1998-2000: LAWSUIT AGAINST GENE CISEWSKI

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/misc/Cisewski-review.html
MEMORANDUM

 To:   Libertarian Party
 From:   Bill Hall
 Date:      June 29, 2000
 Re:      Facts Surrounding Lawsuit by Libertarian National Committee Against Gene Cisewski, The Liberty
      Council and Monticello Group, Inc.

Many Libertarian Party members have asked questions concerning the facts surrounding the lawsuit by the
Libertarian National Committee against Gene Cisewski, and his companies, The Liberty Council and Monticello
Group, Inc., for their misuse of the Libertarian Party mailing list. At the time the lawsuit was originally filed, the
LNC took great pains not to publicize the lawsuit, out of respect for Gene Cisewski's reputation in the Libertarian
Party, and in an effort to give him every benefit of the doubt. However, now that the lawsuit has concluded and
Gene Cisewski has admitted wrongdoing, I have prepared this synopsis at the request of the LNC to explain, in
detail, the factual basis behind the lawsuit.

As noted in the complaint filed in the lawsuit against Cisewski, the Libertarian Party has spent more than a million
dollars over many years, more than $500,000 in the past 3 years alone, building a database of the names and
addresses of more than 200,000 members, contributors and interested parties. While the value of the mailing list
is primarily for internal use, occasionally we rent all or part of the list to others, provided they agree to: (1) use the
list only once, and keep it confidential; (2) allow us to pre-approve the content of all mailings to our list; and (3)
only mail on a date pre-approved by us. These requirements are embodied in written agreements, and are
designed to preserve the value of the list for our internal use. Prior to 1997, a user of our list violated its
agreement by sending a mailing not pre-approved by us, so we banned that user from ever renting our list again.
In other words, our policy was to give no second chances to persons who misused our list.

In dealing with Gene Cisewski we broke this rule. Gene Cisewski was a political consultant to Libertarian
candidates and organizations, and his livelihood depended in part on being able to rent our mailing list. In 1997,
and until the July, 1998, national convention, he was a member of the Libertarian National Committee, and thus in
a trusted position within the Libertarian Party. As noted below, he violated our mailing list policies a number of
times. We suspected for some time that he was misusing our list. However, we gave him every benefit of the
doubt, until we caught him red-handed. Even then, the LNC filed suit against Gene Cisewski only afier many
attempts to work out the dispute voluntarily, and on an amicable basis, failed.

Some people have suggested that the dispute should have been submitted to arbitration. However, it takes the
agreement and cooperation of both parties to submit a matter to binding arbitration. As noted below, prior to and
during the course of the lawsuit, Cisewski repeatedly broke his promises to us as to what he would do and when
he would do it. I believe the primary reason the matter was ever resolved was that Cisewski faced the threat that
the Court would find him in contempt if he too blatantly violated its rules. Under these circumstances, arbitration
would have been a waste of time.

The LNC asked that I prepare this memo in order to outline the facts behind this sorry state of affairs.

SYNOPSIS

 1997
           The Monticello Group handled the first mailing to the Libertarian Party mailing list for the Murray
           Sabrin for Governor campaign. Despite a signed agreement with the candidate, a copy ofthe list
           was retained, and used again twice. Neither the reuse nor the copy were pre-approved, as
           required by the contract, though the campaign later did pay for the unauthorized uses. Despite
           verbal instructions to and agreement with the mail house, the disks containing the list were returned
           to Monticello Group instead of LPHQ.
 Fall 1997
           The Liberty Council made a mailing to Libertarian Party members which appeared to use the LP
           mailing list. Several LP members contacted LPHQ and inquired as to why the LP was sending
           them the Liberty Council mailing, and at least one (Bruce Hoepner of Michigan) insisted that only
           the LP had the particular address at which that member received the Liberty Council mailing.
           Persons who were on the LP mailing list with "do not mail" flags (e.g., Steve Dasbach and Joe
           Hauptmann of Indiana) did not receive the mailing, even though their names were on other
           libertarian-oriented mailing lists.
 Fall 1997
           In response to the Liberty Council mailing, Ron Crickenberger contacted Cisewski and asked
           whether he mistakenly made a mailing to the LP mailing list. Cisewski insisted he had not.
 Fall 1997
           In reaction to the building circumstantial evidence that Gene Cisewski was misusing the LP mailing
          list, and as a general exercise of caution with a valuable asset, the LP list was "seeded" with a few
           fictitious names, at addresses of persons associated with LPHQ.
 11-12/97
           The Monticello Group handled a prospecting mailing for the Institute for Humane Studies. For this
           mailing, copy was submitted for approval, as agreed by Gene Cisewski in a letter dated
           November 24, 1997. But the Monticello Group then used two different letters, one of which was
           not pre-approved, and expressly appealed to the recipient's connection to the LP. This time, even
           with written instructions to the mailhouse, and a follow up phone call to confirm this, the disks
           containing the mailing list were mysteriously returned to the Monticello Group, and not LPHQ.
 12/13/97
           Gene Cisewski is publicly confronted at the LNC meeting in Washington, DC, regarding the
           Sabrin mailings. He swears that he was not deliberately misusing the LP mailing list, and that the
           unauthorized uses were unintended oversights or miscommunications.
 Early 1998
           The Monticello Group worked for the Steve Kubby for Governor campaign. At a time when the
           Kubby Campaign had not rented the LP mailing list, a mailing (confirmed by Jackie Bradbury, as
           being approximately 5,000 California recipients, the same size as the number of California
           addressees on the LP mailing list) was sent to LP members, and at least one (Aaron Starr of
           California) insisted that only the LPHQ had the particular address at which he received the Kubby
           campaign mailing.
 1998
           Liberty Council makes a mailing (Cisewski tells BetteRose Smith, to a list of more than 500 in
           Colorado) promoting his Colorado Victory 2000 seminar. It is received by a number of people
           who believe their names only appear on the LP mailing list, and the state chair, who believes only
           LPHQ has the address at which she received the mailing.
 9-10/98
           One of our mailing list seeds ("Robert Johnson" - alias LPHQ employee and DCLP Chair Daniel
           Smith) receives a mailing from the Liberty Council, providing conclusive evidence of what we had
           suspected for quite some time, that Cisewski had copied and was using our mailing list. The
           "Robert Johnson" name was never used by Smith for any other reason, other than as an LPHQ
           "seed."
 11/3/98
           We hire independent counsel in Washington, DC, Doug Herbert (recommended by Clint Bolick of
           the Institute for Justice), to evaluate our claim. He concludes we have a good case against
           Cisewski for misappropriation of our mailing list.
 11/17/98
           Herbert writes Cisewski, setting forth the circumstantial evidence, and proposing that Cisewski,
           Herbert and Crickenberger meet so Cisewski can explain how it might have happened. Herbert
           proposes several dates through 12/1/98. Cisewski fails to respond.
 12/1/98
           Herbert leaves voice message for Cisewski, asking why no response, and stating that if no
           response is received by end of the day, Herbert will assume Cisewski has no desire to meet.
 12/1/98
           Cisewski calls Herbert, saying he sent a response letter yesterday, and promising to meet once
           Herbert had responded to his letter.
 12/1/98
           Herbert receives Cisewski's letter, which denies any wrongdoing, claims any mailing by him to a
           "seed" is either due to the LNC's incompetence in maintaining its "seeds" or fabricated for political
           reasons. Cisewski gives no further explanation for the "seed". Cisewski asks that we turn over all
           evidence of the "seed" so he can investigate the situation.
 12/2/98
           Herbert writes Cisewski, suggesting available dates for a meeting prior to the 12/12/98 LNC
           meeting, at which the parties will disclose their documents and files to one another.
 12/11/98
           Cisewski writes Herbert, refusing to meet and stating that he is retaining counsel, who should be
           contacting Herbert within the next week or so. Neither Cisewski nor an attorney representing him
           responds.
 12/12/98
           LNC votes unanimously to file suit against Cisewski if further efforts toward voluntary settlement
           fail.
[NOTE: The resolution at http://archive.lp.org/lnc/lnc981212.min.html  does not mention the option of voluntary settlement.]

 2/12/99
           We file suit against Cisewski in Washington DC Superior Court for breach of fiduciary duty,
           fraud, breach of contract and misappropriation of a trade secret.
 2/17/99
           Copy of lawsuit served on Cisewski. Under the Court rules, Cisewski must file an answer by
           3/9/99.
 3/3/99
           Herbert files requests that Cisewski produce documents and answer written questions with
           respect to the factual background surrounding the lawsuit. Under the Court rules, Cisewski must
           respond by 4/5/99.
 3/9/99
           Cisewski fails to file an answer to our lawsuit. Instead, he files a motion with the Court requesting
           a 30 day extension to file an answer. His request violates the Court rule which says a 20 day
           extension may be given, if he first contacts us and we agree. We decide to take it easy on him and
           not to respond, effectively giving him the requested 30 day extension.
 3/22/99
           Cisewski and Dasbach meet for lunch, to try to resolve the matter. Cisewski denies any
           wrongdoing and promises to provide relevant information. Dasbach makes no promises regarding
           lawsuit.
 3/30/99
           Cisewski writes Dasbach, enclosing two invoices he says were from mailing house for Liberty
           Council mailing which included "seed." [and thus, he claims, evidence of size of mailing made.]
 4/5/99
           Cisewski fails to respond to requests for documents and information, as required by Court rules.
 4/8/99
           Cisewski fails to file an answer to our complaint, as he promised. We decide to give him further
           time to respond by delaying action to enter a default judgment.
 4/22/99
           Herbert writes Cisewski, advising him we will ask the Court to enter a default judgment against
           him because he failed to answer, and an order compelling him to answer our requests for
           documents and information.
 5/3/99
           Herbert is contacted by Bruce Godfrey, a Maryland attorney who claims he is 'about to be hired'
           by Cisewski, and requests a one week extension to file an answer to our complaint and provide
           the documents and information requested. We grant his request.
 5/10/99
           Godfrey fails to file the answer or provide the documents and information, as promised.
 5/11/99
           Godfrey calls and says he will file the answer 'right away' and asks for a 3 week extension to
           respond to requests for documents and information.
 5/12/99
           Godfrey faxes to Herbert a 'draft' answer and writes that it will be signed and delivered at the
           initial conference with the Judge on May 14.
 5/13/99
           Herbert writes Godfrey, agreeing to the requested extension (until 6/1/99) to provide documents
           and information.
 5/14/99
           At the initial conference, the Judge had clearly read the file and pleadings (usually not the case),
           asked why Cisewski failed to answer (was told answer was filed that morning). Set a schedule for
           completion of discovery by 9/14/99, filing of all dispositive motions by 10/29/99 and a trial in 2 or
           3/2000. Godfrey agrees informally that he will 'beat' the 6/1/99 deadline for providing documents
           and information. [Answer filed varied materially from 'draft' provided on 5/12/99 by Godfrey,
           which Godfrey represented to be 'the answer.']
 6/1/99
           Godfrey fails to respond to requests for documents and information, as promised.
 6/4/99
           Herbert's associate, Mary Chlopecki, calls Godfrey for an explanation. He first claims Cisewski
           was out of town, causing a delay. Next he claimed the responses were drafted, but just not signed
           by Cisewski. Finally, he claimed he would draft the responses soon. Godfrey agrees to meet with
           Herbert for a discovery conference (required by Court rule before we could ask the Court to
           compel production of documents and information) on 6/9/99, at which he promises he will
           produce the requested documents and information.
 6/9/99
           Godfrey calls Herbert, asking to postpone meeting he promised for several days. Says Cisewski
           only gave him documents and information the night before, at 9p.m., Godfrey stayed up all night
           working with them, and is so sleepy he is afraid to drive to Herbert's office. Herbert insists on
           meeting 6/10/99.
 6/10/99
           Godfrey delivers largely incomplete and unresponsive responses to our requests for documents
           and information. At the same time, he serves requests for documents and information which go far
           beyond the scope of the lawsuit, specifically seeking information regarding details of the
           Archimedes project, contractual and other "self-dealing" relationships between the LNC and
           Harry Browne and officers, employees, volunteers and members of the LNC. Herbert and
           Godfrey discuss and agree in principle on a 'deal' which would permit both parties full access to
           the other's documents.
 6/29/99
           Herbert and Godfrey talk, fleshing out the 'deal' as one which would limit disclosure of all
           documents deemed confidential by the parties to their attorneys (specifically including any
           information regarding the income and expenditures of Cisewski, Monticello Group and Liberty
           Council), and would permit the attorneys for each party to visit the offices of the other, and review
           all relevant documents. Herbert writes Godfrey, proposing a form of protective order to be
           entered by the Court, which will implement the deal.
 6/30/99
           Godfrey agrees to protective order in principle, and asks Herbert to revise the form provided to
           apply to our situation.
 7/99
           Cisewski sends a memo to the LNC, denying any wrongdoing and proposing that the dispute be
           submitted to binding arbitration. We do not accept his offer, viewing it as yet another stall tactic,
           and a ploy to avoid the production by him of any documents or other evidence. Unlike a lawsuit,
           arbitration would not require that he provide those documents or evidence.
 7/14/99
           Herbert subpoenas relevant documents from Cisewski's mailing house, and schedules deposition
           of mailing house employee for 8/25/99. Herbert schedules deposition of Cisewski for 8/31/99.
 7/20/99
           Herbert writes Godfrey, enclosing protective order agreement for Godfrey's review and signature
           by Cisewski. [To address Cisewski's claim that we might review his records, and then somehow
           pick a person in his database and claim that person is the "seed," we agreed to place the "seed's"
           name in a sealed envelope for signature by Godfrey when Herbert arrives to review Cisewski's
           database. We will then retain the sealed envelope until we are required to respond to Cisewski's
           request for documents and information on 8/27/99.]
 7/23/99
           Godfrey calls Herbert, saying Cisewski will sign protective order agreement, but needs 'a few
           days' to gather documents.
 7/26/99
           Herbert calls Godfrey to coordinate signing, and Godfrey tells Herbert Cisewski changed his
           mind, and plans to produce copies of documents withheld instead (even though request for
           information requires review of databases).
 8/2/99
           Godfrey calls Herbert and advises Herbert that Godfrey persuaded Cisewski to sign protective
           order agreement. Herbert scheduled to visit Cisewski's office and review documents on 8/11/99.
 8/3/99
           Herbert receives from Godfrey copies of some requested documents, and the signed protective
           order agreement. As requested by Godfrey, Herbert files motion to add Bill Hall as counsel to
           case, so Hall will be bound by confidentiality provisions of protective order agreement. We agree,
           as a gesture of goodwill, to expedite provision of some ofthe documents and information
           requested of the LNC, by delivering those early, on or before 8/11/99.
 8/10/99
           Godfrey calls Chlopecki and advises Chlopecki that Cisewski left a message for Godfrey that
           Cisewski is ill, and thus Herbert's scheduled visit Cisewski's office to review documents on
           8/11/99 must be canceled.
 8/11/99
           Herbert calls Godfrey and Godfrey advises that Cisewski will not produce the documents.
           Godfrey suggests that the only way Cisewski will comply is if Herbert obtains a Court order to
           compel Cisewski to comply with our request for information and documents. Herbert is reluctant
           to do so, absent a final attempt to reschedule his visit to Cisewski's office. Herbert insists that
           Godfrey ask to reschedule his visit to Cisewski's office for 8/12/99. Godfrey leaves a message in
           response, saying Cisewski says his Doctor says the meeting must be on Monday, 8/16/99 (a date
           which Cisewski knows Herbert is on a one week vacation). Herbert is reluctant to agree to
           8/16/99 because he does not want to cancel his vacation, and though he could send Chlopecki,
           she is not computer literate enough to tell if Cisewski is providing free access to his computer
           records.
 8/12/99
           Herbert contacts Godfrey, suggesting rescheduling for Wednesday, 8/18/99, when Chlopecki and
           Herbert's computer literate son can make the visit. Godfrey says no, but agrees to reschedule
           document production for 8/23/99, when Herbert is available.
 8/23/99
           Cisewski cancels document production. Eventually, Cisewski agrees to document production.
           Upon visiting Cisewski's apartment to view documents, Cisewski advises him that his computer
           recently crashed, destroying all relevant e-mail messages and data other than a small mailing list
           which does not contain the "seed." In addition, Cisewski reveals that he has, as a matter of
           standard practice, destroyed virtually all written records for years prior to 1999.
 8/25/99
           Chlopecki deposes employee of mailing house, CSI, who denies any memory of anything. CSI
           produces four invoices in response to subpoena, none of which match the invoices provided by
           Cisewski in April, as those for the Liberty Council mailing.
 8/31-9/2/99
           Herbert questions Cisewski under oath. Cisewski is unable to explain how the "seed" received the
           Liberty Council mailing. He speculates it must be part of a conspiracy against him. Under the
           terms of the protective order and later settlement agreement, Cisewski requires that parts of the
           deposition [matters relating to his personal finances] be sealed.
 Fall 1999
           Discovery period ends without Cisewski or Godfrey ever having exercised their rights to view
           LNC records or question LPHQ employees. The parties await trial in the Spring of 2000.
 9/99-3/00
           We propose a settlement, which after long delays, Cisewski accepts in principle. However, prior
           to signature Cisewski backs out a number of times, but finally signs on terms virtually identical to
           those proposed by us in the Fall of 1999.
 3/00
           The Court enters an order approving a settlement agreement in which we and Cisewski agree:
           1. Cisewski, Monticello Group and Liberty Council (collectively, "Defendants") admit they
           breached their contract for LNC mailing list use by reusing the mailing list.
           2. The lawsuit was conducted in a procedurally fair manner and they have not been coerced or
           intimidated into the settlement.
           3. Defendants will never again use the LNC mailing list.
           4. Defendants may work with Libertarian candidates and state parties, but any LP mailing list use
           for them must be controlled by LPHQ or designated mailing houses.
           5. Defendants will pay $1,000 in damages now and $10,000 five years from now.
           6. Defendants will pay $25,000 in damages if they misuse the mailing list again, or breach the
           terms of the settlement.
All told, the LNC paid $48,440.43 to Herbert for the legal services he provided. We feel that he did a fine job
handling the lawsuit. While if we had known pursuing the matter would have cost so much we might have acted
differently (perhaps, by taking a harder line with Cisewski, rather than bending over backward at every turn to
give him the benefit of the doubt), we did accomplish our primary purposes of: (1) obtaining a permanent
injunction against any further use of the LP mailing list by Cisewski; (2) obtaining an admission that Cisewski did
misuse the mailing list; and (3) establishing severe sanctions against any future misuse by Cisewski.

This Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered
into between the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (sometimes
referred to herein as "plaintiff" or "LNC") and Gene A. Cisewski, The
Monticello Group Ltd. and the Liberty Council (sometimes referred to
herein as "defendants)."

WHEREAS, the parties to Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Gene A.
Cisewski, The Monticello Group Ltd., and the Liberty Council, Civ.
Action No. 99-991, now pending in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, wish to resolve this litigation voluntarily;

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed in return for good and valuable
consideration, as follows:

1. The LNC, Gene A. Cisewski, The Monticello Group Ltd., and the
Liberty Council stipulate that the evidence in this case establishes
the following facts:

a. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "LNC Data Base" refers to a
data base maintained by the LNC that contains the names, addresses, and
other information regarding of current and former members of the
Libertarian Party, donors to the Libertarian Party, and individuals who
have sought information concerning the Libertarian Party and its
principles.

b. As a result of a mass mailing by The Monticello Group, Mr. Cisewski
had physical access to a copy of the LNC Data Base that contained
fictitious "seeded" names, when the diskettes that were used for a
December 1997 mailing for the Institute for Humane Studies were
returned to Mr. Cisewski.

c. One of the fictitious seeded names that was included on the LNC Data
Base to which Mr. Cisewski and the other defendants had access was that
of "Robert Johnson." The address shown as that of "Robert Johnson" was
in fact that of Daniel Smith (then an LNC employee), and mail that was
sent to the address shown for "Robert Johnson" would ordinarily be
delivered to Daniel Smith.

d. The seeded name and address of "Robert Johnson" was included in a
mass mailing for fund-raising purposes by the Liberty Council in August
or September 1998.

e. Mr. Cisewski and the other defendants cannot provide any evidence
that explains how the seeded name and address of "Robert Johnson" came
to be included in the Liberty Council's mass mailing in August or
September of 1998.

2. Gene A. Cisewski and the other defendants stipulate that Mr.
Cisewski and The Monticello Group breached the November 24, 1997
contract with the LNC, in which Mr. Cisewski and The Monticello Group
agreed that there would be no re-use of the LNC Data Base, by utilizing
information from the LNC Data Base in the August-September 1998 Liberty
Council mailings, as alleged in Count III of the Complaint in LNC v.
Cisewski, et al.

3. Gene A. Cisewski and the other defendants stipulate that the case of
LNC v. Cisewski, et al., has been conducted in a procedurally fair
manner, and that the LNC entered into a confidentiality agreement that
protected Cisewski's personal privacy rights and defendants'
confidential business information. Mr. Cisewski and the other
defendants further stipulate that they have not been coerced or
intimidated into agreeing to the resolution of this case, and that they
have had the same opportunity as the LNC to discover evidence relevant
to the issue in the case.

4. Gene A. Cisewski, the Monticello Group, and the Liberty Council
agree never to obtain or utilize the LNC Data Base for any purpose,
including any use of the LNC Data Base on behalf of any other person or
entity. This provision does not preclude Mr. Cisewski and the other
defendants from entering into agreements with any state Libertarian
Party for the right to use the state Party's own mailing lists, even if
such mailing lists incorporate a portion of the LNC Data Base.

5. The LNC agrees that this Agreement does not preclude Mr. Cisewski or
the other defendants from engaging in fundraising, training, or
campaign consultant or management services for Libertarian causes and
candidates. Clients who wish to utilize such services provided by one
or more of the defendants and who wish to rent the LNC Data Base can do
so, but any mailings on behalf of such clients of defendants would be
handled directly by the LNC or by the following three mail houses
(without any access by Mr. Cisewski to the LNC Data Base):

   Accumail (located in Landover, Maryland)
   Dataplex (located in Woodbridge, Virginia)
   Brick Mill Studios, Inc. (located in Nashua, New Hampshire)

Mr. Cisewski may request that additional mail houses be permitted to
handle mailings on behalf of clients of defendants who have rented the
LNC Data Base. The LNC will consider such requests in good faith and
will not unreasonably withhold permission to add additional mail
houses, taking into account its interest in ensuring the integrity of
its data base and the necessity of guaranteeing that any mail house
utilized maintains adequate security measures to prevent defendants
from obtaining access to the LNC Data Base.

6. Gene A. Cisewski and the other defendants agree not to make any
statements to any person that are inconsistent with the factual
recitations in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Agreement. Mr. Cisewski
and the other defendants may not claim or imply that the deposition
that was taken from him in this case (including the confidential
portions thereof and deposition exhibits) or any other documents or
information available to defendants contains (a) any evidence of
wrongdoing relating to the LNC Data Base by any other person or (b) any
evidence that is inconsistent with the factual recitations in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Agreement. Mr. Cisewski and the other
defendants may not claim or imply that this Agreement (or any other
Agreement with plaintiff) prevents them from speaking truthfully about
the legal or factual issues relating to LNC v. Cisewski, et al. So long
as the provisions of this paragraph are complied with, Mr. Cisewski and
the other defendants may respond to inquiries about this case or this
Agreement by declining to comment or by referring the inquiring party
to the transcript of Mr. Cisewski's deposition.

7. Because the full damages resulting from any breach of paragraphs 4
and 6 of this Agreement are inherently difficult to determine, and not
as a penalty, the defendants jointly and severally agree to pay
liquidated damages in the amount of $25,000 for each proven violation
of any of the obligations imposed by paragraphs 4 and 6 of this
Agreement. If any defendant is found to have violated any if the
obligations imposed by paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Agreement, the LNC
shall be entitled to recover the costs, including attorneys' fees, that
were reasonably incurred in enforcing the obligations arising under
paragraphs 4 or 6 (including recovery of liquidated damages as provided
herein). Defendants agree that any threatened or imminent violations of
the obligations imposed by paragraphs 4 or 6 of this Agreement will
cause irreparable harm to the LNC and agree that injunctive relief to
prevent such relief would properly be issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Such right to injunctive relief is in addition to any
other remedies available to plaintiff for the violation of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to sanctions for violation of the
Consent Judgment to be entered by the Court.

8. Simultaneously with this execution of this Agreement, Gene A.
Cisewski will pay one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to the LNC, in the
form of a certified check payable to the LNC.

9. Simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Gene A.
Cisewski and the other defendants will sign the promissory note
attached hereto as Attachment A, under which they agree, jointly and
severally, to pay ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to the LNC within
five years of Mr. Cisewski's execution of this Agreement.

10. Within ten business days after all parties have executed this
Agreement, the parties will jointly move the District of Columbia
Superior Court for entry of a Consent Judgment in the case of
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Gene A. Cisewski, The
Monticello Group Ltd., and the Liberty Council, Civ. Action No. 99-991,
pursuant to which this case will be dismissed with prejudice, such
dismissal to be contingent upon entry of a permanent injunction
prohibiting defendants (and any persons working in concert with
defendants) from any future utilization of the LNC Data Base for any
purpose (except where the LNC itself or one of the mail houses
designated pursuant to paragraph 5 arranges for and handles the
mailing). The parties' joint motion shall be in the form attached
hereto as Attachment B.

11. This Agreement is not confidential. The deposition taken from Gene
A. Cisewski in this suit is also not confidential, with the exception
of those portions of the deposition and deposition exhibits designated
in Attachment C hereto as relating to the confidential business and/or
personal affairs of Mr. Cisewski. The parties agree that all portions
of Mr. Cisewski's deposition that relate to the LNC "seeds" and their
utilization or non-utilization by defendants have not been designated
as confidential and may be made available to third parties.

12. This Agreement shall become effective on the date when all parties
have executed this Agreement.

13. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the
parties. This Agreement may be modified only by a writing signed by all
parties.

14. The parties acknowledge that they have carefully read and fully
understand all the provisions of this Agreement and that they have not
relied upon any representation or statement, written or oral, not set
forth in this Agreement.

15. The parties represent and agree (a) that they have consulted with
their respective counsel before executing this Agreement, (b) that they
fully understand their rights to discuss and receive advice on all
aspects of this Agreement with their attorney, (c) that they have
availed themselves of this right, and (d) that they are knowingly and
voluntarily entering into this Agreement and agree to be bound by the
terms thereof.

16. All parties were represented by counsel during the negotiation and
drafting of this Agreement. This Agreement shall therefore be deemed to
be drafted equally by the parties.

17. This Agreement and performance hereunder shall be governed by the
laws of the District of Columbia without reference to the choice of law
rules thereof or, where applicable, federal law. The parties agree that
any litigation concerning this agreement will be brought in the
District of Columbia and stipulate to personal jurisdiction in the
District of Columbia.

18. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or
interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to all costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees
incurred, and interest, in addition to any other relief to which he or
it may be entitled.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the date shown below.

So AGREED:

[signed by Dasbach 25 February and Ciseswki 8 March]
   ++++

Subject: Re: SLS: Abolitionist and gradualist
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 23:38:38 -0700
From: "M Iddings" <marids@jps.net> (by way of "George L. O'Brien" <obiewan@mail.doitnow.com>)
      Rick Tompkins <<mailto:spooner@mail.doitnow.com>spooner@mail.doitnow.com>
on April 29, 1998 8:38 AM wrote:
>
>Some of us are not so much concerned with those who choose different ways
>of fighting the battle as we are toward the underhanded, lying, fraudulent
>methods used by the con-artist types who are more interested in lining
>their pockets than in achieving progress toward liberty.
    I can second that!
    The movement has been afflicted by both an abolitionist with a rent-controlled NYC pied-a-terre and a gradualist who hawked a sort of Dale Carnegie-esque 'sucker 'em into liberty' course. Frauds cloak themselves in any guise, gradualist or abolitionist, that their marks will accept without question.
    Communities of people who self-identify as members of the same cause are particularly susceptible to being targets of frauds who also claim allegiance to the cause. Mormons were targets of con artists in the late '70s and early '80s because they were likely to be very trusting of anyone who also professed to be a Mormon. I've seen this same phenomenon within the LP.
     The LP's low activist retention rate means there are few among its ranks who have been around long enough to remember a particular con artist's last attempt to troll for marks. The LP's high turnover means there's a continuously renewed supply of new marks. Finally, O'Brien's observation that Gresham's law can be extended to activism (bad activists drive out good activists) implies that the principled long-term activists who would warn newcomers of the reputations of underhanded, untrustworthy folk are displaced by the unprincipled, corner-cutters who tolerate (and even expect to personally benefit from) such shady characters.
     I wish the few good people left in the LP lots of luck in remaking the LP's target-rich environment enjoyed by the frauds within it. I suspect the nationwide LP's hunger to boost its membership count which floods the rolls of affiliate parties with newcomers is the greatest source of the problem.
    Affiliate parties have difficulties, true, but once an activist base stays in being for a whole US Presidential election cycle there's a certain degree of stability and organizational memory in place. (Because California's LP affiliate party is located in such a large and populous state, it resembles the nationwide LP organ with its problems more than it resembles a typical LP statewide affiliate party.) Higher retention and a more discriminating recruitment of newcomers is probably the best chance of reversing the three conditions that make the present LP apparatus so troubled by fraudulent characters.
    I admit there's an attraction to juicing up the membership rolls in order to show ever larger numbers. But after over a quarter-century, the LP's oft-trumpeted claim of being America's Fastest Growing Third Party sounds phony to any numerate person. It's time to abandon the old illusions.

Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 7:35 PM
To: Subscriber
 Subject: A personal message from Perry Willis
 L i b e r t y W i r e
 |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
          A personal message from Perry Willis Campaign Manager, Browne for President
          I regret to inform you that as of Friday, April 21, the Harry Browne for President campaign has suspended most of its operations. We are cutting expenses in the hope that we can catch up on our bills, but if the present is any guide to the future, it is possible the campaign is over.
          Our fund-raising has been declining since Jacob Hornberger began his latest series of attacks against Harry Browne and the LP leadership. We have been falling further and further behind on our bills, and it has reached the point where we cannot continue.
          Any national campaign must live from fund-raising letter to fund-raising letter. It must keep using every dollar available to push its public outreach.
          Unlike a business, we can't legally borrow money. In addition, we have no assets other than our office equipment and our contributor list -- andwe have only about 8,000 contributors. Moreover, to mail a fund-raising appeal to the LP membership, we must pay for the list in advance and schedule our mailing so it won't conflict with the LP's own fund-raising efforts. Despite the fact that Mr. Browne has raised tens of thousands of dollars to help recruit new LP members, he has no more access to these names than any other Libertarian; in fact, unlike outside organizations, he has to pay in advance for the names.
          In short, our campaign's only assets are our reputation and the good will of our supporters.
          Unfortunately, our reputation within the LP has been damaged to the point where the good will of a significant segment of the rank and file now seems lacking, causing our latest fund-raising effort to fall short and put us in a very deep hole. Specifically, our motivations for wanting to challenge the FEC laws have been called into doubt, causing the direct-mail appeal based on that challenge to fail.
          Obviously, not everyone could have been expected to agree with the FEC strategy we were considering. But instead of simply offering arguments against the value of the strategy, Mr. Hornberger and his allies have seized on the possibility that we have considered challenging the FEC laws only to hide financial improprieties. And many people either have believed Mr. Hornberger's assertions or have had sufficient doubts about us to stop contributing to our campaign.
          Needless to say, the FEC challenge is no longer a possibility, and we will file our FEC reports next week. Mr. Hornberger and his associates have forced us to bow to the will of the state. Ironically, filing reports with the government may turn out to be the final act of this campaign.
          In addition to his email attacks and his prodding the FEC about our potential challenge, Mr. Hornberger has mailed hit pieces to several of our major donors. The name and address of at least one of these donors could have been known to Mr. Hornberger only through one source -- our 1996 FEC reports. No wonder Mr. Hornberger is so adamant that we disclose contributor information to the government. But I don't see how this helps the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.
              The FEC Challenge
          We believed that the FEC challenge had the potential to achieve two valuable goals.
          1. It had the ability to generate publicity about the campaign that was related to our issues, whereas some other media event might have detracted from our basic message. Although we haven't been trying to publicize the challenge, preferring to wait until we were sure we were going to proceed with it, the word has gotten around. Several journalists have indicated that they wanted to write about it if we went ahead. And Harry has been asked about it on several radio shows. His reply to the question "Why would you do this?" takes him easily to our issues:
         "Because it's the only way we have of letting people know there's a party -- the Libertarians -- who want to free you from the income tax, unlock the door and let you out of Social Security, and end the insane War on Drugs. The campaign contribution limits keep us from raising the kind of money necessary to get that message to you and the American people."
          2. If we could win the case (which would probably take at least a couple of years), it would open up enormous possibilities for the LP. We would be able to attract larger sums of money for advertising that could take our message to the American people. Because our message is positive and the messages of the old parties negative, it doesn't matter how much additional money they get to raise and spend; the important issue is how much more _we_ can raise and spend to let people know there's an alternative. And the very fact that we would become free from the current limits would encourage many people to support us -- people who now don't think we can ever change anything.
          Based on the reaction to our March 12 email message about the FEC challenge, it appeared that a large percentage of Libertarians would enthusiastically support the challenge. But Mr. Hornberger's attacks changed all that, and perhaps scuttled the entire campaign as well. (Note: we have paid $15,000 of the $25,000 required for the legal research. We intend to complete the research and publish a summary of the results, in the hope that some future campaign will be able to use the information.)
          As I said, we will file the FEC reports next week. But, as we have promised, we are providing in this message a more detailed accounting of how we have spent your money.
          Perhaps more important, this message will tell you what the money has achieved.
          This message also will provide an introductory course in the trials and travails of running a national third-party campaign, as well as discuss the plans we had for the future. You can think of this as our campaign report, in case it turns out that we won't be writing one later.
          In addition, all payments to vendors and employees are listed at the end of this report. You can see how much every payee has received. There also is a list of our current debts.
          Please forgive the length of this report. But after due consideration, I believe it would be incomplete if we omitted any part of it.
              Running a National Campaign
          If you are running for a local office, such as for city council or state representative, you can do so without a lot of money, if necessary. You can speak at various clubs and go door to door -- personally meeting a significant number, possibly even a majority, of the potential voters. This is known as retail politics, and it is very appropriate for a local campaign.
          Running a statewide or national campaign is quite different, however. Meeting voters personally may seem like a good idea, but you can't hope to attract more than a few thousand votes -- at the very most -- that way. Even giving speeches carries your message to an insignificant number of voters, unless the press and TV cameras are paying attention to your speeches. When you see a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate on TV giving a speech, shaking hands outside a factory, or flipping pancakes in a coffee shop, remember that he's doing it only because you and hundreds of thousands of others are watching him on TV. If the cameras weren't rolling, he wouldn't be there.
          A national campaign based on meeting voters in person and speaking engagements alone is doomed to achieve no more than a few hundred thousand votes. To seek millions of votes requires wholesale politics. That means widespread advertising, especially television advertising, as well as personal appearances on radio and TV, where you can be heard by tens of thousands of potential voters at a time. A national campaign also requires leveraged contacts -- such as gaining the support of various groups who will transmit your message to many people, recruiting thousands of volunteers to help publicize your candidacy, enlisting Internet sites, and using any other transmission belts you can locate.
          Running a political campaign also is considerably different from running a business. In many cases, a business can evolve over however long it takes to succeed. A campaign has a finite ending point and everything you're going to do has to be achieved by that date. A business can wait for the right moment to spring its marketing projects. But a campaign must be continually active. When it isn't persuading voters, it must be recruiting supporters to help you persuade voters. It must continually raise money to pay its bills, and it must continually spend the money it raises -- trying to take advantage of every opportunity there is.
          A campaign that isn't financially stretched to the limit at all times isn't aggressive enough to reach whatever goals it has set. In this report, I'll explain what this means in our case.
              Income & Outgo
          The Harry Browne for President Committee was formed in December of 1996. It has been in operation for a little over 3 years and 3 months. Through February 29, we raised and spent $1,231,210.75.
          The campaign has spent 57% of its income on campaign outreach, 17% on overhead, and 26% on fund-raising. It is typical for fund-raising to cost a campaign about 34%, so we have done very well in this area. In addition, campaigns tend to raise most of their money in the final four months, so it's reasonable to expect that the overhead and fund-raising percentages would drop and the outreach percentage would rise.
          Also, it's important to realize that overhead is the first expense incurred. As the campaign becomes more successful, overhead has to rise as well. But it doesn't rise nearly as fast as fund-raising increases. So the more money raised, the higher percentage of it goes into outreach. And with a much larger Libertarian donor base, we expected to spend many times as much on advertising this year as we did in 1996.
          <<10 pages of financial details following deleted>>

To:  James Lark, Chair, Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
Cc:  LNC colleagues, State Chairs, LP members and friends:

        After a great deal of contemplation, I have decided to resign my position as Treasurer of the Libertarian National Committee.
        This is effective at 8am on Saturday, April 21st 2001, which is the start of our next scheduled Committee meeting.  I've chosen that date so that a replacement can be named at that meeting, and request that the item "Naming of new Treasurer" be placed on the agenda directly after the Chair's remarks early in the day.
        I strongly suggest that the position not be left unfilled for any period of time.
        To insure a smooth transition to whomever the Committee elects to replace me,  I today name Dr. Deryl W. Martin (currently Region 7 representative on the LNC) of Tennessee as LNC Assistant Treasurer.  Dr. Martin has a strong academic and financial background, impeccable integrity, and is well suited     to take on this role while I transition out over the next few weeks.   I expect he'll be working closely with the staff and me during that time.
        Also as of April 21st, I revoke my membership certification ("the pledge") and cancel my life membership in the LP.  I'll address the reasons for my decision in a separate message next month, but *please* be assured I'm not leaving for another party.
        I've greatly enjoyed my 6 years or so on the National Committee, the three public offices I've held as an LP member, and my 21 years in the movement & the Party.
        Most of all, I look forward to maintaining the close friendships with many of you that my wife Karin & I have developed over the years.
        I wish you well.
        Sincerely,
        Mark A. Tuniewicz
        Libertarian Party national Treasurer

P.S.  This email address will no longer be active after April 21st.

    FYI.....
    Just in case you had not seen this elsewhere:
    Mr. Tuniewicz is one of the four elected officers of the LNC, and has both fiduciary and legal responsibility for the state of our party's financial reports.
    That a hired staffer at ANY level would neglect - indeed, appear to refuse - to provide such reports in a timely manner on an ongoing basis would appear to be cause of immediate dismissal.
    That the other elected members of the LNC's Executive Committee appear not to have required prompt compliance with routine procedure raises an interesting question:
    Why's in charge here?  The LP's board of directors, or the hired staffers?
Ken Sturzenacker [Then Chair of  LP Pennsylvania]

At 05:43 AM 4/5/2001 EDT, NHLiberty@aol.com wrote:
 Steve Dasbach, National Director
 Mark Tuniewicz, Treasurer
 Continued non-receipt of financial information
 Libertarian National Committee

    At the Executive Committee teleconference held in February of 2001,  I let you know that the end of your Director's report that I hadn't been receiving my normal weekly financial information for at least the 3 weeks prior.  You said you would check with Nick Dunbar as to the status and that you'd take care of it.
    At March's EC teleconference, I again pointed out that I STILL had yet to receive this reporting, now about 8 weeks behind.  I expressed this in the context of our discussion regarding the new monthly reporting package that the EC was in the process of developing.  You again cited the need to speak with Mr. Dunbar, and had no other explanation.
    Steve, it's April, and I STILL haven't received these simple, system-generated reports.  In my opinion, there is just no excuse for this...It is simply outrageous!    I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attempt to pass off responsibility for this to others. You are responsible for insuring that this information is provided on a timely basis.
    While I recently announced my resignation effective later this month, all of these events took place prior to that announcement.  I plan on continuing my oversight responsibilities up until then, which obviously include review of financial information.  You should also be aware that my inability to carry out my responsibilities as Treasurer due to this situation was one key factor in my recent decision to resign.  I can't do my job when you can't (or won't)
provide me with the information I specifically and repeatedly request to do so.
    For the Committee's information, there have been MANY instances during my tenure as Treasurer when my weekly reporting has been 1, 2, or even 3 weeks late.  This was repeatedly discussed by members of the executive committee under Mr. Bergland's administration.
    There have also been repeated instances of our monthly financial information being provided very late to the LNC, and periods of many months on end when regular providing of monthly revenue and expense information to state chairs did not take place.  This is a longstanding problem that Mr. Dasbach has been made aware of previously.
     Steve, I've attempted to be understanding about those situations, which I consider to be sloppy and unprofessional at best, and incompetent at worst. I've been hesitant to raise this issue strongly in the past because of our friendship and close working relationship.
     But this most recent string of events is, in my view, serious enought to easily be considered just cause for termination because of the clear inattention to an important job responsibility after repeated notifications to correct same.
      I urge you to reconsider your position as National Director.  LNC members, state chairs, and members are concerned, as am I.

Mark Tuniewicz
Treasurer
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

(Note: National Director Steve Dasbach has a long explanation for why these problems occured.  Contact him for details.)

At 12:04 PM 4/6/01 -0700, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
>Too bad Mr. Tuniewicz didn't hop on a plane, go to the office and get the
>data he required.
>When one has staff (as the Treasurer has at his disposal), one needs to
>interface with them.
>While Mr. Dasbach should have been helpful here since he is a full timer
>and paid staff, I think the Treasurer should have exercised his authority
>in the matter.

        It is not as simple as that.  When David Bergland was chair he forbade Mr Tuniewicz from interfacing directly with the staff and/or the accountants and/or the FEC consultants.  This is when he should have resigned.  Instead he accepted the prohibition and even ran for re-election without asking the convention delegates to verify his authority in this matter.  This prohibition was not formally objected to by Mr. Tuniewicz or any other LNC member.  Later, when Mr. Lark became chair this policy was not rescinded.   Mr. Tuniewicz  seems to have tried  quiet diplomacy which did not work and finally decided to resign.
       While Mr. Tuniewicz could be faulted for not acting more assertively, the rest of the LNC is just as much at fault for not realizing that the situation was intollerable.

  JWLark>Indeed, you asked me twice whether I would rescind Mr. Bergland's prohibition should I be elected (on Feb. 9, 2000 during a telephone conversation, and on March 10, 2000 during a conversation in Chicago the night before the beginning of an LNC meeting).  In both cases I told you that you were  welcome to have contact with anyone you needed to contact.  Do you remember my telling you this?>>

  Yes.  I think we covered this fact during an LNC meeting as well.

  JWLark>More importantly, did I hinder you at any time in the performance of your responsibilities as treasurer?  Did you say anything to Mr. Famularo or anyone else that would have given him the wrong impression about my position on the matter?>>

  No, and no.  I have been consistent in my representations, Jim.

  Mark Tuniewicz

Subject:  Re: LNC Manual Conflict on Noncompliance FEC/etc regulations??
Date:      Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:33:56 -0600
From:     thomaslknapp@yahoo.com
To:        LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

On 29 Nov 2001, at 19:01, TCS wrote:
<non-essential quotes deleted>
      The suggestion _has_ been made -- I don't know how accurate the imputation might be -- that it was, in fact, the treasurer's liability under law that led to this.
      The LP is currently involved in a lawsuit against the recent changes in IRS reporting requirements (Section 527) for political entities; last time I knew, interrogatories were done and the defendant (the U.S. government) had moved for discovery.
     If the motion is broadly granted, that means that government investigators would be able to do a lot of tearing through LP finances; and guess who is on the hook for whatever they find, even if that person isn't the one who filed this report or wrote that check?
    Mr. Tuneiwicz, to my understanding, had complained at various times about not having what he felt was the appropriate level of access to LP financial information. I don't know what validity those complaints might have, but I could certainly see a situation in which a treasurer, believing that the organization might face legal problems, and simultaneously not believing that he had the access/authority to get into the books, find problems and correct them, might decide to walk rather than be the fall guy.
    Seen in that light, his resignation makes sense -- and so would his resignation as a party _member_, for one specific reason: a resignation is not effective until and unless it is accepted. Until and unless the LNC accepted Tuneiwicz's resignation and appointed a new treasurer, he was on the hook ... EXCEPT that the bylaws specifically require an LNC member to be a Party member, and by resigning his Party membership he effectively took himself off the LNC and out of the treasurer's position with no need for any action by anyone other than himself.
    I don't know that any of the above explains Mr. Tuneiwicz's resignation. I'd personally like to hear his own explanation of it. But it is a reasonable explanation.
Tom Knapp [Region Region 1E Alternate who himself resigned from the National Committee January 1, 2002, angry about the Libertarian National Committee refusing to vote for the Non-Intervention Resolution. See the articles section of Libertarians for Peace for more information on that.]

Hello LP friends,

I hope all is well.

George Phillies, quoting the 8/21 executive committee teleconference, cites this segment regarding current LP
Treasurer Deryl Martin:

<Martin said that he no longer has any faith in any reports that he is being presented by staff.>

To coin a phrase, I feel Martin's pain.  In April of 2001, I expressed grave concerns to the National Director and the LNC over financial reporting issues.  Much of the reports I'd been requesting had to do with accounts receivable, which from the recent minutes I see have not been properly booked & reported since after I left.  The national director's lengthy response cited his lack of awareness that a problem existed.

With best wishes,

Mark Tuniewicz
former LP Treasurer and former member of 5 different LP state executive committees.  Current triple public officeholder.

-----------------------------------

Also, copy of the 05:43 AM 4/5/2001 EDT, NHLiberty@aol.com email above written to
 To:  Steve Dasbach, National Director

From: "Mary Gingell"
To: "Harry Browne"
Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:25 AM
i, Harry.
       It occurs to me that now that Perry's memo is being broadcast around the country, the following question is sure to come up - is the fact that this memo can be found on the harrybrowne.org website an indication that you concur with Perry's opinion that violating the LPC conflict of interest rules in 1996 in order to help the Browne for President campaign is justifiable?  And even if you don't believe that allowing him to post this memo on your website is an implicit endorsement of it,what, in fact, is your position on the issue?
       So I guess I am asking it . . . as someone who defended him, and Winter, and Sharon, and you during that time and assured people that they were not, in fact, in violation of the policy.  I would appreciate knowing how you felt about it then, and how you feel about it now.
---------
From: "Harry Browne"
To: "Mary Gingell"
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:29:47 -0500
Dear Mary:
         Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
         I'll be issuing a statement in the next couple of days. I imagine it will find it's way to you.
         In the meantime, you should know that I was aware of Perry's actions and agreed to them.
Harry

Subject: An answer to your question
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:24:24 -0400
From: John Famularo <JFamularo@home.com>
To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

    Due to intermittent  ISP service failure, I'm not sure if this got out to you previously.
At 04:05 PM 8/6/2001 -0400, James W. Lark, III wrote:
>as far as I am concerned you are not a subject of the investigation into
>the Willis matter in the sense that the LNC is considering some type of
>legal action against you.
>I cannot say with certainty what other LNC members believe; however, I
>have seen no indication that any LNC member believes that you are a target
>for such action.
    I'm not as confident of that as you are.

>However, a major reason for the inquiry is to obtain the full story about
>the Willis matter.  In my opinion, a relevant part of that story is how
>you obtained pertinent evidence and why you brought that evidence forward
>in the particular manner you chose.
    Again, I don't understand how this has any relevance to the facts of the "investigation", however, I will answer your questions.   As a point of personal priviledge, if I am to be discussed publicly on the LNC-discuss list, I would request that you forward an messages to me that refer to me, my evidence, argument or implied fiduciary responsibility.
    What I can tell you is that I didn't steal this information or come by it through any violation of fiduciary or contractual duty either expressed or implied.  It did come from the LPHQ computer network and was transferred to me in the normal course of my activity as the person in charge of the LPHQ computer system and as the person who maintained the  backup and test system for the LPHQ system from 1989 until after 1996.  I regularly received backup copies of the LPHQ database by diskettes created by various people on the LPHQ office staff  and by  mail and electronic transfer. You can check with Nick Dunbar the amount of times that I had to restore the system from my remote backup after an irrecoverable hardware or software crash at the LPHQ.  (this is in itself a long story and part of the big picture).
    I was not aware of the significance of the information until well after it came into my possession.  It was only in the process of deleting files from the backup network system some time in 1998 that I came across the information and recognized its significance.
    My specific decision as to if or when to come forward is rather complex.To be honest, I had no confidence in the Bergland LNC to do anything but ignore and/or cover up any evidence of Willis-Browne wrong doing,  and after all, Willis was already gone.  I also had no reason to cause potential significant damage to the LNC by exposing activity that could result in civil and/or criminal penalties brought on by the exposure of false FEC reporting. This is a complicated legal matter also because even though there is a 3 year statute of limitations on FEC violations, there is the possibility of the invocation of the "discovery rule" of conspiracies which simply put argues that the secret nature of criminal conspiracies allows for the delay of starting the clock on the statute of limitations until the discovery of the conspiracy rather than the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy.  It is also possible to be indicted and found guilty of a conspiracy without being found guilty of all of the underlying acts  or even committing the underlying acts.  If you and I were to talk about  filing false reports and then one of us actually prepared a false report or asked someone else to do it, we would be guilty of felony conspiracy even if we did not actually file the false report.  Whether a federal prosecutor would or would not bring such an indictment against a political party is a risk I don't think we should gamble on.  I based my decisions on the advice I got from lawyers who are expert in this field.
     In  1999 when I decided to become Don Gorman's campaign manager I felt that his platform and style would  be a positive alternative proposal.  The information could have been used at that time to  Don's benefit but he made it clear that he did not want to run any type of negative campaign. (he new nothing of the information I had)
     The apparent lack of interest in analyzing Tuniewicz resignation,  the impending buy-in to the Browne & Co manaegement of the  FEC lawsuit deal, and the final stages of the strategic plan, along with the long term effects of those and other decisions were the triggering events that were part of my decision to make the April 21st disclosure.
     Why is it relevant to the investigation how I came by this information?   It may not be your motivation, but my belief is that it is part of an offensive defense, and the people who are most interested in coming after me should be analyzed more closely as to why.  It is not a matter of what we would like to believe but what is the most probable scenario.
      As we have discussed previously,  and as I have indicated in previous emails, not every member of the LNC has the same familiarity with past events. More than a mere listing of documents will be sufficient for all of them to make an informed dicision.  Since you have not been able to tell me how the rules and or structure of the "inquiry" it was not possible to prepare a formal presentation, nor to plan how that presentation would be  delivered to the LNC and all other interested parties, since this is now a very public matter.
      In order to better initially present the current evidence in a structured format, I have constructed a timeline with hyperlinks to various pieces of information some already made public and some for the first time.   This is still somewhat a work in progress since I am still gathering and linking  information from the public record and some documents still have to be scanned in, and some witness testimony has to be documented.
     You can access this timeline at:
     http://lp2000.com/BCI/timeline.htm

  From: "Elias Israel" <eisrael@lpma.org
  To: "LNC" <lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
  Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:22 PM
  Subject: RE: [LNC-Discuss] Famularo's Response
  Steve Givot and I spent some time ironing out our differences on this  idea the other night. Happily, we emerged closer to agreement.
             I can support the idea of bringing people to LV to "testify" under the  following minimal set of ground rules:
           1) As Steve has mentioned, any who testify must submit the substance of  their testimony in writing. It must be done at least two weeks prior to  our August meeting so that everyone can have a chance to absorb it. If  there is something substantive for anyone to report, then I don't think  we can understand it and react to it off the cuff and expect a wise and  careful result to come out. We must have time to understand and  respond.
           2) We must act on nothing that does not have credible evidence.  Opinions, hearsay, and innuendos must be thrown out completely.
           3) Everything that is presented as evidence must include corroborating  information demonstrating its authenticity and origin. Anything without  a credible chain of events linking it from its origin to the present  day should be thrown out. We must only act on information that a  reasonable person would believe is authentic and unaltered.
           4) Any accusations of wrongdoing concerning events prior to January  1997 -- and the evidence for them -- must be brought forward in time  for the upcoming LNC meeting. Anything not brought forward by that time  should be declared moot. We cannot allow the LNC (and the LP) to be  constantly derailed by new charges and counter-charges for events long  ago over which none of us has any control.
           5) Anyone accused of wrongdoing must have a legitimate chance to  repond. As in any other proceeding, the defense goes last.
           6) All who testify must declare any conflicts of interest they may have  relating to the proceedings or the events on which they testify, using  the same standard as members of the LNC now must do.
           Probably, Mr. Hall could think of a few additional groundrules to  further safeguard the committee from acting imperfectly by -- for  example -- causing punishment to fall on those that the committee knows  or should know are innocent of the accusations. (Of such mistakes are  libel suits made, after all.)
           But I think that these minimal guidelines will keep us focused on what  the committee seems to want to do: to find out all that can reasonably  be ascertained and to act in accordance with Libertarian reason and in  the best long-term interests of the party.
           I understand that we all want this matter to be dealt with as promptly  and as decently as possible. I have concerns about inviting new  hostilities in this instance, but perhaps with these minimal guidelines  we can reduce the risk associated with hearing them.
           I am opposed to bringing anyone in without these guidelines, because I  believe that it would amount to allowing anyone to use the LNC for an  inquisition or a personal vendetta, and would tend to lengthen this  debacle rather than resolve it.
               Elias Israel  eisrael@lpma.org  www.eliasisrael.org

   Subject: Willis censure resolution - version originally proposed by Israel
  Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 22:16:44 -0700
  From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org
  Reply-To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.org
  To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)
           I have been asked about the original version of the resolution passed  the LNC at its August 2001 meeting, the version originally proposed  by Elias Israel before being amended.
           Here is that text -- again, this is NOT what was adopted, but rather what Israel originally presented to the LNC:
           ==
           Whereas John Famularo has presented evidence to the Libertarian  National Committee on April 21, 2001 that Perry Willis, while National  Director of the Libertarian Party, performed work for the 1996 Harry  Browne for President campaign in violation of LNC rules,
           And whereas Perry Willis subsequently admitted that he had indeed  performed such work, in contradiction to his previous statements,
           And whereas no additional evidence has been presented to the  Libertarian National Committee on this matter concerning Perry Willis  or any other Libertarian,
           Therefore, the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Perry  Willis for performing said work on the 1996 Harry Browne for President  campaign while employed as Libertarian National Director, and for  denying to his employer that he had done so.
           We also resolve that neither the Libertarian National Committee nor the  National Director shall engage Perry Willis directly as either an  employee or a contractor for a minimum period of two (2) years.
          We further resolve that Perry Willis and organizations with which he  may be affiliated may only purchase advertising in LP News and/or rent  the Libertarian national mailing list subject to the terms and  conditions required in the LNC policy manual for external customers.
           The Libertarian National Committee further resolves that this issue is  closed, and no further action shall be taken unless additional credible  evidence is presented to the committee.
See more e-mails regarding Israel and this process are here.

Subject: LNC meeting summary - 25-26 August 2001
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 01:06:28 -0700
From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>
     The Chair reported on his investigations into questions raised by the work done by Perry Willis for the Harry Browne campaign while he was LP National Director in violation of LNC policy.  An apology from Willis was read to the Committee.  The Committee adopted several resolutions, which together included the following actions:

  * censuring Perry Willis for doing this work and for denying it
  * prohibiting employment of or contracting with Willis or organizations controlled by him for five years
  * requiring that other organizations with which Willis is associated be treated as external organizations when    renting the mailing list or advertising in LP News
  * declaring the matter closed unless additional evidence is presented
  * admonishing Harry Browne and Jack Dean for their participation
  * calling on Browne, Sharon Ayres, David Bergland, Michael Cloud, and Jack Dean to denounce Willis' violation of   policy
  * rescinding the approval for LNC participation in Browne's proposed lawsuit against the FEC

Subject: LNC meeting summary - 13-14 October 2001
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:25:51 -0700
From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>
       There was discussion of questions which had arisen out of previous actions relating to "the Willis matter".  It was decided not to do business with American Liberty Foundation until the people in a position of responsibility have complied with the Chair's requests for information and complied with the resolution adopted in August calling for them to denounce Willis' actions.  It was decided that Art Matsko / LiamWorks should be treated normally, without repercussions from this matter. It was decided that the LNC will reconsider participation in the proposed lawsuit against the FEC if asked again to join.

My Friends,
        I've avoided any comments about the Perry Willis/Harry Browne controversy, until now.  I've just read Perry Willis: "Conflict of Interest" policy and I find myself even more disturbed by his explanation, than by his irresponsible actions.  And despite my generally warm feelings towards Harry, I am disturbed he would allow such a document to be posted on his web site, without a strong disclaimer.  Apparently, Browne supports the Willis statement, without reservation.
        For some time, a number of us have felt the LP was being hijacked by the Browne people, but the Willis statement reads like an indictment in which he admits lying, deceiving, misappropriating funds and violating party policy, to help himself and the Browne Campaign -- and then justifies these unprincipled acts by claiming it was "for the good of the party."
        Already, people are writing me to tell me how they would have supported the Gorman/Kubby ticket had they known then, what they know now.  However, what really bothers me is the Willis/Browne philosophy that, "The ends justify the means."
        Michele and I have already parted company with George Soros and other wealthy supporters over this issue. In our view, the ends NEVER justify the means.
        I recall that Don gave a compelling speech about what it means to belong to the Party of Principle at the national convention.  Like you, I loved Don's speech and everything he stood up for that day.  And like you, I was deeply saddened that our party chose to place its faith in others, whose principles we now learn are badly flawed.
        Let freedom grow,
        Steve

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Republicans goofed: They should have appointed Saddam Hussein as new Speaker of the House instead of Bob Livingston, the Libertarian Party gratuitously advised today.
       "Saddam would have been the Mother of all House Speakers -- and might have given the Republicans a fighting chance against their mutual enemy, the Great Satan, Bill Clinton," argued the Libertarian Party's director of communications, Bill Winter.
      "By not making Saddam Speaker of the House, Republicans missed a great opportunity to reverse their political fortunes and end America's longest-running foreign policy blunder, all at the same time."
       Need convincing? Here are the Top Five reasons why Saddam Hussein should have been the Republicans' new Speaker of the House:.....<list deleted, see original>
       "Republicans, do the right thing! Turn your Republican Revolution into a Republican Jihad -- and make Saddam Hussein the next Speaker of the House!"

        WASHINGTON, DC -- A judge should strike down an Alabama law that bans the sale of vibrators and other sex toys, the Libertarian Party said today -- because America doesn't need politicians deciding "which kinds of orgasms are government approved."
       "This law is giving us bad vibrations," said Bill Winter, the party's director of communications. "The fact is, the government has no business interfering in any private, consensual sexual activity between one person."
       What's the buzz here?
.........
        Libertarians say their advice to the judge is clear: It's time to give a "Big No" to politicians who try to regulate the Big O.
       "Call off the vibrator police," urged Winter. "If there is any area of life that should be strictly off-limits to politicians, it should be people's bedrooms. Quite simply, there is no excuse for these kinds of invasive, offensive, puritanical laws."
        So why was this law passed?
        In court, lawyers for the state of Alabama argued that legislators passed it, in essence, because they could. There is no constitutional right "to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm," claimed Attorney General Bill Pryor. And attorney Courtney Tarver said, "We see the legislature acting within its powers."
.....
        "That's why we Libertarians suspect that the thrill people get from sex toys is nothing compared to the thrill politicians get from controlling other people's lives. If you want to stamp out illicit self-gratification, prohibit politicians from getting their jollies by passing these kinds of ridiculous, unneeded laws."
       On the other hand, Winter acknowledged that there is one aspect of the sex toy law that even Libertarians can appreciate.
        The exact language of the bill, he noted, prohibits "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs."
       That means, said Winter, "Depending on how strictly you interpret the law, it could make Bill Clinton illegal in Alabama."

        WASHINGTON, DC -- There's a new contender for the year's dumbest proposed law: A bill in Mississippi that would make it a crime -- punishable by a year in jail -- for a man who is, ahem, sexually aroused (but fully clothed) to appear in public.
       "Talk about hitting below the belt!" said George Getz, Libertarian Party press secretary. "Are phallic felonies really so frequent in Mississippi that the state needs a Private Parts Police to patrol men's underwear?"
..        But wait a second, say Libertarians: Is public tumescence really a problem that is, ahem, popping up all over in Mississippi?.....
        "Unless someone is putting Viagra in the water supply in Mississippi, a bill that regulates what goes on in your underwear sounds like a silly solution in search of a non-problem," he said."Of course, if this legislation applied to Bill Clinton's White House -- where presidential priapism is a perpetual problem -- it might be a little more understandable."
       On the other hand, there is one good thing Libertarians can say about SB 2013, said Getz: At least it's just limited to Mississippi.
       "Thank goodness this crime hasn't been federalized yet," he said. "If that happened, we'd all have to worry about the Federal Erections Commission."

        WASHINGTON, DC -- A decision by Arizona prosecutors to put a woman with no arms and only one leg in prison for a year for a minor marijuana violation -- at a cost to taxpayers of $126,000 -- shows how
pitiless and immoral the War on Drugs has become, the Libertarian Party
said today.
..... However, Mohave County Chief Deputy Attorney Jace Zack said the punishment was appropriate because "drug dealers [are] dangerous people."
        But not as dangerous as crusading anti-drug zealots who don't care about compassion, decency, or common sense when waging their failed War on Drugs, said Dasbach.
        "Deborah Lynn Quinn may have no arms," he said. "But the people who put her in prison have no heart."

 (Note: The following is a parody press release  issued by the Libertarian Party in response to the  August 10, 2001 air strike against Iraq by U.S. and  British war planes.)

        DATELINE Washington, DC * August 10, 2025 --  President Jenna Bush announced today that she  had ordered American warplanes to strike at air  defense sites in Iraq because a hereditary condition  made her do so.
        "Birds gotta fly. Fish gotta swim. Bush family gotta attack Iraq," she said in a terse statement from the  White House.
         Bush, daughter of former president George W.  Bush and granddaughter of former president George  Bush, said the United States will continue the  bombardment of the Iraqi "no-fly zone" until  Saddam Hussein finally gives up or "until we forget why we started this war in the first place."
         Jenna Bush also warned Hussein not to  underestimate the Unites States' resolve in the Gulf  War, Part V.
         "Message to Saddam: Won't quit. Not gonna do it,"  she said.
          Today's strike against Iraq is the latest chapter in a continuing 34-year drama that began in 1991 when President George Bush Senior launched the Gulf  War to stand up to what he described as the greatest threat to world peace since Adolf Hitler.
         "Message to Saddam: Won't quit. Not gonna do it,"  he said at the time.
          The war continued under President Bill Clinton, who  lobbed missiles at Hussein whenever he was  caught messing around with White House interns.
           "I did not have sexual relations -- Look! I'm firing  missiles at Saddam! -- with that woman," said  Clinton at the time, explaining his actions....
[Etc in that vein...]

        WASHINGTON, DC -- The next time someone claims government programs don't really cost an arm and a leg, tell him about the federal shark-stock rebuilding project -- which has apparently contributed to a 325% increase in the number of vicious shark attacks off the coast of Florida.
       "As amazing as it sounds, politicians appear to have created a federal program that increases the likelihood of shark attacks," said Steve Dasbach, the national director of the Libertarian Party. "In an effort to protect one species, politicians have endangered another one -- human beings.
...
         "So why should we be surprised that a program designed to protect sharks also has an unintended consequence -- jeopardizing the lives of swimmers? One way or another, problems always seem to get worse when politicians sink their teeth into them."

       WASHINGTON, DC -- Congress should  immediately pass a bill that would cut the federal  tax on beer in half -- because cheaper beer is as  all-American as Killian's Red, Sam Adams White,  and Labatt's Blue, say Libertarians.
         "For beer lovers, this bill tastes great and is less  taxing," said Bill Winter, the party's director of  communications. "If Congress refuses to act on  this beer tax cut, then Joe Sixpack will be sadder,  Budweiser, about politicians' priorities." ....
         "This is a Molson Golden opportunity for Congress to repeal the 1990 tax hike that doubled the federal  levy on beer," he said. "When, in the Coors of  human events, it becomes possible to give  America's 30 million regular beer drinkers a tax  break, politicians should do so with gusto.
         "The fact is, 44% of the price of beer is swallowed  by federal, state, and local taxes. It is a Grolsch  violation of human rights to tax beer so steeply --  especially when cutting the tax in half would reduce  federal revenues by only $1.7 billion per year."
         But what about people who say the federal  government needs that extra revenue?
         "In a Pig's Eye Pilsner politicians need the money,"  said Winter. "Congress ought to be debating how
 Lowenbrau taxes can go, not how high they can  remain."
         However, Congress does deserve a Pabst Blue Ribbon for even considering the bill, he  acknowledged.
         "Now they should get off their Duffs and pass it, and send it to Presidente George W. Busch for his  signature," he said....
[Etc. in that vein.]

Subject: Re: March 10-11 Strategic Planning Team meeting in Chicago
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:42:01 -0800
From: Carol Moore <Carol@carolmoore.net>
To: lpstatechairs@topica.com
CC: LNC members

  I agree that the meeting should be open, as was the one in Indianapolis where any of us could just wander in and observe.  I assume that LNC members are not forbidden from reporting on the meetings to members, including in e-mails, newsletters, etc.
    The big issue is whether the LNC is going to try to come up with ONE strategy and then IMPOSE it on all the states or a range of integrated alternatives, operational and strategic, perhaps for decision by the larger body in 2002. While a few big wigs assured me the latter was not the case, the fact the meetings are
not open makes one wonder.
     Also, while I have been waiting for the typed versions of all the suggestions in the brain storm, I did keep notes and wrote down 95% of them, which I reviewed yesterday.  Some of the suggestions (especially from staffers and LNC members) were rather disturbing because they put too much power in, or dealt with the pet
issues or strategies of, the staff and the LNC.
   I would therefore suggest that not only do we demand meetings be open, but that we demand that a range of integrated alternatives be offered, not one final and unassailable one.
Carol Moore
Chair, LPDC
202-635-3739
http://www.lp-dc.org
http://www.carolmoore.net

Lois Kaneshiki <lois@nb.net wrote:>

>  Dear fellow state chairs,
>
> Apparently a majority of the LNC voted at the Dec LNC meeting to make the
> March and subsequent SPT meetings completely closed to other LP members.
>I am in the process of trying to change this, but it looks like it will take
> a mail balloting of LNC members, which is a somewhat slow process.
>> If you feel strongly about this issue, I suggest you contact LNC members
> asap.  I have included their email addresses below.
>> In liberty,
>> Lois Kaneshiki LNC - At Large Chair, LPPa * * * * *

    The purpose of having at least one meeting "closed" as an experiment was to give the participants a chance to speculate more freely and more openly about the possibilities open to the party. Where there isn't a safe place to be wrong, there's no way to learn what's right.
    Personally, I doubt very much that any closed-door alliances could stand anywhere in the LP for very long, and especially not among this highly visible group of people.
    And given the amount of effort it takes to get Libertarians to agree on pizza toppings, I don't think any sane person would suggest dictating a strategic plan to them. This will have to be developed, taught, coached, sold, and communicated not only to the state party leaderships, but with them as well.
    That is a delicate balancing act, and a tall order, but what other choice have we got?
Eli Israel
eisrael@lpma.org

> If you are afraid to be "wrong" in an open meeting, why would you not
> be afraid to be "wrong" in a closed one?  Surely you don't believe
> everyone present will agree with you in EITHER case.
>
> In terms of the "experiment" idea, this "experiment" runs the risk of
> alienating the support of the state affiliates and creating more
> suspicion, as Carol Moore has already expressed.
>
> Is that what you think we need at this stage in the process?
>
> We must demonstrate courage in this process, which requires openness,
> not a Soviet bloc or CIA-style back room operation.
> Lois Kaneshiki

      If that is what you hear me saying, then I'm afraid you've heard incorrectly.
      Perhaps you want to try asking me another way.

Elias Israel
eisrael@lpma.org

     From the final Strategic Plan report:

    The Strategic Plan calls for the party to focus  on six major political goals:
         * Increase the number of Libertarians holding public office.
         * Strengthen Libertarian state and local organizations.
         * Increase the Libertarian Party's support base (members, contributors, and  volunteers/activists).
         * Increase the Libertarian Party's market share among youth.
         * Increase public awareness of, acceptance of, and support for, Libertarian ideas.
         * Remain the "Party of Principle" as we grow.

    To accomplish the plan's six goals, the LNC  also approved 20 strategies:
         * Define, develop, and promote the LP brand.
         * Develop and use high-quality presentations of  Libertarian ideas, which present both direction and destination, with an eye toward electoral success without compromising core beliefs.
         * Redevelop the LP platform, presenting both direction and destination, with an eye toward electoral success, without compromising core beliefs.
         * Track the performance of core and critical activities in state and local Libertarian Party organizations; encourage and support them in creating and executing plans to improve performance.
         * Define and codify relationships between (and expectations among) national, state, local, and campus Libertarian Party organizations.
         * Expand and strengthen Libertarian Party organizations at levels other than the affiliate lever (e.g., local, city, county, and campus).
         * Recruit more and better-qualified candidates.
         * Target races and allocate resources for  maximum effectiveness.
         * Coordinate campaign activities within and among campaign levels.
         * Increase the number of new people comprising the Libertarian Party's support base.
         * Increase the commitment of those already within the Libertarian Party's support base.
         * Strive to achieve a left/right ideological  balance among the Libertarian Party's support base.
         * Provide training, training materials, and training support to Libertarian Party candidates and campaigns (e.g., campaign methods), Libertarian organizations (e.g., organizational matters), and individuals (e.g., communications skills).
         * Develop and implementan internal program of ideological education.
         * Target public opinion leaders to embrace and espouse libertarian ideas.
         * Target existing independent groups to act in support of Libertarian Party efforts, and provide opportunities for us to spread our message.
         * Encourage state, local, and campus  Libertarian Party organizations and our entire support base to be involved in political processes at all levels outside of campaigns and elections.
         * Focus resources to achieve the repeal of drug  prohibition at the federal level by 2010 and get substantial credit for it.
         * Develop an awareness that success requires adequate recourses of all sorts.
         * Motivate the Libertary Party support base to increase activism by recognizing and rewarding both effort and success and by making involvement in the Libertarian Party an enjoyable, positive experience.

Subject: Kubby on Nefarious Drug Reform Contributors (and Willis/Browne)
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:51:25 -0400
From: Carol Moore <carol@carolmoore.net>
To:     Lpus-misc <lpus-misc@dehnbase.org>,  LNC members and State Chairs

        Steve Kubby makes some excellent comments on the Willis/Browne controversy.  However, he also refers to what I believe may be possible *future* attempts to subvert the processes and purposes of the LP.
[Note: Comments quoted above.]
        Kubby refers to parting company with George Soros and other wealthy supporters over the issue of the "ends justifying the means." This could become a larger problem if the LP were to make Drug Legalization a "signature issue," in part to attract money from the same individuals, as the Strategic Planning Committee is considering recommending.
       At the last NatCom meeting a staff member promoted just such a notion, telling NatCom that the LP's 3rd largest contributor, who had just given a million dollars to drug legalization groups, certainly would be excited if that happened.  The staffer refused to divulge to me who that person is.  But it wasn't hard to find out that through a call to NORML and looking at the FEC Web site that that individual doubtless was John Gilmore.  Investigating his web page http://www.toad.com/gnu/ and other things about him on the web, I think he looks like an honest and above board person.
      However, such STAFF secrecy must make one wonder what is going on--especially if one lives in DC where our year 2000 drug reform movement candidate (who received over $5000 from National, plus massive ballot access support) made obnoxious demands that the Libertarian Party of DC engage in NO activity (including meetings, literature production, working for Harry Browne, press releases, etc).  He wanted us to ONLY focus, work on and spend money on *his* drug legalization-oriented campaign.  Another libertarian employed by a big drug reform organization "warned" us that our intentions of doing normal party activity hurt the candidate's chances of getting money from big money drug legalizers who allegedly were libertarians!! (The candidate himself threatened to disrupt party meetings with continuous calls for resignations by Executive Committee members if we didn't knuckle under to his outrageous demands.)
     I hope Mr. Kubby will share his bad experiences with these wealthy drug legalizers with the Strategic Planning Committee which is considering recommending making Drug Legalization the LP's "signature
issue."
Carol Moore, former Chair, current Treasurer, LPDC

LNC TO TURN NAME "LIBERTARIAN PARTY" OVER TO NEFARIOUS PETER SCHMERL?

MARCH 2002 PROPOSED "RESOLUTION GRANTING USE OF THE NAME LIBERTARIAN PARTY TO THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOUNDATION"

WHEREAS the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (hereafter "LNC") wishes to substantially increase the knowledge and understanding of libertarianism among high school students, their families, and high school educators;

WHEREAS the LNC wishes to substantially increase Libertarian Party brand name among high school students, their families, and high school educators;

WHEREAS the LNC wishes to create good will towards Libertarians and the Libertarian Party among high school students, their families, and high school educators;

WHEREAS the LNC is the governing body of the Libertarian Party and has registered the name "Libertarian Party" as a registered trademark;

WHEREAS the LNC believes that a nonprofit, educational foundation that qualifies as a 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code, named "Libertarian Party Foundation", that provides scholarships to graduating high school students to further their college education, will increase the knowledge and understanding of libertarianism, increase Libertarian Party brand name, and create good will among high school students, their families, and high school educators;

Therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. hereby grants perpetual use of the registered trademark "Libertarian Party"  to Peter G. Schmerl, his successors and assigns, in his capacity as incorporator of the Libertarian Party Foundation, provided such foundation is granted 501(c)(3) by the Internal Revenue Service and so long as such status is maintained, and provided such foundation creates and maintains bylaw provisions making the Chairman of the LNC an automatic ex officio member of the foundation's board of directors by virtue of his office with all the rights and privileges given every other member of its board;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the LNC will provide*** a one-time use of the
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of its one hundred (100) largest
contributors to the Libertarian Party Foundation for the purpose of raising
seed capital***;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the LNC authorizes its Chairman to enter into
necessary contracts with the Libertarian Party Foundation to implement this
Resolution.  Such contracts shall be consistent with this Resolution.

Subject:  Re: Another LP Foundation Proposal Question
Date:      Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:52:22 -0800
From:     Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>
To:         LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)
 

thomaslknapp@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The LP's bylaws, Article 8, Section 1, explicitly state:
>
> "No person,  group or organization  may use  the  name  'Libertarian
> Party' or any  confusingly similar designation  except an
> organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status."

Yes, this is one of the points that came up in the dicussion.

> From what source does the LNC derive any authority to confer the
> right to use the name "Libertarian Party" in conflict with the bylaws
> provision governing the use of that name?

In my opinion, the LNC does not currently have such authority.  Other LNC members have different views on this.

But there was not a full debate about this, or about most of the specific points.  There seemed to be a lot of sentiment that the whole thing had been sprung on us without sufficient preparation and without time to investigate all of the implications -- and a particular concern that our General Counsel had not had a chance to review the proposal -- and so there was a reluctance to spend a lot of time debating the specifics.

Points like this will have to be debated if/when this or a similar proposal is presented again, or if the LNC decides to come up with a general policy for "chartering" LP-related organizations.  The LNC directed the Chair to gather information relevant to such a process and report on it at the next meeting.

To: Geoff Neale, National Chair
CC: LNC
From: Steve Dasbach, Executive Director
Re: Executive Director's contract
Date: September 18, 2002

I believe that it is critical that the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party have the complete support of both the National Chair and the LNC in order to successfully carry out his or her responsibilities to the organization and the membership. It is clear to me from the tone and content of the most recent meeting of the LNC's Executive Committee, as well as the messages on the LNC discussion list over the past several months, that I do not have that level of support from the current LNC.

Accordingly, I feel it is in the best interest of the party that I withdraw my name from consideration to be reappointed as Executive Director and provide 2-months notice of my intent to resign per the month-to-month contract extension mentioned in your Chair's report. Unless we mutually agree to a different date, my resignation will become effective November 18, 2002.

I appreciate having been given the opportunity to serve the Libertarian Party, both as Executive Director and National Chair. I especially appreciate the efforts of our hard-working national staff, and the many LNC members, state chairs, and members who have supported our efforts over the past nine years.

I remain fully committed to the mission of the Libertarian Party, and will do whatever I can over the next two months to ensure a smooth transition to a new Executive Director.

Sincerely,
 

Steve Dasbach
Executive Director