Tag Archives: Constitution Party

LibertyHangout.org Stabs Darrell Castle in the Back

Darrell Castle is No Libertarian

While previously praising Castle as more of a Libertarian than Gary Johnson, LH has appeared to have done a schizophrenic 180.


And this message from the Castle Campaign will make that ABUNDANTLY self-evident


Dear Unhappy Libertarians : Give the CP a Shot!



Hey you! Yes you, the libertarian or conservative with libertarian leanings that doesn’t feel quite at home in the Libertarian Facebook groups. You aren’t alone. Most people aren’t comfortable with, nor find amusement in picking fights for fun. Sensible people, regardless of ideology, don’t typically revel in the type of chaos that we witness on a daily basis – the squabble with one goal in mind, to drive each other closer to anarchical views. Who wants to end every discussion being called a ‘statist’ simply because your views aren’t the most radical on the thread, or sacrificing your principles in order to be the one that gets to say it? Of those of us who are Christian or religious, what fun is it to fear literal persecution in groups intended to beget the opposite effect? I suspect that many endure the nonsense because we don’t necessarily mesh with the warmonger neo-conservatives that comprise the Conservative Groups or their hypocrisy of claiming to be for small government while promoting everything that keeps central government strong. On the same token, there’s never really been anywhere else to go that’s remotely viable, particularly as the Libertarian Party has finally garnered long awaited national recognition, despite squandering it away by nominating a moderate Presidential Candidate and a gun-hating, CFR loving VP Candidate, as well as having the Convention tarnished by images of a naked fat guy running across the stage for the world to see. Despite all of this, the LP and the libertarian groups still seem to be where all the ‘cool kids’ hang out.
That being said, I recently interviewed seven individuals from various liberty-minded, closely related philosophies in an attempt to determine a few things:
  1. Has the LP moved too far to the left?
  2. Has the Republican Party moved too far center, becoming too authoritarian foe either paleo-conservatives or libertarians?
  3. Is there room between between those two parties for a another party to become a viable option for the future?
First, neo-cons have altered the path of the Republican Party to an irreconcilable place in terms of interventionism and globalism. Despite their professed views regarding government, they embrace the state and its power structure and propensity for corruption. “Constitutional conservative” is probably one of the most misused terms among the political right. I can vouch for this because just months ago I , myself, was a neo-con who erroneously touted the term to describe myself. After a few months of studying the Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers, I can honestly say that very few who claim the term for themselves today are deserving of it, rendering it practically useless. They can be educated and guided, but were not practical for the purpose of this article.
These dimensions of libertarianism seem to understand, even acknowledge important aspects of our society that their libertarian counterparts discount, or even disregard as views perilous and incompatible with liberty. Common sense and morality guide their reasoning. As Paleo-libertarian Tony Cansoneri, writer for Liberty Hangout, defined it, a Paleo-libertarian is “a libertarian who believes that culture and tradition are key components of freedom and that a free and voluntary society can uphold these and defend these better than state. [Paleo-libertarians] also believe in radical decentralization of government and many, if not most of us, are skeptical of multiculturalism and believe that to the extent it exists today, it is a nasty byproduct of government largess that leads to much turmoil….Paleo-libertarians also believe in radical decentralization of government and many, if not most of us, are skeptical of multiculturalism.” That sounds refreshing for levelheaded libertarians, doesn’t it? He continues, “I would say that a paleo-libertarian is essentially a far right conservative at heart and typically believes in traditional values and western culture as necessary components, seeing social and cultural conservatism as a byproduct of a free society. The more free a society is, the more virtuous it can be. . we hold that the individual is supreme and the extension of the individual (private property) is what all rights truly stem from.”


Traditionalism (even patriotism) isn’t highly regarded among libertarian circles. They’re believed to be incongruous with individual liberty, yet these are important American ideals, from which liberty itself is derived. One of the most surprising discoveries in my interviews was the fact that ALL SEVEN value patriotism and traditionalism. Likewise, five of seven were religious and only one was agnostic. While I’ve never found solid, scientific polling on the religious makeup of the Libertarian Party, I’ve personally found it to be very unwelcoming to the religious, particularly Christians. The informal polling I have found suggest that a very high percentage of libertarians consider themselves agnostic or atheist – to, the tune  of 40% agnostic within the Partycompared to 7-20% of the national population. Classical liberal Clay Hesketh, one of the Rand Paul supporters interviewed and the only agnostic of the seven, states “I believe that tradition and culture are important on an individual or community level, but not on a state or national level. I’m skeptical about multiculturalism because it can become a veiled form of segregation.”
Although possibly not the majority, many agreed with these views of mine. Staunch Rand Paul supporter and a minarchist libertarian, Paul Maurone, says in regards to traditionalism and patriotism, “They are positive. Patriotism should be defined as a vigilant allegiance to our nation and Constitution – NOT to our politicians who are running the show.” Unprovoked invocation of the Constitution is something you’ll rarely see among the libertarian left or anarchists, of whom usually hold our founding document in contempt. 2: Long time Ron and Rand Paul supporter, and libertarian/constitutionalist Susie Clark declares, “I no longer call myself a Libertarian. They have gone liberal. I am pro-life and not for open borders. I am a little ‘L’ libertarian, but I like Constitutional Conservative. The Libertarian (Party) no longer upholds the Constitution, they worry more about drug policies, they mock Christianity, and stand with the Globalists traitors to humanity.” When asked to what esteem she holds the Constitution, Susie  answered, “(It’s) 2nd below the Word of God. The Constitution was written by men who fought against a King. They gave us the Constitution to make sure it does not happen again.” This is a complaint I hear often relevant to the libertarian left and anarchists. They have no respect for the Constitution and consider the parchment barrier a failure, rather than grasping the concept that it can never serve its purpose without us doing our part.
An interesting and informative interview was one conducted with Michael Stevens, a fusionist. Fusionism is a philosophy popularized by Frank Meyer in the mid to late 1900’s. Many say that it has faded out of existence, while others claim that politicians such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are modern day, prominent fusionists. The most distinguished fusionists of all were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Describing fusionism, Michael states that “Fusionism is an idea that combines the ideas of libertarianism and conservatism into a pro-liberty and pro-morality philosophy. We are for limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility, and no gun restrictions. We value federalism on issues like drug legalization or decriminalization. . . Fusionists see that one has to have morality to have liberty. You also cannot have liberty without life. Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that ‘…the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.’ I believe fusionism is true conservatism. Its roots date back to our founding as a Republic where our roots have both a conservative and libertarian foundation. The individual is the highest form in this philosophy. We believe in reducing the role of government (per) the Constitution. The government’s job is to protect individual rights in the Bill of Rights and (as) outlined in the Declaration of Independence. We believe in a Christian founding but believe in the separation of church and state, as Jefferson intended, not as it is interpreted today. We believe in one where the Federal government is on one side of the divide and the State and local governments, as well as the Churches, are on the other. . . On issues of the economy, leave the government out but enforce a moral compass in the economy. In terms of ideology, between libertarianism and conservatism the thin line on the political ideological scale is where fusionism or libertarian-conservatism lies. It’s more of a balanced philosophy that believes in the idea of liberty that coexists with the rule of law.”
Along with other differences I have discussed, I believe that the “balanced philosophy that believes in the idea of liberty that coexists with the rule of law” is an important distinction. The libertarian left and the anarchist purists seem to believe that the ideology of libertarianism, as an absolute, is the only ideology worth advocating. The problem is that the experience that is taken into account by the conservative ideologies and paleo-libertarianism can’t be ignored, especially when compared to an ideology of concept only. When asked whether or not there was room for another party outside of the three largest, I received a wide array of answers. Some were disgusted with partisan politics altogether; one thinks there isn’t room outside the top two, much less three; and a few think there is definitely room for more parties. None seemed privately content with the leftward move of the Libertarian mainstream. From the outside looking in, I’m not sure how the Libertarian Party is amassing so much support since the right side of their base seems so disenfranchised. It’s quite analogous to the Republican Party, to be honest. It, too, has maneuvered leftward, yet misrepresented right-wingers continue to stick around. The contrast with the Republican Party supporters, I suppose, is that they are stationary due to fear or apathy. The Libertarian Party, contrarily, has garnered its latest wave of support due to momentum it has obtained over the past two to four years due to an excited base. It simply seems, now, to be suffering growing pains as its rapid leftward shift is alienating Christian supporters, the right side of the movement, and those who have evolved from their previously neo-conservative views to a more libertarian perspective.
Irreconcilable Differences?
The acrimony that many libertarians have with regards to Christianity, traditionalism, patriotism, and even the Constitution, is tough to swallow for many. I’m very fond of the Constitution. To my pleasant surprise, all seven of those interviewed hold the Constitution in high esteem. My personal disdain for the libertarian left is its disregard for the Constitution, in spite of the document’s quintessence of our great core philosophies, such as classical liberalism, paleo-libertarianism, and paleo-conservatism. This unique combination, coupled with our Judeo-Christian founding and principles, has created the greatest nation in human history. These differences don’t include others that many of the aforementioned philosophies hold in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party and it’s platform, such as the damaging consequences of weak border security, the adverse effects that the platform’s (figurative) open border policy would precipitate, the perceived obsession with drug legalization, the perpetual evolution towards the outright promotion of anarchy by the purists, and the widely embraced dogma of the NAP – which along with anarchy, places far too much confidence in and grossly overestimates the goodness of man. We are not benevolent beings by nature. We are very much opportunistic and that leads to greed, violence, etc. What virtue we possess seems to not be ascribed to the proper places by the libertarian left; those consisting of our founding of Christianity, our culture, God’s natural law, etc. These reflect our morals, not humanism or progressivism.
So we have a group of mostly Christian, patriotic libertarians and conservatives with no party to closely represent their values. Both no longer acknowledge God (for the religious ones), one wants perpetual war and loves big government, and one doesn’t value traditionalism, patriotism, pragmatism, or the Constitution (in many cases). Many that do value the Constitution in both parties aren’t originalists when referencing it, several only use it where it is deemed beneficial in context to their current argument. One has shared power for far too long, only to become the epitome of corruption from localities and states up to Congress and the Executive Branch. The other, after 45 years has finally reached relevancy nationwide, but seems to only have space for those willing to be stifled in their religious and traditionalist beliefs in exchange for humanism and multiculturalist activism. I have news. There is another choice. It isn’t cool to say I’m a member of the Constitution Party. Your libertarian friends who reside on the left side of the spectrum or who don’t understand the meaning of the word will likely call you a theocrat. You aren’t going to find many college friends rushing to join their campus YAConstitution instead of YAL or YAFJulie Borowski isn’t likely to be caught binge tweeting pro-Darrell Castle tweets. There probably won’t be any Constitution Party hotties featured in Babes for Liberty and it’s doubtful that you’ll find a notification on your Facebook account informing you that Liberty Laura has spontaneously stopped in her car to orchestrate a pro-Constitution Party live stream (as much as we’d all love that!). One thing you will see is people toeing the party line over principle for the Libertarian Party this cycle. 
Final Pitch
Finally, for those on the libertarian right, the liberty leaning conservatives, and everything between, you CAN bake your own cake and eat it too! There is a party that holds the founding fathers’ principles, teachings, intent, and vision for our posterity dear. There’s a party that believes in ending the Fed, staying out of other countries’ affairs, ending perpetual war, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, leaving the UN and other organizations and treaties that surrender our sovereignty to foreign and international courts and organizations, dissolving the unconstitutional conglomerate of acronym Alphabet Soup federal agencies, that is anti-Agenda 21, and is for small government—and it’s no longer the Libertarian Party. This same party holds our foundation (not establishment of religion) of Christian morals and principles, traditionalism, patriotism, and the importance of the 10th Amendment in high esteem. It holds our Constitution as its namesake and focal point, unlike any other party.Become a Constitutionist, join the Constitution Party @ http://constitutionparty.com

Was Paul Stanton Eligible to run as a Libertarian in Florida Senate Race?



Dear members of the FEC

I am a resident of the state of Florida where the Libertarian Party has brought forward a candidate for the Florida Senate election on November 8, 2016.

As with all candidates for general election, I conducted research and found disturbing facts that have not been answered by the candidate, neither by the Libertarian Party of Florida regarding the validity of the candidate in the following areas: Contribution and eligibility violations

US Federal Law

Contribution violation: (*1)

Code of Federal Regulations Title 11, § 110.4

52 U.S.C. 30122, 30123, 30102(c)(2)

Federal Election Campaign Laws 86 § 30122.

Contributions received by the candidate’s 3 half-sisters in the maximum allowable amount of $2700, while stated that 2 of the half-sisters are unemployed. (*2) Increased suspicion of unlawful contributions occurred when the FEC disbursement report (*3) shows the high Credit Card Transfer fees related to these contributions. The candidate has stated the financial restrains of his campaign, a personal check would prevent paying over $300 in fees.

Candidate has refused to answer questions relating donations made to his campaign


*1: Code of federal regulations:

Title 11 Federal Elections Revised as of January 1, 2016

  • 110.4 Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (52 U.S.C.

30122, 30123, 30102(c)(2)). (a) [Reserved] (b) Contributions in the name of another. (1) No person shall— (i) Make a contribution in the name of another; (ii) Knowingly permit his or her name to be used to effect that contribution; (iii) Knowingly help or assist any person in making a contribution in the name of another; or (iv) Knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another. (2) Examples of contributions in the name of another include— (i) Giving money or anything of value, all or part of which was provided to the contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source of money or the thing of value to the recipient candidate

or committee at the time the contribution is made, see 11 CFR 110.6;

Federal Election Campaign Laws 86 § 30122.

Contributions in name of another prohibited No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.


title Two Year Summary  


2016 Itemized Individual Contributions and


timestamp Mon Sep 19 13:52:24 GMT 2016  
copyright Copyright 2012, Federal Election Commission.  






*2: Individual contributions report












Receip t Date




Image Number







F L  




http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286919




http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286919




http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286919



*3: Disbursement report




Payee Name












Image Number







http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286923














http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286924

















http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286923


Florida Statutes:

Candidate Eligibility Violation

99.021.2   Form of candidate oath (*4)


The candidate has refused to answer questions regarding his residency or voter registration status prior to November 30, 2015 when he first registered to vote in Florida (*6)

According to Florida statute the 365-day period started June 24, 2015, based on filing dead line of June 24, 2016 for Federal Senate candidates. (*5)

Please see the highlighted item: “The filing officer may not determine whether the contents of the qualifying papers are accurate”

Therefore, the Florida Division of election can not be held accountable for vetting candidates




*4: 99.021   Form of candidate oath.—

(1)(a)1. Each candidate, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to any office other than a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or a federal office, shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A copy of the oath or affirmation shall be made available to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:

  1. 2. That the person has not been a registered member of any other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for which the person seeks to qualify.




99.061 Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.—

(c) The filing officer performs a ministerial function in reviewing qualifying

papers. In determining whether a candidate is qualified, the filing officer shall review the qualifying papers to determine whether all items required by paragraph (a) have been properly filed and whether each item is complete on its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to s. 92.525(1)(a). The filing officer may not determine whether the contents of the qualifying papers are accurate.


*5: Florida filing deadlines:


*6: Florida Voter registration of candidate



Please ensure that this candidate is eligible to be on the ballot for the state of Florida




Awaiting your timely response, Respectfully,


It’s Official : Austin Petersen is a Globalist Sellout





Austin Petersen loves to preach about civil liberties, the constitution, American Exceptionalism, and American’s right to privacy. However, he has revealed his true colors today–he is an ally of the Libertarian hostile takeover and its director Bill Weld.

“Globalism is libertarian. Nationalism is not,” exclaimed Petersen

Seriously, WTF? Libertarians are globalists now that don’t care about preserving American Culture and its Bill of Rights? The same ones who supported Ron Paul—remember, that guy who kept saying that these Bill Weld types want to eliminate our civil liberties, national identity, and maybe even unify us with Mexico and Canada (Bill Weld’s job at the CFR)?

Austin Petersen has been riding on Ron Paul’s name for too long to sell out like this. He is no Libertarian—just an establishment infiltrator sent here to stupefy and redefine the Libertarian ideology and message according to the corporate elite’s interests.

This act of betrayal is unforgivable, and so, we have decided to retaliate. AUSTIN PETERSEN! YOU’RE NEXT!

These are the top 3 things Austin Petersen DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW :

1. He has no Pyramids of money

Despite his claims on his Sugar Daddy profile (which you will soon see), Austin Petersen is nowhere NEAR as wealthy as he claims to be and is obscuring is past. A theater major in college, a Austin Petrsen moved to New York to pursue a career in acting, and judging by the lack of his credits, that career path did not seem to go to well. So he settled by taking a job as a toy sales man at FAO Schwartz, a Manhattan toystore.



Petersen’s “big break” came working for Judge Napolitano, where the good judge allowed Austin to set up his Facebook fan page. Never raising above the rank of production bitchtern,  Petersen abandoned his broadway dreams and dived into the world of politics. Telemarketing for Bob Barr (another globalist infiltrator type) and the Libertarian Party, Petersen never had a substantial role in politics until he ran for president in 2016. Before that, Petersen’s political claim to fame- the libertarian republic.com, continues to have a mediocre alexa rating,  poor design, and a shit ton of malware.


2. He has no “Pyramids of Pussy”

Below is how Petersen describes himself on his old sugardaddy.com profile. While selling skateboards at FAO Schwartz, Austin liked to pretend to women on the internet that he is some narcissistic millionaire #ChristianGay



“About me: I love practicing the martial arts reading books, studying philosophy and politics, and seeing live theatre. I don’t play games. I am a good singer, can play guitar, and I wear a brown leather jacket. I drive a pick up truck. You are never bored when you’re with me (unless you’re boring)….. I emit a very powerful personal energy. But it’s tuned like a frequency. If you’re sensitive you’ll pick it up. If you don’t get my channel, you’ll just see and hear static. I love pop culture, but am firmly grounded in serious literature and the arts. I love sushi, and anything spicy to eat. I try not to date people I work with because people in politics tend to be a bit weird. Except for me I’m cool. So what’s your story?”

Now as a man who was once engaged, as a student of PUA (pick up artistry) I can tell you that this guy has no game and is a total beta male (or cuck as Libertarians like to say).

Watch this video if you disagree.

3. Petersen is a Pussy

Austin Petersen gave Gary Johnson a toy pistol, that he claimed was rather special to him (despite buying a free weeks prior). He gave it to Johnson saying “you have my sword, and my gun.”

Gary Johnson immediately threw little Austin’s gift in the trash, (which would make sense, as he is staunchly anti-gun and anti-Austin). A Petersen supporter spotted the gun, confronted Johnson (who lied about the act), and returned it to Austin Petersen. Austin’s response? To publicly shill for him on TV, Social media, and at LibertyFest in NYC…the little man has no integrity or principles and is only in it for himself. A man who is willing to vouch for someone who treats you with such disrespect just demonstrates what Austin Petersen really is :

A beta male, acting like an alpha male, in it only for himself-just like Gary Johnson. Who know’s what’s next for Petersen, but it seems to be a sketchy non for profit and another loss in 2020.

The Mcafee Pump and Dump Virus (MGT)


(Two former campaign staffers, now at Grand Inquirer, explaining the unethical and corrupt practices of MGT CEO and former LP Presidential candidate, John Mcafee)


Christina Tobin Defends Kidnapper, Judd Weiss


In early December, Independent blogger Jeff for Justice was excited to receive a facebook message from third party icon Christina Tobin. But by February, Jeff seemed exhausted by Tobin’s desperate pleas to alter one of Jeff’s video, “Judd Weiss not ready to speak out on rape allegations”.

Below  is the unedited transcript of their conversation.

Please note, that despite Ms. Tobin’s word, Judd Weiss was not “found innocent” (Judd Weiss plead no contest to two  counts including “false imprisonment”).  And also note Tobin’s persistence, enthusiasm, and subtextual implications of quid quo pro “It would be the greatest New Year’s gift…..I also run a separate 501(c)4 petitioning company named Free and Equal Inc.” 


(Judd Weiss was John Mcafee’s VP pick and a current employee at his company MGT capital investments)

December 3, 2015 12/3, 12:06pm


Hey you. How have you been? Gotta quick question for ya.


Hi there. I’m feeling better. What is your question


That’s great to hear. Judd Weiss is a great friend of mine has helped Free and Equal tremendously volunteering to photograph our Fest this year also hosted a lot of our talent after United We Stand Fesf was hoping you could change title of interview you posted online? I noticed it comes up when searching. Would mean a lot to me. Focus on the good as he was ruled innocent.


Thank you for sharing your concerns. Judd asked me about this previously and I declined as a matter of principal. I’d like to reach.

Please know I have no intention to hurt Judd. Prior to meeting him, when I did my research on him the LA Weekly stories of alleged sexual abuse come up. Even if I take down my interview that’s still what comes up when searching his name – unless he can somehow convince LA Weekly to take down their stories.

All I did in the interview with Judd was ask him about the LA Weekly reports giving him an opportunity to address it. Since the LA Weekly story comes up first in a search of him it would feel irresponsible of me not to ask about it.

If Judd becomes more of a public figure that story by LA Weekly will still be there and some other interviewer is bound to ask about it.

The delimma for me becomes this : if I interview someone who agrees to am interview and they ask me to cut something out where do I draw the line? Especially among my indie media and activism peers who likely feel strongly that other public figures should be scrutinized, questioned, and treated like any other interview.

Judd is not the first person. At least 6 other people have asked me to modify interviews.

Now what if I was Luke of We Are Change, InfoWars, the Young Turks? Would they accommodate these requests? Would they agree to only softball questions?

If Judd had a PR consultant who knew the question could come up what would they advise? I would think they’d advise Judd to reiterate his innocence in as concise an answer as possible.

Your thoughts?


I had no idea Judd asked just thought the focus of the title of the video was unfair on phone now will read your entire message shortly




Thank you for your perspective. I’ll contemplate. If you watch the video you can clearly see I’m very empathic and not at all accusing of him. Even among our own we should have the freedom of asking tough but fair questions not to hurt but to keep each other accountable using the same standards we’d apply to anyone.


Anytime. Thank you for your great work. I agree you’re empathic during interview… as mentioned before I feel the title of interview needlessly hurts someone that’s one of us. Thanks for your consideration…

December 26, 2015 12/26, 8:15am


My heart says to bring it up again it would mean the world to me if you would at least consider updating the title of interview with Judd Weiss. Just wanted to let you know that I do feel it’s the right thing to do as I know Judd very well. 💖

I have never asked for such a things it’s has been on my conscious for almost a year

it has been*


I have not forgotten. It’s on my to-do list. After getting the new laptop I have been swamped with catching up on e-chores.


It would be the greatest New Year’s gift please know I’m always here for you as well

I thought so

I also run a separate 501(c)4 petitioning company named Free and Equal Inc. Which is a different hat from the Foundation btw


Have a beautiful new year!


February 1, 2016



Greetings Jeff!


February 2, 2016





Hoping everything is magical with you! What are you up to these days Jeff?


Hi Christina. As I considered your request and worried about whether you would want to no longer associate with me, I have decided I would rather stand alone with my freedom than in the company of people who would try to control me.

Respectfully, while I am sure you welcome input from your followers as I do if someone were to try to start telling you what questions you should and should not ask and what you should title your posts, how would you feel about that?

As I have explained before all I did was ask a fair question. If you type in Judd’s name, the L.A. Weekly articles (and others) come up regardless of whether or not my video is up. When someone is accused of a crime or any kind of wrong-doing, as an interviewer it’s my job to ask about is. Likewise, I also asked Gary Franchi about headlines like “Ron Paul super PAC spent most of its money on non-campaign activities.”

Do I assume Judd or Gary did anything wrong? No, not at all. But it would be absurd to know about these allegations and not ask about them. When I asked, I was non-accusatory. I was even empathetic. Gary engaged with my questions, Judd did not – as is his right. He declined to talk about it and that is right. He can also write or speak about it again anytime he chooses. Likewise, if I ever interviewed you again I might ask some tough yet relevant questions. Likewise, I am prepared that if I am ever the interviewee myself I cannot help what the interviewer ask so I need to be mentally prepared for that.

You organized an event full of journalists. I can’t imagine any of them interviewing anyone (especially since most of them refer to themselves with labels like “anti-establishment”) and then agreeing to allow the interviewee who willing agreed to the interview to then dictate the outcome of the video.

I am sorry but I do not feel it is ethical to allow videos to be dictated by other people. I know in my heart I did nothing to willingly hurt Judd. I accept I cannot help it if you disagree.

I welcome you’re friendship. I welcome Judd’s friendship. But if you cannot accept my choice and prefer to not associate with me any further, I accept I cannot stop that.


Dear Jeff ~ I respect your heart but not your logic in this case. How can it ever be right to script a prejudicial headline at the expense of any person? A fundamental tenant of our freedom is that all are innocent until judged guilty before a case is tried. I recognize your skill but think you erred in this. ~ Kindest Regards, Christina


I accept that’s how you feel about it. “Judd Weiss Not Ready To Speak On Sex Assault Allegations” is factual. I told you, if a public figure is accused of something, I think it’s my job as an interviewer to ask about regardless of any feelings I may have about the situation. Opting for a headline for a video in which a sexual assault question is asked would be glossing over it and absurd.

Also, according to LA Weekly, Weiss did not go to trial but took a plea deal. Yes, I know plea bargain does not mean guilt and yes I understand that avoiding expensive trials seems to be a factor in why he opted to plea. Yes I know the legal system is screwed up in many ways. Yes I know sometimes women make false allegations.

All I know is I asked a reasonable question and then Judd and two friends have contacted me about the video.

Something similar happened with Bill O’Reilly. You can bet I would ask him about that if I ever interviewed him. Would anybody in the indie media / liberty / anti-establishment crowd think the title “_____ Not Ready To Speak On Sex Assault Allegations” if it was any high profile public figure? I doubt it.

I understand that you care about Judd and it’s human nature to protect our loved ones. I’ve actually done something similar to try to protect a loved one.

I stand by my ethics on this choice.


February 3, 2016


I stand by my ethics as well. I hope someday you do what is right and resolve. Peace.


Actually, what’s your number Jeff? I think it’s more appropriate to speak about this rather than message. This is very important to me. I do feel with good communication it can be resolved.

This weekend is best.


Please let me know either way as I will need to schedule call as I have many things on my plate. Will likely coordinate an independent POTUS ballot drive which means coordinating over 1.5 million sigs while also running The Free and Equal Elections Foundation… biggest year yet….



It would mean a lot to me. Night.



Thanks. I think we have to agree to let it go.



I would like to speak with you if possible. Please let me know either way.

Conversation is the only way to work things out. I’m extending an olive branch more than halfway here.

Either this flows or it doesn’t…. my time is very limited these days… however I always choose to make time for things that matter….


Prior to you contacting me about this I was working on a video about the fact that I have been contacted more than 5 times by people I have interviewed who tried to get me to take down the video or edit it or change the title. 2 were journalists, one was a writer for The Fashion Police (a show he writes insult “jokes” for – hypocrite), and the other was Weiss. It is very offensive to me. My videos are fair and factual. For people with more money and power than me to try to bully me into creating my product to their whims is unacceptable to me. The more and more I contemplation this, the more and more I realize I am being bullied by powerful people. As one who works against the establishment, I can’t imagine you getting a call from a leading 2 party system character telling you what to do with Free & Equal. Again, I would rather stand alone in my freedom than let people with more power than me try to control me to be accepted – especially when I know I did nothing wrong.


BTW, screen shot showing example of how I promote Free & Equal often. Other indie media figures too. I don’t even personally have a relationship with most of them but I promote the cause regardless of whether I am friends with people or not. I’ve never known any political groups not to have some type of infighting. [screen shot]


February 4, 2016



May we speak on the phone or not? I can ring you on Skype if that’s easier.


Would be nice to know either way. With good communication I do feel anything within reason can be resolved.


February 9, 2016


I will accept the fact that you aren’t willing to communicate with me at this time. Please know the door is always open on my end to discuss, resolve one way or another and move forward. Always ~ Christina


I want you to know that the intestinal lack of communication on your end has resulted in creating a needless barrier here. It’s always healthy to discuss such things in person or at the very least on the telephone. There’s nothing else I can do on my end to resolve this outstanding situation. The ball is in your court. This situation concerns me tremendously. I think a phone conversation will help me better understand where you’re coming from/vice versa. I have no more reason to communicate with you until we hopefully speak on the phone or see each other in person someday. Always ~ Christina


Intentional lack*


I replied and declined already.


Very unprofessional


I disagree. Now I feel this is bordering on harassment. Guy gets accused of sexual assault, I ask him about it… he and 2 of his friends try to bully me into editing the video as they prefer. I have heard you all, I explained my defense of my choices, and still my “no” is not accepted. So much for “no means no” huh.


I can’t be associated with people who choose not communicate in a professional manner. Regardless, I will still leave the door open should you change your mind and decide to at least be open to discussing the matter. Take care.


I can’t help what you choose to do. I won’t be bullied by you three.


This is not bullying. That is a false accusation which is also a concern. It doesn’t matter to me if this was Judd Weiss or a stranger on the street. At this point it’s only healthy to have a conversation to understand where each person is coming from with intentions of resolving one way or another. You’re refusing to do this which creates a needless barrier.


Please don’t bother messaging me again and respect my wish.


My line is always open.



We reached out to Christina Tobin, but she did not respond.