Mark Rutherford wants America’s third-largest political party to make inroads by showing competence at the grassroots
level of government.
An Indianapolis business attorney has been elected second-in-command of the U.S. Libertarian Party. His ambition is to move
America’s third-largest political movement from the margins to the mainstream by focusing on competence at the local
office level.
“You don’t apply to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company straight out of college. You start in the mailroom,”
said Mark Rutherford, a partner with Thrasher Buschmann & Voelkel. “Why should people think we should lead national
office until we’ve proved it at the City-County Council or county commissioner level?”
Libertarians elected Rutherford their vice chairman at their national convention in May. Rutherford, 50, is a New Albany
native who grew up in Carmel, spent his teen years in Columbus, earned his undergraduate degree from Wabash College, and his
law degree from Valparaiso University School of Law.
The son of Republican parents, Rutherford said he knew he wanted to be an attorney at age 8. His first law job was to serve
for three years as a deputy prosecutor under Stephen Goldsmith. He then moved to private practice, where he focused on commercial
and bankruptcy law, often serving as defense counsel for clients accused of white-collar crimes.
Rutherford
“The prosecution has lots of resources and an awful lot of power. It’s easy to be misused,” Rutherford
said. “I feel much more satisfaction keeping government at bay and making sure it does things fairly.”
As you’d expect from a Libertarian, Rutherford’s views align with conservatives on many business issues. He bemoans
the encroachment of regulation and criminal penalties in a wide number of areas, from fishing licenses to waste disposal to
nursing home management. But on social issues like ballot access, civil rights and personal freedoms, he sides with liberals.
He wants government to keep an eye on the country’s borders, not its citizens’ bedrooms. Bottom line, he embraces
the Libertarian view to abridge the rules for everyone, then live and let live.
“Congress would be better off if they tried to approach everything as simply as the 10 Commandments,” said Rutherford,
who is married with no kids. “When you start adding all these regulations, you give a lot of control to the prosecution,
because who knows what’s a crime anymore?”
Rutherford’s election to the Libertarian Party’s National Committee didn’t come out of the blue. He spent
most of the last decade as chairman of the Indiana Libertarian Party with a strategy then, as now, of focusing on grassroots
victories. Today six Libertarians hold Hoosier elected office.
“Building a party is a slow business, unless you get lucky or are a media darling,” he said.
Libertarians face a substantial foe for the top third-party bragging rights. Rutherford doesn’t like the term “fringe”
for parties besides the Republicans and Democrats, but he acknowledges that the Tea Party currently has the most momentum
among them.
Rutherford likes their enthusiasm, but finds Tea Party supporters inconsistent in their aim to reduce taxes without an equal
emphasis on cutting spending. Tea Partiers share Libertarians’ dislike of the political dominance of Democrats and Republicans,
but Rutherford said the Tea Party “picks and chooses when big government is OK,” and has too many members who
still want their Medicare.
“Libertarians say you can’t have it both ways,” Rutherford said.
If history is any guide, neither the Libertarian Party nor the Tea Party is likely to compete with the Democratic or Republican
parties in mainstream politics anytime soon, said Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis political science professor
Brian Vargus. The United States actually has more than 50 active parties. The most successful in recent years was Ross Perot’s
Reform Party, which not only had a well-known leader at the top of the ticket, but made significant inroads at the grassroots
level in the 1990s.
The Reform Party’s fortunes have faded, Vargus said. That’s largely because sustaining a bottom-up political
strategy in the long-term is incredibly difficult. Most people pay little attention to politics, Vargus said, and when polled,
about a third of voters in any congressional district can’t name any candidate running. So they fall back on socialization
and vote for the party their parents favored – or vote the opposite way for the same reason.
Grassroots efforts can have a big impact on local races, where investments in shoe leather could literally introduce a candidate
to every voter. But bottom line, Vargus said, it’s tough for a political party to build sustainable support quickly.
“This would be equivalent to turning the Queen Mary around in the White River,” Vargus said.
Rutherford understands the challenge. But he said Libertarians are here for the long haul, and he’s committed to helping
them gain ground.
“When I first got involved, one of the hardest, biggest things we had to overcome was no one had heard the word ‘Libertarian.’
Now the biggest problem is people misunderstand the term,” he said. “We’ve made the hurdle. It’s made
the vernacular. Now we can educate people what it means.”•
__________
This story was originally published by the Indianapolis Business Journal July 6, 2010.














G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.