Click here to read the Complaint in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner. It was filed September 12, case no. 08-cv-367-JM.
Click here to read the Complaint in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner. It was filed September 12, case no. 08-cv-367-JM.
Let us hope that George Phillies realizes that this lawsuit is for the benefit of all Libertarians and our right to organize in our fight for Liberty.
We need to have resonable ballot access laws, the right to substitution, the right to control our Party as we, the members, see fit.
This is a reasonable right of our free association, and, unless George Phillies is one of the LP’s extreme, obstinate anarchists, he should join in this lawsuit in favor of substitution in New Hampshire.
Bestween George and Bob……
The lawsuit, as filed, has no merit, simply because Barr made the ballot as well. There is no “irreparable harm” here. People can still vote him. Had Barr not made the ballot, then there would be a case because then there would be harm.
The case does have merit. What do you think the Democrats would think if the NH Secretary of State listed both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the November ballot for president?
Furthermore, the burden on the Libertarian Party to do two separate petitions was substantial. If New Hampshire recognized substitution, the party could have saved a huge amount of petitioning work. In fact, the party could also have started petitioning for Governor and U.S. Senator before it had made a final decision about those nominees also. Substitution is wonderful, although having a petition procedure that doesn’t need to list any candidates at all is even better. New Hampshire ballot access is horrible. Because NH won’t recognize substitution, the Greens, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party, all suffered both in 2004 and in 2008. None of those parties was on the ballot for president in 2004, and this year Constitution and Green aren’t on in NH. Visualize making NH ballot access law better!
There are outright lies (#15), omissions (#19), and more (#21, #27 and more) that is bold faced nonsense.
But of course, Richard and Hardy and Brendan and Barr don’t care about the facts.
Rest assured, the facts will come out, and a judge is going to throw this case out.
Richard you should be ashamed for what you well know is complete untruth in the case as filed.
Seth, I am not an attorney, I did not write the complaint, I was not consulted about what to put in it. When we met in New Hampshire in the fall of 2007, you were friendly to me. We had dinner together at the restaurant where your wife works. You watched me testify in the New Hampshire legislative committee. I felt my testimony saved the bill. The committee went on to do two more study sessions on the bill, but then it died. I came to New Hampshire at my own expense. I thought you had a sense of me as a person. But when I read your comments, it is as though we had never met. Our conversation was so friendly face-to-face, what happened?
Richard, you helped push for this suit, despite being told that it will only hurt ballot access in NH, claiming that you know better. You know darn well that if you weren’t pushing certain people, it’s unlikely this case would have been filed. You know for a certain fact that elements of the case are untrue, or intentionally mistated so as to influence the court.
Sorry, but whatever good will you had is quite lost.
Seth:
You not only present yourself as the ultimate authority (“You have been told…”) but you also claim to know what Richard believes and what he knows.
How did you gain your superpower of mental telepathy, and how did you become the single expert on what is good for NH ballot access?
You ignore the actual points, and make blanket assertions. Just another self-proclaimed expert who is all-knowing. My suggestion is prozac and regular therapy.
Eric, read the lawsuit, read what Richard keeps claiming, and learn the facts. I know the facts, because I was here in NH during the events, sat on the board during some of this, and I’ve posted much of it in the past (and continue to… part 2 of my NH history of the events is being finished now, and will be on IPR and/or LFV), including answering Richard’s past distortions, which he’s continued to repeat despite having been corrected repeatedly.
Why don’t we all admit that the dispute about this lawsuit has nothing to do with ballot access or election law per se. It is all about Barr. Never mind precedent. Never mind that nobody will remember Barr 10 years from now. Never mind that sex and drug policy, whatever it is, will never win elections.
If the LP needs to get over its schizophrenia regarding its fundamental purpose before it will ever amount to anything. If it is a PAC that’s one thing. But if it is a political party that is quite another. Its time, after 36 years, that that fundamental issue gets decided, and decided decisively.
I welcome Seth’s posts, but Seth, if you do post again, please acknowledge my point about the very late filing of the lawsuit.
So, Richard, it’s ok to lie about the facts, so long as the lawsuit is filed really late? So much for the Party of Principle.
Asking for an injunction, despite it’s being late, is still asking for an injunction. The only way to justify the injunction and the lawsuit was to lie, boldfacedly, in multiple respects. I know you know the untruths, Richard, because you reported on the facts as they happened.
Either you are in favor of lying in lawsuits so you can get your desired results, or you are against this lawsuit because it’s a fraud, there is no middle ground here. Facts are facts. Please explain how #15. that “Phillies caused circulation” is in any way true, when it’s quite clear merely from reading Ballot Access News, it’s not:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/04/16/new-hampshire-libertarian-party-nominates-phillies-for-president
Sounds like the plantiffs (LPNH) did it themselves. (Yes, we did.)
(and the ‘filed’ claim is wrong too, since no paperwork was submitted prior to the convention, much to the frustration of lower level candidates on the same petition papers)
Seth, you are a really hateful person.
Richard has been very respectful of you, and you have been a rude jerk.
Is this how you live your life? Going around treating everyone with anger and hatred?
What a sorry person you are. You should go somewhere else to spew your trash.
We need to win this lawsuit. Having the right of substitution will absolutely, and without any doubt make ballot access in New Hampshire much easier.
The New Hampshire LP was a rational, functioning, successful state party with Bill Winter at its head, years ago. Unfortunately, Winter was carted off to DC where his efforts were wasted. It would have been much more useful to pay him to stay in NH building the LP there. By now, the LP could have dozens in the legislature and the ballot laws could have been reformed.
Richard, there is no harm because the end result is that Barr is on the ballot, which means the purpose of the petitions was satisifed. Had the prupose not been satisifed, then there would be harm.
A lawsuit crying over the expense and effort is useless. Had the LP moved its convention back in the calendar so that all petitioning would have been done prior to the convention, this suit becomes a non-issue. It is not inherent to change the NH ballot laws to satisfy an LP misstep, especially when it is being run by a Chair whose pet project is supposed to be ballot access. The fact that Barr went forward with his own petitions, and that he was not prevented from doing so, undermines his own case. Had he been prevented because there already was an LP candidate on the NH ballot, then there’s a case. Didn’t happen. The result is that this case is not about substitution, but dual candidates. And most likely the judge will say exactly that, whether there is precedent for substitution or not. For it to be a true substitution case, it would have either required the SoS to deny Barr (strongest argument) or Barr to not petition and ask for substitution (weaker, because he could and did choose to petition anyway).
And asking about what the Ds and Rs would do in this case is irrelevant, because they don’t have to do this. It’s also a disingenuous red herring.
Richard Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“The case does have merit. What do you think the Democrats would think if the NH Secretary of State listed both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the November ballot for president?”
This is the crux of the case and the true point.
The only reason that Phillies and a handful of vengeful sore losers want to keep Phillies on the ballot is because they want so badly to lash out and hurt someone to get revenge for being rejected by the LP that they are willing to say and do anything and hurt anyone, and if necessary, destroy the entire movement for Liberty in the process.
Sorry, I had that backwards:
“Had the LP moved its convention back in the calendar so that all petitioning would have been done prior to the convention,”
should read
“Had the LP moved its convention back in the calendar so that the convention would have been done prior to all petitioning,”
My error.
Nope, Coming, it’s not about sour grapes, unless it’s about the sour grapes coming from the whine at the Barr. The high road there is to simply say, “Phillies is on, fine, but I’m the nominee, and we’ll let the voters decide.” Barr won’t do that because he’ll get skunked and everybody knows it, especially after Snubgate.
And one 3-electoral vote state does not “destroy the entire movement for Liberty in the process.” That’s pure emotional nonsense.
they “ARE WILLING” to say and do anything and hurt anyone, and if necessary, destroy the entire movement for Liberty in the process.
If you can’t read and understand this, you obviously lack the analytical and logical ability to understand this issue.
Coming, anybody can be willing to say or do anything. Potentials are just that, potentials, not actuals.
I deal with actuals. What-if games are a waste of time.
And the “ARE WILLING” folks are the Barr campaign, not the radicals who were right all along about Barr & Co.
It comes down to this, and perhaps this is what a wise court will decide:
If Hillary wanted to run, she could be on the ballot as an independent or unaffiliated candidate in NH. But, the Democrats should be allowed to control their Party line and have only one candidate.
Likewise, the LP should be able to petition and substitute. There should be only one Party line controlled by the Libertarian Party and not by Phillies.
A wise judge will confirm the right of substitution and kick Phillies off. But then, further, in this case, since there were two petitions filed and two candidates legally qualified, he will allow Phillies to remain on the ballot, if he truly wants to keep running.
Thus can the judge affirm the right of substitution AND give Phillies his chance.
At that point (better if he did it before) Phillies can be a man, an honest man, and show he is a true Libertarian, a moderate, and interested in actually rolling back the state: George Phillies should get himself removed from the ballot.