Archive for December, 2008
A certain former Libertarian Party employee has chosen to violate my well-considered privacy, using my full real name in an article (thus placing my life in more danger); I’m thinking of deleting my online presence as a result, but I haven’t made a final decision.
Sean’s article reveals a portion of my criminal past that I generally neither conceal nor advertise. I can’t argue that I was not on that train. I wasn’t driving it, and I was under considerable duress, but yes, I was at fault for allowing myself to be psychologically manipulated into behaving unethically over a period of time. I shouldn’t have gotten on the train, I should have jumped off many times; but it had considerable momentum and I stayed on it all the way through to the wreck. Everything that happened there would have happened with or without me, but I should not have been there.
Sean claims I am eternally discredited as a result. Of course, some people say the same about him. I don’t think anyone is irredeemable. I’ve gathered from a number of people that I am not so thoroughly discredited as Sean claims. While Sean and some others are free to believe that me falling off the wagon and having a major relapse several years ago, and acting badly as addicts often do, nullifies everything good I have done or could do before or since as a petitioner, activist, or writer, not everyone feels that way.
Personally, I am a great believer in the certainty that all of us are sinners, and all of us can be redeemed – even me, and even Sean. I’ve heard that Christians, of whom if I understand it correctly Sean claims to be one, believe something similar. Not that the concept is limited to one religion.
I’m in the political struggle for my friends who have lost their lives, limbs, liberty, homes, kids, minds, and more in the “war on drugs,” of which there are many. Friends I have lived and laughed with and loved, some of whom saved my life more than once. I want to put my energy into something that will help end that suffering, the police-prison-industrial complex and the closely linked military-industrial-congressional complex, and the whole force-based political paradigm that makes them possible.
I don’t know how Gary and Sean trying to destroy each other, and putting me in the crossfire, possibly helps my goals. As I commented on IPR,
OK, gotta admit this.
This whole thing is wearing me down pretty bad.
I probably shouldn’t say this to give my haters another reason to gloat, but oh well.
I’m in a bad place now with my finances, health, emotionally…and things are looking to get a lot worse.
I’m trying hard to be positive, and failing.
If I have any real friends or people who care about me who are reading, other than the ones I have been talking to already, please give me a phone call.
For those of you who hate me, congratulations.
Go ahead, gloat away.
Since then, several people have contacted me, and have been helpful. I am grateful for their help.
I’m in no way trying to deny my share of the blame in anything. Just trying to do better. I hope everyone else at least tries to, as well.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Festivus for the rest of us, or solstice holiday of your choice, and a better new year to all you saints and sinners; thanks for reading, and be blessed.
Exchange with Dave Schwab at GreenChange.
Subject: Libertarian Greens?
I just read the commentary you posted about the Libertarian Party turning into a free-market conservative vehicle. Very interesting. I’ve noticed that you post both Green and Libertarian related articles – do you belong to both?
p] I’m a life member of the Libertarian Party and a region rep for several counties in Alabama.
I don’t formally belong to any Green Party organization right now, but I’ve been getting more involved with Green activities the last few months – attended the national meeting in Chicago, write articles at IPR and sometimes GPW. You should be aware however, that not all articles I post at IPR represent my own views – I post a variety of opinions from and about independents and alternative parties.
As it so happens, I do indeed share the concerns of the author of that article, except that he has already quit the LP and I am still involved in it. But I make no secret of being involved in other parties as well. I’m also a petitioner, and I have worked with the Greens – I and people I brought in got Arkansas Greens on the ballot in 2006 and 2008, and I tried to help out the Utah Greens, but got there too late to make the difference.
I’ve heard of left libertarians, are there also green libertarians?
p] Yes. Roderick Long has a couple of good articles that address these two topics. They are long, but I highly recommend reading them:
deals with left and right issues relating to libertarianism in a way I agree with
relates to Green-Libertarian fusion – the short summary I would provide is that libertarianism is a philosophy of means: the non-initiation of coercion principle, see
whereas Green politics is defined by ends: the ten key values, and the best application of both is using libertarian means to achieve green ends – in other words, there is no contradiction. Long goes into detail about how exactly this works.
I also studied environmental geography in college and belonged to an environmental club in college, and worked briefly for a PIRG going door to door back in 1989 when I was 17 years old – so I have been into environmental issues for a long time.
I’ve sometimes wondered about making the Green Party appealing to Libertarians, but I always figured that issues like climate change and free trade would preclude much cooperation.
p] It depends on what you want to do about climate change – I don’t think the government is the best organization to solve any real problem we have. For instance, I would agree that terrorism, poverty, and drug abuse are real problems, but I don’t see all the government money spent to solve them as doing so.
On the other hand, there is much that government could do by way of getting out of the way to help solve climate change and other environmental problems: ceasing actions such as corporate welfare, corporate personhood, nonconcensual limited liability, military-industrial complex actions on behalf of petrochemical interests, prohibition of hemp…and less obvious ones, such as the disproportionate impact taxes and regulations have on new and startup businesses that could challenge prevailing ways of doing things.
As for free trade, I’m for it – but not globally managed trade, with book-length agreements and enforcement bureaucracies, which is deceptively called free trade, and not with the aforementioned corporate personhood, non-concensual limited liability, corporate welfare, etc., that in my view greatly distorts the would-be natural ecology of a true free trade system.
On the other hand, if it’s true that the LP is following in the footsteps of Mr. Barr, then I can see left libertarians finding the GP to be a stronger advocate for equal rights, civil liberties, ending the drug war, reproductive choice, and other issues that people care about.
What do you think?
p] I think there is much in the way of potential there, but it would by no means be easy. With your permission, I would like to post our exchange thus far.
Dave writes back:
Thanks for the reply, and the links. I look forward to reading them soon.
Feel free to post our exchange on the sites you mentioned. It seems like the fur is still flying at LP meetings, but if the right-wingers take over, it might be worth looking into how to welcome left libertarians into the Green tent.
I also wonder about issues like a carbon tax, progressive taxation schemes, and fuel efficiency requirements, and the general preference among Greens for community decision-making in areas that recent government actors have treated as the domain of private interests, such as logging in public forests or offshore drilling. Basically, if government intervention is the only feasible way to conserve the environment, can libertarians make peace with that?
The LNC resolution which “calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States from Afghanistan, without undue delay”, is at http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lnc-passes-afghanistan-resolution:
At the September meeting of the Libertarian National Committee, the following resolution was passed:
WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures; and
WHEREAS the stability and security of Afghanistan lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States; and
WHEREAS the Libertarian Party recognizes that the only legitimate role of the military is to defend America against direct attack or the imminent threat of attack;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States from Afghanistan, without undue delay.
At LewRockwell.com blog, Eric Garris writes:
Today the Libertarian Party national website, LP.org, has posted a poll on their front page:
Should more troops be sent to Afghanistan?
The correct libertarian position is, of course, withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. This is not an option on the poll. Someone who holds the correct libertarian position must be satisfied with voting “no,” along with those who want to “stay the course” in Afghanistan.
Does this mean we can expect coming LP polls like this:
Should income taxes be increased?
Should penalties against marijuana users be increased?
If you are an LP member, you might want to tell the national office and the national national committee members (two totally separate entities) how you feel about this:
Posted in 2008 Elections, ballot access, Libertarian Party, West Virginia, tagged Ballot, ballot access, Barr 2008, Bob Barr, Libertarian Party, Libertarian Party of West Virginia, LPWV, West Virginia on 2008.12.09 | 5 Comments »
I’ve told bits and pieces of this story in response to comments on various threads in various places. Having done so over and over, I feel the need to go ahead and put it all out there now so that everyone has one place to turn to for my perspective as state chair. I’m going to go over this first in timeline format, then share a few additional facts about WV and the ballot access situation for us and other parties. If something in the timeline is a bit confusing, see the facts section for clarification.
December 2007: Bill Redpath approaches then-chair Kirsten Milligan about assisting WV with national party funds for ballot access. I was secretary of the party at that time. Kirsten discussed it with the executive committee, and the concensus we reached was that since we did not have a gubernatorial candidate for 2008, national party funds would be better spent elsewhere, and that we would pursue ballot access in 2012 when we had a gubernatorial candidate so that we could achieve major party status and never have to petition again.
March 2008: Kirsten Milligan resigns, and I become interim chairman.
April 2008: Russ Verney contacts me about the possibility of the Barr campaign going for ballot access in WV if Barr wins the nomination. He seems enthusiastic, and I am as well. Mr. Verney comes across very well, and I’m genuinely looking forward to working with him on this together at that point.
May 2008: I’m elected chairman for a full term. Tad Britch is elected to replace me as secretary.
May 2008: Several Barr campaign folks speak to me about the possibility of ballot access in WV while I’m in Denver as a delegate, both before and after Barr receives the nomination. Shane Corey and Russ Verney are among them. I ask them to keep in touch moving forward, and state that I’d love to bring out whatever volunteers the state party has available, but that we have very little in the way of funds, and not enough to really pay for petitioners. I state that we would like some training for our volunteers who primarily reside in the north-central area of WV. This is the last time I would be in contact with any Barr campaign staff, however. I mention to Paulie and others that I’d like to have them come petition and party with me in WV if the Barr campaign sends some funds to the state party for ballot access.
June 2008: Towards the very end of June, Jake Witmer contacts me, and says they are petitioning. I mention that I’d like to get some volunteers trained from the state party’s volunteer base. Jake states that he is in Charleston (a few hours south of the north-central area, where we have very few activists and likely no volunteers.) Jake tells me Shane Corey is coming to the Charleston area, and that he’ll be contacting me. I ask if any petitioners are active in northern WV. Jake doesn’t know. Jake sends me some documents including petitions.
July 2008: I’m still in contact with Jake every once in a while. I offer to house petitioners in my home since Morgantown/Fairmont/Clarksburg/Bridgeport is a good area for petitioning. He says he has a friend who might take me up on it if his friend is brought in by the Barr campaign. That never occurs. I also mention that several other members of the state party would likely volunteer couch space or an air-bed. Later on, Jake gives me contact info for Shane who is apparently in Charleston. I am never able to get in contact with Shane, and he never attempts to contact me.
August 2008: The Barr campaign fails to meet its deadlines. Our state party volunteer base was never utilized. Barr also fails to register as a certified write-in candidate, so that write-in votes for Barr would be counted.
September 2008: A state party member calls me, asking about the Barr lawsuit. This is the first I’d heard of it.
Now for some facts. Ballot access is a 2% theshhold of prior-election voters in WV. To achieve major party status (which means you get free ballot access without petitioning) you must have a gubernatorial candidate who receives 1% of the popular vote. After the national convention, the only person who I was ever in contact with regarding the ballot access efforts was Jake Witmer. Jake was not equipped to really do what needed to be done, as a petitioner and not someone with any real authority. In the future, ballot access efforts will be undertaken by the LPWV. I firmly believe this will better serve the interests of LP candidates throughout the state as we move forward. The Constitution Party achieved ballot access by petition in 2008 for their presidential candidate, as did Ralph Nader as an independent. The Green Party affiliate, which is called the Mountain Party, had major party status and did not need to petition.
- Matt Harris, LPWV Chair
Posted in activism, blogging, freedom, Libertarian, Libertarian National Committee, Libertarian Online Community, Libertarian Party, liveblogging, media, political corruption, politics, protest, tagged Libertarian, Libertarian Party, LP, media, politics on 2008.12.09 | 2 Comments »
I’ve returned from the great adventure I call “LP-SPAN” and here are my thoughts on the technical side of the issue. It is my hope that we can take this and build on it to make the next round of LNC insanity even better in terms of the broadcast quality. All suggestions are definitely appreciated. This is most definitely a work in progress.
I was using a Microsoft LifeCam either attached to a clip on the top of my laptop or on its independent pole. The camera allows pan and zoom IF you use the Microsoft software. However, the Justin.tv feed doesn’t allow that. No idea if Ustream does. I also had trouble with lighting issues in the room, especially the projector screen glare.
For future, I’d recommend a real videocam on a tripod, which should be able to create a better view and video quality. Personal experience suggests a bird-watching scope tripod over a camera tripod for lightness and ease of use. Plus mine has super-high elevation so it could pan over the crowd. Background lighting
The laptop was sitting on a tray table I had brought along since the room didn’t have any tables except for catering or the meeting table. It caused shaking of the cam at times when I tweeted, and the hunchover caused havoc on my back over time. I was hurting badly until Rachel gave me a much-needed back rub. “Bitchin’!” J
I’d recommend not having the camera attached to the laptop or at least set up in a way that it doesn’t shake. That and having a good setup so the laptop is the proper height to the user.
I’d also recommend a good omnidirectional microphone set up where everything can be caught well. The mic built into the webcam also caught my comments and occasional whispers, and a lot of extra noise. At SD the board table was in a cube with an open center, and the mic in there would have been best. I didn’t have that and it would have been a big help.
I made sure that I understood how it all tied together and I did some test runs at home to make sure. That made a big difference come show time. However, the differences between my den and the meeting room were vast. I’d recommend testing in the meeting room if at all possible, because of the acoustics and lighting.
I tried the Justin.tv feed with the laptop’s webcam, then the external one recording, then with outside people and trying to embed.
Embedding the live feed was also a challenge. I had Todd Barnett on the phone helping to troubleshoot on his end. It helps to have someone on the receiving end to evaluate the reception. Ditto during the meeting. The justin.tv feed had a chat room built into each feed window, and that made getting the feedback easy, which came in handy when the connection got bad. Justin.tv does NOT work with WordPress well, unless Todd and I just missed something, which is certainly possible. I got it to embed at blogger/blogspot just fine. Other embedding notes are appreciated.
We also encountered a horrible screeching when we were testing, until we figured out that it was caused by the laptop speakers output being picked up by the webcam mic and creating a nasty feedback loop. The solution was to mute the speakers. Wear headphones when adjusting the microphone volume.
First, I was on the hotel’s wireless connection, which at times was very slow. The more people that were logged into the network, the slower it got. If you can, use a wired connection to ensure the connection rate stays consistent.
Second, it is extremely important to have someone on the other end provide feedback on the reception. On my end, the display on the popout window was far different than the one in the main window. Here the chat box was invaluable, and I was lucky to have multiple people giving me feedback.
Third, Justin.tv gave me the option to record as we broadcast. Do it. It saves off the pieces online for later download. I’d suggest stopping and restarting the recording at various spots to break it up into manageable segments instead of one long one. I always made sure to check the bandwidth between recordings because of the wireless, but I don’t think that may be necessary on a wired connection.
It’s a great tool to do this live. Yes, the 140 character limit can be an issue at times. I’d recommend two tweets, both in the gallery rather than on the board, who should focus on what is going on anyway. Plus, it removes any issue about “decorum” or “executive session”, but the tweets should be as neutral as possible. The advantage of two is that one can pick up what the other missed, which is an area I had trouble with at times. I’d also suggest that if you can’t get on a wired connection, then see if the tweet can be done on a Blackberry. The wireless connection problems that plagued the feed connection also slowed down the tweets. It may be advisable to have whomever is tweeting be different from the camera operations.
All in all, my rig was a little crude, but it was something. I don’t see this as too difficult, just taking a little getting used to. If you test beforehand and practice, it goes better.
Posted in Libertarian National Committee, Libertarian Party, tagged Libertarian Party, Libertarian Party Transparency Caucus, Libertarian Transparency Caucus, LP, LP Transparency Caucus, LPTC, Openness, Transparency, Transparency Caucus on 2008.12.08 | 10 Comments »
So a few of us – namely Paulie, George Donnelly, Mike Seebeck, and myself, along with a few others who have expressed an interest, have been talking a lot about forming an LP Transparency Caucus. At this point, we’re sure that we’re moving forward with this, so we thought it a good time to start soliciting thoughts and ideas from the community at large instead of just talking amongst ourselves. We’ve got the internet site stuff set up, and just needs some design/content/etc – anyone interested in helping out, please let us know.
Here’s what we’re thinking so far: The LP Transparency Caucus is completely non-partisan in terms of reformers, radicals, etc. All we do is try to bring greater openness to the LP. This includes everything from the LNC (we plan to push for live video from every LNC meeting from now on) to bylaws and platform committees, etc. We will be putting out reports or pushing to have reports put out in as timely a manner as possible. We want as much information as feasible to be available to the entirety of the LP membership without in any way compromising the goals of the LP. Certain things are supposed to be public – and we’ll always be lobbying to make sure they are.
Beyond that, we’ll be sending candidates for internal positions such as the LNC and various committees surveys. We will publish the results of these surveys, as well as endorse the best candidates. Once elected, we will help to ensure that these candidates comply with the campaign promises made in terms of transparency and a culture of openness within the given committee. We believe that this will foster such a culture by encouraging candidates to take up pro-transparency positions as well as stick to them once in office.
So have at it – what other ideas and suggestions do you folks have? What else can be done? Keep in mind that bonus points are awarded for doers, not for talkers. Over the coming months and years, we’ll be putting our boots on the ground to try and achieve the goals we’re working on here. If you want to help by doing stuff, don’t hesitate to say so! All are welcome, and we hope you’ll find this idea worthwhile.
The Libertarian National Committee (LNC), at its December 6 meeting in San Diego, voted to form a committee that would deal with the Angela Keaton affair, which entails a pending resolution calling for the suspension of LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton. The vote, which was triggered by a motion made by LNC Vice Chair Mike Jingozian, passed unanimously, which effectively called for a committee of six members from the board.
This new committee comprises of the following six LNC members:
- Rachel Hawkridge
- Mary Ruwart
- Retired Admiral Michael Colley
- Mike Jingozian
- Tony Ryan
- Rebecca Sink-Burris
Readers who want the skinny on yesterday’s events can surf here.
[Cross-posted at my blog The Freedom Chronicles.]
Nevada’s Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki was indicted today by a grand jury on four felony counts related to his previous stint as state treasurer: 2 counts of Misappropriation and Falsification of Accounts By Public Officer, and 2 counts of Misappropriation by Treasurer. Krolicki had just last week announced he planned to run against Harry Reid for Senate in 2010, and claims this indictment was a politically motivated conspiracy hatched by Reid and Nevada’s Democratic Attorney General. The main problem with his story is that the indictment is hardly out of the blue. It has its roots back in January 2007, when the State Treasurer who took office after him, asked and received permission for an audit looking into possible improprieties. Krolicki even admits he was informed about a probable grand jury indictment late in November, so he announced his intention to run against Reid knowing it was coming.
The Hill happily pimped Krolick’s claim in an article titled: Top Reid challenger indicted. In the article The Hill also mentioned that two other Republicans, who were considered possible challengers to Reid in 2010, had their political fortunes greatly decreased by losing their reelection bids last November. One of those was Congressman Jon Porter, and the other was State Senator Joe Heck. From The Hill article:
The two GOP names most often floated as top-notch challengers, however, have had difficult years of their own. Rep. Jon Porter, who represents Southern Nevada’s 3rd district, just lost his bid for a fourth term to state Sen. Dina Titus; and state Sen. Joe Heck lost his seat by fewer than 1,000 votes thanks to a Libertarian candidate.
Thanks to a Libertarian candidate? Not due to Heck’s lack of appeal in his district? The Hill conveniently failed to mention that an IAP candidate was a fourth contender in the field, who performed fairly well.
Source: Nevada Secretary of State
Given the political views of Independent American Party members, it seems much more likely that Heck lost, “thanks” to the IAP candidate, not the Libertarian.
Philly. Thanks to James Babb for pointing me to the video.
Copied from IPR:
This resolution is going to be brought up at the upcoming LNC meeting in Sandy Eggo, Saturday, December 6 and Sunday, December 7, 2008. Here’s some more info on that, including the agenda, courtesy of Rachel Hawkridge. The charges are being presented by Stewart Flood, and a summary is attached. Supporting evidence is expected to be made available later in the week.
Resolution of Discipline
Whereas, Angela Keaton has engaged in conduct injurious to the Libertarian Party and
its purposes; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Angela Keaton’s membership in the Libertarian National Committee is
suspended pursuant to Article 8, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party; and
further be it
RESOLVED, That the aforementioned suspension is hereby rescinded, contingent upon
a determination by the Secretary that Angela Keaton has submitted within seven days of
the adoption of this resolution a letter for publication in LP News including (and limited
· An apology for being in breach of a board member’s fiduciary duty of loyalty to
the Libertarian Party, publicly declaring her disinterest in the party, providing
material support to another political party and seeking to undermine the success
of and attempting to injure the Libertarian Party and its public image. The
contents of the apology to include the following:
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for seeking to undermine the success of and attempting to injure the Libertarian Party
and its public image by posting on her blog in July 2008, “Friends don’t let friends join the LP” and on September 5, 2008, “The LP is hopeless”
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for violating the fiduciary duty of a board member by joining and providing material
support to a competing political party while serving on the board of the Libertarian Party
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for attempting on August 21, 2008 to sabotage the party’s attempt to win the right to candidate substitution for future elections
o An apology to Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party for attempting to injure their public images by knowingly publishing on June 13, 2008 false assertions that an indictment on charges of fraud was pending against Mr. Root
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for publicly offering on her blog on June 28, 2008, sexual services in exchange for donations to the Party, and suggesting in Internet interviews on June 20, 2008 and
June 26, 2008 that the Libertarian Party asks her to offer sexual services in exchange for donations to the Party
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian National Committee and to the members of the Libertarian Party for numerous blog posts and
Internet interviews with officers of a competing political party in which the Libertarian Party’s image was harmed with broad-sweeping general
hostility towards the LP, numerous broad insults of her fellow LNC members as being inept, unqualified and not “real” libertarians, and impugning the motives of fellow LNC members for serving on the LNC
o An apology to Bill Redpath for repeatedly asserting in an Internet interview and on blog postings that he has undergone a “lobotomy”
o An apology to Admiral Colley for asserting in an Internet interview on June 20, 2008 that due to his age he is incapable of handling special LNC
projects involving staff management
o An apology to Bob Sullentrup for calling him an “ass” and a “goofball whose activism days were long behind him” in an Internet interview on June 20, 2008
o An apology to Dan Karlan for saying in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008 that he isn’t qualified to be on the LNC
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for asserting in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008, that most LP members who are
concerned about border security are racists
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for misusing donor data to contact major LP donors and falsely telling them that the
Libertarian Party had defrauded them
· An apology for exhibiting a pattern of reckless behavior and poor judgment, potentially exposing the LP to harassment lawsuits, creating an uncomfortable environment for staff and fellow LNC members, and potentially discouraging groups of people from joining the LP. The contents of the apology to include the
o An apology to LP staff member Casey Hansen for violating the LNC Policy Manual Article 1, Section 8.D and risking sexual harassment
accusations by blogging on September 6, 2008, “Nice staff piece of ass, Casey. Dark, young and easy prey for a cougar like myself.”
o An apology to Aaron Starr and the Libertarian National Committee for violating LNC Policy Manual, Article 1, Section 8.D (which prohibits
harassment of LP staff or fellow LNC members with racial epithets and derogatory posters, pictures, cartoons, or drawings) by posting on her blog on June 16, 2008 a photo-shopped image of herself and Mr. Starr portraying him in Darth Vader costume and Hitler moustache and
identifying him as “Darth Herr Vader”
o An apology to the Libertarian National Committee for violating LNC Policy Manual, Article 1, Section 8.D and risking sexual harassment accusations by posting on her blog on September 6, 2008 sexual comments regarding Julie Fox, Heather Scott, Executive Director candidate Donny Ferguson, and Admiral Colley
o An apology to Southerners and Christians for violating LNC Policy Manual Article 1 Section 8.A which states, “All collective deprecation, whether alluding to sex, race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, or any other protected category, must be avoided. Every person is a unique individual, and as the Libertarian Party is the Party of Individual Liberty, this injunction should doubly apply”, for posting on her blog on June 13, 2008 referring to an LP member from the South as a “hillbilly” and further stating, “All those Christian types married to their uncle cousins look the same to me.”
o An apology to the Libertarian National Committee for offering sex to the LNC officers conditional on the performance of our Presidential candidate by stating in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008, “If Bob Barr breaks
1%, the officers of the national party can pass me around like a pu-pu platter.”
· An apology to the Libertarian Party for violating the confidentiality of the September 7, 2008 Executive Session with a blog post on the same date and also for violating the confidentiality of a February 2008 Executive Session with a blog post on June 15, 2008
· An apology to Stewart Flood for threatening by phone on November 6, 2008, “I could have things done to you.”
· A promise not to commit similar offenses in the future while serving as a member of the Libertarian National Committee