LNC Elections Thread

This thread is for discussion of LNC races, posting results as they happen and opinionating on them, all in the comments. Previous LNC fireworks in the Chairs race, which of this writing is not yet concluded, were documented and discussed in several of the previous convention threads, especially here.See also Reason and Uncovered Politics; please post links to other such coverage in the comments.

1,034 thoughts on “LNC Elections Thread

  1. zapper

    It is obvious that now the race for LP Chair is over and NOTA has won. There is a vacancy that can be filled at the next NATCOM according to the rules. This is what the convention has decided.

    We don’t need any more Oregon type crapola on this one.

    Election over.

    NOTA wins.

    LP Chair is vacant for the next term that follows.

    NatCom to fill the vacancy and choose next LP Chair.

    The losing candidates may not be selected.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    Good morning to everyone. My goal today is to get this done with the loss of as few friends as possible. I hope we can all let our belief in the principles of the LP, including non-coertion, hold true.

  3. Brian Holtz

    Chuck Moulton and Jim Lark are heroes for withdrawing from the Chair race, and Bill Redpath is a superhero for agreeing to serve as Chair — a job he did not want.

    Redpath should win handily. The order will probably be something like:

    Redpath
    Rutherford
    Wrights
    Hancock
    Neale
    Wagner

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    There are plenty of fine candidates here. I’m confident we’ll elect a suitable chairman.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@4,

    My reading of the bylaws says that since NOTA won the election:

    – The office will become vacant as of the expiration of the current chair’s term (the end of the national convention);

    – That vacancy will then be filled by the LNC at its next meeting; and

    – Rutherford and Hinkle are ineligible for selection to fill the vacancy.

    What am I missing?

  6. Bylaws Guru

    Redpath AGAIN?

    Look at this list:

    Redpath and Neale have been there, done that, done zero. Redpath oversaw the persecutions of Wirghts and Keaton. Neale’s wife is perpetually on the Convention Committee which continually screws up the conventions.

    Rutherford already lost and is ineligible per the Bylaws.

    Wrights was VC before.

    Hancock has run before and wants to dismantle the LNC.

    Wagner is the outsider.

    Choose wisely.

  7. Brian Holtz

    By resigning, Wrights joins the list of heroes. I didn’t expect his endorsement of Neale.

    P.S. My brother Terry Holtz cast the lone write-in vote for Redpath yesterday, and now he’s going to get his way, even though he’s already on his way to the airport. Impressive!

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    Sometimes something happens in life that shows the true character of someone. Today has been that day for Lee Wrights, as he resigned from the possiblity of being Chair.

    I call on Mark Rutherford to do the same. The convention body voted twice yesterday to NOT accept him as Chair.

  9. paulie Post author

    Earlier today

    1. Adding new people as delegates, included but not limited to Wagner and friends from Oregon who were to be seated in other delegations, did not pass.

    2. Redpath ruled that NOTA and Rutherford tied, thus neither was eliminated. This was appealed, there was a standing count and Redpath’s ruling was upheld.

    That’s all I remember. Anything else?

  10. zapper

    There should be no further action on the election of a Chair of the LNC today.

    It will not inspire trust among the membership if the Party doesn’t follow its own rules.

    It does not give time for a search among the entire membership for the best candidate who may not be at this convention.

    The convention actually made a wise decision by electing NOTA.

    The bylaws give us time to wait and do an executive search and let the new NatCom find candidates and fill the position at a later date.

    This is the best course of action.

  11. Bylaws Guru

    If NOTA and Rutherford tied, then neither received a majority and the lowest vote-getter other than NOTA is still eliminated, being Rutherford, leaving NOTA as the winner.

    The delegates got it wrong. AGAIN.

  12. zapper

    The same people who BFed the situation in Oregon are now attempting to Oregonize the entire LP.

    There should be no chair elected at this convention.

    NOTA has won.

    Follow the rules and it’s game over for the race for chair.

    Break the rules and it’s game over for the LP.

  13. paulie Post author

    Correction on that, I think.

    I believe Redpath actually ruled that the write-in candidate who got one vote was the one eliminated.

  14. Brian Holtz

    @6 @14 Redpath ruled that the write-in candidate from last night’s final vote is dropped for being last, but because NOTA did not win a majority Rutherford is not eliminated.

    Add Hinkle to the list of heroes, as he declined to be nominated when somebody stood to nominate him (and was ready to appeal the ruling of the Chair if necessary to nominate him).

  15. zapper

    Redpath ruled incorrectly, obviously.

    the Bylaws Guru is correct – and it doesn’t take a guru to see it.

    NOTA won and that was the best outcome.

    Select a new chair later.

  16. paulie Post author

    Agreed that the delegates got that wrong. Balloted human candidates, not write-ins, should be eliminated. Otherwise there could be literally endless rounds of write-ins being eliminated and added.

  17. paulie Post author

    Furthermore — I don’t believe it was ever done that way on the many other occasions when we had multi-ballot elections with stray write-ins.

    Am I wrong about that?

  18. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian)

    Does this by-law specifically say that write-ins shall not be considered legitimate candidates for purposes of determining who is lowest vote getter? Seems to me that this by-law is in fact woefully inadequate to deal with this situation at all.

  19. paulie Post author

    We’re still awaiting the results of the first round of Chair.

    Not the first round, just the first round with the newly added candidates.

  20. paulie Post author

    Does this by-law specifically say that write-ins shall not be considered legitimate candidates for purposes of determining who is lowest vote getter? Seems to me that this by-law is in fact woefully inadequate to deal with this situation at all.

    Not being a bylaws guru I don’t know, but I am 99% sure there is plenty of precedent and that my interpretation, not this, is what has been done all those other times.

  21. Darryl W. Perry

    @26 – I’ve read the entire thread; I’m confused because it seems some are saying NOTA won, others are saying there’s another vote.

  22. Carol Moore

    What’s this about MOLP Chair kicking 5 people who voted for Rutherford off the delegation… unless of course they were NOT MOLP people to start or lied about their intentions or whatever and he has that power via state party laws…

  23. paulie Post author

    DWP

    The people saying NOTA won are saying what they think should have happened under the bylaws. What is actually happening is that we are having a round of voting with 5 human candidates – Wagner, Redpath, Neale, Rutherford, Hancock and NOTA.

  24. paulie Post author

    21 Hancock
    149 Neale
    128 Redpath
    153 Rutherford
    NOTA 13
    Wagner 9

    Wagner and Hancock both dropped for next round because they got less than 5%

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    CM@30,

    I was wondering about that myself.

    In the past, Missouri has not opened its delegation seats to non-Missourians in the first place, to avoid getting involved in internal packing schemes and so forth.

    This year, I heard at second hand that that policy had changed.

    Now it seems that it’s being un-changed.

    Better to have just kept it than to change it, then change it back when you don’t like the results.

  26. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian)

    I assume that if “write-in” can’t be construed to be the lowest vote getter, then “write-in” could not be declared winner if that write-in candidate received a majority +1 of the votes? I agree, Paulie, that the “write-in” situation could lead to some very frustrating, even undesirable, results, but is not a vote a vote?

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Interesting first ballot results.

    My guess is that Neale picks up most of the eliminated candidates’ votes, and that he wins if it comes down to him versus Rutherford.

  28. zapper

    @ 25

    What the bylaws state is that all candidates who receive less than 5% of the vote (which means those stray write-ins) plus the lowest vote getter are dropped.

    The one voe write-in should be dropped – it’s below 5%.

    The lowest vote getter should be dropped – Rutherford.

    NOTA remains. NOTA wins.

    Any election of Chair from this point forward is improper.

    This is a desperate attempt to rairoad the party by giving Rutherford another shot after he has lost.

    Everyone must stick together and vote NOTA on every round.

    The whole world is watching! (Well, the LP world …) And we are not happy. How many donors and activists can you lose today with this nonsense?

  29. zapper

    @ 34 read what I just wrote.

    Correctly interpreted, and the correct interpretation is obvious and clear, there is no problem with write-ins.

    Write-ins below 5% are dropped along with all listed candidates below 5%. (On successive ballots, all candidates below 5% plus the lowest candidate are eliminated.)

    Write-ins above 5% can of course be written-in again, although they are never added to the ballot.

    Write-ins with a majority plus one win.

  30. Darryl W. Perry

    Just read the following on facebook:
    Mike Rollins “I also have been told that unless the LPUS elects a new treasurer today the LPUS effectively dies tomorrow because there will not be any further legal authority to pay any of the national party’s bills.”

  31. paulie Post author

    Zapper

    I am proceeding to do just that and vote NOTA on every remaining round.

    However, some of your comments are leading people such as Darryl to believe that NOTA won in actual real world effect. That is not what happened.

  32. paulie Post author

    I assume that if “write-in” can’t be construed to be the lowest vote getter, then “write-in” could not be declared winner if that write-in candidate received a majority +1 of the votes?

    Dunno

  33. paulie Post author

    @reason.com

    Still no Chair of the Libertarian National Committee
    Garrett Quinn | May 6, 2012

    Las Vegas – On and on it goes at the Libertarian National Convention.

    After some unusually quick parliamentary maneuvers this morning the race for chair of the Libertarian National Committee expanded from None Of The Above and Mark Rutherford to five candidates, including LNC Treasurer Bill Redpath and former chair Geoff Neale.

    Lee Wrights, the man who many thought was behind this dust up, was nominated for chair but dropped out to endorse Neale while giving his acceptance speech. Wrights is running for vice-chair.

    The third round of voting (there was a revote of the second round, not a new ballot) has just completed and there was no winner. Results after the jump.

    Mark Rutherford 153 32.3%

    Geoff Neale 149 31.5%

    Bill Redpath 128 27%

    Ernest Hancock 21 4.4%

    None Of The Above 13 2.7%

    Wes Wagner 9 1.9%

    Hancock and Wagner are dropped from the next ballot as they did not hit 5%

  34. Mark Axinn

    Are we now in second round of voting?

    Paulie and others–Many thanks for doing such a fine job keeping those of us not in LV apprised.

  35. Jill Pyeatt

    We’re awaiting the results of the second round of voting: Neale, Rutherford, Redpath still on the ballot.

  36. Carol Moore

    Speaking of at large, I wonder if there will be Boo’ing when it’s announced he’s running. Or I should say HOW MUCH boo’ing.

    I am confidant that if Wayne Root ends up on the LNC in whatever fashion AND/OR doesn’t resign from LNCC, there will be a WAYNE ROOT RESIGN petition which over the next 2 years should gain a minimum of 2000 signatures. How will that look on your resume Wayne???

  37. zapper

    @ 39 Yes, Pauli, I understand the problem.

    I believe that in the actual real world NOTA won, but that in the LP convention world chaired by Bill Redpath this real world outcome was ignored and the convention has proceeded with some kind of voting for LNC chair – it’s not clear if it’s a new election for which Rutherford is actually ineligible having been eliminated or a continuation of the previous round of voting with nominations reopened – what allowed that? – either one being a violation of the bylaws.

    The whole LP is being re-Oregonized today.

  38. paulie Post author

    Motion passed to put all the officers on one ballot instead of each office separately and give all the candidates two minutes to speak.

    I voted no since some people will not be well known and need more time ; also some people may decide to run or not depending on who wins chair, etc.

  39. zapper

    Keep changing the rules as you go until you obtain the desired outcome.

    Nice policy.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    zapper @51,

    “Keep changing the rules as you go until you obtain the desired outcome.”

    I’m pretty sure that Alicia Mattson has that slogan tattooed on the small of her back.

  41. Mark Axinn

    No decision yet on Chair, right?

    Instead nominating all officers at once.

  42. Darcy G Richardson

    @65 – Roger Roots, the longtime civil libertarian and author from Montana? He’s written some really fascinating stuff.

  43. Mark Axinn

    @80

    Roger joined LPNY for one year recently while he was teaching on Long Island.

    Excellent fellow.

  44. Darcy G Richardson

    Thanks, Paulie — and spectacular job on keeping us informed!

  45. Darcy G Richardson

    Thanks, Mark! I had heard that he had been a featured speaker at the party’s ’08 convention in Denver, but didn’t realize that he had joined the party.

  46. Mark Axinn

    Darcy @ 94

    I don’t know that Roger joined the National LP.

    Now that I think about it, he joined the Suffolk County (Long Island, NY) chapter.

    Very nice guy and devoted to liberty from what I remember.

    Back to the excitement…

  47. paulie Post author

    5th ballot will be Neale vs NOTA so presumably Neale is Chair. Other races will be all on one ballot.

  48. Jill Pyeatt

    Mark Rutherford has now been told 3 times that the majority of the LP do not want him to be chair.

  49. zapper

    Will they finally drop Rutherford?

    Then what?

    What if all the Rutherford voters would ruther vote ford NOTA?

  50. Bylaws Guru

    Zapper @36:

    The 5% rule only applies to the Presidential and VP, not officers. See Rule 7. Unless the delegates voted 2/3 to suspend it.

  51. Jeff

    Whats wrong with Rutherford getting the nomination? Sitting from home not watching this debating society.

  52. Bylaws Guru

    Rocky @34,

    The write-in can be considered the same as balloted votes per the Bylaws, because it is silent on the issue. As such, the Phillies appeal, while correct in the impacts being very unproductive, is wrong in the merits when placed against the bylaws, and it illustrates one of multiple problems with the bylaws.

  53. zapper

    Bylaws Guru @ 120,

    They seem to be using it in the Chair race now, and they used it before in the oringinal Chair race until the outcome was a win by NOTA.

  54. Jill Pyeatt

    We need to put our votes in as soon as possible so we can go home. People are really getting weird.

  55. Trent Pool

    Paulie, does Andy think Neale for Chair would be beneficent to our cause in working BA for Ls? Also I agree with 91. Great reporting

  56. Jeff

    So, what has been accomplished with regards to the Chair? A vacancy that does not help our nominee with organizational efforts and other party building opportunities going towards the general election this fall.

  57. paulie Post author

    @139, 141 i don’t think Andy knows tho, and he didn’t even see the list of names from this morning’s votes as he just got here.

  58. zapper

    Jeff @ 143

    Voting continues to fill the LNC Chair position.

    Had the Chair been left vacant as per proper following of the Bi-Laws, the LNC could have filled that position fairly quickly.

  59. Jeff

    I guess a better question. Why the acrimony and support of NOTA? What has Rutherford done or not done to be considered unacceptable to the party? And its better to have the LNC select someone than to vote? Our by-laws seem to make coalition building difficult.

  60. Jill Pyeatt

    Jeff @ 122: I actually think the only problem with Mark Rutherford is that he served on the prior term of the LNC, which was so dysfunctional that most of the group thinks we need to start all over with fresh people. Then his supporters couldn’t handle their loss, so they challenged the vote which, in my view, was perfectly okay. My opinion is that/Rutherford is showing flawed character that he’s still running. Actually, that seems to be the opinion of many people here today.

  61. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian)

    So they have 1 hour or so to pull all this off?

  62. Jeff

    Thank you Jill. I finally have some explanation about what is happening there. What do we want from the LNC, I guess? To build a party? Debate issues? respond to the duopoly? Support future LP candidates? It seems we’re all over the place.

  63. Carol Moore

    Rutherford was seen as a Root man, even though at last minute some supporters started to deny it. He always seemed scary to me so I can understand the negativity.

  64. Joe Buchman

    @ 100 That was fellow Utah resident; attorney and “brilliant libertarian thinker” Rob Latham.

  65. Jill Pyeatt

    We have just been told that Ruth Bennett has finagled the room until 5:00, although part of that is for the LNC meeting. We are attempting to be done by 3.00 pm.

  66. Jill Pyeatt

    I would like to say that my dealings with Ruth Bennett have been very favorable. I don’t know her and I know she has people with issues with her, but she has been very helpful every time I’ve spoken to her. Thanks, Ruth!

  67. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Why does anyone care about the Judicial Committee, since nobody pays attention to its rulings?

    The JC said the Wagner faction were the legitimate officers of the Oregon LP, and yet the LP convention’s Credentials Committee ignored the JC.

    And the LNC permitted the Credentials Committee to ignore the JC.

    Since the LP doesn’t pay attention to its own rules and bylaws, why does it matter who is elected to what position?

  68. B4Liberty

    Ruth Bennett has been in the LP a very long time. She was a very good friend of David Nolan. I think very highly of her. I do believe she has been made the ‘patsy’ by being appointed at the last minute as chair of the convention committee.

  69. B4Liberty

    @193 “And the LNC permitted the Credentials Committee to ignore the JC.”

    And this is predominantly why there will be so many new faces on the 2012 LNC.

  70. B4Liberty

    I certainly hope that endorsement of Root for the LNC is the last ‘pay back’ that GJ thinks he owes to Root. It will hurt support for Johnson.

  71. Carol Moore

    @GarrettQuinn
    Gary Johnson nominating Wayne Allyn Root for LNC national committee. Delegates booing. “BOOO! NOOO!” #LNC2012
    ===
    ha ha hahahahh ahhah haa haa I WANT TO SEE THE VIDEO ha h ha hhh aaaa….

  72. David Colborne

    I don’t think GJ has to worry about support – he already has the nomination, after all, and has openly stated that he plans on bringing in support from Ron Paul’s group (i.e. people that wouldn’t know Root from Adam).

  73. Jill Pyeatt

    And the chair is Geoff Neal! He won by a substantial amount. I’m too near-sighted to read the actual numbers, but I think Paulie got them.

  74. William P. McMillen

    There is more than one Gary Johnson. There is a delegate from Texas, long time member of the credentials committee. Maybe there is another Gary Johnson. Who nominated WAnabeeRoot

  75. paulie Post author

    Ruth Bennett 175 Alicia Mattson 182 Roger Roots 55 Jeff Weston 11 Write-ins 7, there will be another round for sec’y

  76. paulie Post author

    Joe Buchman 92 Hagan 166 Starr 167 Write-ins 1 , there will be another round for Treasurer

  77. B4Liberty

    @217 Are you kidding me?

    Root was on stage with Palin (or right after – they wouldn’t let him get too close) at a TEA Party event in NV trying to become the Tea Party King or something. He plays both sides and both sides are aware that he is not to be trusted. He endorsed ROMNEY for gods sake.

    Gary Johnson will still need LP members support. The nomination could go nowhere just like Barr’s if there is no support from the membership.

    @219 – I was hoping that at first but don’t think that is the case.

  78. Carol Moore

    Gary Johnson from Texas would NOT endorse Root, believe me. He’s a real libertarian. Like someone said, hopefully last favor Johnson ever has to do Root. (He’d have gotten nomination even if Root ran against him, after all!)

  79. William P. McMillen

    Carol: Johnson from Texas, I know and agree. I just wanted to be sure before I decided to hold the check I made out this morning to the Johnson Presidential campaign.

  80. Carol Moore

    Root may be making more of his big fat and largely false promises of raising money for Johnson through LNCC. If Root is removed from both, then feel free to give to Johnson. If not write him a letter and tell him how much you’ll send when Root IS removed from (LNC if necessary) and LNCC (probably necessary.)

  81. B4Liberty

    That is the right thing to do. Would be quite a conflict with Lee as VC.

  82. paulie Post author

    Paulie has left to check out of his room, Joe Buchman here filling in for him for a bit (I hope).

  83. Thomas L. Knapp

    BG@132,

    “The write-in can be considered the same as balloted votes per the Bylaws, because it is silent on the issue.”

    Actually, no, the bylaws are not silent on the issue.

    The bylaws provide for elimination of the CANDIDATES who receive less than 5% or the fewest votes.

    Write-in recipients are not CANDIDATES — they were neither nominated nor seconded.

  84. Be Rational

    William P McMillen:

    Please don’t let Root be a reason to not continue on in support of the LP or any LP candidates, including Gary Johnson.

    We need to let Root be his own isolated problem and not be the root of any discord among the rest of us. I like how Lee Wrights put it: This is our home and family, joined together and working together for liberty.

  85. William P. McMillen

    Point well taken rational. I just am not in as big a hurry to commit to the time and amount; and might redirct my contribution to one of our statewide candidates

  86. paulie Post author

    Rules suspended without objection for voting on Resolution to repudiate the NDAA. Resolution currently being read.

  87. Mark Axinn

    To my friend Bill McMillen (who was a state chair in New York for five years in the 1980’s):

    We also had a Gary Johnson in New York who ran for NY Gov. in 1990. Received around 24,000 votes if I recollect.

    Another very nice guy.

  88. Jill Pyeatt

    According to Facebook, there’s another Jill Pyeatt in the world. She lives in St. Louis. I’ve asked her to be my friend, but she never accepted.

    Like that has anything to do with today’s elections. Nothing is going on right now.

  89. Bill Wood

    Damn! no one to represent the “Beer drinking cigar smoking ” wing of the Libertarian Party.

  90. Jill Pyeatt

    B4Liberty @ 216: Things will be interesting for 2016. GJ has already said he wants to be our candidate then, but, of course, Root is planning to run. We’ll have to see what happens!

  91. Mark Axinn

    Jill–

    There are elections?

    Who knew?

    Seriously, I am sorry not to be in LV chairing my delegation but am glad to have the IPR team doing such a fantastic job keeping all of us informed.

  92. Jill Pyeatt

    b4Libert @ 240. Yes, every family has one (a black sheep). How does the joke go? If your family doesn’t have one–guess what–it’s you!

  93. Carol Moore

    Be Rational 237: Root has written: “And all of my donors wrote $1000, $2500 and $5000 checks. All were business owners…and every one of them considers Israel a very important issue. Understanding the power of my fundraising ability and my highly unusual success in getting donors to write big checks for the LP…perhaps Libertarians should step back…listen…and learn a valuable lesson. The LP has made a big mistake and miscalculation on this issue for 39 years. Is it the most important issue? Absolutely not. It’s not even in my Top 10. But it is a very important issue to the biggest donors in American politics. And it is certainly a DISASTER to say negative, vicious, derogatory things about our ally Israel.” see http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot/fundraising.html We’re talking about someone who in essence wants to sell the party out to a foreign power. Johnson stopped talking about “our ally Israel” because a lot of libertarians complain. We don’t want him to start talking about it again because Root is raising money from Israel supporters. THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY AND CANDIDATES ARE NOT FOR SALE TO SPECIAL INTERESTS! So be rational on that topic…

  94. NewFederalist

    Paulie- Any idea why Prof. Phillies jumped into the race for Vice Chair? I thought he might have had a shot at Treasurer.

  95. Be Rational

    @ 254

    The LP has been doing a pretty good job of figuring out our black sheep problem – although he has managed to pull the wool over some people’s eyes.

    Let’s see how the balloting goes today – will he lose his seat on the LNC?

    What kind of campaign will Gary Johnson build and who will he reach out to?

  96. B4Liberty

    @254 – and just how much money has Root raised for his own state party? And, how much has he raised for the LP?

    All I’ve seen is money going into his LNCC coffers where he can spend them again on his own needs and expenses of his choosing unquestioned.

  97. paulie Post author

    Paulie- Any idea why Prof. Phillies jumped into the race for Vice Chair? I thought he might have had a shot at Treasurer.

    I think George wanted someone to run against Starr and decided to switch based on Hagan getting in that race. Just a guess.

  98. B4Liberty

    WOW!! Congratulations to all the new LNC members!

    If the LP can ‘vote every one of them out’ is it possible to do that in November?

    This could be our year! It’s time!!

  99. Carol Moore

    Wrights and Ruwart live together and there already was a big ta do about Wrights on Judicial Committee no recusing himself when Ruwart was.

  100. Jerry Titus

    Carol – 254. I have data on Root for America contributions if you want. As well as all of his contributions to others.

    Root For America (07-08) Received $23,800 from others and $4421 from the candidate.

    Since 2001, WAR has donated $21449 to others.(including $4k to himself as Root for America)

    If you want spreadsheets and/or source links… message me.

  101. Carol Moore

    The LNCC records also are at FEC (Libertarian National CONGRESSIONAL Committee – may the name be corrected after we Boot Root). Can’t remember the statistics, but definitely an area I have to explore more – if it remains necessary, which it may not 🙂 !!!!

  102. Jerry Titus

    I looked into LNCC too. Nothing there to impress anyone.

    Let me know if you ever want any help researching…. I’m a research geek from way back.

  103. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian)

    Are there results from LNC and at-large votes?

  104. paulie Post author

    Is Lee both VC AND Region Alternate?

    My understanding is that he will have to choose, which I presume means our region will have to choose a new alternate.

  105. David Colborne

    There’s been a fair amount of fundraising activity in Las Vegas for Gary Johnson over the past couple of months. Given the nature of LP activity down there, I’m sure Root’s and his friends’ roles in making that happen was non-trivial.

    This, by the way, is fine by me. Our candidates could use all the support they can get.

  106. Jim Fulner

    When O taled to Phillies and begged him to reconsider he said that with the additional nominees to be treasuere he had no chance to win, and felt his entry into vice chair would make sure that Redpat didn’t win as he would draw some of those votes. I disagree, but Irespect the decision.

  107. Jerry Titus

    In 2011 the LNCC took in 86,595.68 in contributions.

    It had 8445.64 cash on hand to start the year for a total of $95,041.32 cash for the year.

    It disbursed $77,253.52, and ended the year with $17,787.80 cash on hand.

  108. David Colborne

    @276 – That’s not bad. You’re not going to win any federal offices with that budget, but it’s enough to make a serious difference in most local races.

  109. Carol Moore

    Liberty magazine ? @libertyunbound
    At-large ballots being tallied by secretary Alicia Mattson, working through tears following her defeat in reelection bid. #LNC2012

  110. Brian Holtz

    I think the order of the at-large LNC voting will be something like:

    Redpath
    Hinkle
    Root
    Sink-Burris
    Knedler
    Cloud
    Pojunis
    Vora
    Starchild
    Flood

    For JudCom I’m guessing that incumbents Sarwark and Hall will be re-elected, and probably also Latham and me. I’m not sure how the rest of the field will fare.

  111. David Colborne

    @277: I don’t view supporting Israel as a “non-libertarian” position, provided “support” is generally limited to free trade (which we should be doing with everyone) and “rooting” for them (I don’t interpret a non-interventionist foreign policy to mean we’re not allowed to have an opinion). Considering GJ’s position on defense spending, that’s about all we’d be able to do anyway.

  112. B4Liberty

    @274 – nice side step. The question was not about money raised for Gary Johnson. The question was:

    How much money has Root raised for his own state party?

    And, how much has he raised for the LP?

    Root has been bragging for almost 5 years now about being the best fund raiser for the LP and how much money he can bring in.

    So – again – I ask you because you were on the NV committee with Root – and keep in mind, that I’ve seen the FEC reports for the NV LP.

    How much money has Root raised for his own state party? And, how much has he raised for the LP?

  113. Mark Axinn

    Brett Pojunis will be the rep from new region formed between NY, NV, NM and AR with help from CA.

  114. Joe Buchman

    This is Paulie. I got on Joe’s computer because internet is down here now, Joe has access through his phone.

  115. Carol Moore

    Oh, dear, I guess the Boot Root campaign continues for a while anyway til we know he’s given up his evil ways, given the massive opposition to him. A friend said, you’ve got to have at least ONE bad guy on the LNC…. Grrrrr…

  116. George Phillies

    My own perspective is a bit different. I knew on Saturday that Wes Benedict had recruited two additional people into the Treasurer race. His line was “I didn’t think you could win”, which I interpret as “and I’ve made sure with the anti-Starr vote split three ways that you will lose”. While there would be a coalescence of the votes, as seen for National Chair last time, in a three-way the chances of being the last man standing are rather weak, not to mention if Starr was eliminated earlier, I would get few of the Starr voters, and my chances of winning would be even lower.

    So, last night, I decided to move over to the Vice Chair, as Vice Chair would still let me do most of the things that I wanted to do and open new options.

    At this time, Redpath was unopposed. A two-way race would be good. There were indications that Lee Wrights would run for chair, in which case he would need a good right hand man as Vice Chair. So I moved out of a race in which defeat was certain into a race in which it would be a two-man contest. Also, I was tired of having Texans playing games in races I was in — this would be the third in a row in which some eminence grise tossed extra candidates in at the last minute to be disruptive.

    Much later, Lee Wrights decided and Geoff Neale appeared, and ran for Vice Chair and Chair respectively. I had absolutely no concern with whether I would in net push votes one way or the other in my race.

  117. Mark Axinn

    Paulie–

    Thanks for a great job!

    You da man.

    If you are ever in NYC, let me know and I will buy you lunch.

  118. Oranje Mike

    We almost defeated the Root cabal. He came in 5th of 5 in the at-large election. In a purely political move Gary Johnson spoke on his behalf and likely gave him the edge. There seemed to be some sort of union between NY and OH. Huge Root numbers in both.

  119. David Colborne

    @282 – Not trying to side-step. Nevada has several issues, but funding is less of one than usual. Fundraising has markedly improved over the past year, in no small part due to Root’s friends bringing in Joe Hassen (who, by the way, is a VERY reasonable guy, even to those sitting at the ‘radical’ table – most of you would like him). Since Hassen took over as state Treasurer, fundraising has been the best I’ve seen since 2008, which is impressive given the economy and the lack of a true statewide LP here (Nevada’s LP is basically Las Vegas only at the moment).

    I have no idea what Root’s or his friends’ contributions to National looks like.

  120. Less Antman

    Arvin Vohra is a positive, enthusiastic, and extremely radical young man who has been working his ass off for the LP since joining and gave a dynamite speech on behalf of his nomination. A big win for the FRC (Friendly Radical Caucus).

  121. Mark Axinn

    Mike @294.

    New York does not speak with a united voice (which state does?), and as we had many unfilled seats this year, New York allowed many residents of other states to join our delegation which may have resulted in skewing our results from what they would have been had we had a closed delegation.

    Our members come from several different wings of the Libertarian Party.

  122. Joe Buchman

    LNC meeting has started.

    Discussion regarding next meeting concurrent with freedom fest here in Las Vegas.

  123. Oranje Mike

    Mark @297

    Point taken. I did not mean to come across as throwing the New York delegation entire under the bus.

    I am happy that alternates from outside of AZ were not assigned to us. I don’t want the same issues NY had.

  124. Joe Buchman

    Next LNC meeting, July 15/16 in Las Vegas; concurrent with/just after Freedom Fest.

    Starchild objects to accepting those dates following a lack of an objection verses a roll call vote.

    Discussion regarding agenda for today.

  125. Joe Buchman

    @301 — I imagine they have been calculated. If reported it has not been in here yet.

  126. Joe Buchman

    Committee working on an Agenda

    items mentioned in no particular order yet

    1) Civility
    2) contract with Johnson Campaign
    3) membership fee increase implementation
    4) form executive committee
    5) report on ballot access
    6) appointment of an assistant treasurer.
    7) report from convention oversight committee.
    8) report on finances

  127. Mark Axinn

    Mike at 299.

    No problem.

    BTW, just so you know, I voted for Mary six times in Denver.

    My candidate usually doesn’t win and this year was no exception. Last time I backed a winner at a National convention was Harry Browne!

  128. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Cloud speaking regarding the need for civility on email lists.

    Request for everyone to be civil. Use a phone directly to the person you have a problem with.

    Promise to apologize when mistakes are made.

    No blind copies to others of uncivil emails.

  129. Bylaws Guru

    Knapp @132:

    The 5% rule only applies to President and VP nominations, not officers. This was previously mentioned, so please reread Rule 7-2.

  130. Joe Buchman

    Chair discusses past practice regarding sharing donor list from LP to Johnson campaign. Asks for advice from committee regarding the creation of said contract.

    Mr. Cloud relating history of past campaigns.

    Brett P (spelling?) suggest sharing other information as well.

    Chair asks for laundry list of things to share/not share.

    Executive Director sharing regarding campaign videos with Johnson campaign.

    Mr. Myers discusses working to prepare for 2016 as well.

    Mr. Olson, would like information regarding donor capability.

    Chair shares regarding FEC limitations.

    New member (sorry I don’t know all the names) — discusses need for confidentiality.

    Mr Wrights discusses membership lists and donor lists as key information.

    Chair clarifies that he is asking for permission to enter into a contract prior to July LNC meeting.

  131. ralph

    @ 291, George, are you saying Wes Benedict is a Starr man?

    Just trying to figure our who’s who in the zoo.

  132. Thomas L. Knapp

    BG@306/307.

    That’s all very well and good, but it still misses the point. Special Convention Rule #8(1)(d), relating to the election of officers, reads as follows:

    “In cases where no candidate receives a majority, runoff votes will be held, dropping the candidate with the fewest votes after each ballot.”

    Recipients of write-in votes are not “candidates.”

  133. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Cloud moves to authorize chair to enter into list exchange contracts.

    Discussion.

    Twice a month dumps recommended by Mr. Kraus.

    Discussion regarding reciprocity and that contracts shall be negotiated by chair and reviewed and approved by the executive committee.

    Question regarding allowing LNC to review contracts prior to being signed.

    Chair discusses difficulty of having negotiations among 18 people verses disclosure after negotiations have concluded.

    Secretary repeats motion (more or less as above).

    Starchild requests a roll call vote.

    Redpath explains nature of a vote without objection being equivalent to a roll call vote.

    Kirkland — yes
    Weiner — yes
    Olsen — yes
    Vissick — yes
    Redpath — yes
    Tomaso — yes
    Mack — yes
    Myers — yes
    Starchild — no
    Lark — yes
    Pjounis — yes
    Cloud — yes (AMEN!)
    Arvin — yes
    Hagan — yes
    Wrights — right on . . .
    Neele — yes
    Bennett — yes

    Secretary — did I miss anyone.

    Root — Wayne Root (votes yes).

  134. Joe Buchman

    Apologies for misspellings — if reposted, please correct.

    Dr. Lark asks that the presence of Judge Gray in the room be recognized.

    Redpath asks that the Judge ensure that future campaign literature contain the word “Libertarian.”

    Dr. Lark asks about the status of the paperwork for the presidential ticket — apparent mistake in prior paperwork regarding which city Governor Johnson resides in in New Mexico.

  135. Joe Buchman

    Executive committee being formed.

    Redpath nominates Lark.

    Myers nominates Redpath.

    Olsen nominates Dan Weiner.

    Starchild nominates Myers.

    Wrights moves to close nominations.

    4 candidates for 3 positions.

    Myers withdraws.

    Passes without objection.

  136. Jim Duensing

    @ 96 and 97

    I was applauded when I appealed Hinkle’s ruling that Sarwark’s motion to seat all delegates even those who didn’t pay the floor fee.

    I was applauded when I nominated longtime local libertarian activist Roger Roots for Chair and called for a changing of the guard.

    Some delegates became willing to be electors for the campaign after Johnson and Gray won the Presidential race on the first ballot.

    Some may not have liked me adding End the Fed to David Bergland’s question during the debate, but those people aren’t real libertarians anyway 🙂

    All in all, as usual, my presence added much to the richness of the festivities. Here is a video of an interview I did with Gary Johnson as a host with Freedomizer Radio at the convention.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRtlJXu0mvI

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim Duensing

  137. Joe Buchman

    Kraus reporting on membership level increase challenges regarding website reprogramming, reprinting of materials, estimated at $20k.

    Redpath asks when Kraus would recommend the switch would occur.

    Kraus recommends implementation after the election.

    Hagan — motion for January 1st 2013 implementation date.

    Root supports new date. Mentions concern regarding those who may have rushed to sign up for life membership.

    Kraus — no big deal, we’ve had three new life members since July 1 date was announced.

    Passed without objection.

  138. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Ryan replaces Mr. Olson (who has left).

    Next up — population of the APRC. (Advertising and Publication (or is it Public Relations) committee.

    5 people currently serve.

    Reviews emails, publications, press releases to ensure compliance with bylaws and other policies.

    Mr. Wrights points out that this is not an editorial board.

    Nominations for APRC.

    Question asked if non LNC members can be appointed.

    Chair explains that nature of committee requires rapid response time.

    Cloud nominates Wrights

    Starchild moves to suspend the rules to allow non LNC members to be on the committee. Fails due to lack of a second.

    Cloud declines nomination (will be writing most of it).

    (unclear) reports that the work of the committee is confidential.

    Someone nominates Myers.

    Writes nominates (unclear) — declines.

    Someone else declines.

    Brett declines.

    Chair asks who is willing.

    Ruth agrees to serve until July.

    Starchild indicates willingness to serve.

    Starchild is asked to abide by confidentiality; agrees.

    Nominations closed.

    Vohra
    Wrights
    Weiner
    Myers
    Bennett (now willing to serve beyond July apparently)
    Starchild

    Starchild challenges Bennet being the one to tabulate.

    Motion to have the LNC alternates to tabulate the votes.

    Passes without objection.

    Ballot access next.

  139. Joe Buchman

    Redpath reports that March and April were poor fundraising months for the LP.

    Banquet last night raised $39,700.

    With other monies, now at about $115,000.

    Redpath asks if any cash will move from restricted to unrestricted area.

    Bennet reports some funds may come from convention. Bills still to be paid, but also more revenue than expected. Hoped for $5k to $15k “profit.”

    Redpath reports that prior committee allowed encumbrances for ballot access. Total so far $179,000 out of $245,000 so far, leaving $66k.

    Alabama, Sept 6 deadline
    New York cannot start until July 10.

    Current access in 31 states.

    unclear . . .

    DC — may do drive
    Iowa — Redpath thanks Paulie paid for by Iowa.
    KY — underway.
    MA — approved on Wednesday.
    MN — 2,000 sigs required for independent status. State not sure they can do it.
    NH — spent $28,000 so far. Hope it may not need more.
    NJ — only 800 needed.
    OK — litigation ongoing.
    PA — going very well, may finish early
    RI
    TN
    VA on our own
    WA 1,000 can do on own.
    WI (unclear)
    WV — 1 percent for governor Redpath will gather sigs himself.

    ILLINOIS — Already encumbered $60,000 — 1,200 valid volunteer sigs a month so far, but only 8,900 so far. Market conditions for petitioners in IL has been raised from $2.00 to $2.50 due to market conditions — may need an extra $40,000 for IL — $100,000 total (an obscene amount of money . . .)

    Redpath not asking for a motion yet, but anticipates email ballot on these issues. Deadline is June 25th.

    Requests coming for $15k for Alabama and $25k for New York.

    Is in contact with Johnson campaign regarding helping out.

  140. Joe Buchman

    Lark asks Redpath if Johnson campaign understands ballot access challenges.

    Going to executive session to discuss a potential legal matter. Less than 5 minutes expected.

    Starchild objects.

    Chair explains the nature of executive session to those about to leave — as well as those on the committee . . . and the reason for confidentiality. And the need not to change topics to non-executive session required issues.

    Redpath explains that those on the LNC who cannot keep confidentiality may also leave if they choose.

    Chair explains that he will not tolerate executive sessions for trivial matters.

    Starchild asks Redpath if executive session (Secret session) is really required.

    Lark asks LNC to thank the guests.

    Chair instructs no recording devices to be used.

    Leaving now. End of reporting.

  141. Mark Axinn

    Paulie–Was there a vote on funding ballot access for New York, or was it merely discussed?

  142. Trent Hill

    So, I expect Starchild to be pretty obstructive, just based on his votes/comments that have been posted so far.

  143. Bylaws Guru

    Knapp @311: A write-in can and was considered a candidate, which was the root of the controversy in the first place. Not a nominated candidate, but certainly a candidate.

  144. Carol Moore

    Great report. I think we have to have the LNC PROMISE next meeting NO FLOOR FEE. Just to get that one out of the way. And if Wayne is good, and doesn’t shoot off the big mouth, and bring in just 5% of the millions he’s inferred he CAN bring in…. well, let’s just see…. Starchild was a good little thorn in their side, just in case anyone gets too comfortable. What was Starchild wearing???

  145. Trent Hill

    Also–I should note that I don’t get why Radicals dislike Redpath. He seems to be quite fair and he’s always put his money where his mouth is.

  146. Thomas L. Knapp

    Trent @ 323,

    Depends on what you mean by “obstructive.”

    He tends to want things done in the right way.

    He doesn’t want people counting votes in which they have a major outcome stake, when there are others available to count them who don’t.

    He doesn’t want the LNC to abuse executive session as it has a record of doing in the last few years.

    Those are good things, not bad things. Not getting business done in a legitimate and transparent manner is just as bad as not getting business done at all.

  147. Roger Roots

    My initial observations:

    I had a great time, and feel that the LP is headed in a better direction after this convention. I think Hinkle did a good job as chair of the convention. (Bill Redpath did much worse during the time he substituted as chair during the Hinkle/Rutherford contest for the next chairman.)

  148. Thomas L. Knapp

    Trent,

    I suspect Redpath first got on radicals’ bad side years ago when he ran for US Senate from Virginia and turned out to be something of a victim disarmament (“gun control”) supporter — my recollection is that he favored handgun registration requirements.

    As chair, he also had a pattern of letting the Starr/Carling/Mattson combine run hog-wild, e.g. the Keaton show trial, the “let’s take Rachel Hawkridge into a fake executive session so we can abuse her out of sight instead of answering a simple question” incident, and so forth.

  149. Carol Moore

    Thanks for reminder of what Redpath did as chair. He definitely needs to stay in less high profile positions. Then there’s the whole issue of fundraising and payment for national ballot access. Heard a lot of gripes about on LP Radicals facebook page. Is he Ballot Chair again??

  150. Carol Moore

    Also on FLOOR FEE it’s gotta to be made clear that SOME people may be TANSTAAFL on the more unpleasant aspects of volunteering for national efforts if LNC doesn’t quickly promise us on this one.

  151. Trent Hill

    Knapp–

    “doing it right” is pretty subjective. More-so when the entire rest of the LNC votes “yes” and you vote “no”.

  152. B4Liberty

    I respect Starchild for voting with his convictions and not with the crowd. That is exactly what I would hope each of the LNC members do when casting their vote.

  153. Thomas L. Knapp

    Trent,

    Culture changes start with one person saying “hey, just because it’s been X before, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be Y now.”

    That’s particularly true with respect to executive session. It’s been used abusively for so long that it’s probably going to take several rounds of someone saying “what is this for and is it really necessary” before those stop being used so casually.

  154. Brian Holtz

    Starchild is utterly sincere in championing transparency — something the LP and its affiliates haven’t had enough of.

    I also don’t mind Starchild proposing alternative low-cost meeting venues, as any proposals that are unreasonable get quickly voted down.

    I do get disappointed when Starchild insists on sitting at the table when he’s not on the committee and there’s an empty chair, but that shouldn’t be a problem in this context as he’s now on the LNC.

  155. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@335,

    I think you put your finger on it. A lot of people disagree with Starchild on this or that (I’m one of them).

    Some people get … personally discombobulated … in one way or another over his personal style of dress, etc. (I happen to be a big fan on that topic).

    But I’ve never run into anyone who claimed to doubt his sincerity about anything. Whatever he does while on the LNC, I’m betting it will be perfectly consistent with the positions he’s always taken on both ideological and internal governance matters.

    Or, to put it a different way, the convention delegates will get exactly the kind of representation from him that he promised them.

  156. Matt Cholko

    On Starchild – I don’t know him well, but it seems that he is doing what he believes is right, and it seems that I generally agree with his goals. And I completely agree with TK’s statement above that culture changes start with one person saying “hey, just because it’s been X before, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be Y now.” Lets hope that Starchild is able to bring about positive cultural change on the LNC. I believe it is likely that he will.

  157. Gary Chartier

    Starchild and I disagree on some issues of real substance. But (a) I believe he’s a genuinely principled proponent of peace and freedom and (b) I think he’s almost always right on the spirit of the organizational positions he takes. In particular, it seems to me, he’s right to oppose executive sessions and confidentiality requirements. As a participant in a membership organization, I resent being denied access to information about the issues my putative representatives are discussing and the positions they’re taking. Public choice analysis applies here as well.

  158. Jill Pyeatt

    No. We’re probably all traveling. I’ll see what I can find out when I get home, but that will be at least 3 hours.

  159. George Phillies

    @ 309 No.

    @293 If we had known last night what was going on with Neale and Wrights, I might have done something else, but the closest I came was a rumor that Lee was running for chair — signs in-convention made this highly believable — and had asked Geoff Neale to be his Vice Chair running mate. I acted on the basis of available information.

  160. Luke

    @340 re Judicial Committee results

    This was on twitter from @SSL_Conv:
    “Bill Hall, N. Sarwark, R. Paxton, B. Holtz, Rob Latham, Lou Jassikoff(sp?), Rob Power #LNC2012 #JudicialCommittee”

  161. D. Lou Shenol

    Perhaps the IN LP members, with Sink-Burro leading the way, could come up with $50,000 for ballot access funding (perhaps for their neighbors in IL, etc). And the 4 credential comm members and the abstainer who blocked the correct OR delegates from seats will come up with about $20,000 for Ballot Access in OR, etc.. I’m not joking, I’m serious as a HEART-ATTACK. The four who voted to seat the ROOT LACKEYS from OR need to go TODAY and the guy who doesn’t have a set so he abstained NEEDS to GO TODAY also. “Needs to Go” as in FIRE THEM ! Progress was made. Root is a danger, he needs to GO as soon as possible ! Keep PURGING the DEAD weight that keeps causing obstacles to PROGRESS!!! Let the Republicans in the Party start at the Precinct level BEFORE you give them keys to the liquor drawer at Nat-Comm.

    JOHNSON/GRAY 2012

    Hemp For Victory: http://www.facebook.com/libertarians?sk=app_10531514314#!/video/video.php?v=2292770402203&oid=40845936177&comments

    Drug use is a personal choice – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgeaq93W7kI&feature=player_embedded

  162. Thomas L. Knapp

    DLS @ 345,

    As nice as it would be, not all water can be re-routed back under the bridge.

    Here are some things I think you MIGHT see, though:

    – The new LNC approaching the Oregon LP with a “we’re not those other guys, we’re ready to repair the damage those other guys did if we can, will you accept the olive branch and run the LNC ticket for president?” message.

    – The new LNC taking a much more conservative approach on the matter of direct financial support to candidates (that’s not one I’d try to take to the bank, though — Michael Cloud, who just came back on the LNC, and executive director Carla Howell, have in the past been proponents of direct targeted candidate support).

    – The new LNC reappraising its relationship with the LNCC.

    – The new LNC putting recent information technology proposals under a microscope (not necessarily with great results; my recollection is that Geoff Neale was chair when the Raiser’s Edge fiasco began, and continued to be associated with that fiasco after leaving office — and frankly the LNC/LPHQ just plain has a long, fairly bad record in that area).

    – An LNC that construes its authority more narrowly than recent LNCs have, and doesn’t play a bunch of weird games of parliamentary chicken when they don’t like the existing limits on that authority.

    – An LNC that trusts the members more than has recently seemed to be the case.

  163. Jill Pyeatt

    The Starr/Root cabal was soundly rebuked, that’s for sure. Someone in CA laughingly called their losing plan it the”Unity Slate” although, of course, the person who said it was serious. There were different reasons for different people, but the crybaby reaction from tRtherford’s supporters Saturday afternoon to their loss was shameful. It was not even high school behavior; this was more like middle-school behavior.

  164. Carol Moore

    “Bill Hall, N. Sarwark, R. Paxton, B. Holtz, Rob Latham, Lou Jassikoff(sp?), Rob Power #LNC2012 #JudicialCommittee”

    How many neocons on judicial besides Holtz?

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    CM,

    I don’t recognize any of those names (including Holtz’s) as belonging to neoconservatives (an over-and-often-inaccurately-used term even when applied to jingoistic Republicans).

    Also, the Judicial Committee isn’t really an ideological body anyway.

    I’ve not always been a huge fan of Bill Hall’s (going back to the days when he was the LNC’s attorney), but my impression of him on the Judicial Committee has overall been positive. He seems to look for the right answer rather than looking for a way to get to the answer he wants.

    Sarwark is pure gold in that same regard.

    My guess is that Latham and Power will be similar in approach.

    I don’t know Jasikoff.

    I often find Holtz’s reasoning defective, and think he places too much weight on the “plenary power” clause in conjunction with non-rules hooks that sophists dig out of RONR to justify doing whatever they feel like doing, but consider that a mental defect of approach, not a moral defect of personality.

  166. Thomas L. Knapp

    Addendum to @351,

    When I say I don’t know Lou Jasikoff, I mean that I’m not terribly familiar with him. We’re Facebook friends and so forth, and I think I’ve met him once or twice. But I don’t know enough about him to even try to predict how he might approach Judicial Committee issues.

  167. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    1. I hope Starchild isn’t harassed off the LNC the way they did with Keaton, and tried to do with Wrights.

    2. The Oregon LP should only accept the olive branch after the 2012 election. It’s important to reinforce the precedent that the LNC does not rule the state parties.

    3. In the alternative, the Oregon LP might compromise — “We’ll run Johnson if Root resigns from the LNC and LNCC.”

  168. Mark Hilgenberg

    We could all advance liberty so much easier if we all stop with the personality politics. We don’t need to call names, make leading accusations about individuals and demonize others.

    We need to focus on promoting alternatives. Just know, I talked with a lot of newbies, they hear the bashing and it actually turns them toward those you bash.

  169. Brian Holtz

    [Holtz] places too much weight on the “plenary power” clause

    I’ve never mentioned that clause or concept in my life.

    This is straight from the Knapp playbook: defend the target from one smear (knowing that doing so doesn’t un-ring the bell), then trowel on another, without giving a shred of evidence. Sigh.

    in conjunction with non-rules hooks that sophists dig out of RONR to justify doing whatever they feel like doing

    Robert’s Non-Rules Hooks Of Orders — what’s the ISBN on that one, again?

    I’ll just quote the majority opinion signed by Bill Hall and Judge Gray:

    The Bylaws mention “registration” but do not describe it. Robert’s Rules describes “registration” in detail and says it “normally” includes “paying the registration fee.”

    Roberts discusses a registration procedure (viz., when to stop accepting registrations) that it says has to be overridden in the Bylaws for the default process not to be in force. This reinforces the conclusion that the detailed “normal” registration steps need not be reiterated in the Bylaws in order to be authorized. “Signing the list of registrations” is also not reiterated in the Bylaws, but Petitioners would not dare argue that delegates may not be required to sign the delegate list in order to receive their credentials.

    @353 1) Starchild can’t be harrassed off anything. However, he’ll have to watch out for the attendance requirement of Bylaw 8.6.

    2) This timetable might be upset by an Oregon court reinforcing the precedent that what rules the LPOR is the LPOR Bylaws.

    3) I’ll have some of what you’re smoking.

  170. Less Antman

    There are few people in the LP with whom I have more disagreements than Brian Holtz, but his judicial integrity is not one of them.

    In 2010, I served on the California Judicial Committee and participated in a unanimous, but extremely unpopular, decision. I couldn’t and can’t discuss the case because of a confidentiality responsibility of the participants in that case. I had several people tell me privately that they understood and agreed with the decision, but none that would publicly stand up for us.

    Except Brian Holtz. He had to find the result extremely odious, and knew how unpopular a position he was taking, yet still stood up for our decision because he fully supported the reasoning although he lamented the implications. In large part because of his public support, a virtual lynch mob against the Judicial Committee at the start of a session ended up with an affirmation of our decision and even my re-election to the committee (although my sanity in wanting to serve again may well be questioned).

    Holtz’s re-election to the Judicial Committee is as much a victory for the good guys as several other names mentioned earlier. And I say this as someone who would NEVER vote for Brian Holtz for any other position in the LP.

  171. Brian Holtz

    I’d be happy to vote for Less Antman — whom I still call “the most dangerous man in the LP” — for any LP office. Why? Because with Less there, I know that either 1) my correct position will have overcome the best possible arguments against it, or 2) I will have discarded my incorrect position in favor of Less’s correct one.

    Ditto for Nick Sarwark, whom I voted to return to JudCom, even though I disagreed with his position on both of the cases that came to us last term.

  172. Nicholas Sarwark

    I just got back to Denver. Thanks to all who came for a great convention and all that you do for the party.

    As far as what I see that this new LNC needs to do, they need to (a) show that they’re listening to the delegates when they say that they won’t accept an LNC that can’t get stuff done or get along with each other and (b) get some early successes by fixing the mistakes of the prior LNC.

    I would hope to see by the July meeting:
    1) Passing a change to the policy manual to prohibit a floor fee at conventions. A more permanent solution should also be referred to the Bylaws Committee for 2014.
    2) Apologizing to the Wagner group (and present Oregon affiliate) for not seating their delegates as the Oregon delegation and asking nicely for them to place Johnson/Gray on the ballot. I’d think the Chair or someone designated by the LNC should also offer to both sides whatever assistance the LNC can give in mediating the dispute. The likely answer is none, but the offer should be made by someone who didn’t take sides over this last term.

    I also hope that Starchild can find the right balance between seeking transparency and working well with the other members of the committee. I can’t say what that balance is, but by report, the first meeting had too much of the former and too little of the latter.

    Lastly, thanks for honoring me by putting me back on the Judicial Committee. I am optimistic for a term in which we don’t have to meet.

  173. Carol Moore

    I would have a lot more confidence in Holtz on the Judicial Committee if he hadn’t come after me with a lot of accusations and questions about where I got the email list of delegates which had his wife’s email address on it. (And there was a discussion among many people about such an email list legitimately might be created.)

    But when I got around to asking Holtz *just what the policy was of who WAS allowed to have and use the original list* he refused to acknowledge or answer the question. (Perhaps because I inferred maybe only Root supporters had it and one of them let the cat out of the bag?)

    Persecuting members for breaking a rule and then refusing to answer their simple question about “what is the rule?” and “who can legally do such and such” is hardly the sort of thing a decent Judicial Committee member should do, in my opinion.

    A response on this issue from Mr. Holtz still would be appreciated.

  174. Daniel Wiener

    I think I should get some of the credit for Brian Holtz’s re-election to the Judicial Committee, because even though the nominating speeches all got canceled due to time constraints, I had originally intended to give his nominating speech. Don’t discount the intangible psychic effect of that.

    Of course what really clinched it for Brian was when he paid off his young daughter to go around with an iPad displaying Brian’s color brochure to delegates as they were voting.

    And on a slightly more serious note, I’ll echo Less Antman’s comments, since I served with Less on the California Judicial Committee when we dealt with the case Less was inscrutably referring to. There was some blow-back, which didn’t really bother me, but Brian nonetheless took it upon himself to express his support. It wasn’t something he needed to do, and it probably didn’t make him any friends, but he thought it was important to express a principled position.

  175. Brian Holtz

    just what the policy was of who WAS allowed to have and use the original list

    Carol, I’m not on the Convention Organizing Committee, and I already published here my correspondence with them.

    come after me with a lot of accusations and questions about where I got the email list of delegates which had his wife?s email address on it

    This, at long last, seems to be an admission that you did get a list of delegates that included my wife’s email address. Are you willing to help trace the list back to who leaked it, or are you protecting your source?

    I inferred maybe only Root supporters had it

    The Chair of the CoC was Ruth Bennett, who is hardly a Root supporter, and who in the Secretary race defeated an alleged member of the alleged Root cabal. The only spam that came to my wife’s delegate email address was your “boot Root” spam. It’s simply Orwellian for you to try to blame your victim here.

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@355,

    —–
    [Holtz] places too much weight on the ?plenary power? clause

    I?ve never mentioned that clause or concept in my life.
    —–

    Really?

    Are you sure about that?

    Your previous mentions of that clause aside, “mentioning” it is not the same as giving it weight in your evaluations of whether or not the LNC is acting within its prerogatives.

    If the plenary powers clause is not the basis for your default position in favor of LNC discretion in most matters, what is?

    And no, disagreeing with you on that default position isn’t a “smear.” (For the record, I also disagree with those who treat the bylaws as similar to the US Constitution with its 10th Amendment reservations; the bylaws actually ARE fairly expansive with respect to LNC powers; just not as expansive as you view them as being.)

    As far as RONR is concerned, it’s not my fault that the book is poorly written, with minor allusions to assumed defaults which are not elsewhere elaborated AS RULES, or that its authors are apparently available to the first bidder to provide customized “get you whatever outcome you want” “opinions” when those gaps become Forward Edges of Parliamentary Battle Areas.

    And once again for the record, among my last efforts in the LP was an attempt to convince it to adopt a sound parliamentary authority instead of one apparently cobbled together in crayon during the high points of a long PCP orgy.

  177. Brian Holtz

    “mentioning” it is not the same as giving it weight in your evaluations of whether or not the LNC is acting within its prerogatives

    Precisely my point — I’ve never invoked it as an argument that the LNC had the power to do something.

    Your first link above is in fact the opposite: I’m quoting that Bylaw while arguing that all LNC actions and inactions are subject to JudCom review.

    At your second link my quote of that Bylaw is incidental to me saying that “the Chair has the responsibility and authority to determine the ideological content of the LP’s press releases, web site, and newspaper. The ideology of Chair candidates is a fair question.”

    If the plenary powers clause is not the basis for your default position in favor of LNC discretion in most matters, what is?

    If you disagree with some argument I’ve made about the LNC’s authority, then quote it, instead of smearing me with the accusation that I invoke such references “to justify doing whatever [sophists like me] feel like doing”.

    disagreeing with you on that default position isn’t a “smear.”

    Let me connect the dots for you. Your smear was to make a recklessly false factual claim (about me habitually citing LNC “plenary power” that I’ve never cited) to support your malicious allegation that I’m disingenuous in my arguments about the LNC’s authority. If thinking my arguments are insincere is the only way you can disagree with them, that says more about you than it does about me.

    minor allusions to assumed defaults which are not elsewhere elaborated AS RULES

    The sophistry here is picking any sentence of a 500-page book of rules and saying that because that sentence isn’t further elaborated, it’s merely an “allusion” and not a rule (e.g., a grant of authority). Meanwhile, the majority opinion’s slam-dunk refutation of that position remains unrebutted — as it has since I first began making it here on IPR many weeks ago.

    its authors are apparently available to the first bidder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. I’ve never invoked the authority or arguments of the RONR authors that the LNC has engaged — although I have stated my disagreements with them. This is also why I’ve always resisted repeated exhortations to acquire a parliamentarian certification (that I’ve been assured I could achieve without even studying). I believe that the text of our rules should stand on their own, and that all LP members should be assumed to be equally competent to read and interpret them.

  178. Brian Holtz

    Elected to JudCom:

    Bill Hall 207
    Nicholas Sarwark 192
    Rodger Paxton 165
    Brian Holtz 141
    Rob Latham 129
    Lou Jasikoff 127
    Rob Power 122

    Not elected:

    M Carling 117
    Steve Linnabary 87
    Dan Lewis 80
    Joe Hauptmann 65
    Kenneth Kaplan 60
    Shawn LeVasseur 53
    Carolyn McMahan 47
    Travis Nicks 16
    write-in 12
    NOTA 2

  179. Carol Moore

    Brian Holtz @ 361

    “Carol, I’m not on the Convention Organizing Committee, and I already published here my correspondence with them.”
    *This is the first time you have inferred that only the Convention Organizing Committee can give it out. Is that your statement?

    Your correspondence with them only is a suggestion of future policy, not a clear statement of who controls and/or has the right to use the email list currently. So again I do not even know for sure any hard and fast rule was violated.

    I decided to check my data folder and low and behold I got the complete delegates email list *3 times* before *from someone or other*, for a run for Secretary (1998), for I don’t remember what in 2000, and for Libertarians 4 Peace in 2004. And they all are formatted like something that came straight from the national office, which is the way I had remembered it.

    Since you remain the only person claiming this is against the rules NOW, or making a big deal of it, you’ll forgive my skepticism.

    “This, at long last, seems to be an admission that you did get a list of delegates that included my wife’s email address. Are you willing to help trace the list back to who leaked it, or are you protecting your source?”

    *Obviously at least one of the two lists I got and merged had that address on it. I still don’t know that this actually is problematic, given my past experience.

    “The Chair of the CoC was Ruth Bennett, who is hardly a Root supporter…”

    *So you are claiming that against some rule the Chair of the CoC gave it out and that no other person had access to it and/or was allowed to give it out?

    Your refusal to give a direct answer to a simple question on policy that you are making accusations about is what makes me skeptical about your suitability for the Judicial Committee…

    I wonder if my email was a effective as Mr. Weiner’s efforts… 🙂

  180. Mark Axinn

    Lou Jasikoff is the prior Chair of LPPA (their convention was two weeks ago) where he worked hard to build his state party.

    Rob Power is now a proud member of the LPNY and Manhattan LP (my home base).

    Rodger Paxton, like Lou, was (and is) a state chair working hard to get candidates on the ballot including his lovely wife.

    People like Rodger, Lou and I are working in the trenches getting candidates on the ballot in states with horrible ballot access rules.

  181. Brian Holtz

    This is the first time you have inferred that only the Convention Organizing Committee can give it out?

    Carol, I’ve said repeatedly that I was told by CoC and LPHQ that their current policy is not to include delegate email addresses when they give the Bylaws-mandated list of delegate postal addresses. I’ve never said that only the CoC has (or can give out) the list. Clearly, both the CoC and LPHQ have the list — and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Credentials Committee’s list has email addresses too. What part of this is not screamingly obvious?

    You’ve already made the wild accusation that, because of your assumption that Root or “Root supporters” might have access to the list, it’s likely that the email list leaked to you came from such a person, and that it’s somehow my responsibility to prove it didn’t.

    Now, when I point out that the list is also in the hands of someone clearly not a Root supporter, you suggest that I’m accusing her of leaking the list.

    I’m not.

    All I’m asking is where you got the delegate list with my wife’s email address on it.

    It’s a simple question. Why won’t you answer it?

    And now that you’ve admitted you got her email address from a delegate list, it becomes all the more despicable that you earlier scolded me saying “you don’t know where your wife has been shaking that thing”.

    Have you no shame, Ms. Moore?

  182. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@63,

    “Let me connect the dots for you. Your smear was to make a recklessly false factual claim (about me habitually citing LNC “plenary power” that I’ve never cited) to support your malicious allegation that I’m disingenuous in my arguments about the LNC’s authority. If thinking my arguments are insincere is the only way you can disagree with them, that says more about you than it does about me.”

    You might want to look into a remedial reading course at some nearby community college.

    I never accused you of “habitually citing” the plenary powers clause. I said that I think you place too much weight on it when forming your opinions of the limits of LNC discretion/authority.

    Nor did I accuse you of being insincere in your opinion that the LNC has greater discretion/authority than (for example) I think it does.

    Are your arguments sometimes disingenuous?

    Yes, they are.

    One reference in a default parliamentary authority to what something “normally” includes, where the meaning of “normally” is clearly “usually” rather than “according to an established rule or norm,” and where no other references to that “normal” inclusion are to be found either in that authority or in the external organizational bylaws, is not and never can be a “rule” — it’s a minor unelaborated allusion that implicitly assumes the existence of a rule elsewhere, an assumption that turned out to be faulty in the instant case.

    Based on your other arguments, I’m reasonably certain that you would have come down as you did on the “floor fee” issue whether that minor, unelaborated allusion was in RONR or not. You only cite it because you think it’s a cheaply made point — and you may be right, when I’m not here to point out that it’s bullshit on stilts.

  183. Carol Moore

    Holtz at 368. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/04/judge-gray-announces-for-vp-gary-johnson-endorses/#comment-743366 is where you started talking about the spamming and I do not see at any point after that any independent verification of your contentions. If the LNC now resolves and votes that this is a big issue and wants to come to me and others and ask us questions about the lists we got that purportedly contained some or all delegates emails, then I will consider my response.

    You are merely a past and current Judicial Committee member on an issue where you have no authority to inquire or demand response. I certainly didn’t find any such authority in http://www.lp.org/bylaws I don’t have to tell you anything.

    So OVERSTEPPING your authority and harassing members is ANOTHER reason that you should not be on the Judicial Committee.

  184. Thomas L. Knapp

    CM@373,

    What “authority” does one need to “inquire” of anyone about anything?

    If you aren’t going to answer his (very reasonable) question (“how did you get an email address that my wife doesn’t just hand out?”), then fine, don’t answer it, but don’t play the “help, help, I’m being repressed” card.

  185. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, is this really that important? I get unwanted or unsolicited email all the time, and I just delete it.

    Having said that, Brian, you were quite charming with your family. Being a Family Man becomes you.

  186. zapper

    Congratulations to Bill Redpath. Glad to see you back on NatCom. Dedicated, intelligent, hardworking, honest and sincere describe this vital member.

    Congratulations to Starchild. The LP needs you on NatCom. Having the right principles, insight, the ability and willingness to look at things in a different light and share that view, we need you to hold NatCom to a higher standard and keep the torch shining in every meeting from gavel to gavel.

  187. Trent Hill

    Redpath really does seem like an upstanding guy.

    I also didn’t mean to cast aspersions on Starchild, whom I’m sure is a great person. I just find that 11-1 votes seem overly obstructive for a small committee known for factionalism.

    And congrats to IPR on a comment thread going over 375.

  188. Carol Moore

    Knapp @374. Thinking back to the very beginning https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/04/judge-gray-announces-for-vp-gary-johnson-endorses/#comment-743366 is when everyone else immediately jumped on Holtz for asking me, and remembering how instrumental he was in gutting the platform and screwing the years of work by Rothbard and others, I lost my temper at him.

    But at this point I think I’ve given a reasonable answer, as best I remembered it over a couple days, given how hectic last 10 days were. His making a big deal about being on the Judicial Committee made me feel he felt he had some special right to bug me over and over again, even after 3 or 4 people gave reasonable explanations of where the emails might have come from. And I was never told they came from any official Email list, though I assumed so since I assumed it was OK for all members to have Email lists for convention related business in the past. I certainly don’t intend to ask anyone at this point where they came from.

    Holtz is obviously a witch hunt guy and I won’t participate in his witch hunts, be they private or have the tone of an officiality they do not in fact have.

    I DO think it would help if there was an OPT-IN by delegates to get emails and some minimal standards for giving out emails (no commercial spam, something related to convention business). People actually seem rather lazy or disorganized and I’m surprised there were so few emails sent out to delegates about convention business.

  189. Brian Holtz

    CM@373, what Knapp said @374. It’s seems Orwellian for a spammer to call it “harassment” simply to be asked how she got an address from a group that says it doesn’t release addresses.

    Jill@375: I get unwanted or unsolicited email all the time

    Do you get it at an email address that you gave to an LP organization which told you it doesn’t release such addresses, and won’t even forward ads to those addresses in exchange for a donation to the LP?

    It’s an interesting coincidence that 1) the spam in question was “Boot Root and his elitist cabal” and 2) you consider this matter unimportant. Would you really call it unimportant if the spam to private delegate email addresses had been from some group promoting Root for LNC?

  190. Brian Holtz

    3 or 4 people gave reasonable explanations of where the emails might have come from

    Ah, so now Carol is back to denying that my wife’s email address came from a delegate list, and ignoring the fact that neither I nor she nor Google thinks that she EVER used that email address in a libertarian context before.

    It’s not a “witch hunt”. It’s just refusing to let my reasonable question be stonewalled.

    Ms. Moore, if you want to protect a source who leaked you a list of email addresses that delegates gave when they registered, why not just say so?

  191. LibertarianGirl

    Brian Holtz’s drinking game list was freaking hilarious , even more hilarious was how many came true , next time I say we have kegs at every table and actually play that game…and congratulations Brian and every other person elected to the LNC / Jud Com…I would like to know who “liberated” my entire stack of Tim Hagan fliers that I had just printed ( I did pass some out but left the rest at my spot) using BH’s best intentions theory , Ima just say someone took initiative to pass them out for me and leave it alone..my apologies to Aaron Starr , George Phillies, I promise you there were no plans afoot for Tim to run , it was spur of the moment and that man is so above reproach , and my dear friend and completly undivisive , in my heart I knew that thats what the Party needed , but I like both of you , I hope we can still be friends…

  192. Brian Holtz

    CM: how instrumental he was in gutting the platform

    You need to learn some LP history.

    Going into Portland, the Reform Caucus had voted to recommend deletion for only 15 planks, and none of us three Reform Caucus members on the 2006 PlatCom even tried to get those deletions into the committee report. I myself voted to delete only the 13 most extremist planks. And yet, the delegates rose up and voted to delete 55 of the platform’s 62 planks.

    My role was to help fix the Portland Platform Crater, not to create it. For the story of how this was done, see http://blog.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/06/birth-of-platform.html

  193. Brian Holtz

    11-1 votes seem overly obstructive for a small committee known for factionalism

    That depends on the substance of those votes, and how events play out. At the PlatCom meeting in December I was on the losing end of all four of the N-to-1 votes, and this weekend the delegates vindicated all 4 of those votes.

  194. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’d say that 11-1 votes are an indication of decreased, not increased, obstructionism and factionalism.

    When you see a series of votes totaling 12 going 7-5 on a regular basis, you’ve got a split board, with a slightly more powerful faction trying to do this or that, and a slightly less popular faction trying like hell to stop them.

    When it’s 11-1, you’ve got a board that’s mostly on the same page. That one vote isn’t holding up progress, and there’s a chance that that voter’s objections had a pre-vote effect on whatever it is that’s being done, even if not enough to satisfy him.

  195. Eric Sundwall

    I’m committing to 250 signatures personally for the ballot drive in NY and will offer my home to the CDLP to collate and submit to the BOE as we have for the 2008 and 2010 drives.

    Still don’t care that much about the nominee and happy to see Starchild on the LNC.

    Long Live Seth Warner!

  196. Carol Moore

    Since I never got a Wayne Root email passed on from someone who got it on the delegates lists, something I would have assumed was perfectly legal and should be on an opt-in or better opt-out basis, here’s something else for a good laugh. From Oregon’s Dave Terry (party to the Carling lawsuit there) sent out to bunch of list with no copyright notice or contractual agreement not to disseminate:

    Circumstantial Evidence Indicates; Texas Jackals devour dead carcass of the Libertarian Party

    Many of us in attendence at the 40th aniversary convention of the Libertarian Party had an experience that can only be likened to the experience of those New Yorkers who stared incredulously at the Twin Towers, as they crashed in upon themselves in smoke and flames; not believing such a thing were possible, but knowing they were seeing it with their own eyes.

    That this was a premeditated act of anarchistic, nihilist destructionism; there is no doubt. The wheels did not simply fall off of the best vehicle for political relevance that the LP has had in a generation; they were blown off by bombs attached to the undercarriage by well organized insidious terrorists!

    As to the motives for this carnage, I can only speculate and ask (hopefully not just rhetorical) questions;

    Why did Lee Wrights decline the nomination for chair? Would it have made it TOO obvious that we was the intended beneficiary of this barbaric and wholely deleterious invocation of the libertarian demigod, (or is it demogogue) NOTA?

    Why did he partake of the of the “blood and body” of the LP in a uniquely libertarian “eucharist”?

    Was Geoff Neale an active participant in this “rule or ruin” consiracy from the onset, OR was he just a willing and useful dupe? The answer is MAY only known (at this point) by those who were suddenly graced with professionally printed “NOTA for LNC” as if mana from heaven.

    THIS AIN’T OVER FOLKS!

    David Terry

  197. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    Regarding earlier (I had an Internet connection problem right after posting my initial reply and am just now getting back to the matter), I apologize for assuming that you placed great weight on the opinions of outside “parliamentary experts” or on the certification of same.

    Let me elaborate on the opinion which you took umbrage with:

    I believe that you regard the authority of the LNC as reasonably expansive — not total, but a damn sight away from the “unless the bylaws say that the secretary may tie his shoes, he must wear loafers to meetings” school of thought.

    Pretty much in the general range of “if the bylaws mandate a specific X, the LNC is bound by that mandate; if they prohibit a specific Y, the LNC is bound by that prohibition; otherwise, the LNC has broad discretion to do the things it deems necessary for operating.”

    Is that perception incorrect?

    If that perception is correct, the obvious place to locate the authority you believe the LNC has is in that plenary powers clause. If there’s some other basis on which you justify it, I’d certainly be interested in what that basis is.

    In the case of the “floor fee,” the basic argument between us is that I assert that:

    1) The delegate qualifications bylaws, being very specific, constitute mandate/prohibition material on the maximum burdens of substance that the LNC can place on delegates as a condition of participation in the convention; and

    2) The allusion to a “registration fee” being “normal” in RONR neither creates a rule above and beyond those delegate qualifications, nor calls attention to a rule currently in existence in those qualifications or elsewhere.

    Your argument for the other conclusion seems to be that:

    1) The delegate qualifications are not mandate/prohibition material with respect to what you’d deem reasonable delegate burdens. I believe the example burden you brought up was signing a register; and

    2) The allusion to a registration fee in RONR by default enables the making of administrative rules that don’t have to be provided for explicitly in the bylaws, so long as they are not prohibited.

    In my opinion, your point (2) both unnecessary to your argument in (1), and insufficient to add any weight to that argument.

    If the LNC’s authority is broad enough to allow it to place additional burdens on delegates beyond the qualifications clauses, then it doesn’t need RONR to list what those burdens might be.

    And if the LNC needs RONR to list what such burdens might include, then RONR does a piss-poor job of doing so. I can think of a number of burdens much less onerous than a nearly $100 registration fee that aren’t the subject of minor allusions in RONR.

    So, to my mind, the whole “normal” thing in RONR is just a digression/distraction from the real argument and adds nothing of value to your side of that argument.

  198. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian @ 379: “Would you really call it unimportant if the spam to private delegate email addresses had been from some group promoting Root for LNC?”

    I get unsolicited emails like that all the time, and I just delete them. It just isn’t that big of a deal to me, but obviously it is to you and your wife. I shouldn’t have butted in here, though. It’s none of my business.

    I suppose I might be upset if I received a phone call from the Root cabal on my cell phone, though, so I guess we all have our individual ways of handling our affairs. Really this is none of my business. I’ll stay out of it.

  199. Nicholas Sarwark

    @386: Was Mr. Terry at the convention? If so, I don’t recall as he ever shared his views with me in person, despite me being more than accessible.

  200. Jill Pyeatt

    David Terry @ 386: Were you at the same convention I was at???

    You have one heck of an imagination. Lee Wrights declined the nomination for chair because he never wanted it. That was a story made up by the crybabies who refused to accept their choice, Mark Rutherford had lost.

    Wow, who’s the conspiracy theorist now?

  201. Wes Wagner

    NS @389

    He was, and he was the one that was booing and yelling comments loudly during the Hospers induction to the hall of fame due to his personal disagreement with Hospers’ endorsement of Bush.

    I saw Mr. Burke whisper to him, which I suspect was encouragement to leave the convention hall to compose himself, but I am only speculating.

    Mr. Terry left and then returned after some time outside the hall.

    He was a member of the Oregon delegation that was seated.

  202. Jill Pyeatt

    I went into the convention planning to vote for Mark Hinkle, although, frankly, I wasn’t that comfortable with that choice, but I don’t know Mark Rutherford. However, Mr. Sarwark’s speech was nothing short of brilliant, and I simply changed my mind. NOTA, in my view, was a far better choice because I believe, as obviously many other convention goers did, that we needed a fresh start for people on the LNC.

    I believe all this was spontaeous, and I’m outraged that people tried to blame Lee Wrights and his supporters, who accepted his loss for the presidental candidacy graciously.

  203. Nicholas Sarwark

    Well, as I told the reporter from Liberty, there was no conspiracy for NOTA. I understand that if people often use conspiracy as a tool, they’ll assume others do too.

    I only asked Lee to accept a nomination because he seemed to have the consensus of the convention and I didn’t want to pick someone who would be seen as from one side or the other.

  204. Jill Pyeatt

    I heard several other names bantered about Saturday afternoon as possible candidates for chair: Chuck Moulton (who would have been my first choice), and Less Antman among them.
    (If anyone is a friend of Less’s, ask him about he. He has a very funny answer). I was truly stunned when I heard anyone suggest that the liars and cheaters were the Wrights supporters. That’s completely, absolutely untrue. There is absolutely no gray area here.

  205. RedPhillips

    For those of us who don’t want to read 391 comments, could someome do a post summing up the results? I’m confused. Thanks.

  206. Carol Moore

    Knapp @387. So Holtz thinks a $94 (or $150 or $300??) floor fee NOT an imposition – TANSTAAFL.

    But an email from a libertarian individual or group on a topic relevant to the convention for which the delegate has signed up is a massive imposition. (And that’s generously assuming you get 20 or so of them which can be deleted without reading in about 2 minutes — if you are a slow reader and bother to read subject lines.

    The 60-7-% of truly concerned delegates, those not just doing a friend or a spouse a favor, will want to know what is going on and what information they might not have that others are sharing. Especially if it’s a list of scurrilous quotes and doings by the self-styled leader of a movement determined to shape the whole movement to support HIS agenda….

    I got 25 thank yous and 5 take me off your list. Pretty good for an OLD RETROBATE like me!!

  207. Jill Pyeatt

    A new thread about what, Trent? The dispute between Carol and Brian?

  208. Brian Holtz

    Jill: [unsolicited emails] isn’t that big of a deal to me, but obviously it is to you and your wife

    Nope, I didn’t complain at all about getting unsolicited political emails from, say, George Phillies. As I’ve already told you, I’m a big enough fan of unsolicited political emails that I was willing to donate to the convention in order to have them sent on my behalf. (I also did some innovative spamming in my 2004 congressional race.)

    No, what caught my attention was that an unsolicited political email was sent to an address that was almost certainly leaked by the CoC or LPHQ or CredCom — groups that told me they wouldn’t even let me donate to the convention for the chance to do what somebody let Carol do for free.

    You can try to dismiss this as “Brian doesn’t like spam”, but that’s not what this is about.

  209. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carol @ 396,

    “So Holtz thinks a $94 (or $150 or $300??) floor fee NOT an imposition”

    I didn’t say that.

    Nor do I think he’s said that.

    What he’s said, if I am understanding him correctly, is that the LNC has the authority to make certain impositions.

    The low end of that authority, in his example, is requiring delegates to sign the registry when they arrive/register, even though the bylaws don’t mention that.

    As a Judicial Committee member, he opined (as signatory to the majority opinion) that the $94 floor fee also falls within the limits of that authority.

    I had assumed that he relied, in this opinion, on the “plenary” language in the bylaws, but he seems offended by that assumption.

    I don’t think he regards your particular email as an imposition, especially. I think he’s concerned that an email address given under perceived coverage of confidentiality got “into the wild,” and wants to know how. Seems like a separate issue to me.

  210. Trent Hill

    We dont have a separate post confirming the outcome of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, At-Large, etc elections.

  211. Brian Holtz

    Tom, I’ve read your @387 twice now, and I don’t recognize it as an argument I’ve made. My argument is in the majority opinion, and (as I just told the new JudCom) I think those in a JudCom majority should avoid arguing the merits of their opinion after it has been issued, as doing so could undermine the principle that a JudCom decision is final and binding. The majority opinion should speak for itself. So I’m not going to do much more here than just point out what parts of the majority opinion you are ignoring or misunderstanding.

    For example, you were wrong when you wrote earlier:

    Based on your other arguments, I?m reasonably certain that you would have come down as you did on the ?floor fee? issue whether that minor, unelaborated allusion was in RONR or not.

    You were an active participant in the thread where I wrote one month ago:

    There?s a clear statement in Robert?s that ?paying the registration fee and signing the list of registrations? is ?normal?. Were it not for this statement in Robert?s, there would be no case to make that the rules allow a registration fee.

    I also wrote in that thread: I don?t know when between 1972 and 1989 the registration-as-distinct-from-accreditation language was added to the bylaws, but a registration fee would arguably not have been allowed before the bylaws made that distinction.

    Carol @396, I’m impressed at your creativity in coming up with new ways to misrepresent me — this time by misrepresenting Knapp. I just explained to Jill that my concern is about the leak, not about the spam. I have never said I don’t consider the $94 registration fee to be an imposition. I’ve just said that it’s an arguably reasonable one. I quote from the majority opinion: “If an implementation of registration steps is reasonable (e.g., proving identity, signing in, paying a cost-sharing fee, getting a photo badge), then an affiliate’s autonomy is not abridged just because some of their delegates decide not to comply with the registration process.”

    I’ve already said publicly that I don’t think a registration fee is worth the controversy and distraction it causes. I didn’t vote for (or against) the bylaw to ban registration fees, just as I wouldn’t vote for a bylaw to restrict/mandate convention locations. I trust that the LNC will use their authority prudently or get voted out. But as long as I’m on the Judicial Committee, I will defend the authority of the LNC to hang itself with the rope that our rules give it.

  212. NewFederalist

    Let’s allow Bob Milnes to post here again. His obsession with PLAS is no worse than a lot of posts on this thread.

  213. Brian Holtz

    NF, if you’re tired of seeing comments from me that do nothing more than correct misreadings of what I’ve written, then imagine how tedious it is to actually write them.

    As a courtesy to readers, I mark such comments by starting them with either “Tom, ” or “Carol, “. 🙂

  214. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian @ 402,

    OK, then, I’ve misunderstood your position — or, more to the point, forgotten some of the specific arguments you’ve made and thus incorrectly ascribed characteristics to your position.

    Hey, it happens. My memory continues to move toward whatever the opposite of “eidetic” is at a fairly rapid clip.

  215. Mark Axinn

    Eric @385.

    That commitment you made was for 250 sigs. per week for all six weeks, right? 🙂

    Others, instead of all the useless verbal horse manure, how abut coming to New York this summer and petitioning for us?

  216. Marc Montoni

    Speaking of the floor fee…

    If one assumes the average Libertarian in the convention hall Saturday night and Sunday morning earns $25 per hour, and assuming there were 500 delegates on average participating, and considering Knedlering the proceedings diverted about 4 hours of floor time, perhaps the dollar value of the time wasted ($50,000) should be recovered from the individual responsible.

  217. Jill Pyeatt

    Good suggestion, Marc.

    My time is worth more like around $100 per hour, though.

  218. Losty

    Chair: Geoff Neale (5th Ballot Saturday/6th overall)

    Vice Chair: Lee Wrights (First Ballot)

    Treasurer: Hagen (second Ballot)

    Secretary: Ruth Bennett (Second Ballot)

    At-Large (First Ballot):
    Bill Redpath
    Michael Cloud
    Starchild
    Arvin Vohra
    W. A. Root

    Judicial (First Ballot):
    Bill Hall
    Nick Sarwark
    Rodger Paxton
    Brian Holtz
    Rob Latham
    Lou Jassikoff
    Rob Power

    LNC Exec Comm (Unanimous at LNC meeting)
    Lark
    Redpath
    Dan Weiner

  219. Losty

    MArk @407:

    Knedlering the Proceedings?

    Interesting phrase, what happened?

  220. R. Lee Wrights

    RE: 386. Mr. Terry asks in another forum:

    “Why did Lee Wrights decline the nomination for chair?”

    I did not decline the nomination. I did, however, decline to run. Why? Because I didn’t want to run for chair. If I had wanted to run for chair, I would have simply done so from the beginning of the process.

    Sorry to deflate the conspiracy theory of those who lost. They should stop acting like the members of this party did something wrong just because they took back what rightfully belongs to them.

  221. Carol Moore

    Tom: Sorry to look like I was trying to capture what you said when I was just bouncing off what I thought you said!!

    Brian: If you want to know who leaked something ask the people in the position to leak. Don’t ask someone 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th down the line who didn’t even know there was a problem with getting the list and got different versions which may or may not have come from the official list and then integrated it with a bunch of stuff she’d picked up elsewhere. Ask the Bradley Mannings, not the New York Times type setting gal. That is the silly and senseless harassment I have been complaining about.

  222. Carol Moore

    EXEC COM: So what does the Exec Com do, Run the Show? Keep the Chair and the Vice Chair from getting too close to the action. With all the complaints I’ve heard about Redpath and Wiener in last two weeks, and knowing that Lark is not the kind of trench fighter you need to deal with Root or Root-lites, I worry that things already may be going down hill. Guess I’ll have to go look at the Bylaws and/or the LNC manual to find out.

  223. LP Observer

    @ 407 Potentially, There was some shady vote counting in a few states. Reportedly, some state kicked out people that had voted for Rutherford. What’s with that? The motion to challenge all states was overturned, so only about an hour was lost. The other NOTA events would have happened anyway.

  224. LP Observer

    I thought # 316 was a candidate for President with the BTP. How is he participating in a Libertarian convention? How does he get into Michigan delegation? Does he live there now. I thought he was still in prison or something.

  225. Stuart Simms

    @410 Losty On the second ballot for chair, after Mark Hinkle was removed, NOTA defeated Mark Rutherford by 4 votes, iirc. Kevin Knedler of Ohio immediately challenged the vote total for Ohio. My recollection is that he stated that two people voted in Ohio that weren’t eligible to vote. He also stated he was going to challenge the vote total of every state delegation, iirc. Mr. Knedler was…upset and he later apologized for his conduct.

    When the California delegation was recounted the vote total changed significantly toward Mr. Rutherford giving him enough votes to beat nobody. Eventually it was decided to “revote”. Leading to Mr. Rutherford defeating Nobody by one vote but because of a write in vote for Sam Sloan, Mr. Rutherford failed to secure 50%+1.

    The eventual compromise was to reopen the floor for nominations but allow Mr. Rutherford to remain on the ballot.

  226. Brian Holtz

    Carol: If you want to know who leaked something ask the people in the position to leak. Don’t ask someone 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th down the line

    There are probably 20-30 people who had legitimate access to the list. You apparently want to protect the one(s) among them who were your source.

    If someone had sent a “Re-Elect Root” spam to the delegates, then you and the rest of the IPR angrytarians would be tracing the leak with torches and pitchforks.

    But instead, all we hear are crickets — and Jill saying spam is a fact of life. (And Tom pointing out my question is legitimate.)

    But maybe this isn’t a case of mass hypocrisy. Maybe everybody’s just tired from the convention.

    who didn’t even know there was a problem with getting the list

    If that were true, you wouldn’t be trying so hard to protect your source(s).

  227. Brian Holtz

    I thought [Jim Duensing] was a candidate for President with the BTP. How is he participating in a Libertarian convention?

    Not just participating. While the C-SPAN cameras were filming the nominating speeches, Duensing was parading around holding up a Wrights For President sign. Too bad he didn’t still have on the Duensing For President shirt he wore on Wednesday. That would have been a great photo.

  228. Oranje Mike

    Speaking of floor flees…

    I heard a rumor at the convention. I was told WAR made comments at a LNC meeting defending the floor fees as a way to deter people that make $30k per year from attending. Can anyone confirm is this is accurate? Despite my dislike of Root I don’t want to assume this is true.

  229. Bylaws Guru

    Antman @356:

    “In 2010, I served on the California Judicial Committee and participated in a unanimous, but extremely unpopular, decision. I couldn’t and can’t discuss the case because of a confidentiality responsibility of the participants in that case. I had several people tell me privately that they understood and agreed with the decision, but none that would publicly stand up for us. ”

    That’s because you screwed up that case by forgetting your Bylaws-imposed role, which was to determine that the LPC Executive Committee followed the Bylaws and RRONR when voting an approving the specific suspension of membership of the person involved. Nothing more. Instead that Judicial Committee made the California Executive Committee prove their case, which they were NOT required to do, ESPECIALLY since the burden of proof was on the appellant and NOT the Executive Committee. Hence the decision was not only based on improper procedure, but it wasn’t even in line with the California Bylaws!

    And your Judicial Committee Chair then? Hinkle. His disregard for the rules was as notable then as it was later on the LNC.

    The only reason the decision of the Judicial Committee was not overturned at the subsequent convention and unprecedented Executive Session was because nobody was told at the time that the Judicial Committee got it completely wrong.

  230. Bylaws Guru

    Weiner @360: You were on that Judicial Committee, and you blew it, too. That entire Committee did.

  231. Bylaws Guru

    Trent @ 377:

    “Redpath really does seem like an upstanding guy.”

    I’m sure Keaton would disagree, plus Redpath’s own admission that he let his personal disagreements with Wrights over things led to him not notifying Wrights of his potential dues lapse, which led in part to that situation.

  232. George Phillies

    @410 He uttered a somewhat vigorous dissent from an aspect of the outcome, and threatened to use the recount bylaw to have the secretary poll each delegate on the convention floor, individually, by name.

    If you weren’t too attached to the candidates, the entire scene was truly bizarre. Hopefully it was taped so eventually the rest of you can see it.

  233. Mark Hilgenberg

    One monthly pledger to the LNC paid the floor fee for 4 protesters, he will now be stopping his monthly pledge until the fee’s he paid are “recovered”.

  234. Seebeck

    Stuart Simms,

    I highly doubt there was any issue with the California vote, even though I wasn’t there. Why? Because I designed it, taking what Zander Collier developed for Denver and refining it for St. Louis, where it worked perfectly, and it was improved on again this cycle by Glynda Perotte and Ray Fostore upgrading the improvised tote bag we had in St.Louis for collecting ballots to an actual ballot box. After St. Louis, I comprehensively documented that process and that documentation has been in the possession of the LPCA office for almost two years. That procedure involves multiple persons, multiple tallies, a completely traceable chain of custody of the physical ballots, and would require a conspiracy of at least 5 and up to 10 people to corrupt the vote. It is a model of clean and above all, it works. In St. Louis out of the entire California delegation, of which I was the delegation whip, we had exactly two people miss one vote each. One was Rob Power, who was assisting the Secretary at the front of the room (I apologized to him for that one, since we completely forgot he was up there, and he was cool with it), and the second was Christina Tobin, who was busy schmozzing and missed the vote and then had a fit over it, but it was her own fault. 2 votes out of ~100 delegates and 8 ballots, or roughly 1/4 of 1%.

    That’s one of, if not the chief reason that Kevin was so pissed at Steve Collett (and supposedly Kevin Knedler) for questioning the voting procedures California used.

    I for one take offense to allegations of bad voting there because I know that system and I trust the LPCA leadership enough to use it and use it right because of how it was designed and implemented and how specific the instructions were. (Not taking offense at you, Stuart, because you’re just mentioning what others were alleging.)

    Getting the largest delegation to vote promptly and getting it tallied accurately is no easy feat. But LPCA has it down cold.

  235. Seebeck

    BTW, my sources for what happened were there and I trust them completely.

  236. Trent Hill

    “I’m sure Keaton would disagree, plus Redpath’s own admission that he let his personal disagreements with Wrights over things led to him not notifying Wrights of his potential dues lapse, which led in part to that situation.”

    If the way Keaton runs the AntiWar.com facebook page is anything like how she conducts herself in public meetings, then I can’t say I care too much.

  237. Jill Pyeatt

    Mark Hilgenberg, did you make it to the convention? I kept thinking I’d bump into you, but I never did.

  238. Jill Pyeatt

    I wonder if the individuals who were replaced on the LNC have had any kind of realization that they might have lost their positions due to a. refusing to listen and respond to the floor fee complaints, and b. refusing to seat the proper delegate group from Oregon. Perhaps it wasn’t the combination of both events for everyone, but the main reason I changed my vote to NOTA for chair was because of both of these situations.

  239. Mark Hilgenberg

    @411 R. Lee

    I do agree with you, there was no conspiracy.

    Prior to this convention I have never talked with you our any of the Texas delegation for that matter.

    Many in our delegation were first timers, they had no prior bias. I think this was a spontaneous reaction, many of us just want to see bottom up and not top down.

  240. Jill Pyeatt

    Losty, I was there last weekend. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way CA voted. The whole thing Saturday afternoon was an utter waste of everyone’s time emotional energy.

    What Stuart Sims didn’t mention (maybe he didn’t hear it because there was so much going on) was that the CA count was changed so significantly that Ted Brown, who is probably the calmest person I have ever met, called it “Voter Fraud” (as the second count clearly was.) That’s about the time everyone went bonkers in the room.

  241. Mark Hilgenberg

    Jill, @430.

    I think it was a lot of reasons, floor fee, Oregon, top down non transparency etc. For many of us it was just a lack of interest in grassroots outreach and activism.

  242. Brian Holtz

    that Judicial Committee made the California Executive Committee prove their case, which they were NOT required to do

    Since the members of that LPCA Judicial Committee probably still feel obligated to silence by the privacy concerns they cited in their opinion, I’d like to again defend them.

    For privacy reasons I won’t yet release the entirety of the brief I wrote that reportedly helped that JudCom reach its decision. However, this much can be made public:


    X has said that he is only being told the charges against him, and that he will not be allowed to examine some of the evidence and witnesses against him. If X’s report is true, it would be extremely disturbing. A Party that does not respect the rights of its own accused has no moral authority to demand that the government respect the rights of those it accuses.

    It could be argued that the standard for JudCom overturning a suspension decision should be very high, and that the ExCom should enjoy wide latitude in the purging power that it has recently decided to exercise. The LPCA Bylaws say the JudCom’s “review of a Party action or inaction shall be limited to the consistency of that action or inaction in accordance with the governing documents of the Party, including these Bylaws and documents to which they refer, with the only exceptions being Judicial Committee duties mandated by these Bylaws” [emphasis added]. Note that reviewing member suspensions is a JudCom duty mandated by the Bylaws, and the JudCom has no discretion about whether to hear a member’s appeal.

    The Judicial Committee is the only line of defense for our members against a future ExCom that might be willing to purge (or intimidate into silence) gadflies who say things to the membership that the ExCom doesn’t want heard. I’ve already been urged by a member of the LPCA leadership not to write publicly about these suspensions, because they are an “internal” matter. Of course, the LPCA leadership itself controls the only means for broadly but “internally” informing our membership about such matters, so this advice is a recipe for our membership not hearing about it when a member is purged for saying things that the leadership doesn’t want to be heard.

  243. Brian Holtz

    refusing to seat the proper delegate group from Oregon

    The delegates voted by about 60% to 40% in favor of the Oregon delegation that had not rewritten the LPOR bylaws outside of convention. If sympathy for the Wagner’s bylaws-rewriting faction in Oregon was a motivator, it didn’t seem to translate into votes for Wagner himself. He only got 9 votes for Chair, and got fewer votes for at-large than most (all?) of the LNC incumbents who had treated him as illegitimate.

  244. Carol Moore

    Brian Holtz @ 418
    There are probably 20-30 people who had legitimate access to the list. You apparently want to protect the one(s) among them who were your source.

    So it wasn’t just Ruth Bennett? So 20-30 people had access to the delegate email list OR were given it in order to send out to people OR both? Give me the list and I’ll make some comment or other on it. 🙂

  245. Brian Holtz

    Moore: So it wasn’t just Ruth Bennett?

    I never said it was just Bennett. I only cited her to rebut your bizarre speculation that it was probably Root or a Root supporter who leaked the delegate list to which your “Boot Root” spam was sent.

    Ms. Moore, it’s unconscionable what you said about my wife “shaking that thing”, and it’s unconscionable that you take evident delight in stonewalling to protect someone who violated what both Bennett and LPHQ have said is the confidentiality of the delegate email list.

    Since only someone with integrity can be shamed into exhibiting it, I’ll just close by asking whether any reader would say publicly that Moore should not be ashamed of her actions that I just mentioned.

    MH@437: Rehashing the past is tiring.

    All that is necessary for the triumph of fraud is that good men get tired of the stonewalling of those protecting fraudsters.

  246. Joe Buchman

    @310 – that was me (Joe) reporting, not Paulie (I imagine he knows the names better than I do, as well as their spellings . . .). He gave me my ThinkPad back before the LNC meeting started.

    Also, FYI, after the executive session (I prefer Starchild’s “secret meeting” terminology), the LNC went back into open session. I only caught a portion of that regarding the convention report and appointment of an assistant treasurer.

    Saw Starchild today and asked about the secret meeting and how he felt about it. Without sharing any hint of what happened, he said he could see how some things did need to be kept secret AND that he would like to see a Sunset Provision for that so historians could know what happened. I think that’s a terrific idea. How about knowing what happened in all executive/secret sessions once the statute of limitations for any legal action has expired and/or those who might be personally impacted have passed away.

    While no minutes are taken in those sessions, perhaps there’s some way to preserve that history?

    I LIKE Starchild’s ideas — even the ones that fail trigger out-of-the-box thinking in others, if not all the time, certainly enough of the time to make his presence valuable to the committee as well as to anyone who has the opportunity to speak with him at length. He’s not a sound-bite kind of communicator.

  247. Andy

    Joe Buchman said: “Also, FYI, after the executive session (I prefer Starchild’s ‘secret meeting’ terminology)”

    I agree with Starchild here as well. Drop the “Executive Session” euphemism and call it what it really is, a Secret Meeting.

    “Saw Starchild today and asked about the secret meeting and how he felt about it. Without sharing any hint of what happened, he said he could see how some things did need to be kept secret AND that he would like to see a Sunset Provision for that so historians could know what happened. I think that’s a terrific idea. How about knowing what happened in all executive/secret sessions once the statute of limitations for any legal action has expired and/or those who might be personally impacted have passed away.”

    This is a great idea!

  248. Stuart Simms

    Seebeck @426 My “reporting” on the events of Saturday was just trying to answer the question about “Knedlering”. I wasn’t a part of the CA delegation and defer to Jill Pyeatt @432 but the CA vote did change significantly. Iirc, the initial tally was 40-38 Rutherford and the recount of the CA delegation (prior to the “revote”) was 42-34 Rutherford. I wasn’t with or observing the CA delegation so I leave it to others with specific information on how the recount was done. And yes the place went bonkers when the updated CA numbers were posted on the screen. I can’t speak to Mr. Brown’s outburst. I believe it was shortly after this that Nick Sarwark moved to suspend the rules to allow for a revote.

    I was focused on the Maryland delegation I can tell you that we went from 8-5 Nobody to 12-2 Nobody on ballot 3 (the revote). We had 14 delegates at the convention, one was absent from the floor at the time of the second ballot.

    Personally, I would have removed myself from consideration after I couldn’t defeat Nobody and request to suspend the rules to allow the floor be reopened for nominations.

  249. Losty

    Mrs. Pyatt at 432:

    Sorry, I was just wondering what happened. I didn’t understand the term. Under no circumstance did I mean to imply anything untoward with the vote. If it came across like that I am sorry. Just never heard that term before.

  250. Jill Pyeatt

    Losty: I didn’t mean to imply anything negative, and I’m sorry if I appeared that way. I guess I’m still in shock, to a degree, that people tried to pin things on Wrights supportsers. It was SOOO not that way.

  251. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, Mark Hilgenberg, I’m sorry we didn’t manage to cross paths. I was sitting int the Press area so I could try to keep IPR readers posted, although on Monday I was just too tired to keep track (plus, I couldn’t read the light colored numberts on the overheads).

    Maybe next time!

  252. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG@445,

    Think again. The C-SPAN audience seeing Libertarians being libertarians would have been much more valuable than the preceding “We Love Recent Republicans” festival.

  253. Carol Moore

    Holtz @438: It seems like you are the only person who a) alleges there’s an issue and b) gives a dang about the alleged issue. So I shall no longer tire people with it….

  254. Carol Moore

    I think it would have been great tv. Next time try to get RT.com to cover it. The only TV network to have 2 or 3 libertarians a week on, from Reason, Cato, and anywhere else they pop up. We gave them Voice of America during the cold war and Russia Today is returning the favor 🙂 So you have to put up with a little pro-Putin propaganda here and there, we’re too smart to fall for it.

  255. Brian Holtz

    @448 Right, why would anyone have a problem with people in positions of trust in the Party selectively leaking the delegate email-address list with the result of a spammed attack on a party officer?

    Welcome to the Party of Principle, where the Good Guys™ know that their ends justify their means.

  256. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 451: This really is a dispute between you and Carol. We get that you and your wife felt violated, and I now understand why. But, enough already is my vote. Give it a rest.

  257. Brian Holtz

    @453 Jill, I guess you still don’t get it.

    I’ve already said that I don’t mind getting political spam, and my wife was merely curious how somebody got her email address. She doesn’t care about deleting a spam, and is merely bemused by the hypocrisy and inanity that she’s found here on IPR (which she’s never read before).

    The only feeling of “violation” we have is that somebody in a position of Party trust/authority broke the rules, enabling a spammed attack on a party officer.

    I will give Carol the last word: Brian is indeed the only person who gives a dang about this issue.

  258. Carol Moore

    My last word is, again: Brian, if you are concerned then bug the people who had control of the list, not someone who got at least part(s) of it 3rd or 4th hand and didn’t even know there was a problem with using it. If you need to persecute someone, persecute the people who actually might KNOW something….

  259. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@55,

    “The only feeling of ‘violation’ we have is that somebody in a position of Party trust/authority may have broken the rules, enabling an email attack on a party officer.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  260. Brian Holtz

    Tom@457, I’m using “rules” in a sense that includes “the stated policies of those entrusted with the delegate email addresses”. That rule/policy was almost certainly broken, given Carol’s use of my wife’s email address and her admission that she got a list of delegates with email addresses attached.

    If you want to exclude “unsolicited bulk email” as a valid meaning of the word “spam”, I’ll note that in the Knapptionary.

    Carol, the person “who actually might KNOW something” is the person you got the leaked delegate email-list from.

    But you’ve decided to protect that person (or that person’s ultimate source) — even though you now know they (or their source) broke the rules.

    I’m only one person. I’ll feel that I’ve done my part here if I can expose just one of the rule-breakers, or one the protectors of the rule-breakers.

    And I have. I exposed Carol Moore.

  261. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@458,

    “I’m using ‘rules’ in a sense that includes ‘the stated policies of those entrusted with the delegate email addresses.'”

    So am I.

    But I do not consider an unintentional compromise of information — such as inadvertently leaving a printout lying around where someone who may neither know nor be bound by said rules might come across it — to be a rules violation, any more than, say, an accidentally erroneous count of ballots.

    Is it POSSIBLE someone broke the rules? Yes.

    Is it OBVIOUS that someone broke the rules? No.

    As far as “spam” is concerned, spam is unsolicited bulk commercial email.

    What your wife received was email. It was not commercial, I don’t know whether or not it was bulk, and it was not unsolicited (agreeing to be a delegate is agreeing to be talked to about convention business).

  262. Brian Holtz

    It’s straightforward to correct it when an accidental mis-count of votes tips an election, and we have rules to make such corrections. There’s no way to un-leak a list of delegates’ personal information. We have rules/policies to protect delegates’ personal information, so an accidental leak is still a rule breakage.

  263. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@460,

    “We have rules/policies to protect delegates’ personal information, so an accidental leak is still a rule breakage.”

    I guess it depends on what you consider reasonable.

    Let’s say you have a secure room rule — any time you leave the room, the door must be locked.

    You leave the room. You put the key in the lock. You turn it.

    But just as you’re turning it, someone speaks to you and you don’t notice that there was no “click” indicating that the lock had engaged.

    You leave, and the door is not locked.

    Did you break the rule?

    I’d say you didn’t.

    Accidents happen.

    Rule-breaking, in my opinion, requires either intent, or knowledge coupled with disregard, or significant negligence, level of negligence possibly adjustable depending on what’s at stake (what’s in the room? Cans of furniture polish and rolls of toilet paper or nuclear launch codes?).

    So, hypothetically:

    Mark Hinkle has a printout of the delegate list, with email addresses, for entirely legitimate purposes.

    In order to comply with security considerations for those documents, he keeps them with him while at a meeting.

    He even takes them to the bathroom with him.

    He sets them down on the counter while washing his hands. Just as he’s drying his hands, someone comes in and speaks to him. He leans against the counter while talking to them. The printout falls off the counter and into the trashcan. When he’s done talking, he looks over, doesn’t see them, and thinks “shit, I must have left them in the meeting room, I’d better get back there and make sure they’re secure.”

    They aren’t there — and while he was checking, someone neither knowing nor bound by the rules noticed them in the bathroom trash, said “hey, cool, a delegate list, I can use that” and walked off with it.

    After they pass through three or four sets of hands, someone hands them to Bob Hunt and says “hey, I bet Carol could use this.”

    Did Hinkle break the rules?

    Does Carol even know where the printout originated?

    Does Carol have an obligation to tell you who she got the printout from, especially if it was someone who is obviously neither the original source nor bound by the rules?

  264. Carol Moore

    Why does Holtz assume I know if the persons got it or a part of it first, second, third, fourth hand? I don’t know.

    Again, why not contact the 30 odd people who had the list?

    Could it be you don’t contact the people who had authorized access to the list because you know half of your LNC allies gave it to some unauthorized person anyway??

    Could it be you don’t contact the people who had authorized access to the list because you know half of your LNC allies gave it to some unauthorized person anyway??

    Could it be you don’t contact the people who had authorized access to the list because you know half of your LNC allies gave it to some unauthorized person anyway??

    Probably pared down to make sure the “radicals” wouldn’t get a copy. (Maybe that’s why I got two smaller lists with a lot of overlap.) How many of your allies sent THAT small sliver of the list – including you – emails you did NOT complain about?

    All I can figure is that MY BOOT ROOT EMAIL MUST HAVE HAD SOME HELL OF AN EFFECT for you to bug me so much about it. Yoo HA!!! Carol boots root, and Holtz is my witness! I’ll tell him you told me so???

    Enough, except to end on this supposition: Could it be you don’t contact the people who had authorized access to the list because you know half of your LNC allies gave it to some unauthorized person anyway??

  265. Carol Moore

    I meant to reply to various discussions of radical (or “libertarian” libertarian) conspiracies. My question:

    Is CONSPIRACY IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NOT VICE a good slogan??

    For those of us who really are out for liberty.

    Obviously not for those who want to dilute liberty “in the name of liberty” or for other more nefarious reasons…

  266. Nicholas Sarwark

    @455: If it’s any consolation, after most of the LNC was replaced this last weekend, odds are that if it was an LNC officer leaking the list, they’re not in a position to do so anymore.

  267. Carol Moore

    Tom Knapp @33: Missed your post first time around. So they were all five out of staters. I assume the chair had the authority to boot them at any time? And that the majority of the delegation pretty much agree with her, even if there was a formal vote?

    Guess next time Missouri needs to hand their guests a note saying: “oh, yeah, we have the right to rescind your delegate status any time for any reason.”

  268. Brian Holtz

    CM: why not contact the 30 odd people who had the list?

    Because I know the name of the 1 odd person who received the list.

    And because a leaker obviously isn’t going to confess just because of being asked.

    Why does Holtz assume I know if the persons got it or a part of it first, second, third, fourth hand?

    I never said you know that. You know I never said you know that. But you chose to write that anyway.

    That’s the kind of person you are.

    Could it be you don’t contact the people who had authorized access to the list because you know half of your LNC allies gave it to some unauthorized person anyway?

    Wow. The only known spam to delegate emails was “Boot Root” from Carol, and she has the nerve to suggest that I might “know half of [my] LNC allies” leaked the list.

    That’s not so much shameful as simply bizarre/pathological.

    Unlike Carol, I’m happy when asked to instantly go on record with everything I know about leaked delegate email lists. My only knowledge/evidence of such a leak is Carol’s email to my wife and Carol’s subsequent admissions about (perhaps indirectly) receiving such a leak. But according to Carol, she’s not the right person to ask about the leaked list she received.

    CONSPIRACY IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NOT VICE

    Translation: “The ends justify the means”.

    QED

  269. Eric Sundwall

    @406 Mark – inviting volunteers from out of state is problematic

    @417 – Hah! – It did come down to Sloan.

    Is there no concern about Roger Stone in any of this Gary Johnson business? I’m afraid of how I would have handled the NAP and Stone if I went to the national convention.

    I’m not collecting signatures for GJ, I’m doing so for the LPNY and maintaining our solid track record of doing so, despite the ballot access circumstances in NY. It was much harder to keep a straight face for Barr in 2008.

  270. Eric Sundwall

    Of course popping Stone in the face might be an assertion of honor than any intention of inducing fraud or force for political ends. But it would be a tough line to maintain.

    Seriously, Johnson has taken him on as an advisor and he did serious harm to our effort in NY in 2010. Nobody challenges this?

  271. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@46,

    “Wow. The only known [convention political solicitation] to delegate emails was ‘Boot Root’ from Carol”

    Not so. I got an email urging me to support Gray for VP, and have no reason to suppose that that email came from anything but a list of past delegates.

  272. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carol @465,

    No longer being affiliated with the LP, including the Missouri LP, my knowledge of what happened is limited.

    I confess to feeling a strong urge to get involved again after seeing the national convention results, but I think I’ll be able to resist.

  273. Brian Holtz

    No Tom, I got convention spams from Gray and from Phillies that were not sent to my wife’s delegate email address. George has already discussed how he assembled his list, and Gray surely was using a list put together in similar ways by the Johnson campaign.

    have no reason to suppose that that email came from anything but a list of past delegates

    Have you already forgotten how you and Carol were tripping over yourselves to explain away the leaked delegate email list as some kind of Internet scraping project?

    My wife is new to IPR, so she and I have enjoyed laughing at the levels of inconsistency and hypocrisy that have been on display here in recent days. I’m trying to convince her that it’s usually not this blatant, but she remains skeptical.

  274. Trent Hill

    Brian–I hope she keeps reading.

    Brian’s wife–He’s lying. It gets WAY funnier than this.

  275. Jeremy C. Young

    Brian is correct here. If Carol was given free access to the delegate e-mail list, Brian and others should have been given access as well. Getting rid of Root is not sufficient justification to give someone an unfair advantage in the campaigning process.

  276. Carol Moore

    Holtz 471: what other spam emails did your wife get? If it was only me that’s even more mysterious, isn’t it… hmmm….

  277. Carol Moore

    Jeremy 474: I thought there WAS free access for convention business when I sent it out. No one told me any different.

    Assuming there was NOT free access to the list — and Brian remains only person asserting so — I do believe in free access except for those delegates who opt out.

    Let’s put straightening out EMAIL address issue on the DO list for next LP convention; even adding email issue to the bylaws so it doesn’t have to drive poor Mr. Holtz INSANE… next time around??

  278. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie has just appeared on-line on Facebook (although he’s answering via email). He has arrived in Chicago.

    It’s been weird that he’s been absent for a few days when it seemed he was on IPR all day and night for the convention! I will be glad to have him back.

  279. Jill Pyeatt

    TH @ 473: You might be right that this might be one of our longest running threads. If I recall, Angelagate holds the record so far.

    My OCD has been in charge the last few days, and if I have a chance, I’ll count up all the articles about the convention and their comments. My guess is they’ll top 2,000 so far, and I know we’re not through talking about the convention and the people there. I’m very pleased that I was able to help let those not in attendance know what was going on.

  280. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@471,

    “Have you already forgotten how you and Carol were tripping over yourselves to explain away the leaked delegate email list as some kind of Internet scraping project?”

    I’m not trying to “explain away” anything.

    All I’ve said is that your assumption that the delegate email list was “leaked” is an assumption, not a known fact.

  281. zapper

    Can someone please set up a thread for “That unsolicited email letter” and then get Holtz a room next to Milnes at the clinic.

    Enough already.

  282. Brian Holtz

    Yeah, Tom, and evolution is merely a hypothesis. To the extent it’s likely that the list got out accidentally, that’s all the more reason why Carol should stop protecting her source and tell us what she knows about how it got out.

    But we already know she’s decided not to do that — even though she knows what inference her refusal invites. That’s fine — if she can live with that inference, then so can I.
    CM @477: what other spam emails did your wife get? If it was only me

    Please pay attention, and stop wasting our time. I already said: “My only knowledge/evidence of such a leak is Carol’s email to my wife”.

    that’s even more mysterious, isn’t it?

    No kidding. That’s why I kept asking the only known recipient of the leaked list to say where she got it. But she was rude and stonewalling, so I gave up.

    Assuming there was NOT free access to the list — and Brian remains only person asserting so

    Please pay attention, and stop wasting our time. I already said that both the CoC (Ruth Bennett) and LPHQ (Carla Howell and Robert Kraus) told me that not only is the email list confidential, but that they won’t even forward an email from me in exchange for a donation.

    If anyone is “insane” here, it’s the person who manages to keep commenting on this subject without answering the central question (whence the list?) and without paying attention to what has already been said on the matter.

    Me, I’ve got to get ready for a board meeting tonight of the government water district of which I’m President, so we can talk about my agenda of further cutting costs and potentially privatizing this government agency completely. What are the rest of you guys doing for Liberty today?

  283. paulie Post author

    Can someone please set up a thread for “That unsolicited email letter”

    On my to do list along with a lot of other things. Someone else may feel free to get to it first. I was going to hold off on providing the explanation but my guess is that Carol had the email address from 2004, when she ran for LNC, or one of the other years she did so; or because it was publicly available somewhere on an email list or forward which she was copied on at some point over the years. She data-mines and saves addresses to her list that way and has been doing so for a long, long time. I would not automatically assume that someone leaked it to her this year, and if someone did, it may have gone through several other people before reaching her.

  284. paulie Post author

    Paulie has just appeared on-line on Facebook (although he’s answering via email). He has arrived in Chicago.

    It’s been weird that he’s been absent for a few days when it seemed he was on IPR all day and night for the convention! I will be glad to have him back.

    Thanks Jill. I rode up here in a car and had no email or internet until today. I also slept a lot in the car as well as a lot last night. Before that I had about 10 day of much less sleep than necessary or normal including several with no sleep at all.

  285. paulie Post author

    Paulie, where are you tell me and Mr. Holtz to get a room… (You set me up with such sexy dates!)

    Paulie???????

    Right here, doll, but you may have to ask Brian’s wife first 😛

  286. Jill Pyeatt

    MV @ 484: Great finds! I’ll post some of these later tonight, although I suspect someone will get to them first.

  287. Trent Hill

    I will sell all of your email addresses to anyone for the right price 😛

  288. Trent Hill

    There’s about a thousand of them. I’d accept a $200 payoff since it’s mostly delegates to LP, CP, and GP conventions, state and national.

  289. Brian Holtz

    Trent, the analogous situation would be if, against IPR policy, the email addresses were leaked by one of us who has access to them. Or even better: if someone leaked a list of how the most prominent pseudonyms here map to real people’s email addresses. (Root’s Teeth, take note.)

  290. Trent Hill

    Brian–I totally get why you’re upset about it, I would be too, although I probably wouldn’t be so patient in my arguments.

    Seriously. $200.

  291. paulie Post author

    Mark Axinn

    If you are ever in NYC, let me know and I will buy you lunch.

    Sounds good, will do 🙂

  292. paulie Post author

    big win for the FRC (Friendly Radical Caucus).

    There are enough of us to caucus? I’m for it!

  293. paulie Post author

    are you saying Wes Benedict is a Starr man?

    Just trying to figure our who’s who in the zoo.

    Wes Benedict was among many delegates who wanted alternatives to both George and Aaron and sought/recruited some.

  294. paulie Post author

    Paulie–Was there a vote on funding ballot access for New York, or was it merely discussed?

    As far as I know it was only discussed, but I missed some of the meeting after the executive session.

  295. paulie Post author

    And the 4 credential comm members and the abstainer who blocked the correct OR delegates from seats will come up with about $20,000 for Ballot Access in OR

    It would cost a lot more than 20k, but the good news is that the LPOR may put Johnson/Gray on despite everything.

    and the guy who doesn’t have a set so he abstained NEEDS to GO TODAY also.

    That would be our state chair Mark Bodenhausen, fyi.

  296. paulie Post author

    Circumstantial Evidence Indicates; Texas Jackals devour dead carcass of the Libertarian Party

    Many of us in attendence at the 40th aniversary convention of the Libertarian Party had an experience that can only be likened to the experience of those New Yorkers who stared incredulously at the Twin Towers, as they crashed in upon themselves in smoke and flames; not believing such a thing were possible, but knowing they were seeing it with their own eyes.

    That this was a premeditated act of anarchistic, nihilist destructionism; there is no doubt. The wheels did not simply fall off of the best vehicle for political relevance that the LP has had in a generation; they were blown off by bombs attached to the undercarriage by well organized insidious terrorists!

    As to the motives for this carnage, I can only speculate and ask (hopefully not just rhetorical) questions;

    Why did Lee Wrights decline the nomination for chair? Would it have made it TOO obvious that we was the intended beneficiary of this barbaric and wholely deleterious invocation of the libertarian demigod, (or is it demogogue) NOTA?

    Why did he partake of the of the “blood and body” of the LP in a uniquely libertarian “eucharist”?

    Was Geoff Neale an active participant in this “rule or ruin” consiracy from the onset, OR was he just a willing and useful dupe? The answer is MAY only known (at this point) by those who were suddenly graced with professionally printed “NOTA for LNC” as if mana from heaven.

    THIS AIN’T OVER FOLKS!

    David Terry

    Funniest thing I’ve read in ages! There’s also this – http://chrisspangle.tumblr.com/post/22735422944/one-man-just-bought-the-lnc-and-more-shenanigans-from

  297. paulie Post author

    For those of us who don’t want to read 391 comments, could someome do a post summing up the results? I’m confused. Thanks.

    On my to do list along with way too much else…

  298. George Phillies on Oregon

    Libertariangirl: I assume we are still friends.

    If I had known the night before that Lee was running for Vice Chair, I might have done something else, rather than running for Vice Chair. However, by the time I found out, my plans for Sunday morning were well under way.

    I was, truthfully, surprised to learn after the officer elections that several people had been campaigning for me for Treasurer. I am sorry if they were let down, but I had no idea that they were there.

    Futurewards, I anticipate confining my libertarian efforts to Liberty For America, except perhaps doing some writing for Liberty for All.

  299. paulie Post author

    Others, instead of all the useless verbal horse manure, how abut coming to New York this summer and petitioning for us?

    When I called you about it in 2010 you said residency is an issue. Can we register me to vote at someone’s place in NY now? Better yet if I can actually stay there as NY motels are rather expensive. I’d also be up for petitioning side by side with someone(s) but I’ll need people available at all times if we do that. Not necessarily one person all the time, obviously.

  300. paulie Post author

    I thought # 316 was a candidate for President with the BTP. How is he participating in a Libertarian convention?

    By being selected as a delegate by one of the state LPs.

    How does he get into Michigan delegation?

    Same way that I did in 2000: by asking them. I didn’t live there either.

    I thought he was still in prison or something.

    There’s a legal case against him still pending.

  301. paulie Post author

    472 comments might be a new record.

    735 remains the record, but to my recollection there was only one other time besides that one where we went over 500.

  302. paulie Post author

    Brian is correct here. If Carol was given free access to the delegate e-mail list, Brian and others should have been given access as well. Getting rid of Root is not sufficient justification to give someone an unfair advantage in the campaigning process.

    True.

    Jeremy 474: I thought there WAS free access for convention business when I sent it out. No one told me any different.

    Assuming there was NOT free access to the list — and Brian remains only person asserting so — I do believe in free access except for those delegates who opt out.

    In recent years the rule has been that they will give out snail mail addresses only.

    From your posts I understand that the times you ran in ’98, ’00 and ’04 they were giving out lists that included email addresses.

  303. Chuck Moulton

    Nick Sarwark wrote (@358):

    As far as what I see that this new LNC needs to do, they need to (a) show that they’re listening to the delegates when they say that they won’t accept an LNC that can’t get stuff done or get along with each other and (b) get some early successes by fixing the mistakes of the prior LNC.

    I would hope to see by the July meeting:
    1) Passing a change to the policy manual to prohibit a floor fee at conventions. A more permanent solution should also be referred to the Bylaws Committee for 2014.
    2) Apologizing to the Wagner group (and present Oregon affiliate) for not seating their delegates as the Oregon delegation and asking nicely for them to place Johnson/Gray on the ballot. I’d think the Chair or someone designated by the LNC should also offer to both sides whatever assistance the LNC can give in mediating the dispute. The likely answer is none, but the offer should be made by someone who didn’t take sides over this last term.

    I also hope that Starchild can find the right balance between seeking transparency and working well with the other members of the committee. I can’t say what that balance is, but by report, the first meeting had too much of the former and too little of the latter.

    Strongly agree.

  304. Chuck Moulton

    Joe Buchman wrote (@235):

    230 Redpath
    174 Cloud
    172 Starchild
    153 Arvin Vohra
    142 Root

    I have nothing against Michael Cloud personally. This convention was my first time meeting him and he seemed like a nice, thoughtful guy. I was awed by both his strategy and his speaking ability (and I’ve been to a lot of toastmaster’s clubs). But…

    All of the convention speakers agreed not to seek LNC office, president, or VP. Michael Cloud made that agreement. Michael Cloud was the keynote speaker, he spoke at a fundraising workshop, and he spoke at the banquet. He then turned around and ran for LNC at-large. That was a clear violation of the agreement he signed.

    See the vote I summarized on page 3 of the e-mail ballots as “No LNC, P, VP candidates as convention speakers 2/19/2012 – 3/5/2012 (March 2012, p. 13)”:

    Motion: RESOLVED, that the following language be inserted in the Policy Manual:

    Section 2.09.7 OTHER MATTERS: Convention Speakers

    No person shall be scheduled as a convention speaker unless that person has signed this statement:
    “As a condition of my being scheduled to speak, I agree to neither seek nor accept nomination for any office to be selected by delegates at the upcoming Libertarian Party convention.” This policy shall not apply to participation in a scheduled candidate debate. This policy shall not apply in the case where someone is exercising official duties (e.g. such as when the Treasurer presents his official report).

    Co-Sponsors: Rebecca Sink-Burris, Stewart Flood, Vicki Kirkland, Dianna Visek

    Start Date: 02/19/12

    End Date: 03/05/12

    Voting “aye”: Eshelman, Flood, Knedler, Mattson, Root, Rutherford, Sink-Burris, Visek, Wolf

    Voting “nay”: Blau, Craig, Karlan, Lark, Olsen, Redpath, Ruwart, Wiener

    The motion was adopted by a vote of 9-8.

  305. Wes Wagner

    CM @509

    You raise a very interesting issue. Did you ask Mr Cloud about this privately before posting it to give him a chance to do the right thing?

  306. Chuck Moulton

    Tom Knapp wrote (@461):

    So, hypothetically:

    Mark Hinkle has a printout of the delegate list, with email addresses, for entirely legitimate purposes.

    […]

    The printout falls off the counter and into the trashcan.

    […]

    someone neither knowing nor bound by the rules noticed them in the bathroom trash, said “hey, cool, a delegate list, I can use that” and walked off with it.

    […]

    Does Carol have an obligation to tell you who she got the printout from, especially if it was someone who is obviously neither the original source nor bound by the rules?

    This happened to me btw. I have a list of delegates with email addresses and phone numbers (some of them, at least) which I recovered from the trash can while I was fishing out all my vote chart literature that Ruth Bennett told hotel staff to throw away. I’m pretty sure it is from the Gary Johnson campaign rather than credentials (I think they filled in emails and phone numbers with their own info). Finders, keepers.

    Additionally I have a delegate list sent directly from the official credentials committee distribution in a prior year that included email addresses (it did not include phone numbers). Again: finders, keepers.

    Neither list seems to have any Holtz from California besides Brian on it.

    I have not distributed either list to anyone else, nor will I.

    If I run for an LNC office at some point in the future, I will be merging these two lists and filling in the remaining email addresses through my own investigation. You all can expect an email suggesting that you vote for me.

  307. Chuck Moulton

    Wes Wagner wrote (@510):

    You raise a very interesting issue. Did you ask Mr Cloud about this privately before posting it to give him a chance to do the right thing?

    Nope. The LNC vote is public record. His convention win for LNC at-large is public record. Not sure what I need to fact check.

    Maybe the convention committee forgot to make speakers sign that? Maybe some consider “at-large” to not be an “office” (e.g., applies to LNC officers only)? Maybe the LNC voted to rescind this by mail ballot within the last week or at the pre-convention LNC meeting on May 2? I dunno.

    This situation was brought to my attention by a LNC member who was quite distressed by it. I won’t name him… he can speak up for himself if he wants.

  308. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@509) (emphasis added):

    All of the convention speakers agreed not to seek LNC office, president, or VP. Michael Cloud made that agreement. Michael Cloud was the keynote speaker, he spoke at a fundraising workshop, and he spoke at the banquet. He then turned around and ran for LNC at-large. That was a clear violation of the agreement he signed.

    I should clarify that “Michael Cloud made that agreement.” was an implicit assumption of mine because he was in fact a speaker. It’s possible that for some reason he was not made to sign the agreement.

  309. Mark Hilgenberg

    @Chuck 511,

    I am disappointed that Ruth had the staff toss the literature. Starchild and I asked her to instruct the staff to stack the stuff in the back of the room. She said she would.

  310. Chuck Moulton

    Mark Hilgenberg wrote (@515):

    I am disappointed that Ruth had the staff toss the literature. Starchild and I asked her to instruct the staff to stack the stuff in the back of the room. She said she would.

    It was stuck in the back of the room… in trash cans. Supposedly the trash cans were to be saved and used just for literature.

    Like I said though, some sodas and juice were tossed in them. I started going through them within minutes of the material being tossed. Dunno when the soda and juice were put in the trash cans.

    Those trash cans were moved to the staff room and left there with a “Do not empty — Ruth” sign on them. They were still there at the end of the convention.

    I don’t know if anyone besides me went through them to salvage literature.

  311. Marc Montoni

    Chuck @516, I went through some of the stuff in the cans as well as stuff that had already been pulled out. I picked out someone’s vest (forget who it was now but knew whose it was at the time, fished out Arvin Vohra’s (sp?) bag of congressional campaign lit, and a few other things who I knew the owners of. I even found someone’s name tag complete with delegate & package ribbons, and returned it to them.

    It was kind of stupid to clear the tables (esp without much warning). There were a lot of binders that were removed as well. For all the whining about how much the binder materials cost to produce, it’s just plain dumb to then clear them out and throw them away.

    On the other hand, I keep wishing for a better way to make sure literature stays with delegates, rather than on tables.

    Maybe those who distribute lit should ensure their material is 3-hole punched & 8-1/2 x 11 so the natural tendency of the delegates will be to add it right into their binder?

    IMO, those voting records you assemble should have been part of the package in the first place.

  312. Matt Cholko

    Someone (possibly Montoni) mentioned printing all of the binder material on newsprint. Doing so would result in something about the size of a local newspaper, that would be much less bulky. It seems that this would have two advantages – easier to roll up and stick in your pocket upon leaving the convention hall, and less of a problem if thrown in the trash. The convention committee could print up 100 extra and sell them for $5 at the registration desk for those who lost theirs.

  313. Brian Holtz

    Neither list seems to have any Holtz from California besides Brian on it.

    My wife’s first name is Melisse, but her last name starts with an L.

  314. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@511):

    Neither list seems to have any Holtz from California besides Brian on it.

    Brian Holtz wrote (@520):

    My wife’s first name is Melisse, but her last name starts with an L.

    In that case my list from the trash has her email. It also has a phone number ending in “24”.

    My list from the credentials committee several years ago didn’t include many CA emails.

  315. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “I have nothing against Michael Cloud personally. This convention was my first time meeting him and he seemed like a nice, thoughtful guy.”

    Michael Cloud was actually the second Libertarian Party member who I met in person. The first Libertarian Party member that I met in person was Harry Browne.

    I joined the Libertarian Party in 1996, but I never went to any LP meetings until 1999. The first meeting that I attended was a Harry Browne Presidential Exploratory meeting. This was before Harry officially announced that he was running for the LP’s Presidential nomination again.

    A few seconds after I walked in the room Harry Browne popped up near where I was standing and he was the first person with whom I spoke to at the meeting. This was pretty cool considering that it was seeing him on C-SPAN at the 1996 Libertarian Party National Convention that made me want to join the party. I brought a copy of his book, “Why Government Doesn’t Work” to the meeting and he autographed it for me.

    The second person that I spoke to at that meeting was Michael Cloud.

    I dealt with Michael Cloud when I worked on Carla Howell’s campaign to End the State Income Tax in Massachusetts in 2001. I never had any problems with him.

  316. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@520, CM@521,

    Well, not “mystery solved,” exactly, but it does seem to be a demonstration that it is plausible that Brian’s wife’s email address made it onto Carol Moore’s list by some route other than direct intentional compromise of that address by LPHQ staff, LNC members, etc.

    Document custody / information security is a serious problem for any organization of significant size, and the LNC and its subsidiaries, affiliates, etc. are probably not on the short list for the 2012 Most Disciplined Organization with Respect to Document Custody / Information Security Award.

  317. Alan Pyeatt

    I don’t know when the tables were cleared, but I do know that at one point, a member of the California delegation returned from a break to find his binder and other materials were missing.

    I guess the moral of the story is, if you need it that bad, take it with you.

  318. Stewart Flood

    Lists, Speakers and Knedlering…

    Now that I am not on the LNC, I believe it is time to set some of the record straight, and blow the lid off several of the greatest conspiracies the Libertarian Party has seen.

    This will take several posts, maybe even dozens. I got back from Vegas Tuesday evening (43 hour drive), so I am still trying to decompress from being at that inhuman altitude. 10 feet above sea level (second floor apartment) is much more comfortable.

    Lists…

    I received complaints about the list that was distributed. Since I was the chair of the IT committee as well as a member of the convention committee, I conducted an investigation. I will elaborate on my results later.

    Speakers…

    I am not sure if Chuck was referring to me, or if there was another LNC member who was more pissed off than I was. There was a lot of speaker bullshit on both sides. Why were there so many presenters giving out awards, and why were almost all of them running for LNC at large seats? Many of the presenters (but not all) were/are hooded key holders of the inner chamber. More later.

    Knedlering…

    What better way to institutionalize the bullshit tactics of the Starr Chamber than to immortalize Kevin Knedler the same way that Thomas Crapper was. Crapper didn’t invent the flush toilet, he just promoted it so well that most people believe he did. Knedler is/was not a hooded key holder of the inner chamber, but he was stupid enough to listen to their minions and slander California and every other state delegation. More later.

    I could write a book…maybe even two…

    And no, I was not a hooded key holder of the inner chamber. I was a key holder at one point in time, but when they started handing out hoods I turned in my key. That was quite a while ago, back when I thought that keys were supposed to be used to unlock chains, and before it was clear that they use keys to add more chains.

    The Starr Chamber is not gone. They have quite a few members on the LNC and they will do their best to follow the marching orders they have been given. Their master plan (which I know) has been delayed, but not stopped. More later.

    And for the record, buying packages and paying transportation and other travel expenses for a delegate is a violation of federal election law. More than one faction may have done it. Actually more than two may have. I didn’t, and I really don’t care if anyone deals with the issue, so I won’t comment on it further other than to say that at least four groups told me before the convention that they were planning to bus people in. Texas was not one of the groups I heard from, so there were at least five. Enough said on that.

    Maybe I will write a book…

  319. Jeremy C. Young

    Wait, so now Stewart wants to blow the lid off the conspiracies? Where was he when Angela Keaton was getting kicked off the LNC by the conspirators? Oh, that’s right, voting with the majority. Where was he when the LNC voted to uphold the floor fee that nearly kept away enough radicals for the Starr Chamber to finalize their plans? Oh, that’s right, voting with the majority. Why does he turn on Starr only now, when he’s out of power?

    Color me skeptical.

  320. Stewart Flood

    Oh, and for the record, I was not expecting to be nominated for LNC at large. When I arrived at the convention I had planned to retire. I had, in fact, announced that I was retiring.

    I was asked by several friends to run, and decided that it might be a good idea. But after all the bullshit, I decided on Sunday not to run and asked the people who wanted me to run to not nominate me.

    A funny thing happened when I left to use the restroom…

    I actually have no idea who nominated me, but only a politician drops out of a race he knows he will lose. I am not a politician. I thought about running again because I believe in the cause and believe that we can eventually start turning this country back toward freedom.

    Yes, I supported charging a registration fee. Unlike Mr Root and others, my motive was not to exclude people but to do what was right. The registration issue is not based on our “traditional” intra-party divisions. I believe that the people who contribute to the party, many of whom believe their money should be used for ballot access and for standing up against statism, should not have to pay for us to decide who runs the party.

    Some of you disagree with me, and that’s fine. If that was your primary reason for not voting for me or for certain other candidates then you are a fool. But you are allowed to be a fool, so be proud of your foolishness as only a fool can.

    Registration fees are neither our party’s problem or even a symptom of the real problem.

    Oregon…

    How can you say sack of shit? Just say Oregon. Wagner is scum, but he’s allowed to be scum — and he’s certainly quite proud of it! Is the other side clean? I doubt it. My guess, based on everything I’ve seen, is that the Oregon party hasn’t had a state committee without members who’s status was questionable under their ByLaws for quite a number of years. Wagner’s “group” may not have been legal even before their convention.

    So yes, I objected to what was an open coup, as well as to their assertion during the LNC Executive Committee “hearing” that the state gave them the right to do it! Who are we fighting? And they claim authority by saying that the state knows best??? Maybe sack of shit is too kind a name. Maybe statist more appropriate.

    I didn’t vote to recognize one group over another, but I agreed with the members of the EC who did. I disagree with the decision of the JC, and I believe that it was based on a flawed interpretation of what the LNC did — or didn’t do.

    But I still respect the members of the JC. They were just looking at it wrong. Their ruling would obviously have been correct if it had been an act of disaffiliation, rather than an act of recognizing an affiliates’ ByLaws and the manner in which they specify they may be modified. I was on the call. It was not disaffiliation. Enough said about this, since it is a dead issue. I would never have voted for, or supported, a vote to disaffiliate just because some sack of shit committed a coup. We have to abide by the contract, which is the ByLaws.

    Was Mr Wrights influenced by Dr Ruwart? Of course. We are all influenced by anyone we interact with, regardless of their relationship to us. But I am pretty confident that he would have voted the same way, based on the flawed interpretation of the LNC’s action (or non-action), so I believe that there was no actual conflict of interest in this specific case, just the appearance of one.

    And I (and others) gave Dr Ruwart the applause she deserved for making the decision to avoid any potential appearance of one this term by not running for the JC. I do not always agree with her, but I stood,never though it hurt like hell.

    And only a sack of shit/statist (Mr W, et al) will send a contribution three months later to someone who voted for their side. But that’s what statists do. They pay for performance, even if the person wasn’t doing it for a payment or even expecting one. Mr Wrights probably should have returned it, but political campaigns rarely return contributions. In that decision, I believe he was wrong. Not legally wrong, but ethically wrong.

    Ok…I think I can get back to sleep soon and catch a few more hours. For those of you who may be wondering, most of the swelling in my left ankle is gone, but it is now quite obvious that a ligament is torn, especially since it hurts like hell if I even touch it. That’s what happens when you have to run around a poorly designed hotel, trying to make the network function.

    FYI: if I hadn’t built that network (for free obviously) the registration fee would have been at least another $40/delegate. My professional time may only be worth somewhat more than a hundred dollars an hour, but the hotel would have charged us about $8 thousand more EACH DAY to provide what we needed. So those of you who believe that there is a free lunch can suck it. You’ll be paying a lot more in Ohio, since I’m not going to be building a free network as I did in Vegas and St Louis.

    Am I whining? No. I willingly donated my services and equipment. But I won’t do it again.

    But I am going to design a replacement for that fucked up voting procedure. I am not going to let inane procedures waste hours of my time as a delegate, making me (and you) sit there because the party uses a fucking spreadsheet to count ballots. Paper ballots are cool. Paper ballots are necessary. Counting them with a spreadsheet is not. I wrote a system back in 2000 that was used in a primary to count and verify (three cross counts) more than 42,000 paper ballots in less than three hours. This is not rocket science. That system took two people three hours to design, write, test and document. We can do better than a fucking spreadsheet. I commend the people who wrote the spreadsheet, but it is still a fucking spreadsheet!

    State delegations have the right to handle their internal voting any way they want, and I certainly respect the decisions California and other large delegations made in creating ways to have a trusted election result, even if some people insist on Knedlering (love that word!)

    But the convention shouldn’t be Knedlered by a fucking spreadsheet! I/we will fix it. Our new fearless leaders may chose to ignore what I/we will propose. I/we can’t force them. But those of you who know me know that it will be a recommendation that eliminates Knedlering.

    Ok. 5:30am. Still awake. Going to waste an entire day trying to sleep because we were all Knedlered.

    Good night Gracie…

  321. Jeremy C. Young

    Sorry you were injured — that sounds quite painful.

    I apologize for the harsh words in my previous post. I guess we just fundamentally disagree about how one should fight a cabal if one believes such a cabal is attempting to consolidate power in an organization one believes in. To me, if you believe a cabal is in place (and it sounds as if you do), your first priority must be to defeat that cabal on every issue until they are destroyed. You must put aside the fact that you may agree with them on a given issue (such as the floor fee), and see the vote instead as a way to deny the cabal power. You must put aside your dislike of individuals such as Wagner and band together with them to destroy the cabal at all costs. The enemy of the cabal must be your friend, and the position opposed to the cabal’s wishes must be your position. Voting your conscience while a cabal is trying to rig votes in its favor simply allows the cabal to win.

    It sounds as if you hold a different view, and chose to vote your conscience as a higher priority than defeating the cabal. I understand that position, but I don’t agree with it.

  322. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote (@527):

    But I am going to design a replacement for that fucked up voting procedure. I am not going to let inane procedures waste hours of my time as a delegate, making me (and you) sit there because the party uses a fucking spreadsheet to count ballots. Paper ballots are cool. Paper ballots are necessary. Counting them with a spreadsheet is not. I wrote a system back in 2000 that was used in a primary to count and verify (three cross counts) more than 42,000 paper ballots in less than three hours. This is not rocket science. That system took two people three hours to design, write, test and document. We can do better than a fucking spreadsheet. I commend the people who wrote the spreadsheet, but it is still a fucking spreadsheet!

    We can do better than a spreadsheet.

    But before we abandon the spreadsheet, I should point out that spreadsheets could be utilized a lot more effectively.

    The secretary should have had 5-8 different laptops with spreadsheets with people entering numbers in parallel. Error checking would be trivial as well: just have every state entered on 2 different laptops and see if they get the same result. Merge the spreadsheets together by putting them on a thumb drive and transferring them to the main laptop, then copying & pasting. It’s not rocket science.

    I don’t blame the secretary for not doing this initially. No one expected so many rounds of voting with tight time — especially because many thought president, vice-president, and chair would all be done within 1 ballot each.

    But for the future we should do this better. The hardest part would be recruiting 10-20 volunteers to help the secretary when it’s crunch time for president, vice-president, and LNC votes. I don’t think getting them would be too hard with some lead time advertising in LP news or reaching out to state chairs asking them to send a few members to help.

    On a similar note, it should be trivial to move the cable that feeds the projector from one laptop to another. It was ridiculous for the secretary to insist no motions could be projected while votes were being counted. All that should have been needed were more laptops. Again, it doesn’t take a fancy network connecting all the laptops to one another… just move the VGA cable around; or keep the cable connected to the same laptop but tabulate votes on a different laptop and use a thumb drive to transfer the results to the main computer.

    It’s not rocket science.

    I’m Monday morning quarterbacking here. My intention is not to criticize our outgoing secretary (who was probably too overwhelmed getting things done to brainstorm about process improvements), but rather to strongly suggest a better way for future years.

  323. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote (@525):

    I am not sure if Chuck was referring to me, or if there was another LNC member who was more pissed off than I was.

    Nope. Someone else.

    Stewart Flood wrote (@525):

    There was a lot of speaker bullshit on both sides. Why were there so many presenters giving out awards, and why were almost all of them running for LNC at large seats? Many of the presenters (but not all) were/are hooded key holders of the inner chamber. More later.

    I agree that the awards should have been given out by non-LNC members, given their apparent concerns about speakers getting an unfair leg up in LNC elections.

    But I don’t think the text of the LNC motion I referred to covered such behavior. In contrast, it did clearly cover people listed in the convention program as featured speakers.

  324. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote (@525):

    And for the record, buying packages and paying transportation and other travel expenses for a delegate is a violation of federal election law. More than one faction may have done it. Actually more than two may have. I didn’t, and I really don’t care if anyone deals with the issue, so I won’t comment on it further other than to say that at least four groups told me before the convention that they were planning to bus people in. Texas was not one of the groups I heard from, so there were at least five. Enough said on that.

    I don’t claim to be any sort of expert on federal election law.

    However, to my knowledge there is no problem with busing people to the polls to vote (since there is a secret ballot, so you can’t force someone to vote a certain way). Similarly, I don’t see why busing people to a convention would be a violation, so long as they are not forced to vote a certain way.

    As far as paying the registration fee, this seems to be the same issue as the Lee Wrights controversy where Sean Haugh paid Lee’s dues. The FEC doesn’t care who pays the LNC for someone’s membership or convention package or whatever. What is does care about is that the person who pays the money should be the person listed on the FEC report as the donor.

    So if the convention registration fee was paid to a FEC filing committee (e.g., the LNC) rather than a convention organizing committee, then the internal accounting should have been different from the FEC accounting. From the LP’s perspective (in its internal accounting), payments were received for 39 Texas delegate convention packages. From the FEC’s perspective (for the FEC report), the LNC received a large sum of money from William Sparkman. At least, that’s how it should have worked.

  325. Stewart Flood

    @526,

    Be skeptical. Being skeptical is good. First, if you look at the record, Ms Keaton was not kicked off the LNC. Go read it. She resigned. There was never any vote to remove her. Go read the record, don’t just listen to people who repeat inaccurate statements as fact.

    I gave my reasons for why I supported the registration fee. It had nothing to do with the faction in control, or their puppet master.

    And if you think that I am just now turning against what Mr Starr was doing then you have not looked at my voting record, which is clearly outlined in both Chuck Moulton’s document and Dr Phillies’ analysis, where I am clearly listed as NOT being a member of the (as he calls it) the Root faction. I think he used another term, but I don’t have it in front of me right now.

    And just who do you think was the LNC source for Paulie? I never gave any IPR any information from executive session or any email from LNC-discuss, but where do you think they got some of their better analysis background information, stuff that even Dr Phillies’ informants didn’t have?

    Explaining why thing were happening and who the players were in an issue. He may have had other sources, but I certainly give Mr Frankel permission to confirm that I was a major source. Again, no confidential information.

    I wrote previously (in other threads) about supporting the registration fee. I wrote previously (ib other threads) about my disagreement with the way that Mr Starr operates. This is not some new and sudden revelation.

    The stuff I wrote about above is new. Things that happened in the past week or two. And the conspiracy is the conspiracy to steal the party at the convention.

    The fact that I was a source should have been obvious to anyone paying attention. I “left” the Starr group more than two years ago, before I was elected to another term in St Louis.

    It took them a while to realize that I was serious in my statement to them at the LSLA in Austin, and they certainly lobbied me where they felt it was worth the effort (but was certainly never guaranteed to succeed).

    Have I revealed any specific details from any of the secret meetings I attended and that attendees were “sworn to secrecy” to not reveal? No. But I haven’t attended any of the secret meetings in a long time, and I was one of the few dissenting opinions at the last few that I did attend. I remember being told by someone at the last one I attended that I talked too much and that I should just shut up. It was implied (but not actually stated) that I should just do what the group said to do. I did neither.

    Yes, they actually hold secret meetings. Not everyone present understands that they are in a secret meeting, but they know that they are asked to not reveal the discussion.

    I am no longer on the LNC, so I have no reason to not admit that there are secret meetings where a majority of the LNC decide in advance how to vote and where motions are written and given to members on cue cards. I am not the first to reveal the existence of these meetings. No actual votes are taken, so nothing illegal was done. It is just unethical.

    Mr Starr was usually the chair of the meetings that I attended. He continued to do this (over my objection) after he was defeated in his re-election bid for office.

    I stopped attending. Invitations are given only to those that they “trust”, so the fact that I actually haven’t received invitations lately does not surprise me. My sources (yes, even I have sources) told me that I have been on a “need to know” status for quite some time.

    What they don’t know is that I knew this. Even if I hadn’t been told, they know that I’m smart enough to have expected it. Even others outside their group knew, so based on my analysis they probably have at least two of their current “members” leaking stuff. Or they may be intentionally leaking some stuff to throw people off the track of their real plan.

    Remember, I know the real plan. A few other people have figured it out on their own without being told. It is really quite clever, but this convention was a major setback for them. I have never supported or agreed with what they want to do to the party.

    Expect a rebuttal from them, labeling me as a disgruntled ex-LNC member. The LNC is not the problem. Some of the LNC members regularly accused of being in their cabal are not (as I have said in the past.)

    Mark Hinkle was certainly not the problem. He screwed up a few times — ok more than a few times — but he was not the problem.

    He was against the registration fee.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    He was against removing candidates from the website.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    He was against wasting roughly 15% of our revenue each year on rent.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    He actually tried (but failed) to get factions to stop fighting and work together.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    He let me/us actually audit the IT infrastructure, recommend and implement improvements, buy a modern and functional phone system (saving money and reducing ongoing expenses) instead of some 1990’s style system that would not take us forward.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    He fought against spending $50 thousand dollars to help a good candidate, but one that was in an unwinnable race.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    (for the record, I voted to spend the money since I fell for the load of crap they fed us over what they were going to do to try to win)

    He supported my effort to get money for California to fight top two, the most dangerous election law change we’ve ever faced.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    (FYI: I was the one who started that effort and pushed and lobbied through the entire St Louis convention to get $10k and then $15k more.)

    He fought against a poorly planned and over priced project in which tens of thousands of dollars of our donors’s money will be wasted.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    He did his best, worked his butt off raising money — not just for a building — and spent more hours every week on his unpaid LNC “job” than anyone could have reasonably expected.

    Why did you NOTA him? Why didn’t you re-elect him?

  326. Stewart Flood

    I wrote a really long response (about an hour) and hit submit. It did not post, and going back on the iPad does not show it to resubmit. Maybe I used too many swear words in describing the conspiracy in it.

    In short: I did fight the cabal. The registration issue was not a cabal issue. Neither was Oregon, since you may recall that Mr Hinkle and Ms Mattsen were the primary supporters.

    Go read “The Patriot”, written by Pearl S Buck (1939)

    Sometimes you win by letting them move too fast and destroy themselves. Sometimes you put yourself at risk to stop them.

    We (the convention) needed to resolve the issue of registration fees. The solution Mr Dixon proposed should fix it.

    But the issue was PERCEIVED as being from the cabal. It hurt them. Did it hurt me? Sure. But I took out a lot of them with me.

    If I had voted against it, it still would have passed. It would have been the politically correct vote if I were a politician concerned about re-election, but I am not a politician. I actually believe a registration fee is allowed, and that it is certainly a libertarian position. Pay your own way. Donate if you want, but don’t force others to pay your way. Ruth Bennett and I supported it for the same reasons.

    But they (“they”) had other motives. Or maybe they (“they”) didn’t. But everyone believes they did.

    Conspiracy within conspiracy.

    Mark Rutherford is not chair. The major hooded key holders of the inner circle are gone, leaving only five or six of their pawns on the LNC. (Root just does what they say, he is not the decision maker or architect)

    Guess I won, eh?

    See you in Ohio.

  327. Stewart Flood

    And yes, I planned it. But I expected Hinkle to win and for me to be the only casualty. It was close.

  328. Stewart Flood

    I am smarter than some people think I am. Go back and look at the Keaton “trial” and see what I actually did.

    Would a prosecutor who wanted a conviction have presented the case the way I did?

    Yes, she was acting somewhat nutty. But she was just a victim of the Starr chamber in its early formation. I never asked for a motion to remove her, just one to work with her in resolving her behavior issues. Go read the minutes.

    Again, read “The Patriot”

    I did, the same summer I read “Atlas Shrugged” and several other good books when we had nearly a month of rain at the beach. This was a year or two after the Asbury Park riots, when we had tanks on our streets and machine gun nests on the boardwalk.

    It makes an impression on you that you never forget.

  329. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote (@533):

    I wrote a really long response (about an hour) and hit submit. It did not post, and going back on the iPad does not show it to resubmit. Maybe I used too many swear words in describing the conspiracy in it.

    The comment was in the spam folder. I fished it out and approved it. Sorry about that.

  330. Stewart Flood

    Keaton once said to me that she thought I might be even more of a racial than people suspected.

    I’m just not an anarchist. Being a radical has nothing to do with being an anarchist. In fact, most of the people claiming to be radicals within the party don’t understand that there are at least five definitions of the word, and only one of them references anarchy.

  331. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote (@532):

    Have I revealed any specific details from any of the secret meetings I attended and that attendees were “sworn to secrecy” to not reveal? No. But I haven’t attended any of the secret meetings in a long time, and I was one of the few dissenting opinions at the last few that I did attend. I remember being told by someone at the last one I attended that I talked too much and that I should just shut up. It was implied (but not actually stated) that I should just do what the group said to do. I did neither.

    Yes, they actually hold secret meetings. Not everyone present understands that they are in a secret meeting, but they know that they are asked to not reveal the discussion.

    I am no longer on the LNC, so I have no reason to not admit that there are secret meetings where a majority of the LNC decide in advance how to vote and where motions are written and given to members on cue cards. I am not the first to reveal the existence of these meetings. No actual votes are taken, so nothing illegal was done. It is just unethical.

    Mr Starr was usually the chair of the meetings that I attended. He continued to do this (over my objection) after he was defeated in his re-election bid for office.

    I stopped attending. Invitations are given only to those that they “trust”, so the fact that I actually haven’t received invitations lately does not surprise me. My sources (yes, even I have sources) told me that I have been on a “need to know” status for quite some time.

    What they don’t know is that I knew this. Even if I hadn’t been told, they know that I’m smart enough to have expected it. Even others outside their group knew, so based on my analysis they probably have at least two of their current “members” leaking stuff. Or they may be intentionally leaking some stuff to throw people off the track of their real plan.

    Remember, I know the real plan. A few other people have figured it out on their own without being told. It is really quite clever, but this convention was a major setback for them. I have never supported or agreed with what they want to do to the party.

    This is really the smoking gun (see emphasized text).

    What is “the real plan”?

  332. Stewart Flood

    Damn foot hurts too much to sleep. Shame I don’t take drugs, or even keep pain killers around.

    I’ve found an old bottle of brand x ibuprofen that expired about five years ago. Maybe a few of them will help. Worst it can do is kill me.

  333. Stewart Flood

    The real plan?

    Stay tuned…same Bat time, same Bat channel!

    Let them sweat for a day. Maybe they think I don’t know it, but I do. It is very clever. May even be worth it’s own thread…

  334. Kevin Knedler

    2010: 7 out of 9 convention-elected members to LNC don’t come back.
    2012: 7 out of 9 convention-elected members to LNC don’t come back.
    Forget the “camps” or “cabal” or “factions”. For an organization to thrive you need a little consistency. Wholesale changes may delay getting things done– maybe.

    Just throwing this out there, as other boards do it. STAGGER some offices. I am NOT saying any more on this and there is NO agenda here.

    LNC Idea # 1: four year terms. On POTUS years, elect the Vice-Chair, Treasurer, and 3 at-large. At non-Potus conventions, elect the Chair, Secretary and 2 at-large. Keeps some historical (or maybe hysterical) continuity.

    LNC Idea # 2: two year terms for the 4 officers and elect at each convention. Lots of work and they may burn out anyway. Four year terms for At-Large. Elect them at the non-Potus conventions.

    LNC Idea # 3: Four year terms for all and only elect at all of them at the non-Potus conventions .

    I could live with # 1 or # 2. We need to focus more on our public candidates and less on the circular-firing squad of internal LNC politics during a POTUS Convention. Especially me– LOL.

    Something to think about. It could help the incoming elected LNC members by having a handful of convention-elected LNC members still on the board. Of course, we still have the Region-elected members and that system is fine by me.

    Plus, there needs to be Board of Director training.

  335. Brian Holtz

    not “mystery solved,” exactly, but

    As I already said: “To the extent it’s likely that the list got out accidentally, that’s all the more reason why Carol should stop protecting her source and tell us what she knows about how it got out.”

  336. Brian Holtz

    The Cylons were created by Starr.

    There are many copies.

    And they have a plan.

    At least, according to Stewart.

    This is going to be a good episode! I’ll pop some popcorn. I feel like Dr. Baltar, waiting to find out if I’m a Cylon.

  337. Brian Holtz

    your first priority must be to defeat that cabal on every issue until they are destroyed. You must put aside the fact that you may agree with them on a given issue (such as the floor fee) […] You must put aside your dislike of individuals such as Wagner and band together with them to destroy the cabal at all costs. The enemy of the cabal must be your friend, and the position opposed to the cabal’s wishes must be your position.

    Wow.

    It was apparent that many people operated this was on at least a subconscious level, but I couldn’t bring myself to believe that anyone could consciously recognize they were doing this and yet still do it.

    I was remarking to Dr. Lark at the Saturday banquet that this pyschopathology is the fundamental sickness of human politics. We evolved in an evolutionary context in which backing the wrong coalition often meant exile/death, so politics is always about group identity and zero-sum resource contests. Sadly, this is true even within the LP — where we’re supposed to all be in the same group, and where no resources are even at stake.

    You can take the monkey out of the tribe, but you can’t take the tribe out of the monkey.

    Sigh.

  338. paulie Post author

    Stewart is really laying the smackdown!

    And yes, he has been a frequent source for me. He works really hard too, I’ve seen it many times.

  339. paulie Post author

    Mark Hinkle was certainly not the problem.

    Why did you NOTA him?

    I only voted NOTA after Mark was eliminated. I think he would have done well chairing this new LNC, presuming that we actually got the new LNC we did had we not gone through that mess of a chair’s election, which I would not necessarily presume.

    Part of the problem was that he was stymied by the LNC majority.

    However, part of it was his fault because all the positive things he ran on (look them up) were never even placed on the agenda to even have a vote at all.

    I asked him about that and he said they would have just voted to amend the agenda.

    Fine…so put them on record doing that!

    Anyway, I hope the new LNC takes on the agenda Mark ran on, even though he is not on the committee any more.

  340. Marc Montoni

    With regard to leaked email lists, a few thoughts:

    1) Over the years, I’ve found myself in a position to place “seed” addresses in various lists, to see who picks it up. Invariably, those addresses have found their way into the hands of people I didn’t particularly desire to have it; and the only place these addresses were placed was within the LP database. Additionally, one or two individuals I know have received communications from LNCC and subsequently emails from someone in the Starr/Carling camp — and the Starr/Carling camp could only have gotten their emails from the LNCC or the LNC. Starr has full acccess to the mailing list of the LNCC, as do the other principals. Access to a relatively recent LNC database isn’t limited to the small ~30 number that has been suggested.

    It’s probably closer to 100.

    – LPHQ Staff & some volunteers
    – LNC, partial
    – credentials committee & one or two other committees
    – LNCC – and who knows who is provided access; they do not willingly release their internal policies
    – mailhouses that contract mailings for the LNC and LNCC
    – Former volunteers and staff (Chris Farris, Shane Cory, etc)

    2) Carol Moore has a rather massive email address harvesting operation going on. For years, she monitored LP discussion groups and harvested direct email addresses of anyone who posted; she certainly harvested emails from her days as DC LP chair, and other sources. Everyone knows she does it, and unless someone is prepared to take her to court, she isn’t going to stop. Phillies has a long history of harvesting email addresses in a similar manner. I am frankly not surprised when either of them manages to find one of my “cloaked” addresses.

    It doesn’t bother me in the least — I just like to know who is doing it, and when.

    3) The Johnson campaign maintained its own lists of delegates and harvested names and emails from every source possible as well. I have little doubt that the campaign obtained the names and contact information for many delegates and potential delegates from LP leaders who had access to the database. Johnson supporters who were in positions of leadership at both the national and state level provided information to the Johnson campaign at various times. This is obvious to anyone who is *in* a position of leadership within the state or national party.

    Like I said, however — It doesn’t bother me in the least — I just like to know who is doing it, and when.

    In Virginia, we established an email mailing list (“Delegates2012”) so that the members of the Virginia delegation could openly communicate with each other. In a message I sent to the list to introduce it, I noted the following things:

    You are serving as the representatives of the Libertarian Party of Virginia at the national convention, and as a result, all LPVA and LP members have a **right** to contact you. As Chuck [LPVA Chairman] said in an email earlier today, national LP rules only specify their ability to contact you via mail; however, if anyone sends me any emails with a request that I forward them to our delegation, I will do so. I am sure other officers of the LPVA will do so as well, if asked…. Your email address remains hidden to everyone else on the delegation, UNLESS you reply to the list.

    I would have gladly forwarded messages from any of the presidential or LNC candidates who asked.

    I don’t see why the national LP hasn’t done the same. The email list itself doesn’t have to be released — LPHQ can simply dump all of the delegate email addresses into it and then for a modest fee — say, $50 (way cheaper than a mailing!) — send messages to the list **on behalf of** anyone who wishes it. Why let the USPS have money the LP needs more?

  341. Marc Montoni

    Oh, and by the way — our “Delegates” list was never intended to be a “secret” list. I would have added any LPVA member who wanted to be part of the discussion.

    The LNC leaders who want and defend secret lists where Party business is discussed are simply breeding more suspicion, not less.

  342. Carol Moore

    Don’t have time to read past Stewart’s first message, but will read juicy details later.
    523 Thomas L. Knapp
    Document custody / information security is a serious problem for any organization of significant size, and the LNC and its subsidiaries, affiliates, etc. are probably not on the short list for the 2012 Most Disciplined Organization with Respect to Document Custody / Information Security Award.

    Exactly. If 30 people had access, it’s likely 5 or 6 sent out at least partial lists to somebody. And you could have had Root send it to some moderate who sent it to some radical, or vice versa – including under unidentifiable email addresses.

    The bottom line is the lists should NOT be secret and should be accessible, with an opt out feature for delegates who don’t care that much to find out what’s going on. And that availability should be advertised.

    I just knew I’d gotten it (including emails last time) easily from the office in the past and asked on a list if anyone had it NOW so I would not have to futz for a week with the national office, by which time the convention would be over. And low and behold it (or some slices of it) trundled into my email box – twice…

  343. Brian Holtz

    It doesn’t bother me in the least — I just like to know who is doing it, and when.

    Exactly.

    I’ve found myself in a position to place “seed” addresses in various lists, to see who picks it up.

    The technical term is “spamtrap”, which is a species of honeypot. My wife’s email address served as one for the delegate email list, because it hasn’t been used in any other libertarian context and can’t be scraped from the Internet using her name.

    Only Carol spammed her.

    LPHQ can simply dump all of the delegate email addresses into it and then for a modest fee — say, $50 (way cheaper than a mailing!) — send messages to the list **on behalf of** anyone who wishes it. Why let the USPS have money the LP needs more?

    As I’ve said repeatedly, that’s exactly what I proposed to the CoC/LPHQ on the weekend before the convention. They said they didn’t have time to change the policy and take my $200 donation.

  344. Brian Holtz

    Carol: I asked on a list if anyone had it NOW so I would not have to futz for a week with the national office, by which time the convention would be over. And low and behold it (or some slices of it) trundled into my email box – twice

    Lo and behold, Carol is beginning to recall details of how she got my wife’s email address.

    On what list did you ask, and what can you tell us about the two sources who responded?

  345. Marc Montoni

    Although the dollar cost would trivial normally, I can certainly understand that on crunch weekend it probably would have been non-trivial to sit down for half an hour or hour of staff or volunteer time extracting emails, setting up a new list, adjusting preferences, and so on.

    Perhaps this could be set up now in advance of the 2014 convention, so it will be ready to begin populating months prior.

    Now that I’m brainstorming it, it would be relatively non-trivial to set it up so that, say, the delegate email addresses for the immediate prior conventions (maybe back to 2004? 2006?) could be added as well, and the operator at LPHQ who is responsible for forwarding paid messages could simply select one, several, or all lists to send each particular message from a drop-down list.

    This could potentially be a small revenue-generator with an awfully small overhead.

    There should be some limit as to how often one person, group, or subject matter should be allowed to have their messages delivered.

    I’m agnostic on what that number should be (one message per week? One message per week except one message per day beginning a week before the convention?), but there should be *some* limit.

  346. Marc Montoni

    In addition, the last weekend would have been unfairly late, allowing only the proposer and a few of his friends to get a message through it.

    Such a facility should have been advertised to all delegates, factions, presidential candidates, and so on, many months in advance, to give maximum notice to all who wanted to avail themselves of it.

  347. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Seeds” can be useful, but they’re not totally reliable and can be used for the exact opposite of their purpose.

    For example, if there was any way to prove it one way or another (there isn’t, that I know of), I’d bet money that the “seed” tactic was intentionally falsified in the late 1990s to railroad Ciseweski out of the LP campaigns business.

  348. Carol Moore

    Hotzy, I have only repeated a variation on what I’ve said before. This is the first time you have alleged that your wife’s address is a spam trap.

    Actually she wrote me: “I don’t think I’ve used it in any LP context except when registering at a California or National convention.” So she’s not sure if she used it elsewhere or not. NOT a very good SPAM TRAP, eh???

    Also, any investigation should be top down. Sure, you could find out I got it from a Rutherford supporter who got it from Rutherford, but the person hates Root so gave it to me.

    By why get just Rutherford “in trouble” if Root and Redpath and Ruwart also gave email addresses to someone – who did NOT use it?

    I think it’s better to say: Look, we screwed up on proper notification about use of the list to those who add access; confess you gave it to people so we can judge the pattern of abuse. This survey will remain confidential.

    And then eventually Stewart can report generally: 6 of the 30 people with access did use or circulate it in an unapproved fashion; 4 didn’t even know that they were not supposed to; 1 got it from someone else no knowing it was the official list and passed it on. OR WHATEVER the results may be.

    It’s not a hanging offense as Holtz think; it is administrivia to be sorted out.

  349. Brian Holtz

    Montoni: There should be some limit as to how often one person, group, or subject matter should be allowed to have their messages delivered.

    Why? Just let LPHQ set a price that maximizes revenue to the Party while minimizing delegate annoyance about too much or too little advertising.

    Moore: alleged that your wife’s address is a spam trap

    I said it “served as a spamtrap”, meaning that it functioned as one. We didn’t plan to catch anyone leaking convention delegate email lists. We just got lucky.

    We are extremely confident that her email address has never been used in a libertarian context other than convention registration, because she never lets her name get involved in online arguments. The only time her personal email address has been used in a libertarian context is when I sign her up as a convention delegate. Even when she signs up for a political feed like Pension Tsunami, she uses her work email address because she so infrequently checks the holtz.org personal email address that I’m always nagging her to use in case she quits her company.

    “Hanging offense” is yet another Carol misrepresentation. It’s a shaming offense.

    Shame on Carol Moore for stonewalling about her role in the only confirmed abuse of the delegate email list.

    And shame on the now-silent Root Haters who would be apoplectic if the delegate spam had been pro-Root instead of anti-Root. (I’d say “you know who you are”, but I’m too charitable to assume you have the self-awareness to recognize your hypocrisy.)

  350. Brian Holtz

    the last weekend would have been unfairly late, allowing only the proposer and a few of his friends to get a message through it.

    Nah. Once LPHQ has done it once, it’s trivial to do it again. The first spam would be the ad for the spamming channel. Subsequent advertisers would just need to cut and paste from the materials they were already printing. The overhead would be proportional to taking each $200 donation. Staff should never be too busy to accept money.

    However, I was sympathetic to the response that it would take too much time to approve the policy setting up the advertising channel. The LPUS allowed itself to be risk-averse and biased to inaction because of the Vocal Hater Minority, and much of the LNC just paid the price by getting booted.

  351. Carol Moore

    Once again you are wrong. I asked for the delegates list.

    For the first time – since a serious person Stewart is concerned – I actually right now searched around for the relevant emails. I got one email saying here are some email addresses, I don’t know where they came frm. I got another without any explanation at all.

    Just because I initially may have written it WAS the official delegate list does not mean it in fact was. I just ASSumed it was. But then thinking back did not remember it had been told to me it was; and now looking at the email confirms my correction of my initially mistaken assumption.

    Also, of course, since everyone who sent an email received by a bunch of delegates could have used the OFFICIAL list —- ALL of them would have to be investigated under the same evidentiary standards used against me.

    Just because SOME people may have deleted anything reeking of Holtz or Starr or Root, doesn’t mean they all did.

    And I’d have loved to have gotten second hand copy of Root spam. I bet it would have been a HOOT!!

  352. Carol Moore

    And of course your wife will have to be cross-examined in detail and file an affidavit that she never put that address for ANY other purpose than the CA or LP conventions. Which obviously she’s already said she can’t.

    And HEY, what if I got a list of ALL the CA convention goers, mixed in with whatever else it was?

    So an investigation of the CALP’s use of its convention list ALSO is in order.

    Better just to ask those LNC members and others who had access and see if any confess to anything. Otherwise you are NOT getting anywhere.

    Can we get a room now????

  353. Carol Moore

    The LNC deserves to be booted for putting a FRAUDSTER like Wayne Root on LNCC. I didn’t have time/energy to go into all the allegations of chicanery and fraud against him, but did five minutes of internet research yesterday which convinced me he’s a real liability. Three hours of research and writing should produce quite a dossier.

    If the LNC and LNCC want to maintain any integrity – not to mention avoid possible FEC and RICO statute investigations I advise they Boot Root asap. I’ll be presenting full evidence in a week or so after finish some other more pressing commitments.

    So if Root wants to spare me the time and his embarrassment, why doesn’t he just resign now. He knows far more than I how liabal he is…

  354. Carol Moore

    PS. I’m not going to report him to any govt agencies. But I will put the info out there for libertarians to know and I’m not responsible for what govt snoops or libertarian haters do with it.

  355. Brian Holtz

    you are NOT getting anywhere

    Duh. I’ve already publicly given up on asking you to stop protecting your sources. I don’t know why you keep commenting on this topic — except that the shame may be working a little bit.

    SOME people may have deleted anything reeking of Holtz

    No, I got spam from Phillies and Johnson and Gray at my own email address. Nobody has mentioned any delegate spam that was not sent to a Holtz email address.

  356. Carol Moore

    PPS. If anyone has any kind of printout of the details of all those 14 mostly unresolved Las Vegas Better Business Bureau complaints vs one or more of Roots fraudulent tipster operations, do tell.

    Here’s what my 5 minutes of research got me for starters:

    http://shakaama.blogspot.com/2010/04/wayne-allyn-root-selfish-crooked-and.html

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/libertarian-party-blog-wayne-root-blasts-bailouts-touts-capitalism-on-fox/

    http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/2303-i-worked-wayne-root-let-me-tell-you-about.html

  357. Carol Moore

    Now that I think of it, I don’t think STATES are required to hide their delegates list. What if 22 states shared them with someone and they passed it around. I sure hope Stewart is reading all these threads and listing all the variables that must be investigated. I surely won’t answer any questions until I am sure EVERY aspect and possibility is given equal weight and every possible culprit investigated.

    Actually, another reason I keep this going is it is real good practice for when the FBI/Military get me in a room for 25 hours trying to get anything out of me.

    I guess if Wayne waterboarded any possible traitors in his suite, he didn’t get the answer… yuk yuk (referring to early post on this topic.)

  358. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH:

    “Shame on Carol Moore for stonewalling about her role in the only confirmed abuse of the delegate email list.”

    Except, of course, that there’s been no confirmation of abuse.

    I’ve seen some pretty lame attempts to stir up controversy before, but I have to say “my wife got an email! OMG!” is even weaker than Hugh Hewitt’s attack on John Kerry’s tan.

  359. Carol Moore

    Especially when the wife admits:

    “I don’t think I’ve used it in any LP context except when registering at a California or National convention.”

    CALIFORNIA DELEGATES LIST COULD BE ALL OVER TOWN, HOTZY…

    Can we get a room now? (With your wife’s permission of course.)

  360. paulie Post author

    Also, of course, since everyone who sent an email received by a bunch of delegates could have used the OFFICIAL list —- ALL of them would have to be investigated under the same evidentiary standards used against me.

    The official list anyone can get has only snail mail addresses, no emails are released.

    Can we get a room now????

    Our apologies Ms. Moore, we had some housekeepers out sick and and some others that came in late. Please be patient and we’ll have a nice room for you in a little while. You’ll love the soft padding and we’ll throw in a complimentary change of clothes for your trouble.

  361. Brian Holtz

    “my wife got an email! OMG!”

    That’s not the complaint. And you know it. But you wrote that. Because that’s the kind of person you are.

    The complaint is:

    The Party officials entrusted with delegate email lists say that those email addresses are confidential and can’t even be forwarded to, let alone disclosed. And yet, there was a email attack on a party officer sent to an address that could only have been found on a delegate list. Further, the email sender admits that she asked unspecified allies for delegate email addresses and got them, and she offers no evidence that she got the “honeypot” address from any other source. Instead of telling us what she can about where she got the delegate email addresses, she’s stonewalling and asking for an inquisition of the dozens of people who legitimately had access to the list, to see if any of them would admit to violating the policy.

    Again: my only purpose here is to either 1) expose the party official who failed to keep the list confidential, or 2) shame anyone sitting on information that could help expose that official.

    I’ve done (2). The shamed person is Carol Moore.

    So now all I’m doing is responding to anyone who would seek to minimize or excuse Carol’s shame.

    Other than that, I’m finished with the topic.

  362. Thomas L. Knapp

    Comrade Flood @541,

    When you get back, I hope to hear the details of how, while supposedly abroad, Mr. Starr secretly re-entered the country and conferred with wreckers and saboteurs on the Convention Organizing Committee on how to ruin the General Secretary’s Five Year Floor Fee Plan.

  363. Stewart Flood

    Brian,

    Hate to have to break this to you, but you are not a Cylon.

    And to Ms Moore: the LNC has no control over the LNCC. Mr Root was placed on the LNCC by the chamber as part of the chamber’s master plan. They installed him, then changed their ByLaws to prevent anyone else from joining. I wonder where they got that idea from…

    A client called and woke me, so I sent this quick post.

    Oh yeah…Mr Knedler is not one of the hooded key holders. Unfortunately, he was talked into Knedlering the convention by them. For that, his name is immortalized. Aside from that, he’s just a dedicated activist from Ohio — don’t let me get started on Ohio, my ex came from there (shuddering…why don’t I keep booze around…oh yeah, I rarely drink!)

    Staggered 4 year terms might help. But it might also be part of their master plan (it is) and Mr Knedler is not aware. Sometimes evil plans contain a few good things to throw everyone off.

  364. Stewart Flood

    @572,

    Ever heard of this new invention called the telephone? Supposedly, you can call from anywhere in the world!

  365. Stewart Flood

    Oh yeah…they’ve also invented something called e-mail (which I keep forever) where you get invitations to secret meetings sent to you.

    They call them “dinners.”

  366. Chuck Moulton

    It’s sad that there were a bunch of important, substantive comments to this post and they are now buried under a layer of Moore/Holtz arguing.

  367. Nicholas Sarwark

    I gave a speech for NOTA because I didn’t see any forward progress for the LP out of the last LNC term. As I said at the time, I don’t dislike Hinkle or Rutherford and think they both have the capacity to lead, but they just spent two years not doing so.

    Hinkle’s handling of Oregon was poor. While he wasn’t for the floor fee per se, he did vote to uphold it.

    Rutherford voted for a resolution disrespecting the decision of the Judicial Committee and to uphold the floor fee.

    Those are a few of my reasons. That said, I don’t think the last two years is any reason to keep either gentleman off the LNC forever, but it is good enough reason to give them some time away.

  368. Nicholas Sarwark

    As to staggered terms for continuity, I am strongly ambivalent.

    If this LNC gets some stuff done to move the party forward, I will support some form of staggered terms for continuity in governance.

    If this LNC devolves into bickering and dysfunction, I’ll fight against staggered terms, so as to oppose any continuity in bad governance.

    There’s a trust deficit between the LNC and the membership, and until that is resolved, even common sense proposals such as Mr. Knedler’s will be doomed to failure.

  369. George Phillies

    previously “New Main Threads”.

    Stewart: You write “Mark Rutherford is not chair. The major hooded key holders of the inner circle are gone, leaving only five or six of their pawns on the LNC. (Root just does what they say, he is not the decision maker or architect)”

    Your estimate as to who are the major hooded key holders and who are the pawns — we may disagree as to one pawn — would be of great interest to readers.

  370. Nicholas Sarwark

    Also, not to go all Wayne Root on you guys, but while you were arguing on the Internet this morning, I was on Ken Wyble’s show, “The Chef’s Table” with the chair of our largest county affiliate in Colorado talking about Gary Johnson, the national convention, and the positive view of the Libertarian Party.

  371. Carol Moore

    Stewart Flood @ 573
    And to Ms Moore: the LNC has no control over the LNCC. Mr Root was placed on the LNCC by the chamber as part of the chamber’s master plan. They installed him, then changed their ByLaws to prevent anyone else from joining. I wonder where they got that idea from…

    Thanks for info, which confirms in more details something I’d heard but was not on top of my knowledge base at the moment.

    So only the LNCC will get investigated. Phew. But the LIBERTARIAN BRAND would still be under suspicion if some major fraudulent operation was going on.

    I will make sure I get all the legal details correct before disseminating, by looking at LNC minutes and whatever else necessary.

    So will contact LNCC members directly a) just in case there is any honest majority on it they should be aware of the situation; b) if there are any other of Wayne Root’s crony fraudsters they should have fair warning so they can jump ship; c) to increase oversight and prevent any future fraud, misrepresentation, etc. and be able to issue a statement shortly after the media starts contacting them about it.

    Of course, LNC can still exert MORAL pressure and they’ll get all the details too in a timely manner in case the media starts to contact them about it.

  372. Jill Pyeatt

    BH # 558: ” And shame on the now-silent Root Haters who would be apoplectic if the delegate spam had been pro-Root instead of anti-Root. (I’d say “you know who you are”, but I’m too charitable to assume you have the self-awareness”.

    Of course, he’s talking about me. Among other things, he apparently hasn’t noticed that, except for the Good Friday posting of Wayne’s Mitt Romney gaffe, I rarely rag on Root any more.

    Which brings me to this: Brian, clearly you and I have a different set of priorities. I’d rather spend time talking about wars and threats to my personal liberties, than, say, trying to figure out how someone’s email address was exposed. Contrary to what you believe, I would NOT be bonkers if I had received a pro-Root piece under the same circumstances. I would have deleted it and proceeded with going through my emails. It’s that ‘”pick-your-battles” thing. It is very wrong that your wife received an email on her private address. I really do understand that it was wrong. But, in the interest of not being a hypocrite, and not “smearing” others, why do you feel the need to insult me every time you disagree with me? It’s rude, off-putting, and boorish. And it’s not just me–you do it to many other people. I’m really trying to go forward from the convention in a positive manner, but it would certainly be easier if everyone else was doing their best, also.

    Gee, I wonder what fun and rude graph you’ll come up with now to describe me?

  373. George Phillies

    For those of you who saw the ‘votes with’ handout, the use of Root and Ruwart as the center names in the two groups was not a claim that they ran the group but that they were arguably the two best known members of the group. Also, all of these people did not always vote perfectly with each other, so there were a few pairs of names in each circle who did not vote quite as much as others did.

    Identifying the clusters as ‘friends of Mary’ and ‘friends of Root’ tagged the clusters with names that most people knew.

  374. George Phillies

    Was Mr. Holtz a hoodless keyholder? He is certainly doing a fine job of putting up a smokescreen so Mr Flood’s interesting remarks are hard to find.

  375. Christopher S. Thrasher

    First and foremost, I would like to thank all of you that supported me in my bid for LNC at large.

    A last minute decision to run, coupled with a rambling (un)speech doomed by exhaustion, means that I am very proud to have only come up 20 or so votes short.

    Now, I would like to tell you all a story of why I decided to run.

    I had made it known in certain circles that I planned to challenge Dan Karlan for regional representative. I have nothing against Dan, and I respect his work, however I think it is imperative that new younger voices be involved in the business of the party.

    When I got wind of the potential of NY leaving our region, I attempted to become involved in the negotiations for region formation. The response to my inquires from my state chair was that Dan was handling it. This was not hard to figure out as Mr. Karlan, David Blau from MA , and Dr. Lark from VA, spent much time huddling together.

    With the possibility of a triple region becoming less and less, I was content with the fact that Mr. Karlan and Mr. Blau, both experienced and competent, would probably be the regional rep and alternate, respectively. This did not change the fact that I wanted to be a part of caucusing, and wanted to have an opportunity to put my name forward, if for no other reason than introductions.

    Unfortunately, by design or not, I was not allowed a chance to compete.

    After the lunch break on Friday, I received a text message from someone in my state delegation (NJ) informing me that a mini-caucus had just taken place, that the NJ delegation and the NJ state chair were not notified until the caucus was going on, and that nominations for regional representative were closed. (It should be noted that my state chair protested. I appreciate his efforts, and cannot find him at fault for the way this went down at all).

    When elections were held, several NJ delegates chose to vote for Rich Tomassio of NH other than Mr. Blau or Mr. Karlan. I suspect the only reason Mr. Karlan was turned out was the perception of underhandedness.

    I have since spoken with Mr. Karlan and Mr. Blau, and I am satisfied that their intentions were genuine. Confusion and misunderstandings abound in our process, and mistakes happen. I have yet to speak to Dr. Lark, but I must admit, given the actions on the floor and other words that have made their way to me, I am hesitant to do so.

    In any case, this type of underhanded back room dealing is par for the course in the LP. I clearly understand that now. This does not temper my anger at the process, or my resolve to see regional formation fundamentally reformed.

    In 2008, I walked through the doors of the Denver convention as a Democrat. I left as a Libertarian, and I will be a Libertarian for my lifetime. Two years is a long time from now, but I can almost guarantee I will be running again. I still believe that is imperative that we have new and younger voices on the LNC.

    We are and must be a big tent party. I supported Mark Rutherford for Chair. I supported people on the LNC across the spectrum that actually got work done. I supported Arvin Vohra, and I am happy that he is on the committee. I am proud to work for Gary Johnson as the NJ state director, and I am honored to call Lee Wrights a friend.

    When it came to the election, the radicals thought I was too pragmatic, the pragmatic thought that I was too radical, and those that actually met me, tended to support me. I hope this tells you all something.

    I intend to post much more about the goings on at the convention in the future, but in the meantime, I’m going to enjoy some California sun for the next few days before I make the trek back east.

    Thank you all again for your support, and I look forward to the day when we can all come together as a family again in two years!

    Cheers,

    Christopher S. Thrasher
    Mount Freedom, NJ

  376. Carol Moore

    Jill wrote above: ”It is very wrong that your wife received an email on her private address. I really do understand that it was wrong.”

    But as Brian has explained repeatedly it was an address given for very public purposes, being a delegate. I don’t think she had a contract with any LNC or LP CA exec com NOT to get emails regarding being a delegate, or who they address would or would not be distributed to. So she has no reason to be upset. It’s just a Holtz excuse for Harassment.

    Unfortunately, Holtz’s constant persecution of me in a “gotcha” fashion is typical of the de-SEATED faction and how they DISTRACT from productive activity. In case anyone was wondering WHY they lost their seats.

    The Root fraud issue IS a more serious one. I was just giving a heads up so no one could say I didn’t warn them.

  377. Brian Holtz

    Was Mr. Holtz a hoodless keyholder? He is certainly doing a fine job of putting up a smokescreen

    Right, because any act you perceive as helping those you consider to be Enemies must be evidence that the actor is conspiring with your Enemies. I’m now naming this the Transitive Closure Of Evil Fallacy.

    NS: not to go all Wayne Root on you guys, but while you were arguing

    Sounds like a good effort, Nick. Thank you, not only for that but for all you do for our cause.

    I spent all yesterday evening away from my family, chairing a meeting of the board of the local government agency of which I am President. I created a subcommittee chartered to look into privatizing our district, and I appointed to it the two of our five board members who are my allies in seeking to control our agency’s costs and subject it to market competition.

    Anybody else want to share?

  378. Jill Pyeatt

    I chaired a meeting at my local region that lasted beyond the restaurant’s closing. That region has more than doubled its regular attendance since I’ve been chair, and we now need to look for a bigger venue.

    I don’t consider that my best, but that’s what I did last night.

  379. Brian Holtz

    Carol: I don’t think she had a contract with any LNC or LP CA exec com NOT to get emails regarding being a delegate

    Please pay attention, and stop wasting our time. I already said that the LP should set up an advertising channel so that it can profit from forwarding convention-related ads to delegates.

    That’s completely different from the list-keepers violating their stated policies of keeping the email addresses confidential.

  380. Carol Moore

    Maybe Stewart’s comments should be in separate IPR article? Oi… but I must get working on to my REAL LIFE writing deadline… 🙂

  381. Kevin Knedler

    Chris @ 588
    You are some of the Young Guns that will soon lead this party. Keep it up. Proud you are participating.

  382. Stewart Flood

    Mr Sarwark’s speech for NOTA was quite appropriate, and was (in my opinion) a key turning point that may have actually helped put the party back on track.

    When you fight a virus, your body develops a fever. We just experienced a fever.

    The party does need to stick to the positive outcomes of the convention and move on. But we cannot afford to just let the conspiracy fade into the background without a full exposure to help prevent it from resurfacing in the future.

    Yes, there is a lot of noise on here. I believe that the best course may be for me to draw it out on both a timeline and a map of the intersecting issues and players. This forum may not be the best place for that.

    I will talk to Chuck and Paulie about it.

    There are a lot of good people in all camps that base their actions on their beliefs in how the party should move forward. There are also a number of very foolish people, who leave themselves open to attack because of their actions, their manner of communications, or their appearence. (no,I’m not talking about broken glasses…now I actually have time to get new ones)

    The conspiracy takes advantage of misinformation, as well as misunderstanding of others’ motives. They use the flaws of those they perceive as enemies or as hinderences to their agenda to manipulate otherwise innocent people into acting to forward their agenda.

    Simple Republican/Democratic Party insider political tactics. Nothing new, but quite effective in an organization not versed in observing the evidence of a takeover before it is in full force.

  383. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Was Mr. Holtz a hoodless keyholder?”

    Some recently discovered footage from the garden atrium at the Denver Hyatt, circa May 2008 may shed light on the matter.

  384. Kevin Knedler

    Stewart, Stewart, Stewart.
    “Master Plan”? There was no master plan.
    The idea of staggering was mine and mine alone. I have only discussed with one other person and that was just yesterday. It’s just an idea. Now that I am back in Ohio and away from a microphone, my Midwest common sense has returned.
    I always said that I didn’t like to stay in Las Vegas more than 3 days. I was there for 9 days. Not again.

  385. Marc Montoni

    Nah. Once LPHQ has done it once, it’s trivial to do it again. The first spam would be the ad for the spamming channel. Subsequent advertisers would just need to cut and paste from the materials they were already printing. The overhead would be proportional to taking each $200 donation. Staff should never be too busy to accept money.

    Word, but the reality is they often are when a confluence of balls in the air are nearing time to be bounced back up.

    However, I was sympathetic to the response that it would take too much time to approve the policy setting up the advertising channel. The LPUS allowed itself to be risk-averse and biased to inaction because of the Vocal Hater Minority, and much of the LNC just paid the price by getting booted.

    If you mean by “LPUS” the “LNC”, then if it even has become risk-adverse, perhaps that’s because they keep doing things that don’t have anything to do with growing the party, improving fundraising, and running more candidates; and eschewing things that might actually have an effect on those issues. I frankly don’t agree that the LNC had become risk-adverse — although I heard several LNC members last term claim they were.

    I think the majority faction just claimed to be shellshocked to excuse their inaction on things they really were supposed to be doing.

    If you mean by “LPUS” “LPHQ”, then all I can say is maybe you should spend time helping staff to find out their constraints (esp time constraints).

    I got to meet the vast majority of the delegates this year simply by helping out at the registration desk as well as doing several back-office tasks for which they needed extra hands. If I had to guess, I spent 8-10 hours at the convention being an LPHQ volunteer. The suggestion that last-minute projects can be tacked on without much stress or effort is probably not based in reality.

  386. paulie Post author

    It’s sad that there were a bunch of important, substantive comments to this post and they are now buried under a layer of Moore/Holtz arguing.

    Please feel free to extract which ever comments you believe are substantive and interesting and make them a new post or several. IPR comments are subject into being made into a new post or part of a new post.

  387. George Phillies

    @588

    Very interesting. There was a standing LAMA state committee authorizing region formation, and the region with New Jersey was not it. Blau said he would send the LAMA State Committee a resolution authorizing an alternative region, but he never did.

    The last discussion of this issue within our state committee included a committee member indicating that he would resign from the committee if we potentially enabled Karlan by joining with New Jersey, and since we did join with New Jersey to my certain knowledge that resignation process is now under way.

    Some of my fellow state committee delegates believed that ‘being represented on the LNC’ and ‘being in a geographically contiguous region’ (which, of course, we are not) are worth more than the services of particular committee members. That is a legitimate calculation, but real libertarians do not complain that actions have consequences.

  388. Alan Pyeatt

    SF @ 525: “And for the record, buying packages and paying transportation and other travel expenses for a delegate is a violation of federal election law.”

    Stewart, can you tell us where this provision is? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I would just like more info.

    Thanks in advance.

  389. paulie Post author

    Was Mr. Holtz a hoodless keyholder? He is certainly doing a fine job of putting up a smokescreen so Mr Flood’s interesting remarks are hard to find.

    Mr. Flood’s remarks will, in time, become a post or series of posts on IPR. Other comments in this or other threads could as well. If Jill, Chuck or anyone else signed up to post at IPR would like to do so sooner rather than later they are most welcome to do so. I still haven’t eaten so that would come first for me.

  390. Jill Pyeatt

    I have one of those pesky need-to-make-a-living jobs, and I’ve spent ‘way too much time on the Internet this week, so today I MUST get some things done. I’ll work on it this evening, and over the weekend.

  391. Brian Holtz

    I frankly don’t agree that the LNC had become risk-averse

    I’m thinking of things like

    • Not listing presidential candidates on LP.org
    • Not providing/updating issues content/links on LP.org
    • Not providing minutes/news archives on LP.org
    • Not creating/collecting reusable campaign materials
    • Not encouraging crowd-sourcing e.g. through LPedia.org
    • Providing crowd-moderated online forums for members
    • Hosting templated web sites for LP candidates/affiliates

    Before Wes Benedict was hired, they were also risk-averse about press releases, email contact to the membership, and online polls.

    maybe you should spend time helping staff

    When I was persuaded to run for JudCom re-election, I handed CoC/LPHQ this new advertising/revenue channel on a silver platter.  See what I sent them in the next comments. Again, I’m not criticizing them for not having time to implement.  But it can’t be suggested that I didn’t roll up my sleeves and help.

  392. Brian Holtz

    To LPHQ:

    I don’t know if there’s enough time in this convention cycle to launch this advertising channel, but given the controversy over registration fees, this might demonstrate a pro-active approach to lowering the costs of current and future conventions.

    I’d be happy to pay $300 to send the ad below. The only up-front work for LPHQ would be to 1) post the advertising policy on a web page somewhere, and 2) set up an email address to collect opt-outs.

    Sample Email

    Subject: Ad to LP delegates: Holtz for Judicial Committee

    LP convention delegates are receiving this email ad as a free-market alternative to the government’s monopoly on snail mail. Advertising fees help defray convention costs. Neither the LP nor convention organizers endorse the advertiser’s message. For our advertising policy, click here. To opt out of such advertising, email i_prefer_government_snail_mail@libertywillwin.com.


    Suggested Policy Page

    Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Convention Oversight Committee endorse or support any candidate, product or service advertised to convention delegates. However, the Party provides a free-market alternative to the government’s monopoly on snail mail. Party members can already under Bylaw 11.6 request the names and postal addresses of all current and recent convention delegates. Without disclosing to advertisers the email address of any delegate, the CoC will forward advertisements to delegates whose email is on record and who have not opted out of this advertising channel. Advertising fees are currently $X per emailing, and will be used to defray convention costs. Advertisements are subject to the same standards of civility and appropriateness as are applied to convention vendors and to convention floor speakers. Delegates may opt out of these email ads via i_prefer_government_snail_mail@libertywillwin.com.

  393. Stewart Flood

    Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,

    The idea of staggered terms is not new. I have brought it up, as far back as 2006. I know that others discussed it long before that.

    There is a master plan. I said earlier that you were not actually part of the inner circle. The fact that you proposed the same thing that they want is not relevant, and is certainly not evidence that you are part of the conspiracy.

    But you have been present at the secret meetings. We sat next to each at one of the Friday evening dinners prior to an LNC meeting.

  394. Carol Moore

    WHAT YOU SAY MAY BE HELD AGAINST YOU…. washing the dishes, I was reminded of how a lot of people end up in jail.

    The cops come and ask them to cooperate. In good faith they try to, telling them what they remember off hand. Later it is found out they got some of their facts wrong; or them more accurately remember what happened, especially after reviewing records etc. What happens? They get prosecute for lying to authorities!!!

    When the FBI et al comes to call you say “I’d LOVE to talk to you. But my ATTORNEY says I should not talk to you about anything unless my ATTORNEY is present. So give me your card and I’ll have my ATTORNEY call you.”

    IF they threaten to get a warrant and mess up the house you say. “In that case my ATTORNEY said I should be SURE to contact her to have her contact you. PLEASE give me your card.”

    Of course, the same thing might be said when Brian Holtz starts asking you questions… 🙂

  395. Chuck Moulton

    LibertarianGirl wrote (@610):

    nevermind , my apologies to Chris Spangle apparently Em Salvette wrote this piece or Im confused

    Emily Salvette emailed Chris Spangle the updates/corrections about Missouri; she did not write the original post.

  396. paulie Post author

    In case anyone is wondering this is only the second time in IPR history when a post has received over 600 comments.

  397. Stewart Flood

    A note about investigations:

    During the convention, I was approached by a campaign that had not received the list. They wanted to know why they hadn’t, who had, and if they could get it.

    My investigation was centered around the concern that the Convention Oversight Committee had erred. My conclusion was that it had not come from us, but that there were a number of potential sources, including members of the Credentials Committee who had access to the data.

    I have no reason to believe that Ruth Bennett, who was the only member of the COC with access to the data, was involved.

    I have no reason to believe that Emily Salvette, Mark Bodenhausen, Vickie Kirkland or Jeff Dimit was involved. I did not interview any other members of the Credentials Committee.

    Mr Starr had access, but since one of the recipients was Dr Phillies, I doubt that he gave him a copy. Ms Mattsen had access, but the same analysis applies. That does not mean that other campaigns could not have received data from them, nor do I intend to imply that either of them was a source. I have no data to base any opinion on other than in regard to Dr Phillies.

    Data was distributed to state chairs, so each affiliate had part of the puzzle.

    Staff directed all requests to the Credentials Committee, and did not release data to anyone other than to Mr Starr and the LNCC, as directed by order of the LNC.

    I have been told that all the Credentials Committee members had full access. I would start there if I were involved in any continued investigation.

    My investigation concluded that our chain of possession of data is still seriously flawed. It would not pass even the most basic IT/security audit.

    I am not aware of any ongoing investigation, nor would I be involved if there were one, other than to answer any questions regarding my research.

    I certainly agree with much, if not all of what Mr Montoni said in his comments about our lack of security.

  398. Carol Moore

    I don’t think security is the main issue. Remember that the Bylaws do still say members can have names and mail addresses for convention related mailings. And since any good email aggregator (volunteer or paid) easily can collect 2/3 of those emails from other sources anyway (especially if it’s a constant ongoing activity or if they are friends with a lot of state LP people), where’s the security?

    Clear rules and making it easy for people to obey those rules is the best way to keep people from feeling like they are just breaking some unjust rule and/or keep email addresses out of commercial spammers hands.

    The more you try to control things, very often, the more you lose control.

    You can vet what a person is going to send out. Opinions on what is a “personal attack” on a candidate for a nomination or an office can be a matter of opinion, even that filled with accurate and sourced material and verifiable quotes.

  399. paulie Post author

    There should be one standard for everyone.

    If the standard is that the list will be sent out without email addresses no one should be given a list with email addresses (other than what they can research themselves) for campaign purposes. If it is given to some it should be given to all. If it is free to some it should be free to all, and if some people have to pay for it everyone else should as well.

    Brian’s procedural point is correct, even if many people here think it should not be as big a deal as he makes it. I think treating everyone on an equitable basis is an important issue, regardless of whether this instance was minor or not. It is on my list of things to make into new threads unless someone gets to it first, and I hope they do.

  400. Bill Wood

    Well this is a great start. Four days after the convention and no one is starting a splinter political party. 😉

  401. paulie Post author

    Does anyone have the full breakdown of the At Large vote for all the non-winning candidates yet? I haven’t seen one.

  402. Brian Holtz

    Pojunis as bubble boy (i.e. just out of the money) is consistent with my theory that dynamic nominating speeches and mic time are how you get elected to party office.

    Hence my relief when the JudCom speeches were canceled. 🙂

  403. paulie Post author

    If anyone is unable to see the photo Chuck linked @627:

    Pojunis 132, Wes Wagner and Mark Hinkle 126 each, Chris Thrasher 123, incumbent Rebecca Sink-Burris 111, Joe Buchman 109, incumbent Kevin Knedler 105, Robert Murphy 77, Roger Roots 62, Bette Rose-Ryan 61, former At Large Rep Stewart Flood 40, Joshua Katz 35, Sam Sloan 13 and Mike Fellows 7.

  404. Jeremy C. Young

    Stewart, it sounds as if you chose to fight this cabal from behind the scenes rather than out in the open, in the way Mary Ruwart did. Again, a reasonable choice, but not one I’d be capable of making (nor would I want to make it).

    Brian @545, I’m surprised at your response. Cabals (or factions, if you prefer) feed off the intellectual independence of their opponents; they know they can whip their own votes (because they’re a cabal), and they count on the fact that their opponents will be divided because they consider the issues rather than the players. If you want to destroy a cabal, you have to play by its rules. Forming a temporary cabal to destroy a permanent cabal is no vice; it’s what Thomas Jefferson did to defeat the Federalist conspiracy of the 1790s, for instance.

    If we are to safeguard democracy, there is nothing more important than defeating permanent cabals so that responsible people can consider issues freely and fairly. If I held a position of prominence within a party that was dominated by a cabal, I would burn the party to the ground rather than allow the cabal to gain control over its machinery. It’s that important.

  405. Jeremy C. Young

    Thirteen people voted for Sam Sloan for At-Large? That’s pretty crazy.

  406. Carol Moore

    Paulie @ 623. Sure there should be one standard for everyone, but it should be a reasonable one that does not invite breaking the rules – and then harass, persecute and punish those who do not even know they were breaking the rules.

    Of course then there’s Jeremy as 631 for using cabal tactics to break cabals… Not that I’m arguing for that, but some might.

  407. Jerry Titus

    Sure wish you could ‘like’ posts here…
    Like @624, 625, 631… for a start.

    Thanks all… sure wish I had found you two years ago.

  408. paulie Post author

    Less than 100 comments to go to beat the sitting IPR thread comment record…can we do it?

    😛

  409. Brian Holtz

    Jeremy,

    1) I call Bravo Sierra on this “everybody knows there’s a cabal” meme.

    Where is the evidence or argument that this alleged cabal is only about “the players”, and isn’t united around a common tactical/strategic vision for increasing the effectiveness of the LP?

    I eagerly await the details from Stewart, but so far the only indictment I’ve heard is that like-minded people try to craft motions ahead of time rather than in the meeting. I don’t know about LNC, but on PlatCom we call that “doing your job”.

    2) Suppose (through ESP?) we could know there actually were a cabal — a group of people interested in power only as an end, and not as a means for advancing a common agenda for party success. Instead of forming a counter-cabal, wouldn’t the best way to undermine the cabal be just to expose the facts about it?

    3) Before you form a counter-cabal to fight the cabal you think you’ve identified, did it ever occur to you that your enemy cabal considers itself a counter-cabal to some other alleged cabal?

    CM: harass, persecute and punish

    I’ve merely tried to shame you. From your bursts of responses, and comments about “getting a room” and my wife “shaking that thing”, it seems to me you’re actually enjoying the attention. So I’ve stopped asking you any questions, and will confine myself to correcting an misrepresentations of my complaint and what I’ve done about it.

    those who do not even know they were breaking the rules

    I’ve never said you were breaking the rules. All I’ve said is that you’re sitting on information that could help expose officials who didn’t follow party policy. Well played. You win.

  410. Jeremy C. Young

    Brian,

    1) I have no idea whether there is really a cabal; Stewart stipulated that he believed there was, so I’m discussing how Stewart should have handled things given what he believed.

    2) I’m going to go ahead and say that there is a right way and a wrong way to “advance a common agenda for party success.” The right way is out in the open, through debate at open meetings, perhaps using parliamentary maneuvers to advance one’s agenda, but generally relying on the superiority of one’s arguments to carry the day. The wrong way is trying to subvert the entire democratic process by cutting duly elected members of the voting body out of the process of crafting and voting on legislation.

    In a democracy (which the LP purports to be), one’s ideas about how the democracy is to function must ultimately be subjected to a majority vote. Accordingly, the first job of an elected representative is to ensure that the majority is allowed to vote on the way the democracy is to function. If a group of representatives is attempting to take away that right of consent from the voters, the first and only duty of the other representatives is to stop them.

  411. Matt Cholko

    Do Mr. Holtz and Ms. Moore not understand that they’re acting like little children with this 3 day argument ruining an otherwise excellent discussion?

    Here’s something for you two to consider – nobody other than you two gives a s**t about a leaked e-mail list, or a spam e-mail, or whatever crap you are going on and on about. If you want to waste your time talking about it please do so via e-mail, so the rest of us can talk about stuff that matters.

  412. Matt Cholko

    If we break that comment record, we should get an *, much like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. The argument between Holtz and Moore, that is not germane to this thread has added a couple of hundred comments.

  413. Stewart Flood

    I do not believe that I have ever used the word cabal. This is a conspiracy, who’s main goal is to take control of the party away from the delegates at the convention, giving it to a small group who control the donor base.

    It has commonly been called the Starr Chamber, a name coined by others.

    On the surface, or at least the surface that many of its members see, they are merely working toward a common goal and crafting motions in the manner that Mr Holtz described.

    Under the surface, there is a clear and stated purpose of eliminating their opponents from the board at any cost (ref Mr Wrights in 2010).

    They pack committees with their supporters, which again is what you would expect any group to do.

    But would you expect a group who’s interest was in moving the party forward to push ByLaws changes intended to disenfranchise the delegates to the convention?

    Mr Holtz may be listening to the viper whispering in his ear. I hope not. Anyone who listens to Mr Starr’s “advise” is a potential victim of their conspiracy.

  414. Brian Holtz

    Jeremy: The wrong way is trying to subvert the entire democratic process by cutting duly elected members of the voting body out of the process of crafting and voting on legislation

    I call Bravo Sierra on that one too. Not even Stewart has alleged this ever happened. Have you ever served on a board that considers, debates, modifies, and approves policy language under parliamentary procedures? Just because some members do their homework, that doesn’t mean others have been denied their right to deliberate and vote.

    Indeed, the much-maligned Robert’s Rules are designed precisely so that majorities, minorities, and individuals each have their respective deliberative rights protected.

  415. Brian Holtz

    ByLaws changes intended to disenfranchise the delegates to the convention

    You mean the voting-by-mail proposal? I was with the kids at the pool during most of the Bylaws debate, but that morning I predicted to Aaron that those ideas were DOA. The Wagner coup leaders imposed similar rules in Oregon, but I’m hoping the Oregon courts will undo the coup before we find out how well that model works.

    Speaking of the coup, if the core indictment of Starr is that he’s using the rules to ask the delegates to enfranchise the rest of the sustaining members, then the Wagner coup is far worse: shredding the Bylaws to dilute the delegates to less than 1% power by conscripting all RegLibs to be members. And yet, Starr’s critics all lionize Wagner.

    Mr Holtz may be listening to the viper whispering in his ear.

    I talk to lots of California Libertarians, including Aaron. He’s a good friend, but no two people on the last two PlatComs have disagreed as much as he and I. We also have had some disagreements about Party administration and about some Party personalities, but we each respect and value the other’s judgment. He’s closer to an anarchist than I am, so it scares me that he’s historically been better than I am at both 1) crafting language that delegates can accept and 2) judging how delegates will react to a given proposal. But I still count him as an ally, like I do the anarchist Chuck Moulton: both are scary-smart radicals who are nevertheless committed to a big-tent strategy for the LP.

  416. Starchild

    Stewart @641 writes, “This is a conspiracy, who’s main goal is to take control of the party away from the delegates at the convention…”

    While I haven’t referred to the Starr/Root faction as a cabal or conspiracy, I have for some time been observing the trend of Libertarian convention delegates (read: the grassroots libertarian activists who are the party’s base) being slowly disempowered so that power is more and more concentrated with party leaders, so on that key point Stewart’s accusations ring true.

    I am delighted that many delegates in Las Vegas appear to have woken up to this fact, rejecting numerous bad changes that the insider-appointed Bylaws Committee majority sought to push through, including bids to implement unreliable and fraud-prone electronic voting which were shamelessly billed as changes to make the party more democratic and bottom-up.

    With all the issues and allegations of fraud surrounding electronic voting in this country, it amazes me that any Libertarians who want honest elections would seek to bring in an outside company to administer such a system for our party, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt on that point.

  417. Starchild

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think Brian Holtz’s argument about the email list is spurious.

    Paulie is right that we should have the same rules for everyone, and without double-checking the bylaws, it’s my recollection that Carol Moore is also right that the bylaws guarantee LP members access to delegate lists, which to my mind should logically also include contact information (email/snail mail/phone) for those delegates. The problem appears to be that people were not granted access in a fair, consistent, or transparent manner, and Brian is right to complain about that.

    The fact that Chuck Moulton was able to retrieve a list of delegate info from a garbage can at the close of the convention is also highly ironic, to say the least. We can only be thankful it was Chuck who discovered the lists and not someone wishing to sell our addresses to marketers or something. One wishes that as much attention were being paid to avoiding inadvertent releases of party members’ information through carelessness or negligence as often appears to be dedicated to keeping information *from* party members to which they are rightfully entitled (e.g. the full results of the Bylaws and Platform Committee surveys).

  418. Starchild

    Thank you to everyone who has had positive and kind things to say about my election to the LNC, and of course to those without whose support I would not have been elected.

    Pleasing everyone is not an option, and if some people aren’t greatly annoyed it’s usually a sign that you’re doing something wrong (i.e. playing it too cautious and being too concerned with preserving political capital instead of doing the right thing), but I hope to serve honorably and in keeping with the values which prompted me to seek the position.

  419. Stewart Flood

    I am attempting to be very careful in how I present what I know.

    I have not had time yet, since driving home from the convention, to create a timeline and layout the facts of the conspiracy.

    Mr Starr is certainly a very cordial and nice person. His politics are not.

    Nothing in what I will present will show any acts that violate the law. They will, however, show clear violation of the principles of our party, as well as a concerted and planned effort to eliminate board members, marginalize others, and influence the makeup of the convention in an attempt to strip future conventions of their (current) authority.

    Call it a conspiracy, call it a cabal or the Starr Chamber, call it anything you want. It exists.

  420. Brian Holtz

    Yes, Bylaw 11.6 says: Any Party member shall be provided, upon request and payment of copying and mailing costs, a list of the names and addresses of all delegates selected to attend and those who actually attended the most recent two Conventions, with those who attended clearly identified, and all delegates / alternates selected to the upcoming convention, if available.

    “Addresses” arguably includes email addresses, but there is enough ambiguity that delegates should get to choose among 1) no disclosure, 2) full disclosure, 3) forward ads to me, and 4) forward donation-financed ads to me.

    If in 2014 our officials are more careful/fair with the list, and can help educate delegates while collecting some ad revenue, then it will have been worth this kerfuffle.

  421. Brian Holtz

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant, so I applaud Stewart’s efforts to give us more information than we currently have.

    But until we get that data, I’m reminded of this:

  422. Jose C.

    @ 532 I will answer your questions.

    The reason I voted for NOTA instead of Mark Hinkle is because I and others held him responsible for such things as the floor fee, the mess with the Oregon affiliate, the issues relating to having the listing of those seeking the Presidential nomination on the LP website (first the candidates are listed, then they are not, then only those that meet a certain criteria are listed, then the criteria to be listed is changed, then no candidate is listed, . . .), and the drop in membership the last few years. We also held Mark responsible for the issues relating to buying an office (we have a property we are going to buy, then we are not going to buy it, some who donated for the buying of an office are requesting the return of their contribution – but they are having difficulties getting their money back, . . .), seating a delegation at the national convention (the Reeves group) representing Oregon after the judicial committee ruled the Wagner group was the party affiliate (after the judicial committee made their ruling that should have been the end of it as it related the national Party), and not having the convention set up a chair’s candidates debate (this has been done in the past but for some reason it was not done this time).

    As it relates to the chair’s candidates debate after it was clear there was going to be no official candidates debate George Phillies set up an unofficial chair’s candidates debate. Mark Rutherford attended the debate, gave a speech as to why he should be elected chair, and answered questions from the audience. Mark did not attend the debate. This also hurt him. Why wasn’t he at the debate to let us know why he deserved another term? Why wasn’t he at the debate to answer questions from the delegates? He should have attended the debate. It did not help his cause that he avoided it.

    Another issue that hurt Mark was the increased use of executive sessions of LNC meetings. What is the secret? What are they trying to hide? Another issue that hurt Mark was the planning of this years convention. The LP convention website was not updated regularly. A month before the convention there was no agenda listed on the website. I understand the delegates set or approve the agenda but what about listing a preliminary agenda on the website. When is the platform and bylaws going to be debated? When is the Presidential nomination going to be held? That information was not on the website. Some of us (many of us) needed to see the agenda to help us make our travel plans.

    Another issue that hurt Mark was the issue as to where we are going to have the LP convention in four years. First it is announced the convention is going to be held in Los Angeles then about two weeks later there is an announcement no not Los Angeles the convention is going to be held in Florida.

    I spoke to some at the convention and we held Mark responsible for the issues I listed and we needed to make a change. Not everyone who did not vote for Mark felt as some of us did. They had their own agenda. But I would say most of us wanted a change. And so the choice was Rutherford or NOTA. And we chose NOTA because we also did now want Ruthorford.

    After the balloting for officers was concluded and the results were announced I and others who wanted to send a message and wanted to make a clean sweep started high five-ing each other. We had done it! But after we finished high five-ing each other I said in a somber voice, “It is on us. We have to produce. In two years if we are not successful it will be on us.” Those I was celebrating with agreed. It is now on us. It is up to us. We have to produce.

  423. Jill Pyeatt

    Jose @ 650: Thanks for articulating well what many of us were thinking. The NOTA thing was NOT a pre-planned conspiracy; it was a spontaneous reaction to a series of events over a couple year period of time.

    I also agree that this is our chance to send the party back in the right directions. We’d better not screw it up.

  424. George Phillies

    I invited all three Presidential candidates to my interview. Wes decided not to appear; the nose count on seating Oregon convinced him that he would lose. Without breaking a confidence, I can confirm that the third candidate did get the invitation.

    The Treasurer debate fiasco was my fault. I looked around; Aaron was not there. It turns out that he was out in the hall. At this point, the moderator left, the camera breakdown started, and then it turned out that Aaron was in earshot. So I invited Aaron into my suite to meet the audience.

  425. paulie Post author

    BH @ 649

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant

    That’s always been my motto.

    I’ll reserve judgment on Stewart’s allegations until he is finished laying out his case.

  426. paulie Post author

    I invited all three Presidential candidates to my interview.

    From context, it appears Dr. Phillies means chair.

    I also tried to set up a debate for the Treasurers candidates but there was not enough time to make it happen.

  427. Carol Moore

    648 Brian Holtz
    Yes, Bylaw 11.6 says: Any Party member shall be provided, upon request and payment of copying and mailing costs, a list of the names and addresses of all delegates selected to attend and those who actually attended the most recent two Conventions, with those who attended clearly identified, and all delegates / alternates selected to the upcoming convention, if available.

    “Addresses” arguably includes email addresses, but there is enough ambiguity that delegates should get to choose among 1) no disclosure, 2) full disclosure, 3) forward ads to me, and 4) forward donation-financed ads to me.
    _______
    Despite ambiguity, if Holtz can use it as an excuse to PERSECUTE someone (especially a female not likely to be big enough to beat him up) he’ll do. The Cowardly %&(&*#$&)$&#*()&…

    Then end hopefully…

  428. George Phillies

    @647 As a writing approach, depending on how many notes you have, consider writing up a segment that you know very well, and then another and another. “Start with the introduction” is usually a difficult way to get going on writing a paper.

  429. Carol Moore

    Stewart: Per George above going to look at what you wrote above now finally. If you want private comments, why not leave your email list. (In case it’s not the ivo one i have floating around.)

  430. Brian Holtz

    @656 The ambiguity leaves room for keepers of the list to adopt a different policy than the current one.

    But as Starchild, Stewart, Paulie etc. have indicated, there’s no excuse for the adopted policy not to be followed fairly and consistently.

    And shame on anyone sitting on information that could help expose those who failed to follow the policy.

  431. Carol Moore

    OK, having thoroughly reviewed what Stewart Flood writes above my much awaited comments 🙂

    1. Per Stewart on Paulie at 532, I didn’t get anything from Stewart unless he posted it on IPR and I happened to incorporate it. So Holtzy doesn’t have to start persecuting that (BIG) guy about it. (Or the BIG guy who gave me a “email list; I don’t know where it came from?)

    Stewart writes: “… the conspiracy is the conspiracy to steal the party at the convention…Remember, I know the real plan. A few other people have figured it out on their own without being told. ”

    Yup, the plan was pretty obvious. http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot

    More details we be delected upon when you get the time to write and distribute them.

    2. What is the DIXON registration proposal? (If there was a WAIVER for people who really couldn’t afford the fee, I would not have a problem with it. Then us low quality people have an option.)

    3. I think you can do counter-cabal organizing without becoming a cabal; real cabalists usually aren’t very trust worthy and may change sides if it’s to their advantage.

    4. Stewart at 533: “I did fight the cabal. The registration issue was not a cabal issue.” Until Carol overheard Root’s big mouth a 9:30 am at LNC meeting talking about “high quality” people and spread it all over town.

    Stewart:“The major hooded key holders of the inner circle are gone, leaving only five or six of their pawns on the LNC. (Root just does what they say, he is not the decision maker or architect)”

    But he’s a great saboteur to the cabal, shooting off his big mouth about high quality people and getting most of our money from Zionists. GEEEZZZ… He’s defrauding them with his hype as much as us. HA HA HA

    Stewart 641: “This is a conspiracy, who’s main goal is to take control of the party away from the delegates at the convention, giving it to a small group who control the donor base.“

    DUH, and they already have it and are using it to continue their assault on the party through the LNCC. This is why we as libertarians who don’t want the brand crippled by fraudsters like ROOT, his Las Vegas cronies on LNCC, Aaron Starr and his compulsive control freaking, etc. have to dig the dirt on past fraudulent business practicis and what they are up to in trying to influence campaigns.

    And who knows what about their biggest donor as of January (he’s from Ohio), besides he has govt contracts to translate in Afghanistan??? But that all shall be revealed.

  432. Carol Moore

    Oh, Yeah, the $25,000 donor was on the Ohio delegate email list. Don’t know if he showed. Wonder how much money he gives to the Ohio party and how that effected its voting….

  433. paulie Post author

    What is the DIXON registration proposal? (If there was a WAIVER for people who really couldn’t afford the fee, I would not have a problem with it. Then us low quality people have an option.)

    A scholarship or some such thing where some delegates contribute to pay the floor fees of those who don’t have the money, especially students.

  434. Carol Moore

    Paulie at: 662 on Dixon plan:
    A scholarship or some such thing where some delegates contribute to pay the floor fees of those who don’t have the money, especially students.

    Sure, as long as the scholarship is divided between all the people — young, old, incapacitated, unemployed cause an internet search shows they are just SO radical – who can’t afford it. (I.e., anybody who says they can’t afford it).

  435. Kevin Knedler

    Hey Carol. You want to talk about Ohio LP. Pick up something that’s been around since 1876. It is called the telephone. You best look at http://www.lpo.org first so you know more about us.
    We run a good operation here.

  436. Kevin Knedler

    Oh Carol. Just wanted to address your comment about our donor. It had ZIPPO bearing on our votes. I hope you don’t go down that path. Frankly, if you want, call anyone in OHio. You will get the same message. Our donors believe in our organization, believe in the brand, and want to get people elected to public office. Simple as that.

  437. paulie Post author

    If we break that comment record, we should get an *, much like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. The argument between Holtz and Moore, that is not germane to this thread has added a couple of hundred comments.

    The record holding thread (735 comments) went all over the world and back. This one has been relatively more focused by comparison.

    Just to break things up though…

  438. LibertarianGirl

    Talk about donors , Wes Benedict and his amazing ability to produce results got $100,000 dollar donation to start his Pac….we should all take a lesson from him

    and lest the gentleman from Vegas get all the credit for turning the tide on the floor, lemme just say Wes B is a player and impacted the outcomes more than you know…. we’re it not for him Tim Hagan would not be Treasurer among many other things he influenced..

    WES BENEDICT – now my favorite living Libertarian …

  439. Michael H. Wilson

    Given the comments about a funding issue I heard between Redpath and Neale I hope this does not come down to a pissing match and that they both can put this issue behind them.

  440. Michael H. Wilson

    I’d like to know what othes know about this particular issue and how this may play out for the LP.

  441. Carol Moore

    Kevin at 6__: Telephones only evoke response that you can’t prove unless you take them…

    Hey, the way you find out something is you ask. I don’t see a problem with questioning the possible/potential statist conflict of interests of donors.

    If he’s a guy who just loves party organization and doesn’t want to influence any local, state, national LPs to stay in Afghanistan one second longer than the noninterventionist principle, no problema…

    Are we up to 700 something yet??

  442. Michael H. Wilson

    Neale said that when he was treasurer he abruptly resigned the position over a budget matter. As I recall he said that Redpath had added a couple of hundred thousand to the budget without proper funding.

    Redpath replied that was not the case.

    It sounds like there is some bitter blood between them.

  443. Carol Moore

    unless you take them… (I meant) TAPE them… Would be nice if there was a preview feature cause little glitches so easily captured in preview tend to get away in draft. sigh..

  444. paulie Post author

    Carol, the number of each comment is near the to right of each comment. Your comment is 673. If no one posts in the meantime this one will be 674. I posted the video for “number of the beast” at 666. See the numbers?

  445. Catholic Trotskyist

    Come on people; we’re slowing down too much. We’re almost there!

  446. Catholic Trotskyist

    Oh and congratulations to everyone who was just elected to the LNC. The Catholic Trotskyist Party does not need a national committee because it only has one member. But that will be changing soon.

  447. Jerry Titus

    It just occurred to me that maybe your ads are geographic targeted… I”m seeing an add from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee targeting GOP candidate Richard Mourdock.

  448. paulie Post author

    It’s an automated program (adsense?) which loads different ads at random based on where you live and that you have an interest in politics.

    Personally I think the owners might actually make more money by selling banner ads to actual alt party/independent candidate/readers but it’s not really my call.

  449. Jill Pyeatt

    Jerry, what I see as ads here are companies that I order things online from. It’s a little creepy. I really doubt that most people who read IPR would be interested in a company called “Artbeads”, but that’s the banner ad I see right now.

  450. Jerry Titus

    Interesting.

    I figured as such as I pondered on it longer.

    Still kinda smarts ;P

    Andy and I were just talking about htis last night… we both preferred Lugar as an opponent as he was the epitome of establishment… but with Mourdock in hte race it asdds a new dimension of aggressiveness – Mourdock was very ugly i his campaign, and we expect him to be against the Dem – Joe Donnelly.

    We kind of like that too, we can set back and let them blast away at each other and be the adult in the room.

    It’s kind of ironic that I see the opening volley of that war here on IPR though… eh?

  451. Carol Moore

    Jerry @686: as Paulie just reminded me, even when we are correcting ourselves we need to number messages we are referring to. Sometimes another message beats us too the next in order…

  452. Matt Cholko

    Adsense, which this appears to be, targets ads by all the data that Google has on you. There are lots of other ad services that do the same thing. So, Google knows what you like, and they show you relevant ads.

  453. Matt Cholko

    For example, I was just seeing a Budget rent-a-car ad, as I was recently searching for rental cars (for Vegas). I have also seen a Pizza hut ad (last night I went to the Pizza Hut website), and an ad for health insurance. I assume the health insurance ad is shown because Google knows I am self-employed, as I have not searched for health insurance in quite a while.

  454. David Colborne

    Having successfully blasted my way through this (took a couple hours)…

    Mr. Flood: This video seems rather appropriate.

    I will note that having social engagements where people in a committee get together to brainstorm a bit without doing anything binding is rather common. In fact, many people forget that the Constitution was written in a sealed off building over the course of a year so everyone could say their peace without looking over their shoulders.

    Then again, many people also forget that the Constitution was a secret conspiracy to increase the size and scope of the federal government, so there’s that. *grin*

  455. Jose C.

    @652 George:

    I invited all three Presidential candidates to my interview.

    I think you meant to say, “I invited all three Chair candidates to my interview.”

  456. David Colborne

    @694: If by “talk”, you mean “drink”, and by “secret meeting”, you mean “drink”, then… you know what? Your idea sounds healthier. Let’s go with that.

    We’re going to need a kitchen table, though. Tradition.

  457. David Colborne

    Ha!

    The trouble with requiring everyone to be on the same page is that, sooner or later, somebody’s going to change the page to something nobody likes.

  458. Jose C.

    About the contest for Secretary. The California delegation of which I am a member was seated in front of where the Secretary, Alicia Mattson was seated doing her work. When the results for Secretary were posted I saw her and I felt sad for her. I could just imagine the hurt and pain she was feeling over her defeat. I think she has been a class act and handled herself professionally at the convention. At some level it would not have bothered me if she was reelected. Unfortunately for her we had to make changes and she was caught up in that.

    Another thing that hurt her was someone distributed a brochure from a libertarian organization endorsing candidates for LNC (Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and at-large representative). Included in the brochure were endorsements for Arron Starr and Mark Rutherford. Being associated with Arron Starr and Mark Rutherford has to have hurt her prospects for reallocation. I remember reading the brochure thinking Alicia Mattson is affiliated with Arron Starr. That does not look good.

    Alicia Mattson thanks for your service as Secretary and in the cause of the success of the Libertarian Party and the cause of freedom. And thanks for the work you did at the convention. I appreciate it.

  459. Matt Cholko

    So, we’re at 700 comments. Let me use this one to publicly apologize. I have already done so to my fellow Virginians, but I should do it to everyone else as well.

    During all of the ridiculousness at the convention, on Saturday, I saw BS motions that seemed to be succeeding, so I engaged in BS of my own. Thankfully, nobody’s BS was allowed to succeed in the end. The delegates, as a whole, were much smarter than some of us individually. However, my challenge of the VA delegation’s vote tally during the second(?) election for Chairman should not have been made. I had reason to believe that making that challenge could result in one more NOTA vote, but the fact of the matter is, nobody messed up anything during the initial vote, and I should have been better than the Rutherford supporters who were engaging in dirty politics. I was not. And for that, I am truly sorry.

  460. Jill Pyeatt

    Jose C @ 702: I’m sorry Alicia had her feelings hurt, and I saw Aaron looking sad also.

    Maybe after some time to cool off, they’ll see that the goal was to change everyone one the LNC. We didn’t quite do that, but maybe the dynamics of the new group will temper some of the egos of the old group. We’ll just have to wait and see.

  461. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, thanks for the apology, Matt. A lot of us may have acted differently than we had wished during that stressful time. I seem to recall doing quite a bit of jumping around when “Nota” won, which was probably not appropriate since I was sitting in the press area. Oops.

  462. LibertarianGirl

    @703 , I too apologize to the Chair , I got caught up screaming “sore loser” and Im pretty sure I booed the NV delegation at some point . I acted like a freaking idiot and Im ashamed and embarrassed and later that evening I felt awful . To those defeated , they are all valuable assets , it was simply time for a change.The LP will never succeed with a top down growth strategy , never …its nothing personal

  463. paulie Post author

    Jill @ 706

    I don’t think sitting in the press area meant we had to be completely neutral.

    I did try to tone down some of my partisanship by not wearing and candidate or other such paraphanelia (I won’t count my shirt that said of the Red Rock “you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”), and by not speaking at the mics.

    I also tried to do most of my voting from the AL table, which fortunately for me was right next to the press section. On Sunday though, when Mark and I were the only ones that showed up for AL we just moved our delegation next door to the press area and just voted from there. When Andy (and Trent? I can’t remember if he ever showed up on Sunday) showed up late we just kept it in the press area.

    There wasn’t enough other press left to care, just us from IPR and the Reason guys…

  464. paulie Post author

    This post is not a transparent attempt to help set the record for longest comment thread ever.

    Because that would be wrong 🙂

    Well, whether it happens or not, we are now definitely in the second post to join the “700 club”…

  465. Carol Moore

    As long as we are being ashamed, I’m ashamed I ever replied to one thing that _____ wrote… (blank as to avoid further discussion of ______)

    (This post reread three times for tipos.)

  466. George Phillies

    The most important part of the elections were the Bylaws votes, rejecting the various changes that would have damaged the control of the membership over the party. The dangerous changes were so far as I could tell all rejected.

  467. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, I finally got a good night’s sleep last night. I’m finally coming down from the convention high, but now I’m feeling a little let down, like what’s next?

    Well, Judge Gray lives here in So California, so we can start working with his campaign. I can start working on my jewelry business again. And then, of course, I can always start the dreaded clean-my-house thing…

  468. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie, do you know who posted that original article, which hit 735 comments?

  469. Stewart Flood

    It is Saturday. I am starting to recover from the trip.

    Ankle still hurts like h-double hockey sticks.

    I have not forgotten. I have email messages. Lots of them. I have taped phone conversations, but the tape seems to be missing eighteen minutes.

    I am still very, very, very tired. We have a statehouse candidate unopposed on the ballot, with the word Libertarian as his party status. We may get a second shortly, as the South Carolina donkeys and rhinos shoot each other’s candidates in a circular firing squad.

    I need a few more days to maybe get some sleep.

    A small clue:

    The hooded key holders of the inner circle’s first names are:

    Aaron
    Alicia
    M
    Scott

    Stay tuned, same Bat Time, same Bat Channel!

  470. paulie Post author

    The most important part of the elections were the Bylaws votes, rejecting the various changes that would have damaged the control of the membership over the party. The dangerous changes were so far as I could tell all rejected.

    Have we posted the particulars of what passed and what didn’t on platform and bylaws? If not, do we have that info?

  471. paulie Post author

    Paulie, do you know who posted that original article, which hit 735 comments?

    GE (Jason Seagraves).

    I posted this one 🙂

  472. Matt Cholko

    I have not seen the bylaws or platform “particulars” posted anywhere. I missed some of the votes, but from what I saw and heard, pretty much all substantive changes failed.

    I would love to see the details though.

  473. Matt Cholko

    Did I hear that right…. a state house candidate, running as a Libertarian, has no opponent? If so, when is the filing deadline?

  474. Jill Pyeatt

    NS @ 729: No I wouldn’t, but he certainly seems to be embraced by the 4 people mentioned.

  475. Jill Pyeatt

    So, did Rutherford fit into the scenario with the hooded keyholders, Stewart?

  476. Jill Pyeatt

    By the end of the convention, I heard someone say the LNC Convention Drinking Game was: Get to the Convention. Start drinking.

    I think your friends Mark B. said that, Paulie.

  477. LibertarianGirl

    ok , im starting now and im drinking alcohol leftover from the convention for added legitimacy—Starchild did arrive not wearing a sash–i drink

  478. George Phillies

    @745 There was a person wearing a Vendetta mask. And he was walking with Bonnie Scott, which definitely counts as ‘a real woman’. Someone used a point of information to make a speech. Calling the question at the end of debate was attempted. Was Ernie Hancock there?

    I skipped mentioning Republican Congressmen by name. Wayne said very little. The abortion debate was aborted. I moved to suspend the rules, to give the chair discretion on when to start to collect names of Judicial Committee nominees.

  479. Joe Buchman

    @749 — I remember someone claiming to have reached Ernie on the phone from his home, I believe.

  480. Matt Cholko

    Get to the convention. Start drinking.

    I didn’t know it was a game, but several of us from Virginia did just that. In fact, I’m not sure that we ever stopped drinking………

  481. Matt Cholko

    I want to go on the record as saying this….

    Despite all of the craziness (or maybe because of the craziness) at the convention, the 6 days I spent in Vegas with all of you, my fellow Libertarians, are some of the most fun days I can remember. I had an incredibly good time, and I hope all of you did too.

    I cannot wait to do it again!

  482. Jill Pyeatt

    I had a great time, too. It was fun meeting many of the readers and writers from IPR there, plus a lot of the people I know from Facebook. It took a few days to come down from the high, and then I was depressed for a couple days because it was all over.
    I’m only now getting back to my normal life.

  483. Brian Holtz

    More hits on the drinking game:

    Johnson compared himself to Barr — and to the credit of the Wrights campaign, was the only speaker to do so.

    A bylaws change written by Moulton was offered from the floor, but it was Jim Lark who offered it.

    Nick moved to change election procedures often enough to give us liver damage. (Nick and another guy showed me their bottle of rum and two shot glasses.)

    Starchild offered a lengthy monologue on one of the platform planks.

    Somebody invoked Robert’s, but I can’t remember the occasion.

    After I made a “point of information” on the floor, Kevin Takenaga came up to razz me that POI has been renamed in the 11th edition. We had a good laugh when I showed him that he’d just fulfilled a prediction in the drinking game.

    At least once a POI was used to smuggle in some debate, but it wasn’t by M.

    My wife said she spotted Vendetta guy with a woman, but I didn’t see if it was Bonnie. Bonnie was scoring the game from pretty early on, so it’s possible she was intentionally fulfilling an item.

  484. paulie Post author

    Ernie protested the floor fee by staying away.

    Drinking with the Virginians was awesome. And the Texans, the Washingtonians, and many others….it was a great time!

  485. LibertarianGirl

    me escort the first 2 days was the dude pulling around a cooler full of beer….um drinking , for me , was a pretty much constant the whole weekend:)

  486. LibertarianGirl

    also funny on the floor was the rumor of wayne Roots party to reach out to the left..somebody , cant remember who told us about it…after asking Joe Silvestri and Aaron Starr , I went all the way to Wayne himself ROFL…there was no party but had Wayne given one , it would have been worthy of attendence

  487. Carol Moore

    Paulie at 735: So the drinking game I heard about from a live human being that included Montoni jokes or pokes or whatever was a separate game or spinoff? Sounded funny but since Marc’s been on his best behavior this thread, so will I and not repeat some mangled version. 🙂

  488. Michael H. Wilson

    I would like to see some effort to keep the momentum going that developed at the convention. I have been through this before at the state level to some degree and the other team is always trying to make a comeback. I think JJM has some ideas with his comments at FB, but the rest of us need to pull in the same direction.

    Comments anyone?

  489. George Phillies

    768 Comeback? Note the maneuver in which the NY State Delegation Chair Audrey Capozzi attached NY to the CA etc district, thus saving a regional position for Mr. Pojunnis, and walking out of the agreed New England-NY district, which became New England NJ, in a clear effort to give Mr Karlan a Regional Rep district in which he could win.

    Prior to the National Convention, I made certain commitments to my state committee based on what I viewed as an unacceptable region formation arrangement for Massachusetts (which contrary to rumor did not involve any named person becoming regional representative). As the conditions of those commitments having been met, I am now resigning from my state committee. The rest of our delegation was apparently convinced that having a geographically contiguous region was more valuable than my services, a legitimate calculation which I shall respect, except for reminding libertarians that choices have consequences and they should not complain when the consequences of which they were advised in advanced have actually happened.

  490. George Phillies

    @758 I was referring to Bonnie Scott. If pressed, I shall specify that the two people in question were not quite close enough for me to identify her face, but as she was sitting in the correct delegation, and was wearing the same clothing and had the same very youthful figure, I do not hesitate to assert that I have correctly identified the person walking with the vendetta mask wearer.

  491. Trent Hill

    Iv never understand why the LP has states form their own regions. It allows for too much voting manipulation. Have the convention sketch out a map and stick with it (with perhaps moderate changes every four years).

  492. Trent Hill

    George–There is nothing involuntary or non-self-organizing about the convention setting region parameters. It just prevents the regions from being unwieldy and being used for political aims.

  493. David Blau

    Well, this has certainly been an interesting read. I even got a couple of shoutouts, both negative. Huzzah!

  494. Jill Pyeatt

    I may be fueling a fire, but I found this correspondence and thought it was worth sharing. I’ve heard a couple times that the Rutherford voters voted Starchild in to the LNC as a joke and as a way to sabotage Neale’s term (ah, such mature, fine individuals those folks are, if that’s true), but I’m of the opinion that the two gentleman on either extreme might cancel each other out. The fireworks have already started, apparently.

    The other way that the
    Rutherford joke backfired is that now the world can know (if anyone is interested) that Starchild got 30 more votes than Wayne Allyn Root.

    From: Dave Terry
    To: lpradicals@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:07 AM
    Subject: Re: [lpradicals] Too good (or bad) not to pass along immediately 🙁

    On Saturday, May 12, 2012 10:25 AM
    Starchild wrote: (responding to a previous message from Wayne Allyn Root on LNC-discuss list)

    “You seem to like the idea of revolution just fine when it suits your purposes — or wasn’t it you who recently wrote a book with the subtitle ‘Empowering The Citizen REVOLUTION With God, Guns, Gambling Gold And Tax Cuts’ ? Were you talking about some other revolution than the one we’re trying to work for
    here in the Libertarian Party?” (I don’t know why the lineouts are in the word Gambling – DT)

    To which Root responded to the above with; “-Starchild

    “We are indeed talking about different revolutions…mine is called the Tea Party”

    The sad fact, is that no meaningful communication is possible between your two factions, since you BOTH are looking through distorted lenses at
    very dissimilar worlds. You both use your own subjective terminology with totally imcompatable syntaxes.

    A much greater tragic consequence is that NEITHER of your two groups relate to OR are related to BY the great bulk of mainstream libertarians;
    those who don’t subscribe to the extreme rhetorical paradigms of either group.
    Like pre-industrial mankind you have BOTH created a pseudo-political construct based on your own rhetorical self images.

    Root and his allies have posited a party where interventionism, authoritarianism and (for lack of a better word) imperialism is called “pro-defense”, “pro-capitalism and national interest”.

    You and your allies, on the other-hand have posited a party where virtually ANY political governance is considered authoritarianism and compromise or incrementalism is considered treachery or worse.

    You BOTH speak in cliche’s. You use the term anarchy with a straight face and they use the term pro-capitalism/pro-business as though they invented
    them. BOTH are phoney effectations: complex concepts honed into blunt clubs.

    You use ‘compromise’ as an expletive. They use ‘pro-drug’ and ‘anti-war’ the same way. You use corporations as examples of evil incarnate. For them
    it’s the terror of “open borders”. For you anyone who supports any kind of tax, for any purpose, even an incrementally less intrusive and distructive one
    is a statist. For him anyone who doesn’t support Israel is an anti-Semite.

    The ONE THING you both agree on (in a manner of speaking) is the equivalence of “anarchists” and “revolutionaries”. Root hates both, You love both.
    The FACT however is that Libertarians ARE revolutionaries. They are NOT, however, anarchists. You BOTH need to learn the difference.

    All of which brings me to the ONE point we ALL agree on. Root says you don’t belong on the LNC. Starchild says that Root doesn’t belong on the LNC.
    Dave Terry says, NEITHER of you should be on the LNC, since by my definition, neither of you are working for the success of the Libertarian Party or
    MORE SPECIFICALLY, a society wherein libertarianism is the guiding principle.

    (Starchild concludes); “Unfortunately it looks like we’re stuck with W.A.R. for at least another two years, unless he decides his involvement is no longer serving
    his plan for “success” and walks away. So I plan to remain as civil with him as possible, and work together as needed. But I also plan to remain honest.

    I ALSO plan to do likewise, but since this discussion is of paramount importance to the future of this party the greates disemination of these remarks are
    absolutely essential. So I will ALSO be forwarding it to the maximum extent, since it’s “Too good (or bad) to pass along immediately.

    I will respond to other portions of this exchange as time, opportunity and necessity obtains.

    Regards to all,
    Dave Terry

  495. Ad Hoc

    Looks like this thread is about finished. I dunno if we’re gonna hit that goal of 800

    It may have slowed down but it’s still along. It may get to 800 yet. Is there more coming from Mr. Flood? He made it sound like there would be.

    Blessed be!

  496. Carol Moore

    Jill at 776: You should have seen Bruce Cohen’s insane rant against it to various lists and some current and former LNC members. Too absurd and libelous to pass on, but Mark Hinkle and Lee Wrights told him to go away and I told him to seek help for his extreme paranoia.

  497. Ad Hoc

    All of which brings me to the ONE point we ALL agree on. Root says you don’t belong on the LNC. Starchild says that Root doesn’t belong on the LNC.
    Dave Terry says, NEITHER of you should be on the LNC,

    I say both of them belong on the LNC. They both represent constituencies in the LP and have much to learn from each other.

  498. paulie Post author

    So the drinking game I heard about from a live human being that included Montoni jokes or pokes or whatever was a separate game or spinoff?

    Haven’t heard of this. Details please?

  499. paulie Post author

    Looks like this thread is about finished. I dunno if we’re gonna hit that goal of 800 Paulie.

    I remain optimistic 🙂

  500. paulie Post author

    Well, this has certainly been an interesting read. I even got a couple of shoutouts, both negative. Huzzah!

    Always a sign of having arrived 🙂

  501. paulie Post author

    Is there more coming from Mr. Flood? He made it sound like there would be.

    Yes, but not necessarily here.

  502. LibertarianGirl

    Did you hear the rumor that the NOTA signs didnt magically appear when the idea became apparent?? Conspiracy theorists are saying the signs must have been printed before the time at which they were used…

    exciting stuff , only time will tell:)

  503. paulie Post author

    Not a rumor. William Sparkman, the same guy that helped some Texas and a few other folks make it to the convention, paid to print them and said so openly.

    Obviously they were printed ahead of time, lol

  504. George Phillies

    @787 Yes, except I heard it from the fellow who had all 50 of them printed in advance. Printing on quality coroplast does not just happen, and your laser printed handles coroplast almost as badly as my computer input slot — you know, the coffee cup holder in disguise — handles Hollerith cards.

  505. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG @ 787,

    In my experience, commercially manufactured signs not only never magically appear, but require significant lead time to get designed, ordered, manufactured and delivered.

    If there’s a local manufacturer who works weekends, a template that the verbiage can easily just be pasted into, and a willingness to pay for “rush delivery,” it’s conceivable that that time could be cut down to hours.

    My recollection — and it may be faulty — is that Kubby’s floor signs had to be delivered to the convention hotel instead of to someone on staff who could bring them, and got there just in time after we got the order in at the “last minute” (a week or 10 days before).

  506. paulie Post author

    also funny on the floor was the rumor of wayne Roots party to reach out to the left..somebody , cant remember who told us about it…after asking Joe Silvestri and Aaron Starr , I went all the way to Wayne himself ROFL…there was no party but had Wayne given one , it would have been worthy of attendence

    There needs to be a joint Starchild/Root party suite in Columbus

    😛

  507. LibertarianGirl

    Im maddest at Texas for bringing more people than both the official and shadow delegations from NV and all others from NV combined…way to make us look like losers TX:)

  508. paulie Post author

    What I really want to know is how it all happened without me knowing anything about it ahead of time 🙂

  509. LibertarianGirl

    right??! obviously im on the need to know basis:)

    for me it was an organically grown impossibility that manifested in a most beautiful way 🙂

  510. Rob Banks

    No, the cabal was a majority of voting members on the LNC, according to Stewart Flood.

    Only one one of the four leaders was a voting member of the LNC, but the chief leader was not even on the LNC at all, yet leading it in absentia.

  511. George Phillies

    @802 Chuck Moulton’s statistical analysis showed that the cabal included 11 or so members of the last LNC. That analysis does not show where the leadership was. I say “or so” because I can’t exclude that someone habitually voted with clearly majorities regardless of personal opinions on issues. Of equal interest is the extent to which they had people elsewhere, e.g., IPR mouthpieces, trolls on yahoo groups or facebook, manipulations of region formation, etc.

    Hopefully Stewart will after he organizes his careful thoughts tell us what is happening.

  512. Lavra

    To echo the sentiments of 752, 756: this convention was indeed a blast. Was great meeting activists from all over the country and finally putting faces to names. And drinking entirely too much.

  513. paulie Post author

    @805 You might appreciate this, from another thread

    Knedler: …none of us are getting any younger…

    Cholko: Kevin Knedler, you are dead wrong. I AM getting younger!

    Me: I can attest to that. Just the other night I saw Matt sucking on a bottle

    Cholko: I am truly laughing out loud at that one Paulie.

    Me: Didn’t you also try frantically to get inside a womb not too long after that?

  514. Thomas L. Knapp

    @803,

    “Chuck Moulton’s statistical analysis showed that the cabal included 11 or so members of the last LNC.”

    No, Chuck’s statistical analysis showed that the cabal and the cabal’s fellow travelers included 11 or so members of the last LNC.

    But not all of them were hooded key weasels or whatever.

    I think of Starchild as the LNC’s at large Honey Badger. He’ll sort things out.

  515. George Phillies

    Tom, we’re using the word cabal differently, but have no substantive difference. There was an inner circle, a somewhat outer circle, and at least one circle beyond that. According to Stewart, there is an inner circle of four — a partly surprising list — but than there was an operative circle of about 11. The 11 were not fellow travellers, in the old sense as I understood it, in that they were according to Stewart present at these meetings and knew what was going on, as opposed to people who marched spontaneously in the correct direction but did not realize there was an inner circle. I believe we are only differing in nomenclature, based on Stewart’s assertions, and not in ‘who did what’.

  516. Chuck Moulton

    Lavra wrote (@805):

    To echo the sentiments of 752, 756: this convention was indeed a blast. Was great meeting activists from all over the country and finally putting faces to names. And drinking entirely too much not enough.

    Fixed that for you.

    Liberty shots!!

  517. p money

    No way. Whitezilla is a lifelong teetotaler.

    Those liberty shots are way too sickly sweet/mediciny, although they have a cool name.

  518. Lavra

    @813: I witnessed it as well! Now that Chuck Moulton officially loves liberty, it’s time for more.

  519. Paulie

    @813, 817

    Sounds like a group hallucination brought on by too much booze and not enough water 😛

  520. paulie Post author

    http://bindings.lib.ua.edu/gallery/nelson_page.html

    Page reinforces the Old South myth in what many consider to be his greatest novel, Red Rock (1898). He contrasts the agony of leading southern families who lost their plantations to predatory carpetbaggers with the ex-Confederates’ powerful memories of an exalted, pastoral past. This novel makes ample use of the inter-regional marriage device. Southerners yearning for the restoration of antebellum order seek to educate their oppressors via romantic pairings of Yankee officers with southern belles and Cavalier gentlemen with northern maidens.

  521. paulie Post author

    Red Rock Cola was endorsed by famous baseball player Babe Ruth, which was the only product he personally endorsed. Posters of his endorsement were printed in 1939.

  522. paulie Post author

    erowid.org:

    Debunking the “Red Rock Opium” Myth
    “Red Rock Opium” Contains No Opium
    By Erowid, Nov 1 2000
    v 1.1 July 2003

    SUMMARY
    A substance called “Red Rock Opium” is sold throughout the United States as a form of opium. Chemical analysis of a sample of reported Red Rock Opium using a Mass Spectrometer showed no opiates in the material. Material sold as Red Rock Opium appears identical in every way to a variety of “Dragon’s Blood Incense” sold in shops around the US for 1/100 the price of the RR Opium. Red Rock Opium is not opium nor does it contain any opiates.

  523. paulie Post author

    Drug slang dictionary:

    red rock – Heroin

    red rock opium – Heroin, barbital, strychnine, and caffeine

  524. paulie Post author

    It’s an “inside” joke. I’m not sure the people who were there would want me to broadcast what happened, so I will keep mum as to the details.

  525. Carol Moore

    @780 Rob Banks “Cohen and Moore also belong exactly where they are.”

    Me as the Gadfly and Cohen as the nut trying to kill gadflys, V.P. candidates, LNC officers, etc. with a big bloody ax?

    That was the rant in question.

    By the way, I’ve hung out with libertarians 3 or last 4 nights and drank as much as I drink in 2 weeks all 3 times…

    It’s not that I’m a tee-totaler, but booze DOES kill brain cells and drinking more than a one a night means it’s time to make friends with people who sit in meetings and say “Hello, ___, Welcome!!”

  526. paulie Post author

    booze DOES kill brain cells and drinking more than a one a night means it’s time to make friends with people who sit in meetings and say “Hello, ___, Welcome!!”

    I deeply resemble that remark!

  527. Joe Buchman

    I say we go for 1,000. Chances are we will make it if Stewart Flood has 3 or 4 more chapters in his old-time radio serial cliff-hanger . . .

  528. Pingback: Draft Minutes of Post-National Convention LNC Meeting and May 9 LNC Exec Comm Conference Call | Independent Political Report

  529. Pingback: Draft Minutes of Post-National Convention LNC Meeting and May 9 LNC Exec Comm Conference Call | Independent Political Report

  530. Carol Moore

    Look at the path of destruction I blazed at Reason event last night after 2 wines – and doing a liberty shot (and three beers) the night before. I said to Eric Dondero “Who’s that fat little Italian”. I said to Rob Kampia (who gave me a lot of shit 12 years ago and I’m still a bit annoyed) “You look like a fat Polish housewife.” (Though now that I think of it he might be Italian too.) (Dang, last time I saw Marc M. 2 years he was NOT too chubby so can’t use that line.)

    And I can’t say in polite company what I said to…well, let me go no further.

    But it WAS pretty funny when I told one of Ron Paul’s top congress aids in front of a biggish time reporter that I was starting a rumor that Paul was stepping down his campaign so all his campaign staffers could go work for Gary Johnson. And the staffer said “I’m starting the Rumor Ron Paul’s gonna get Gary Johnson to support Romney.” hahahahahahahahahaaha Good one…

    It’s fun getting out in public again – even if all the rooms full of libertarian guys are just TOO dang young…

  531. p money

    I said to Eric Dondero “Who’s that fat little Italian”.

    Fat?

    And I can’t say in polite company

    Polite company? LOL

  532. Carol Moore

    To P$ at 834:

    Wait, I remember now. I was more diplomatic than above. I said CHUBBY little Italian. And I only said FAT Polish housewife when he didn’t understand what Polish housewife meant. (Shame on me for slurring housewives of any ethnicity.)

    But it is interesting how a little booze (or 3 of 4 days in a row of a equivalent of 3 beers each for a usually once beer a weeker) lets rise to the surface long repressed minor ethnic prejudices spread by parents 50 years ago.

    Politically it is useful to remember how control freaks love to stir up hate for some group or another to consolidate their power. It’s called Demagogy or demagoguery.

    Right now it’s the Muslims (under guise of fighting terrorism); of course it’s always been African Americans (under the guise of fighting crime); Latinos (under the guise of fighting illegals). Oh, that’s right Rand Paul, there’s also all those g____ys to go after. (Women can only be verbally slurred cause they do so much work males don’t want to do and are expected to provide emotional support so they have some function for the individual male.)

    But with so many police organizations with strong unions demanding there be work for them to do, who will they go after, after they are done with the political activists of every stripe who don’t eschew political activism immediately (and even if they do).

    It’s good to remember the ethnic prejudices of yesteryear do lurk to be stirred up by clever demagogic bastards. OI!!!!! Meditation to higher consciousness – not booze – is the route libertarians must promote to the public so it is not fooled by DEMAGOGUES…

    Enough lecturing myself and anyone else who bothers to listen.

  533. paulie Post author

    Wait, I remember now. I was more diplomatic than above. I said CHUBBY little Italian.

    LOL. I was not questioning the terminology. I was just surprised if Error Donderror is in fact fat, chubby, or whatever you want to call it. He seemed more than a little biased against overweight people in many past online remarks. I did see him in person a few times, although we never spoke. He was not overweight at those times. If he got fat that’s pretty funny in light of his past remarks about weight.

    Oh, that’s right Rand Paul, there’s also all those g____ys to go after.

    Rand Paul converted to Judaism? 😛

  534. paulie Post author

    Speaking of fat and skinny. I’m the fat guy in that in that one, The skinny guys are Richard Winger and Steve Gordon (middle).

    It was actually the first time that I know of that I met Richard Winger in person, although we have talked by phone, email and web comment many, many times.

  535. Michael H. Wilson

    Next time there needs to be a table for IPR junkies. We could have filed a group complaint about something.

  536. JT

    Carol: “(Women can only be verbally slurred cause they do so much work males don’t want to do and are expected to provide emotional support so they have some function for the individual male.)…”

    Right. Women don’t need at least as much “emotional support” as men do.

    Trying to keep a straight face.

  537. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP@811,

    Chillax.

    I wasn’t really trying to argue with you, I was just trying to get IPR some SEO position mojo for the term “honey badger.”

    Also, to see if “hooded key weasel” would fly or crash.

  538. paulie Post author

    JT, you have to understand. Carol has been by her own admission on a drinking binge, probably as a form of self-medication.

  539. paulie Post author

    Urban Dictionary word of the day

    May 15: hang under

    When you havent had too much to drink the night before, and instead of ruining your morning, the restful sleep makes you feel better than normal when you wake up.

    Yeah I just had 2 beers last night and went to sleep at ten, woke up with a great hang under.

  540. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 840 Did you have a sign up? If so I missed it or was too overwhelmed by all the political stars around me to have seen it. It was look, look there’s someone I must know. You know how us fans are when we get around celebrities. We get the vapors and faint.

    There was Aaron Starr next to Brian Holtz and Richard Burke kept marching up and down the aisles. Then The Wayne popped his head up. It was overwhelming.

  541. paulie Post author

    mhw 848 LULZ

    Sign said “press only” …

    Right across from AL MS (alms) flags

    Behind boom mikes and then Reason dudes

    ….but everyone ignored it. I mentioned my seating location and phone # frequently in IPR liveblogs and rad caucus facebook replies via email (new feature I just recently discovered – I can reply on facebook without actually logging into it, which I have been avoiding for months. I only see the top post in each thread and follow up posts only on those posts I reply to).

  542. Brian Holtz

    @848 The IPR table was across the aisle (and one row behind) from where my wife and I sat — right between Aaron and Scott. With the other two alleged cabal leaders (Alicia and M) on stage most of the time, I was in perfect position to watch the “cabal” operate. The only maneuvering I saw was when Aaron’s observations prompted some of us Californians to object successfully that M’s amendment to a Bylaws Committee recommendation was out of order.

    This “cabal” is so diabolically clever that they act like they’re not a cabal. [shudder]

  543. paulie Post author

    I just noticed that the very first comment in this thread refers to a “cabal” long before Stewart started peeling back the onion skins.

    Coincidence? I don’t think so!

    🙂

  544. paulie Post author

    Next you will want to tell me it is a coincidence that Neale and NOTA both start with N…. like I’m gonna fall for that one!

  545. Michael H. Wilson

    I noticed that Aaron had a leather bound edition of RRONR, but I don’t know what edition. That is a mystery to be solved.

    Reason dudes? Why didn’t they have a table to promote their wares? I was also hoping to see MMP and NORML and some other folks, but vendors seem to have stayed away this year. Bummer!

  546. paulie Post author

    Vendors were handled by LSLA and info on signing up for vending was hard to come by close to convention time. I didn’t keep checking.

  547. Michael H. Wilson

    Paulie you have missed the biggest one yet.
    M Carling, and R. Lee Wrights.

    Both use an initial instead of a first name. There is a clue in that. They probably thought they could sneak by without being found out.

  548. Brian Holtz

    Aaron’s leather-bound version of RONR is the 11th edition, natch.

    My understanding is that “M” isn’t his initial, it’s his legal name.

  549. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian we must see his birth certificate to prove that or we’ll have another birtherism controversy on our hands and one is more than enough for the press to handle.

  550. Less Antman

    @861 Brian

    > My understanding is that “M” isn’t his initial, it’s his legal name.

    I always thought it was short for “Move to call the question”.

  551. Carol Moore

    Paulie: It’s possible I haven’t seen Dondero in person since 1988, so an extra 30 pounds in his paunch would look heavy to me. Of course I’ve got an extra 80 since then… (blame half of it on foodaholic male roommate who keeps shoving bad food in my face for 16 years)

    Booze wise: 3 out of 4 days in a row is the most I’ve done in 5 years. I guess the old body can’t take it like it – well, only when hanging around with heavy drinkers did I drink that much in past; and then stopped cause… well, pay $20 bucks for my bio and you’ll find out 🙂

    Wilson at 848: All the cabalists in a Row. I’ve got my photos from LNC 2011 up at http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot

    But would have love to see others!!

    Wow: http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2010/06/wayne-root-shut-up-and-take-jewish.html comes up #11 in Wayne Root Google search.

    Keep clicking Boot Root page to get it up there in top 30 anyway. Lots of IPR reports on his too.

  552. paulie Post author

    http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2012/05/10/news/local_news/iq_53328964.txt

    Tapping on the glass
    Colorful speakers! Drug tolerance! Radical, if irrelevant, politics! Scenes from the Libertarian Party convention.
    by AMY KINGSLEY
    Politicians affiliated with the two major parties usually try to hide their call girls. The Libertarians put theirs on the ballot — and on stage.

    On the third day of the Libertarian National Convention, attendees who paid a premium for a catered lunch at Red Rock Resort were treated to a speech by former call girl and LAPD officer Norma Jean Almodovar.

    “I know there was some controversy about me coming to speak with you because of my past,” she told the full ballroom of more than 200 registered Libertarians. “But it’s been 30 years since I worked for the LAPD, so I hope you can get over that.”

    Funny lady. Knows her crowd, too. Almodovar ran for lieutenant governor in California in 1986, motivated by a desire to avoid serving part of a three-year prison sentence for pandering. But she is also an Ayn Rand-reading true believer who ended her speech with a poem about freedom:

    “Freedom — Man’s noblest dream beset with well intent restraints.

    Freedom — Is often lost midst ‘for your own good’ refrains.

    My freedom taken from me in the name of so-called ‘moral right.’

    But to what end am I enslaved for someone else’s fight?”

    The crowd vaulted to its feet — even the tweedy-looking academic in the bowtie, who had seemed slightly uncomfortable as she listed several shocking police sex scandals.

    True Libertarians have a soft spot for miscreants. Prostitutes, drug addicts and pornographers would catch a big break if the party ever became relevant. The Libertarian Party would do away with laws against drug use and sex work.

    The latter is kind of a fringe issue, even among this crowd. But the drug thing is a central plank of the party platform.

    Here’s why: The Libertarian Party has historically been a kooky group of econ nerds and Ayn Rand followers who are also hostile to laws, like those pertaining to drugs, that infringe on individual liberties. But the wonky freedom nerds have undergone a little bit of a transformation. Instead of just droning on about free trade and the trouble with taxes, they’re also the party that’s holdin’. At this point in the convention, it became clear that drugs would play a big part in the party’s 2012 campaign.

    Make no mistake, the Libertarian National Convention was a political convention. Many of the delegates wore suits, even though there were probably more male ponytails than you’d find at the Democratic or Republican conventions. It wasn’t a weed-soaked debauch, despite all the talk about marijuana and the War on Drugs.

    On Friday night, the ballroom filled with spectators for the final debate before the presidential nomination. Front-runner Gary Johnson faced off against the folksy R. Lee Wrights.

    Johnson is famous for serving two terms as governor of New Mexico, and for his vocal support of marijuana legalization. He entered the presidential race as a Republican in 2011, and defected to the Libertarian Party when he realized the GOP ballot only had room for one Ron Paul.

    R. Lee Wrights is known for editing an online Libertarian newsletter and for managing the 2008 campaign of Mary Ruwart. Mary who? The runner up to 2008 presidential candidate Bob Barr. Duh.

    For the past two election cycles, the party has been torn between ideological purity and a desire to increase its impact. Wrights was the purer of the two candidates, and he kept referring to the Libertarians as his family.

    Johnson, on the other hand, was widely viewed as the candidate who could take the party to the next level.

    “Isn’t it exciting to be in the same room as the next president of the United States?” asked South Carolina delegate Stewart Flood. Then he conceded that no Libertarian candidate had ever exceeded 1 percent of the popular vote. Johnson probably won’t change that, although Flood is a little optimistic.

    “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect 4 to 6 percent of the vote,” Flood said. “If he gets on that debate stage with Romney and Obama, he could be the next Ross Perot.”

    For the first hour of the debate, Wrights and Johnson barely disagreed on anything. You couldn’t slide a worthless American dollar between their positions on drugs and prison reform. They politely urged less government intervention in response to every policy question. Candidates who don’t like government tend to have very underdeveloped notions about how it should work.

    The candidates did have some differences when it came to taxation. Johnson favors a version of the Fair Tax, and Wrights favors no taxes.

    “We need to do away with the IRS and replace the tax system with nothing!” Wrights said. “There is no such thing as a fair tax.”

    When asked about the candidates, one Johnson supporter couldn’t put his finger on his favorite policy position by the ex-governor.

    “The difference between Libertarian candidates is more style than substance,” said Dick Geyer, a delegate from Nevada.

    The next morning, voters picked Johnson in a landslide.

    The different styles of Libertarian activists were on display then, too. Starchild, a strapping young man from San Francisco, dressed as the Statue of Liberty and distributed fliers urging the party to embrace its zanier wing. “We see a party that has become too staid, timid, boring and unimaginative” it read. “We seek a culture within the Libertarian Party that is bolder, more irreverent, more free-spirited, more creative and more fun-loving.”

    A man in a Guy Fawkes mask leered ominously at other delegates. One long-shot candidate for president even made his case by dressing up as Patrick Henry.

    Most Libertarians hope the party can shirk its fringe image by nominating the fit former governor. But style isn’t everything. The Libertarian philosophy would require individual citizens to provide almost all the services handled by the government, from fighting fires to teaching school.

    Instead of providing a police force, a Libertarian government would leave most law enforcement to an armed citizenry. And that doesn’t sound very civilized to most people. In a tiny online survey by the web site Helium, one-third of respondents said society could exist without police. But that only reflected the opinions of about 90 people who voted in the poll.

    Johnson isn’t talking about getting rid of the police. At least not yet. He’s going to start with the issues that have the most popular support. Anybody want to ask a question about marijuana?

  553. Joe Buchman

    Excellent article. And terrific videos coming out of the Johnson campaign as well.

    I don’t think I’ve been more excited to be a Libertarian ever before — maybe the night Andre Marrou won Dixville Notch and was the leading candidate for President until early the next morning . . . But so far I’m feeling really good about both the campaign, and the LNC . . .

    Joe

  554. Carol Moore

    What? No mention of how Las Vegas Leading Man Wayne Root transformed the party to a tea party with no liberal influences?????

  555. LibertarianGirl

    “I know there was some controversy about me coming to speak with you because of my past,” she told the full ballroom of more than 200 registered Libertarians. “But it’s been 30 years since I worked for the LAPD, so I hope you can get over that.

    me _ that had to be funny as hell to hear , one of the best opening lines Ive ever heard

  556. LibertarianGirl

    I loved this article , even while trying to jab at us with the police force thing , they still represented our beliefs more accurately than some in our own ranks I think..

    and Ive seen NO local media including WARS name but then I havent been looking so it could be there I guess

  557. LibertarianGirl

    also the photo with this article is Starchild in his awesome White outfit , but the author says he was dressed as statue of liberty…THAT IS NOT his statue of liberty outfit , just sayin or did I miss the SoL outfit?

  558. Michael H. Wilson

    Google Alerts send me a daily list of the articles where Libertarian has appeared and the numbers are increasing and look to be three to four times the number before the convention.

  559. Carol Moore

    Paulie et al. Still no good Gary Johnson, Judge Gray, LP Convention 2012 shots for Wikipedia.

    All that is up now is REPUBLICAN stuff
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Gary+Johnson&title=Special%3ASearch

    It easy to register at http://commons.wikimedia.org and upload; you do lose $ rights to photos but not bragging rights. Do it for the cause.

    If you don’t want the hassle and just want me to do it, send me the best shots and I will attribute to you as long as you include email giving me explicit permission to upload to Wikimedia. You retain the bragging rights.

  560. Eric Blitz

    Nice video. Seeing the kids playing reminded me of how nice it felt to have kids carefree attitude in the midst of sometimes contentious adult behavior. This one little girl kept on collecting old handouts and then redistributing them to delegates. It was very cute and a good reminder that freedom is sometimes as simple as a state of mind.

  561. paulie Post author

    Eric B

    Good point and the little girl was very smart to do that. Handouts tend to accumulate in a big pile at these things, so getting them to people within their attention frame would be smart. Of course if adults do it they could become “spammers”…it’s a fine line, I guess.

  562. paulie Post author

    Carol

    Most of it looked non-partisan to me. What am I missing?

    I have no pics that I took — only what you can find elsewhere.

  563. paulie Post author

    also the photo with this article is Starchild in his awesome White outfit , but the author says he was dressed as statue of liberty…THAT IS NOT his statue of liberty outfit , just sayin or did I miss the SoL outfit?

    I think it’s a Marilyn Monroe outfit.

    We should have had the Rat Pack there…it’s Vegas after all!

  564. paulie Post author

    “I know there was some controversy about me coming to speak with you because of my past,” she told the full ballroom of more than 200 registered Libertarians. “But it’s been 30 years since I worked for the LAPD, so I hope you can get over that.

    me _ that had to be funny as hell to hear , one of the best opening lines Ive ever heard

    So awesome!

  565. paulie Post author

    so far I’m feeling really good about both the campaign, and the LNC . . .

    I’m caught up in the era of good feelings more than usual myself 🙂

  566. LibertarianGirl

    @880 …you have no idea how true that is , the 4 children running around , 2 were Joe Sivestri’s and the other 2 were Jim Duensings and Angy’s

    they were an absolutely perfect example of how children often have better behavior and humanity than the adults

  567. paulie Post author

    Washington State.

    Most excellent party suite! Salmon, good beer, quality people and I got the Star Wars themed Red Rocks t-shirt from them. I still don’t know why or how it was the WA and MS party, I did not meet anyone from MS there and it was not very big…maybe it was the Mississippi Mud beer?

  568. paulie Post author

    My understanding is that “M” isn’t his initial, it’s his legal name.

    I’ve been told birth name, even. If so that must have been very rough.

  569. Paulie

    C’mon folks…we are too close to the 900 number to give up now — help me out here, LOL 😛

  570. Joe Buchman

    @884 I asked him about that; I thought it was Marlyn Monroe too and suggested the addition of an “I Miss Monroe” sash in homage to the “I Miss America” Statue of Liberty outfit from 2008; but Starchild told me his intention was Madona.

  571. Michael H. Wilson

    I’m still bummed that there were not more affliate groups represented such as MPP or NORML.

    Why was that the case and what can be done to improve the situation?

  572. Paulie

    MHW I thought I answered that but not sure if it was this thread (and no I will not check, LOL)

    The vendor tables were handled through LSLA, not the convention committee or LPHQ. Information about the process for getting vendor tables was lacking a short time before convention time.

    So, it’s quite plausible that there were prospective vendors that went to the site, didn’t find anything except a “coming soon” notice, maybe even checked back a time or two (or not) and gave up. I don’t know if that happened or not though.

  573. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian Holtz @ 891 has a very nice looking family. Like Wayne Root, he certainly deserves credit for being a good family man. I know that isn’t always so easy.

  574. George Phillies

    Reader I gather continue to look forward to the revelations of Stewart Flood about the hooded secret key holders, the loyal servants previously called LNC members, the media mouthpieces, and many more.

  575. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m awaiting the next installment from Mr. Flood, also. Stewart, are you listening???

  576. paulie Post author

    We have now surpassed

    Stewart told me he may want to make his own website about the Hooded Key Holders and their nefarious plotz, but if he does publish some more of it here first I can see 1,000 comments in this thread’s future…

  577. Michael H. Wilson

    p @ 898. Do u have a source for that? That would be interesting given that LSLA wants to take on a bigger project that has much more significance.

  578. paulie Post author

    http://libertywillwin.com/node/11

    Please note, vendor booths are being handled by the LSLA, for a list of vendors – please click here.

    Interested Exhibitors & Sponsors, please contact:

    Bill Pojunis

    Communications Director, LP Nevada

    bill@lpnevada.org

    (702) 485-8418

    leads to http://lsla.org/lsla-2012-conference/2012-vendors

    Vendors 2012 Libertarian National Convention

    For information on Vendors please contact:

    Bill Pojunis
    702.485.8418
    bill@lpnevada.org

    More information coming soon!

    The contact info was not there a few days before the sat. -= I saw that myself and can be your source.

  579. Michael H. Wilson

    If this is how something as simple as the vendors booths go then we should be concerned about project Saratoga which the LSLA is handling and has money involved.

  580. Michael H. Wilson

    Maybe one needs to ask if anyone got on the phone and made any calls, or even did Pojunis know who to call?

  581. paulie Post author

    He didn’t call people (as far as I know), they called him.

    As far as who he would have called if he did call anyone, he is one the state committee with Root and Silvestri in Nevada, and was working with the LSLA (Knedler), so their opinion of organizations we should contact may not have matched yours.

  582. George Phillies

    Interesting. Actually, vendors were finding it so difficult to get information on booths that *I* was getting contacted, asking if I had information on who would know what was going on.

    So I gave them a fairly long list of contacts, at least one of which must have known where to go, because from one vendor I got a thank-you note.

  583. George Phillies

    Readers who have both rented a place and owned a home may wish to consider that the latter is a wee bit more complicated than the former, and that the brilliant level of management seen in the last NatCon or two speaks to the ability of the LNC to take care of a building, should they buy one.

  584. paulie Post author

    The vendor application/selection certainly could have been done earlier and in a more transparent manner.

  585. paulie Post author

    To paraphrase a song I can no longer recall the name of or performer:

    Now that you got the info what the f are your going to do with it…?

    🙂

  586. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@894):

    The vendor tables were handled through LSLA, not the convention committee or LPHQ. Information about the process for getting vendor tables was lacking a short time before convention time.

    This fed in to the ridiculousness of the convention oversight committee claiming they needed to charge a floor fee to not lose money. Vendor booths are a money making operation for most convention organizers. This convention they chose to give that money source to someone else (LSLA) then cry “waah waah waah! we’re going to lose money without a poll tax!!”

    It disgusts me.