Sean Haugh is no longer employed by the Libertarian Party

http://www.lp.org/staff no longer lists Sean Haugh. Thanks to Susan Hogarth for this news. The budget approved at the recent LNC meeting in San Diego contains significantly less money for staff salaries than the previous budget, and Haugh has been writing articles at Liberty For All which have been highly critical of LP national chair Bill Redpath. Additionally, “In June, (acting LPHQ executive director Robert) Kraus forbade LPHQ staff to comment on public blogs”. IPR does not know at this time which, if any, or all of these things are the reason why Haugh is no longer employed by the LP.

Due to the downturn in the party’s finances, it is unlikely that there will be a quick replacement.

84 thoughts on “Sean Haugh is no longer employed by the Libertarian Party

  1. G.E.

    To you people who think Haugh’s firing is a good thing: Even a slimeball like Haugh wasn’t weaselly enough for the Redpath-Starr-Kraus criminal junta. Assuming they don’t run the party completely into the ground first, expect them to hire someone EVEN WORSE.

  2. G.E.

    A party with no political direction need not employ a political director.

    Maybe they could hire The Ghost of Jim Jones.

  3. richardwinger

    Bill Redpath is far more friendly to the fired professional petitioners than Sean Haugh had been. Expect some improvements in the matter of the fired petitioners.

  4. Galileo Galilei

    UW-Hater-In-Chief Nass Finally Out as Chair of College & University Committee

    By Robert – Dec 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm EST

    Finally, the UW just might have an actual advocate in the State Assembly. Rep. Kim Hixon, a University of Wisconsin-Whitewater professor was appointed Tuesday to lead the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee.

    Who’s spot is Hixon taking? Former chair and enemy of intellectuals everywhere, the venerable Steve Nass.

    Nass was on a permanent crusade to drive the UW System into obscurity. Nass most recently made headlines during the last budget cycle when Nass, joined by his Republican cohorts in the Assembly, proposed a budget that would require the UW System to make $120 million in cuts. This during a time when universities throughout the UW System were struggling to retain long-serving professors and administrators, who, rightfully so, were looking elsewhere around the country to find a state where their skills would be appreciated.

    Over his years in the Assembly, Nass has been a critic of the lowest order against the UW. His proposed “Student Bill of Rights” that would have protected students who voiced conservative views, was inspired by a David Horowitz, king of college-haters. His Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) was roundly criticized by a wide-range of groups, both conservative, liberal and non-partisan like the American Association of University Professionals, the American Historical Association, the American Library Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, among others, as infringing on academic freedom and nearly impossible to enforce. The ABOR even included protections for students at state universities who would claim discrimination when tested on evolution.

    Nass even went so far as to attempt to make UW faculty adhere to a code of conduct that prohibited making “anti-American” statements.

    Joe McCarthy anyone? And Nass’s continued drumbeat against the “liberal university system?” Just more of the same sort of nonsense that conservatives continue to push that somehow being educated is threatening or an undesirable characteristic. First in your class at Harvard Law? Elitist. Aloof. Even “un-American.” A President who can’t speak in complete coherent sentences who barely graduated between fraternizing and partying? A “hero.”

    Good riddance. Here’s hoping that under new leadership, the Assembly will stop these outrageous attacks, both verbal and fiscal, against one of this state’s best institutions.

    http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/page/community/post/theduke/CHgY

  5. karl

    Sean Haugh is on a roll.
    Check out his latest that has just recently popped up on Liberty For All.

  6. Gary Fincher

    “Bill Redpath is far more friendly to the fired professional petitioners than Sean Haugh had been. Expect some improvements in the matter of the fired petitioners.”

    Which petitioners were fired?

    (in my own case, I resigned from LP nat’l petitioning in 09/07 so that can’t apply to me)

  7. G.E.

    Here is what I posted in Haugh’s attack piece against Gary Fincher and Paul. Let’s see how long it remains up. (LibertyForAll, by the way, links to the controlled TPW but not independent IPR, it should be noted):

    How about Andy Jacobs. Why was he blackballed as well? Is his crime merely associating with these other guys (Fincher, as Richard Winger points out, is guilty of nothing more than a minor indiscretion)? Does everyone have to shun Fincher and Paul in order to find employment with the LP?

    I find it disgusting that Lee Wrights would allow his site to be used by one of the prime culprits in the “kiddie porn” press release against Mary Ruwart. I commend Sean Haugh for speaking out against Bill Redpath, but among the worst failures of Redpath’s tenure was his inept disciplining of reengage Haugh. Let’s see how long this comment stays up before the “libertarian” values of the administrator remove it like they do all comments by Mr. Jacobs.

  8. paulie cannoli Post author

    Thanks GE!

    I’m not very eager to engage Sean’s article. The main one is that he uses my real name and links it to my online persona, which I am considering deleting entirely as a result.

    The main reason why I don’t use my real name online, as Sean is well aware, is that I have a standing death threat (that I would be killed and have my corpse fed to dogs) by someone who was in an elite combat unit in Vietnam (reunion pictures online), ex-law enforcement, and proud of being on the terrorist watch list for beating up an antiwar protester. Obviously, Sean’s regard for my safety is less than zero. I’m not so sure that continuing to voice my opinions is worth the risk, so I may be gone soon. If so, if anyone misses me, you can thank Sean.

    Sean says that I will be suing him. I don’t know where he gets such an absurd fantasy from. I’ve never sued anyone in my life, and have no interest in doing so. If you catch me in a regime kort, it won’t be because I’ve agreed to be there.

    Sean is absolutely correct that I did fuck up and fall off the wagon a few years ago. His conclusion is that I should not try to do good work in my field now or in the future. Fair enough; I tried. If folks don’t think this path is for me, I’ll have to take a different one. There aren’t a lot of things I can do, given that I don’t work “in the system,” certain health issues, etc.
    I was much more successful being a bad guy, but eventually my conscience intervened. So I don’t think that’s for me now either. Maybe it’s time for me to go live on the streets for real. I’m pretty close to not having a choice about it.

    Sean is lying when he says that he only learned of my past very recently. Darryl Bonner and Scott Kohlhaas both told me he knew a while back, and I’m pretty sure Sean told me the same thing himself, but not positive. Ron Crickenberger knew all about it, and kept good records. I think Sean is full of shit on that one.

    Sean is also lying about the contract in Alabama. I have no contract with the LPA. That contract is between the LPA and Mark Pickens. Mark can hire or not hire whoever he wants. That’s what petition companies and contractors do. Who they subcontract with is their business, not the client’s, and not having to deal with all the subcontractors directly is one of the reasons why clients hire petition contractors.

  9. paulie cannoli Post author

    And of course, GE’s comment has already been memoryholed. Liberty for…um, never mind.

    Still in the comments:

    ————————————————————-

    1.
    Robert said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 5:47 pm

    Robert Lucero
    January 7, 2000
    Bureau of Elections Coordinator
    Bernalillo County
    505-768-4104

    Mr. Lucero stated that he had personally gone to the sight [sic] where the Finchers were registering voters and posed as a potential registrant.

    Mr. Lucero stated that he had asked the Finchers many questions concerning their efforts and received many answers he considered in violation of the election code.

    Mr. Lucero stated that he asked if they were only signing up “Libertarians” or could he sign up as a “Republican” to which he stated that Mr. Fincher told him “that would defeat their purpose.”

    Mr. Lucero stated that he had contacted the District Attorney’s office concerning possible violations of the Election Code and that they would be doing an investigation also.

    Mr. Lucero furnished me with (2) letters written in reference to the situation and they are included in this report.

    Mr. Lucero seemed a little hesitant to discuss an ongoing investigation with this investigator but did say that he had heard that they were “also having problems with the Libertarian Party registration [collected by Scott Kohlhaas] in Las Cruces.”
    2.
    Richard Winger said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pm

    Gary Fincher is an excellent petitioner. Recently he worked on a petition drive to get an independent candidate on the ballot in a special congressional election in Ohio. The candidate, James Germanic, did not qualify, but he did say that Fincher’s petitions had the highest validity rate of any of his petitioners.

    The state of New Mexico had to acknowledge that Gary’s “bad act” of making up Social Security numbers on voter registration forms in 1994 was not illegal, nor did it invalidate those voter registrations for the Libertarian Party. Gary has long ago admitted that he should not have done this, but in a sense he was vindicated when courts ruled that voter registration forms can’t ask for the entire S.S. number. Also, it was 14 years ago!

    —————————————————-

    Richard is incorrect as to the dates (1999, not 1994) but correct on everything else.

  10. G.E.

    I posted this at R. Lee Wrights’s Facebook page. Let’s see how long until I’m de-friended!

    Why was my entirely civil and valid comment deleted from LibertyforAll? Liberty for whom?

  11. G.E.

    I’ll wait for a while to get a response, but then I’m going to go to Mary Ruwart and ask her if she has an opinion on this B.S.

  12. paulie cannoli Post author

    I posted this at NFV a while back when E*** D****** R****** ignored my requests for him to stop using my real name online. Readers can decide for themselves how it applies at present.

    —————-

    No, I do not have a Russian mob hit out on me. If I did I would already be dead.

    Yes, I do have members of my extended family who some people think are “Russian mob,” which is not necessarily an accurate description, and yes, I helped them set up their business in America.

    No, I am not involved in their business anymore, and have not been in years. No, I don’t condone all of their activities.

    Yes, they have offered to put me back to work and help take care of any problems I have.

    Yes, I do have a well-armed, combat-trained killer, ex-law enforcement, who has specifically threatened to kill me and feed my corpse to his dogs for holding antiwar views and making fun of him at Hammer of Truth in 2006. Yes, he has also bragged about being on the terrorist watch list for beating up an antiwar protester in Colorado Springs.

    Yes, my aforementioned relatives have been made aware of this situation and Eric’s role in using my real full name repeatedly on the internet after being asked to stop.

    Yes, they will hold Eric partially responsible if anything happens to me.

    No, I can’t do anything about it.

    I wanted this to be publicly available in print in case anything happens to me.

    Now go ahead Eric and dig my grave some more. Be careful you don’t fall in. This is not a threat and it’s not a promise.

    If I get killed call your wife and tell her to get out of the house, never come back and never see you again. She is completely innocent in your actions and I hope she does not get hurt because of you.

    It’s bad enough you might be bringing her home sexually transmitted diseases from the women you have had sex with that she does not know about, like Deer Lodge, MT, Oregon, and Juanita from TJ. But this would be way worse.

    I’m drunk and in a funk, so I have some more shit to get off my chest. This message brought to you by Hennessy Cognac, caffeine pills and Morgan Creek Vineyards Blush.

    No, I have not always been a good person. I am an addict and this has manifested itself in drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitutes, graffiti, internet addiction, porn, fighting, arguing, and stuffing my fat face, among other things.

    Yes, my gambling addiction did cause me to “lose” $80,000 in a crooked card game in 1990. I didn’t pay, but I moved out of NYC. No, I don’t gamble anymore. No, I’m not afraid of those guys coming after me all these years later. They have barely been outside their own neighborhood much less NYC. No, they are not Russian.

    Addiction and Detachment
    ~author unknown

    I did it to myself. It wasn’t society – it wasn’t a pusher, it wasn’t being blind or being black or being poor. It was all my doing.
    ~ Ray Charles ~

    In our society, we tend to look at addiction from a very limited point of view. We judge people to be addicts if they are “hooked” on drugs, alcohol, food, sex, smoking, exercise, gambling, shopping and/or work. Better said, addiction is any habitual psychological and/or physiological dependence on a substance, thought, practice or behavior that one cannot intentionally control. For example:

    If you can’t stop arguing with the people you love, you’re addicted to your opinions, judgment and being right.
    If you can’t end your self-deprecating internal dialogue, you’re addicted to self-hate.
    If you can’t forgive those you are angry with, you’re addicted to resentment.
    If you can’t cease making a big deal out of everything, you’re addicted to drama.
    If you can’t discontinue your need to make yourself better than others, you’re addicted to pride.

    My friend shared this about his personal experience with addiction.

    “In the beginning I was told and believed, that addiction was not just a diagnosis; it was a definition that came immediately after my name. I learned that I needed to ask forgiveness from all those I had harmed. What I wasn’t taught was to forgive myself. Someone had to be wrong, and I was the one on trial. There was no forgiveness in that scenario.”
    “Forgiveness was the answer, but not coming from my self-judgment and guilt. Once I took responsibility for my actions without judgment, I forgave because I wanted to free myself from suffering and guilt as a gift of self-love and respect. Bottom line: Unconditional love is not given out of guilt and fear of judgment – and true forgiveness is love in action.”

    Taking responsibility for our addiction to the human mind and the things that it tells us to do is a powerful action. For example, instead of saying we are addicted to substances or behaviors, we can say we are addicted to the commands the mind is giving us to hurt ourselves with those substances or behaviors. No matter what kinds of addictions we have been engaged in, all of us deserve forgiveness for not having the awareness that we are Spirit using the mind that is thinking.

    No, I have not always been a good person. I have lied, stolen, cheated, swindled, literally beaten the shit out of people, just about every bad thing you can think of I have done.
    No, I am not proud of doing these things. No, I don’t have a time machine. I apologize to everyone that my deeds as well as my words have hurt.

    Yes, I have had my ass kicked until it bled before. No, I didn’t like it.

    Yes, I am trying to be a better person and make a positive change in this world. You want to hold my past against me and keep bad things I have done in the past from letting me do good things in the future? I can’t do anything about this, but it is your loss just as much as mine.

    No, I am not that afraid, really. I love life, but I have laid down and accepted death before. Death is just transformation. I don’t believe we really die. If I am supposed to die soon, so be it.

    No, I am not perfectly enlightened, as you can see I still have much work ahead in seeking redemption.

    Namaste.

  13. paulie cannoli Post author

    And just in case anything in the last comment is misunderstood, let me reemphasize that I am not issuing any threats, veiled or otherwise, against anyone.

    I do happen to like this song (in Russian), but not because I find the viewpoint expressed in the lyrics admirable in any way.

    Shalom…

  14. paulie cannoli Post author

    @ LFsome


    Steve Dasbach said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

    I was the LP’s Executive Director at the time when the situation in New Mexico with the Finchers occurred. Gary admitted at the time that he had added fictitious SSN’s to forms that lacked them, because the local coordinator had refused to pay them for forms lacking SSN’s.

    As I recall, Ron Crickenberger went to New Mexico to personally examine the forms. The handwriting on the SSN’s was different than the rest of the forms, and the handwriting on the rest of the form was different on each one. In other words, different people filled out each form, while the same person added the SSN’s.

    As a result of Gary’s actions, Ron refused to use Gary on any LP ballot drives during the remainder of his tenure as LP Political Director. However, we found no evidence that the registrations themselves were fradulent, only the SSN’s.

  15. paulie cannoli Post author

    Wow, look….GE’s comment just reappeared, along with several others!

    ————————————————————-

    7 Comments »

    1.
    Robert said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 5:47 pm

    Robert Lucero
    January 7, 2000
    Bureau of Elections Coordinator
    Bernalillo County
    505-768-4104

    Mr. Lucero stated that he had personally gone to the sight [sic] where the Finchers were registering voters and posed as a potential registrant.

    Mr. Lucero stated that he had asked the Finchers many questions concerning their efforts and received many answers he considered in violation of the election code.

    Mr. Lucero stated that he asked if they were only signing up “Libertarians” or could he sign up as a “Republican” to which he stated that Mr. Fincher told him “that would defeat their purpose.”

    Mr. Lucero stated that he had contacted the District Attorney’s office concerning possible violations of the Election Code and that they would be doing an investigation also.

    Mr. Lucero furnished me with (2) letters written in reference to the situation and they are included in this report.

    Mr. Lucero seemed a little hesitant to discuss an ongoing investigation with this investigator but did say that he had heard that they were “also having problems with the Libertarian Party registration [collected by Scott Kohlhaas] in Las Cruces.”
    2.
    Richard Winger said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pm

    Gary Fincher is an excellent petitioner. Recently he worked on a petition drive to get an independent candidate on the ballot in a special congressional election in Ohio. The candidate, James Germanic, did not qualify, but he did say that Fincher’s petitions had the highest validity rate of any of his petitioners.

    The state of New Mexico had to acknowledge that Gary’s “bad act” of making up Social Security numbers on voter registration forms in 1994 was not illegal, nor did it invalidate those voter registrations for the Libertarian Party. Gary has long ago admitted that he should not have done this, but in a sense he was vindicated when courts ruled that voter registration forms can’t ask for the entire S.S. number. Also, it was 14 years ago!
    3.
    Jason Seagraves said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

    How about Andy Jacobs. Why was he blackballed as well? Is his crime merely associating with these other guys (Fincher, as Richard Winger points out, is guilty of nothing more than a minor indiscretion)? Does everyone have to shun Fincher and Paul in order to find employment with the LP?

    I find it disgusting that Lee Wrights would allow his site to be used by one of the prime culprits in the “kiddie porn” press release against Mary Ruwart. I commend Sean Haugh for speaking out against Bill Redpath, but among the worst failures of Redpath’s tenure was his inept disciplining of reengage Haugh. Let’s see how long this comment stays up before the “libertarian” values of the administrator remove it like they do all comments by Mr. Jacobs.
    4.
    libertyforallorjustsome? said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

    “‘This is bad. This is very bad stuff,’ Lamb said.”

    Very bad stuff indeed.

    …except that it didn’t happen!
    5.
    John C. said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 10:13 pm

    It is very hard to take this piece seriously due to the bizarre statist sentiments in the first paragraph. While it may be inadvisable to hire a pilot who drinks on the job or a banker who steals, it should be up to the employers/clients. It should not be decided by some blanket government policy. The same goes for the petitioner. Even less so considering the petitioners did not commit any crime that actually harmed anyone or are simply “guilty by association.” But I guess embracing the very worst Republican/Democrat views is supposed to pass as “Libertarian” these days. The Party of Principle must not stand for those who break Republican/Democrat laws!
    6.
    John C. said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

    I guess I didn’t mention my point that if George Phillies wants to hire petitioners who are known for doing a good job, that is up to him.

    I am glad that there are Libertarians who believe in shunning and banning people from their professions for Life due to any possible violation of a Republican law.

    I heard there was some fuss over people in Oklahoma letting criminals petition there. “Criminals” meaning people who happen to reside out of state. Of course there was recently some good news. But if the courts ruled otherwise, would “Libertarians” ban those criminals from petitioning as well?

    I got a speeding ticket 6 years ago. Should I be banned from driving a truck or bus?

    I guess there really is no point of the LP if it’s all about playing Republican dress-up and worshipping all laws.
    7.
    Steve Dasbach said,

    December 19, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

    I was the LP’s Executive Director at the time when the situation in New Mexico with the Finchers occurred. Gary admitted at the time that he had added fictitious SSN’s to forms that lacked them, because the local coordinator had refused to pay them for forms lacking SSN’s.

    As I recall, Ron Crickenberger went to New Mexico to personally examine the forms. The handwriting on the SSN’s was different than the rest of the forms, and the handwriting on the rest of the form was different on each one. In other words, different people filled out each form, while the same person added the SSN’s.

    As a result of Gary’s actions, Ron refused to use Gary on any LP ballot drives during the remainder of his tenure as LP Political Director. However, we found no evidence that the registrations themselves were fradulent, only the SSN’s.

  16. G.E.

    Lee Wrights responds:

    What the hell are you talking about? Your entry is there.

    You will do better once you learn to slow dowm and know all your facts before you go off.

    I said:

    My entry was missing from the site, as verified by several witnesses. I’m glad to see that it’s back now. I hope you’ll consider answering my question, as will Mr. Haugh.

  17. G.E.

    I corrected my comment to Wrights:

    My entry was missing from the site, as verified by several witnesses. I’m glad to see that it’s back now. I hope you’ll consider answering my question: are you aware that Mr. Haugh bragged about his role in the anti-child porn (i.e. Mary Ruwart smear) press release? I also notice that “Hot Head” Andy Jacobs is not mentioned in Mr. Haugh’s article, and yet he is another one of the “blackball” victims.

  18. paulie cannoli Post author

    Andy is mentioned in Haugh’s article, towards the end. He mostly accused Andy of hating his guts, as if that came out of nowhere with no reason or provocation by Sean.

    I wonder why Andy doesn’t hate all the numerous coordinators and clients he worked with that did not screw him over?

  19. Jeremy Young

    Haugh’s article claims that the fabrication of social security numbers by Fincher occurred in 1999/2000. Winger claims it was in 1994. Which was it?

  20. Jeremy Young

    Thanks for that. Paulie. BTW, I hope you don’t have to disappear. Although, as a statist, I see Haugh’s point. I’d have trouble hiring someone to do something when they’d previously been convicted of fraud doing that exact same thing. However, I feel that way because I’m a statist. Haugh’s supposed to be a libertarian, which means he ought to have different views on the subject.

  21. TheOriginalAndy

    BING BONG THE WITCH IS DEAD! BING BONG THE WITCH IS DEAD! BING BONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!

    Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye! Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!

    Man, this is a GREAT DAY! WHOOOHOOO!!!!!

  22. Gary Fincher

    Steve Dasbach and Richard Winger are correct about the registrations being genuine, and he was the top man at national at the time.

    The only things I would add would be that we continued to work on Libertarian Party drives in 2000, such as Connecticut (where we had a fine letter of recommendation written for our performance) and in Massachusetts (where we were commended again); in 2002 in Massachusetts, all during Ron Crickenberger’s tenure. Starting in 2004 – after the passing of my wife/partner – I resumed working on LP drives in earnest, at the urging of Scott Kohlhaas, and worked closely with current national top man Bill Redpath on a near-daily basis, who also praised my work.

    I also want to add that we left New Mexico being owed a balance of $679, which Ron Crickenberger refused to pay. After Bill Redpath became elected national chairman, I sent a letter to him detailing very thoroughly what we did and didn’t do regarding the voter registration drive. This letter resulted in Bill’s paying me the 7-year-old debt, thus closing the case.

    One final thing: we were checked into, and cleared by, NM state officials. My wife and I even caught up with the governor at a social function in New England, and had a very cordial and amicable conversation with him.

    I posted this on LibertyforAll (ironic name) and was taken down. Subsequent attempts at exercising my speech were also met with taking my post down. What, in this post, are they afraid of over at LFA?

  23. Gary Fincher

    THIS JUST IN: PROOF THAT SEAN HAUGH IS DERANGED.

    I want to take a poll on this one…

    Background: I posted a comment on Haugh’s blog, using my real name (G-A-R-Y F-I-N-C-H-ER) and it got taken down. That’s weird, I’m thinking. So I posted it again, same real name. Same thing. Then, another time. Ok, I’m thinking there is something in the program that doesn’t like the word “Gary” or the word “Fincher” for some odd reason. So I type in Blah Blah (or close) in the “Name” field, and get my post up.

    To which Sean Haugh rears his head from under the bridge and says the following:

    “Sean Haugh said,
    December 20, 2008 @ 12:29 am

    May apologies, Seagraves not Seagroves. At least you didn’t hide behind a pseudonym here. There may be hope for you yet.”

    Now, I ask you folks – who is doing the hiding?

  24. Jeremy Young

    I see unfortunate long-term ramifications for the LP radical movement in this conflict over the petitioners. Lee Wrights may not like G.E., but he (Wrights) is the best friend the radical caucus has on the LNC right now, and IPR is the best online mouthpiece that’s not unfriendly to the Radicals. Neither G.E. nor the current leadership of IPR currently has a stake in the Radical-Reformist debate, but if Haugh manages to drive a wedge between Wrights and the radicals on IPR over this issue, it could further splinter the radical wing of the LP.

  25. Gary Fincher

    BTW, G.E., thanks for defending me on LFA; I appreciate it.

    Also, 99% of the clients I have worked for decidedly DO NOT think I’m an “asshole”, and it would be 100% if you didn’t count Sean Haugh.

  26. paulie cannoli Post author

    Should I stay or should I go now?
    If I go there will be trouble
    An if I stay it will be double
    So come on and let me know

    This indecision’s bugging me

  27. Jeremy Young

    I would like it better if you stayed, because I think you’re a good guy and because I really enjoy your reporting. But neither I nor anyone else can reasonably ask you to put yourself at risk for a blog. So ultimately it has to be your call.

    But if you’re asking my opinion, I vote for you staying.

  28. TheOriginalAndy

    GE said: “Andy Jacobs is not mentioned in Mr. Haugh’s article, and yet he is another one of the “blackball” victims.

    “29 paulie cannoli // Dec 19, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    Andy is mentioned in Haugh’s article, towards the end. He mostly accused Andy of hating his guts, as if that came out of nowhere with no reason or provocation by Sean.

    I wonder why Andy doesn’t hate all the numerous coordinators and clients he worked with that did not screw him over?”

    This is a very good point. Haugh (and Wrights) are trying to make me out to be some kind of “hot head” who goes off on rages for no reason and who trash talks people for no reason and that I’m a difficult person with whom to deal.

    This is FAR from reality. All of the “trash talking” that I’ve done about Sean Haugh has been in RETALIATION to stuff that he has done to me. Haugh INIATED this entire battle.

    If the problem was really me, then why is it that I’ve been able to work in 24 states plus Washington DC (12 if these places on multiple occassions) yet the only big problem that I’ve had has been with Sean Haugh. I have worked on numerous campaigns without any problems.

    Here is a short list of some people whom Libertarians should be familiar with whom I’ve worked with and do not have problems.

    Wes Benidict (Texas)

    Pat Dixon (Texas)

    Bob Johnston (Maryland)

    Steve Boone (Maryland)

    Spear Lancaster (Maryland)

    Jeff Trigg (Illinois)

    Roland Reimers (North Dakota)

    Chris Costello (Nebraska)

    Jay Vandersloot (New Mexico)

    Ron Bjornstad (New Mexico)

    Dick Clark (formerly of Alabama)

    Mike Johnston (Ohio)

    Carla Howell (Massachusetts)

    Paul Jacob (I worked on stuff that he was involved with in Oklahoma and Nebraska)

    I could go on with more names (some that people here may be familiar with and others whom they probably would not) but I think that everybody reading this should get my point.

    Why is it that I’m just trashing Sean Haugh and not these other people? Because Sean Haugh stabbed me in the back and screwed me over and the other people did not! Duh!

    The people that I mentioned above (as well as many others who I did not name but could have) were all reasonable, decent individuals who were pleasant to deal. They did not try to screw me over and I would have no problem with working with them on any projects in the future.

    Sean Haugh was a rude jerk and he lied to me from the moment that I first came in contact with him and was also completely unreliable.

    I’ve told this story before and since it is too long a story to tell right now I’ll give the very short version. I flew into North Carolina at my own expense and gathered over 4,000 signatures under adverse conditions (bad weather and problems getting locations for signature gathering) and without having use of a car. While I was there I also got several people to register to vote under the Libertarian Party banner (I did this for FREE) and I also handed out hundreds of Libertarian Party pamphlets and flyers (I actually spent $100 of my own money photocopying outreach material). What was my thanks for this? Sean Haugh (whom I had not met in person and had only spoken to on the phone a few times) called me up one morning and started screaming and cursing at me like a maniac and he made three false accusations against me. He did not give me a chance to respond as everytime I tried to say something he yelled, “SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!” Then he told me to “GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY (as in his) STATE!!!” and then he hung up the phone on me. The charges that he leveled against me were all ridiculous and I can refute them. The funny thing is, that I’m not sure if Sean Haugh even remembers what all he accused me of because his story (as well as the stories from Lee Wrights/note that my problems with Wrights are all because of Haugh) have changed multiple times since then, each charge being ridiculous and false.

    I was really pissed off when this happened and I’m still pissed about it to this day. However, in spite of being pissed off about this, I kept silent about Sean Haugh for years. I even kept silent (in public) about Sean Haugh after I found out that he was trash talking me. There have been times over the years where I saw Sean Haugh posting on threads (such as at Third Party Watch) where I ignored him.

    So what was it that got me to break my silence about Sean Haugh? What was the “final straw” which got me to start trash talking him in public?

    The final straw was when he attempted to lower my pay below the rate that I had agreed to work for in Pennsylvania earlier this year, and note that he tried to do this after the fact (as in after I had already been working), and note that he continued to try to do this even AFTER I had contacted Bill Redpath and Bill had agreed that the pay rate that I had originally agreed to work for was reasonable and that that was what I should be paid.

    Did everyone reading this get this? Once again, I agreed to work for a certain rate. I had been in Pennsylvania to work for the Ron Paul campaign and after that ended I had offers to work on ballot initiative campaigns in Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, and California. I turned them all down to stay in Pennsylvania and work on Libertarian Party ballot access. So after I’d already that son-of-a-bitch Sean Haugh stuck his nose into my business and tried to lower my pay, even after the freakin’ Chairman of the LP – who is his BOSS – Bill Redpath, agreed that I should be paid at the rate for which I had originally agreed to work. Bill said that he thought that it was reasonable and that he wanted to keep Mark (who had joined me in PA) and I worked as we were bringing in good numbers. As if this wasn’t bad enough, Haugh then tried to lower my pay to an even lower rate in response to my complaining about him trying to lower my pay after the fact.

    Well, for me this was the FINAL STRAW that pushed me to start trashing Sean Haugh in public forums. Actually, trashing probably isn’t the best word as EXPOSING Sean Haugh is a more accurate description.

    I became even more angry at Haugh after I found out that Haugh was paying higher rates to mercenary petitioners (who were not doing as good of a job as Mark and I) AT THE SAME FREAKIN’ TIME that he was attempted to get my pay lowered.

    A lot of you people out there probably read posts from Gary and I and wonder why we are so angry. Well, I’d be willing to bet that if you had been through the same type of stuff we have you’d be really pissed off too.

  29. TheOriginalAndy

    “but he (Wrights) is the best friend the radical caucus has on the LNC right now,”

    With “friends” like Wrights who needs enemies? If Wrights is the best hope of the Radical Caucus, then the Radical Caucus is fucked.

  30. TheOriginalAndy

    “Jeremy Young // Dec 19, 2008 at 11:46 pm

    Haugh’s article claims that the fabrication of social security numbers by Fincher occurred in 1999/2000. Winger claims it was in 1994. Which was it?”

    It happened in 1999. Richard knows that (I’ve discussed it with him before). He just made an error.

  31. Gary Fincher

    “Jeremy Young // Dec 19, 2008 at 11:46 pm

    Haugh’s article claims that the fabrication of social security numbers by Fincher occurred in 1999/2000. Winger claims it was in 1994. Which was it?”

    I’ve typed this several times before, but I see new people on here so I should repeat
    The adding of SSNs in the non-mandatory field on the voter registrations in NM in 1999 was a mistake, but it wasn’t a crime. Nor was it intended to defraud. In fact, it was a DEFENSIVE move designed to keep from being ripped off on the pay for some 20% of our registrations. In the throes of a deadline-sensitive drive that I wanted to succeed, I admit to not thinking that one through, as my strategic blunder backfired. I did a mea culpa, owned up to the mistake and made amends for it, per Steve Dasbach’s blueprint.

    When Bill Redpath paid me, I considered the matter closed. So should everyone else.

  32. Jeremy Young

    If the problem was really me, then why is it that I’ve been able to work in 24 states plus Washington DC (12 if these places on multiple occassions) yet the only big problem that I’ve had has been with Sean Haugh.

    Because you are a perfect gentleman to people who treat you respectfully. When someone screws you over, you are a complete jerk back to them. AND (here’s the problem) you express your jerkitude to them REPEATEDLY IN PUBLIC where everyone else has to hear it.

    I think just about everyone on this site thinks you are in the right about Haugh. But Haugh is gone now, and you’ve said you work fine with Redpath. Why not just leave Haugh alone already and take up your old work again with Redpath? There’s no reason to slime Haugh any more since he’s out of office and out of power. Just drop it already.

  33. Jeremy Young

    Gary, I’ve read your arguments before and agree with them. I was just confused as to the date. I used “fabrication” deliberately as a term that seemed to accord with your statements on the matter (i.e., not illegal, not the best of ideas).

  34. TheOriginalAndy

    “richardwinger // Dec 19, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Bill Redpath is far more friendly to the fired professional petitioners than Sean Haugh had been. Expect some improvements in the matter of the fired petitioners.”

    “Fired” petitioners is a tad misleading. I quit the LP ballot access petition drive in Pennsylvania on my own accord due to Sean Haugh’s repeated attemtps to lower my pay below the rate I had agreed to work for and which is also what Bill Redpath had agreed that I should be paid (and I did end up recieving that pay thanks to a written agreement from Bill Redpath, although it was delayed by over a month which I was supposed to recieve it in 2-3 days).

    Sean Haugh said that he was “banning” me from petitioning for the LP because I dared to question him for having pulled all of the shit that he pulled, and Scott Kohlhaas said that he was “blackballing” me because I dared to question him about ripping us (meaning Gary and I, as well as Paul and Mark) off on an LP ballot access drive in Nebraska in 2006 where Kohlhaas payed himself his fundraising commission and did not pay us (which put him in fraud territory) and renegged on a contract.

    However, in spite of being “banned” and “blackballed” by Haugh and Kohlhaas I went to Alabama and worked on LP ballot access there. I went there for two main reasons, #1) Because the Constitution Party and the Nader campaign wanted my services there, and #2) to defy the whims of Haugh and Kohlhaas. Haugh found out that I was there but he did not do anything about it because he knew that it would blow up into another “Massachusetts petition burning” type of scandal. So I continued to work LP ballot access even though I was “banned/blackballed”. This LP petition in Alabama ended in August (we knocked it out a few weeks before the September 5th deadline) and from that point I worked Constitution Party (Nader ended before the LP) in Alabama and also took side trips to Tennessee and Florida to work for the Boston Tea Party.

    There hasn’t been any LP ballot access petitioning that has gone on since then, however, I’ve currently got offers from 5 State Libertarian Parties to do ballot access work, so this doesn’t really fly with being “banned/blackballed”.

    My main problem with the LP was because Haugh was with National and now he’s gone. Kohlhaas is still there so he will probably try to cause problems for me, but he deserves to be fired as well.

  35. Gary Fincher

    Jeremy, I understand what you’re saying (sort of) but the reality of the situation is that Sean keeps firing volleys, and very recent ones (like two hours ago). The things he is posting about Andy are not kind, but they don’t rise to the magnitude and severity of the false things he is posting about me, on the world wide web.

    If one allows him to make false posting after false posting without some rebuttal, the false stuff will just pile up – and trust me, that stuff stays up on the internet for years where prospective clients, employers and even prospective dates can browse and draw conclusions that will also be false and react adversely.

    In short, if Sean Haugh would keep quiet and leave us alone, we would not be confronting him the way we are. So with all due respect, I think your admonishments about “no reason to slime” and “leave alone” would better be directed at Sean, not to those he falsely accuses.

  36. Gary Fincher

    Yes, Jeremy, I wasn’t taking issue with the term “fabrication”. I just thought there might be some new readers (could be wrong about that) who didn’t have a frame of reference on why the hell I just “up and decided” to fill in SSNs one day when I hadn’t done it on registrations prior to Dec. 15 ’99.

  37. Jeremy Young

    Gary, I’m not sure the point I was making is valid with regard to you. Your constant posting on this issue is annoying, but on the other hand you’ve had some pretty serious charges leveled against you, and you do have a right to clear your name. On the other hand, when the chief charge against you is that you’re an annoying jerk (which is what Haugh is saying about Andy) and then you go around and act like one in order to defend yourself, I’m not sure your “defense” is actually working.

    Ironically, Paulie is the one with the strongest grievance against Haugh, since his life, not just his livelihood, is in danger owing to Haugh’s actions. Yet I don’t see him being nearly as in-your-face as you two are. He calmly and strongly states his problems with Haugh’s comments, then backs off and lets his argument speak for itself. That’s a good way to handle people like Haugh, in my opinion.

  38. Jeremy Young

    @49, why waste my breath on Haugh? He’s the bad guy in this situation. You’re the good guys, you’ll listen to reason. There’s no reason to believe he will.

  39. Trent Hill

    Paulie,

    As far as I can tell, Haugh makes no direct reference to this site or your handle.

  40. G.E.

    Lee Wrights may not like G.E.

    Yeah, this was news to me. Wrights was my boss in Denver, when I was working for the Ruwart campaign. His animosity apparently developed since then, or more probably, as soon as I called into question his relationship with Haugh.

    Hmm… I don’t know how I missed the Andy reference. I thought I read the whole article. Then again, I was operating on little sleep and more than a little wine. My bad.

    I’ve said my piece and I’m pulling out of this silly little drama.

  41. paulie cannoli Post author

    Site is mentioned in his comments. I imagine even someone as internet unsavvy as the individual I mentioned who threatened me could do a search with the info Sean spewed.

    By internet unsavvy, I meant that he did a whois search on the LP of Alabama website, where I had a blog at the time, so that it was registered in Steve Gordon’s mom’s name, deduced I must be her, and said he would spare my life because I’m a woman. Then HoT went kerblooey and he hasn’t commented since, but who knows where he’s lurking?

  42. G.E.

    Oh, I intended to include these Facebook comments from Mr. Wrights:

    You obviously have not read the article. Once again, you blow smoke without knowing all the facts.

    You really do need to slow down and really check out things before you speak.

    I did read the article but apparently thought it was over before it was. My bad.

    You stated:

    “My entry was missing from the site, as verified by several witnesses.”

    This shows me the kind of person you are. There are no witnesses, because there was nothing to witness. You see, your post had to be moderated before it appears on the site. It was waiting when I checked and I aprroved it right away. Then and ONLY then was the … Read Morepublic able to view it. You saw it yourself because you posted it, but no one else witnessed it being there and then being gone. It NEVER happened.

    Your style of “yellow dog” journalism does not appeal to me. Just because you hear someone say something does not make it true. You need to check your facts before you speak!

    I said:

    I apologize if I’m wrong. The post was there immediately (to my eyes, at least) when I made it. I think our feelings about the type of person each of us are our mutual. I go in peace.

  43. chuckmoulton

    Everyone needs to chill out, take a deep breath, and move on.

    All of these people are basically good guys who have made an error in judgement at some time or another.

    Sean Haugh seems to have reasonable reasons for not wanting to employ certain petitioners. An employer should be able to decide whom he employs. Contrary to what some of the petitioners have said, Sean makes a good case for perception having very real consequences with respect to changes in the law even if the accusations are wrong or people have reformed their ways after many years. It appears he may have conveyed his frustration to the petitioners in rash and unprofessional ways, but the fact remains that he is well within his rights to make strategic employment decisions for the LP and convey his reasoning to state affiliates to enable them to make good decisions themselves. In addition, the national LP is well within its rights to condition receipt of ballot access funds from national on conducting ballot access drives in a given manner, even if such conditions may frustrate petitioners or local petition coordinators. Dealing with petitioners who make everything a big public controversy seems to be a legitimate reason for an employer to avoid employing those petitioners… the cost of an employee is not just the wage, but also the time lost dealing with controversy and the headache that one must endure.

    I believe Paulie made a mistake many years ago and has long since turned over a new leaf. He deserved an explanation for why he was blackballed and I’m not privy to whether it was provided behind the scenes until now. He certainly was entitled to refute allegations about him; however, these allegations seem uncontested. Many state petition coordinators and other ballot access folks at the national level seem to respect Paulie… his best course of action would seem to have been waiting out Sean Haugh, whose tenure at national was sure to have been relatively short relative to Paulie’s tenure as a professional petitioner. It was clear Sean’s mind was not going to be changed… waiting him out seems like common sense. I believe Paulie should be upfront about his past when dealing with state petition coordinators so they can make fully informed decisions about whether to employ him. Many petition coordinators would employ him despite his past problems because he more than compensates with his work ethic. Others are well within their rights to decline hiring him.

    There seems to be a difference of opinion about Gary’s New Mexico behavior. I’m inclined to believe Richard Winger and Steve Dasbach (as well as implicitly Bill Redpath) over Joseph Knight and Sean Haugh (due to the stellar reputations of the former). But that said, Sean is still correct that perception matters and as Political Director the hiring was still his decision to make. As with Paulie, the clear best course of action would have been to wait Sean out. Although Gary has a right to defend himself against allegations publicly or privately, that doesn’t necessarily mean doing so is in his best interest. In this case, the manner in which Gary responded clearly worked to his detriment.

    By trolling threads on IPR and LFV for months and engaging in ad hominem attacks on Sean Haugh and others, Gary Fincher and Andy Jacobs have not made themselves more employable, but rather less so. They have driven the cost of employing them far up because as I said the cost is not just wages but also the time and frustration with dealing with personalities. If I were running a state petition drive, I would pay a little more money to be able to sleep well and not have to deal with bickering. These professional petitioners have mocked “mercenary petitioners” incessently. I can tell you from personal experience that two things are unmistakably evident from my perspective: 1) the petitioners in this thread have much higher validity rates than “mercenary petitioners”, 2) “mercanary petitioners” have much better people skills and are relatively a pleasure to deal with.

    In the grand scheme of things, Sean Haugh’s opinions and petitioner employment policies may have been very relevant the past few years, but are practically irrelevant going forward now that he is no longer Political Director. If Gary Fincher, Andy Jacobs, and Paulie had simply waited him out they would be in a relatively good position to work with the next regime. Instead, Gary and Andy have burned a lot of bridges through their behavior.

    I hope everyone chills out, mends broken relationships, and moves forward. Continuing with ad hominem attacks isn’t going to help anyone.

  44. paulie cannoli Post author

    Chuck – good points, and for the most part I did in fact wait Sean out. He’s the one coming after me, not vice versa.

    He claims I’ve lied about him, but hasn’t named any lies. His stated reason for “firing” me was that I talked about certain aspects of ballot access mismanagement online, and he patched on this fake veneer of surprise about my past to cover for this after the fact.

    Your point about being easy to deal with is a good one. Fact is, Andy and Gary are some of the easiest petitioners to deal with for managers on the job, believe it or not. I helped manage the Alabama drive in 1998-2000 (as a party officer) as well as working on it. During that time I collected about 20,000 signatures and Gary and his late wife collected about the same number.

    Gary did the job, never caused drama, provided clean work, and when we turned it in to the state they reviewed his signatures and found them well within acceptable validity.

    On the other hand, one of the contractors who is a particular favorite of Sean’s was more recently said to have been calling state party officials in the middle of the night on a regular basis, bringing in reams of signatures with missing dates and other sloppy mistakes thye had to spend hours fixing, and with a validity ranging from the 40%s for his own work to 20%s for his crew.

    Neither I, nor the state party officer in question, want problems with this petitioner, so I’m not mentioning names.

    This is good advice:

    “I hope everyone chills out, mends broken relationships, and moves forward. ”

    I’m willing to do that, but Sean appears to have no interest. He won’t be satisfied as long as I have a job somewhere or a voice on here. I think I will probably just have to let him win on this one.

  45. paulie cannoli Post author

    I can’t seem to make myself stop posting here yet, even though logic tells me I should just shitcan my online presence immediately.

    Sean makes a good case for perception having very real consequences with respect to changes in the law

    Well, I’ll grant that it is theoretically possible, but the likelihood of the smear campaign he imagines is extremely low. I’ve worked on hundreds of campaigns in dozens of states since then, as has Gary. Nothing like that has happened. Sean just made it slightly more likely by increasing the search ranking of some of the dirt, but still not anywhere near likely.

    The most recent change in petition law that I know of where Gary and I played a part was in 2007, when along with Andy we collected some LP signatures in Ohio. These were used to give standing to a lawsuit which allowed several parties including LP, socialists, and I believe CP and Greens (maybe more) to be on the 2008 ballot.

    He certainly was entitled to refute allegations about him; however, these allegations seem uncontested.

    Well, I can’t argue that I was on that train. I wasn’t driving it, and I was under duress, but I was at fault for allowing myself to be psychologically manipulated into behaving unethically over a period of time. I shouldn’t have gotten on the train, I should have jumped off many times; but it had considerable momentum and I stayed on it all the way through to the wreck. Everything that happened there would have happened with or without me, but I should not have been there.

    I believe Paulie should be upfront about his past when dealing with state petition coordinators

    Certainly a lot of validity to that. But then many people would never give me a chance, and they would be wrong.

    There are a lot of things I could disclose to people. If I ever get a date, I could tell women first thing straight off the bat that I had indiscriminate sex with lots of girls when I was a teen (often in exchange for cocaine), hooked up with a number of women who were too drunk to give informed consent in college, have employed prostitutes while traveling around the country, and enjoy hardcore porn. But, it probably wouldn’t be good for my chances.

    On the other hand, some of them might forgive me if they learn about it later and already have some positive experience with me to put it in context. I don’t claim to have any perfect answers here.

  46. johncjackson

    GE’s comment was certainly originally deleted or “with held for moderation.” I know because the order of the comments is now different. When I made a comment it appeared and was after Richard Winger’s. There was no Seagraves comment at the time.

  47. Gary Fincher

    “At least you didn’t hide behind a pseudonym here. There may be hope for you yet.”

    I’ve never used a pseudonym. I started out using an internet handle like a lot of people. I’ve never “hidden” my identity”

    You could have added that I didn’t use a pseudonym either, so no one knows what Sean is talking about when he made that ridiculous assertion.

  48. Gary Fincher

    Chuck Moulton: “Sean Haugh seems to have reasonable reasons for not wanting to employ certain petitioners. An employer should be able to decide whom he employs. ”

    Absolutely NOT, when the petitioners are independent contractors AND members of the party. In a sense, Sean Haugh worked for ME. Also, recall that at the time, I had resigned from national LP petitioning, so he ALREADY had no working relationship with me. You can’t “fire” someone who doesn’t work for you, nor can you “blacklist” someone who doesn’t WANT to work for you. Why hasn’t that point been made clear? But, back to your point…Sean ABSOLUTELY did NOT have a right to interfere with my contractual relations with state parties such as LPMA/George Phillies or the Ralph Nader campaign. Nor did he have a right to try to swindle me out of $3,000 or publicly call for a law to be broken to satisfy some irrational whim of his. This is MORE than just unprofessionalism; this is criminal. Where is your legal acumen, Chuck?

    “Contrary to what some of the petitioners have said, Sean makes a good case for perception having very real consequences with respect to changes in the law ”

    I have not said anything to “the contrary”; I am only saying, if anything, that this is not applicable in my case anyway.

    “It appears he may have conveyed his frustration to the petitioners in rash and unprofessional ways, but the fact remains that he is well within his rights ”

    Not just ‘rash and unprofessional’ but criminal. It’s against the law in Massachusetts to burn petitions and threats to commit crimes get prosectuted exactly the same as if the crime were actually committed. In addition, the threat, if carried out early enough, would have robbed me of $3,000. So no, Chuck – you are dead wrong on Sean being within his rights. He should have been fired IMMEDIATELY upon breaking the law. End of question.

    “to make strategic employment decisions for the LP and convey his reasoning to state affiliates to enable them to make good decisions themselves.”

    But you know DAMN WELL that’s not what happened. People would laugh at you for saying what you said, if they knew that you were talking about a phone call to order the destruction of viable ballot access instruments. This is one reason why you didn’t get re-elected as vice chair, Chuck – your difficulty to reason properly. Sean did not “convey reasoning” – he criminally attempted to interfere with a private contract between myself and a longtime client. He even threatened the Nader campaign (although I’m sure if I gave you time, you’d come up with some convoluted rationalization on how Sean had a “right” to make decisisons for that campaign too).

    ” In addition, the national LP is well within its rights to condition receipt of ballot access funds from national on conducting ballot access drives in a given manner, even if such conditions may frustrate petitioners or local petition coordinators.”

    Not if your only m.o. is to commit a crime to accomplish this objective.

    “Dealing with petitioners who make everything a big public controversy”

    Whooaaa….what planet have YOU been living on, Chuck? I was the one quietly going about collecting signatures trying to make a living, when Sean committed his egregious offense out of nowhere, creating this public controversy. Your statement offends me greatly and is putting the cart before the horse. Sean Haugh is the one that made a big public controversy and put himself front and center. Had he not tried to steal from me and violate the law (he still should go to jail), no one would have heard a peep from me, I’d be thousands of dollars more ahead right now, and I would have continued to work on non-national projects.

    ” seems to be a legitimate reason for an employer to avoid employing those petitioners… ”

    No, not at all. But it seems to be a legitimate reason for firing the political director.

    “the cost of an employee is not just the wage, but also the time lost dealing with controversy and the headache that one must endure.”

    If so, then why create a controversy. Can you say “duh”?

    “There seems to be a difference of opinion about Gary’s New Mexico behavior. I’m inclined to believe Richard Winger and Steve Dasbach (as well as implicitly Bill Redpath) over Joseph Knight and Sean Haugh (due to the stellar reputations of the former).”

    It’s not really a matter of opinion, Chuck. Certain things are being advanced as FACTS, which are, in reality, not factual. I was there, and I know what the facts were. Others who were there corroborated on what the facts were. People who WERE NOT there are the ones advancing the FALSE facts. I haver never been one to lie well, and in fact I have a bad tendency to tell the truth even at my own detriment. The harsh reality is that had these things actually happened, I would have admitted that they happened. But they didn’t. I don’t operate on petition drives and voter registration drives in said manner. I like to do a good job and I think I do a good job and 99% of those I work for say I do a good job and want me back working for them. “Difference of opinion” isn’t what’s going on.

    ” But that said, Sean is still correct that perception matters and as Political Director the hiring was still his decision to make.”

    As explained above, no. In Sean’s mind (but nowhere else) was I blackballed. I had resigned from being a contractor with national during the time period in question (which is documented).

    Also, your “conclusions” here fall flat for several reasons.

    First, whatever would apply to refraining from employing ME would also have to apply to Scott Kohlhaas too, since he was also working VRs in New Mexico and also got accused of misdeeds.

    Second, the so-called “reason” for the blackballing, just as the reason for going to war with Iraq, is nebulous and keeps changing. I spoke with the aforementioned Kohlhaas in Denver about this mysterious, curious “blackballing” and when I said something about N.M., his comeback was emphatic: “You’re not being blacklisted for New Mexico; You’re being blacklisted for North Carolina!”

    I could list other reasons, but the words capricious, arbitrary and whim come to mind when I think of Sean Haugh’s “reasoning”. Should petitioners have to spin a wheel or draw names out of a hat to find out what the “reason of the weeek” is that they’re “blacklisted”.

    This is just so ridiculous. I can’t believe you’re giving credence to it.

    “Although Gary has a right to defend himself against allegations publicly or privately, that doesn’t necessarily mean doing so is in his best interest.”

    I have learned from experience that yes, it is. In the past I have found that allegations on the internet unmatched by accompanying refutations can come back to lose potential clients. Use a little common sense here, Chuck. If you’re browsing the internet checking out the character of someone, and you see a serious allegation that someone committed a crime, and that allegation stood alone, are you going to be LESS likely to believe it, if it were not followed by, “so and so is incorrect; this never happened”?

    ” In this case, the manner in which Gary responded clearly worked to his detriment.”

    How? I just explained how it has always worked to my detriment to remain silent. I learned my lesson long ago for that. I learned that if you are accused falsely, the best course of action is to be strong and vociferous in your own defense. Words posted on the internet tend to linger for years. Why would I want to leave a legacy that’s 100% unfavorable (as well as near-100% false)? Can you answer that for me, Chuck?

    I have only said what I know to be true. How the HELL is that working to my detriment. Shouldn’t your role be just to READ both sides of the controversy, not belittle the innocent? Why are you doing any criticizing at all? Just fucking read what I have to say; if you don’t believe it you can go quietly into the night holding those thoughts in your head. You don’t have to BOTHER me about it.

    “By trolling threads on IPR and LFV for months and engaging in ad hominem attacks on Sean Haugh and others, Gary Fincher and Andy Jacobs have not made themselves more employable, but rather less so. ”

    First of all, the “attacking” was done by Sean Haugh, not by us. We were only defending ourselves, and don’t worry Chuck, sophisticated people can see the difference (fortunately for us).

    And no, you have it opposite about employability. Richard Winger actually stated (Post #8) that we are MORE employable now that Haugh is gone. So you have it exactly backwards.

    “They have driven the cost of employing them far up because as I said the cost is not just wages but also the time and frustration with dealing with personalities.”

    Why don’t you whip out your cell phone, Chuck (I mean right now) and call the hundreds and hundreds of clients I’ve worked on political projects for and ask them if there is a cost to them of dealing with my “personality” or if working with me is “frustrating”. When you find one, you can stop making calls. On the other hand, I hate to make you use up all your cell phone minutes for the month (and go way over your minutes) so I probably should do you a favor and give you a heads up that no one is going to tell you that I’m difficult to work with. Most will probably tell you that I’m the EASIEST to work with (and high validity and prolific too). Of course, I’d be remiss to add that none of them ever criminally tried to burn my signatures. Actually, most petitioners would have kicked Sean’s ass, and I mean literally and physically.

    ” If I were running a state petition drive, I would pay a little more money to be able to sleep well and not have to deal with bickering.”

    Well for one thing, having been in the petitioning business for about as long as you’ve been alive, I can sense that you’re too green at knowledge of petition drives for me to take this hypothetical serious. You’d fall on your face, for lack of being able to spot valuable commodoties; you’d make too poor business decisions. And for another, one could have stopped the bickering on June 28 by firing Sean Haugh immediately. I never would have said another word. How are you missing that part of the discussion? Are you just not WANTING to “get it”?

    “These professional petitioners have mocked “mercenary petitioners” incessently.”

    I have not said a single word about mercenary petitioners. I don’t think I’ve even used the word on these threads. How can you expect me to take you seriously if you can’t get your facts straight?

    ” I can tell you from personal experience that two things are unmistakably evident from my perspective: 1) the petitioners in this thread have much higher validity rates than “mercenary petitioners”, 2) “mercanary petitioners” have much better people skills and are relatively a pleasure to deal with.”

    I’m sure your personal experience is very limited. The term “people skills” is something that is multi-faceted so I can’t sit here and tell you that I’ve mastered all the nuances of that art. But I try to get along with everyone who doesn’t try to fuck me over and petition coordinators give me feedback that I’m a pleasure to deal with. And I’m not a mercenary! (There – I used the word for the first time!)

    “In the grand scheme of things, Sean Haugh’s opinions and petitioner employment policies”

    They weren’t “opinions” – they were criminal threats and they aren’t “employment policies” given that I had resigned and that no one knows what they are due to their “flavor of the day” nature.

    Sean Haugh is just a thug and that’s all there is to it.

    ” Instead, Gary and Andy have burned a lot of bridges through their behavior.”

    Nope, I haven’t burned any bridges at all (see post #8). And, what “behavior” are you talking about? In Masschusetts I quietly went about and collected 2,000 signatures. Bad behavior? I doubt it. When learning Sean Haugh had committed a crime, I alerted law enforcement of this fact (he was caught in the act). Bad behavior? More like my civic duty. When false accusations were made about me, I set the record straight and told the truth. Bad behavior? Again, how could it be?

    Where is this “bad behavior”, then, Chuck? You seem to be making it up. If you can point to a specific of bad behavior (which actually I have done when it comes to Sean – illegal threat, false charges), then either do it or keep quiet.

    “Continuing with ad hominem attacks isn’t going to help anyone.”

    This is what needs to be told to Sean. You’re wasting your breath when you tell a rape victim to stop attacking that poor rapist.

  49. Gary Fincher

    Why is Sean Haugh afraid of this comment? He keeps taking it down on LibertyForAll. Is there an attack on Sean Haugh anywhere in it (Chuck)? If so, I certainly missed it when I ran it through spellcheck. If not, then why would this be taken down? What’s the big fear when it comes to this comment? Has the truth become too verboten now?

    Steve Dasbach and Richard Winger are correct about the registrations being genuine, and he was the top man at national at the time.

    The only things I would add would be that we continued to work on Libertarian Party drives in 2000, such as Connecticut (where we had a fine letter of recommendation written for our performance) and in Massachusetts (where we were commended again); in 2002 in Massachusetts, all during Ron Crickenberger’s tenure. Starting in 2004 – after the passing of my wife/partner – I resumed working on LP drives in earnest, at the urging of Scott Kohlhaas, and worked closely with current national top man Bill Redpath on a near-daily basis, who also praised my work.

    I also want to add that we left New Mexico being owed a balance of $679, which Ron Crickenberger refused to pay. After Bill Redpath became elected national chairman, I sent a letter to him detailing very thoroughly what we did and didn’t do regarding the voter registration drive. This letter resulted in Bill’s paying me the 7-year-old debt, thus closing the case.

    One final thing: we were checked into, and cleared by, NM state officials. My wife and I even caught up with the governor at a social function in New England, and had a very cordial and amicable conversation with him.

  50. Jeff Wartman

    This is one reason why you didn’t get re-elected as vice chair, Chuck – your difficulty to reason properly

    This is perhaps one of the most misinformed statements I’ve ever seen. Ever. You can say a lot of negative things about a lot of people, but questioning the reasoning skills of Chuck Moulton is one of the most laughable statements I’ve ever seen.

  51. Trent Hill

    haha. Seriously, forget all that other stuff. You do a great job here and i’m not about to capitulate to those outrageous demands.

  52. paulie cannoli Post author

    Maybe you should publish them?

    I should probably leave that one alone for the purposes of not letting any real or perceived bias color the story.

  53. Trent Hill

    I might, if he keeps it up. He’d be smart to drop the issue immediately, I know some pretty high-powered lawyers who would chomp him up and spit him out just as a favor to me. Bring it on.

  54. Gary Fincher

    “This is perhaps one of the most misinformed statements I’ve ever seen. Ever. You can say a lot of negative things about a lot of people, but questioning the reasoning skills of Chuck Moulton is one of the most laughable statements I’ve ever seen.
    67 paulie cannoli // Dec 20, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    I’m with Jeff on that.”

    If this is true, then why is the most recently post so poorly reasoned?

    I admit that people who can usually reason well stumble once in a while. If this is the case on this post, then I stand corrected and apologize. However, I’ll need evidence before I do that.

  55. Gary Fincher

    specific examples where Chuck falls off the reasoning bandwagon:

    “and convey his reasoning to state afiliates”

    The only thing Sean Haugh “conveyed” was an irrational desire to have my petitions burned AFTER they were collected. It had nothing to do with whether I was hired or not hired, as the drive was past conclusion at the time.

    “Dealing with petitioners who make everything a big public controversy seems to be a legitimate reason for an employer to avoid employing those petitioners”

    Moultonlogic: 1. Petitioner quietly does good petitioning work. 2. Haugh decides Petitioner shouldn’t be working or turning in signatures. 3. Haugh issues an illegal threat that would swindle Petitioner out of $3,000 with absolutely no warning to the Petitioner himself. 4. Petitioner gets pissed. 5. Petitioner reports Action #3 publicly. 6. Petitioner started it, is hard to deal with, and therefore #1 comes into play. (albeit Moultonlogic requires a time machine in order for #6 to actually precede #1)

    “In this case, the manner in which Gary responded clearly worked to his detriment”

    If something is not “clear” then you cannot go ahead and say that it is “clearly” so. It is far from clear to me, and certainly is far from clear to Richard Winger, who said in post #8 the exact opposite. It may very well turn out that staunchly defending my reputation will work out to my BENEFIT, not to my DETRIMENT. So, saying that something “clearly” did something that hasn’t really been determined yet (history is not written on this one) is exercising poor reasoning.

    “These professional petitioners have mocked “mercenary petitioners” incessently.”

    Because a single petitioner has done so does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that petitioners (plural) has done so. Poor conclusion-reaching.

    “There seems to be a difference of opinion about Gary’s New Mexico behavior.”

    There’s no difference in ‘opinion’ at all – at least when it comes to what actually happened or didn’t happen. Now, there may be a difference in opinion over how good or bad my judgment was in adding the SSNs, and I can accept that. But I didn’t forge any registrations and I didn’t trick anyone into registering, no opinion needed.

    “Instead, Gary and Andy have burned a lot of bridges through their behavior.”

    What’s with this reasoning? I’ll bet I could go to ANY petition coordinator, ask to work for him/her, tell them that Sean Haugh made a threat to burn 2,000 of my signatures and then tried to justify it by slandering me and I defended myself on internet message boards, and the petition coordinator would STILL hire me, I imagine.

    Engaging in fantasy is not exactly the same thing as reasoning well.

    Also,

    If Chuck is to be both reasoned and consistent in his asssertion that Haugh had a right to threaten to burn signatures collected by any petitioner ever accused of misdeeds in NM, then he would have to also say that Haugh should have threatened to burn Scott Kohlhaas’ signatures too.

    This post was riddled with poor reasoning. Am I a bad guy for pointing it out??

  56. paulie cannoli Post author

    You do a great job here and i’m not about to capitulate to those outrageous demands.

    Thanks, Trent. I do appreciate it. But the personal safety concern expressed earlier in the thread is real.

  57. Gary Fincher

    Jeremy Young: “On the other hand, when the chief charge against you is that you’re an annoying jerk (which is what Haugh is saying about Andy) and then you go around and act like one in order to defend yourself, I’m not sure your “defense” is actually working.”

    I’ve got to stick up for Andy here. Allow me to suggest that you are mistaken about him. Andy does NOT go around acting like a jerk. I have known him for a few years now and he does nothing of the sort. You just happen to be seeing him in a snapshot in time where Sean Haugh has pressed his buttons, and anyone, when cornered badly enough, can bare their teeth and counterattack.

    It would be like if I read one little passage of The Bible where Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple, set the Bible down and said, “Wow, that Jesus is an asshole. What a violent and disturbed man he is. Why can’t he be peaceful and turn the other cheek?”

  58. paulie cannoli Post author

    I would much rather NOT perpetuate this food fight. Of course, Sean wants to keep it going, and wants to bully IPR into banning me and changing the public record with threats of lawsuit(s), so I may not have a choice. But speaking for myself, it is a distraction I very much do not need.

    I’m in the political struggle for my friends who have lost their lives, limbs, liberty, homes, kids, minds, and more in the “war on drugs,” of which there are many. I want to put my energy into something that will help end that suffering, the police-prison-industrial complex and the closely linked military-industrial-
    congressional complex, and the whole force-based political paradigm that makes them possible.

    I don’t know how Gary and Sean trying to destroy each other, and putting me in the crossfire, possibly helps my goals.

    I’m in no way trying to deny my share of the blame in anything. Just trying to do better. I hope everyone else at least tries to, as well.

  59. TheOriginalAndy

    “G.E. // Dec 20, 2008 at 5:26 am

    ‘Lee Wrights may not like G.E.’

    Yeah, this was news to me. Wrights was my boss in Denver, when I was working for the Ruwart campaign. His animosity apparently developed since then, or more probably, as soon as I called into question his relationship with Haugh.”

    Join the club GE. This is EXACTLY how my problem with Lee Wrights developed. Lee acted like he was my buddy until I had the “audacity” to raise questions about his buddy Sean Haugh, which caused Wrights to lash out at me. Later when Wrights calmed down he acted like he was my buddy again. Then I didn’t speak to him for several years but during that time period I had assumed that I had patched things up with Wrights and was on good terms with him, that is until I found out that at the urging of Sean Haugh he started trash talking and lying about me behind my back.

    Wrights turning on you for daring to quetion Sean Haugh does not suprise me. I had a feeling that if you had interacted with him more than those few days in Denver that you would eventually find out that he’s a hotheaded jerk.

  60. paulie cannoli Post author

    OK, gotta admit this.

    This whole thing is wearing me down pretty bad.

    I probably shouldn’t say this to give my haters another reason to gloat, but oh well.

    I’m in a bad place now with my finances, health, emotionally…and things are looking to get a lot worse.

    I’m trying hard to be positive, and failing.

    If I have any real friends or people who care about me who are reading, other than the ones I have been talking to already, please give me a phone call.

    For those of you who hate me, congratulations.
    Go ahead, gloat away.

  61. Jeremy Young

    Paulie, I don’t have your number and don’t know you from Adam, but stay strong — don’t let the haters win. You’re a good guy.

    Gary, I’m not commenting on Andy as a person, just in terms of the snapshot we’re seeing online. Jesus probably wouldn’t have been well-served to drive the money-changers from the temple on the Internet, where everything he says is preserved and can be — USED as a snapshot against him. That’s what I’m saying about Andy’s behavior — he’s creating an impression of himself online that doesn’t serve him well in terms of getting jobs, if the people who want to hire him only know him from his online postings.

  62. TheOriginalAndy

    “Gary, I’m not commenting on Andy as a person, just in terms of the snapshot we’re seeing online. Jesus probably wouldn’t have been well-served to drive the money-changers from the temple on the Internet, where everything he says is preserved and can be — USED as a snapshot against him. That’s what I’m saying about Andy’s behavior — he’s creating an impression of himself online that doesn’t serve him well in terms of getting jobs, if the people who want to hire him only know him from his online postings.”

    That’s funny, because 5 state Libertarian Parties have recently expressed interest in having me work on ballot access drives in their states.

    My actions against the likes of Haugh are only self defense retaliation against stuff that he instigated with me.

  63. Jake_Witmer

    I’m going to leave one more post on this thread for posterity. It’s 2013, five years after this “drama explosion.” …And the problems are still there! Nothing’s changed! Just as I predicted!

    The Libertarians who are “too cool for school” and “above the fray” have counseled that Libertarian Activists “work with” the people trying to blackball them and fire them. (And it’s worked out as well as the counsel to domestic abuse victims that they “work with” their abusive husbands. LOL. Such cowardly and stupid “advice” is amazing! Watch the “half measures” episode of breaking bad for a description of how that generally works out.)

    The people on this thread never did figure out the truth, or get the slightest clue about how bad Bill Redpath, Sean Haugh, Scott Kohlhaas, and the other feds have made it for the various petitioners. (Pretty bad.) The aforementioned succeeded in their mission: they duped LP donors out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and prevented Andy and the rest of us from putting several State Legislative Candidates on the ballot (FOR FREE; at no cost to libertarian donors; without charge; I don’t know how to be any more clear… LOL).

    These people (Redpath, et al.) are probably Feds (or their dupes/employees), but the only thing we know for sure is that they are major-league assholes who do the opposite of their job description. They won. The Libertarian Party lost. The LP is a complete joke, and a totally (purposefully) misdirected waste of time and money.

    The people giving to the Libertarian Party are giving a few FBI and CIA agents a laugh and a good time. (And yes, I know the CIA isn’t supposed to be operational within the borders of this country. I get it. You have a superior intelligence because you believe what you’re told. I get it already. You’re a conformist so you’re “rational” and I’m “paranoid.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA )

    I think these government goons probably get a kick out of their job, flying around to fake political meetings (“LNC Meetings”) that decide nothing, pretending to be important. It must be very thrilling. (Both for the goons and their dupes, alike.) It’s probably quite entertaining for them, but it’s actually probably starting to get boring (for the goons). After all, they have dominant, unquestioned, total control of a placid and conformist LNC, LP donor base, and LP membership.

    The truth of the matter is this:
    1) The central bank parties (D, R) wouldn’t let a group of blithering idiots like the ones posting on this board endanger its billion-dollar looting of the U.S.A. They wouldn’t let the LP or any of the idiots on this board (“Just make friends with the FBI agents in charge of hiring you. “) have any say whatsoever on any matter of political importance in any shape whatsoever.
    2) The people who caused the complete and total non-viability of the LP in 2008 are still in total and complete control of the LP (Bill Redpath, Scott Kohlhaas, etc.). –All they need to do is fly around to LP meetings, and ask for “the job noone else wants to do.” At this point in time, ballot access isn’t difficult. It’s a job that gets done practically on its own, with ballot access activists, who are hungry for the work. Well, let me rephrase that: those LP activists are prevented from going into the States that need to be done, and emergent order is prevented from occurring in those states. (That’s right: political hierarchies are also emergent, when allowed to grow.) Inevitably, the outreach of the LP trends toward professionalism. That’s where Bill Redpath and Scott Kohlhaas come into play with their “Act like friends, act normal at LNC meetings or other public venues, act utterly insane behind the scenes –rant, rave, fire people without cause, etc. Claim alternate reasons to other people than the ones you claim to the petitioners themselves, so they can’t even rebut your claims. Never allow yourself to be questioned. …Such as, by “gaveling” the aggrieved petitioners when they show up to public meetings to confront you.”
    3) The people here counseling us to “get over the drama” etc. are counseling us to just go to sleep, like them, and accept that the LP doesn’t exist. Good advice! The very instant I’m done typing this, I intend to follow it.

    The sad thing is that we’re not even seeing the 2nd tier of the people the FBI or CIA are willing to throw at us. Their kindergarten cops were enough to do the job! Of course, that’s for the best.

    What, did you think the CIA and FBI’s handlers would allow you to just take over a State Legislature, and opt out of Mr. McMonkey McBean’s Magic Money-printing Machine?

    Well, they won’t. The sad thing is that they didn’t even need to try as hard as they did when they sent in their agent provocateur, Douglas Durham, to sow dissent into the ranks of the American Indian Movement.
    See: “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse” by Peter Matthiessen
    or, just google “Douglas Durham”

    The even sadder thing is that they didn’t even need to try as hard as they did when they sent in their agent provocateurs, to sow dissent into the outlaw motorcycle gangs, and militias.
    See: “Hell’s Angels” Hunter S. Thompson,
    and “Mindhunter” by John Douglas

    The still sadder yet thing is that they didn’t even need to try as hard as they did when they sent in their agent provocateurs, to sow dissent into the radical environmental whackjob pseudo-“anarchist” movement in the Pacific Northwest.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Darby
    (He’s now a “right-wing” neocon guest on talk radio.)

    The Libertarian Party is a joke, it is “controlled opposition.” Call me when you guys are serious and want to elect small-L libertarians to local offices, in the way I was taught America worked when I was a little kid. Before that happens, we need to make “the LP” completely open and transparent, and we need to get rid of this stupid requirement that people sitting on the LNC fly all around the country to go to LNC meetings. The whole thing could be easily done with videoconferencing software. All plans need to have backup plans. All plans need to be totally transparent, and open to public criticism and comment.

    Do you think that the FBI and CIA lack the funds to have their people attend meetings around the USA? Their bosses print the money. Do you think the Democrats and Republicans lack the funds to have their people attend meetings around the USA? Their bosses print the money.

    Those who view the LP as an “even more fiscally conservative wing” of the Republican Party are the very worst (this describes a few idiots on this board). And it doesn’t matter if they began as agents provocateurs, or if they were eventually corrupted. The result is the same: all the work that could possibly result in elected libertarian state legislators is still-born.

    And that’s been the case for the entire LP, with Bill Redpath “running” (ruining) ballot access. There’s a reason he refuses to engage in a public Socratic “question and answer session” or “debate” with his critics. (As he labels them “difficult to work with” behind their backs.) His stories and allegations fall apart almost instantly under any kind of educated scrutiny.

    But that’s the rub! “Educated” scrutiny doesn’t exist in the LP. Half of the LNC members think that ballot access is some kind of mysterious dark art. Many of them think that it wouldn’t happen without Redpath and Kohlhaas running everything. (It would.)

    Of course, most Libertarians haven’t read a basic poli-sci textbook on “how to get elected.” Even Robert Heinlein wrote one, in case you don’t want to read Democrat Dick Simpson’s book “Winning Elections,” or Roger Simon’s account of the 2004 Iowa Caucus, regarding the one-handed voter-massage on behalf of John Kerry. Michael Whouley was Kerry’s right-hand-man for that job, and the article ( http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040719/19point.1_9.htm ) shows how far directly-interfacing with the public can take you, if you understand “just enough philosophy + strategy to be dangerous.”

    Of course, I don’t expect the neocons (neo-conformists) in the LP to get smart, anytime soon. I expect them to keep on running hard on their hamster wheels put in their narrow little cages by their public masters.

    In that regard, the LP does play a vital role: it gives a useless, pretend outlet to slaves who are really angered by the fact that most of their productive efforts, (and chance at an unbounded lifespan! Going, going, …gone! for David Nolan, Harry Browne, Ron Crickenberger, Edward Lawson, etc…) is being snapped up by sociopaths. This “outlet” for venting anger and panic is something that Orwell’s Big Brother was very afraid of, and Orwell’s Big Brother (as well as the defunct totalitarian regimes of the 20th century) often “over-reacted.” Ironically, this meant that, at some point, it was possible for the discontent to rise up and overpower the status quo. …Our enslavement is far more “livable.” (Except that you die at the end of it, too.)

    As Orwell’s fuzziest and most lovable character (other than Benjamin the Mule) once indicated: “If there is hope [wrote Winston] it lies in the proles.”

    Perhaps it does.

    It does not lie in the LNC members, …no matter how few seconds they stick around to chat with other LNC members. No matter which college they attended. …And no matter what Political Science degree they “earned.” Or how many know-nothing political science professors they orally serviced. Still, those LP “Party” animals sure are slick! …Especially Squealer! The way he explains away seeming inconsistencies is always so mesmerizing!

    If there’s any hope, it lies in the proles, indeed. (Does anyone here wonder what would happen if every tenth American suddenly donated $5 to the Libertarian Party? LOL! Under the “Redpath ballot access methodology,” the cost of ballot access would go up correspondingly, and every junkie, heroin addict, and other mercenary street hustler would suddenly have a make-work job asking ten-year-olds and unregistered voters to sign petitions to “make the bad things go away” or “give peace a chance.” LOL)

    So, I guess what I’m saying is: While Redpath controls LP ballot access, LP ballot access is controlled by ___?__, not by the Libertarian Party. In that regard, it’s beginning to look like SEK3 had a point. …Not because it has to be this way, but because most human beings lack the fortitude and intelligence to oppose the infiltration of pro-freedom organizations. As anyone who reads IPR can see, “petitioners crying foul” are not the most respected people on earth.

    So, to hell with poli-sci majors and other power-grasping filth.

    For more about what kind of “activism” you can do on your own, with no party involvement of any kind, please call 1-800-TEL-JURY, or visit http://www.fija.org –They will feed ya some good information, and might even put it in prolespeak, without engaging in the more Newspeak-like-language of “legalese.” (But you have to watch out, because they might revert to Latin and French legalese, if you don’t make it clear that terms like “malum prohibitum” are beyond the comprehension of drunken, brawling, beer-goggled, back-of-the-squadcar proles.
    See: http://video.adultswim.com/the-drinky-crow-show/heres-the-perfect-picnic-spot.html

    Goodnight and Good Luck, Fellow ‘mericans!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *