Make no mistake about it:  Sean Haugh is Liberty’s Public Enemy Number One.

Check it out hereon YouTube:  http://youtu.be/mKerwfun0Oo 

Christina Tobin of Free & Equal Facilitates Fraud : http://youtu.be/WsNFUYEVTEg

 

On June 27, 2008, for no discernable reason or motive, and with absolutely no warning, Sean Haugh, then the Libertarian Party’s national political director, made illegal phone calls to Libertarian Party of Massachusetts officials, and ordered the destruction of important ballot access documents (namely, petitions signed by 2,000 Massachusetts voters, requesting that the Libertarian Party statewide slate of candidates be placed on the ballot) I had worked hard to secure, and were in my possession.   Haugh actually ordered state party chairman George Phillies, who’d retained my services weeks earlier, and LPMA Political Facilitator Carolyn McMahon, to “quite literally burn” the high-validity ballot access instruments I’d planned to turn in for a fee of $3,000.  In Massachusetts, it’s a misdemeanor to engage in destruction of such documents, or to attempt to engage in their destruction.  Moreover, Haugh left no ambiguity over his criminal intent, ordering the documents’ destruction “whether they have been paid for or not”.  Their having not been paid for (which was actually the case when Haugh first announced his intentions) would deem his crime to amount to an attempt to defraud me out of $3,000, while their having been paid for (I was subsequently paid by Phillies) was an attempt to defraud LPMA donors out of $3,000 in contributions.  Either way, it’s petition fraud.

I took time out of my busy schedule while on the ground in Massachusetts and made rounds to various prosecutorial bodies, including Massachusetts State Police; the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office; the Massachusetts Secretary of State, Elections Division; and the local police department where I happened to be when I first learned of the crime.

Sean Haugh’s case then fell into the Massachusetts Attorney General for further investigation, although it should be noted that there’s a transcript of his threat to commit the crime in an email and he has also admitted it publicly on an internet blog.

Here’s what he’s run afoul of:

https://libertycrusader.wordpress.com/political-consulting/prosecuting-enemies-of-liberty-spotlight-on-sean-haugh/massachusetts-statute-haugh-violated/

My normal inclination after filing the criminal complaints would have been to quietly sit back and let the wheels of justice turn.  I did seek out internal party discipline for Haugh (which should  have been obvious) by writing to members of the party’s judicial committee (and those letters are here: 

https://libertycrusader.wordpress.com/political-consulting/prosecuting-enemies-of-liberty-spotlight-on-sean-haugh/my-two-letters-re-sean-haugh-to-lp-judicial-committee/ )

but otherwise I just wanted to go about my business.

However, Haugh’s subsequent demeanor has made this impossible.  Rather than show any remorse or apologize for his gross misconduct (or try to deny it happened), Haugh instead chose to gloat over the fact that he didn’t immediately get arrested, and how he tended to stay on as political director as time went by.  He also decided it was in his best interest to gleefully engage in an ugly character assassination in lieu of a defense against criminal charges, and this course is what has brought me foursquarely into this war with Sean Haugh which will not end until I see to it that he is punished severely.  This site is partly dedicated to bringing down Sean Haugh, the man who tried to ruin me with absolutely no provocation or impetus of any kind on my part.

Sean Haugh’s most recent strategy in this character-assassination-as-defense is to drag up an old controversy from 1999 that had, “already been definitively decided in favor of Fincher, on each issue raised”, as one internet blogger put it.  Recycling old – and untrue – rumors as a way to tarnish someone’s sterling reputation is a trick that’s as old as the hills, but here Sean Haugh is, rearing its ugly head once again, in modern 2008.  I can’t let untrue rumors stand pat with no refutation, of course.  Click here if you’re interested in hearing the truth regarding the 1999 controversy: 

https://libertycrusader.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/finchers-save-the-day-in-new-mexico/

News Release – For Immediate Release

 

Gary L. Fincher

National political consultant

P O Box 1252

Goshen, IN 46527

(207) 450 5117

garyfincher@yahoo.com

 

National Libertarian Party official conspires to commit vandalism, fraud

 

Directs Massachusetts party officials to burn 2,000 state nomination signatures

 

Sean Haugh, the national Libertarian Party’s political director and a Durham resident, on Friday made a phone call to state party Political Facilitator Carolyn McMahon, who is in charge of collecting nomination papers of the party’s statewide slate of candidates – including presidential stand-in and Worcester resident George Phillies – to burn a stack of petitions containing the names of 2,000 Massachusetts voters, a crime in Massachusetts, punishable by a one thousand dollar fine and one year in prison.

 

Haugh, in an expression of disdain for a couple of fellow LP activists who often circulate nomination papers for a fee, sent an email on Friday to party activist Mark Pickens, which threatened to call state party officials in Massachusetts in an effort to get them to cooperate in an undertaking to “quite literally” burn the batch of signatures party donors across the state had paid a $3,000 consulting fee to a party consultant from Maine, Gary Fincher, to collect.  The email expressed hostility toward both Pickens and Fincher, and demonstrated a willingly to defraud both Fincher and the LP of MA donors out of thousands of dollars.

 

Carolyn McMahon – whose name appears on the nomination papers as a presidential elector – confirmed in a conversation to Fincher on Tuesday that Haugh phoned her on Friday and instructed her in no uncertain terms to destroy (burn) the petition.

 

The scandal – dubbed as “Massachusetts Burning” – had swept across internet message boards over the weekend, but confirmation from Ms. McMahon, who had been vacationing through Monday, could not be verified until Tuesday.

 

Massachusetts nomination papers contain an instruction to the public:  “Warning – criminal penalty for unlawfully signing, altering, defacing, mutilating, destroying or suppressing this petition; fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.

My Two Letters to the LP Judicial Committee:

FIRST LETTER TO LP JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

June 29, 2008

Dear [Judicial Committee member]

I’m writing this to you in your official capacity as member of the Libertarian Party judicial committee. I’m writing to call your attention to recent misconduct by our national political director, Sean Haugh, in hopes of some real action being taken against him.

This past Friday I was alerted to a very disturbing email (which I’ve copied and attached with this letter), written and sent out by Haugh to LP petition circulator/activist Mark Pickens. Make no mistake about it – this email was written in Haugh’s official capacity as Libertarian Party national political director.

In the email, Haugh cites a personal disdain for me as justification for promising to instruct LPMA officials to burn (Haugh uses the qualification “quite literally” for emphasis) my recently turned in 2,000 signatures (estimated ballpark 90% validity). I am a seasoned veteran libertarian activist/consultant/circulator (since 1991) and have never seen anything so unprofessional and reckless coming from someone who holds a national staff title. Here is one of our national staff members openly advocating a criminal act!

It is unclear from this email whether or not I should actually fear for my safety, or fear being a victim of violent vandalism from somebody, acting under the direction of our political director. However, I will be taking this matter to the police for investigation. Wording on the Massachusetts petition states: “Warning – criminal penalty for unlawfully signing, altering, defacing, mutilating, destroying or suppressing this petition; fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.”

This threat is nonetheless real: a credible source just informed me that Haugh followed through with his threat and phoned LPMA ballot drive coordinator Carolyn McMahon (whose name is actually on the petition, as a presidential elector) and instructed her to not pay me and to burn “literally” any petitions she gets from me. I have a contract with the state party for payment so Haugh is acting illegally on a couple of different fronts.

In 1992, at the urging of then Libertarian Party national ballot access committee chairman Bill Redpath, I became involved too in assisting other third parties struggling to get on state ballots, and so these organizations became my clients for-hire. I worked throughout 2004 to get Nader on the ballot in several states, and received a glowing recommendation for my work from Nader’s campaign manager, Jason Kafoury. However, it was recently brought to my attention that Sean Haugh – again, acting in his official capacity as national LP political director – attempted to direct Kafoury and the Nader campaign to refuse to hire me, an attempt that ultimately failed. The point here is, the LP political director has no business interfering in contractual relations between a free-lance circulator and a client of a completely separate political organization. This is way out of line.

For that matter, what business does Haugh, at national, have interfering between a free-lance circulator and a state party affiliate in a mutually-satisfactory arrangement? Or, even for that matter, why should a political director be unilaterally “blacklisting” a perfectly good petition circulator who is prolific and does high-quality work for no legitimate reason other than he has a personal disdain for that circulator? Yet Haugh has done exactly this at least three times (known to me) in the weeks since the Denver convention alone!

In addition to his curious blacklisting of me right after the convention, Haugh also decreed that Andrew Jacobs, another longtime LP activist/circulator, who has done excellent work in multitude states with impeccably high validity was not to work on any petitions from now on. Then, of course, this email highlights Haugh’s penchant for unprofessionally flying off the handle to take punitive measures in a figurative “off with your head” gesture to Pickens, thereby blacklisting him. The irony is, Haugh’s guilt-by-assocation pretense to fire Pickens was not true: Pickens is currently in Colorado working on state ballot initiatives there, and I was turning in my signatures directly to LPMA chair George Phillies in Worcester, Mass. Pickens does not deserve to be blacklisted any more than I do.

I actually have a very long list of petition coordinators in and out of the party who not only would love to have my services on petition drives, but could vouch for not only my productivity but the high-quality of my work. One of these, of course, is the aforementioned Phillies, but I have others, and I will list them at the end of this letter.

Haugh, on the other hand, apparently has a long track record of disparaging good activists for highly suspect reasons at best, and then going another length to attempt to ensure that they suffer further, as evidenced by Haugh’s recent overt support for one of LP Susan Hogarth’s Republican congressional opponents in N.C., Haugh’s public smearing of LP candidate Kevin Barrett of WI, and Haugh’s hand in the infamous anti-Ruwart press release. As for that press release, I have also included documentation that Haugh was probably the principal crafter of that press release; if Shane Cory resigned over that release, why hasn’t Haugh also?

Haugh rarely confronts directly his targets, and to be sure, won’t talk directly to me (I asked him face to face in Denver to sit down like gentlemen and discuss his points of contention with me but he flatly refused). But I’ve heard through the grapevine from his talking to others that he is citing three things about me, all of which are either false, ridiculous or flimsy.

One, he is citing a 10-year-old controversy from N.M. over a voter registration drive I was part of. While this controversy is over and behind me, it is sure to get resurrected upon Haugh’s confronting, so a very brief sympopsis is in order.

In that N.M. VR drive, my production of LP voter regs (with my late wife Karen) was so high that the elections bureau started leaking rumors to the effect that so many people could not possibly be registering Libertarian, but “had to” have been tricked into doing so. The tricking allegations were completely false – LPNM coordinator Ron Bjornstad secretly watched us work and concluded no one was tricked, and an investigator hired by LPNM interviewed Bernalillo County Elections Director Robert Lucero, who said that he visited our registration booth posing as a new registrant and wasn’t tricked – but I did make a strategic blunder on that drive regarding SSNs on the forms, a mistake I called attention to with then-national director Steve Dasbach. Steve instructed me to make amends for my error which entailed me to undergo a one-year probation period after which time I would be able to get paid the balance for my N.M. work, then resume working on future drives for the party. The year was up in 2001 and while I worked again for the party in 2004, I didn’t receive my pay as promised…until I wrote a letter to national chair Bill Redpath, briefing him on the entire story, start to finish. Redpath responded to my letter by instructing the national office in April 2007 to finally pay me the balance (without interest) for my 1999 NM work. This was done after ballot access expert Richard Winger reminded Redpath that all my NM voter regs ended up counting despite the controversy, and also that good circulators who are also solid libertarians do not grow on trees and should be treated right. (In fact, Richard is the one who provided me with the list of judicial committee members I am using for this letter, and the one who encouraged me to write to you guys in the first place, over Haugh’s obstructing me from working on LP petition drives.)

To top matters off regarding NM, I talked to Steve Dasbach at the Denver convention, who told me that the NM ordeal is over and done, and should be behind us. Steve, who was national director at the time of NM, told me he even informed Haugh of this. Yet Haugh still continues to make special phone calls to state party officials telling them to interfere with my work and citing NM as one of the justifications (Carolyn McMahon, for one). I find this outrageous.

Two, Haugh is citing an event from last summer in N.C. when I was there teaming up with another circulator who was contracting with the LPNC for signatures. We were circulating the LPNC petition for pay, but carried voter registrations only as a courtesy to those voters who weren’t already registered, who could then sign the petition. One woman filled out a registration form with me and signed the petition but during the course of the interchange asked me where she would actually go vote. I told her that I didn’t know but that she’d probably get something in the mail. Realizing that I may have given her incorrect information (I had received voter cards in the mail that didn’t include actual voting location), I called her later to offer to look up that information for her, if she wished. She actually said that she would appreciate that, and gave me her email address for me to email her that information. Even though all the information on a voter registration form is public information, including the phone number I used to call her, she nevertheless called up the elections office, as well as the Wal Mart location where she’d registered with me, that next day to complain that I had her “private” information! This turned into a brouhaha that shouldn’t have, as this voter expected the Buncombe Co. elections office to actually already know everyone out there collecting voter registrations, which is not the case. Upon learning that I was an “unknown” source to the County, she proceeded with her crusade to stop me from working on registrations. Apparently this even led to Wal Mart’s calling the police, who came out and investigated me and then cleared me. Please note that I was cleared by the police.

Sean Haugh’s retelling of the story, however, contains the embellishment that I “sexually harassed” the woman, something that is not even remotely true. Incredibly, Haugh’s rise from NC to national has compounded this misunderstanding and allowed it to reach a status that it never should have enjoyed. I did absolutely nothing wrong in that episode, let alone something that should merit my not being allowed to work on petition signatures or call my work into question.

And finally, Haugh is bothered by “waves” I’ve created within the party over a drive I worked on in Nebraska in 2006 where fundraiser Scott Kohlhaas embezzled funds that were supposed to go to paid circulators. Circulators who go for months without receiving thousands of dollars in pay tend to complain, as was the case with me (and Andrew Jacobs). In short, after six months of not receiving my pay for signatures, I complained loudly and often, and made no uncertain terms of my dissatisfaction with the situation and with Kohlhaas. It actually took almost a year for us to start to get any appeasement at all on that NE pay situation but the multitude complaints and “rocking the boat” left me looking somewhat of a “bad guy” in Haugh’s eyes. Hence, the personal disdain.

I have shared the information of Haugh’s criminal threats with my Nader contact in the state, and he has said that it is very “disturbing”, and agreed that it is unprofessional and not acceptable.

Getting to the bottom line, I am writing to request that Sean Haugh be removed or asked to resign his national staff, and be eligible for no other national staff position. The open advocacy of a criminal act should not be tolerated, I understand there are others calling for his removal and he has a long list of creating turmoil. My belief is that things will only go from bad to worse as long as he’s in that position.

The other thing I’m requesting is that I be reinstated as a potential circulator/contractor for the party, at all levels. A consultation with the very respected Richard Winger is really all that is necessary to confirm that this should happen, I think. But I am also going the extra mile to provide you with a list of other references.

I have never forged signatures, cheated or turned in bad work in my long career. I have always had some of the highest validity in the business, and my volume has often been spoken highly of. For instance, I just turned in 2,000 LP petitions in a period of a week and a half. During that same period, Freedom Petition Management, who has a crew of 30 circulators, turned in 4,000 LP petitions. A simple calculation of the math should say something about my value as a productive circulator.

I appreciate your time and attention in reading this letter, and I thank you in advance for your swift and thoughtful action.

Sincerely,

Gary L. Fincher

SECOND LETTER TO LP JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

July 4, 2008

Re: Sean Haugh’s attempt to defraud LP donors

Dear [Judicial Committee Member]:

I am following up on my letter to you of last week, regarding Sean Haugh’s actions on June 27.

First, as I was advised, I passed on a criminal complaint to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth/Elections Division, the Dartmouth , Mass. , police, and the Durham, N.C. County (where Sean Haugh lives) Board of Elections, for investigation. I am also including for your perusal a copy of the actual Massachusetts statute that not only makes it a crime to willfully destroy nomination papers or petitions, but also makes it a crime to do an act toward commission of a crime, even if it fails.

For better or worse, this issue has been tossed about and discussed among dozens, if not hundreds, of Libertarians, on message boards, email and phone over this past week, which has brought up some more serious (to the long term welfare of the party, at least) offshoot issues stemming from or related to Sean’s actions.

Carolyn McMahon has now publicly stated that Haugh used his position as political director to attempt to procure her cooperation in the destruction of valid nomination paper, in violation of Massachusetts law. (Although, the interstate nature of this may in fact make this end up being a federal crime, but I’m only speculating.) Haugh separately announced his intent in a documented email and the phone call to McMahon, ruling out any excuse of temporary loss of reason. The fact that he threatened it in an email, then later followed through on his threat is convincing enough that this was a premeditated crime, and that his intent was to see the crime through to the actual destruction of the nomination papers.

What’s disturbing to me and many other Massachusetts Libertarians who are basically among Haugh’s victims (as well as countless other decent Libertarians across the country) is the fact that Sean Haugh felt comfortable enough in the commission of this crime to carbon-copy his intentions to Robert Kraus, acting national director of the Libertarian Party, and ballot access staffer Scott Kohlhaas. Why would Haugh do this? Why would he feel comfortable enough with these gentlemen to actually share such knowledge with them? Another question would be, when these gentlemen received the email (especially Haugh’s boss, Robert Kraus) what actions did they take? Did Kraus censure Haugh? Did Kraus turn the email over to the authorities for investigation? Did Kraus discipline or fire Haugh? Did the national office issue a press release condemning the advocacy of a crime (especially one that hits to the core of a political party such as destroying nomination papers geared toward ballot access paid for by donors’ funds) by their political director? Did Kraus fire or otherwise discipline Haugh for his misconduct? If not, then why not? Are we seeing a cover-up of a crime, right at the top of our national party, or does Kohlhaas and Kraus claim that the email somehow got overlooked? (Both of them!) As this issue spreads among the party, I’m quite sure that members are going to want some answers to these very significant questions.

This crime is not the same as if Haugh was caught for drunk-driving, for example, or knocked over a liquor store. Those crimes (in my hypothetical-only example) have nothing to do with Haugh’s official duties as political director, or, more deeply, the mission, function and spirit of our political party. This crime, in my opinion and as I see it, strikes at the core of what the party is all about. In fact, I would like to assert that officially advocating the destruction of donors’ resources and the destruction of valid, viable ballot access instruments is the one cardinal sin a political party operative can commit!

We all make mistakes; but it seems to me that this one not only demonstrates malicious, premeditated attempt, but is of such an egregious nature (reckless disregard for ballot access instruments and donors’ funds) as to demand it not be swept under the rug. I don’t see how a political party can allow someone with such contempt for its fundamental functions to continue to be in any position of authority – I just can’t fathom it.

I don’t think my first letter to you underscored enough the issue of intent to defraud LP donors. Haugh’s primary focus may have been to screw over me (I believe I may have a civil case against him or his position) but given that he clarified his intent to include destruction of the signatures “whether they paid for them or not”, he is showing reckless disregard, if not actual contempt for, thousands of dollars in precious donors’ funds, at a time of financial hardship (I’m told) for the party.

I just received word from Carolyn McMahon that a preliminary validity screening was done on my 2,000 signatures. She told me that, using an old database (from a couple of years back), my worst sheet had 70% validity; best sheet had 82% validity. When my signatures ultimately get verified by the various town clerks, using up-to-date voter databases in towns where the clerk even knows some of the voters, chances are those figures will get a 10 percentage point boost, placing my validity on those 2,000 signatures well over the threshold of generally acceptable validity (70-75%). I also just got word from my Constitution Party client that, when they examined the thousands of signatures I turned in, and compared them to those brought in by the petition firm who’s retained by not only them but by Sean Haugh for LP signatures, their volunteer told their national coordinator, “Why can’t the petition firm’s signatures be like Gary Fincher’s?”

Ironically, my higher-quality signatures were submitted at a discounted rate: my consulting fee amounted to $1.50 per signatures, while the petition firm got $2 per signature from Haugh. Please note that Sean tried to burn my signatures, and not the petition firm’s signatures. Therefore, if my 2,000 signatures had been burned, I would have received $3,000 in party funds (donors’ money) legitimately, and another $4,000 of donors’ money would have had to been outlaid by national for the petition firm to collect signatures that had already been paid for, unnecessarily, to pay to replace my high-validity signatures with a batch of lower-validity signatures!

Does the national director, the national chair, or the LNC find this in any way acceptable? Can Sean Haugh actually try to defraud donors out of thousands of dollars and feel satisfied of no repercussions? But this was Haugh’s actual intent! Has hard-gotten donors’ funds become that expendable, that they can be wasted in such a manner?

Anyone who is not thoroughly disgusted by this doesn’t understand the importance of donors’ funds and their relationship to ballot access and running candidates. I have already heard from multiple donors that this incident has either made them take a harder look at donating in the future, or made them express regret for having just donated funds to national.

So I ask of you: please, please, for the sake of the party and its donor base, do not sweep this aside. And look into the possible conspiracy/cover up at the national office if Kraus did in fact receive that email but did nothing.

I am available for assistance in any way I can be of help.

And thank you once again.

Sincerely,

Gary L. Fincher

Massachussetts Statute Haugh Violated:

1.      PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS

CHAPTER 56. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES CONCERNING CERTIFICATES OF NOMINATION, NOMINATION PAPERS, PETITIONS, ETC.

Chapter 56: Section 11. Wilful alteration, mutilation, or destruction of nomination papers, etc.; subscribing to false statements

Section 11. Whoever falsely makes or wilfully alters, defaces, mutilates, destroys or suppresses a certificate of nomination or nomination paper, or letter of withdrawal of a name from such paper, or an initiative petition or a petition for the submission of a question to the voters, or unlawfully signs any such certificate, paper, letter or petition, or files any such certificate, paper, letter or petition, knowing the same to be falsely made or altered, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.

1.      PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 274. FELONIES, ACCESSORIES AND ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT CRIMES

Chapter 274: Section 2. Aiders; accessories before fact; punishment

Section 2. Whoever aids in the commission of a felony, or is accessory thereto before the fact by counselling, hiring or otherwise procuring such felony to be committed, shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of the principal felon.

 

1.      CHAPTER 274. FELONIES, ACCESSORIES AND ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT CRIMES

Chapter 274: Section 3. Counselling or procuring felony; prosecution as accessory before fact or principal; punishment; venue

Section 3. Whoever counsels, hires or otherwise procures a felony to be committed may be indicted and convicted as an accessory before the fact, either with the principal felon or after his conviction; or may be indicted and convicted of the substantive felony, whether the principal felon has or has not been convicted, or is or is not amenable to justice; and in the last mentioned case may be punished in the same manner as if convicted of being an accessory before the fact. An accessory to a felony before the fact may be indicted, tried and punished in the same county where the principal felon might be indicted and tried, although the counselling, hiring or procuring the commission of such felony was committed within or without the commonwealth or on the high seas.

1.      PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 274. FELONIES, ACCESSORIES AND ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT CRIMES

Chapter 274: Section 6. Attempts to commit crimes; punishment

Section 6. Whoever attempts to commit a crime by doing any act toward its commission, but fails in its perpetration, or is intercepted or prevented in its perpetration, shall, except as otherwise provided, be punished as follows:

First, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years, if he attempts to commit a crime punishable with death.

Second, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, if he attempts to commit a crime, except any larceny under section thirty of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for five years or more.

Third, by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, if he attempts to commit a crime, except any larceny under said section thirty, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for less than five years or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction or by a fine.

Fourth, by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine, or by both such fine and imprisonment, if he attempts to commit any larceny punishable under said section thirty.

Do you know this man’s whereabouts?

 Charges are true, Haugh admits in a statement.

Massachusetts Authorities may be looking for Sean Haugh (dob 11/17/60), who is wanted in that state for conspiracy to destroy property and fraud by petition – a misdemeanor and a felony, respectively.  Anyone with knowledge of his whereabouts should notify the local Dartmouth, Mass. police department, or the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.

Former National Chairman and LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach said on Friday that recently defrocked political director Sean Haugh shouldn’t be under consideration to be hired by the Libertarian Party for the forseeable future..  In a telephone interview, Dasbach stated, that had he still been the Executive Director, “”Based just on what I know about the petition burning issue in Massachusetts, I would say that that would cause [Sean] to be a non-hire for quite some time.”

Having an LP icon of this magnitude and stature weighing in on Sean Haugh’s guilt of misconduct is huge, says Gary L. Fincher, founder and principal architect of the fledgling anti-Haugh website Libertarian Crusader Diary.

Dasbach joins the burgeoning groundswell of detractors who are rallying around the idea that Sean Haugh is a pariah to the Libertarian Party, the libertarian movement and liberty in general.  Dasbach stopped short of saying that Haugh should never be able to volunteer his time on Libertarian projects, but many others feel he should be ostracized in totality and go on to face criminal charges he brought on himself and even has admitted to.  Says Jake Witmer, “I have never met anyone who is as in the wrong, as malicious, as contemptible as I know Sean Haugh to be.  To list his many crimes, errors, and contradictions would almost fill an encyclopedia.  He is a monstrous person.  A thug.  An anti-libertarian.  Sean Haugh is a parasite, a liar, a fraud, a charlatan, a machiavellian schemer, an incompetent, an ass-kisser, a vindictive jerk, a backstabber, and with any authority at all, he becomes a tyrant.   I cannot find ill terms worthy of his venal nature. ”

That’s a hard act to follow when it comes to describing depravity, but Andy Jacobs said, “Just when I thought my opinon of Sean Haugh has gotten as low as it possibly could be, I learn something about him or he does something that makes my opinion sink to a new low.”

With the Army of angry and disgruntled enemies Sean Haugh has made over the years that we’re building, it seems highly likely that a strategy will soon emerge that will see Sean Haugh face the justice and ostracization that he so rightly deserves.

One that will include restition and that will make everyone happy.

The list of those who want justice for Sean Haugh:

Gary Fincher

Arthur Torrey

Jason Seagraves

M. Carling

Ann Davis

Steve Dasbach

Aaron Starr

(list still being built:  check back at a later time for additions)

 

Sean Haugh, fired from a job he never should have had – that of political director – admitted on Friday on his blog to one count of attempted conspiracy, which carries a maximum of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and one count of petition fraud, for attempted to defraud this circulator out of $3,000.

Haugh’s case has been turned over to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, which is undertaking the investigatioin.  Conviction could come as early as April.  The fraud count is a felony, which would strip Haugh of his voting rights in his home state of North Carolina.

Along with his confession, Haugh tried to tie me to crimes in New Mexico in 1999; however, no such charges were ever leveled on me, and there is no such criminal history.  The mudslinging and spreading of vicious rumors is a transparent ploy to deflect criminal sanctions about to come down on Haugh for his admitted criminal wrongdoing.

Unlike Haugh, I have a stellar reputation as a experienced, veteran, high-validity circulator who established himself long ago as one of the most prolific in the business.  I have literally hundreds of positive, even glowing, references, from petition and voter registration drive coordinators, so my reputation stands on its own.  Spreading rumors in a desperate attempt to tarnish whistleblowers’ character as a defense methhod is usually counterproductive and ultimately will backfire.  It’s also blatantly transparent.

Haugh recently also resorted to spreading rumors on M. Carling, Bill Redpath, Andy Jacobs and Paul Frankel.

This is the last gasp of one desperate, pathetic man and good riddance from the top of the Libertarian Party hierarchy.

 
 
 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s