From the desk of George Phillies:

LNC was given facts in advance showing that their substitution lawsuit is invalid.

It’s in the following email, which was leaked to me some time ago by a number of LNC members disgusted with ongoing proceedings.

The core issue is that the LNC lawsuit affects to advance the claim that the LPNH State Committee can replace candidates, when in fact the State Convention reserved that right to itself. And note the LPNH did stage that second convention, and no effort was made to replace their then current nominee. Here is the key part of the email message:

*** As it turns out, we have been dealt a lucky break: the LPNH is FORCED to hold a second nominating convention.

The LPNH nominated Bea Francoeur, a sitting Republican state representative, to run for Governor. After the convention, she declined their nomination. She was flattered though and gave it great

consideration. She joined the LPNH as a life member and started a monthly pledge. In addition she wanted to run for U.S. Congress as a Libertarian; however, the LPNH had already nominated candidates for both congressional districts. The LPNH has no power to fill vacancies; therefore, they MUST hold a second nominating convention to nominate a new Governor candidate. That nominating convention requires 60 days notice (I may have my numbers wrong there). Until a new Governor

candidate is nominated, the LPNH will not be petitioning – because then they would have to petition more in the end since they can stack candidates and the requirement is the same for Governor as President. The most likely scenario is that they will arrange for the second nominating convention to coincide with their annual convention in October.

From REDACTED Tue May 22 21:55:19 2007

From: REDACTED

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 20:55:19 -0500

Subject: [Lnc-discuss] LPNH board meeting

Message-ID: <46539F07.40906@*******.org>

Fellow LNC members,

Due to the ongoing controversy with New Hampshire nominating George Phillies before the national convention, I attended the May 13th (Mother’s Day) board meeting of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire

The following (somewhat long) email relates what I determined.

I’m very sorry it has taken me so long to compose this email. I was camping without computer access until Thursday, then had to catch up on a number of other matters. I’m too busy this week to provide a shortened bullet point summary.

I arrived at the meeting place at 6 PM. There were roughly 15 people in attendance, which I thought was a fantastic turnout for a board meeting. Apparently for them it was below average. Daniel Imperato was giving a 10 minute talk pitching his candidacy.

Early on the agenda was discussion of the George Phillies nomination. They wanted to get input from me on the LNC’s attitude towards the situation.

Before this meeting there had been a telephone conference call on the subject of possible disaffiliation, recalling the regional rep, and a new party name should disaffilition occur. That conference call was scheduled by the Chair Brendan Kelly at the urging of party activist Jim

Perry. Jim Perry is the LPNH Secretary, acts as a de-facto unpaid executive director, and is a volunteer for the George Phillies campaign. I have had numerous conversations with Jim Perry about the LPNH situation, as have Shane Cory and Bill Redpath.

As it turned out, the Chair canceled the conference call because he perceived there was no interest in it. Neither Brendan Kelly or Jim Perry attended the conference call. Brendan assumed no one was

interested because no one RSVPed; however, several board members were not aware they were expected to RSVP, did not receive notification that the call was canceled, and held the conference call anyway. Apparently nothing substantive occurred on that call. The Chair Brendan Kelly as

well as several other board members had email problems with their ISPs interpreting emails from lpnh.org as spam, which caused some communications difficulties.

When I approached the meeting I let them know that I could either answer some questions so everyone would be on the same page or just sit back and observe the meeting for the LNC. They chose to ask me questions. I made it very clear that I was not authorized to speak for the LNC, but

could only relay my own opinions and perspectives.

I relayed the LNC’s frustration with the George Phillies nomination and pointed out 1) that this is very unusual, 2) that a petition after the national convention is doable and the national LP is willing to provide significant help, and 3) that nominating someone different from national could have severe consequences if the LNC chooses to act. I made clear that the LNC has not reached a consensus on its response, but that one possible response was disaffiliation taking effect when a different candidate from the one nominated by national was put on the ballot.

In the course of discussion I learned several things:

1) I was lead to believe by Jim Perry that the LPNH had disaffiliation on the agenda every board meeting and every board meeting it failed by one vote. The board told me that was not true: they have never discussed or voted on disaffiliation as a board. Later Jim Perry told me what he meant was disaffiliation was always put on the agenda, but people always voted to not consider that agenda item. He also claimed several board members discuss it regularly outside of board meetings. I

am skeptical of these claims.

2) I was lead to believe by Jim Perry that the LPNH would be fielding a full slate of candidates (defined as at least one candidate from each district – there are many multi-member state representative districts). In fact only 12 candidates had been recruited so far, with 3 additional candidates recruited at the meeting. Although even that is impressive so far in advance of the 2008 election, the board was very skeptical of being able to field anywhere near a full slate.

3) I was lead to believe by Jim Perry that during the earlier nominating convention a pitch was going to be made for NOTA in which the ramifications of nominating a candidate before the national convention were clearly stated. The LPNH board told me this did not happen. Several of them were surprised that Regional Representative Hardy Macia didn’t stand up and make that case. They assumed that there was nothing wrong with the nomination. I’m sure Hardy was not aware that he was allowed to speak for NOTA or that this would be advisable. Hardy did speak to many (perhaps all) of the delegates individually before the vote.

4) The entire board believes they are in a lose/lose situation. They do not believe it is realistically possible to get a candidate on the ballot if petitioning is not began until after the national convention

(Memorial Day 2008).

5) John Babiarz claimed several things about petitioning: a) in 2004 the petitioners sent in by the national LP petitioned simultaneously for Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader, which rendered all their signatures worthless; b) George Phillies would need to sign the candidate authorization before petitions are circulated, not to turn in the petitions at the end; c) if George Phillies were to withdraw his candidacy after the national convention, the state of New Hampshire would fine him $10,000; d) the LPNH has failed to get on the ballot petitioning late several elections in a row, and to continue to do so would certainly result in no candidates making it onto the ballot; e) due to a fluke in the election law, even the Republicans and Democrats regularly have several candidates labeled as Republicans and Democrats on the general election ballot for President… therefore supposedly it

would not be at all unusual or inappropriate for the Libertarian Party to have multiple candidates on the general election ballot – because of this they perceived George Phillies + the national convention nominee being on the ballot together (both listed as Libertarian Party) as no big deal. I spent several minutes clarifying this last point to make sure I was absolutely clear on it and they weren’t confusing it with the primary ballot. They were all quite adamant.

6) The board pointed out that candidates can be stacked on the candidate petition, so 3,000 signatures is likely to get many, many candidates on. A party petition would be substantially more signatures (16,000) and only make sense if they fielded far more candidates than are likely. They also claimed with candidate petitions the candidates themselves would circulate them; whereas with a party petition the candidates would be much less helpful. In addition, signers can be persuaded to sign a candidate petition much more easily than a party petition – especially by the candidates themselves.

7) The board pointed out candidates get ignored by the media until they are on the ballot. Therefore, the LPNH wants to finish petitioning, file the paperwork, and get its candidates on the ballot as early as possible. They see waiting until June of 2008 as political suicide.

8) The board complained about the severe lateness of the national convention. They favor a national convention held in or before February. The suggestion was made to hold presidential nominating

conventions on President’s Day weekend. They also would favor conventions far earlier than that, such as summer 2007. Another concern of theirs was the inadvisability of holding national conventions during patriotic holiday weekends when Libertarians (especially candidates) should be out doing outreach at parades, etc. They were adamant about my relaying these things to the LNC. They said one reason they nominated a candidate early was to send a clear message to the national

LP and other states about their frustration with a very late convention. I suggested a much better course of action would be for the LPNH to pass a resolution criticizing the timing of the national convention and send that resolution to all LNC members and state LPs through registered mail. In addition I suggested getting more involved in the national process by sending a questionnaire about future convention dates to LNC candidates and by running a slate of people for the LNC in Denver.

9) Several board members expressed concerns about the meeting between several LNC members and George Phillies. These were generally the people who are also volunteering for the Phillies campaign. They were also very shocked by the idea that the LNC would consider revoking his membership. I tried to clear some things up, including the lack of consensus or a vote of the LNC at this point. At the end of the discussion, it was quite clear that most of the board considered any action between the LNC and George Phillies none of their concern. As a board they were concerned mainly about possible disaffiliation and slightly about national petitioning without coordinating.

10) Seth Cohn (a George Phillies volunteer) claimed the national LP bylaws specify a strict procedure for disaffiliation and any motion contingent upon future action would not be in accordance with that

procedure. He also claimed disaffiliation was prohibited within 6 months of a national convention. And he insisted revoking George Phillies’ membership would violate a bylaws prohibition of the LNC

interfering with the presidential nomination process. I have not researched any of this myself to verify or debunk what he claimed.

11) LPNH board members were very frustrated with several aspects of the national staff. They felt Shane Cory overstated his authority when he was discussing this situation with them. In addition (somewhat tangentially) they were very critical of the frequency and content of national LP fundraising letters (and asked me to relay that concern to the LNC).

12) There was some discussion of the trademark issue should disaffiliation occur. This was totally academic for them because they have no plans to disaffiliate. They claim to have a state trademark on “Libertarian Party” that pre-dates our federal trademark. I explained to them that our federal trademark trumps their state trademark and may be uncontestable.

13) Several LPNH board members plan to attend the LNC meeting in Pittsburgh to speak with the LNC and individual LNC members directly.

14) MOST IMPORTANTLY: It is possible to de-nominate George Phillies, but that process was to be extraordinarily difficult. It would require holding a second nominating convention. That takes unanimous approval of the LPNH board or a petition by 4/5 of LPNH members. After the convention is called, a motion to denominate George would have to be proposed on the floor and passed by 2/3 (I may have some of these numbers wrong… it is from memory). The main difficulty was in getting

the second nominating convention called.

*** As it turns out, we have been dealt a lucky break: the LPNH is FORCED to hold a second nominating convention.

The LPNH nominated Bea Francoeur, a sitting Republican state representative, to run for Governor. After the convention, she declined their nomination. She was flattered though and gave it great

consideration. She joined the LPNH as a life member and started a monthly pledge. In addition she wanted to run for U.S. Congress as a Libertarian; however, the LPNH had already nominated candidates for both congressional districts. The LPNH has no power to fill vacancies; therefore, they MUST hold a second nominating convention to nominate a new Governor candidate. That nominating convention requires 60 days notice (I may have my numbers wrong there). Until a new Governor

candidate is nominated, the LPNH will not be petitioning – because then they would have to petition more in the end since they can stack candidates and the requirement is the same for Governor as President. The most likely scenario is that they will arrange for the second nominating convention to coincide with their annual convention in October.

*** There are two huge benefits: 1) no petitioning is occurring for several months, which gives us a reprieve and some breathing room; and 2) there will be an opportunity to make a motion to de-nominate George Phillies during this mandatory second nominating convention.

From the meeting it was clear that the LPNH has zero confidence in the ability of themselves or of the national LP to get the presidential candidate on the ballot by petitioning after the national convention. A few of the board members suggested they would nominate George Phillies, the national LP could petition on its own, and they will have an “I told you so” ready when national fails.

Rich Tomasso, the editor of LibLines (the LPNH’s newsletter) approached me after the meeting and offered to publish a column from me or another national official giving our perspective about the George Phillies nomination to be disseminated to LPNH members. The deadline for such a column would have been a week after the meeting. I declined to write a column myself, but relayed the opportunity to Bill Redpath and Shane Cory. To my knowledge they declined to write an article due to time constraints, but may still approach Rich about submitting a column for a later issue if that would be possible.

The LPNH was very pleased that I attended the meeting and felt everyone gained more perspective on the issues involved.

The day after the LPNH meeting I had several phone calls with Shane Cory, Bill Redpath, and Richard Winger discussing the contents of the meeting.

Shane Cory had spoken with the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office and believed much of the information the LPNH had given me about petitioning was untrue. He said there is no withdrawal fine or fee. Per the declaration of intent that all presidential candidates are required to file, it cannot be withdrawn – though they might make exceptions for death and severe personal circumstances.

Here is the link to the declaration of intent.

Bill Redpath admitted it was possible petitioners from national collected signatures for both Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik, but said the petition coordinator in LPNH and the petitioners themselves did not make him aware of that or he would have done something about it. Bill insisted collecting 3,000 signatures in LPNH after the national convention is very possible, and indeed quite easy relative to the much more onerous petitioning requirements in many other states.

Richard Winger was very surprised by several of the assertions John Babiarz had made about petitioning. Richard said he believed them that George Phillies would need to sign the candidate authorization before petitions are circulated; however, most of the rest of what was claimed

was ludicrous. Richard had never heard of a withdraw fine, and certainly not a $10,000 fine. He wanted to see proof of this. He had never heard of Democrats or Republicans having multiple presidential candidates on the general election ballot, and he had looked at many New

Hampshire ballots over the years. Again, Richard wanted to see proof of this and thought it was very likely they were confusing the general election ballot with the primary ballot.

In addition, Richard pointed out that there are several huge benefits to a party petition. Candidate petitions are regulated by a large multi-page section of the election code with many prohibitions. Party petitions are regulated by a small paragraph, half-page section of the election code with very few prohibitions. This means there is no law preventing a party on the ballot by party petition from cross endorsing candidates. Also there is no law disqualifying people from signing multiple party petitions. Richard pointed out that the Working Families Party will be circulating a party petition in New Hampshire, and it may be cost effective for the Libertarian Party to team up with them paying

petitioners to circulate both party petitions together.

Richard wants to see evidence to back up some of John Babiarz’s assertions about petitioning (which were shared by the entire LPNH board). I convinced him to call Chair Brendan Kelly on the phone and

either find the evidence or make sure the LPNH is better informed about petitioning realities.

I’m glad Richard uncovered these discrepancies because I was focused far more on diffusing any possible disaffiliation controversy than with petitioning details.

Another thing Richard pointed out was that Karen Kwiatkowski, the Vice-Presidential candidate nominated by the LPNH, did not want to be in this controversy and would decline the LPNH nomination if it was counter to the will of the national LP. He put up a story on ballot-access.org

about that. In reaction to the article, Seth Cohn of the LPNH exchanged several emails with Karen to convince her to accept the LPNH nomination and ignore the LNC. I am unclear on the status of Karen Kwiatkowski’s nomination right now. I can forward those emails to any LNC member interested in that aspect of this controversy.

I’ve tried to be very comprehensive in this email to bring the LNC up to speed on LPNH. I figure too much is better than too little. If LNC members want me to elaborate on any of this, please let me know and I’ll try my best.

REDACTED

P.S. I spoke with George Phillies extensively at the Georgia LP convention. George clarified some of what the Massachusetts LP had done, including the bylaws change that would seem to allow Massachusetts to disaffiliate from the national LP and re-affiliate with another entity. George said his concern was the financial stability of the national LP, which he views as having been very close to bankruptcy several times. The bylaws provision apparently was intended to allow the Massachusetts to disaffiliate from a bankrupt, defunct national LP and re-affiliate with the new national organization. George pointed out that a backup corporation named LP US, Inc. was incorporated at the same

time as LNC, Inc. to prepare for this exact situation.