Press "Enter" to skip to content

LNC resolution for the suspension of Bill Redpath

By paulie on December 4, 2008 12:06 PM

From the desk of George Phillies

as has crossed my email: I don’t know if it will be submitted. There is a corresponding resolution against Starr. I believe it’s meant as a ‘this is a two way street which we might prefer not to travel’. The resolution reads:

Whereas, William Redpath has engaged in conduct injurious to the Libertarian Party and its Bylaws, and conduct in violation of our Bylaws, therefore,

Be it resolved that pursuant to Article 8 Section 5 of the Bylaws William Redpath’s membership in the Libertarian National Committee is hereby suspended.

In support of these charges we accuse William Redpath of the following acts, which, among others that he has committed, warrant his suspension from the Libertarian National Committee:

1) Use of Party resources in the form of a gift in kind to support a Presidential candidate of another party.

2) Use of Party resources in the form of a gift in kind to support a Presidential candidate of our party.

3) Failure to ensure that the aforementioned gifts in kind were properly disclosed on LNC FEC filings.

4) Misappropriation of Party funds in violation of the Statement of Principles, namely use of Party funds to attempt an act of theft and fraud.

5) Silent participation in acts of fraud against the Libertarian Party National Convention.

Evidence in support of these charges:

1) At the December 2007 LNC Meeting, Redpath as Chair failed on his own volition to rule out of order as a violation of the Party Bylaws a resolution authorizing the staff to permit Ron Paul supporters to make use of the Ballot Base software. Instead, this motion was passed without objection. Staff, who report to Redpath as CEO, allowed Paul supporters to attempt to use the software.

It is unmistakably the case that Paul was a candidate for the Republican Party Presidential nomination. In contrast, Libertarian Party Bylaws clearly and unmistakably state that our purpose is to function as a political party separate and distinct from all others. The Libertarian Party has raised extensive funds from libertarian donors who believed that they were donating to support our party’s objectives. Use of Libertarian Party funds to advance the political campaign of a Republican was a gross breach of fiduciary responsibility on the part of Chairman Redpath.

Furthermore, the Libertarian National Committee with Redpath as Chair chose to use party resources, such as the party web page displaying their minutes, to publicly invite a particular person to become a
candidate for President with our party. Similar access to party resources was not given to other candidates. It has been the policy of the Libertarian National Committee since it was observed that Honey Lanham had used party resources in support of the Russell Means Presidential Campaign that the Libertarian National Committee is expected to remain above the fray and not use party resources to support that candidate. Failure to adhere to this policy in 1996 and 2000, as described in George Phillies’ book Funding Liberty, caused great damage to our party. In contravention of this policy of several decades, under Redpath as Chair the National Committee used its resources to advocate
for Paul as our presidential candidate.

Furthermore, at this meeting, four members of the LNC, namely Pat Dixon, Hardy Macia, Julie Fox, and Rebecca Sink-Burris, admitted in their statements of conflict of interest that they had contributed financially to the nominating campaign of a Republican Presidential candidate. The rule for disclosure of conflict of interests exists so that appropriate corrective measures can then be taken. It was clearly the duty of the Chair to instruct the LNC members who had disclosed that they had supported a Republican that Roberts indicates [RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, l. 15-25] that if a member has a direct personal or pecuniary (monetary) interest in a motion under consideration not common to other members, the member should not vote on such a motion. Redpath failed to make such instruction.

2) Under the leadership of Chairman Redpath, the Libertarian National Committee has used party resources to support the campaigns of particular candidates for our party’s presidential nomination.
In particular: The party newspaper LP News for most of the presidential nominating campaign took a position of the nominal objectivity, primarily by ignoring the nominating campaigns of our presidential
candidates. However, the April, 2008 issue of the newspaper featured a front page article describing in glowing terms the nominating campaigns of precisely two of our multiple candidates. One of the two was Bob Barr, whom Redpath publicly claimed he had recruited as our candidate.

Other candidates who wished positive articles or statements about them to appear in LP News had to buy the space as an advertisement, at a price far higher than that charged in years previous. Furthermore that space was clearly purchased advertising rather than earned media and was thus far less invaluable.

Under party bylaws and LNC rules, Redpath is personally responsible for this event. National committee resolutions as gathered in the Policy Manual establish that sole responsibility for articles in LP news replies in the hands of the chairman. While the Chairman may delegate this authority, at such time as the authority is abused, as happened here, it was the duty of the chairman to make appropriate compensation to our other candidates. Redpath failed to do so. His failure constitutes misappropriation of party funds in support of his personal candidate for the nomination of our party.

3) The actions described in points one and two were gifts in kind by the Libertarian National Committee to the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel. Perusal of the LNC FEC reports for this period shows that these gifts in kind, while extremely valuable, were not disclosed. Failure to disclose spending in an accurate and timely manner leaves the LNC open to potential civil or criminal action by the Federal Election Commission.

4) Redpath as party Chief Executive Officer is personally responsible for the decision to file the so called “LNC” suit against New Hampshire Secretary of state William Gardiner. The core claims of that suit are clearly and unmistakably fraudulent. Furthermore, the suit represents a conspiracy to deny New Hampshire Libertarians, namely the New Hampshire Libertarian Party State Convention, their right of freedom of association and petition, namely their right to choose a candidate for President and petition to have him placed on the ballot. Use of LNC funds in support of this lawsuit constitutes an act of fraud and theft in gross violation of the statement of principles.

5) Redpath as Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the conduct of his employees. As chair of the national convention He is also responsible for seeing that actions that he rates and a belief should
have known were based on fraud were prevented from taking place. In the matter of the alleged “District of Columbia” delegation to our national convention, Redpath failed to discharge his duties in an effective and appropriate manner

Our Party Bylaws require that the recognized affiliate must appoint the delegation to the National Convention. However, the DC affiliate is noted for its total silence. As the convention approached, MPP chair Rob Kampia claimed to be the ‘delegation chair’ and demanded recognition of his delegation. There is no basis for this claim under party bylaws. Instead, Redpath’s Executive Director, whom Bob Barr brought to the stage after the nomination and thanked for unspecified services, had sent a memo

From: Shane Cory
To: “[email protected]”

Emily,

What’s the latest that delegate names can be submitted to you? Also, Rob Kampia in D.C. has stepped up to the plate to be delegation chair. I spoke with Bob Sullentrup about this. Since there
is no D.C. party, he said someone can step up to be the delegation chair (not party chair) to fill in vacancies. Rob will be submitting names to you after a D.C. Meetup.

Thanks for everything!

Best,
Shane

to create a fraudulent claim that a DC delegation existed. Members will recall that the DC delegation chair, Rob Kampia, participated in this fraud in order to be Bob Barr’s nominator from the stage at the national convention.

Redpath as National Chair must have been aware that there was no active DC party, and failed to take adequate steps to ensure if that the fraudulent DC delegation was not seated.

For these and many other reasons, William Redpath should be suspended as National Chair of the Libertarian Party.

32 Comments

  1. JimDavidson December 7, 2008

    I wrote, “you are proposing designs (some day?) to replace the Yahoogroups with, perhaps, a Simple Machines Forum or another forum for the BTP.” It isn’t false. It is exactly my understanding of what you say in this thread, and on the Yahoogroups thread, and on the Google thread.

    You are proposing designs to replace the Yahoogroups….

    Yes? Yes, you are investigating some sort of options. No, you haven’t bothered to make a proposal yet.

    …with, perhaps, A or B for the BTP.

    Where A is what I thought might work, an SMF, and B is “another forum” which is my way of catching all the other possible things. Maybe you won’t call it a forum just to spite me. I don’t care.

    I see that you don’t feel responsible for being the leader you want attention from. As Tom notes, whether you get elected or not, you are a leader if you do stuff for the party.

    I’m not willing to visit your web site any longer. Thanks for having private property and using it to please yourself.

    I am glad you are doing things you think are important. Please continue to do them if you think they are important.

    I clearly misunderstood your request for attention for your proposals. I gave them attention. I offered to help. I see that I have some nerve for asking you to do the things you want to see done. I see that I have some nerve for offering to help. I see that I have some nerve for being a leader in the party whether I wish to be or not.

    I really don’t care what you think of me, George. I got nerve.

    I got laughs, sister
    I got freedom, brother
    I got good times, man

    I got crazy ways, daughter
    I got million-dollar charm, cousin
    I got headaches and toothaches
    And bad times too
    Like you

  2. JimDavidson December 5, 2008

    I think all those voluntary actions are great, Steve. It is this kind of self-generated action that I was extolling as virtuous. I think you can confirm that I never told you to do any of that stuff.

    Personally, I find the idea that the leaders have to tell the members what to do to be weird and kind of offensive. I think on the contrary, the members should tell the leaders what to do. I mean, the BTP is supposed to be run by and for the members, right?

    I think you did a lot of great things. I am very proud to be in a party who has people like you in it, Steve. Thank you for your work for freedom. You are a great man.

  3. songster7 December 5, 2008

    re: 21

    I just happened on this and wanted to correct something:

    “Nobody told Steve Trinward to put together the team that got Jay-Knapp on the ballot in Tennessee, he just did it.”

    Actually I didn’t do much at all in this, although I did say I was willing to at one point …

    my role consisted of the following:

    a) encouraging a couple of folks to be electors;

    b) suggesting the BTP contact Vernie Kuglin to cover the Memphis district elector slot (and she was willing);

    c) meeting with Paulie C. and Andy at Whole Foods, to sign a couple of papers as the Davidson County/Metro elector …

    d) telling friends and acquaintances about the Jay/Knapp ticket, and that it was even on the ballot here;

    e) accompanying Charles when he came to town for the alt-debate in October, and hanging out with him during the two days he was in town (which I thoroughly enjoyed);

    f) wearing the Jay/Lnapp 2008 buttons he gave me; and

    g) voting for the BTP ticket in early voting …

    If I ever led anyone to think my role was greater than this, and they voted for me on that basis to be on the BTPNC, I apologize

  4. George Donnelly December 5, 2008

    No, it does not mean that.

    I’m a member of the ACLU, ISIL and a bunch of other organizations, but I don’t have their logos on my website.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author | December 5, 2008

    GD,

    I notice you took the BTP logo off your site, does that mean you are quitting the BTP?

  7. pdsa December 5, 2008

    George Donnelly – this is OT, but heads-up with Simple Machines. A backwater implementation of mine was recently discovered by A**l Porn, and other rampant spammers, and I decided to lock-down membership/posting privileges to invited only for the time being. I believe the URL was posted on a Russian language Free board service (server logs indicate), and then propagated. A few unsuccessful hack attempts were made too, but I keep website software under my control updated, so they may have been probing for unpatched security holes (maybe looking for exploitable mods too). Many of the originating IPs were Russian and former Soviet breakaways, but they also it was a world-wide variation, as well as using some obvious anon proxies. The majority of the sign-up used a Googlemail account for verification purposes. Just though I’d clue you in on it.

  8. George Donnelly December 5, 2008

    Jim did not say that you proposed the Simple Machines format. He said that you are proposing designs FOR that format.

    It remains false.

    I was asked to investigate alternatives to the yahoogroups format. I am not proposing that we use SMF, at least not yet.

    In many cases when one carefully reads what Jim writes, it becomes apparent that he is stating facts in such a way that the person the statement of facts is directed at can choose to take those facts as facts, or take the way they are stated as a reason to get huffy and defensive.

    Give me a break. He morphed my request for opinions and collaborators into a request for permission in order to denigrate and lecture me.

    He morphed my activities into a lack of such, thereby questioning my credibility.

    He morphed my question about a video into an attack on the BTP.

    What I’m expecting YOU to understand is that YOU are “the leadership,” as is everyone else who chooses to do things.

    I understand your concept. Again, I already defined what I meant by “the leadership” when I used it previously. Just because I used it in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean I am unable to comprehend the meaning of it that you are pushing.

    And it is not correct to conflate my attempt to engage the leadership of the national party with a belief in fuhrerprinzip in #16. That was a red herring.

    If I attempt to engage someone in a project, it’s an attempt at building a team or a coalition. For certain large or complex projects, one needs a team of people involved, or else it will likely fail.

    I deemed that a project to recruit candidates required multiple people involved, including members of the national leadership, in order for it to succeed. You may disagree and form your own project and even succeed without fulfilling the conditions I set for myself for success, and that is fine and I will applaud you. But those are the conditions I set for my participation and so I set about to meet them.

    In any case, you miss the point that if I can’t find sufficient collaborators for something that I deem requires collaborators in order to be successful, I’m not going do it.

    And I’m sure you’re fine with that fact. There are lots of good people in the BTP and I’m sure someone else will do it, if I don’t.

  9. hogarth December 5, 2008

    I have changed my mind.

    ’bout time! It’s been, what, two-three days since the last time?

    😉

  10. Thomas L. Knapp December 5, 2008

    George,

    Jim did not say that you proposed the Simple Machines format. He said that you are proposing designs FOR that format.

    In many cases when one carefully reads what Jim writes, it becomes apparent that he is stating facts in such a way that the person the statement of facts is directed at can choose to take those facts as facts, or take the way they are stated as a reason to get huffy and defensive.

    Now to your reply to me:

    “I expect leaders to show some interest. I’m not going to put a lot of my time and resources into something that benefits the party if the leadership shows no interest.”

    I understand that. What I’m expecting YOU to understand is that YOU are “the leadership,” as is everyone else who chooses to do things. Any given member of the national committee may be a “leader” — but not as a function of his or her member of the national committee. The national committee is the party’s janitorial/maintenance department, not its “leadership.”

  11. George Donnelly December 5, 2008

    Tom, I expect leaders to show some interest. I’m not going to put a lot of my time and resources into something that benefits the party if the leadership shows no interest.

    Jim first off, whoa, too long.

    I already defined leadership for my purposes here. Obviously you may want to use your own definition, but I already set mine.

    I guess you’d rather have input from the founder or the national committee members

    I’d like to have input from as many as are interested. btw I’m not writing off or ignoring your input here. I am simply wondering where everyone else is.

    you chose to censor me there.

    I requested that all parties – you, Jen and Ken – cease the personal battle that you were all waging on my property. Jen continued it anyway, and I redacted her comments. You did the same, and I redacted those, and only those, of your comments that continued the personal battle.

    You ignored my request (which was in the comments) and continued on. This is an affront to me and a statement of disrespect for my property right, but I chose to simply redact and leave it at that.

    George, that you want the attention of the other members of the Boston Tea Party including whoever these leaders are supposed to be, but you don’t want to be one of the leaders of the party – by running for chair,

    That is not necessarily a contradiction.

    I already explained my reasoning for withdrawing from the Chairman race:

    http://www.bostontea.us/node/513#comment-28

    You have many great ideas, George, but, strangely, you don’t implement them.

    That is a serious – and baseless – charge. This is more of a smear actually.

    My plan for the BTP:

    http://georgedonnelly.com/politics/plan-for-boston-tea-party

    Step 2. See http://93days.com. I did that. See:

    http://georgedonnelly.com/politics/93dayscom-just-prototype

    Where I am working on organizing a Liberty Media Rapid Response Team to do more things like this.

    Step 3. This project is in the early stages.

    Step 4. I donated $500 to Freedom Ballot Access in order to advance this.

    Step 7. See my personal website.

    Step 8. The very topic of this discussion is my first step on this.

    Step 9. I joined the Free State Project, am moving in 4 months, have joined several other NH liberty-oriented organizations.

    Step 14. See step 8.

    you immediately complained that Todd’s videos weren’t official, shouldn’t be approved without a vote of the national committee, and tried to stifle innovation.

    – It was not immediate
    – It was not a complaint but a pair of questions
    – I never said anything about the national committee voting
    – I did not attempt to stifle innovation.

    This is what I said:

    http://www.bostontea.us/node/511#comment-1

    Again my concern is that if any member can attach the BTP endorsement to anything they do or make, what is to stop people from affixing it to stuff that contradicts the platform?

    If you want to see your ideas implemented, stop asking for permission

    I’m asking for collaborators, not permission.

    you are proposing designs (some day?) to replace the Yahoogroups with, perhaps, a Simple Machines Forum or another forum for the BTP.

    That is entirely false. YOU, sir, asked ME to investigate Simple Machines Forum as a possible replacement for the btpnc yahoogroup. This was just 4 days ago! And I offered to provide free hosting.

    You said:

    Could I call for your opinion, George? You are at least informed, if not experienced, with the software implementations involved.

    Do you think a simple machines forum would be adequate? Any other suggestions?

    You have a lot of nerve.

  12. JimDavidson December 5, 2008

    Very strange, George. As one of the party’s three former chairs, or we might say chairman emeritus, I see myself as a leader in the party. I’m also the chair of one of the state affiliates – the only one with a bank account that I know about. So, my response to you was from one of the leaders of the party – just not one of the national officers. I’ve been accused by several people on this site of being the party’s public face. But, I guess you’d rather have input from the founder or the national committee members.

    It’s strange because I nominated you for chair, and really wanted to see you become chair.

    It’s strange, because I was replying on your site, until you chose to censor me there.

    It’s strange, George, that you want the attention of the other members of the Boston Tea Party including whoever these leaders are supposed to be, but you don’t want to be one of the leaders of the party – by running for chair, say. You have many great ideas, George, but, strangely, you don’t implement them.

    It’s strange, because I like everything on the list of ideas on your web site, and have said so, and have offered to help you implement them, and…nothing. And I’ve offered to help with your ideas on candidates and…nothing.

    I tend to agree with Tom. Two things are dangerous in groups. One is that the core officer group does all the work, demands the right to approve what anyone else does, and then gets burned out. I’ve tried very hard to avoid that by bumping things like Todd’s videos – the only videos other than mine that anyone has produced for the party – to the home page.

    It’s strange, because when I did so, you immediately complained that Todd’s videos weren’t official, shouldn’t be approved without a vote of the national committee, and tried to stifle innovation.

    The other very dangerous thing for group is the exclusive we. Someone comes up with great ideas and writes, “we should” and then a great idea. And “we should” and then another great idea. But, when you ask that person to do anything about any of those ideas, it’s like the house in “Fortunate Son.” Place looks like a rummage sale.

    The exclusive we is a very dangerous thing because it generates ideas, but no action. Then the person who generated the ideas complains, “nobody is implementing my ideas, so I’m going to go somewhere else.”

    So, here’s the deal. Freedom isn’t free. If you want freedom, you have to work for it. I think you know the deal.

    If you want to see your ideas implemented, stop asking for permission. Go out boldly and do the things you think ought to be done. If someone tells you that you have done wrong, it will be faster, easier, and cheaper to ask for forgiveness later than it is to ask for permission in advance.

    I recognise that these ideas are not how things are done in the LP and in other political parties. And maybe these experiments in how to do things are going to fail, again, I don’t know.

    But I do know that I have been consistently surprised by the number of people in the BTP who just start doing things. Dan Kilo and Wes Pinchot just decided to get Charles Jay on the ballot in Colorado. Nobody told them to do so. When paperwork couldn’t come from Tom Knapp, Dan just decided to put himself on the ballot as VP – and started the favorite son thing we are now using as our model for the future.

    Nobody told Steve Trinward to put together the team that got Jay-Knapp on the ballot in Tennessee, he just did it.

    Nobody is going to tell you that it is okay to do all the things on your list of ideas for the party. Why not do them anyway?

    The other side of that coin is, nobody is telling you that you cannot. In fact, nobody is standing in the way of anything you want to do.

    Now, let’s just attend to this amazingly ungracious complaint that we’re having elections. You want leadership that is responsive, so when the chair Jason Gatties resigned, it was necessary to form elections.

    You didn’t run for chair against the vice chair. So, he’s winning in the poll right now. So very likely his empty vice chair seat is going to have to be filled. You could have won the election for chair and kept that from happening. So, really, who is to blame for the election to replace vice chair?

    And, yes, having a full national committee is important. It has brought in new members, attracted by the election activity.

    And I am beside myself with amusement, befuddlement, and bemusement that you want, on the one hand, prompt attention from the officers of the party to your inquiries, but on the other hand it is not suiting you that we are electing officers so that we can have people available to pay prompt attention to your concerns.

    And, yes, the special election has gotten more attention than your message to the now obscure btpnc-talk discussion list. I don’t think that’s surprising.

    On the other hand, you are proposing designs (some day?) to replace the Yahoogroups with, perhaps, a Simple Machines Forum or another forum for the BTP. Which would be welcome. Maybe in designing that solution, you can find some way to tag posts and ping posts to draw the attention of people you want to hear from. I’ve seen it done on some forum software.

    My point is that the Boston Tea Party exists to serve the interests of the members. The officers exist to serve the members. The members are completely free and unencumbered and not only welcome but enthusiastically invited to DO THINGS.

    Please do things for the BTP. I will do my level best not to complain, but, extol the virtues of each thing you do. I will encourage others to support you in your cause.

    The same goes for each and every member of the party. For all his many faults, the thing I like about Todd the most is that he just does stuff. Nobody asked him to create those videos, he just did. I like Darryl for the same reason. Nobody told him to create all those graphics of the party logo, he just did it. And nobody tells him every few days to update the graphic on Facebook that charts our membership growth, he just does it.

    Take a page from Nike (also known as the goddess of victory) and “just do it.” Please.

    The freedom you save may be your own.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp December 4, 2008

    George,

    Ah, okay — it’s been a few days since I’ve been by btpnc-talk. I see that Jim has responded to your suggestions there. I’ll do so here.

    I think your ideas are fabulous. What threw me off was the reference to the party’s “leadership.”

    I consider that “leadership” to be the domain of individual activists and of the groups they form to pursue efforts — and I hope that you pursue your own suggestions and gain the help of others in doing so.

    I consider the national committee’s role to be more “custodial.” We’re just there to maintain a basic infrastructure through which the real “leaders” can find each other and work with each other.

    That doesn’t preclude the national committee officers and members from being “leaders” as individuals, but I’m sensitive (probably overly so) to any hint that the national committee should in any way be the party’s “driving force.”

  14. Trent Hill December 4, 2008

    “Trent I’ll be in NH permanently from around April and plan to be active there.”

    Good for you! Im quite envious.

  15. George Donnelly December 4, 2008

    @16

    I’m not sure what you mean by “the [BTP’s] leadership.

    The chairman, vice, secretary and at-large members of the national committee.

    I sent it to the btpnc-talk list.

    Recruiting candidates is one of the functions I most specifically want to keep the BTP’s national committee out of.

    I didn’t ask the national cmte to become involved in it as the national committee.

  16. BrianHoltz December 4, 2008

    Chuck and Susan get it exactly right.

    George did file an objection with the credentials committee, and the reply they gave him sounded reasonable to me. If he then objected on the floor in Denver to the credentials report, the delegates didn’t agree with him.

    The opponents of Redpath and the other LNC incumbents had every opportunity to raise four of these five issues in Denver, but AFAIK none of them did. Last December George called for the replacement of every LNC member who didn’t apologize for joining in its overwhelming vote for the Ron Paul invitation, but the delegates showed no interest in the idea.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp December 4, 2008

    George (Donnelly),

    You write:

    “I submitted a proposal to recruit candidates for ‘09 and no member of the [Boston Tea Party’s] leadership has responded”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “the [BTP’s] leadership.” We’re not organized according to der fuhrerprinzip.

    However, as a putative member of the group you claim to have so addressed, two notes:

    – I don’t recall receiving the proposal you allude to; and

    – Recruiting candidates is one of the functions I most specifically want to keep the BTP’s national committee out of.

    Personally, I prefer a very narrow portfolio for the national committee — organizing the national conventions (and seeing to the infrastructure for same), certifying the state affiliates, endorsing candidates in areas without affiliates, and promoting the party’s message through web site, press releases, etc.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  18. George Donnelly December 4, 2008

    Trent I’ll be in NH permanently from around April and plan to be active there.

  19. Trent Hill December 4, 2008

    “I’m seriously considering working with the Ron-Paulians in the GOP. At least there’s a chance of getting elected there.”

    Join us, we could use the help and have experienced moderate success. We’ve got about a dozen paulian state legislators, a former governor, 2 congressmen (I include Congressman John Duncan Jr.), a PSC in Montana–etc.

  20. JimDavidson December 4, 2008

    @5 I have suggested that very thing, after reviewing on this site the LP finances allegedly prepared by Starr. It does look like the party has very little current cash, and either a huge deficit or some prospect of barely breaking even in 2009.

  21. George Donnelly December 4, 2008

    I concur with Paul, sadly.

    I’m seriously considering working with the Ron-Paulians in the GOP. At least there’s a chance of getting elected there.

  23. Nexus December 4, 2008

    Oh for the love of the flying spaghetti monster! Does anyone out there have a free market/smaller government party I can join that isn’t interested in slitting each others throats in a protracted game of ‘king of the molehill’??

  24. George Donnelly December 4, 2008

    (Susan) They don’t have any particular right to misrepresent the organization they belong to.

    I’m not convinced that running a non-national-nominated candidate is the same thing as misrepresentation.

    If a candidate meets the requirements to be on the ballot, how is that incorrect or false? The candidate met the requirements and his partisan affiliation is shown.

    (Susan) Presenting a candidate who was rejected (or not selected) at the national convention as their candidate is de facto a statement of separation from the parent organization.

    What’s your basis for this? I don’t find any basis for this in the bylaws, for example. I did find this, though:

    (Art 6 Sec 5) The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these Bylaws.

    (Susan) The LP is structured as a top-down organization in many ways. There are weaknesses of such a structure, and their are strengths. But rather than try to pretend it’s not so structured, it seems to me that we would want to play to strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

    In some aspects it may be considered top-down, but in others bottom-up. Even those top-down aspects might be considered bottom-up in some ways.

    The real question is, which approach, or mix of approaches, will best grow or sustain the party as a successful organization.

  26. George Donnelly December 4, 2008

    shouldn’t there be some focus/emphasis on, say, raising half a million dollars in the next month or 2 so the party can continue to function?

    I would say that is what we should be doing. I would love to assist with that.

    Instead however we are faced with a nasty internecine battle that is just getting started.

    If you can’t trust national, why would you give them any of your hard-earned resources?

    I for one have joined the Free State Project and am moving to New Hampshire in the spring. I hope to do something constructive for liberty there. I’ve joined the NH Liberty Alliance as well.

    I have to say the Boston Tea Party is not doing much better in this area. I submitted a proposal to recruit candidates for ’09 and no member of the leadership has responded (it’s been a week).

    Instead, the BTP will now have to have 2 consecutive week-long special elections.

  27. George Phillies December 4, 2008

    The suit is not about what the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire State convention should be forbidden to do, it is about denying them their freedom of association to perform an action with which others might differ.

    Libertarian Girl’s smokescreen interpretation is highly sensible. TheDailyLiberty.com has a draft LNC budget for grownups, which lets you see where the money is going.

  28. LibertarianGirl December 4, 2008

    Theres been a rumor afoot that they are bringing up a ridiculous smokescreen instead of dealing with the fact that the Party is in fact almost bankrupt.

    Any truth to that I wonder.

  29. VirtualGalt December 4, 2008

    Instead of the “we don’t like Angela we think she’s icky”/”we don’t like Bill we think he’s icky” stuff, shouldn’t there be some focus/emphasis on, say, raising half a million dollars in the next month or 2 so the party can continue to function?

    Maybe there are some saner heads at work on this. But I have not heard from them nor have I been asked for a donation even recently.

  30. hogarth December 4, 2008

    Perhaps, but isn’t it their right to do so?

    I don’t think so. As affiliates of a national organization that nominates its candidate in convention, the state parties have the right to disaffiliate and reorganize under a different banner. They don’t have any particular right to misrepresent the organization they belong to. Presenting a candidate who was rejected (or not selected) at the national convention as their candidate is de facto a statement of separation from the parent organization.

    The LP is structured as a top-down organization in many ways. There are weaknesses of such a structure, and their are strengths. But rather than try to pretend it’s not so structured, it seems to me that we would want to play to strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

  31. George Donnelly December 4, 2008

    having a different presidential candidate nominated by each state affiliate is ridiculous.

    Perhaps, but isn’t it their right to do so?

    Having states put the national presidential candidate on the ballot is and should be standard operating procedure.

    Whose standard operating procedure? Why?

    Why is “states” the object of this first clause? States and/or individual members (should) act on the national LP, not the other way around.

    To argue for the opposite is to advocate an authoritarian manner of organization, and not a libertarian one; which would be unexpected in a libertarian organization.

    Wouldn’t a better SOP be for each state party to make their own decisions?

    Extending the logic of this, should it be standard operating procedure for each LP member to vote only for LP candidates, and is it ridiculous to vote for non-LP candidates?

  32. chuckmoulton December 4, 2008

    These allegations don’t give any basis for suspending Bill Redpath.

    Allegations 1-3 occurred before the Convention. Delegates elected Bill Redpath in spite of those allegations, so even if they were true the LNC should not second guess the will of the delegates.

    Allegation 4 contradicts what many prominent ballot access luminaries such as Richard Winger say. I’m inclined to believe Richard Winger. Further, having a different presidential candidate nominated by each state affiliate is ridiculous. Having states put the national presidential candidate on the ballot is and should be standard operating procedure.

    Allegation 5 is also baseless. A DC delegation was allowed to be seated while an affiliate was still being organized. If anyone had a problem with that, they could have raised an objection to the credentials report at the Convention. Rob Kampia would have had no trouble being seated in most state delegations had DC not been an option.

Comments are closed.