Tom Stevens: Libertarian Party Delegates In St. Louis Should Oppose Efforts To Decrease Involvement In Party Affairs

Posted at Dr. Tom Stevens’ blog Liberty Lion and emailed to contact.ipr@gmail.com. Posted for discussion. As with LNC candidates, IPR does not take a position on bylaws proposals.



Dr. Tom Stevens, two-term LPUS Judicial Committee member and State Representative of the Libertarian Party of Queens County to the Libertarian Party of New York, has urged delegates attending the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in St. Louis over Memorial Day Weekend to oppose proposed bylaw amendments that would have the effect of decreasing the participation and involvement of party members in party affairs.

Dr. Stevens stated the most dangerous proposed bylaw amendment involves putting into place a new “conflict of interest” rule that will allow the national Libertarian Party leadership to target disruptive individuals serving the party on a national level and to seek their removal if they are active in another political party. Stevens said, “The LPNY has no such conflict of interest rule. We have members who are left Libertarians who are active in the Green Party and right Libertarians who are active in the Republican Party. All make positive contributions to the growth of the Libertarian Party in New York State. I would not want to see them excluded. My position is the same with respect to those party members who are active on the national level.”

Another proposed bylaw amendment would again reduce the number of delegates allotted to state affiliates. The argument here is that not all the delegate slots are usually filled and that, therefore, we should reduce the number of potential delegates so the LP National Committee can plan to hold smaller conventions. Stevens said, “The Libertarian Party should be addressing this issue not by reducing the number of potential delegates but by working to increase party membership and by making the conventions more interesting so that more people will want to attend them.” This same argument applies against the proposed bylaw amendment that would end the practice of holding national conventions every two-years, making them every four years instead. Stevens said, “Libertarian Party National Conventions energize activists. They then bring their enthusiasm back to their state affiliates, run for local office and recruit new party members. It is important we make those National Conventions available for people to attend every two years.”

Stevens mentioned that participation by delegates and candidates at National Conventions is also being placed in jeopardy by the proposed bylaw amendment that will require 20 seconds instead of 1 for a motion to be debated and the proposed bylaw amendment that would require a higher bar for candidates seeking national office to participate in televised debates and to contest for the nomination. Stevens said, “I support increasing the opportunity for candidates to contest for the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party. The more candidates there are, the more exciting the process and the more people who will choose to be involved. Similarly, requiring 20 seconds for every motion before debate can begin on an issue stifles the ability of individual delegates to have an impact on business conducted at the conventions.”

Finally, the most controversial proposed bylaw amendment is the one that seeks to ban the charging of a “mandatory convention registration fee” for all attendees at LP National Conventions. Dr. Stevens made the motion putting the Libertarian Party of New York on record against charging a “floor fee” for delegates attending the LP National Convention. Stevens said, “The proposed bylaw amendment seeking to ban a mandatory convention registration fee requires a 2/3 vote of the delegates to pass and presupposes that a floor fee is permitted by the LP National Bylaws through its reference to Robert’s Rules of Order. With the bylaw amendment proposed in this manner, future mandatory convention registration fees will be permitted unless 2/3 of the delegates voting in St. Louis oppose the imposition of a floor fee. While not taking a position on the legality of charging mandatory convention registration fees under the LP National Bylaws, I believe such floor fees should not be charged and that the convention packages offered should be made more attractive to encourage delegates to purchase them. I also support the formation of a fund that would enable delegates with more financial resources to help out delegates who would not be able to attend the LP National Convention without a little financial help. In the final analysis, I believe delegates selected by the state affiliates should not be asked to jump another hurdle to be credentialed to vote during the business sessions of the LP National Convention.”

Dr. Tom Stevens said, “It is very important that delegates attending the LP National Convention in St. Louis over Memorial Day Weekend see this package of proposed bylaw amendments for what they are. Namely, an attempt to decrease involvement of LP members in party affairs. I call on all delegates seeking positions on the LNC and all affiliates to speak out on these proposed bylaw amendments so awareness can be raised and coordinated action can be taken to alert the delegates regarding what is at stake.”

66 thoughts on “Tom Stevens: Libertarian Party Delegates In St. Louis Should Oppose Efforts To Decrease Involvement In Party Affairs

  1. Gary Fincher

    It is with heavy heart that Imake this disclosure. I’ve waited all week for the truth to somehow catch up to my longtime friend’s ego; but sadly, it’s apparently not going to happen.

    I apologize if for some this doesn’t seem like a suitable thread to air this grievance of mine. Understand that I’ve got little latitude in that regard. However, consistent ideological libertarians need to know whenever an egregious and serious breach has occurred among active and prominent players in the movement. So please pardon me if I’m presupposing that the discovery on tap supercedes if the discussion is thread-appropriate in nature.

    That said, I need to report on some serious unlibertarian behavior.

    This matters.

    I would not be going to the lengths of publicizing this if it weren’t 100% starkly true. In fact, I never, ever wanted to make this disclosure (and I wouldn’t be, if I’d seen any admissions or remorse forthcoming.) But I must.

    Normally, it’s a big deal to us libertarian purists when another Libertarian activist/proponent strays in his talk and comes off as unlibertarian. But when it goes beyond mere ideologicial grumblings and enters into the territory of actual deeds, there is a problem, a problem impossible to ignore.

    Whatever Libertarian activist and petitioner Andy Jacobs has said in the past – whether orally or on these threads – has become now irrelevant in contrast to what he has just done.

    Andy Jacobs has just committed initiation of force and fraud, a violation of THE libertarian commandment. This is no minor thing. Because for one thing, it’s neither by accident, fluke or remorsefulness. Not that it will clean the slate, but Andy has had all week to apologize, yet he has yet to as much to be a man and own up to it, let alone apologize.

    This Monday May 10 Andy Jacobs viciously assaulted me, and battered me, in a Hemet, Calif., hotel room.

    To be clear, it was totally unprovoked and was not a single slugging lashed out in a moment of hot-headedness. In fact, it was Andy’s third physical attack on me in a 5-day period. (The other two occurred in San Diego.) But Andy’s attack on me was violent, out-of-control, potent in nature and enduring (for several minutes). While the blows were quite painful, there wasn’t – at least to my present knowledge – any lasting injuries (with the possible exception of a slight bruise to my left forearm caused by what seemed like a 90 mph “fastball” thick phone book hurled at me from close range.)

    The most recent incident occurred as I sat across from Andy, minding my own business, quietly filling out some petition affidavits on a couple of sheets I’d circulated the week before. Andy asked me what I was doing; I told him. At that point, for reasons still unclear to me, Andy’s expression changed to that of rage, and he became savage. At first, he ripped up the petitions I’d just filled out, citing his personal distaste of my decision to fill them out (it was actually none of his business.) As I stood there in shock over what I’d just experienced, Andy proceeded to slap me around – hard. I managed to break free and leave the room (our jointly held room – I was given a key.)

    Minutes later, after having realized that I’d left some of the “evidence” – the torn petitions – behind, I returned to retrieve them, making mention at that time of a possible criminal complaint. At that point, Andy went ballistic again, and jammed me up against the glass window of our 3rd story room. I thought for a moment it was going to break and I’d go soaring onto the pavement below with shattered glass trailing me. Andy would not stop throwing punches and battering me. After the point in which the highly painful phone-book pitch at me was undertaken, I became angry myself and threw a couple of defensive punches, punches that were basically in vain, as they missed their mark totally. Andy was acting crazy, alternating between yelling at me to get out of “his” room (while physically preventing me from doing so!) and almost crying, pleading with me to “be his friend” and ‘stay in the room”. It was bizarre. And totally unlibertarian.

    This was after two attacks the past week that were similar in duration but different in style and degree. (In one of them he turned over the table I was sitting at and violently pinned me by the abdomen to the floor as I fell out of my chair and hit my head.)

    This was a through-the-looking-glass moment of no return for me, and I separated myself from him. I made phone calls to friends seeking advisement over whether to file criminal charges with the Hemet Police (nothing was videotaped and there were no witnesses). However, for Andy, it marked the beginning of a strange semi-stalking campaign to “get me back” without having to own up to misdeeds. That’s the best I can describe it. He has inundated me with text messages on my cell phone of mixed signals, apologizing on multiple occasions for “being angry” (but “being angry” is not a crime, by libertarian standards) while also, strangely, asserting that I was the one who initiated the attack (at least he 3rd and last one?). Now, I can understand Andy’s trying to sell *others* that I initiated the attack (still a patent falsehood) but I have NO IDEA why he would say such a thing to *me*. Testing me for Alzheimer’s I suppose. Andy did tell at least one other person that I, and not he, initiated the attack – which would represent initiation of fraud, thus completing the unlibertarian matrix.

    I am still not clear on where I should go from here. Libertarian purists – rest assured that I have not gone to The State, and am quite close to opting to resolve the matter privately, with private fines and/or private sentencing of alternate means, if and when these become expedient to do.

    But one thing is for certain: Andy Jacobs can no longer classify himself as a small “L” libertarian, as the initiation of force and fraud precludes that. Andy has made numerous rationalizations for his “anger” that are based on the nature and status of the petitions he ripped up that I had been filling out, but no intelligent, rational person could buy these as a justification for violence (unless, of course, they had been *his* petitions…which they weren’t: they were mine).

    Unlibertarian violence should not be tolerated. But (sigh) I fully expect the “let’s shoot the messenger” crowd to come out in full force and find fault in me and my grievance, even though I’m the one victimized, harmed and owed restitution.

  2. Alexander S. Peak

    Mr. Fincher,

    If you and Mr. Jacobs both consent, I will be happy to serve as your abitrator. My ruling will be final, unless you should both agree in advance to allow for appeals. (My recommendation would be to both agree to allow for appeals, and to agree upon the number of appeals allowable—but that, of course, is up to the two of you, and not I.)

    I would want to get written testamony from both parties. I reserve the right to ask both of you questions in addition to the testamony you provide, and the right to share the testamony of each party with the other party.

    I will charge you both $100 for the arbitration fee, unless the two of you should decide in advance a different structure of payment (e.g., loser pays, winner pays, &c.).

    Let me know if you’re interested. Also, please let Mr. Jacobs know of my offer.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  3. Andy

    “Andy Jacobs has just committed initiation of force and fraud, a violation of THE libertarian commandment.”

    Wow, I can’t believe that Gary is twisting reality in a public forum. Now I have to come back here and spend time debunking his distortions. And this is the thanks I get for loaning the guy several thousand dollars (which he still has not paid me back for even though he has promised to have me paid multiple times) and hooked him up with numerous jobs and done many other things for him.

    There was NO initiation of force on my behalf. The TRUTH is a California petition had ended and already been filed with the CA Secretary of State’s office and he threw a temper tantrum because two signatures did not get turned in even though I had told him several days prior to the final turn in that the petition was ending and even though he KNEW that I was going to the final turn in.

    Once a petition is OVER, it is OVER. No coordinator in the state was accepting signatures on it anymore, yet Gary yelled at me and wanted me to drop to the TWO signatures in for him. I told him that the office was closed since it was a Saturday (and note that I’m a good 70 miles from the petition office). Then he wanted to FedEx them and I told him that since the petition was OVER NOBODY was taking them anymore and nobody wanted them. He then said that he was going to mail them to a coordinator in Sacramento (note that by this point in time the petition had already been OVER for a few days and that NOBODY in the state was accepting them anymore). He claimed that this coordinator would give him “credit” for them, however, I can tell you that NOBODY was going to give him a damn thing for a petition that was OVER.

    This seemed completely delusional to me and I did not like the way that he yelled at me about it. Note that I also had one signature that I did not turn in as I neglected to see it in my backpack when I was at the turn in and I did not throw a hissy fit over it like he did. Since he yelled at me and was acting in a manner that I found to be absurd I found an article online which said that the petition was over. Here’s the article:

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pass_California_budget_with_majority_vote%3F_Prop_turns_in_sigs

    Here’s another article:

    http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/05/majority-vote-m.html

    I picked up my computer and tried to show him the aritcles but he refused to look at them and kept insisting that he was going to mail the TWO signatures to a petition coordinator whom he owes money and that this coordinator was going to give him “credit” for them. This is absolutely absurd.

    I became angered by his attitude and so to prove a point about the petition being OVER and that the signatures were now worthless that I tore the one signature that I had as well as his two signatures.

    After this Gary went BERSERK. It was as if his child had died or somebody’s favorite pet just got hit by a car. He then charged at me swinging and shoving. THIS was the iniation of force. I blocked him and pushed him away.

    He then picked up the torn sheets and said that he was going to have me arrested. I told him that nobody is going to be arrested for a petition that was over (as in nobody was taking them and the signatures had already been filed). However, to appease him I offered to get some tape and tape the pages back together. I have accidentily ripped some petition sheets in California before and I was able to tape them back together and turn them in and get paid on them (of course these were for petitions that were active and not ones where the campaign was over). He refused to let me tape the pages back together.

    He then sat a bed in the room and get yelling about how he was going to have me arrested. This really irritated me because:

    1) The petition was OVER, so it SHOULD HAVE BEEN a moot point.

    2) I’ve helped this guy out on NUMEROUS occassions, including having loaned him several thousand dollars (he’s owed me money since early 2008 and still owes me thousands), hooked him up with multiple jobs, defended his reputation when he was being slandered, drove him to doctors appointments, helped him wrap bandages, and more. Heck, I even bought him some diabetic socks and gave them to him as a belated birthday present! And now he wants to have me arrested over 2 signatures on a petition which was OVER. Some nerve!

    3) I had just floated him another $200 a couple of days before this incident which he needed due to a pay delay from another petition drive.

    4) I had paid for the very motel room where he was sitting and yelling about wanting to have me arrested for something that was completely ridiculous (as in two signatures on a petition that was not even circulating anymore and had been turned in).

    So I told him to get out of my motel room. He refused to leave. I then asked him to get out of my motel room 2 or 3 more times. He continued to refuse to leave.

    Now considering that I paid for the motel room and his attitude caused me to not want him in there I had every right to ask him to leave. His refusal to leave was a violation of my property rights as the renter of the room so since he refused to leave and since he had already lunged at me in an aggressive manner over two worthless pieces of paper which could have been taped back together, I then said that if he did not leave that I was going to physically throw him out.

    So I walked over to where he was and told him that if he did not leave I was throwing him out and he continued to refuse to leave so I then shoved him. He then went backwards on the bed and started flailing his arms around. I then grabbed both of his arms and told him to get out and I then threatened to punch him in the face.

    However, at this point I thought about how STUPID the entire dispute was and that although I didn’t like the way that Gary was acting at this moment that he’s still a friend and I didn’t want things to go any further so I let go of him and did not strike him.

    I then started to calm down and I told him that this was a ridiculous arguement and that we shouldn’t be fighting over something so stupid. I then said that he could stay in the room and that we should drop this. His response indicated that he did not want to drop it and that he was leaving.

    I then told him that I was sorry for getting angry and for my part in the dispute. I repeated this to him multiple times but he refused to let it die. I even offered to buy him a meal and to let him stay in the motel room for the rest of the week without incurring any more debt to me for this. He refused and still won’t let this absurd dispute die.

    Oddly enough, a couple of days later he calls me desperate for money and wants to meet with me to buy signatures from him on a petition which is still going on. I told him to come up to the room where I’m stay and that I’d buy his signatures (even though I’m under ZERO obligation to do so and I’m not even a petition coordinator so I’m not making any money profit off of his signatures). He refuses to come up to my room and says that he’ll meet me in the parking lot. I hadn’t showered yet so I told him that I’d be down after I showered and got dressed. He apparently got tired of waiting for me in the parking lot so he sat down in fast food joint that is connected to this parking lot. I went in there and sat down to talk to him and he acted very weird. I was hoping that we could bury the hatchet over this nonsensical dispute and that things would go back to normal but he barely said anything and then started rushing me to give him the money. I then handed him the full pay for the signatures (and note once again that it is NOT my job to do this and that I am not going to make any profit off of this, in fact, there’s a chance that I may not even get paid on every signature that he handed over to me, and also note that I’ll have to wait to get paid on these signatures as well) and then he immediately bolted out of the restaurant. I walked out to his car with him and tried to talk some sense into him but he would not listen. I said that it was a silly arguement and that no harm was done (even the pages on the DEFUNCT petition could have been taped or replaced, but it was a MOOT POINT since it was OVER so it would have been a waste of time to do either) and I once again told him that I was sorry for getting angry about it and for participating in the arguement. I then put my arm on his back and said that I still consider him to be a friend and that I’d like to bury this and his reaction was quite bizarre as he yelled, “Get your hand off me! Get away from me!” Then he got in his car and drove off.

    He later bombarded me with text messages and a few emails, I’ve read some of them but there are others which I have not read. I sent him several messages where I repeated being sorry about getting angry and told him that I still think that he’s a good guy and would like for him to come back and that we should drop this. No harm was done other than two sheets being ripped on a petition which was OVER (as well as my own sheet which I did not care about since it was OVER).

    Now I can’t believe that he’s airing this silly dispute in public forum.

    To review:

    1) Gary yells at me over 2 signatures on a petition which was OVER.

    2) I had told him that this petition was ending a few days prior to the final turn in and he in fact KNEW that I was going to a petition turn and in fact TALKED to me in the parking lot for few minutes before I left. He could have handed me those two signatures but he did not.

    3) His attitude over the two signatures annoyed me and to prove a point about the petition being OVER I ripped the one I forgot to turn in that was mine as well as the two that were his.

    4) He then CHARGED at me swinging and shoving me (if anything was initiating force I’d say it was this).

    5) I blocked him.

    6) He then started shouting about how he was going to have me arrested and refused my offer to tape them and ignored my pointing out that it didn’t matter since it was OVER.

    7) I then ask him to leave the room which I paid for and was under my name.

    8) He refused to leave.

    9) Since he refused to leave I said that I was going to physically throw him out.

    10) I started to physically throw him out (use of force to expel a trespasser/vagrant from ones dwelling which they paid for is legitimate) but then decided not to because it was such a silly dispute and because I consider him to be a friend, so I wanted to try to let cooler heads prevail.

    11) I apologized multiple times for having allowed myself to get angry and for taking part in the stupid arguement.

    12) I’m astounded that he is now airing something which is so absurd in a public forum.

    I have been in the petition business for almost 10 years (it will be 10 years in July) and I’ve worked in 27 states plus DC and I’ve met a lot of people over the years. I have NEVER seen anyone throw such a HISSY FIT over something as trivial as 2 signatures on a petition which was OVER as Gary did that day.

    What part of it was OVER and the coordinators are NOT taking them anymore does he not understand?

    Also, if his concern was legitimate, the two pages could have been taped back together, and another remedy (which I TRIED to offer to him but he would not listen) would have been to go to the people’s houses who signed those to pages and ask them to sign again. The homes are not far from where we were staying and there is in fact some door-to-door petitioning going on right now in that area anyway. However, it really would have been a waste of time to do either due to the fact that the petition was OVER. So if the problem was REAL (which it cleary was NOT) there were real ways to fix it, yet he ignored them. This is more evidence that it was NOT a real problem, but rather one he was creating for drama.

  4. Andy

    There was no initiation of fraud on my behalf because the petition was OVER, and could have been fixed with tape or replaced by going to the homes and asking the people to sign again, but taping or asking to sign again were NOT necessary because that petition had been CALLED OFF several days before this and the signatures were already turned in to the SOS’s office and it was OVER, as in they were not wanted any longer. So taping the pages or getting the people to sign again or driving the signatures in to a petition coordinator or mailing them all to a petition coordinator would have been a WASTE of time and resources.

    Gary charged and me swinging and shoving. That was where the force came in.

    The force which came from me was a response to him violating my rights as the renter of the room by not leaving the room when I asked him to leave.

    I am sorry that I got angry and got drawn in to this ABSURD situation. I was about to take a shower before this happened and I wish that I would have just walked away and continued on that course instead of responding to this absurdity.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I tore the one signature that I had as well as his two signatures.”

    In other words, you did the thing that you wanted Sean Haugh charged with a crime for saying someone should do.

  6. Andy

    “In other words, you did the thing that you wanted Sean Haugh charged with a crime for saying someone should do.”

    There is a BIG difference Knapp, this petition was OVER! NOBODY was taking them anymore. It had already been filed. Once it is OVER it doesn’t matter.

    The petition in Massachusetts was NOT over. It was still active. Also, Gary had a deal with the State LP in Massachusetts to turn them in and to get paid for them by the state party.

    Also, Sean Haugh wanted to BURN THEM which would have completely destroyed them. Tearing a sheet does not destroy it, and California is not as anal about petition sheets as Massachusetts is, so even if it was NOT over the sheets were still salvagable.

    The petition coordinators were NOT being defrauded because the petition had been called off and was OVER, therefore they did NOT want the sigs anymore. The Massachusetts LP still wanted those sigs from Gary and that petition drive in Massachusetts was NOT over at that point in time.

    Sean Haugh said to burn them which meant that they could not have been salvaged. Sean Haugh said to burn them whether they had been paid for or not which showed an intent to defraud Gary and/or the donors.

    This incident did NOT defraud anyone because nobody was taking those signatures anymore, even if they were they could have been fixed, and I had even offered to give Gary $4 just to appease him.

    This was NOT even remotely close to what Sean Haugh did.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Don’t you ever calm down? I was just yanking your chain.

    If you and Fincher are going to go back to your game of hijacking threads for Angst of the Week, you should be able to have a sense of humor about it when you get tweaked over it.

  8. Andy

    I remember the first petition coordinator that I worked with the first time that I petitioned in California back in 2001 told me to check the petition hotlines every day because petitions can end at anytime and if you get stuck with any signatures after the final turn in then the signatures become worthless and you might as well trash them. The coordinator told me that after every final turn in there is always at least one petitioner who didn’t turn in all of their signatures and he said that there was nothing that they can do about it because once it is over, it’s over.

    In 2004 there was a final turn in on this one petition where I ended up finding 18 signatures in the back seat of my car later (as in after the final turn in was over). I asked the coordinator (the same one mentioned above) what I should do with them and he said to toss them.

    In 2003 there was a petition in California that some petitioners worked on spec (as in on the speculation that money for the campaign was going to materialize) because there was talk that it was going to pay and because it was a popular issue that made a good stopper (as in it got people’s attention and many people flocked to sign it). This campaign didn’t get any money and it lost its steam so petitioners stopped working on it, but they held on to the signatures with the hope that some money would materialize before the deadline. I called the campaign up right before the deadline and they said that they didn’t even have close to enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and that they weren’t even going to bother filing the signatures that they did have since they knew that they weren’t going to make the ballot. So we all ended up throwing our signatures in the trash, including one coordinator who had an entire crew that got signatures on this petition. Again, it did not matter because the campaign did not file and they tossed what they had as well.

    In Illinois in 2004 I accidentily left some signatures in my backpack which I later found after the final turn in was over. It wasn’t that many sigs, maybe like 10-15, but I could not turn them in at that point due to not noticing them when I was at the final turn in. Since I missed them at the final turn in they ended up getting tossed.

    The same thing happened to me in Arkansas in 2007 when a clip board that had a few signatures on it slid to the back of my trunk and got buried under some stuff. I found them after the final turn in but since it was after the final turn in I could not turn them in. So these 10-15 sigs for the Green Party got tossed since they weren’t taking them anymore.

    The same thing happened with this one signature that I had collected and 2 signatures that Gary had collected on a petition in California this year which is what lead to Gary throwing a tantrum.

    If you don’t get them in by the final turn in then they aren’t good for anything anymore, except maybe a placemat.

  9. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // May 14, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Andy,

    Don’t you ever calm down? I was just yanking your chain.

    If you and Fincher are going to go back to your game of hijacking threads for Angst of the Week, you should be able to have a sense of humor about it when you get tweaked over it.”

    I never intended for this silly dispute to be aired in a public forum. I think that he’s taking an absurd situation and making it even more absurd by posting about it here.

    I’ve already apologized multiple times for my role in the incident and I still like the guy inspite of this so I wish that he’d drop it.

  10. Andy

    Gary has been acting strange ever since we got back from Missouri.

    I’ve been working in California for the past several weeks and Gary arrived to work after I’d already been working there for a while. Not too long after Gary started working in Cali I got a phone call about a campaign in Missouri that was in trouble and offered us me good money plus expenses to come in and do some last minute work. Gary was with me and I told him about it and so I told the campaign I had another expierenced petitioner with me so we made arrangements to fly in and work. We flew in and worked hard and did quite well. The campaign offered to reimburse us for a motel room and rental car while we were in Missouri (in addition to paying for our flights). Since Gary can’t rent a car right now I rented the car with my credit car and I drove him around.

    The petition sheets in Missouri have to be notarized, so the campaign arranged for us to meet with a notary on the evening before the day when they had to turn in the sigs to the Secretary of State’s office (in Missouri they actually open up the Secretary of State’s office on Sunday for final petition turn ins which I’ve never heard of any other state doing this on a Sunday).

    We met with the notary at a restaurant in Kansas City and it took a while to notarize all of the pages. The campaign had originally asked us mail the sigs on a Greyhound Bus to where they were located which is Jefferson City. By the time we finished notarizing the sigs it was too late to do this so the campaign (whom we were in communication with via telephone) said that they were going to find a courier for us to hand them off to who would drive them in to Jefferson City. Then they called back saying that they were having a hard time finding a courier so I offered to drive them to Jefferson City myself if they’d reimburse me for the gas.

    The campaign had booked flights for Gary and I and we were scheduled to fly out on Sunday morning at 9 AM. They said that they’d only pay the extra fee to bump one of our flights, so since I had volunteered to drive the sigs to Jefferson City, and since I had rented the car with my credit card and was the driver of the car, the campaign bumped my flight to a later time and Gary was still scheduled to fly out at 9 AM the next morning.

    I dropped Gary off at the airport the next morning and he flew back to California. I then proceeded to Jefferson City. Part of the reason that I had volunteered to drive the signatures in to Jefferson City was that I was hoping that it would allow me some extra time to gather more signatures, however, this did not end up working out, so I drove to the turn in at the petition proponents house in Jefferson City.

    When I arrived the proponent’s assistant met with me in the drive way of the house. The proponent ended up popping up outside but I did not get the chance to talk to him (although I had spoken to him on the phone several times before this). I turned in my signatures and the assistant wrote me out a check for my signatures as well as a reimbursement for the motel reciept and my gas reciept for driving to the turn in. I wanted to get the rental car reimbursed at that time as well but I did not know how much it was going to be since I was originally going to return the rental on Saturday morning and was now going to have it until Sunday evening. I called the rental car company three times but my phone reception was spotty and I kept getting cut off before I could find out how much the bill was. I asked the assistant if I could use their phone but he said that they were too busy to deal with it now and that I could contact them later with that information and that they’d reimburse me for the rental car promptly after that.

    I then turned in Gary’s signatures. I asked them for a check for Gary but they said that they had already made arrangements with Gary to send him a wire transfer the next day, so that a check would not be necessary for him. Gary arrived in Missouri short on cash (he was out of work for several weeks prior to arriving in California to work due to a medical misdiagnosis, and he’d only worked in Cali for a short time so he had not earned much money yet) and the campaign wire transfered him $100 as an advance when he got there (note that Gary burned through that $100 and I had to end up paying for some meals and a jacket for him with my credit car), so the precident for wire transfers had already been set. I then tried to call Gary to see if he was sure that he wanted a wire transfer instead of a check but I could not get through to him since he was either on an airplane or in an airport at that time (most likely an airplane), plus my phone reception wasn’t the greatest there either. Since I couldn’t get through to him it ended with the campaign assistant assuring me that he was going to wire transfer Gary the money the next day (which would have been a Monday) and that I’d get the money that I was owed on the rental car the next day as well if I got him the information as to what the amount of the bill was.

    I flew back to California and on Monday the money was not recieved. We called the campaign and they assured us that we’d get it soon. It did not arrive the next, or the day after that, each time we contacted them they assured us that it was about to come.

    Then they went out of communication for us. This had shades of the time that Scott Kohlhaas ripped us off on an LP ballot access drive in Nebraska, so we started to get nervous at that point.

    A few days later we finally got through to the campaign assistant and this person kept claiming that we were about to get paid (of course Gary was owed a lot more than I was). When the money still did not come the assistant divulged that the campaign was trying to raise more money. Apparently Gary finally got word from the campaign proponent that a big donation is about to come in and that we are going to finally get paid out of that, but at this point we still have not recieved the money.

    This lack of money has put Gary under a lot of stress.

    I have made multiple calls to multiple people about us getting the money that we are owed from this campaign, and I’ve talked more about what he’s owed than what I’m owed since he is owed so much more than me. In fact, I’ve made more calls to more people about this than he has, including after the “tiff” mentioned above. I’ve even told Gary that if I go to the LP National Convention in St. Louis (I’m still not sure if I’m going to go or not at this point), and if he is still not paid, I might rent a car and drive to Jefferson City and confront these people in person and demand that we get our money.

    There are other petitioners who are still owed money from Missouri, but I know that a lot of them have been paid half of what they are owed. Gary has not been paid anything, and he is really hurting for the money right now which sucks. Hopefully that money will come in soon.

  11. Andy

    A few days prior to this Gary woke me up sometime around 1 AM – 2 AM ranting about his not getting paid and he started a text message war with somebody we know who was upset about not being able to work in Missouri. When he said that he was going to send them a message and the content of the message that he was going to send I urged him to not do it but he did it anyway and work this person up. This person was not amused with the content of the message or being woken up and they responded with an angry message, and then this person and Gary started going back and forth with angry messages. Then I started getting angry messages and calls as if I had somehow prodded Gary to send the offending message which I did not, I in fact, told him not to do it. This person was including me in the blame at first but fortunately they later realized that Gary was the one who was sending all of the messages and so it became a dispute between just them. I was irritated when he set this situaiton off for no legitimate reason.

    I think this and his freaking out over the two signatures on a petition that was OVER were in part due to his stress from not being paid the Missouri money.

    I hope that he and everyone else that is owed money from Missouri (myself included) get paid in full soon.

  12. Andy

    I just thought of one more example of when some petitions got tossed because it ended and the sigs did not get turned in by the final turn in.

    In Massachusetts in 2007 the signature gathering for one of the petitions went up until the final day that you can turn in signatures to the city/town clerks (note that in Massachusetts the signatures have to be turned in to the city/town clerks and then have to be picked up from each city/town clerk and delivered to the Secretary of State’s office).

    The petitioners who worked up until the end had to turn in the signatures themselves to the city/town clerks. On the last day I was in this town where I mostly got signatures from this particular town, plus another town that was next to it, but I also had a few others that were from other towns, some that were further away than others. I only ended up having enough time to make it to two of the town clerks’ offices. In fact, I probably did the very last turn in to a city/town clerk on that petition drive since I made I did a turn in at 4:58 PM at the town clerk’s office which was next to the town where I had petitioned that day, and that office closed at 5 PM!

    I didn’t have that many signatures from other towns that were further away, but the few that I had which I could not make it to the city/town clerks’ offices in those cities/towns by the deadline had to end up being tossed.

    Now before Tom Knapp chimes in, this was NOT even remotely close to what Sean Haugh solicited to be done (but was fortunately not carried out due to the people whom Haugh solicited to carry out the act not being deranged like he is), because it was PAST the final turn in on the petition and by that point the signatures were no good.

    I seem to recall that Gary had collected a few signatures which were unable to be delivered to the proper city/town clerks’ offices during this time as well (or at least one of them).

  13. paulie Post author

    So…anyone have any on topic comments? Or…should we start a new Gary vs. Andy thread for this “discussion”?

  14. Andy

    As I said above, once a petition is OVER, it is OVER, and, at that point it does not matter what happens to any signatures that did not make it to the final turn in.

    This is the main point which makes Gary’s hissy fit so absurd.

    Nobody wanted the signatures anymore because that petition drive was OVER and the petitions had already been filed with the Secretary of State’s office. It was DEAD.

    The other thing that makes this absurd (beyond the fact that Gary owes me a lot of money and that I’ve done numerous other favors for him in addition to loaning him a lot of money) is that California is not as anal about petition sheets as Massachusetts is.

    Gary has worked Massachusetts a lot more than I have and I’ve worked California a lot more than Gary has. In Massachusetts they are extremely anal about the petition sheets. They had a thing there called “The Stray Mark Ruling” which is reference to a court case where some judge said that an entire petition page can be thrown out for any markings that are outside of a signature box. They take this to an extreme in Massachusetts where even a tiny dot outside of a signature box will disqualify a page, as will a smudge mark or torn page (even if it is tiny).

    California is not so anal about their petition sheets as Massachusetts is (Massachusetts is probably the most anal state in the country in this regard). I was at a petition turn in not too long ago and I noticed that I had some pages that had some stray makes (as in some tiny pen marks outside the box) and one that had dirt smudges on it and another one that was torn at the top. I though about how if this had been in Massachusetts instead of California that all of those pages would have been disqualified, however, since California is not anal retentive when it comes to petition sheets like Massachusetts is I turned them in and got paid on all of those pages. As I said above, I’ve done a lot of petitioning in California (it is my #1 state in terms of number of times worked (14) as well as the duration of those times, as well as the number of petitions worked on (I’ve worked on around 54 things in California)), and I’ve had some pages get ripped by accident there a few times and I taped the pages back together and turned them in and I got paid on them. I tried to explain this to Gary but he was too busy throwing a tantrum to listen.

  15. Erik G.

    In other news…

    This is a great article by Mr. Stevens, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Barring work with other parties comes across as childish and narrow-minded to me. The LP is supposed to be advancing liberty however it can, not limiting the expansion of freedom to the vehicle of the LP. Moreover, there are countless benefits to cross-party relationships.

    1.) Working with other parties often introduces them to many libertarian concepts, and could perhaps be a direct or indirect influence on that party (or it’s local chapter’s) future positions.

    2.) There are many situations where cross-party relationships can be beneficial, such as uniting in opposition to something (this is a concept the Barr campaign, sadly, failed to grasp across the board).

    3.) Other parties can be a benefit to libertarians’ electability and organization. Campaigns such as Ron Paul’s can be great at organizing momentum for a libertarian direction (should we not fail to capitalize on it). Also, work with the Republican Liberty Caucus or Democratic Freedom Caucus could get libertarian or liberty-minded candidates on ballots and in competitive races where third-party candidates are at the most severe disadvantage.

    4.) Cross-party relationships also plant the seed for future membership growth, as disgruntled members of other parties may eventually want to work with us, or advance our cause after opening their mind to liberty.

    Beyond this, I furthermore commend Mr. Stevens’s strong stance against floor fees (one of the biggest reasons I won’t be attending this year’s convention), as well his defense of biennial conventions. I know having conventions every two years certainly keeps my interest up, and I was really looking forward to going this year until various factors changed my plans (I will, however, excitedly follow convention activities online).

    This was a superb piece that deserves better than the latest round of petitioner drama.

  16. paulie Post author

    Erik,

    Thanks for getting the discussion back on track.

    I’m a little confused by one thing you said:

    I furthermore commend Mr. Stevens’s strong stance against floor fees (one of the biggest reasons I won’t be attending this year’s convention),

    Hopefully, you know that the floor fee was defeated.

    If not: it was defeated. No more floor fee. You can attend as a business-only member, no charge. This does not include any meals or speakers. I have a room reserved and am looking to get more room mates (so far only one, and one kinda/sorta/maybe), so if you can make your way around your other objections, we can at least defray some of the other costs.

    Any chance you’ll still go?

  17. Erik G.

    I’m aware. Unfortunately, I made alternate arrangements for that weekend when the fee was still in existence, and I’m not prepared to back out of those plans. Hence, the fee is still one of the reasons I’m not going. :/

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Now, would anyone else like to express reasons for agreement or disagreement with anything Tom Stevens said in the original article we are supposed to be discussing here?”

    Oh, sure.

    Where I disagree with Dr. Stevens:

    Stevens opposes reducing the number of delegates.

    I’d like to see the number of delegates set at a static level in order to make convention venue planning easier. The number I’ve proposed is 538; the allocation plan I’ve proposed is the same as the United States uses for the Electoral College. That number happens to be lower than the current allocation formula allows for.

    – Stevens opposes a conflict of interest bylaw that bars active members of other parties from the LNC and Judicial Committee.

    I support that bylaws amendment. If someone wants to be involved with more than one party, fine, but if one is a member of two or more competing organizations, one should not be in a position of fiduciary duty in any of them.

    Where I agree with Dr. Stevens:

    The “anti-floor fee” amendment is, indeed, likely to create a situation, through failure of its passage, in which the “pro-floor-fee” advocates can claim “we haven’t been forbidden to do it, therefore we are permitted to do it.”

    That means that unless the “pro-floor fee” faction takes a licking in the LNC elections, we’re likely to have the same kind of fight in the future that we had earlier this year, over and over until we manage to get a Judicial Committee ruling on the matter that settles it one way or the other.

    The best outcome with respect to that whole thing would be for the amendment to either pass or to not reach an up-or-down vote, AND for the “pro-floor-fee” faction to be sent packing from the LNC.

  19. Andy

    As an expierement I found a blank copy of the petition in question (which once again is OVER) and I signed it myself and then I ripped the page and then I taped it back together again and it worked just fine. SO THE EXPIEREMENT WAS A SUCCESS!

    The fact that Gary wouldn’t give me the chance to tape the pages back together shows me that he just wanted drama.

    However, as I keep pointing out, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MOOT POINT SINCE THAT PETITION DRIVE WAS OVER AND IT WAS DAYS PAST THE FINAL TURN IN.

  20. For What It's Worth

    TK @ 22,

    The ‘538’ you propose in relation to the EC… would state delegate alotment be in direct propotion to their electoral vote count (i.e. SC would get 8, DC would get 3, etc.), or would you provide room to reward states that perform better in terms of vote count, registration, etc.? I think it would perhaps be better to do a foundation of 538, but add an extra 100 or so to reward some state parties over others.

    Also, at what level do you favor restricting leadership? If I were, for example, the local organizer ofa Democratic Freedom Caucus or a ballot initiative consultant for the Greens, would this, by your standards, eliminate my ability to serve in a leadership position with the LNC?

  21. Erik G.

    Annnnnd I just exposed one of my pseudonyms from another thread. Awesome. lol

  22. Alexander S. Peak

    Okay, my arbitration services are currently having a sale. So, for the low, low price of $20 each, I’ll serve as your arbitor, should you both accept. That’s an 80% savings. All terms and conditions listed above, save for cost, remain the same.

    Let me know,
    Alex Peak

  23. Jake Witmer

    On-topic comment:
    I think Tom Stevens’ suggestions are good ones. He seems to desire openness and transparency, which are typically good things.

    Motions should be heard, not suppressed. If one person thinks a motion is good, then let’s hear it. Let’s have business go into the night, if we need to. Let’s get all the ideas in competition with one another.

    Off topic comment:
    Gary is way out of line on this one. He owes Andy around $8,000. He failed to turn in two signatures (street value, $4), and then wanted Andy to turn them in anyway, to coordinators who were no longer accepting them. Duhhr. If this doesn’t make any sense, it’s because it shouldn’t.

    Now, Gary claims that he doesn’t have to pay Andy back a part of the $8,000 that he owes him.

    Not one sane person on the planet would take Gary’s side in this argument. In Gary’s defense, he sometimes acts crazy, because he’s a diabetic who gets low blood sugar.

    He has served the Libertarian Party as a petitioner since 1990, and has always done good work, at very high validity rates. He needs to straighten his diet out, and not post insane-sounding stuff like this on message boards when his blood sugar runs low.

    Moreover, by him airing a 100% personal dispute (off-topic) on a public message board, it diminishes the fact that IPR has long served as a wonderful place to reveal wrongs that the LP was trying to keep quiet, that took place mostly in 2008. There is no good way for the editors here to determine when there is a legitimate complaint, and even though this isn’t one (and it simply serves to make “all petitioners” look crazy), I am glad that IPR doesn’t censor speech.

    I’m sure we’ll need it again at some point, even if this isn’t that point.

  24. paulie Post author

    If one person thinks a motion is good, then let’s hear it. Let’s have business go into the night, if we need to. Let’s get all the ideas in competition with one another.

    LOL. I guess it would then be the rule of the most Roberts Rules motion-obsessed, high-endurance argument junkies. What would the word for that be…minutiocracy? Someone help me out here….

  25. Burden

    I have heard party leaders refer to members as a burden, that rather than promote membership that they must spend money on, they would rather discourage new members and try to pump donors. They miss that scale of membership is the primary quotient for scale of donations. In that light it is no surprise to me that there is a proposal to cut delegates rather than realize that the missing delegate quota is a symptom of neglected membership. More patching at symptoms rather than solving the disease.

    The best advice for new by-laws is the same as new laws on any ballot… NO unless the need is overwhelming.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    FWIW,

    You write:

    “The ‘538? you propose in relation to the EC… would state delegate alotment be in direct propotion to their electoral vote count (i.e. SC would get 8, DC would get 3, etc.), or would you provide room to reward states that perform better in terms of vote count, registration, etc.? I think it would perhaps be better to do a foundation of 538, but add an extra 100 or so to reward some state parties over others.”

    I’m for 538, on the same basis as the EC (two “base” delegates plus one per US House District).

    The problem with trying to reward “performance” by the state affiliates is that the states are a basket of apples, oranges, kiwis, grapes, pomegranates … heck, name 50 different fruits.

    Some states have registration by party. Some don’t.

    Some states make ballot access easy, some make it cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, some make it de facto impossible.

    Some states are geographically large with some smaller population centers and election districts in which a Libertarian candidate can hope to go toe-to-toe with the big boys by knocking on doors. Some states are geographically small with their populations packed into urban centers and nearly every election a large-population affair (just for comparison — state legislative districts in New Hampshire have about 3,500 residents each; in Missouri, about 30,000).

    Which would be better “performance” for delegate allocation:

    – An elected county executive, elected on the LP ballot line with a constituency of 30,000;

    – An elected state rep on two ballot lines (LP and GOP) with a constituency of 3,500; or

    – An elected judge, LP member but non-partisan, in a district with 100,000 residents?

    We could argue for years over “performance” standards.

    We should have a delegate body that is somewhat representative of the country we’re working in, not just the internal dynamics of the party as affected by ballot access laws, constituent density, etc.

    “Also, at what level do you favor restricting leadership? If I were, for example, the local organizer ofa Democratic Freedom Caucus or a ballot initiative consultant for the Greens, would this, by your standards, eliminate my ability to serve in a leadership position with the LNC?”

    I consider that highly negotiable/debatable.

    In my own case, when I affiliated with DFC for a year, I resigned all positions of trust in the Missouri Libertarian Party.

    When I formed the national BTP and ran for vice-president on its ticket, I didn’t think I needed to resign positions of trust in the Missouri LP, since the BTP had no organizations or candidates in Missouri. Others disagreed, and their disagreement was not unreasonable, even if I thought they were incorrect. I held no positions of national LP trust at that time. If I had, I would have either resigned those positions or left the BTP and declined to be on its ticket.

    I’m not unwilling for my own ox to be gored on this subject. If the LP adopts standards with which my activities conflict, I’ll either abandon the conflicting activities or give up the LP.

    To some degree, such conflicts at the national level could probably be handled by the “for cause” suspension provision, so maybe no bylaws change is need.

  27. Steven R Linnabary

    – Stevens opposes a conflict of interest bylaw that bars active members of other parties from the LNC and Judicial Committee.

    I support that bylaws amendment. If someone wants to be involved with more than one party, fine, but if one is a member of two or more competing organizations, one should not be in a position of fiduciary duty in any of them.

    I suppose it depends on your definition of “active” membership in another party.

    I could be wrong, but I think this proposed bylaw is in response to Angela Keaton being caught wearing a “Boston Tea Party” t-shirt. Does wearing a t-shirt of another opposition party make one active?

    The BTP membership is not all that rigorous.

    FWIW, I was heavily criticized recently for wearing a “Green Party” t-shirt on St Patrick’s Day (isn’t one required to wear Green on St Paddy’s Day?). And being considered a member of the Green Party is as simple as being on their email list.

    Two years ago, it was NOT uncommon to see many Libertarians sporting “Ron Paul for President” t-shirts. Myself included.

    That said, I wouldn’t want to see anybody on the NatCom suggesting that the LP not run a candidate because it might cause a democrat or republican to lose the election, nor would I want somebody on that board that was the least bit active in either of those parties.

    PEACE

  28. Michael Seebeck

    I would be very happy to comment on the current Bylaws report, if I ever get a copy, which the Bylaws committee seems reluctant to release to delegates for prior review for reasons unknown.

    In any case, working off an older copy, here’s the take of the CA Bylaws guru:

    Conflict of interest proposal (aka The Keaton Rule): I oppose it for a simple reason that goes back to the ridiculous charge against The Keaton in Dec 2008 that spawned this: terms are not defined–what does “material support ” mean? In that case, it was believed to be The Keaton wearing a Boston Tea Party tank top (as photographed by me) and supposedly being listed as an Admin on the BTP Facebook site without her knowledge. Now I know there wasn’t much material in the tank top, and maybe not enough to qualify as support, but the point is that the vagueness of the term coupled with the origin of the proposal makes me tell the Bylaws Committee to go back to the drawing board on this.

    Delegate reduction: I agree, but again for a different reason. If the room is not packed with delegates for the TV cameras, get a smaller room so it looks like it is. Delegate reductions should not be the solution to the convention committee doing poor planning. The catering rule of thumb is take the expected turnout and have a 20% reserve. For room capacity on TV, take the expected number and subtract 10%. The crowded room creates the perspective of large support. Advertising, folks.

    20 vs. 1 seconds: Also agree, it isn’t necessary, ESPECIALLY if it requires 20 seconds to seat delegates.

    As for the floor fee, the mentality within the floor fee faction already exists that if it isn’t prohibited, it’s allowed, and that mental illness has been there for years. It’s what led to L’Affaire d’Wrights in the first place, the LPCA Titanic cruise convention of 2006, and who knows what else. It’s the same mental illness that in DC circles likes to disregard the 10th Amendment. So I think Dr. Stevens’ argument is flawed, and in fact, the floor fee ban should be supported, not opposed.

    The one that he doesn’t mention, assuming it’s still in the report, is the proposal to have national members vote on Bylaws proposals by mail in advance of the delegates voting on them in convention, in an either-or proposition of 4/5 vs. 2/3, which should garner a gigantic no as usurping the authority of the delegates under the claim of saving time.

  29. paulie Post author

    Admin on the BTP Facebook site without her knowledge.

    Actually as an “officer,” a meaningless honorific title that that facebook admins can bestow on anyone.

  30. When tied back, you can see how unevenly it is cut.

    MS@33:”For room capacity on TV, take the expected number and subtract 10%. The crowded room creates the perspective of large support. Advertising, folks.”

    The business of the party should not come second to advertising.

    No, really, it should not.

    This manicured convention idea is the exact same frame as trying to control the delegate selection through attrition. Intentional or not, it is a spiral downward.

    The party was built for more people; so go get them. It may help as the guru of bylaws, to perhaps put your eyes on activism or maybe candidacy.

    Bylaws are the only part of our party that gives government leverage in our business. They should be viewed just like any other law, they will eventually be enforced with a gun if called upon.

    Why any good libertarian would be transfixed with them, proposing them, enlarging them or even worshiping them as some deistic entity is beyond me.

  31. paulie Post author

    @35

    Your posting handle this time creates a vaguely disturbing image. Kind of like the ones linked at 21 and 24…

  32. Nicholas Sarwark

    Stevens opposes a conflict of interest bylaw that bars active members of other parties from the LNC and Judicial Committee

    In the interest of full disclosure, Stevens was a candidate for another political party during his last term on the Judicial Committee and would be personally affected by this proposed bylaw.

  33. When tied back, you can see how unevenly it is cut.

    P@36
    I could say something really vain here like:

    Thanks Paulie, ya’know playing with allegory and double entendre occasionally gets you a real zinger.

    Truth is I think I may have thought I had a different window focused and was typing away on something else.

    The universe is a weird and wonderful place.

  34. Nicholas Sarwark

    I would be very happy to comment on the current Bylaws report, if I ever get a copy, which the Bylaws committee seems reluctant to release to delegates for prior review for reasons unknown.

    The current bylaws committee report is here in PDF form.

  35. Chuck Moulton

    Nick Sarwark wrote:

    The current bylaws committee report is here in PDF form.

    Apparently they posted an old version. That doesn’t include the Austin amendments.

  36. Michael Seebeck

    I have a copy now, with great thanks to Chuck.

    Of note are a couple of late additions.

    1. The Floor Fee ban, already mentioned.
    2. The Wrights Rule, which would make “[f]ailure of a non-officer member to maintain the eligibility requirements shall operate as a motion on the agenda of the next session of the National Committee to remove the non-officer member for cause.” How a member’s state of being can be construed into an action that RONR indicates has to be made by a person is beyond me and beyond common sense, and makes a mockery of RONR, which should be making certain unnamed persons choke on their dinner. Oppose this one, because it is really nonsense and perpetuating an issue that made certain members of the LNC look very foolish.

  37. Nicholas Sarwark

    Apparently they posted an old version. That doesn’t include the Austin amendments.

    My bad, I used the link published in the latest LP News. Didn’t realize it didn’t include the Austin amendments.

  38. Nicholas Sarwark

    The Wrights Rule, which would make “[f]ailure of a non-officer member to maintain the eligibility requirements shall operate as a motion on the agenda of the next session of the National Committee to remove the non-officer member for cause.” How a member’s state of being can be construed into an action that RONR indicates has to be made by a person is beyond me and beyond common sense, and makes a mockery of RONR, which should be making certain unnamed persons choke on their dinner. Oppose this one, because it is really nonsense and perpetuating an issue that made certain members of the LNC look very foolish.

    If only you saw what it looked like before it was amended…

  39. Chuck Moulton

    Nick Sarwark wrote:

    If only you saw what it looked like before it was amended?

    Nick is right. The original proposal created an immediate vacancy consistent with Alicia Mattson’s interpretation (as those LP members who viewed the Bylaws Committee meeting can attest to).

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/remarks-to-libertarian-party-judicial-committee/

    After amendment this proposal does the opposite: it adopts the Judicial Committee interpretation that failure to maintain eligibility is simply a reason that can justify for cause removal. This gives the LNC member an opportunity to fix eligibility (e.g., by paying dues) before the meeting, which can be taken into account during the for cause removal vote.

    The amendment pretty much caused supporters and opponents of the proposal to flip. Bylaws Committee members who believed the rules should operate as Alicia mentioned went from supporting the proposal to opposing the proposal.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How a member’s state of being can be construed into an action that RONR indicates”

    If the bylaw amendment passes, RONR will have nothing to do with it. The bylaws supersede RONR where the two conflict.

  41. Michael Seebeck

    When Tied @35:

    The national convention is as much a free advertisement for the LP as it is a business meeting, in the same way that the national conventions for the Democratic and Republican Parties. So there is no back seat or front seat here–just side-by-side seats. Taking advantage of that opportunity is as essential as outreach, media work, candidate campaigns, and everything else we do. It all ties together and it only works if none of it is neglected.

    Should we go out and get new members? Certainly, absolutely, but for other, much better reasons, since that has a miniscule effect on convention delegation levels since those are determined every two years by formula involving national sustaining members, and the votes in the last Presidential race (dunno why we based our delegation numbers on votes done in part by people outside the LP). Unless we triple our numbers at national every two years (an admirable but unlikely goal), the delegation totals aren’t going to change much. And even if they do, and we become SRO on the floor, that shows up on TV as a good thing to the LP popularity. (It’s a common TV trick to make an arena or venue be made to be seen fuller than it is, and the other guys do it all the time, and they overbook smaller venues.).

    So your complaint doesn’t really make much sense.

    As for me, in terms of activism, been there, done that, and do it still on occasion. Earned a couple of Lights of Liberty Triathlete awards along the way. candidacy? Been there and done that too, killed a $47M bond, and found out that being a candidate wasn’t my gig.

    As for “worshiping” them, not hardly. But to have an organization operate and function it does need structure and rules. Hence they exist, and in order to make the organization function efficiently and properly, one must understand them and know how to make them have a minimal impact on those operations, and be able to deal with and derail the people who would add rules or exploit them to further their own agendas instead of the good of the organization–as has been the case in excess this last LNC term.

    Or as I said to a colleague last night at a local meeting, you need both inside and outside people. I’ve done the outside stuff and found myself better suited to the inside stuff. So here we are.

  42. Michael Seebeck

    Tom, you’re right, BUT…people make motions under parliamentary procedure. This proposal would totally turn that on its head so that a person’s status within the party is what makes a motion. Parliamentarians ought be having coniptions over that.

    Me, I object to it because it doesn’t make sense. Had it been written to make a membership lapse cause fro removal from the LNC it would have made much more sense. Instead they wrote it to be an automatic motion for the agenda. What else could they propose to do that? It opens a door that is a perversion of organizational procedure and is wide open for abuse. No thanks.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Michael,

    I agree — it’s a bad idea to warp general parliamentary procedure over one item that the rules already cover.

    My guess is that the reason for trying to make it an “automatic” motion is so that nobody has to stand up and put their name on a motion to suspend.

    Of course, someone is going to have to put their name on it, because a motion doesn’t go any further unless someone seconds it.

    Nor does making the motion “automatic” prove the allegation.

    Etc., etc.

    I was just making the very narrow point that yes, we CAN come up with our own procedures regardless of what RONR says. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea.

  44. Gary Fincher

    Here Andy goes on and on and on about the *petition* when this issue is about a self-professed “libertarian” committing acts of violence against someone (me).

    I don’t see how anyone – other than Jake – can take the position that violence is congruent with libertarian principles.

    Jake may tolerate it, but I won’t.

    This has nothing to do with a petition – other than the fact that it’s what first caused Mr. Jacobs to freak and go beserk on me. I no longer want to hear about how the petition is “over” or whether it “had enough signatures” or anything of the like. I want to hear someone offer me an intelligent argument that will make me change my mind that violence is unlibertarian. Jake has failed thus far (and would make a horrible juror.) Alex, however, I would definitely like to speak to you. Call me at 207 450 5117.

    Actually, I have more to add.

    Update: Since Mr. Jacobs started out the day waking me up in the middle of the night with text messages, and proceeded with incessant calls to my phone – after I’ve warned him to cease and desist – I had no choice but to investigate how to stop him, lest he escalates to more brutal violence on me. While it’s one thing to think about arbitration when it comes to honest disagreements among mostly peacful participants, I fail to see how arbiters in the CURRENT climate can be anywhere near effective in STOPPING someone BENT ON committing acts of violence. Government may not work very well, but the reality is that they have a monopoly on force: they are the only game in town when it comes to certain aspects of law (even correctly understood, libertarian law) enforcement.

    After much personal debate and strategizing on how to keep myself safe in the near and intermediate future, and talking it over with a few experts, I decided to file a restraining order against Mr. Jacobs. This mean that I had to swear under oath that everything I testified to regarding Mr. Jacobs was true and accurate, under penalty of perjury, knowing full well all I’ve sworn to will be ultimately scrutinized. I’m virtually certain Mr. Jacobs won’t put his honor on the line in such manner. As I said previously, I hated to have to do this, but I see him as unstable enough to warrant such a measure.

    The restraining order was filed in Riverside County court in Hemet, California, and a judge will read my testimony and then decide on Monday I’m told if Mr. Jacobs is to be served the order. If so, any contact by him with me can result in his getting arrested, just as any libetarian could get arrested for stealing a car, for instance.

    After 3 attacks, it’s not unreasonable to think the violence might escalate with time. Does anyone really think I should allow Mr. Jacobs to potentially kill me just so I can keep “clean” and avoid The State? (The same way all of you avoid driving on government roads?)

    To many of you posting on here, this political stuff may be a game, a fun hobby. But for me, my actual *life* is at stake and I’m not playing around.

    ps I was on a phone conversation with Jake tonight and was going to ask him not to utilize his erring to badmouth me (what would turn out to be) unjustly in public, as I was offering him the same courtesy and never have badmouthed him publicly. However, since I see that he has already done so, I’l like to remind everyone that the same Mr. Jacobs recently told me that Jake had stolen a rental car in Alabama, a grossly unlibertarian thing to do. Unless, of course, Mr. Jacobs is not credible….

  45. Gary Fincher

    And see – I *told* you the “let’s shoot the messenger” crazies would come out in force.

  46. Andy

    I just spoke to one of the top petition coordinators in California as well as in the petition business in general yesterday (this person frequently gets deals outside of California and has been in the petition business for 22 years). I asked him about the situation with Gary but I did not name Gary specifically (due to not wanting to create anymore unnecessary embarrassment). Gary knows the person to whom I am refering and I just divulged it to Gary and Jake and a couple of other people in an email.

    I told this petition coordinator that a petitioner came to me and to turn in a few signatures on the State Budget petition which had a final turn in early last week and for which the petition sigantures were filed with the Secretary of State’s office a couple of days after that. I told him that this happened days AFTER the FINAL TURN IN and days AFTER the petition signatures had been filed. I told him that the petitioner said that he could still get “credit” for these signatures. This petition coordinator said that the person would absolutely not get any credit for signatures on a petition that was over. He said that the signatures were trash now. In fact, he said, “They ain’t good for nothing. Just throw them in the trash.” He said that whoever came to me with this did not know what they were talking about and he then made a derogartory comment a person who would make such an ascertation.

    So there you have it, straight from one of the top petition coordinators in California.

    And THIS was what caused Gary to go off on me and charge at me swinging and shoving. THIS is what caused Gary to say that he was going to have me arrested (for something that was NOT even a crime because a) the petition was OVER, and b) the pages could have been taped even if it was not over.).) THIS is what lead to me asking Gary to leave the room. After Gary refused to leave the room, THIS is what lead to me telling Gary that if he didn’t leave I was goint to throw him out and that’s when I shoved him, however, I stopped shortly after that and tried to cool things down.

    Gary’s entire “case” is BOGUS. He does not have a leg on which to stand. The FACT is that he spazzed out on me for NO REASON. Those petition pages were WORTHLESS because that petition was OVER, just as I said. NOBODY wanted them anymore. It was only two freaking signatures anyway!

    I am sorry that I got angry about this and I am sorry that I participated in this dispute, but the FACT remains that Gary’s case has no merit.

    I think that Gary is just under a lot of stress due to not getting paid money that he is owed from Missouri and due to the mountain of debt that he’s under (he owes money to me as well as several other people). I really hope that Gary snaps out of this and things can go back to normal.

  47. little birdy

    Email from Gary to Jake Witmer forwarded to me by another little birdie

    Jake writing to Andy: Gary should stop this silliness,

    G: If trying to stay safe is “silliness” then I’d adjudge you as “warped” even if no one else does or would.

    J: and apologize to you.

    G: Why in the world would anyone apologize to the brute who attacked him 3 times in a week, for no reason (other than having said or did something the attacker “didn’t like”)? I think you’re crazy for such an assertion – literally.

    J: He owes you around $8,000

    G: No, this is not correct. As I told you, you are operating on old information. After working in Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri and California, I have PRETTY MUCH satisfied the debt (not quite, but arriving). And not only is it old information, but it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

    J: the fact that he screwed up and didn’t hand in a couple of sheeple’s petition signatures in time,

    G: That’s Andy’s issue, not mine. Besides the fact that it was dubious and debatable as to whether the petition “was over” – as Andy has said ad nauseum – it was my own business if I wanted to mail them to someone or not. Even if I were sticking a friggin’ 1988 petition in an envelope, that’s NO EXC– USE for vandalism and violence! Are you insane, Jake?

    J: in no way changes the fact that he should feel deeply indebted to you, not angry with you.

    G: That’s totally preposterous. Anger (as well as fear) are perfectly acceptable emotions to possess when someone has JUST FUCKING ATTACKED YOU VIOLENTLY, you moron. God, you need to get a grip on reality here. (I’ll bet we can take a poll and you’d get drubbed severely on it by those who agree with me that anger/fear, and not gratitude, is what likely will be felt by someone attacked three times by the same person in a week’s time).

    J: We all respect the massive amount of work that Gary has done for the LP, but this kind of behavior diminishes that respect.

    G: How does ANDY’S behavior (because the situation was near-totally devoid of “behavior” from me – mine was all reacting/passive) “diminish” that respect?

    J: Gary should get to work and pay you back.

    G: If so, then Andy should also get to work and pay restitution to me.

  48. little birdy

    Another in the series of exchanges between Gary and Jake:

    J: Gary, I have defended your reputation many times in the last year, against Sean Haugh’s slanders. You need to start paying Andy back in full, immediately.

    G: That is none of your business, for one thing, and for another, a loan or no loan has nothing to do with committing acts of aggression/violence. You should be smarter than that. And for another, a libertarian system of justice includes restitution against victims. Do you realize that if a cop had been present, Andy would have BEEN ARRESTED ON THE SPOT (not to mention likely jail/probation and fines)? Are you too dense to realize this??

    J: If you don’t apologize and begin paying him back in full, your reputation will probably suffer beyond all repair.

    G: My reputation is just fine. I’m known well for being extremely honest, to a fault. In fact, I’ve been criticized for being too much so. Remember what Richard Winger said about my honesty? And what Nick Youngers said? What about all those times that Andy has yelled, cursed and demeaned me for NOT lying to some coordinator or circulator or someone else? That’s right – Andy has, on multiple occasions DEMANDED I lie, and when I wouldn’t, he would berate me. Maybe in your Chicago circles, lying is part of an outstanding reputation. But it wasn’t where I was raised (small town Texas).

    My m.o. is to keep telling the truth and my reputation should hold up in the end. And as a result, my detractors who don’t appreciate it will look like bozos.

    J: Your argument is crazy, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    G: I don’t have an “argument” – I have a testament to violent (albeit unarmed…for now) crimes Andy has recently committed. The fact that you think of it as “an argument” tells me a lot about your constitution and what you’re made of.

    J: Andy feels bad that he got into an argument with you,

    G: No, he didn’t get into an argument with me. He commenced violence on my person without provocation, which is illegal in any society (except maybe the Libertarian Party)

    J: and he respects your past as a petitioner.

    G: He should; but that’s not what this is about. Oh BTW reports of violence *are* perfectly acceptable topics on a political message board. When Obama commits violence against Afghanis, it gets reported as politics. Only a sophomoric thinker such as yourself can’t get the correlation between macro-violence and micro-violence.

    J: But that doesn’t change the fact that you are acting crazy.

    G: I’m not “acting”…just because I drove through Hollywood today doesn’t mean I’m *part* of Hollywood. This is real life, dude, and you need to get a grasp that every day people who get assaulted and battered report those acts. There were dozens of people in the courthouse today, many of them filing restraining orders such as the one I did. I spent three hours in there, so this is serious life, not “acting”. And you sure have a funny notion of what a “fact” is, let alone the question on whether it can be changed.

    J: You should be eternally grateful to Andy

    G: Eternally. Spoken like a true Jesus freak. But I digress. No, I am not “eternally” grateful to ANYONE. I am grateful to someone for as long as they deserve it, and once they stop deserving it, that gratitude dies.

    And speaking of what dies, I’ll tell you what. I’ll go with your suggestion in your other email to reconcile with Andy, but ONLY if I get to pack a revolver. That way, next time he physically attacks me, he’s a dead man.

    J: saving your ass so many times, and you should be totally ashamed

    G: No, I think Andy is the one who should be “ashamed”. (Actually, I think he is, and has issues in that he can’t bear to come to grips himself with the fact that he is now a batterer, doesn’t know how to deal with that fact. But I’m no psychologist, so I’ll stop with the analysis and just say that it’s not my problem what his issues are: I just want him the fuck away from me.)

    J: at any shallow attempt to crap out on paying money you owe him.

    G: Ah, the concept of restitution doesn’t enter your personal OR political paradigm, I see, as does not the concept of fines for criminal behavior. Thus of course I’ll skip the civics or philosophy lesson and just leave it at that (ignorance).

  49. little birdy

    J I seriously doubt that Andy tried to batter you.

    This is why you’d make a lousy juror (and I sure the fuck wouldn’t want you on a jury in a case that *I’m* involved with!).

    That’s because Andy didn’t “try” to batter me: he *battered* me. There is a big enough difference in those two that jurors should be kicked out of the juror pool for such dim statements.

    J: He says you attacked him,

    If Andy says that I attacked him, then it’s a simply case of lying.

    It’s nothing more complicated than that.

    J: over $4 of useless

    Okay, Andy is the one that went totally beserk over the signatures. I fail to see how sitting at a table filling in the affidavits constitutes “attacking”. Andy is the one who made a big deal about the signatures, cuz I sure didn’t. It was a non-deal to me, as I was just quietly about to place them in an envelope and mail them away. Something about that act must have offended him and triggered something inside his brain, because he sure went nutso upon learning of my intention, that’s for sure.

    Also, it was NOT clear that the petition was over, or had enough signatures. Moreover, I’ve been paid before on signatures on petitions that were over. It’s not his call to rip them up and get violent over it. And like I said, even if they were petitions that were 20 years old and antiques to me, I had a right to mail them to someone without having them ripped up. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn’t playing with a full deck, IMO (and that seems to include you, sorry to say, from your posts on IPR).

    J: (late past the final turn in) signatures. That strikes me as insane.

    And freaking out over placing those signatures, even if “over”, in an envelope, violently ripping them up and and attacking someone for it DOESN’T strike you as insane????!!??

    J: If you use the state to attack Andy, then it seems you’d be acting anti-libertarian.

    Not using the State to “attack” Andy; using the State as a response TO Andy’s 3 attacks.

    And even if so, I *still* wouldn’t be as far along the proverbial “anti-libertarian” path as you already are (stealing a rental car, getting GOP bailouts, more I’m sure).

  50. little birdy

    G: Ask yourself, Jake:

    If *I* battered *HIM*, then why is he repeatedly saying he wants to patch things up with me, while I want to have nothing more to do with him? Why was he following me around after the 3rd attack in Hemet, and pleading with me to stay in the motel room with him (for free, even)?

    But turn it around and see if it now makes more sense to you.

    Who would want to patch things up with someone who battered them 3 times?

  51. Andy

    “G: No, this is not correct. As I told you, you are operating on old information. After working in Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri and California, I have PRETTY MUCH satisfied the debt (not quite, but arriving). And not only is it old information, but it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.”

    This is probably Gary posting under a fake name.

    Gary has NOT even remotely come close to paying me back the money that he owes me.

    Yes, he paid me $1,000 out of his New Mexico earnings (which is still owed me thousands more), but since then he has raked up more debt. I let him borrow an additional $100 to go towards gas for him getting back to Tennessee. He owes me for motel rooms in California. He owes me for gas for the times that he rode with me in California and in Missouri. I put several meals for him as well as a jacket for him on my credit card in Missouri. I floated him more money due to his pay being delayed from Missouri.

    Here are a few other things he owes me money for:

    I loaned him $2,500 to go to a car repair after he got into a car accident in Ohio in November of 2009.

    I loaned him $692 after he had a problem with a towing company in North Dakota and was on a trip to Costa Rica (a trip which was ill advised due to his financial circumstances at the time which I tried to talk him out of taking).

    I loaned him money to get his car out of a repair shop in Pennsylvania in April of 2008. I’ve got this amount written down but I don’t have the exact figure on me at the moment. It was over $1,000.

    He roomed with me at motels in Gilbert, AZ and in Tucson, AZ in 2009 for several weeks and has yet to reimburse me for his half of those motel rooms.

    This is just SOME of what he owes me money for. There are quite a few other things.

    The only payments that he has made to me thus far are $500 back in September of 2009 and $1,000 earlier this year in New Mexico (and note that with all of the additional expeneses that he ran up on my tab and additional money that I floated to him most of (or maybe all of) that $1,000 was eaten up by new debt).

    Each time Gary borrowed money from me he PROMISED me that he would pay me back. In fact, he said that he’d pay me back quickly and that he’d pay interest.

    Now he’s trying to welch on money that he owed to me and he’s using a bogus reason – two signatures on a petition that was OVER – as the pretext for welching on legitimate debt which he PROMISED to pay.

    THIS IS BULLSHIT!

  52. Andy

    “Who would want to patch things up with someone who battered them 3 times?”

    Gary was NOT battered! This is a damn LIE!

  53. Andy

    “Who would want to patch things up with someone who battered them 3 times?”

    Gary was NOT battered! This is a damn LIE!

    He’s just trying to rationalize excuses for not paying money owed.

  54. Deep Breadth

    MS@
    “Earned a couple of Lights of Liberty Triathlete awards along the way. candidacy? Been there and done that too, killed a $47M bond, and found out that being a candidate wasn’t my gig.

    As for “worshiping” them, not hardly. But to have an organization operate and function it does need structure and rules.”

    I appreciate your observations but it isn’t you, yourself personally that bothers me and I should have been better at expressing that. The idea of a “libertarian guru of rules” does, at some basic level, make me take a start.

    As mentioned above, I posted distracted and with a bad haircut. Please forgive my ill considered tack.

    My point is not simply to deny the need for rules. What I am critical of is a report with so many proposals. It is hard to argue for organizational stability when the fabric of the thing is in constant chaos.

    I feel like a common principle for freedom is a uniformity and simplicity of rules.

    I have heard a lot of Libertarians agree that the constant jockeying of rules and maneuverings around them hurt the organization. The maneuverings breed contempt and viciousness in an atmosphere which could and should be more proactive and productively competititve.

    I think that you and I completely agree that the convention is, in one important aspect, free advertising. I think that we would agree that the publicity opportunity and the business needs should be considered in parallel rather than sequentially in importance one way or another.

    Parallel tasks need separate spaces. Business needs should not supersede that opportunity nor vice versa. The proposal to steer this aspect by reducing potential inclusion is not a paralleling feature. It is specifically an attempt to steer by by-law rather than to encourage effort or find solution. Worse it shrinks the pool not only now but in the future.

    If the conventions are not as big as they used to be the obvious problem is shrinkage. The obvious solution is outreach in some form or many. To adjust bylaws in this way seems very much more like a denial than a strategy.

    I use that example as an illustration for where my general criticism of the culture that we have around by-laws does stand. You cannot create things by placing limits. Its almost like the mentality of congress out of control. To me, a plethora of by-laws is a sign that they are being used as a factional football in the guise of steering for success.

    I do not see faction fighting in structural documents as healthy bell-weather for any organization.

    I do not see by-laws as a successful place wherein to steer a broad-interest national organization.

    Because the by-laws are an interface for the use of force, I am boggled at the seeming perpetual importance of playing with them in a society based on non-aggression as a principle.

    ###

    off-topic
    To Gary and Andy:

    I don’t know you. I am not sure why your drama is in front of me. What is clear are two things:

    1. You two have worked well with each other for some time.

    2. If you are both right now too angry to talk to each other directly and face to face, You need to sit down with a trusted referee, or each with a second and talk through your business first and then your friendship.

    Bringing a community, or more so, the public at large into your interpersonal negotiations is… wow… ya know… It is how governments justify their existence.

  55. Andy

    “1. You two have worked well with each other for some time.”

    Yes, I’d say that we didn’t have any real problems until now.

    “2. If you are both right now too angry to talk to each other directly and face to face,”

    I was not too angry to talk face to face. I, in fact, was the one who tried to cool things down and I have been trying to reason with him.

    We also did meet face-to-face when he came back a couple of days later wanting me to pay him for signatures that he had collected even though it is not my job to do that. I met with him in a restaurant and I tried to talk with him but he barely said anything other than trying to rush me to give him money. FUNNY HOW HE SAT DOWN AND TALKED WITH ME WHEN IT CAME TO HIM WANTING MORE MONEY FROM ME. I gave him the money for the signatures and then he immediately bolted out of the restaurant. I tried to talk to him in the parking lot but he still wouldn’t say much and then he got in his car (which he would not even have if I hadn’t loaned him money to get it fixed) and drove off.

    I have been reasonable – even going to far as apologizing for getting angry and taking part in the dispute – he, on the other hand, has been completely UNREASONABLE, and he is now blowing incidents out of proportion and twisting things to create excuses for not paying me back money that he legitimately owes me.

    “You need to sit down with a trusted referee, or each with a second and talk through your business first and then your friendship.”

    I’m certainly willing to do this, and as I said above, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO REASON WITH HIM, but it is hard to reason with somebody who is being UNREASONABLE.

    “Bringing a community, or more so, the public at large into your interpersonal negotiations is… wow… ya know… It is how governments justify their existence.”

    It was never my idea, nor was it my intention, to air what I consider to be a petty (and ridiculous) personal dispute such as this in a public forum.

    Gary is trying to turn IPR into the Jerry Springer Show.

  56. Gary Fincher

    Andy Jacobs: I hit the mattress while telling him to stop agitating Christy. I did not intend for the combination of the mattress sliding a few inches and his weight on the other side of the bed to cause the mattress to tip,

    Tell you what – if Andy can re-simulate what he is contending occurred with a king-sized bed and king-sized mattress, and he’s successful even ONE (I’ll be generous and give him 100 shots at it) time, I’ll throw in the towel on this – and become Andy’s personal servant for life to boot!

  57. Roger

    Gary owes me thousands of dollars and justified that I owe him because his car broke down while he had me drive it for him. Fincher is a professional victim who will never pay anyone back if he can justify it. He plays the blame game and is a user! Fincher is a nut case who thinks it is normal to torture defensless animals. When petitioning he attacks people who believe in evolution and tells people that people who blow up abortion clinics are heroes. If you continue to befriend him you must also be a nut case. Gary fincher is a big fat ugly waste of space. Get a life and get as far away from him as you can unless you want to justify that being more normal than he is the reason you should keep him around. The fact that the libertarian party is still associated with the psycopath does not say much for the libertarian party either.

  58. Roger

    Gary Fincher also likes to beat up on young girls like the time I saw him beat the crap out of a young girl named Crystal in a parking lot in Maine. When the police came by he ran away after breaking the poor girls ribs. Even after all that Redpath knowing what he had done kept using him as a petitioner. The only thing the girl did was disagree with him on something. Kay, who he called his wife told me a whole lot more about him before she died that would make your skin crawl. Hope there is still someone left to listen. Fincher is dangerous in the same way as Hannible Lecter, and more so watch your backside. He will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with him. He also has a plan to punish women who have had abortions to prove how libertarian he is and is in league with his best friend who is up on charges for child pornography. He claims that he and his best friend liked to torture animals together as children and thinks that is normal behavior for a child. Many of the women he has traveled with dis appeared. He has no home,just a fake address, a PO box and a best friend in Texas with a basement in his house who he used to torture animals with and has had a plan to punish women and anyone else in the abortion field. That is what he told me. Also since animals are property he feels torturing is OK and natural especially for children. If you plan to travel with him watch your backside. He makes things up as he goes along. I keep warning people about him but no one seems to listen until it is too late. By then it is no longer funny. Right now you are probably laughing and thinking I’m the crazy one. Right?

Leave a Reply

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