Response from Scott Jeffrey

From: "Scott Jeffrey" (by way of Sam Sloan )


Re: Sam, please quit it

Hey Sam,

I'll share with you part of an e-mail I sent to the State Committee a month ago that outlines my role in this.

I do agree that you have not made any personal attacks against me. But you have made the following untrue statements:

1. I'm running a single issue campaign. In fact, I have eight issues for which I've done flyers and cards.

2. My petition drive was on the verge of failure. In fact, I ran the most cost-effective petition drive ever for the LP. Last time, $32,000 was spent, this time it was $6000. Posting that my petition drive was a failure in the final week and urging I step down was extremely unhelpful.

3. I'm 0% Libertarian. In fact, I support Libertarian positions on every issue, but just not to the extent of the "maximalist" wing of the party.

4. I was a Green until getting kicked out or something like that. In fact, I did seek the Green line when I first ran two years ago. They changed their bylaws the day before the nominating convention to exclude the possibility of a non-party member from running and I was denied the democratic process of a vote.

I stated in my prior e-mail that I took no action against your petition with the BOE. To your specific question, no, I did not drop off any objections. My understanding is that they were mailed by Albert.

One interesting sidenote, it does seem that by filing a general objection it triggered a look at your petition that then got you knocked off. If this is in fact how it works, I don't think anyone on the committee was aware of this.

-- Scott

* * * * *

Much of this has nothing to do with Sloan. There are individuals in the NYLP who feel that any formal endorsement is unnecessary. Some feel that it is "unlibertarian" to require formal endorsements. In fact, in the past candidates have been explicitly told not to bother seeking any endorsement. And from e-mail postings and discussions I have had, some LP'ers still believe this.

In the specific case of Sloan, everyone agrees he was never endorsed by any vote. A vote after the fact doesn't even count and besides, how can you guarantee how it would even go. By our bylaws and as state chair, Albert has a duty to defend the Libertarian name.

Of course, he doesn't have to be "uptight" about enforcing the rules. But Sam already ran once as a Libertarian without seeking any endorsement ahead of time. When he did finally seek it, he was voted down. He continued to run as a Libertarian regardless.

Sam was also present at the Queens nominating convention and had the opportunity to follow our formal procedure.

There was much confusion initially as to what transpired on August 10 when Sam sought the Queens nomination. Partially this was my fault. The following day, Sam posted an e-mail attacking my campaign. He posted this far and wide on the Internet. He wrote untrue statements about the state of my petitioning effort. I heard secondhand about the Queens meeting and assumed Sam's motivation for this attack was that he had been rejected by the Queens LP. Many people asked me in private about what I felt about Sam's attack and I told them that I felt Sam was upset by what happened in Queens and was taking it out on me. So that's how the rumour started about Sam being outright rejected by Queens.

But much fault for the miscommunication lies with Sam himself. He didn't ever announce he was running; he started an e-mail thread that he was "thinking of running for something." This was not true. He had in fact filed as a Libertarian for a specific office.

Why Albert should make an exception for someone who has not respected the LP's decisions in the past, who did not avail himself the second time around of the formal procedure and who was not open and upfront about his intentions is beyond me. I will add that Sam regularly attacks my campaign and spreads half-truths and falsehoods about me. He regularly posts obscene e-mails. And finally, his effort collecting 190 signatures was as about as minimal as one could make.

Albert is making a tough decision, one that was avoided once already. I know Albert to be a kind, affable man and I imagine he finds this whole situation extremely unpleasant. But I agree with Albert that this is the proper course to take. I urge the members of the committee to support him.

I'd also recommend that we begin thinking about a better, more flexible procedure for last minute nominations so this won't ever be an issue again. Of course, members and especially officers of the LP will have to respect whatever formal procedure we arrive at.

* * * * *

--- In lpny_discuss@y..., Sam Sloan I am requesting that you quit attacking me and my campaign on these lists. I do not know why you have decided that I am your enemy. I have never taken any action against you. I am not a member of the State Committee so never voted against you. I did not take action to remove you from the ballot.

However, I will say that I hope you never are a candidate with the LP. Your endless attacks and half-truths that you post far and wide on the Internet are not appreciated.

-- Scott Jeffrey Libertarian for Governor Empower Youth / Legalize Marijuana / Choice in Education


The fact that I and other members of this group disagree with your positions on the issues does not mean that I am attacking you. You apparently do not understand the difference between a personal attack and a discussion of the issues. Discussion of the issues is healthy. Almost everyone on this group disagrees with your position on hard drugs. We feel that all drugs should be legalized. You alone with the apparent exception of Albert Dedicke are against that.

I never attacked you personally or said or wrote even one word against you personally until the meeting at Kennedy's last Wednesday when Jim Lesczynski said that you were the person who told him and others that my candidacy had been rejected by the Queens Libertarian Party. My candidacy had not been rejected by the Queens Libertarian Party. Everyone present at the official meeting of the Queens Libertarian Party agreed for me to be a candidate, although no vote was taken because it was deemed unnecessary. You were not at that meeting, although you had been scheduled to appear, and you are not a member of the Queens Libertarian Party. We would like to know where you got that lie from or did you just make it up yourself.

We, and by that I include several other members of the Queens Libertarian Party, would like to know the answers to the following questions:

1. Why did you tell several people that my candidacy had been rejected by the Queens Libertarian Party or, if you did not tell several people that, then state that you did not?

2. If you got that information from somewhere, what was your source?

3. Did you personally take down the general objection to my candidacy for US Congress signed by Albert Dedicke and file it with the Board of Elections at 32 Broadway or, if not, do you know who did that?

Sam Sloan

Here are links:
My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: