gary Fincher

    2 Michael Seebeck // Sep 26, 2008 at 3:25 am

    “But I recognize good people when I see them, meet them, and spend Q-time with them, and Angela is good people”

    LOL…that’s what I thought too – until I got unprovokedly slandered by her for no reason whatsoever.

    I challenge you to “stick with” that opinion of her after she publicly accuses you of having a “history of violence with women” (assuming that you don’t, of course). I’ll bet you wouldn’t think she was so ‘good’ *then*!

  47. TheOriginalAndy

    “Stipulated. There’s actually a good deal more nuance involved than that, but the bottom line is that I’m not interested in debating it.”

    This is easy for you to say, Tom, since you didn’t have your name dragged through the mud with a bunch of lies from Angela Keaton like Gary and I did. Angela Keaton didn’t stab you in the back like she did Paul. If you had been on the recieving end of Angela’s unprovoked and unfounded attacks you’d be singing a different tune right now.

    “I’m not going to play the ‘but you got paid’ card on the work you did for BTP. You did good work, and I’m grateful for it. I had high confidence that that was exactly what would happen when I told Charles Jay ‘call Paulie, discuss the job, get a price from him, pay it and then stay out of the way.'”

    Having a petition proponent or coordinator “stay out of the way” is not always necessary. Sometimes a good proponent and/or coordinator assissting on the execution of a petition drive can be a benifit, of course it depends on who the proponent/coordinator is and what value their help/advice brings to the table. There are of course situations where the proponent/coordinator getting involved can be a detriment as well.

    Given that the Boston Tea Party drives in Tennessee and Florida were small, and given that the Boston Tea Party is not expierenced in petition drives, the “hands off” style was indeed what was for the best in this case.

    I will say that when we were in Florida, Charles Jay made up some Boston Tea Party fliers (which was my idea) which we handed out. I will also say that Charles Jay kept his word and seemed like a good guy with whom to work, unlike some people…COUGH…LPHQ….COUGH.

    “I’ll give any future BTP candidate the same advice, and I hope that you guys will be hard-nosed and make every dime you can off of the BTP. You earn it.

    However, that is precisely WHY I decline to have a dog in the LP v. petitioners hunt. If I did, it would be the wrong dog.

    On the face of the matter, it would be better for the BTP if the LP continued to keep its head lodged up its ass as regards treatment of petitioners. That would make the BTP look better by comparison, and give the BTP a competitive advantage in petitioner recruitment in future election cycles.

    However, I don’t want the BTP’s attractiveness to depend on the LP’s incompetence, nor do I want petitioners to have a harder time finding good work.

    So, I’m pretty much staying out of that argument.”

    I’d be happy to work on Boston Tea Party stuff again, however, in all honesty, shouldn’t the focus be on getting better Libertarian Party candidates so there is not a need for the Boston Tea Party?

  48. Michael Seebeck

    Gary at #56 (or #57, same thing, probably just a curse of a slow connection causing a double post, no biggie):

    I’m in a listing mood tonight. That’s my theme here.

    The hard part about claiming slander is that there are two defenses to it: A ) no corroborations, or B ) it’s the truth.

    Either way, I’m not going to revisit that mess. Frankly, A ) I don’t care, B ) I don’t know enough about it to care, and C ) it has no bearing about what George started this thread to talk about, and roughly 90% of the posts on this thread are in that vein.

    Bashing on Angela what Paulie, Gary, and Andy want to do here, but it accomplishes nothing except rehashing old stuff that cannot be changed and reigniting tempers to no one’s benefit (except to vent a spleen or two). So I’ll echo what Tom said in #59.

    As for the violence against women idea, that’s a gas, and my wife was also laughing at that one. I can line up at least a dozen women going back two decades to the contrary on that one! I sincerely doubt your prediction would come true at all.

    Yes, I have that much confidence in Angela, but I also have it in myself as well.

    And yes, Tom, I for one got the joke immediately, but neither of those two guys are here. 🙂

  49. TheOriginalAndy

    “The hard part about claiming slander is that there are two defenses to it: A ) no corroborations, or B ) it’s the truth.”

    There is absolutely no truth to any of the allegations that Angela Keaton made against Gary and I.

    Angela Keaton is a liar. She’s not a real libertarian either since she initiates fraud against other people by spreading lies. She’s a phony, and on top of this, she’s a whackjob.

    “Either way, I’m not going to revisit that mess. Frankly, A ) I don’t care, B ) I don’t know enough about it to care,”

    If you had been the victim of Angela Keaton’s slanderous lies then you’d care.

    If you are a Libertarian Party member you should care because this liar holds a position in the Libertarian Party.

    I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a problem with dishonest nutjobs holding positions within an organization.

    “and C ) it has no bearing about what George started this thread to talk about, and roughly 90% of the posts on this thread are in that vein.”

    I’m sick & tired of how this crazy, lying, phony, backstabber has been elevated to a position that she does not deserve.

    “Bashing on Angela what Paulie, Gary, and Andy want to do here, but it accomplishes nothing except rehashing old stuff that cannot be changed and reigniting tempers to no one’s benefit (except to vent a spleen or two). So I’ll echo what Tom said in #59.”

    I want everyone to know that Angela is a phony and a liar.

    I’m a radical Libertarian and I’m sick & tired of the Republican Lites, do nothings, incompetents, crooks, etc…, running the party into the ground, but I’m not deluded into believing that Angela Keaton is some kind of savior. She is a part of the problem!

  50. Michael Seebeck

    I stand by my position, and my point about the htread being hijakced remains valid.

    Peter is right; time to move on.

  51. JimDavidson

    I’m not so sure, Peter.

    Andy Jacob makes the statement, “Angela Keaton is a liar. She’s not a real libertarian either since she initiates fraud against other people by spreading lies. She’s a phony, and on top of this, she’s a whackjob.”

    I disagree. I’ve known Angela for many years. She is very sincere, hard working, and ethical. I have not known her to tell any lies, even as jokes. It may be that my experience of her is somewhat limited.

    Joseph Knight of New Mexico has sent me several dozen pages of information about Gary Fincher. In them, Joseph alleges fraudulent behaviors by Fincher in changing voter’s party affiliation without their consent, falsifying social security numbers, and notes that LP political director Ron Crickenberger investigated and shared these concerns. Joseph sent along a private investigator’s report, news clippings, and e-mail exchanges. He maintains that the LP of NM did its best to stand behind Fincher while the allegations mounted, but eventually became convinced by the overwhelming evidence. Note that in the time since, they get many angry replies when they try to mail to registered Libertarian Party members in New Mexico because many so listed were not agreeable to the party affiliation. This kind of behavior is obviously very bad for the LP.

    I was recently sent a postcard that Roger Pope received from Gary Fincher threatening to attack Roger’s dog and torture it to death. Roger reports, “It is a copy of the back of a post card that Fincher sent pertaining to my little dog Heidi. Heidi is now dead. Her crumpled little body was found in a national forest.”

    Roger accuses Fincher of beating and kicking a young woman in the parking lot of a Burger King until the police arrived. Roger writes, “What he did to her in the parking lot was brutal and I will never forget it. While I was parking the car he pushed her on to the asphalt and kicked her ribs and stomach until she passed out. I grabbed him and pulled him off just as the manager came out telling him that she had called the police. He ran off just before the police arrived. Poor Chrystal could hardly breath for weeks after and I was delegated to protecting her after Fincher stole her car and later returned it.” This appears to be eye witness testimony to a violent crime.

    Roger alleges that Fincher has spoken openly about enjoying torturing animals. Roger alleges that Fincher “believes that all young girls who have had abortions are guilty of murder and deserve to die.”

    These appear, to me, to be substantive complaints.

  52. TheOriginalAndy

    Angela Keaton is a liar. Just because she hasn’t lied about you yet it does not make her an honest person. She not only spread lies about Gary, she also spread lies about me, lies which can be documented as being false.

    At one time I thought that Angela Keaton was a decent person as well, but that was before I found out that she’s an unstable, lying, backstabber.

    The New Mexico story has been discussed ad nauseum and I can’t believe that there are still people who are stupid enough to believe the horseshit that was spread by Joe Knight.

    Ballot access expert Richard Winger studied the New Mexico controversy thoroughly and he found that the registrations which were collected by the Finchers were PROCESSED by the state. The registrations freakin’ counted. Richard Winger said that Gary did NOTHING wrong.

    Joe Knight attempted to defraud Gary out of money on registrations where people did not fill in Social(ist) (In)Security numbers. Socail(ist) (In)Security numbers were NOT legally required for a person to be a registered voter. The Social(ist) (In)Security box was OPTIONAL, yet Joe Knight wanted to make it mandatory and not pay Gary on any voter registrations that he collected that did not have Social(ist) (In)Security numbers. Gary was not told of this until AFTER he had already arrived in New Mexico and already been working. Approximately 70-80% of the people put Social(ist) (In)Security numbers on the cards without question, yet 20-30% either refused to put one or asked Gary if it was necessary. Gary told them the truth and said that it was optional. So for telling the truth about the Social(ist) (In)Security numbers being optional, Joe Knight wanted to not pay Gary for any cards that didn’t have Social(ist) (In)Security numbers on them. So Gary made the decision to fill in random numbers on the cards that did not have them in order to satisfy Joe Knight’s whim of wanting to turn the optional Social(ist) (In)Security box into being mandatory. How would you like it if somebody wanted to cut your pay by 20-30% based on an arbitrary reason? In spite of all of the controversy surrounding this, it should be pointed out once again that Gary’s voter registrations were COUNTED and PROCESSED by the state. This is why ballot access expert Richard Winger called up Bill Redpath about this years later and told Bill that he should pay Gary, which he did.

    Another interesting twist to this story, is that Ron Bjornstad of the New Mexico LP actually went out and spied on Gary while he was working. Ron Bjornstad said that Gary did NOTHING wrong. After spying on him, Ron Bjornstad actually worked with Gary. Ron Bjornstad was actually there in Alburquerque, unlike Joe Knight who was hundreds of miles away in Farmington and never saw Gary work. Why is it that Ron Bjornstad was actually there and he supports Gary 100%.

    Robert Lucero of the Bernalillo County Election Office actually saw Gary working in the field and he said that Gary was too insistent about people registering Libertarian, which completely contradicts the “tricking voters” charge. Lucero did not identify himself and approached Gary as a person who wanted to register to vote, and he said that Gary was very blunt and insistent about wanting people to register as Libertarians and that he was only registering Libertarians.

    What really happened was that the State of New Mexico didn’t like the fact that the Libertarian Party was expanding in New Mexico so they ran a smear campaign in the media. Instead of defending a fellow Libertarian, Joe Knight decided to use Gary as a scapegoat and “throw him to the sharks.” Why is it that when Gary offered to go to the TV stations to give his side of the story, Joe Knight told him not to do this? If Gary was really so horrible, why did he offer to be interviewed on TV?

    Scott Kohlhaas gathered Libertarian voter registrations in Las Cruces and there were similiar charges of “tricking voters” made against his work, yet NOBODY ever made a case about that. Scott Kohlhaas admitted that he didn’t have Social(ist) (In)Security numbers filled in on every voter registration that he collected, yet Scott Kohlhaas was paid on all of his work and Joe Knight said nothing. Why the double standard? Joe Knight has been asked on numerous occassions about the double standard between the treatment of Fincher and the treatment of Kohlhaas, yet he REF– USES to anwser. Why was it OK for Scott Kohlhaas to turn in some registrations with the optional Social(ist) (In)Security box left blank, but not Gary? Why did Joe Knight say nothing about any “tricking voters” allegations against registrations collected by Kohlhaas (and for the record, even though I think that Kohlhaas is a weasel, I don’t think that he did anything wrong in New Mexico either)?

    Did you know that Gary was in New Mexico several moths before this controversy (which occurred in November & December of ’99) and collected Libertarian Party voter registrations? Gary was there in the Spring and collected registrations and there was no controversy. The only difference between the Spring and the Fall registration drives for Gary was that he had no dealing with Joe Knight in the spring.

    Did you know that Gary also worked on paid voter registration drives in Arizona, California, Alsaka, and Maine, and there were no controveries in any of those places? Did you know that Gary has worked as a petitioner since 1991 and has worked in 39 states, yet the only place where he had a contoversy like this is New Mexico (and he worked in New Mexico 5 times, and it was only the last time that there was a controversy)? Did you know that Gary has registered THOUSANDS of people to vote around the country while working on petition drives? Did you know that Gary has been one of the top petitioners that the Libertarian Party has had since he started as a petitioner back in 1991? Did you know that Gary has worked on numerous ballot access drives and has registered thousands of people to vote since ’99 and has not had any controversy? Did you know that Gary sucessfully petitioned to put Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot in a bunch of states in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and had no controversy (beyond Sean Haugh illegaly attempting to burn 2,000 high validity signatures that Gary collected for LP ballot access in Massachusetts in 2008)?

    I know Roger Pope and I can tell you that Roger has got a penchant for exagerating. He claimed that Gary and Paul left him in a frozen cornfield in Indiana, the only problem with the story is that this happened during the month of June! In addition to this what really happened was that Gary and Paul were riding in one vehicle and Roger was in another vehicle and they got seperated on the highway near a city in Indiana. Gary and Paul arrived at a restaurant and Roger got their about 10-15 minutes later. This story morphed into, “Gary and Paul left me stranded in a frozen cornfield.” (a frozen cornfield in June).

    Roger and Gary used to be friends but had a falling out. Their initial falling out was over a girl that Gary was dating and while they were dating Roger got her phone number and then Roger ended up hooking up with the girl. Gary felt that Roger had betrayed him by getting the phone number of a girl he was dating while they were still dating, but the two patched things up and renewed their friendship, however, other situations ended up arising, such as Roger putting Gary’s car in 2nd gear when they were on a trip when there was something wrong with that gear and Gary warned him reperatedly to not put the car in 2nd gear, however, Roger ignored this and caused the car to breakdown prematurely.

    The story about Gary assulting Crystal and stealing her car is horeshit. The fact of the matter is that they did get into an arguement (and note that Crystal had a volitile personality), but Gary did not assult her and did not steal her car. In fact, the three of them continued to work together for several weeks after this incident. If Gary had really assulted Crystal and stolen her car (and note that Gary had in fact gotten Crystal into petitioning, trained her, shared locations with her, and gave her money), then why would Roger and Crystal had continued working and travelling with Gary for weeks after this? If this story were true, wouldn’t Roger be guilty of gross negligence for continueing to work and travel with Gary for weeks after this? If this story were true, why were no charges pressed?

    I’ve spent a lot of time with Roger and with Gary. Unlike people like yourself who repeat rumors and innuendos and act as though they are facts, I am actually close to this situation.

    By the way, did Roger tell you about any of the stuff that he did to Gary, or did he conviently leave that out of the story? Such as, getting a girlfriend of Gary’s phone number while Gary was still dating her and then hooking up with her, calling up employers (including employers outside of politics) and trying to get Gary fired, threatening to call the IRS on Gary, and abandoning Gary (without warning) at a motel while his car was in a repair shop a good 30-40 miles away.

    It is pretty pathetic that a broken friendship between Roger and Gary (they were friends for around 15 years) is being discussed on internet forums. Roger’s “vindictive ex-friend” syndrome has got NOTHING to do with the quality of Gary’s work (which is excellent) and SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt. I’m astounded that anyone would take this nonsense seriously.

    “These appear, to me, to be substantive complaints.”

    It appears to me that Jim Davidson is a person who doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about.

    This is really disgusting that there are people who don’t know what they are talking about crawling out of the woodwork and repeating debunked stories, rumors, hearsay, distortions of reality, and outright lies, in an attempt to smear people whom they do not even know, and who are in fact good Libertarian activists.

  53. JimDavidson

    It appears that Andy Jacob has an agenda. I have identified allegations and statements. I have not seen Richard Winger’s statements, though I see Andy characterises them.

    There are many things I don’t know, and Mr. Jacob seems determined to characterise my not knowing them as wrongdoing on my part. Which suggests he isn’t really interested in anyone knowing anything except his version of events.

  54. TheOriginalAndy

    “JimDavidson // Oct 13, 2008 at 2:01 am

    It appears that Andy Jacob has an agenda.”

    My “agenda” is the truth, your agenda must be to repeat lies and distortions that you heard from other people who have an agenda.

    “I have identified allegations and statements.”

    You repeated bullshit as if it was fact.

    “I have not seen Richard Winger’s statements, though I see Andy characterises them.”

    Of course you didn’t because you didn’t bother to do any homework, you just repeated a bunch of lies that you heard from other people who have agendas.

    “There are many things I don’t know, and Mr. Jacob seems determined to characterise my not knowing them as wrongdoing on my part.”

    Repeating lies as if they were facts is wrong. I’d call it highly irresponsible.

    “Which suggests he isn’t really interested in anyone knowing anything except his version of events.”

    I’m interested in stopping the bullshit lies that are being spread. It isn’t “my version” of the events, it is the truth.

    Notice how Jim Davidson didn’t respond to any of my rebuttals. That’s because he can’t because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  55. JimDavidson

    No, Andy, I identified allegations. Read my post. I quoted things that have been sent to me by people who appear to be earnestly concerned. I have not in any of my posts on this topic asserted that I know anything.

    You have asserted that I have an agenda. I don’t. I don’t really care to know the truth about you, Paulie, or Fincher.

    I have, of course, bothered to contact Mr. Winger.

    Doing my “homework” includes soliciting information, which is why I posted summaries of the information I’ve been sent here. You can assert that I already knew everything you know about these allegations, but how could you prove that I knew? And why assume ill will on my part?

    Given what I’ve been sent, yes, I have built up a picture. Posting information about it here is one of the things I’ve done to seek more information. Calling it irresponsible to check out these things seems bizarre.

    Notice how you encouraged me to read all your rebuttals and respond to them by calling me names. I haven’t responded to you because I’m still gathering information.

    Also, as Tom Knapp notes, I have no obligation to debate you. As he says, “Go fuck yourself.”

  56. TheOriginalAndy

    “Also, as Tom Knapp notes, I have no obligation to debate you. As he says, “Go fuck yourself.””

    You won’t debate me because you are a chickenshit know-nothing who mindlessly repeats rumors.

  57. TheOriginalAndy

    “JimDavidson // Oct 13, 2008 at 3:56 am

    No, Andy, I identified allegations. Read my post. I quoted things that have been sent to me by people who appear to be earnestly concerned. I have not in any of my posts on this topic asserted that I know anything.”

    So in other words, you are a person who simply spreads rumors started by others.

    “You have asserted that I have an agenda. I don’t. I don’t really care to know the truth about you, Paulie, or Fincher.”

    Then why bother getting involved if you don’t know what you are talking about and don’t care to know what you are talking about?

    “I have, of course, bothered to contact Mr. Winger.”

    Notice that he did this only after I called him out for spreading bullshit.

    “Doing my ‘homework’ includes soliciting information, which is why I posted summaries of the information I’ve been sent here.”

    Doing your homework means getting more than one side of the story.

    “You can assert that I already knew everything you know about these allegations, but how could you prove that I knew? And why assume ill will on my part?”

    You stuck your nose in other people’s business and spread a bunch slanderous lies and distortions without bothering to find out the other side of the story.

    You’ve got a HELL of a lot of nerve in my opinion. How about somebody make up a bunch of negative stories about you and post them on-line?

    “Given what I’ve been sent, yes, I have built up a picture.”

    Yes, a false picture.

    “Posting information about it here is one of the things I’ve done to seek more information. Calling it irresponsible to check out these things seems bizarre.”

    It is a good thing that I was here to post rebuttals to the slanderous lies that you posted, because if I wasn’t the bullshit that you posted would have gone uncontested and then people who don’t know anything about the sitautions could end up reading them and believing them.

    How would you like it if a potential employer/contractor or a potential girlfriend did a search for you on-line and found a bunch of negative stuff posted about you, a bunch of negative stuff that was false, and then they believed it? I bet that you wouldn’t be too happy about it.

    “Notice how you encouraged me to read all your rebuttals and respond to them by calling me names. I haven’t responded to you because I’m still gathering information.”

    The fact that you wouldn’t respond and the fact that you obviously did not do your homework speaks volumes about you, and what it says is that you are a busybody who mindlessly repeats rumors.

    You started this by sticking your nose into other people’s business and interjecting yourself into areas where you don’t know what you are talking about and repeating rumors being spread by other people.

    When you stick your nose in other people’s business and spread false stories about them don’t be suprised when the people effected get pissed off.

  58. JimDavidson

    You seem to object to me seeking more information about the allegations I was sent. You say they are rumors without substance. Of course, you say a number of things which are also hearsay, to me, because I have yet to substantiate your claims, either.

    One of the things that makes me suspicious about your statements is the intense rancor you bring to the subject. I did not say I thought all these things were true. Other than asking around, how am I supposed to learn the truth?

    You don’t agree with me posting the information I was sent, in June, by Joseph Knight, here, in October. Happily, you aren’t in charge of whether I have permission to post inquiries on this site.

    In June, I thought the sixty-odd pages Joseph sent were huge files and of little interest to me. I gathered there was some existing disagreement between Joseph and our Boston Tea Party national committee member Mike Blessing, though I may be mistaken about that point. In any event, I didn’t publish Joseph’s files, and still haven’t done so. But, they might make a fun web site. So, I’ll have to think about doing so, with appropriate pages for commentary on each enormous .jpg.

    How are these allegations not my business? I’m obviously interested in libertarian politics, and I’m obviously part of a political party that has candidates which have hired petition gatherers. I’ve also obviously had the decency to avoid bringing this issue up until well after the petition gathering work is over. So, why are you so hostile toward me?

    If you don’t like the fact that this information is being circulated, talk to Joseph Knight or Roger Pope. I didn’t send the stuff they sent to me, they did.

    If you believe these allegations and discussions have been put to rest, and that everyone ought to know everything you know, then you know very little about how information is distributed.

    Now, let me address your various comments. I don’t believe you. I think you are a biased and hostile source of information. I won’t believe anything you’ve said until I can corroborate it from other sources.

    I note that you deny the things reported to me by Pope and by Knight. As I look into these issues, I’ll keep your denials, your vehemence, and your hostility in mind.

    So far, I’ve presented information that I was given about Fincher. I don’t understand how you are affected by that information. How is it any concern of yours?

    The fact that I haven’t responded to all of your charges, allegations, and hearsay claims is because I am checking out what you purport to be true. I don’t have to instantly form an opinion. Since you seem to think that I ought to instantly agree with you, I’m going to suggest that you think of a more tactful approach.

    You started out instantly hostile to me. That’s a poor strategy if what you want is for me to agree with you that it all sounds like hearsay and unsubstantiated rumor. Since your denials are of the form of yet more hearsay, and since you are hostile toward me with no reason to be, and since I am likely to be asked about the hiring of petition gatherers in future, it is my choice to continue to look into all this crap.

    Sad, because I am really tired of wading through the Joseph Knight files. Is he wasted all the time? Because his file names are crap.

  59. TheOriginalAndy

    Here is a video of Gary in front of a bank about to cash the check he recieved from LP National after Richard Winger talked to Bill Redpath and explained why Gary should get paid. Gary posted this video on-line as a response to Joe Knight.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAgkuDjmtDs&feature=related

    Note that this pay came over 7 years late and that Gary did not recieve any interest.

  60. JimDavidson

    LP National’s willingness to pay for petition work and voter registration work that seems to have taken place in 1999 and 2000 seven years later, could that have anything to do with wanting to hire Fincher for more petition work? Was any interest due?

    One of the enormous files, frustratingly named “image21.jpg” is the first page of a report by private investigator Terry Pearson of Aspen Investigations, hired by Knight on behalf of the New Mexico LP. The report is dated 5 January 2000. It says that fifteen people were contacted and none of them intended to register as Libertarian for voting purposes. The second page of that report includes the investigator’s conclusion that people signing up to vote were misled.

    Another image shows an investigative report with subject Erin Michael. She says she was approached about registering to vote, and her reason for filling in the form was related to a change of address. She says she was told to leave the party affiliation blank. She says she was assisted by a male. (Gary and Karen Fincher were involved in this work, according to the news clippings.) She says she did not indicate any desire to be registered as Libertarian. She also says she feels that the person helping her “misrepresented what they were doing.”

    You assert, vehemently, and repeatedly, that collecting social security numbers was not required. This point seems to be in dispute, but one allegation is that many cards were turned in with false SSNs. Falsifying voter registration information is something like a fourth degree felony, certainly not a major crime. But it is the kind of stuff that causes trouble for political parties, especially ones that, coming off a big result in the elections are trying to register enough voters to get on the list of “major” parties.

    So, now I’m also curious about the forms that Sean Haugh wanted to have burned. Were these forms properly collected petitions, or was there evidence of falsified entries? It is certainly reprehensible to seek to have them burned, either way, since if they were legit, they represent the preferences of voters and the work of petition gatherers, and if not, they would be evidence of crime.

    By the way, I am entirely sympathetic toward petition gatherers getting paid. I was recently informed of a petition gatherer from Oklahoma who did work in West Virginia who had not been paid in late September for work done many weeks earlier. I gather Shane Cory told her she’d get paid, and that’s the last update I have. But, of course, I don’t trust Cory.

    There’s clearly a lot of information here. It is fun finding out more.

  61. JimDavidson

    Actually the answer on the supposed double standard is on the cover page of Knight’s set of documents. He says nothing against leaving the SSN blank, as Kohlhaas did. His objection is to the false SSNs put in place, evidently in the same hand writing, on cards turned in by Fincher. In other words he alleges falsified entries.

    You corroborate this claim by saying, “So Gary made the decision to fill in random numbers on the cards that did not have them,” which is a badness. Falsifying information on a voter registration card is a bad thing. You appear to think it is okay.

    I have, by the way, contacted Mike Blessing to ask him to put me in touch with Ron Bjornstad, and to find out what Mike thinks.

Comments are closed.