California LP Judicial Committee overturns member’s suspension on appeal

Received by email early on 01/29/10 from Mark Hinkle, chair of the California Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee:

For Immediate Release:

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of California issued a ruling that overturned the suspension of a member by a vote of 5-0. While Robert’s Rules of Order prevents the Judicial Committee from revealing the details of the proceedings, the Judicial Committee finds that it may comment on certain inaccurate information circulating about this case. The suspension of the member by the Executive Committee was not for the commission of any crime, the Judicial Committee was not asked to render a decision that depended on the determination of whether or not the member had committed any crime, and the statements of the causes for suspension that were submitted to the Judicial Committee did not pertain to any such crime.

The Judicial Committee recognizes that the Executive Committee acted within the authority granted to it by the Party Bylaws to vote to suspend a member for a specific cause or causes. The member also acted within the Bylaws by appealing the suspension to the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee met the time lines delineated by the Bylaws and held an extensive hearing during which both parties had the opportunity to present their cases and call witnesses. Following the hearing, the Judicial Committee carefully reviewed the statement of the causes, and the evidence and arguments, which had been submitted to it. The Judicial Committee concluded that neither the Executive Committee nor the member presented their respective cases effectively. The Executive Committee not having met the burden of proof on the causes as stated, and the Judicial Committee not being empowered nor inclined to extend or substitute for the stated causes, the Judicial Committee accordingly rendered a decision to overturn the suspension and restore the individual’s membership as provided for under Section 6 of Bylaw 5.

Privacy considerations which are described in Robert’s Rules of Order, as well as past precedents from membership suspensions by the Executive Committee, prevent the members of the Judiciary Committee from making any more specific comments with regard to this case. Individual members of the Judicial Committee are of course always free (as is any member of the Party) to advocate for improvements in such things as declarations of Party membership requirements and the quality of administrative procedures, but such advocacy should not be assumed to reflect on the merits of this individual case.

The Judicial Committee has reviewed and affirmed its decision of Tuesday, January 26, 2010.

-END-

Yours in liberty…………Mark Hinkle,
LPC Judicial Committee Chair

583 thoughts on “California LP Judicial Committee overturns member’s suspension on appeal

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    To whom it may concern:

    Over the last couple weeks, several of IPR’s writers have considered, and debated the propriety of, giving a full write-up to the California LP’s suspension of two members and their appeals of those suspensions, one of which is the subject of the release above.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but as for myself I’ve refrained from doing so for several reasons. I’m not in California, I don’t know all of the people involved well, it’s difficult from this distance to ascertain the facts, and it’s questionable whether or not the matter is even particularly newsworthy.

    Nonetheless, several readers are obviously interested in the matter, and comment threads on a number of unrelated articles have been “hijacked” by discussion of it.

    While the Judicial Committee release doesn’t shed a great deal of light on the matter, it’s at least a hook to hang discussion of the matter on.

    Best regards,
    Tom Knapp

  2. Jeremy Young

    If that’s the case, why doesn’t IPR solicit opposing views from both sides, and publish those? That would clue in some of us who have no idea what Hinkle is talking about, without compromising IPR’s journalistic integrity.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Jeremy,

    You write:

    “why doesn’t IPR solicit opposing views from both sides”

    What makes you think there are only two sides?

    Why do you believe that we know how many sides there are, or what all of the sides are?

    I may search my email archives tonight to see if there are any prior official statements that I can append/link to, but my experience so far is that as evasive and uninformative as the Judicial Committee release is, it’s about par for the course on this issue.

    Half the people involved don’t want to to talk about it, and the other half do so either incoherently or on such “inside baseball” terms as to be functionally incoherent to the ears of people who don’t have a doctorate in the internal affairs of LPCA.

    I’ve started writing a piece on this about five times. Each time I’ve realized after a couple of minutes that’s like a non-Italian-speaking Protestant trying to write a piece on some inside baseball kerfuffle at the Vatican.

  4. Ralph

    Ok, I’ll bite.

    What’s the LP history of the purported miscreant?

    Is he a radical or reform? Is he a mole or plant? Who’s against him?

    Should LP’s have a policy on officers and candidates with problems in their pasts involving moral turpitude?

    Has CALP had such problems before?

    Do the Greens? The GOPs? etc.

    Are other state LP’s?

    Are these the questions enquiring minds should want to know?

  5. Brian Holtz

    All in due time. At a minimum, some details about the suspensions will eventually emerge in the minutes of the LPCA ExCom.

    It still seems likely that the other suspension will be overturned, but that could be changing as we speak. If both suspensions end up overturned, then a lot of us in the LPCA will be happy to forgive the suspension effort and avoid talking about it publicly. It will then be up to the would-be suspenders to decide whether to talk about it, but (as I understand it) the point of the suspensions was to minimize embarrassment to the LPCA. So they may not want to talk much about it either.

    Much of the truth is out there, scattered across various IPR comment threads. So are a lot of allegations — some false, many others unsubstantiated, with a fair cross-section of both being borderline hysterical. So far, I’m even more embarrassed at the LPCA’s reaction to the underlying problems than I am about what’s been proven so far about the underlying problems.

  6. Someone was asking

    Since this blog talking about suspension, someone was asking about Bruce’s.

    paulie // Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Here is what Bruce just sent me

    ——————————————————————————–

    Paulie,

    I swear under penalty of perjury this is an accurate and
    complete copy of the email Zander Collier sent to me
    listing the charges against me that lead to my expulsion.

    Thank you,

    Bruce Cohen

    ——————————————————————————–
    Mr. Cohen:

    I have inquired with the Chair of the Judicial Committee, Mark Hinkle, and he agreed that it would be acceptable to disclose the reason for cause, but not the case for cause. That is to be handled by the Judicial Committee should you request an appeal.

    Reason for Cause:
    Ongoing pattern of pernicious and toxic behavior, resulting in sabotage to the success of the Libertarian Party of California, while an officer and member. Particular offenses include but are not limited to:
    – Conduct unbefitting an officer of the Party
    – Harassment of members out of the Party
    – Opening the party to lawsuits by engaging in sexual harassment of multiple female members and volunteers
    – While serving in a leadership role, repeated personal endorsement of non-party candidates
    – Operating campaigns of sabotage against other Libertarians
    – Recording of auto-dial campaign messages for non-Libertarian candidates that the LPOC refused to endorse
    – Character assassination
    – Threatening to air private party disagreements and/or business as “dirty laundry”
    – Airing private party disagreements and/or “dirty laundry”
    – Public mischaracterization of political views of party members
    – Sending of anonymous threatening emails so as to provide yourself plausible deniability.

    There are others that have been itemized and documented but they refer to particular individuals and those individuals will again, be allowed to testify without threat of intimidation, harassment, or lawsuits. I trust the reason for cause is clear to you now.

    Regards,
    -Zander Collier
    Southern Vice Chair, Libertarian Party of California, 2007-2011

  7. Bruce Cohen

    I’m not sure I really intended the world to see it or whatever, but that’s the real deal.

    I’m certainly sorry I shared it with anyone now.

    The JC has asked me and everyone to really try and clamp down on discussing this.

    I want to discuss it and I want an open trial where anyone that wants to can listen.

    But it’s not up to me.

    So I’m going to pretty much be a good boy and cover my mouth. I swear I’ll try.

  8. Gary Chartier

    It seems to me that the lack of an open process, with a clear record, should be cause for concern whatever we think about the specifics of the cases to which Tom has referred.

  9. Don Lake .......... Nonlibertarian Micromanagement ??????

    Reason[s] for Cause:

    – Opening the party to lawsuits by engaging in sexual harassment of multiple female[s] [rather sexists and demeaning to women, who I suppose are unable to cry ‘foul’ on their own situation[s] ??????]

    – endorsement of non-party candidates [other non Democans and non Republicrats ?????? Hmmmmm where does lack of free speech come in ??????????????]

    – campaign messages for non-Libertarian candidates [other non Democans and non Republicrats ??????????]

    – Character assassination [but what if the targets have no character ??????????]

  10. Bruce Cohen

    Just for the record, I have never voted against or opposed a Libertarian Candidate.

    The other allegations may or may not be answered at the upcoming trial, I’m not really sure what’s exactly going on.

    Nobody told me, they just said what time the trial is going to be without even asking me if I was available.

    Keep your eyes open and if you find out first, call me and tell me. Thanks.

  11. Solomon Drek

    My God. This is really a classic example of arguing about deck chair arrangements on the Titanic.

    With all this time and energy wasted on such nonsense, no wonder the LP is irrelevant.

    I’m just glad I came to my senses ten years ago and stopped subsidising this circular firing squad with my time and money.

    And I thought Alan Keyes was dysfunctional.

  12. Geof Gibson

    While the excom and judcom are busy suspending and unsuspending, I wonder how many new candidates they’ve could’ve recruited, how many opportunities for positive press have been missed, how many new members have joined the party?
    What have these “officers” done for the POLITICAL party?

  13. Born Again Non-Voter

    When I first saw the piece, I thought “the member” he was referring to was Matthew Barnes. But he was referring to Bruce Cohen?

    It’s gonna be confusing to many readers if people try to discuss this, without saying too much, lest any embarrassing items be revealed.

  14. Don Lake .......... Nonlibertarian Micromanagement ??????

    Solomon Drek // Jan 29, 201o:

    ” ………. a classic example of arguing about deck chair arrangements on the Titanic.”

    “With all this time and energy wasted on such nonsense, no wonder the ___________ is irrelevant.”

    “I’m just glad I came to my senses ……. years ago and stopped subsidizing this circular firing squad with my time and money.”

    And yet the Dems and GOP have been soooooo horrible to the nation. How to keep fighting the bad guys while you stave off ‘allies’ whom are almost as rotten ??????

  15. Carolyn Marbry

    They’re talking about Barnes here. His is the only hearing they’ve held thus far. Cohen’s is next week or so, I believe.

    As to “unsubstantiated,” the problem here, Mr. Holtz, is that some of us are right in the middle of this while you are not. Some of us have been members of San Bernardino County and were drawn into this against our wills by our desire to find the truth and (it was our hope) to exonerate Barnes, only to discover we could not.

    I could show you the emails between SBC members regarding what falsehoods he told them about the case and communications from excomm members regarding what he said to them, if you were here. But you are not, and I do not want to publish this information publicly. They were, however, included in the brief for the judicial committee, who I assume saw them.

    Your own lack of information on this case should not be construed as everyone’s lack of information on this case. I agree that there appears to be hysteria on both sides of this and it’s (wrongly) focused on Barnes’ conviction as a child molester. I will say openly that I do not believe it’s in the party’s best interest to have a convicted pedophile OF HIS TYPE (that is to say, someone who molested pre-teen children under his care multiple times over several years) in a position of leadership or social responsibility within the party. Especially not with the lack of judgment he showed in giving alcohol and marijuana to underage persons (substantiated — I witnessed this myself on countless occasions). Regardless of how we all feel about legalization and reducing the drinking age, when we have functions that are party related, we should not appear to be scofflaws. It opens the party up to liability and lawsuits.

    Again, as I said before, had he come clean about this as soon as the information hit the excomm, then simply stepping down from his positions of leadership and social responsibility within the party would have been enough. Instead, he chose to lie and threaten and put his own ego ahead of the party. He has caused public scandal that can be said to have caused damage to the party by running for vice chair in SBC again. Again, substantiated by the newspaper article about it. But the simple fact that so many have resigned from the leadership and from the state party over this also demonstrates the damage done. As Brian Miller said, “Libertarian” has now become too toxic for a normal person to want to be associated with it.

    I understand that the judicial committee may have had other considerations in making this judgment. I get that. I just wish they’d make those considerations known and ease the minds of those of us who can only look at this with what we know and ask, “WHY?”

  16. Eric Dondero

    Bruce Cohen should join the Republican Party. He would be immediately welcomed into the Republican Liberty Caucus with open arms.

    Yes, he’s got some personal eccentricities. But they can be easily excused. Cohen is Pro-Defense and Pro-Israel. And the Libertarian Party has become increasingly Anti-Defense/Anti-Israel as of late. (A recent press release had the LP now taking the position that the War in Afghanistan was a mistake.)

    There’s increasingly less room for Pro-Defense Libertarians in the Libertarian Party. Cohen is one of the last remaining hold-outs. I can’t help but thinking that all this anti-Cohen fervor has more to do with an Anti-Israel attitude in the California LP, than anything else.

  17. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Marbry, my understanding was that there was only one cause enumerated for Barnes’s suspension: “he stood for election and was elected to Executive Committee on false pretenses: He failed to disclose to the Convention multiple felony convictions of non-victimless crimes wherein he abused a position of authority and the abused were children.”

    Are you saying that a member can be purged for reasons other than the cause(s) explicitly charged by the ExCom in suspending him?

    Are you saying that a member can be purged based on secret evidence — evidence not available to the membership?

    I of course agree that someone with his record should not be an LPCA officer at any level, and that is why I helped pressure him to resign from ExCom when his record started circulating.

    You claim you witnessed Barnes “giving alcohol and marijuana to underage persons” “on countless occasions”. About how many is “countless”? Were these persons closer to 11, or closer to 17? Was Barnes ever alone with them? Were any of these LPCA events? If so, when/where was the first such event? Why was this allegation not included in the stated cause for the suspension? Why did these “countless occasions” only seem to become a problem when word circulated about Barnes’ 20-year-old crimes?

    You say he “lied” and “threatened”. Those are serious charges. What is the evidence that he did either? When Cohen publicly claimed Barnes was “unrepentant” in his court proceedings, I told him that if he didn’t correct this reckless (if not deliberate) falsehood, I would forward it to the JudCom as a follow-up to the amicus brief I’d sent them opposing the suspensions. He responded by saying I was “threatening” him, and in so doing he completely undercut his own vague allegations that Barnes had “threatened” people. Are your allegations any different than Cohen’s?

    You say he “ran” for LPSBD Vice Chair, and that the article substantiates this. In fact, the article only says that he was elected. You know very well that LPCA offices can be hard to fill. Do you have evidence that Barnes actively sought this office, and wasn’t instead pressured by his county into accepting it? While I agree that he shouldn’t have accepted it, why wasn’t this charge included in the cause for his suspension? And why shouldn’t the LPSBD be disaffiliated for electing him with full knowledge of his record? After all, what’s embarrassing here is not that a pedophile was nominated, but that he was elected. Barnes obviously can’t elect himself.

    You say you “wish [JudCom would] make those considerations known and ease the minds of those of us who can only look at this with what we know and ask, ‘WHY?'” How can you say this in a message scolding me for asking for substantiation that you say you have but have been unwilling to provide to us members who are not “right in the middle of this”?

    I’ve asked you fifteen questions above, and I’m sorry if that’s a lot. However, you’re a candidate for Vice-Chair of the LP, and purging members is an extremely serious thing. It’s arguably the most serious thing that an LP officer can do. You’ve put yourself forward as a material witness in this case, and have repeatedly publicly criticized a JudCom team that is obligated not to make any material response. I’d be grateful if you made a serious effort to answer each of these fifteen questions.

  18. Bruce Cohen

    I don’t agree with how Mister Holtz characterizes one of our ‘off the record’ conversations here. The way he uses the word ‘threatening’ is out of context and misleading in reference to our conversation.

    In any case, my trial is supposed to be secret.
    Not that I want it to be, or anything.

    I am only correcting Mister Holtz on this one point so he doesn’t claim I constructively accepted his assertion.

  19. Eric Dondero

    Cohen, why in the hell are you wasting your time? You know what’s behind this? You know this has far more to do with your Pro-Israel views, and dare I say Judaic religious affiliation, than it does internal CLP matters.

    I’ve spent a great deal of time in California in Libertarian circles. I’ve seen first hand the strain of Anti-Semitism that exists in that particular State Party. Bashing Israel is a sport for California Left-Libertarians who control that Party.

    You’re a thorn in their side. You’re an embarrassment to them; a Jew in their midst.

    With you gone, they can go full-speed ahead towards support for Hamas, and the Radical Palestinians agenda. They can go full speed ahead towards their Anti-American agenda masquerading as “non-interventionism.”

    You need to switch Cohen, and now. The Jewish Libertarians are essentially defunct in the Libertarian Party. But there’s a growing Jewish presence within the Republican Party, and I’m sure you’d be welcome to start a Jewish GOP libertarian wing.

  20. Brian Holtz

    brianholtz1965 (1/27/2010 9:17:47 AM): If you don’t today publicly correct your reckless falsehood about Barnes being unrepentant in his court case, I’m going to write to JudCom tomorrow saying that this is the clearest case I know of of you issueing a deliberately libelous falsehood.
    brucedcohen2002 (1/27/2010 9:18:06 AM): Knock it of.
    brucedcohen2002 (1/27/2010 9:18:08 AM): off
    brucedcohen2002 (1/27/2010 9:18:14 AM): Stop threatening me, you silly goose.

    Bruce, I haven’t revealed any of the things you contacted me “off the record” to tell me. “Off the record” is about forwarding information. It’s not about giving you carte blanche to scold me for giving you advance notice that I’m about to go on the record to the JudCom. I stand by my assertion that if my giving you this advance notice prompted you to use the word “threatening”, then that word is very cheap in this case.

    I’m a Libertarian. I believe in keeping secrets, but I don’t believe in secret trials or secret evidence.

    Mr. Dondero, take it from a liberventionist: there is not a hint of anti-semitism in the LPCA. One of the reasons Cohen is in trouble is that he publicly accuses LPCA members of being anti-semitic when their only crime is defending the individual rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. He’s repeatedly said this about the Chair of my neighboring county, I’ve repeatedly asked him to substantiate his charge of anti-semitism, and he never once has done so.

  21. Carolyn Marbry

    Holtz, why do you assume I must be lying or making things up? YES, he ran, and he ran with opposition. I have this from the party secretary.

    The people he threatened were members of the executive committee. You’d have to talk to them to get their story. He’s since threatened Mr. Cohen, as well, and yes, I’ve seen the message which was forwarded to a member of the excomm.

    Countless occasions means over the course of a year, at least once a week and sometimes twice a week when I was at his house. Were there always people under 21 there drinking beer? Much of the time. Were all those events party related? No. Notwithstanding that some of those people were party officers and we did discuss party business, the only times I will call party-related were his barbecues where he handed out Libertarian literature, recruited people to the party and kept voter registration forms on hand to sign people up. Often party members (including officers on the excomm) were present for these events. The marijuana smoking took place in a separate room but it did involve those who were underage.

    The legal age for drinking alcohol is 21 in CA, Mr. Holtz, and if the party is busted for providing alcohol even to 20 year olds, it’s still a problem for us. Pot for non-medical use is also illegal in CA, same thing. All it takes is someone deciding to press charges because someone gave their 18 year old pot at one of our events, and we have an expensive court case to defend and potential bad press.

    I’d point out that I’m not the one keeping the evidence secret. The excomm is and the JC, and in deference to their wishes, I’m not releasing the additional information I have except by reference. If in your mind that means I made it all up, so be it. I will not publish emails and evidence without their permission. I do have the emails and the file, however, and I’m sure if you asked either the JC or the XC, they could verify that the emails were part of the case.

    “Failed to disclose” is an interesting way of saying he “mischaracterized,” but if that’s how they chose to put it, that’s their choice.

    What I would have the JC make known is not the particulars of the hearing but their reasoning behind retaining Barnes when they’re hemorrhaging members and leaders right and left over this. I guess you didn’t understand that.

    You seem to think I’m all about getting Barnes removed from the party. Again, a misunderstanding on your part. I want to know what the JC’s reasoning was — why, in the face of the case brought by Mr. Collier and in light of the testimony and evidence I’m aware of that apparently you are not and are unwilling to believe exists, why did they choose to reinstate him at the risk of losing so much of the CA leadership and membership?

    It’s not an unreasonable question. Stop pretending it is.

  22. Carolyn Marbry

    One more thing. If you don’t like the secrecy of the proceedings, don’t take it out on me just because I happened to know some of the facts by virtue of being involved and you do not.

    If you have questions, ask the excomm or the JC, as I have done. And as the JC has said, if you don’t like how it’s been handled , change the by-laws.

  23. Bruce Cohen

    My characterization of Mister Holtz as a ‘silly goose’ attests to the slightly teasing, and as the Honorable Mister Seebeck says, snarky tone I was addressing Mister Holtz on this matter.

    I stand by my words, and again will assert that Mister Holtz is definetely a ‘silly goose’.

    By the common, standard and traditional uses this proves my intent in using the T word that shall not be spoken here, nor shall the name of the unholy ‘chomo’ who besmirches the good name of the LPCA.

    [Let his name not be spoken on the Internet, or the great Yahoo Gods Holtz and King Naga will zap you with their stare and secret emails.]

    Brian Holtz, you are the most silly of the extra super top-secret double silly of the silly gooses in this world.

    I am going to tell both of my neices this and we will all laugh at you.

    And then we will play air tea and not say your name anymore.

    Because one should not loosely speak of the great Yahoo gods. Or of the unmentionable one of the chomos.

    For Google or other search engines will pick up the accursed one’s name and tag all of the LP world as forever associated with chomos.

    And let us never use the word ‘chomo’ again.

    Because the silly goose might complain.

    HONK!

  24. Gene Trosper

    @25 Bruce, my man. Could you pass whatever you’re smoking instead of bogarting it?

  25. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Marbry, there are more ways to have mischaracterized an event than to 1) lie or 2) make things up.

    You can keep repeating this allegation of “threatening” all you want, but until I see some evidence, I’m going to give a presumption of innocence. It’s unfair to say I’m “unwilling” to believe the secret evidence exists. I’m just not willing to see a member expelled over evidence kept secret from the membership.

    If it can be publicly proved that Barnes as an LPCA officer exposed the LPCA to legal liability by giving alcohol or marijuana to underage people at a public LPCA event, that would be reasonable grounds for expelling him if he refused to relinquish all LPCA offices. If instead he just shared alcohol or marijuana with a 20-year-old friend in a room of his own house at a private party where he happened to promote the LPCA, then it’s clearly none of the LPCA’s business.

    You didn’t answer my most important questions: when did you learn of the Party’s alleged legal exposure, and why didn’t you do anything about it? Why should we elect as LPUS Vice Chair somebody apparently uninterested in protecting her state affiliate from what she now claims is dire legal trouble?

    My position is that none of the evidence used to purge a member should be withheld from the rest of the membership. If people attempting to purge a member fail to make their case to the JudCom, it’s up to them to make their case to the membership. It’s not the JudCom’s job to explain why any particular member should be allowed to continue to be a member. Nor is it the JudCom’s job to decide what member(s) should be thrown under a bus for the sake of our overall membership numbers or contribution levels or whatever. Expulsion should only be based on public evidence of the cause for expulsion. Period.

    You also didn’t answer my second-most important question: since Barnes didn’t elect himself, why shouldn’t the LPSBD be disaffiliated for electing him?

    I’m not “taking it out on you”. You’re a candidate for the Party’s second-highest office, you’ve made public allegations in support of a member’s expulsion, you’ve claimed first-hand knowledge of dire legal danger to the LPCA, and you’ve publicly criticized a JudCom that has already explained to you why it can’t answer your questions and criticisms.

    It’s not my job to investigate whether any given member should continue to be a member. If people have evidence that somebody should be expelled, they should share it. What part of “presumption of innocence” is so hard to understand here?

    (Note that I’m of course not presuming Barnes innocent of his 1980’s-vintage crimes. As the JudCom noted, his expulsion was not sought simply because he has a criminal record.)

  26. Bruce Cohen

    It’s so much more curiouser than it were as curious before it were.

    Dondero correction: There is some anti-semitism in the LPCA, no question. One of the most anti-semitic and dishonest of them just resigned, a board member, no less.

    I don’t think this prosecution has anything to do with my religious views per se.

    Certainly there are people who are involved who that is part of their matrix of disliking me, but this story about the MB guy from San Berdoo who just was reinstated, shall his name never be spoken again, this and it’s effect on me is not because I am a Jew.

    I’m being persecuted for other reasons, not directly related to that, in the prosecution’s defense.

  27. Brian Holtz

    Bruce, I stand by my assertion that if my giving you this advance notice prompted you to use the word “threatening”, then that word is very cheap in this case. Thank you for “standing by” your choice of that word. QED.

  28. Bruce Cohen

    I’m jest an unlern’d boy wifowt non edjewkayshun.

    What arr them “QED” y’all r talking aboot?

  29. Carolyn Marbry

    Holtz, I became aware of Barnes’ background as an issue the same time everyone else did, so there was no “telling” anyone to be done about that. They already knew.

    One more time for the slow-to-catch-on. I am not calling for anyone to be removed with “secret hearings.” That this is how the process works in CA and in RONR with JC hearings is not my doing, so quit trying to pin that on me. I didn’t even call for Barnes’ expulsion from the party. NOWHERE is there any record of my suggestion or motion to the party along any such lines because I made none. I was not pleased that he ran for office again, and in light of what I saw and what members of the excomm told me re: his statements regarding his victim(s) that do not match the case file and the threats, I did expect the JC to uphold the suspension. That, by the way, does not make me in any way responsible for it.

    My point is that, in light of the exodus of members, the JC might want to explain their ruling a little more to the purpose. Since you’re not on the JC, I’m not entirely sure why you feel compelled to answer for them.

    Hopefully I won’t need to get out the handpuppets to make it any clearer for you.

  30. LibertarianGirl

    I feel like it’s splitting hairs when Barnes agreed not to run for any offices yet after being elected to SBCLP VC , at least Holtz is saying theres a difference between “running” and being “elected”.

    No theres not . If he was pressured to run , he should have declined. apparently , there was another candidate willing to run. Im my veiw , thats a breach of the agreement that he made.

    * Im sure Brians mighty debate mind will tell me why Im wrong and that it’s not the same thing and play technical semantics with the details but I prefer simplicity…

    he said he wouldnt run and now he’s an officer of the San Berdoo county LP.

  31. Bruce Cohen

    RONR says these kind of hearings are confidential, right? To protect the accused, the Defendant and their privacy and name.

    But what if the Defendant wants to have them be held openly?

    What if the Defendant waives confidentiality?

    Interesting question for all you amateur hour Parliamentarians out there.

    I sure don’t even qualify for amateur hour.
    Wish I did, much less professional hour.

    And I don’t smoke, Gene.
    Though I am seriously thinking of ending my abstinent ways for health reasons.

  32. Carolyn Marbry

    In fairness to Barnes, he did step down as vice chair of SBC around the time the excomm suspended him, so he is no longer in office.

  33. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Marbry, is your “hand puppet” snark indicative of how you plan to answer member questions throughout your Vice Chair campaign?

    Your comment about “Barnes’s background” was conveniently vague. I’ll repeat: when did you learn of the Party’s alleged legal exposure over Barnes sharing substances with the underaged, and why didn’t you do anything about it?

    And I’ll also repeat: since Barnes didn’t elect himself, why shouldn’t the LPSBD be disaffiliated for electing him?

    It’s shocking to me that you are calling on the JudCom to publicly explain why Barnes should be allowed to remain a member, instead of calling on the ExCom to publicly explain why Barnes should be purged. You admit you know more about the prosecution’s case than we rank-and-file members do, and yet you seem unable to put yourself in our shoes and ask for public evidence from the side on which falls the onus of providing it.

    I can believe that our rules would keep proceedings secret if the evidence is ruled as not warranting expulsion. What I can’t believe is that you would ask that such secrecy be violated by the JudCom just because you disagree with the JudCom’s decision. I hope this has nothing to do with the fact that the JudCom Chair is running for LP Chair against your friend and ally Mr. Phillies.

    I don’t doubt that our rules muzzle the JudCom, but I would be shocked if anything in our rules muzzles people who know about evidence submitted to the JudCom. I can’t believe that our rules turn certain facts into state secrets just because they were repeated in front of JudCom in a failed attempt to purge somebody.

    LG, I’ll ask again for like the fifth time: what exactly is the evidence that “Barnes agreed not to run for any offices”? People keep saying this, but nobody has provided any evidence of it. Until I see such evidence, I’m going to presume Barnes innocent of violating an alleged binding agreement not to ever again serve in LPCA office.

    If Barnes is in fact not currently in LPSBD/LPCA office, then why are we even talking about this any more?

  34. Bruce Cohen

    Was B-chom ever relieved of his LPCA Bylaws Committee Seat? Or does he still hold that?

    I think B-chom was elected and is now the VC of the San Berdoo County Chapter of the LPCA.

    Despite any grey areas before said election.
    He is now currently a legally acting County officer of said affiliate, as well as a Member in good standing of the LPCA state Party.

    Him.

    The guy King Naga and his good Prince the Holtzenjammer who fight the Google dragon to prevent his cyberconnection to their baby, the LPCA.

    How DID this cyberconnecting tar baby end up in the LPCA’s briar patch anyhow?

    Hmmm?!!!!?

    Who wanted him as a teammate?

    I don’t know?

    Perhampzzzz…

    Could it be?

    SATAN?!??!!!!!!

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

  35. Carolyn Marbry

    Hahaha wow. Just wow. Yeah, y’know, I wondered why you were pushing so hard on that issue, too, Holtz. For that matter, I wonder why you’re straining so hard to make this my fault, but I guess now I know. You think this has something to do with my campaign or something. Or supporting George Phillies. Sorry, I thought you were actually interested in the issue, my mistake.

    Nope.

    But keep flailing, it’s fun to watch. See, the problem is, the evidence is documented by testimony at a secret hearing (again, not my fault) of things I’ve been told by excomm members and people who were at the meeting. TOLD. or EMAILED. You would never accept that as evidence, which is why I told you you should talk to the excomm members yourself and let them tell you what they can directly. Don’t take my word for it. Take theirs. But no, you’d rather sit around and demand everyone else do the legwork for you. Do it yourself. I did.

    I don’t need to ask what the excomm used to determine the case against Barnes because I’m well aware of most of it, except what was said in executive session. As I said, having seen the emails and having spoken to the members, not to mention having gone to look at the file — I ask again, have YOU bothered to look at the file yourself? I understood what could make them think it worthy of his suspension. Again, knowledge of the situation. Their reaction made sense to me based on the case put before them. I have not heard of a single person resigning from the party or the excomm over that decision, by the way. And knowing it would be appealed, I trusted that any issues would come out. They apparently have, hence my frustration that we don’t get to know why the excomm voted one way and the JC voted the other, and unanimously at that.

    Since the JC had the more recent vote and since the party is now bleeding members, and since I knew less of the case they heard, my question goes to them. That, and this is their thread.

    Again, why you’re answering for them is beyond me since you’re on neither the excomm nor the JC. I should think you’d want to know the answers as much as anyone instead of simply trying to make this into some kind of campaign issue.

    Your question about why we even care about this if he’s no longer an officer in the party is like asking why we should bother trying someone who isn’t in the process of murdering or kidnapping someone right now? He did that LAST week. The reason is because the breach did happen. His resignation may be sufficient to make the JC forget about that charge, it may not. Guess we’ll never know.

  36. Bruce Cohen

    Something out of date on the LPCA WEBSITE??!!!!!

    I have fallen down and I can’t get up.

    Shock me over with a staticy sock!!!

    And King Naga is the Yahoo King of cyberaffairs.
    How could this BE?
    He of all people can do website stuffy-stuff no?

    The uber-competent graduate of the West Wing School of Politics?

    I’m going to go drown my sorrows in some more shots of ristretto.

  37. LAWS

    Barnes as an LPCA officer exposed the LPCA to legal liability by giving alcohol or marijuana to underage people

    If I am not mistaken, there are laws that prohibits giving alcohol to a minor. So while the party could have liability issues. The actual person giving alcohol to a minor should have been arrested under “corruption of a minor” charges.

    Also someone mentioned that there are a lot of jews in the repulican party. Yes that may be true. But a lot of Jews are hard core LIBERALS. Bruce my guess joined the LP Party because he is NOT A LIBERAL. It is very sad that there are a lot of anti-semitism in the Libertarian party.

  38. Bruce Cohen

    My understanding is he IS the VC as of now,yes.

    And a full-fledged Member in good standing of the LPCA as of now also.

  39. Born Again Non-Voter

    I’m not in the loop on the Barnes issue, so I can’t offer an opinion on it. But I have two questions for Carolyn. I hope she will answer.

    1. Why should the LPSBC not be disaffiliated?

    It’s a legitimate query. Since Carolyn won’t answer, I can only speculate.

    The apparent answer is that the LPC expelled Barnes, but not the SB county party, because the LPC wanted Barnes out, but wanted to keep the county party.

    IOW, pure self-interest, rather than principles. Just like the Demopublicans. Bylaws apply, unless it would mean losing a county party. In that case, the bylaws no longer apply.

    2. How many members has the LPC lost over this?

    Carolyn talks about the LPC bleeding and hemoraging members. That characterization may be accurate, or not, depending on the facts.

    I’d like to know the facts. Approximately how many officers and members has the LPC lost over this? Five? Ten? Fifty?

    I’m not taking Holtz’s or Cohen’s or Marbry’s side over this. I’d not taking any side. I’d just like those two questions answered.

  40. Chris Bennett

    There is a lot of anti- something in the LP but the wrong anti-(insert your favorite race, creed, ethnic group, sexual preference) but that anti-ism has been prevalent since the rise of the conservatarians. Most libertarians used to not be this way and was less prevalent when I first joined in 91. Don’t depend on the LP to help you fight your battles, do it on your own merit and don’t allow the LP to take credit for any successes you do have

  41. Michael H. Wilson

    From what I have read of this it seems as if the rules were twisted. This is not the first time a state party has twisted the rules to achieve a desired result and it suggests that the rules need to be clarified and perhaps an outside group should be called in to mediate. Certainly the procedure needs to be clarified.

  42. Michael H. Wilson

    BTW did y’all write your congress critters this week and give them your opinion on how to reduce government?

  43. Bruce Cohen

    Yeah some rules would be nice.

    And sticken’ to ’em liyk we all uneducemayterd folks heer in da holler do.

  44. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Marbry, don’t pretend that you didn’t connect this case to Hinkle’s Chair race before I did. Please deny it, so I can justify finding the comment I recently saw you make connecting the two.

    You were the one repeatedly and publicly claiming here that a member “lied” and “threatened” and that this justified his expulsion. If you feel no obligation to provide any evidence for those claims, then I certainly feel no obligation to corroborate or debunk your claims.

    Yes, I’ve read the entire 52-page court file. Are you claiming that it’s sufficient to justify purging Barnes?

    I’ll ask again for a third time:

    1) When did you learn of the Party’s alleged legal exposure over Barnes sharing substances with the underaged, and why didn’t you do anything about it?

    2) Since Barnes didn’t elect himself, why shouldn’t the LPSBD be disaffiliated for electing him?

    I’m not “answering for” the JudCom, I’m just defending them from your demands that they break the confidentiality rules protecting our members from failed attempts to purge them.

    Again, it’s not my job to extract from the ExCom the accusations and evidence that they tried to use to purge a member. Now that the JudCom has slapped down this purge attempt, I’m willing to forgive and, to the extent possible, forget. If you’re unhappy with the status quo ante (of Barnes being off the ExCom but still able to hold county office), then you go ask ExCom to make a better case, or to disaffiliate the LPSBD.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carolyn,

    Mr. Holtz continues to raise one disturbing question that you keep sliding right past.

    You seem to be claiming to have seen Mr. Barnes plying minors with alcohol and marijuana “over the course of a year, at least once a week and sometimes twice a week when I was at his house.”

    Is that correct or not?

    If it’s correct, why wasn’t it an issue DURING that “year, at least once a week and sometimes twice a week?”

    And why did it suddenly BECOME an issue when you got pissed about the Judicial Committee’s ruling?

    Was the party somehow less liable when you weren’t pissed off about something?

  46. Zander Collier

    I realize that I may be breaking protocol here and divulging things that RRoO state that I should not be. At this point I don’t care as I have resigned my position as Southern Vice Chair in the wake of the 5-0 reinstatement of Barnes’ membership and while Barnes has made no threats against me yet, I imagine they will be in the offing.

    During the private pressuring of Barnes to step down from the Executive Committee (late September ), on or around October 1, Chair Kevin Takenaga and I shared a teleconference with Matthew Barnes. Matthew said that he wanted this public imbroglio to go away. We told Matthew that we would not proceed with a suspension of membership against him if he were to agree to not run for any further office in the LPCA. As no local/state discussion occured the implication was that Barnes would remain a member and activist and would not seek any further office. In doing so it was understood that he would not create any further embarrassment and PR liability that would damage the credibility of our party or of our candidates.

    Barnes agreed to this.

    2 weeks later he was elected to the position of Vice Chair of the San Bernardino County party.

    Both Kevin and I testified to this in the JC hearing.

    Barnes did not refute it.

    There were many more items, each of which was testified to and failed to be refuted. Frankly, when Chapter XX, Section 61, lines 2-3 says “In most societies, it is understood that members are required to be of honorable character and reputation” stands in stark contrast to someone who is elected to a body because he failed to disclose that he was convicted of child molestation.

    Then again, it may seem that the JC has decided that the Libertarian Party of California is not like most societies. Either that, or the JC has decided to the the LPC on notice that it needs to draft a set of membership standards; that there is no longer any latitude in the “…or for cause” section of the Bylaws describing membership suspension since not every instance of personal conduct that is offensive to common decency isn’t documented.

  47. All your stone soup are belong to us

    There are two things I have learned from reading this thread:

    1. Never let Carolyn Marbry any where near your home or family.

    2. Matthew Barnes and Bruce Cohen must both be very successful people to deserve this much attention.

  48. LibertarianGirl

    Did you get that Brian?? He agreed to not run for any further office , then was elected to Vice Chair o San Berdoo , just want to make sure you got that…, theres your proof , altho Im sure you’ll find yet another way to split technical semantic hairs.

  49. Bruce Cohen

    Carolyn is not my friend.
    I get the feeling I am not on her good guy list, either. I only know her barely in passing and owe her nothing.

    With that disclaimer out of the way, @58 is unfair in comment #1.

    There is no need to say that without cause.

    The sarcasm in comment #2 is duly noted and is quite humorous, even if I were not involved

  50. Disassociate the SB LP

    Interesting. something may have been confirmed. I wouldn’t be surprised, this last statement came from Barnes himself.

    I would recommend that all county lp and CAlp get rid of the SB libertarians that have put Barnes back in office.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    Zander,

    Thanks for weighing in. Your comment may shed some light on this.

    You seem to be saying that the LPCA exec comm did not suspend Barnes’s membership because he failed the RONR requirement of “honorable character and reputation.”

    Rather, you seem to be saying that the LPCA exec comm cut a deal with Barnes under which they ignored that RONR standard entirely …

    … and then expected the Judicial Committee to uphold both the standard the exec comm had itself ignored, and the notion that the deal they had cut in ignoring it was binding.

    Does that about cover it?

  52. Brian Holtz

    What Knapp said. Zander, I wish you would pick an accusation and stick to it.

    You just tried to suggest that, as of Jan 2010, you think that a criminal record like Barnes’s should disqualify one from LPCA membership. But you also just suggested that, as of Oct 2010, you thought that such a record should merely disqualify one from LPCA office. However, the stated cause for the suspension wasn’t either of these two problems, but rather was for the crime of non-disclosure of that record as he stood for ExCom election. And now you tell us about a fourth accusation made before JudCom: that Barnes violated your “understanding” of an “implication” associated with his October resignation from ExCom.

    I don’t see anything inappropriate about you relating alleged facts you know that later became part of a case before JudCom. Again, I don’t think a JudCom hearing can create a state secret out of something that somebody already knew.

    However, I think it’s unfair and inappropriate for you to claim without elaboration that Barnes will soon be threatening you. Again, if there is specific credible evidence that Barnes has threatened anybody in connection with this case, that would be extremely disturbing and would be a far stronger cause for suspension than anything that’s been made public so far.

  53. LibertarianGirl

    O.k so Im with Tom , Kevin and Zander cut a deal with Barnes to ignore their own standards then we’re appalled when Barnes ignored that deal and ran for office anyway …

    and this is prior to the actual suspension , so what were the grounds when the actual suspension took place?? breaking a deal , or very very poor character??

  54. LibertarianGirl

    ahh , non disclosure

    so let me see , we know there was non-disclosure , we know there was dealbreaking( perhaps out and out lying) the reputation of ill repute is w/o question and the problem is…???

  55. LibertarianGirl

    and Brian im wondering if the people he threatened are too afraid to come forward because they actually fear the threats , but that probably never crossed your mind.

  56. Brian Holtz

    Zander just came forward, so he’s obviously not afraid. If Zander thinks Barnes is a physical danger to anybody, then Zander (or the threatenee) should go to the police, not to the JudCom.

    LG, I thought you said you didn’t favor expelling Barnes. Are you taking a position on it?

  57. LibertarianGirl

    I would have been just fine with the deal Kevin and Zander had cut with him and if u remember I STFU about it when I was contacted privately and told he would not be an officer anymore.

  58. Zander Collier

    Brian, what part about Robert’s Rules of Order that describes that membership expulsion proceedings are to be made and kept private do you not understand?

    You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that Robert’s Rules of Order is swell beans and then demand that expulsion proceedings be made public.

    There was no suspension proceeding that began against Barnes in September. Just because there is threat of one does not mean that one took place. Robert’s Rules of Order describes what must be done to suspend someone and it does not say that what someone did 20 years ago is reasonable fodder. It does say that conduct (implying recently) is reasonable fodder.

    I thought it was tenuous but I kept in the charge about failure to disclose which was about all we had in September.

    In January, additional charges were added, but most specifically the above: that after promising not to run for any further office, that he did so.

    This was also in the brief that was sent to him per the prescribed 7 days of notice in the Bylaws. If you were so interested in this sort of thing, why didn’t you run to be on the JC? You claim you want to get “at the truth of the matter” but then get annoyed because facts are withheld because Robert’s Rules of Order SAYS they are supposed to be. Your beef isn’t with the EC or the JC. It’s with Robert’s.

    Yes, the phone calls he made with threats implied in them have been saved. Kevin Takenaga is the recipient of one, Dana McLorn is another. I invite you to contact them yourself to verify.

  59. Brian Holtz

    @46 : more disinformation from Cohen. In my decade of LPCA activism, I don’t recall the LPCA web site ever trying to list even county chairs, let alone county vice chairs.

    Bruce, I’m going to keep bird-dogging every cheap shot you take at the LPCA and its members — even the ones I don’t particularly respect, such as Tom Sipos — until you learn to cut it out.

  60. Zander Collier

    @63:
    You need to understand that in September, we wanted to make this go away as quickly and as quietly as possible we didn’t believe there would be further risk exposure and didn’t have the information that we did on December 31.

    Are we human beings capable of mistakes? Yes. Looking back would I have acted differently? Knowing what I know now? Yes. Knowing what I knew then? No.

    If that attempting to fix one’s error is justification for condemning me, then have at it.

  61. Bruce Cohen

    Huh? What about County Chairs? I don’t get it. Was my grammar strange? I don’t recall anything about that, let me go check @46

    I have no idea what you are talking about, Brian. I just checked 46 and I’m missing something, sir.

  62. Brian Holtz

    Zander,

    I can believe that in the case of a failed purge attempt, the proceedings — and even the charges — against the exonerated person should be kept confidential. (However, that makes the minutes somewhat interesting, and creates a moral hazard for ExCom’s to go fishing for expulsions.) But I’ll just repeat: I can’t believe that our rules turn certain facts into state secrets just because they were repeated in front of JudCom in a failed attempt to purge somebody. If you show me the page of Robert’s that says that, I’ll dice that page into a salad and eat it.

    I do believe that only the JudCom is entitled to know the evidence behind failed purge attempts. However, I believe every member is entitled to know the evidence behind successful purge attempts. And I also believe that public charges against our members should either be substantiated or not made publicly in the first place.

  63. Thomas L. Knapp

    The non-transparency is the most troubling part of all this.

    If RONR does indeed mandate secrecy in suspension and appellate procedures, then it is not a fit procedural manual of resort for a public organization like a political party, at least on those matters.

    Because there’s no transparency, anyone who is not on the LPCA Executive Committee or Judicial Committee pretty much has to GUESS at what the hell is going on here, and the available accounts don’t make ANYBODY look very good.

    The one thing that stands out to me over the long distance and through the dense fog is this:

    The Judicial Committee’s vote to overturn the suspension was 5-0.

    3-2 would be one thing. It could be persuasively argued that personal loyalties or ideological considerations or whatever had trumped the duty of 3 members to apply rules faithfully and without bias.

    But 5-0? Unless LPCA uses its Judicial Committee as a place to stick its special needs kids on the supposition that they’ll never have to actually rule on anything, 5-0 says to me that there was something truly and unmistakably broken in the executive committee’s argument for the suspension.

  64. Bruce Cohen

    My Parliamentary question is out there now.
    What if the Defendant wants an open trial?

    Would there be any requirements, such as waiving confidentiality?

  65. Brian Holtz

    Bruce, your @46 obviously referenced @43, which talked about where to find a list of county officers. But it also talked about the link to the LPSBD being broken. The actual problem here seems to be that the LPSBD no longer uses http://www.sbclp.org/. This is more of a LPSBD problem then an LPCA problem, and in fact the LPCA social networks page correctly links to both the LPSBD Facebook and Meetup pages.

    So I’ll stand by my statement that you unfairly — and gleefuly, and ignorantly — impugned the maintainers of the LPCA web site.

  66. jbhsf@aol.com

    Will the LP party learn from this, I don’t know. Will it clean up it’s party and have a clean state from here on out. I don’t know.

    It would be nice if that could happen and do what the party is suppose to do. Work on getting concrete clean slate people elected to office.

    Bruce sometimes I think you mean well, but you have your issues as well. I believe you care a lot about libertarian and it causes. You are correct in exposing the Barnes cases. But you need to also work on your own personal issues and grow from that. I am not saying anything specific, just generalizing.

    And that goes for anyone else so the bigger picture can be looked at here.

  67. Bruce Cohen

    I think the LPCA website is poorly and infrequently maintained.

    I stand by that statement.

    Whoever is responsible for the website is lazy and lacks creativity.

    So there, I raise you one, too Brian.

    The site is stale and has objectionable stuff on there to this day.

    http://www.ca.lp.org/convention2008.shtml

    Would be one example I have been pointing out quite a bit that maybeeeee just maybee should kinda/sorta get yankie-pooed off the webbiesite.

    I know you wizbang guys with college degrees and jobs in the upper nether reaches of the IT world can figger that wun ouwt.

    Oh, back to the dead link.
    Why is a dead link on the website?

    Isn’t it the webmaster’s job to make sure there are no dead links?

    I read one time there are utilities that run all over your website and check for that.

    Freeware.

    I know you and Kevin like three things:
    1) Freeware
    2) Open Source (code)
    3) Open and Transparent Proceedings

    Unless you all change your mind.

    By the way, Brian.
    I have a question:

    Where do you get all the hair to split?

  68. Bruce Cohen

    Gee Ms. Anonymous MM in 79, what are my issues, dear? I waive confidentiality and give you permission to spill it.

  69. Born Again Non-Voter

    I believe that Kevin Takenaga is the webmaster.

    I’m still waiting for Carolyn to explain why the San Bernardino County LP shouldn’t be disaffiliated.

    Any approximately how many members and officers have resigned the LP due to the Barnes issue.

  70. Eric Dondero

    Mr. Holtz, you’re a good guy. I like you. I generally agree with most of what you write. But I am well aware of that “LP Chair in the neighboring County,” you speak of. I’ve had my own dealings with the guy.

    He’s a flaming fucking Nazi. I’ll tell that to his face. I’ll tell that to any California Libertarian to their face.

    I had an email exchange with him a few years back, quite intensive. I was appalled by some of the guy’s views. He hates Israel. And he uses the same code word language that all Jew haters use to signal their support for Israel’s enemies, and for hatred of Jews in general. “Zionist this, Zionist that, blah, blah, blah…” There’s a Zionist lurking under every bed. Didn’t you know that?

    I know a Jew hater when I see one. That “LP Chair in a neighboring County,” is an absolute Jew hater.

    I don’t believe you live in California, right? Missouri or Indiana, or something, correct?

    I lived in CA for 4 months in 2006. Most of that time I spent working within libertarian circles. I can tell you straight out, that anti-Semitism is not limited in the California LP to that “LP Chair in the neighboring County.”

  71. Eric Dondero

    Just a clarification: I don’t want anyone here thinking that I’m a big fan of Bruce Cohen. I am not. He can be quite the asshole on a personal level. He’s terribly lacking in the How to make friends department.

    But I do know, from first hand knowledge, that most of the opposition to him from certain quarters there in southern California are mostly based on his Jewish affiliation, and his Pro-Defense/Pro-Israel stances on foreign policy.

    Southern Cal is flooded with a lot of Ron Paul/Alex Jones/Isolationist/Lew Rockwell types.

    They use Cohen’s asshole-ness as an excuse. But what they really hate him for is his Judaism.

  72. Bruce Cohen

    Hey, with enemies like Dondero, who needs friends?

    And Eric, Brian lives in California.
    And I don’t think you guys are both talking about the same person.

    Let me guess: Dondero is thinking MS, and Holtz is thinking HH.

    And I think they both are wrong.
    Both HH and MS are anti-Ss.

  73. Eric Dondero

    Mr. Cohen, I take your correction and honor it. I don’t mean to imply that the California Libertarian Party is Anti-Semitic, just a few individuals mainly based in southern California.

    But I would disagree with you on one point: Just because that “certain individual” is no longer local LP Chair, doesn’t mean he doesn’t still have a great deal of influence.

    Additionally, I would assert, that it’s not just limited to that “certain individual.” I experienced this rampant Alex Jonesian/non-interventionist/9/11 Truther/Rabid Ron Paul isolationism/Hamas good, Israel bad attitude from numerous southern California LPers while I was there.

    I know you are protective of the Libertarian Party and its reputation. I don’t have to be. I can tell it like it is. And I’m telling you that Pro-Israel/Pro-Defense Libertarians are not welcomed in the California Libertarian Party on the whole any more.

    Bolt now! Join the California Republican Liberty Caucus.

  74. Brian Holtz

    Bruce, the LPCA site is OK, but I agree it could be a lot better. For example, it could be more like http://www.calfreedom.net/.

    But that still doesn’t mean that it’s the LPCA webmaster’s fault that the LPSBD has let their domain name expire. Archive.org says it was alive as recently as August, so I stand by my statement that this is an LPSBD problem more than an LPCA problem.

    And I’m going to keep trying to potty-train you, because I’m the one who argued to the JudCom that your brand of childishness is best dealt with methods other than expulsion.

  75. Eric Dondero

    I’m talking mainly of that shit-for-brains who lives on the Coast, and had that two-day on-line battle with over foreign policy. Forget his name?

  76. Eric Dondero

    Holtz, you’re falling into their trap. It’s not Cohen’s asshole-ness that they hate him for. That’s just a smoke-screen. Again, it’s the fact that he’s Pro-Israel/Pro-Defense and religiously a Jew.

    Stop trying to divert the issue here.

    This is a classic Pro-Defense vs. Anti-Defense Libertarian battle. This has little if anything to do with personalities.

  77. Zander Collier

    @75:
    “I can’t believe that our rules turn certain facts into state secrets just because they were repeated in front of JudCom in a failed attempt to purge somebody. If you show me the page of Robert’s that says that, I’ll dice that page into a salad and eat it.”

    Robert’s Rules of Order, 10th Edition, Chapter 20, Section 61, Page 630, Lines 17-35, page 631, Lines 1-4

  78. Bruce Cohen

    If Zander and Kevin and the Holtzenjammer all really want to keep the name M*tth*w B*rn*s off the Front Page, and not on any Google or search ranking, and not be associated with the LPCA, why is B*rn*s’ name still on the LPCA Official Website?

    Hmmm… I’m jest ay stoupide kountry guy.
    Wy four yew all doew daytz?

  79. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Now that Donny Ferguson is no longer at LPHQ, I move that the term “Donny” be retired as shorthand for “Donny Ferguson” and be re-introduced as shorthand for Eric Dondero. Like so:

  80. Bruce Cohen

    BTW, for the record, whatever Eric says about me being rude, he was living at my house, driving my car, eating my food and breaking my fine crystal when he had a temper tantrum and I told him to knock it off.

    When I stood up from the couch and he remembered he couldn’t bully me like he did little skinny defenseless Jake Witmer, he shut up.

    Eric is a good petitioner, but a horrible roomate.

    I still have his suitcase full of whatever sitting in my guest room.

    I guess it’s rude to help Eric.
    That’s just how libertarians treat you.

    Woo I just won a big hand in a poker game. Aces full of tens and almost doubled up. Woo!

  81. Lidia Seebeck

    @90,91

    What type of dressing do you prefer there, Brian? Ranch, French, Italian, Honey Mustard, Balsamic, Russian….?

    No further comments please.

  82. EVG

    Dondero,

    I’m a libertarian who doesn’t agree with most of Israel’s foreign policy, and I certainly don’t agree with your rabid militarism. Does that make me an anti-semite? Bear in mind that my girlfriend is Jewish, as are a lot of my friends.

    I’m tired of fundamentalists who don’t like others’ views on Israel calling said others ‘anti-semites.’ You can love a country (and its people) withouth loving its government.

  83. Gene Trosper

    @92 C’mon Bruce, putting asterisks into the name of Matthew Barnes isn’t going to cover up the truth. His name is out there. The cat is out of the bag. He even has his own Megan’s Law website.

  84. Bruce Cohen

    EVG is right.

    Just like Mark Selzer calls folks he doesn’t like “Nazi” a lot, Eric overdoes it with the anti-Semitism.

    There is some around and it’s a shame.

    I’ve dealt with these people before and I’m sorry about how they are a blemish on the face of humanity.

    But most Libertarians are not.

    I am not as militaristic as Eric, nor do I call people who disagree with me anti-Semites.

    And I haven’t ever called LG an anti-semite.
    (And not because I don’t want her to kick my butt again, either.)

  85. Bruce Cohen

    Gene@99

    It’s about King Naga and his new Knight Prince dicsciple the Holtzenjammer.

    They want to keep it out of the rankings somehow.

    I heard a rumor some LPCA types had some method of lowering rankings and discussed it about doing that to enemies as well.

    Oh the shame!

  86. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Bruce,

    It’s not really complicated or sinister.

    If you do a Google search for the name in question, it will not produce a hit on a page that has M*t!!@w B^!)es instead of the actual letters.

    The use of the garbage characters is to keep this thread of discussion from showing up on Google when people search on his name (or, if other people are using the full name, at least to avoid driving this thread up higher in the search results).

  87. Born Again Non-Voter

    Doesn’t anyone think it’s a little Orwellian, trying hide this from the public?

    The Inner Party wants to toss Matthew Barnes into the Memory Hole.

    As if the most important thing is not to punish, or to vindicate, or to seek the truth whatever it may be, but to hide everything from the public.

    It’s like the Stalin era, where people became “unpersons” and were erased from photos.

    Get votes at any cost, just like the Demopublicans. Accuse your opponents of coverups, but hide your own dirt from the voters.

    Party of principle? Really?

  88. Why?

    Why is child molester Matthew Barnes STILL involved in the California Libertarian Party after all of this was exposed? Why does child molester Matthew Barnes continue to drag the party through the mud through his obstinate and egotistical behavior? Why is child molester Matthew Barnes still an assistant organizer of the Inland Empire Libertarians Meetup group? http://libertarian.meetup.com/441/members/5903584/

  89. Gene Trosper

    @104 isn’t sunlight supposed to be the best disinfectant? I do find it curious as to why they would like to cover this up.

    Are they ASHAMED at what Matthew Barnes has done? Are they AFRAID that the multiple child molestations he committed on numerous boys under the age of 13 would look bad and harm their image?

    Guess what! Trying to cover up the despicable acts of initiated force only makes the LPCA look more like a hidey hole for pedophiles.

  90. Bruce Cohen

    Remember, the good King Naga ran on the big picture idea of ‘openness and transparency’.

    Gene is right.

    Let everything come out in the open.

  91. Michael H. Wilson

    One of the problems here is that publicly distributing this information may place the party in the position of being sued for libel which is, as I recall, the reason RRONR tell us to shut up about proceedings that go on in executive session.

    As much as we may wish to be open we have to live with the present system.

  92. Gary Chartier

    @107, I guess I’m not sure why “we have to live with the present system.” Concealing information is bad news for the people directly affected, often enough, and always so for members-in-general, since it denies them the opportunity to assess the actions of their representatives. It seems to me that we would do well to support bylaws changes that would let in a lot more sunshine.

    One option, presumably, would be to require that Judicial Committee rulings be spelled out in the same kind of detail as typical court rulings.

    I’d suggest that, if there’s a realistic concern about libel, people could be asked to approve release of personal information related to party activities at multiple stages, including candidacy for local or state-wide office and participation in Judicial Committee proceedings.

  93. Rachel H

    @93 Thomas L. Knapp said . . .
    ” Now that Donny Ferguson is no longer at LPHQ, I move that the term “Donny” be retired as shorthand for “Donny Ferguson” and be re-introduced as shorthand for Eric Dondero. ”

    And @94 LibertarianGirl “I 2nd that motion”

    Hearing no objection, the motion carries.

    Jeez, it’s not often I get to chair the meeting.

  94. Gene Trosper

    @107 I’m not a Libertarian, so I have a greater degree of independence and not beholden to any organization.

  95. Don Lake .......... Notariety for the rest of the century

    Gene Trosper // Jan 30, 2010:

    “multiple child molestations ……… on numerous boys under the age of 13 would look bad and harm their image ??????”

    “Trying to cover up the despicable acts of initiated force only makes the LPCA look more like a horrible hidey hole for pedophiles.”

    Ya think, ya think maybe ???????????????

  96. Ted Brown

    The LPC by-laws requires the party to follow Robert’s Rules of Order in the absence of a party by-law or rule on the subject. It seems to me that we should put rules for Judicial Committee hearings in our by-laws, to eliminate some of the secrecy issues.

    On the issue of anti-Semitism in the LPC, I am quite skeptical. I have been a member for 30 years and have certainly not noticed any such thing. At one point, I think we had 6 Jews on the ExCom out of 15 members (including Bruce Cohen). Of course, there are individual members who may harbor such views. However, I would like to think that members such as HH are merely against the policies of Israel’s government (as are many people) and have no animus against the Jewish people. Remember, a country’s government does not equal its people. After all, I doubt that very many Libertarians would like to be accused of supporting the policies of the U. S. government.

    Finally, I see that Zander Collier resigned as Southern Vice Chair over this incident. I find that very unfortunate. It’s like Vice President Biden resigning if he didn’t like a Supreme Court decision. Zander may have lost this battle, but there are plenty of reasons to stay in office and work for liberty (the same goes for the other ExCom members who resigned).

  97. Michael H. Wilson

    re 108. Gary I took a look at what I wrote above and have to say I needed to say it better. Poor wording on my part.

    I could not agree more with you. We need more sunshine in this party. I have always disliked RRONR simply because it is so complex and lots of people don’t have time to learn it or feel intimidated by the size of the damn book.

    I’ve always thought we need to write our own rules and simplify the whole thing.

    Sorry for the poor work above.

  98. Bruce Cohen

    Matt B R Ness
    Jill Pyatt
    Alan Pyatt
    Zander Collier
    Mark Selzer

    And Gene Trosper.

    The buck stops where?

  99. There are more ppl that left.

    There are more that people left the party that are not named.

    It is really interesting. Here you have Mr. Barnes who has a criminal record and yet when the party made a so called deal that Mr. Barnes supposely agrees with, not to take elective office position but does so anyways. DUH. You think a person with that serious of a disfunction is going to change his behavior. Maybe his behavior just gets redirected in a different manner. But the lies are still there. They were there years ago and it looks like the pattern is still continuing. SOOOOOO why DUH should it surprise anyone that when someone supposely make a deal not to be an officer that this person is going to keep his word, and does it anyways.

    That just like saying. OH OH I STILL believe Obama doing good for the country because I was that stupid idiot that voted for him.

    Either these people are in denile because of their own addictive personality to believing an abuser or they are in DENILE, beeecaaause, they want to believe in this person and they don’t want to face the real facts because maybe in some way or another there was a lot invested in this person by some of these people.

  100. Gene Trosper

    @118 Add Lidia Seebeck to that list as well since she resigned a couple days ago.

    The buck has yet to stop

  101. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @51 Chris, A-Fucking-Men!!!

    Thank you!!! Thank you so much!!! I’m glad you noted this.

    I resent Dondero’s claim that the LPCA booted Cohen because of his ethnicity, like that was the reason for his removal from the Party. That was NEVER the case.

    The case is the fact that he can’t keep his mouth shut because he kept libeling the LPCA (including Takanaga and Zander) over a matter from 2004 to 2007. Keep in mind that Aaron Starr was the chair of the Party and that he used the LPCA was used as a “Starr Chamber” vehicle against certain people he didn’t agree with. And so was Cohen.

    Plus, Cohen is responsible for helping pushing me out of the Party in May 2008, on the same day Barr was coronated King of the LP. I don’t have the old Yahoo chat on that, but I do remember the bullshit he pulled on me at that time.

    I will say this: I will give Cohen some credit. After all, he’s consistent with his beliefs on pedophilia. After trying to crucify Mary Ruwart during her presidential run in 2008 by claiming that she was advocating “kiddie porn” and “pedophilia” (which is bullshit; she never supported such a thing, considering she’s a grandmother for goddess’ sake), he did go after Matthew Barnes and advocated his dismissal from the LPCA Exec Comm. (Some of the shit that he’s written in past posts regarding that situation is full of half-truths and half-lies, but what do you expect from a lying sack of shit like Bruce Cohen?)

    Interestingly enough, isn’t it interesting that Matthew Barnes was a Bob Barr crony and was involved in persecuting Mary Ruwart, yet the fucker is a known conservative pedophile.

    I guess conservatives love to engage in pedophilia when it’s in their favor, but when the opposition is accused of advocating it (when that’s bullshit anyway), they crucify that side.*

    Hypocrisy knows no bounds in Eric Dondero-Bruce Cohen-Wayne Allyn Root-Bob Barr Pound-A-Child-Land…

    The drama on this list is so great, I could write a five-act play Shakespearean style. Hehehehe

    Yours in Liberty,

    Todd Andrew Barnett

    Publisher & Founder, Let Liberty Ring
    http://letlibertyring.blogspot.com

    Let Liberty Ring
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertycaptalklive

  102. Bruce Cohen

    Toddler@ 121

    Wow, that’s a lot of BS to refute all in one bite.
    I’ll say, I’d love to address each and every one of those allegations from the ‘libel’, to the Ruwart crucifiction.

    But I will not until after my super double tippy top secret trial that nobody can talk about that’s happening on February 5 at 8PM Pacific Time.

    Shhhhh (nobody can hear or know…)

    I will say one thing not related to the case:

    If I am so powerful I can get the great internet journalist Mister Barn-ette to quit the LP over a Yahoo message I must have superpowers.

    Yeah, that’s me.

    SuperLibertyMan!!!

    Just Call me SLiM for short.

    Bruce Cohen with SuperJewLiberty Powers!

  103. Bruce Cohen

    Todd Barnett@ 121

    This is unrelated to the secret suspension/expulsion trial so I may address it.

    “Plus, Cohen is responsible for helping pushing me out of the Party in May 2008, on the same day Barr was coronated King of the LP. I don’t have the old Yahoo chat on that, but I do remember the bullshit he pulled on me at that time.”

    Oh no! Another sin on the part of the Evil Bruce (EB).

    The fact is EB was minding his own business, reading email when Todd contacted Bruce via Yahoo Instant Messenger (YIM).

    Todd, already upset at me for calling him a mean version of his own name, twisted around, was itching for a fight.

    And me, the ‘lightning rod’ and symbol of one so-called ‘faction’ of the LP was his perfect target.

    Todd, or ‘Toad’ as I sometimes affectionately call the boy, blamed me for the death of the Libertarian Party.

    “IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!”, he screamed at me in full caps with plenty of exclamation marks.

    He called me a lot of names, including the one that Mark Selzer coined ‘a Republican Plant’ etc…

    The Toadster also made derogatory reference to my Jewishness, though he has no idea how or who or what I am as a Jew, since he’s never asked.

    He did make it clear that Jews are lower class citizens and to be treated suspiciously.

    I laughed in his face, as best as one can do by the text and smiley faces of YIM and he became enraged.

    I had a very good chuckle, goading the youngster as he vented his spleen on me for getting Barr elected.

    Except for one thing.
    I was for Root all the way.
    Doh.

    I mean, hey.

    Mister Barr is the nicest guy in person.
    He was nice to my dog and his staff was great to me.

    Bore-nett, another affectionate buddy to buddy, mano a mano term I lovingly call my Frend ‘Toadie’, is tilting at this particular windmill that’s just not interested.

    Todd, I don’t go to your McDonalds and complain about how you flip burgers, ok?

    Stop stalking me and messaging me.

  104. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @122 Bruce, as usual, you’re full of shit. And you know it.

    As a conservatoid, you know full well that what I’m saying is the damn truth. You’ve persecuted a lot of people in the Party, namely me. You’ve got a lot of nerve to make these baldfaced lies about me when you don’t have single shred of proof on me.

    Got any of the old chats? Spill them on here. I’d love to see them. If not, then you’re just grasping at straws.

    Until then, shut the fuck up.

    Todd

  105. Bruce Cohen

    Oh! The bitter poison of my poison pen that I evilly weave my web with.

    That black and horrible nefarios pixel pusher Bruce Cohen is so Jewtastic he can manipulate people from afar by criticizing them.

    All hail the great and evil Bruce.

    Eeee Vil!
    BRoooo Oose!

    The great domain of the King Naga is under threat and yet another knight of the wobbly table has come to defend the Naga.

    Sir Knight Toad, of the order of the Boar.

    Knight Toad of the Boar pays for his dragon slaying lifestyle by his occupation – Welfare Check Recipient.

    I assume he has some side jobs too.

    Or possibly he’s changed careers since last time I saw the piggly wiggly little boarette.

  106. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @123 Blowhen,

    You’re full of shit. Except for jokingly making a reference to you about your ethnicity (when it wasn’t really anti-Semitic, but you took it that way; anyone who knows me knows that I’m not anti-Semitic and never really have a problem with Jews), I never said anything of the sort that you mentioned. I never SCREAMED the words “IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT,” and I called you a lower class because of your ethnicity.

    As usual, you twist shit around to make yourself out to be the saint when the truth is you’re nothing but a goddamn demon sucking the life out of the Liberty movement.

    Let it be known that I had already decided to leave the Libertarian Party the day Barr was coronated at the Denver convention. When I told Bruce about it, he said (and I’m paraphrasing, as I don’t recall the exact words) “good” and that he was gonna show me the door. I also think that he said “don’t let the door hit [you] on the ass on [your] way out.”

    But, even if I had something anti-Semitic to him, it would be a reference to Arabs. (Hating Muslims and Arabs is actually anti-Semitic, not hating Jews.) I was *only* doing it to him because I hate that piece of shit personally. I was doing it to fuck with him and not because I really hated his ethnicity. Bruce, if you really thought I hated you because you’re a Jew, then you’re even more fucked up than I imagined. HELLO??? Angela Keaton is my friend, and I love her to death, and she’s a Jew. HELLO????

    I’m not the only person who despises Bruce. There are plenty of people who despise him. After all, he deserves it. He’s evil, disgusting, and is conservatard all the way.

    As a left-libertarian/agorist/voluntaryist, Blowhen can kiss my hairy white ass. But then again, I wouldn’t advise it. I’m known for my excessive flatulence when it comes to pricks like him trying to do just that.

    Yours in Liberty,

    Todd Andrew Barnett
    Founder & Publisher, Let Liberty Ring
    http://letlibertyring.blogspot.com

    Host, Liberty Cap Talk Live
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertycaptalklive

  107. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @125 Bruce,

    You’re a riot, man. Seriously, you are, dude! ROTFLMFAO!!!

    This is Bruce Blowhen gone mad here, folks!

    Koo koo! Koo koo! Koo koo!

    As for this Mr. “Welfare Check Recipient,” prove it, squiggly! But then again, I wonder how many corporate welfare checks you’ve been receiving as of late with the help of the One and Great Bobby Barr and His Amazing Technocolor Sleezecoat….

    Oh my….did I let the cat out of the bag?

    Todd

  108. Todd Andrew Barnett

    By the way, folks, remember Richard Boddie? A former — and longtime — member of LPCA and the national LP? He used to be a prominent, well-respected (well, still is IMB) activist in the Party as well as the movement.

    Guess who was responsible for him leaving the LP?

    Blowhen.

    Just like he was responsible for me leaving the LP.

    Ain’t life grand.

  109. Bruce Cohen

    No, Mister Boddie’s departure was during a time when I was relatively uninvolved.

    Mister Boddie fell on hard financial times and decided to not be involved quite on his own.

    Part of that was he had requested financial assistance from all the libertarian community in southern california. And then realized it would be easier to hide in his apartment, than to repay those who helped him in his hour of need.

    I was not involved with the LPOC at that point.

    What did happen, in point of fact, was that Mister Boddie, and his friend, a certain Gary Gagnon, would sent 5-10 articles a day to the LPOC discussion group, and overwhelm everything we did with their message.

    The message?

    Oh gosh and golly, it goes back to the Jew thing.

    And calling someone “dirty” and “jew” consecutively, by the way, Toadie, is not very well going to make your case that, and I quote you @126 ” I was doing it to fuck with him and not because I really hated his ethnicity.”

    But it does please Sir Cohen of the clan of the SuperJews that the mighty Prince Boar has come to take the place of the other fallen nights of the Wobbly Table.

    But fear not, my fair Prince Boarette, for I threaten not King Naga’s Castle.

    When Count Starr and I left the Kingdom to King Naga everything was in working order.

    Now the Kingdom is defiled and bankrupt, financially and morally.

    I want not the Castle of King Naga and you need not raise your mighty pen against me, Toadler.

  110. Jill Pyeatt

    As far as people leaving because we couldn’t get our way with Barnes, the bottom line is that many good, principled activists are leaving. Some of you will be undoubtedly thrilled. I would like to now publicly state that this whole drama is truly beyond belief to me. I must be incredibly naive, because I thought Libertarians had superior thought processes. I’ve most certainly been terribly wrong.

    The CaExCom signed up and were voted in to do what we thought was best for our party and our state. The revelation of Barnes’ background was a huge big deal to us, truly one of the most difficult decisions I’ve personally ever made. We came up with a result in September that seemed to work best with a minimum of damage to all concerned. We were wrong. In January we took our time and energy again to deal with the still difficult situation. As far as I’m concerned, there were no ulterior motives, or no personal agenda. And now it is us who are being villified???

    I’m leaving the Libertarian Ex Com because
    I can not represent so many unbelievably deluded people. I believe most of you really get that Matt Stone Soup Barnes poses a threat the the party with his record. Likewise, I get that his conviction was 20 years ago and our case should have included more actual evidence. You’re arguing now for the sake of arguing. Or maybe you really don’t mind having someone who molested several LITTLE BOYS–CHILDREN, for God’ sake–among you. Wow, what a good ol’ boys network. We had a situation here in California that many of you think you know all about. , but you don’t know about it. You don’t know the discussions, the possibilities discussed, the sheer horror at having to deal with Matt, who was our friend, in such a manner.

    I’m horrified that I’ve believed so much in the Libertarian party that I’ve run for office twice. At work and with my family, I’ve been treated as some strange outsider because I called myself a Libertarian. I really thought I was part of a select group of people who saw things as they should be. So why is the CaEXcom being treated like we’re goddamn idiotic Republicans or Democrats or something? Why on earth aren’t you giving us the benefit of the doubt that we were working in the interest of the party?

    The list of activists leaving will continue to grow of good people who can’t bear to see our beloved party go down the drain because of crap like this. No problem, there are plenty of pedophiles who will be happy to take our places. Hey, there are NAMBA members just waiting to be embraced by the Libertarians. I’ll run an ad in Craigslist for you.

    Also, to all of you who are certain the CAEXCom put ourselves thru this because of some other agenda than doing our jobs, maybe you’ve noticed a big percentage of the list of people leaving are women. You profess to want women in the party, but you sure don’t behave accordingly. This woman finds it shocking that this whole thing has become some Grand Event that everyone has their personal uninformed opinion of. It should have been something dealt with, then onto something like protecting the few remaining liberties in our lives.

    I am very proud of my work on the CaExCom, but now deeply ashamed of many in the party.
    Go ahead and make fun of me now and throw around your opinions of whatever. I’m outta here.

  111. Bruce Cohen

    Jill I applaud your heartfelt message and do honestly feel a lot of the same emotions and hurt about this situation as you do.

    If I didn’t care about the LP and the LPCA as much as I do, I would not have complained quite as much about having the Barnes associated with us.

    Please look where the buck stops, because that’s where the bad decisions have been made all along.

    Don’t blame yourself, Jill.

    Some resignations very well might be in order.
    Not yours.

  112. Mik Robertson

    @132 “Looks like we have a food fight between Todd and Bruce.”

    I guess the email link between them no longer works, so they have to communicate through this venue.

  113. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @129 Michael:

    Yes, Boddie left the Party, and he’s no longer involved in it. He hasn’t been involved in it for years.

    He was on my show admitting this to me about Blowhen. In fact, he said, and I’m partly-quoting/partly-phrasing here, “Bruce Cohen is the reason I’m no longer in the LP.” In fact, I still have the podcast. I’ll believe him over Blowhen anytime, any day of the week.

  114. Bruce Cohen

    Toad @135:

    Richard hid out from the LPOC and LPCA before I got much involved, other than attending some group events.

    It was years after he dissapeared from the circuit, meetings and events that I became active more than volunteering and events.

    What I did ruin for him was not his participation in the Party, which he had run away from years before.

    In point of fact, it was Boddie and Gagnon who hijacked Orange County’s email discussion group with dozens of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles every day.

    Every. Each. Each and every day Gary and Richard would assail the list with this stuff.
    You know, the stuff Harland Harrison always used to send out that freaked a lot of people out like Dave Peters and Doctor Sandor Woren who say THEY split because of folks like Boddie and Harrison.

    So, here you go, Toadie.

    I raise you. Call, plus two times your bet.

    And Paul Blumstein.
    NOBODY can say Paul is mean.
    Or controversial.
    But he had to cut Richard Boddie off for the same reason.

    The man hates Jews and Israel.
    Not me personally, of COURSE not, but just you know, them funny hatted sort.

    Boddie is just a minion for Mark Selzer, another anti-Semite.

    Thank you, fair Knight Boar for jousting with me.

    I feared I had wounded you so greatly in our last joust you would never bare your lance around me again.

    It’s been such a thrill donning armor together and we must do it again sometimes.

    Now it’s time for you to play Dungeons and Dragons some more, ok?

    Matt/hew Bar/nes loves to play that game and he could be your Dungeon Master.

    Isn’t that SPECIAL?

  115. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @130 Bruce,

    I did NOT call you a “dirty jew,” let alone anything of that sort. Now you’re accusing me of expressing a deep-seated hatred of Jews, which I do NOT truly possess. That’s a baldfaced lie. Unless you prove it on here, it’ll remain an unsubstantiated, bullshit lie.

    But you’re making an issue of something that REALLY is NOT an issue anyway. Anyone who knows my paper trail knows that I never have harbored any hatred for the people of Israel and Americans of Jewish descent.

    Besides, I’ve been good friends with Jewish libertarians like….oh shall we say?…..Aaron Biterman, Leah Patrick, Angela Keaton, and Hannah Hoffman (a musician in New York and a hot looking gal!). And there are probably others I’m not even aware of, but that’s irrelevant.

    As far as I’m concerned, you’re a hack who has no redeeming value in the movement whatsoever….

  116. Todd Andrew Barnett

    Oh how nice!!!

    Blowhen calls Boddie “an anti-Semite. Wow!! Quite a charge there!! More unproven and unprovenable BS that has no basis in fact whatsoever…

    Nice. Very nice.

    And I’m Dudley Do-Right….

    Nice yarn there, Brucie!! Good one. In fact, I’m sure Hollywood would be sure to write a script on that crud…but then again, who’s going to listen to shitheads like you?? lol

    It was nice chatting here. Bye, Brucie! We oughta meet and go out on a date sometime.

    I have such sights to show you. *blows a kiss to him*

  117. Bruce Cohen

    I thought you said it to sort of get my goat, Toadster, no? Now you didn’t make some sort of ‘Jew’ remark after all?

    Who is it that calls me to have a full tilt meltdown tantrum when Barr won and blamed it on me.

    Yes I did say for you to be careful of the door on your way out, I did indeed.

    And I meant it, you of no manners or breeding.

    This is fun.

  118. Todd Andrew Barnett

    Isn’t it funny, people, that Eric and Bruce love to play the race card and use it to their advantage? They hate it when other groups use political correctness to silence and suppress people, but they don’t mind it using it when it’s politically convenient for them.

    Bruce and Eric are race baiters. Dondero is the Jewish answer to Jesse Jackson, and Blowhen is the Jewish answer to Al Sharpton.

    Color me unimpressed.

  119. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @139 Bruce,

    SO you admit it!!! Good. You admit you helped kick me out of the party. Nice.

    I stand by my statements, pendejo. Take it up the ass. Oh wait…that would be a bad idea for you.

    If I did hate a Jew, it would be you personally because you’re deserving it, you little fuckwit.

  120. Chris Bennett

    Todd,

    It’s not worth the time to lower yourself to the level of Eric and Bruce…but then again you know the best “nuts” do come from California.

  121. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @144 Chris,

    You’re right. The best “nuts” are in California. ROTFLMAO!

    That slam against Blowhen is to show how much of a homophobe/gay hater he is.

    In Bruce’s mind, he wouldn’t mind a holocaust for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (the latter being me).

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    Todd,

    Bruce didn’t kick you out of the LP.

    Nobody kicked you out of the LP.

    If you’re no longer in the LP, it’s because you no longer want to be in the LP.

    Nothing wrong with that, but don’t pretend that it’s anyone’s decision but your own.

  123. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @146 Tom,

    I didn’t say Bruce kicked me out of the party. I said that he helped kick me out of the LP.

    I left voluntarily. I know this. I left on my own accord. But Bruce had played a role in that. Whether you believe that or not, I can’t help that, but that’s a fact.

    And please, don’t put words in my mouth. I hate it when people put words in my mouth and make it out to be something other than what I noted. OK?

    Thanks.

  124. Todd Andrew Barnett

    And while we’re at it, let’s cut the semantics in these discussions. What happened in 2008 was a purge. Let’s not color it, let’s not ignore it, and let’s not pretend it was a dream that we had and then woke up to find that it didn’t happen, ok?

    2008 was a purge. Even Angela said it. Bruce, Barr, and their goons were the instruments of all of that. They are the reason for the mass exodus of activists who left the LP.

    I’ve been out of the LP for almost two years. I feel a hell of a lot better. I’m no longer active in the BTP, and I’m out of the politics matter for good.

    But I sure do like fucking with Blowhen’s mind. It’s great popcorn value.

  125. Trent Hill

    Todd,

    There is a major difference between given a reason for exodus and a purge. I personally don’t think either occured in 2008 in the LP, but certainly there was an exodus of activists. A purge is non-voluntary–I would think a libertarian would know the difference.

  126. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @149 Trent,

    Tell that to Angela Keaton who knows better as well as I do. And to call it a “non-purge” is laughable, considering activists were forced out of the party. They left because they were forced out, not because they wanted to leave. Nice hairsplit coming from you.

    Not that my advice means anything to everyone here, but I will offer it anyway: get out of the Party while you still can. It’s a waste of time. You’re never gonna get what you want. This idea that the LP can be “saved” or “reform” is hopeless. It won’t work. Not when the conservatoids control it entirely, and the compliment of the radicals has shrunk astronomically. And plus, trying to “save” the Party is meaningless.

    The conservatarians won. You’re never gonna win this one. Stop kidding yourselves. It’s better NOT to run a slate of presidential candidates when the national party is virtually bankrupt (financially, ideologically, and ethically), and membership levels are down much further compared to the levels of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and even 2008.

    The implosion of the Party is imminent. Get out while you still can. Save yourselves! There’s nothing to be gained from this.

    You’ll be doing yourselves a HUGE favor if you walk away while you still can.

  127. Craziest Accusation So Far...

    Bruce Cohen @ 136: “Boddie is just a minion for Mark Selzer, another anti-Semite.”

    Isn’t Mark Selzer Jewish?

    Bruce Cohen is accusing Jews of being anti-Semitic?

    Will he next accuse Starchild of homophobia?

  128. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @151 Craziest:

    Excellent point! Very well stated in a few words. 🙂

    Will Blowhen accuse Chris Bennett of being a racist towards blacks? Heh.

    This is so entertaining, I’m surprised E! Entertainment News ain’t covering this….

  129. Thomas L. Knapp

    Todd,

    “to call it a ‘non-purge’ is laughable, considering activists were forced out of the party. They left because they were forced out, not because they wanted to leave.”

    Bullshit. Deciding to leave — no matter how good one’s reasons for that decision might be — is simply not the same as being forced out.

    There was, in fact, an attempt to “purge” Ms. Keaton (and Mr. Wrights) from party office.

    There was no attempt to “purge” them from the party proper, because there’s no mechanism through which such an attempt could be conducted at the national party level … although I expect that we’re within a year of the Starr/Sullentrup cabal announcing that it has found such a process hidden and encrypted somewhere in the bowels of Robert’s Rules if that cabal survives in power after this year’s national convention.

    Cohen didn’t help kick you out of the party because you WEREN’T kicked out of the party. You DECIDED to leave the LP. Maybe your reasons for doing so were good ones, but the decision was yours and no one else’s. Own it.

  130. Brian Holtz

    Cohen and Barnett make even IPR’s worst trolls look sane — and clever. What a pathetic display.

    Ms. Pyeatt, I’m not “arguing for the sake of arguing”. I’m arguing because Party members should not be purged without a case that, at a minimum, the JudCom considers airtight — and that really ought to be transparent to the membership.

    Purging is the nuclear option. There is nothing more serious that an ExCom can do. There’s no excuse for not getting it right.

    You say “The CaExCom signed up and were voted in to do what we thought was best for our party and our state.” Well, that’s infinitely more true of the Judicial Committee. The JudCom is elected specifically to be the Supreme Court and conscience of the LPCA between conventions. These five gentlemen have collectively over a century of experience in the LPCA. As much as I’m willing to trust ExCom’s judgment, I trust JudCom’s even more — because I trust in the wisdom of the delegates who chose them for this specific job.

    I wrote @64: “I can’t believe that our rules turn certain facts into state secrets just because they were repeated in front of JudCom in a failed attempt to purge somebody. If you show me the page of Robert’s that says that, I’ll dice that page into a salad and eat it.”

    RRONR pp. 630-631 has two relevant rules:

    1. Since a society has the right to prescribe and enforce its standards for membership, it has the right to investigate the character of its members as may be necessary to this enforcement. Neither the society nor any member has the right to make public any information obtained through such investigation.

    2. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an expelled member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case. To make any of the facts public may constitute libel.

    The phrases “details connected with the case” and “any of the facts” refer to the charges and the aforementioned “information obtained through such investigation”. This means information that is developed/revealed/unearthed by the investigation, and clearly can’t include every arbitrary piece of information that happens to get presented in support of a cause for suspension. For example, Zander like most of us already knew that “2 weeks later [Barnes] was elected to the position of Vice Chair of the San Bernardino County party”. Zander presented that fact to JudCom in support of the suspension, but it can’t possibly be a rule of RRONR that for as long as Zander is an LPCA member he no longer can state in public that Barnes was elected VC of the LPSBD in Oct 2009.

    There has to be something more about a fact, beyond its mere recitation in front of the JudCom, that makes it a Party Secret, whose public discussion is verboten. The fact can’t be one that was already public, or that was circulating relatively freely among Party members before the investigation. The fact has to be an essentially private one, and if only Kevin and Zander knew about MB’s alleged promise not to run for LPCA office, then that arguably qualifies. But it wasn’t “just because [this fact was] repeated in front of JudCom” that it became a Party Secret, and so I won’t be eating p. 630 of RRONR. If instead I’d announced that I would eat the page of Robert’s that said Zander can’t repeat in public any relatively private fact that was part of the case for suspension presented to JudCom, then I’d be getting some unwelcome fiber in my diet.

    And I still don’t consider it fundamentally “inappropriate” that Zander publicly describes his and Kevin’s conversation with MB. However, I’ll now concede that doing so became against our rules as soon as that relatively private fact was made part of a case for suspension.

    I agree with Knapp that such a rule is inappropriate for a political party. We should have a process similar to the sequence of a secret grand jury followed by a public trial. The grand jury part could be that the ExCom assembles and debates its charges and evidence in executive session, but the case presented to JudCom should be fully revealed to the membership and to the public. How we govern ourselves should set an example for how we’d govern in office.

  131. Bruce Cohen

    Mark Selzer is not Jewish.
    Though to some, he pretended to be so for a while.

    Markie knew I was on to him, so he didn’t try to play that game with me.

    I know about Mark’s skeletons too.

    Does the Toad want me to share some of that dirt?

    Because if it’s not directly related to my top secret suspension/expulsion trial, I can talk about it.

    And I do think these people are ready for this particular canary to stop singing.

    When you started sending me your unsolicited messages, tantrum boy, you already were going.

    Your mind was made up because you didn’t like the way the vote turned out.

    Well, you know what?

    I didn’t like it either.

    But I didn’t go whining to mommy when I didn’t get my way.

    I worked for Gary Nolan for an extraordinarily long time pro bono. And Michael Badnarik beat him.

    Both men are still my friends and I didn’t go south of the border just because Badnarik won.

    So boo hoo and stop complaining I am mean to you.

    You came here itching for a fight with me, you weakling. So you got it and come get some more.

    You are the one who dreams of purging people, you thin skinned pantywaist. You call names and then you go yelping off all wounded because someone stands up to you.

    Go call Richard the ‘Fibbertarian’ as he likes to call anyone who supported the war in Afghanistan, for example.

    And have your radio show with 14 listeners, 12 of which are your parents checking the link.

    But go away and do your own thing.

    Remember, you hate the LP and me and all this other stuff so stop coming around and making me beat you up, Bore Nut.

  132. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @155 Tom,

    All right. Fine. I left and Bruce Blowhen didn’t help force me, let alone push me out with help from the activists.

    Happy now?

    I’m not going to get into a pointless debate with you on that anymore. But if you want to stick to your statements, why don’t you talk to Angela about the purge? She, by the way, was vocal about it on my show on NowLive at the end of 2008. I have the podcast. Are you going to call me out on that? Are you going to call her a liar on that?

    Let’s put it this way, so that we can actually agree on something here: Barr’s coronation pushed me into deciding to leave. Yes, I did leave. YES, I made the choice to do exactly that.

    I realize that you always want to be right and always have an excuse to prove that someone else is either wrong or mistaken. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (personally speaking), but that doesn’t change the fact that 2008 resulted in many activists to abandon the LP. We can engage in word play games and semantics all day we like until we’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact that there was:

    a.) a takeover of the LP by the Barr/Root wing

    b.) a mass exodus of activists who felt that the LP was no longer their home, and they left because these conservatarians have co-opted the LP

    c.) membership at the state and national levels are down — and I MEAN down — by a whopping percentage

    d.) members no longer felt welcomed in the Party. So if they no longer felt welcomed in the Party, what’s the point of staying?

    and

    e.) those who left did not want to have anything to do with a Party that was becoming a Republican-lite version that was contrary to principles. I was among many of those people who DID leave, Tom.

    If you mean that the activists were not forced out because they were not physically thrown out, you’re right. They weren’t.

    But they felt no longer welcome there, so they left. They weren’t given much of a choice to stay or leave. (Well, they were given a choice, but it was a crappy choice in this case. What’s the difference anyway?)

    And that’s NOT bullshit.

  133. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @156 Holtz,

    The trolling and soap opera started LONG before I was posting on this thread. I just threw in more than my 2 cents into this. Actually, try an entire paycheck’s discussion on this thread.

    But what’s there to expect from a crack like that from you? Cohen was trolling the list for a long time. I just added theater to it.

  134. Thomas L. Knapp

    Todd,

    It’s not a matter of me having some need to be right every time.

    It’s a matter of what actually happened.

    Yes, some members left the party, partially or completely, in 2008.

    Yes, some members supported, or even ran on, other tickets because they weren’t happy with the nominated ticket. You may recall that I was one of those latter members.

    Bruce Cohen didn’t “make” me do what I did. I did what I did because that’s why I decided to do.

    And you did what you did because you decided to, too.

    We weren’t “purged.” Everything that we did was something we decided to do, not something that was forced on us.

    The Craniacs have been whining about the non-existent 1983 “purge” for 26-odd years now. Never happened. Not a single one of them was escorted to the party’s door. They went to it, and walked out of it, under their own power.

    Ditto for the radicals who left in 2008.

    Keaton arguably WAS the subject of an attempted purge — from party office, not from the party itself. That attempted purge and SHE left under her own power, too.

    The word “purge” should not be cheapened, for the same reasons that the little boy shouldn’t have kept crying “wolf.” When it really happens, we need to be able to use it and have it listened to rather than dismissed as likely another false alarm.

  135. Craziest Accusation So Far...

    RE: Bruce Cohen @ 157.

    I heard Mark Selzer say, many years ago, that he was an atheist.

    Is that what you mean @ 157? That Mark is not a religious Jew?

    But ethnically, Mark is Jewish, no?

    I’ve read Mark’s listserv posts, long ago, where he defended Israel.

  136. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @163 Tom,

    One correction: you don’t “partially” leave. You just leave. Period. Unless you drop out of the national party and stay with your state and local parties, you don’t “partially” leave. That’s a silly way of explaining it.

    Read my private email I sent you, dude.

  137. Thomas L. Knapp

    Todd,

    You took the words right out of my mouth — by “partially leaving” the party, I’m referring to people who abandoned national while continuing with their state parties. Sorry if that was unclear.

    I’m sorry to be so narrow and legalistic here, but there’s a reason for it.

    When and if the LNC does in fact start attempting purges of membership (not just office), I want the word “purge” to be in pristine shape for use to describe the phenomenon.

    If we yell “purge” every time someone gets pissed off and leaves, we cheapen the word, no matter how good their reasons for leaving might be. And if we cheapen it enough, we’ll get nothing but yawns in response when a real purge comes along and we call it that.

  138. Nixon's Ghost

    Bruce Cohen: I know about Mark’s skeletons too.

    What do you do, hire private detectives?

    The rumor in party circles was that you were the anonymous emailer who found and circulated the dirt on Matthew Barnes.

    Do you, Bruce Cohen, have an enemies list? Do you hire private dicks to dig up the dirt on your enemies? Is that how you spend your leisure hours?

  139. Robert Capozzi

    tk 163, I’ve not seen Craniacs use the word “purge” about the events of 83, although the Berglandistas did fire the ED and did move the national office to Houston.

    Rothbard certainly conducted a vicious and personal attack on the Crane Machine and the Kochtopus. Rothbard was himself removed from the Cato board.

    Leading figures in the Radical Caucus refuse to acknowledge that I am a L, although one suggests she’s OK with my being in the LP, as its an opportunity for me to be re-educated on Rothbardian theory, which I openly reject in large measure.

    So, legalistically, are these things technically “purges”? I guess not. They are all examples of pressuring people to tow a particular line.

    Is there a better term for this behavior?

  140. LP pragmatist

    No wonder 95% of the population thinks the LP are “nut jobs”. Look at this email garbage. For God’s sake take this crap off-line. The LP HAS to be one of the WORST organizations with MARKETING that I have ever seen! All this internal ranting and raving. You guys should be ashamed. We are our worst enemy (nightmare), when our targets should be the two party duopoly. Don’t you guys get it. There is only so much time in the day, and you are pissing it away on “ego trips” and who has the “biggest johnson”. Come on grow a pair, get in the same damn boat, and start to row in the same direction. While you are arguing, the competition is moving ahead of YOU. How about talking about driving the LP brand and electing some LP candidates.

  141. Gene Trosper

    I’ve known Richard Boddie for many years, but haven’t physically seen him since we both worked on Steve Kubby’s gubernatorial campaign in 1998. It’s been quite a while, but the accusation that he is anti-semite is very difficult to believe. I would need to see verifiable proof before even considering that.

  142. Gene Trosper

    Describing the behavior displayed here as shameful does not even begin to describe it.

  143. Eric Dondero

    For the record, Bruce Cohen made me pay for all his bills while I stayed at his home in Desert Palm Springs area, including gas for his clunker (read piece of shit) huge van of his. We’re talking $85.00 just to fill the damned thing up. And it was I who filled it up on my credit card, for all of Cohen’s many, many trips to the Indian Casino nearby in Coachilla.

    Oh, and guess who had to sit in that shitty van , bored out of my skull, for hours on end while Cohen took care of his “little addiction,” at the nickel slots?

    Cohen is a fine libertarian. A very principled fellow, who I respect greatly on the issues. But I would not recommend anyone being his friend or room-mate.

    And whatever you do, don’t ever, ever, ever let Cohen convince you to accompany him to a Casino.

  144. Scott Lieberman

    “Lady Gaura // Jan 31, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Foxes play, I watch
    soap opera convention
    with hot popcorn. *munch*”

    ************************************

    I am disapponted that Lady Gaura was not able to work Madame Defarge into her haiku.

  145. Eric Dondero

    Brian Holtz, you just went up enormously in my estimation. Any foe of Thomas Sipos is a friend of mine. The guy ain’t no libertarian. He’s a fuckhead Leftist puke, who has infiltrated our libertarian movement, with his Hate America First propoganda.

    Glad to know you shun him as well, as should all of those who carry the label “libertarian.”

  146. Eric Dondero

    EVG, your statements above are insane. You disdain the Israeli Government? Are you fucking kidding me?????????

    Israel has the MOST LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ENTIRE 60 YEAR HISTORY TODAY!!!

    Benjamin Netanyahu is a diehard devotee of Ludvig von Mises. He’s already slashed taxes, and cut spending across the board.

    On social matters, he’s not your typical social conservative either. Israel has both nude and semi-nude beaches right in the heart of Islamia. And Netanyahu is fighting back against Islamic puritinism, prohibitionism, and attempts to impose Sharia law on the region.

    To say you don’t like Israel is one thing. But to say you don’t like Netanyahu’s Israel from a libertarian perspective, is just completely absurd.

  147. Eric Dondero

    Again, for the record, Bruce Cohen is not a good friend, he’s a bit of a moocher, and he’s a nickel slots gambling addict. And yes, I’ll say that to his face.

    But one thing I’ll say for Bruce, is he’s honest to the core.

    Above Bruce said the following about Todd Andrew Barnette, the un-employed girlfriend-less Left Libertarian living in his parent’s basement near Detroit:

    The Toadster also made derogatory reference to my Jewishness, though he has no idea how or who or what I am as a Jew, since he’s never asked.

    He did make it clear that Jews are lower class citizens and to be treated suspiciously.

    There you have it folks. Clear evidence that some if not a good chunk of all this animosity directed towards Bruce Cohen is anti-Semitic/anti-Israel based.

    Knowing where Barnette comes from on the political spectrum – Justin Raimondo/Anti-War.com Left Libertarian – I fully believe Bruce when he says that Barnette communicated those sentiments to him through Yahoo Instant Messenger.

    I’ll say it again, this has little to do with parliamentary procedure, or who fired who. This is about Foreign Policy/Defense. This is about Bruce Cohen being an outspoken Pro-Israel Libertarian, in the heart of one of the most heavily influenced Anti-War/Anti-Israel Libertarian Party regions in the country.

  148. Dondero's Guilty Conscience

    Why does Dondero care so much about who is, and who isn’t, a libertarian — seeing as he’s a Republican who keeps urging Cohen to join the Republican Liberty Caucus?

  149. Brian Holtz

    Barnett @121, how and when was MB ever “involved in persecuting Mary Ruwart”? I pay attention to our LPCA ExCom, and followed the Ruwart campaign closely, but I don’t recall MB ever getting involved in the controversies around it.

    Pragmatist, a discussion like this certainly doesn’t help the LP’s image, but such discussions among a tiny self-selected group of people have vanishingly little impact on that image. The real public relations issue here is to not increase the likelihood of the LP’s opponents finding and using information that can embarrass the LP and its candidates.

  150. Eric Dondero

    Barnette, you slimeball piece of shit. Just by the fat alone that you hold such rabidly anti-Defense, anti-Israel and anti-Military positions makes you extremely suspect in regards to a potential underlying hatred for Jews and the Jewish people in my book.

    And that, “oh golly gee, I’ve got Jewish friends,” line is extremely condescending.

    It’s your views that matter. And your views are decidedly anti-Israel, and quite curiously directly in-line with the views of Islamo-Fascists who wish only to destroy the Israeli State.

  151. Eric Dondero

    Of course, I meant to say “fact alone” not “fat.” Freudian slip there. Of course, I in no way meant to imply that Todd Andrew Barnette was “fat.”

  152. Dondero's Guilty Conscience

    Re: @ 171

    It’s not so much the content, as the obscenities and ad hominem attacks that are embarrassing.

    Dondero, at least I haven’t seen Sipos or Holtz, whatever their faults, sink to the sort of gutter language used by you, Cohen, and Barnette.

    If anyone’s concerned about the LP’s public image, I suggest they disagree civilly. Try to be clever and literate in your insults, as was Oscar Wilde. Your arguments lose force when you resort to obscenities.

  153. Bruce Cohen

    What gutter language has this honorable Knight used?

    And please understand the fair Knight Price Toad from the order of the Boar.

    Verily, he is an excitable boy, and he doth learneth such foul language and manner in his pub. He is the owner of the Hog and Frog Pub in Dungeons and Dragons.

    He comes to rescue King Naga and his now reinstated Prince Errant Master Barnes of the order of Megan’s List.

    Please allow him this small indiscretion as he battles the evil pixels of the Jew Cohen and his Zionist Cabal.

    Who will help the Knight of the Hog, Frog and Bog?

  154. Lady Gaura

    Knitted strands of dawn’s light
    removes all the purls of lies
    So too does the truth.

  155. IF I DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER

    Todd Andrew Barnett must have the HOTS FOR BRUCE. He certainly acts like a scorned lover. It just that Bruce is not that type to reciprecate, so Todd needs to deal with that and stop acting like a someone who been rejected.

  156. To Laura

    I like some room on that couch. I’ll bring the pepsi, and chips with that. Stay tune, for Days of our IPR.

  157. Bruce Cohen

    LG is not only super smart, but she’s the cutest Jack Mormon I know.

    And I will have the assembled audience of fair Knights, Lords, Ladies and Nobles know, it was NOT a slot machine.

    It was a Video Poker game.

    And it was not a penny machine, it was quarters.

    It was a 9/6 Jacks or better machine, with a 99 44/100% payoff in the old nonsmoking section.

    In fact, one time, I did go with Eric, and he hated gambling, so I promised him to play for one hour only.

    And did.

    Eric had a good time complaining about how he hated gambling, though he did love the waitresses and single Mexican girls at the casino.

    I left about 10 bucks up for the night, at which point Mister Donny suggested I keep playing when he saw the real money woo-woo.

    I am not a gambling addict.

    I am a Liberholic and I refuse to do 12 steps over it.

    Who couldn’t tell I deeply in the throes of Liberholism, a terrible disease at that?

    Am I covered under the ADA against discrimination as a sufferer of said disease?

    For the record, Debra D is one of my favorite hot Libertarian chicks, and I wish there was a Calendar with her on it.

    I think she should be Miss Passover for the Hot Libertarian Chicks of the LP Calendar.

    I would go on a Casino date with Miss Passover any day.

    After all, we are both fundamentalist JackJewLibertarians, you know?

    And the JJL comes before the LP.

  158. Bruce Cohen

    Forsooth, there are maidens and young knights and persons of virgin ears listening.

    I beseech the all citizens of good nature and upbringing to please not besmirch this hallowed hall with bad language.

  159. Embarrassed by the LP

    if you’re all about the transparency then why do you post under so many pseudonyms here ?

    Because many of us are increasingly ashamed to be associated with the LP.

  160. 91%

    and for the record Id like to ask Brian a question, if you’re all about the transparency then why do you post under so many pseudonyms here ?

    I’m not Brian, but I am all about party (and real world government) transparency, and I also post under some pseudonyms here.

    Why do I do that?

    Several reasons.

    One is that I don’t want some of my controversial views to have an impact on possible work, or on other people such as for example potential dates who might google me (an increasingly popular practice).

    Another is that there are whackos posting and lurking, and some of them might be dangerous. I don’t necessarily want them knowing who I really am.

    Yet another reason is that if I want to make a point and not have the argument descend into the realm of the personal, it may be better if people do not know who is saying what I am saying.

    Also, sometimes when I am posting I may wish to limit my time online – so it is easier to do so if certain people don’t know that I am online.

    As well, sometimes I may wish to try out a character who has views that are different from mine, and see how people answer the points that character makes.

    Those are some of the reasons.

    None of my characters are especially mean-spirited or foul, as far as I can remember.

    I don’t know about Brian, but if he has any pseudonyms, I have a hard time believing any of his pseudos would be the mean-spirited or foul type either.

  161. A love connection

    Libertarian Girl and Bruce Cohen, maybe a love connection. Yes!! Valentine coming up. Bruce take LP out for a nice date.

  162. North American Boy-Boy Love/Hate Association

    Todd Andrew Barnett must have the HOTS FOR BRUCE.

    It’s a thin line between love and hate. The sexual tension between them is palpable. We suggest some people may wish to “get a room,” as they say.

  163. Paulie

    Libertarian Girl and Bruce Cohen, maybe a love connection. Yes!! Valentine coming up. Bruce take LP out for a nice date.

    I’m not the jealous sort, but I was hoping to get LG for V-day. It’s all good though….”we can share the women, we can share the wine 😛 “

  164. Bruce Cohen

    For the record, I have never posted under any name but my own real one here or on any discussion group or news board. A few places I have used the handle “Bruce966”, but not to anonymize myself.

    PS Anyone know what the 966 means?

  165. Brian Holtz

    Wow, Debra, did you just post as “LibertarianGirl” asking why somebody might be posting under a pseudonym? 🙂

    Yeah, yeah, it doesn’t count because many of us know who you are. Well, 91% just gave some interesting reasons for posting pseudonymously, so I’m not going to foreclose that possibility by setting a precedent of publicly confirming or denying claims that I’ve used any pseudonyms here. That said, I would love IPR to institute a policy of only allowing posts by users registered under their real name, with first-name-only allowed if there’s no ambiguity (paulie, morey) about what real-world-person is being named.

    Regarding transparency, what I’ve advocated is that people who make accusations against fellow Libertarians do so only with public evidence. I dare you to disagree with that position.

    Have you read MB’s 52-page court file? I have, and I still have no evidence that makes me embarrassed to oppose expelling him from the LPCA for the non-disclosure cause specified by ExCom, because he no longer holds any LPCA office that was won through non-disclosure.

    In fact, I’ll be in Long Beach with leaflets trumpeting the facts of my opposition to the MB and Cohen suspensions, because I will be running for JudCom if 1) Cohen’s suspension is upheld, or 2) Cohen’s suspension is overturned and any of the JudCom heroes don’t stand for re-election.

  166. LibertarianGirl

    BH_Have you read MB’s 52-page court file?

    me__ yes

    BH_Regarding transparency, what I’ve advocated is that people who make accusations against fellow Libertarians do so only with public evidence. I dare you to disagree with that position.

    me__ really , on another thread you called me and Trosper embarrassments under a pseudonym I KNOW was you for a fact. Then you accused us both of having done nothing for the Liberty movement. you have no facts for this , both he and I have done lots but I wont get into listing it here.

    Brian , you dont see evidence that warrants suspension for non-diclosure since the new office he holds is after disclosure but…
    Do you find a reason for suspension for breaking an agreement in good faith not to run for any office?? do you think its a good PR move to have a pedophile predator in an office of the SBCLP?
    do there think theres reason for suspension based on his past at all as in he is a terribly bad character?? if evidence comes to light that he has in fact threatened people , would you say that then that would be reason for suspension -expulsion?

    please answer all my questions you have a nasty habit of only debating the parts of statments u know u can rip apart somewhat and ignoring the rest.

  167. Bruce Cohen

    Forsooth the Knight HoltzenJammer, of King Naga’s Knights of the wobbly table has spoken.

    He the keeper of the semantical truth, and the golden ark of split hairs is going to the annual joust of Takenaga and Barnes.

    He, of good nature, cheer and character, Knight Holtzenjammer has picked up the King’s banner and standard and will stand and fight to defend the Kingdom of Naga.

    The Bards will long sing about the the festival of chomos that King Naga will host.

    We will learn from the songs and story about the heady days of power in Long Beach, those of us not attending the festivities.

    Knight Holtzenjammer is the rare Knight who is also a bard and we look forward to his tales and those of the Minstrel Knight Toad Boar.

    We will all drink mead late at night and sing songs about the exploits of King Naga and how he slew the dangerous Jew Dragon Cohen when he threatened the Kingdon of Naga with his mighty laptop.

    Would that we could all be there.

  168. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    What you’re missing here is that you don’t know why the Judicial Committee overturned the suspension.

    You can wail about them “defending a pedophile” all you want, but they’ve done no such thing, at least publicly. To the extent that they’ve publicly talked about what they did at all, they’ve simply said that a burden of proof was not met.

    It’s not the Judicial Committee’s job to decide whether or not M*t!h@w B^r&es is or is not a pedophile, or if he is whether that represents an actionable cause for suspension.

    It’s the Judicial Committee’s job to hear the arguments ACTUALLY GIVEN AT THEIR HEARING and weigh those arguments against an objective standard.

  169. Brian Holtz

    Hey, Debra, are you really against “defending a child molester”, no matter what the circumstances or context? Are you saying that someone with MB’s criminal record has zero rights that a Libertarian should defend?

    Matt Harris, Chair of the LPWV, publicly wrote on IPR two days ago: “if a pedophile were to join the LPWV, I would haul them out into the street and beat them to death just as I would should I come across such a person in any other venue.”

    It’s easy to be a principled Libertarian when defending the rights of people we can all identify/sympathize with. The true test of your Libertarian courage is when you have to decide whether to defend the due-process rights of the accused, or of the convicted who have already paid the price for their crimes.

    I’m not just a fair-weather Libertarian, Debra. Are you?

  170. LibertarianGirl

    see brian , I asked you specific questions and you ignored them and went back to turning the argument against me> please answer the questions I asked above.

    TK_ you are right I do not know the reasons they overturned it and maybe I have jumped the gun on chastizing them. I will wait to hear more on that but I do trust the people that do know more like Ms Mabry and Ms Pyette , I find them both to be honorable . Plus I believe the deal Zander and Kevin cut with him to be in good faith which he ignored.

  171. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @182

    I think Eric has a hard-on for me. I kinda suspected it for a while. Not a surprise…

    Dondero, you lost credibility in the movement ever since you started with this Islamo-Fascist, pro-corporate, pro-Israeli government bullshit. You’re a sad sack of shit with no credibility whatsoever.

    Of course Dondero allies himself with a political party (the Republicans) who hate his ethnicity. W.’s granddaddy had ties to the Hitler regime, so if there are any claims to the contrary, I call bullshit on it.

    As for me having an alleged deep-seated hatred for Jews and the Israeli people, prove it. You want to claim that I said that crap? Go for it.

    As for me making derogatory references, if I made some against you, it’s only reserved for you and Bruce. Anyone who is a Republican and who is of that statist mindset deserves the wrath of my derogatory mindset.

    Of course, Eric has made derogatory references to my sexuality. He’s a homophobe who believes that gays should be exterminated, die of AIDS, and should be strung up the way Matthew Shepherd was in Wyoming. He loves his corporate welfare, he’s intolerant, and despises anyone who disagrees with him.

    And, worst of all, he’s known for sleeping with underage Mexican prostitutes. How’s that for an encore?

    If anyone’s a “slimeball piece of shit” in the Liberty movement, it’s Dondero. His minions happen to share the Honorary Slimeball Piece of Shit Award with Eric.

  172. Bruce Cohen

    Cutting a verbal deal with a serial liar is probably not the best way to do business.

    Moving slowly and secretly and refusing to answer questions or make a public statement about an issue concerning folks who care, might just raise some eyebrows, much less concerns.

    Interesting how the chomo gets a lot of chitty chat and coaching and discussion and warnings by the LPCA, but others get summarily suspension/expulsion action for being mean.

    Mister Rogers wants to know:
    “can you say ‘double-standard’ “?

    Of course you can!

    DOUBLE STANDARD!

    I LIKE the way you say that, boys and girls.

  173. LibertarianGirl

    B likes to ignore questions directed at him but I always try and answer ones at me so…

    Hey, Debra, are you really against “defending a child molester”, no matter what the circumstances or context?

    no , most sex laws are ludicrous , a Genarlow Wilson case Id defend to the fullest , cases of young adults and older teens or two teens or countless other examples Id also defend the person . There is no uniform criteria for sex offenders and whether its acceptable or not , you gotta take it case by case . I read Matts case and he is a stereotypical child molester .

    so the short answer to your question is the circumstances and context are everything and must be evaluated case by case as to whther Id defend them.

    BH_ Are you saying that someone with MB’s criminal record has zero rights that a Libertarian should defend?

    Straw Man to the rescue… LOL you know damn well Im not saying that . Id still defend his right to free speech , his 2nd amendment rights , i think he should be allowed to vote . I would not defend his right to be around kids and would not defend his right to serve in an official capacity in the LP that can cause harm to our image . and the thing is , if he really cared he’d have stepped down , its all too obvious this man has an ego so big it’s blinding him as to what is really in the best interest of everyone else.

    IMO…

  174. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @183 Eric,

    Of course you meant to say “fat.” What are you? A fattist?* (*Note: A bigot who is prejudiced against obese/overweight people.)

    As for what you said @179 about me being a Left-Libertarian, you got that right. I am of the Libertarian Left. I’m also an agorist and a voluntaryist. I don’t use the traditional libertarian term anymore, mainly because you and your fuckwit conservatoids stole the label.

    You know you’re not a libertarian, Eric. You hate gays, blacks, even college students. While I have no love for Obama and have spoken out against that tyrant, you hate his color.

    That’s Eric Dondero, folks: defender of the Party of Theocrats, Racists, In-The-Closet Pedophiles, Corporate Welfarists, and Brown-hating Bigots.

    At least Eric is consistent: he’s an equal opportunity liar and hater.

    BUT that’s the Republican Party for ya.

  175. The deal

    Was the deal in writing or verbally. In writing would be more concrete evidence to do what is necessary.

  176. Bruce Cohen

    Eric and I share no love and break no bread together.

    But Knight Toad of the Boar has spoken incorrectly towards fellow Knight Dondero.

    Mister Dondero does not have any racist tendencies that I know of, and my only beef with this Knight is he is not of the proper manners to share lodging with.

    Mister Dondero does not care if someone is of different color, ethnicity or genderized affiliation or predisposition.

    He is only interested in their positions and behaviors, and judges people based on the content of their character.

    (A commodity I might add, the Toadenator has none of.)

  177. LibertarianGirl

    and so my stance is clear I only wanted Matthew not to be an officer , back when Zander and Kevin cut a deal with him and he agreed to not seek anymore office I was very cool with that.Then I NEVER said his membership should be suspended or expelled , I understand he is an excellent activist and would have been content with him continuing to do so.

    then he ran for office again and because of that I feel like he broke a promise and does not care if he hurts the image of the LP , because of THAT , I feel like suspension-expulsion proceedings should take place unless of course he resigns again .

    what the jud com evaluated I dont know , the above is ONLY MY OPINION.

  178. stone soup's vhem

    222 it dont matter if there be witnesses, and there be witnesses.

    that there be some funny poems, too.

  179. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The deal” is the most harmful part of this whole thing.

    If there was a real, true, relevant actionable cause for suspension/expulsion from the LPCA, then making that deal was a failure of fiduciary duty on the part of the party officers who made it.

    If there WASN’T a real, true, relevant actionable cause for suspension/expulsion from the LPCA, then the whole thing was just bullying and extortion from the git-go.

    If the executive committee’s argument to the Judicial Committee for the suspension was “he didn’t keep his end of a deal that we had no legitimate authority to make on the LPCA’s behalf in the first place,” then the Judicial Committee did exactly the right thing by overturning the suspension.

  180. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @223 Blowhen,

    You “have no love” for Spindero, yet you’re going to defend him even after the way you two treat each other? lol Too funny.

    What I said is virtually correct. Dondero is a lying sack of shit who exhibits racism towards people of different color, bigotry towards people of different sexual orientations, and sexism towards the opposite sex.

    Spindero is a racist, homophobe, and a sexist. He’s a wife beater (and I have that on good authority) and treats women like dog shit. He hates poor people and loves his corporate welfare and loves being in bed with the state.

    Blowhen has no business defending this shitwit because he has the same beliefs. Should we be surprised?

    Blowhen and Spindero should date each other. No wait, that would be against the Republican Creed of Hate against Gays….unless they don’t play by the rules themselves.

    Blowhen and Spindero are already beginning to bore me. *yawn*

  181. Brian Holtz

    Debra, thanks for once again demonstrating that you don’t always know what you think you know.

    Please quote the words you think I wrote saying you and Gene Trosper are an “embarrassment”. As I wrote on that thread, as LPCA Fact-Checker: you cannot quote [me] saying previously either that you are an embarrassment or that Barnes isn’t an embarrasment. However, Fact-Checker will say that he is ashamed of much of the venom and unsubstantiated mud-slinging employed by Libertarians above to justify purging a member — especially when so much of the mud isn’t even part of the cause which allegedly justified the purge.

    And it’s utterly false that I “accused [Dedmon and Trosper] both of having done nothing for the Liberty movement.” That was somebody else — but don’t let pesky little things like truth and evidence get in the way of a juicy accusation against a fellow Libertarian.

    I’ll keep saying it until you actually read it: you don’t know that Barnes “broke an agreement in good faith not to run for any office”. What Zander told us here was:

    We told Matthew that we would not proceed with a suspension of membership against him if he were to agree to not run for any further office in the LPCA. As no local/state discussion occured the implication was that Barnes would remain a member and activist and would not seek any further office. In doing so it was understood that he would not create any further embarrassment and PR liability.

    So Zander claims that there was an “understanding” floating in the air of that conversation, carrying the “implication” that resigning from LPCA’s ExCom means never accepting county office even if his record is disclosed. Bzzzzzt. Sorry, but that’s waaaaay too flimsy a basis to purge somebody.

    A less-flimsy basis would be to say that it’s a purge-worthy offense to put anybody with Barnes’s record into any LPCA office. But none of you have the guts to say that, because Barnes didn’t elect himself, and you would then have to purge dozens of people from the LPSBD.

    I’ve already said that I don’t think his 52-page court record warrants expulsion from the LPCA. I thought I heard you say that too, and I asked if that’s still your position. Are you ever going to answer?

    Regarding threats, you’re not paying attention. I wrote @64 above: if there is specific credible evidence that Barnes has threatened anybody in connection with this case, that would be extremely disturbing and would be a far stronger cause for suspension than anything that’s been made public so far. Now, Debra, either give us some evidence that he’s threatened anybody, or stop spreading unsubstantiated rumors to that effect. Is that too much to ask?

    I write my postings here with care, and it’s not an instanenous process. Your previous comment was posted while I was still composing mine, but you jumped to the false conclusion that I deliberately ignored your questions. This is yet another example of you not knowing something that you thought you knew. How many times do you have to be wrong in saying something defamatory about a fellow Libertarian, before you start to see the pattern and become more careful and charitable in what you say?

    I did not invoke a straw man. You make a blanket statement about “defending a child molester” that made it sound like you think such defense is always wrong. I asked you if that’s what you thought. Now you admit that “defending a child molester” with Barnes’s record isn’t always wrong — which pretty much undercuts your earlier blanket statement. QED.

    P.S. Some of the poems above are clever, but none of Cohen’s tiresome stories are. However, it’s always amusing/instructional to see such an extreme example of someone with so little understanding of how people are perceiving them and their actions.

  182. LibertarianGirl

    perhaps , but I believe they we’re trying to quietly handle a situation which involved a man they considered a friend at the time and do it as quietly with as little embarrassment as possible . perhaps they should have followed protocol , and maybe the JudCom is right but I believe at the time they did what they thought was best .

  183. Brian Holtz

    Tom, it would not be unreasonable for ExCom to take the position that they will summarily suspend any [victimful] Megan’s Law registrant who accepts LPCA office at any level. But that’s not what they accused MB of. Instead, they accused him of violating an “understanding” floating in the air of a 3-person conversation, carrying the “implication” that resigning from LPCA’s ExCom means never accepting county office even if his record is disclosed.

    They should have just told him in writing that they would summarily suspend him if they ever again noticed him holding LPCA office at any level.

    Indeed, they could still do that now. And if he didn’t resign, I bet the JudCom would uphold the suspension.

  184. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @227 Tom,

    Aside from the legalese nonsense (which really doesn’t mean anything), the LPCA Judicial Committee’s actions on this deal appear, at least to me, pretty faulty. The reasoning for overturning the suspension has NOT been made clear.

    Even if the reasoning was valid and just (and I have to say, in this context, not just), it creates the appearance that the Libertarian Party is a hotbed of pedophilia and child rape. That’s a scathing PR mess that I don’t think any political organization wants on its hands. If the LPCA wants to take that position, then they are going to bleed members to the point…where there is NO membership left at all.

    But even if all the members hadn’t left, the Party would be barely functioning as it is.

    Think about it, Tom: do you really want an officer of the Committee (who’s also a Bob Barr crony and had his ties to those who persecuted Mary Ruwart in ’08) to represent that organization, especially with a criminal record and a history of committing six felony child rapes (although he plea bargained for three of them and served some time in prison)? Is that what you want the LP to have?

    Sorry, but I don’t feel sorry for this guy for being booted…

  185. Brian Holtz

    Barnett, I ask again: how and when was MB ever “involved in persecuting Mary Ruwart”? I pay attention to our LPCA ExCom, and followed the Ruwart campaign closely, but I don’t recall MB ever getting involved in the controversies around it.

    The more an unsubstantiated charge is repeated against a Libertarian, the less I believe it.

    The problem with Libertarians isn’t that they do too much infighting. The problem is that they’re so incompetent at it.

  186. North American Boy-Boy Love/Hate Association

    Eric, Todd and Bruce
    a public “three-way”
    I wish was behind closed doors

  187. Eric Dondero

    You all, not to abruptly change subjects on you, but there’s a huge story just now breaking about the New York Libertarian Party.

    It’s absolutely hilarious, and IMHO good news for the Libertarian Party.

    I just broke the story wide open over at Libertarian Republican (h/t The NY Libertarian Examiner.)

    (link above.)

  188. Brian Holtz

    Hmm, I don’t know that Hinkle ever criticized Ruwart over child sex issues, but he’s not currently subject to purge efforts, so I’ll just thank you for the correction, and leave it at that.

  189. Eric Dondero

    Umm, Toady, I was one of the earliest, and most enthusiastic supporters of Michael Steele for Republican Party Chairman. And last time I checked Chairman Steele was an American of African descent.

    Tom Knapp here can confirm that.

  190. Gene Trosper

    @209 Actually, LG, I have a pretty good idea of who attempted to criticize me on that one post because of a few things that were said. The person who made that posting wasn’t very intelligent and clearly he doesn’t have much of a memory. I have a huge scrapbook of articles regarding the things I have done and successfully accomplished, so I welcome any idiots to make the same accusations again. In fact, I would welcome them to a public debate.

  191. Bruce Cohen

    Mister Hinkle and Mister Starr do not work together or in any type of coordinated fashion.

    Mister Hinkle was not associated with the Barr or the Root Campaign that I know of.

    Mister Hinkle is, as I understand, a fan of Ms. Ruwart, and certainly not part of any imaginary ‘Starr Chamber’.

    As far as the allegation of me personally persecuting her or whatever words Knight Boar used, here is the link to the audio of what was said.

    Uncensored.
    Here it is:
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stevekubbyshow/2008/04/29/ruwart-challenges-root-phillies-and-cory

    From the: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stevekubbyshow

  192. Gene Trosper

    @214

    “It’s easy to be a principled Libertarian when defending the rights of people we can all identify/sympathize with. The true test of your Libertarian courage is when you have to decide whether to defend the due-process rights of the accused, or of the convicted who have already paid the price for their crimes.”

    Right cut both ways, Mr. Holtz. He may have paid for his crime, but what about the victims? Seems to me they have a lifetime of memories being sexually molested. When will their sentence be over for the crimes of Matthew Barnes? One of the sadder aspects of the LP is a definite lack of sympathy for those who were victimized by people other than government agents.

  193. George Phillies

    @240

    To give credit where credit is due, your plot to destroy the Republican Party by giving them a National Chair of that quality is bearing fruit, as will be obvious as soon as the Obamacane at Republican sails, blowing them forward at enormous speed, subsides.

    And if elected National Chair I will not emulate Michael Steele: I will not charge speaking fees. I will not have a book ghostwritten where I can collect the profits shilling it. Oh, yes. I will not try to revive the de facto bankrupt business I do not have by shilling for it, either.

  194. Gene Trosper

    “Rights cut both ways”, rather. The silence I hear regarding the rights of people to be left alone by predators such as Matthew Barnes is quite curious.

  195. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @242 Blowhen:

    You did criticize her on Third Party Watch, which no longer exists by the way. (Gee, has anyone forgotten that site by now?) You were only acting nice to Ruwart on Kubby’s old show just to cover up the fact that you personally hated her. Don’t act like you’re an angel, dude. You hated it, and you know it.

    Thus, your claims have no merit and lack validity whatsoever.

    As for Hinkle’s involvement with the “Starr Chamber,” that’s public knowledge within the LPCA circles. I have it on good authority that Hinkle was involved in that mess.

    Nice deflection, Blowhen. It only gives you a fortune cookie, but not a gold star. Keep shooting for it.

    You’re a shoe-in for the Best Renowned Liar of the Year Award.

    Ha!

  196. LP pragmatist

    frankly, all of this makes me take a step back and wonder if you are all losers. So where are the winners in the LP? Anyone give a damn about electing candidates or just comparing the size of their “johnson”.

  197. Bruce Cohen

    That would be ‘shoo’ in. As in to brush, wave or influence things in a certain direction.

    And I don’t hate Mary, I only disagree with her on some issues.

    She and I are in occassional and cordial contact and I have nothing bad to say about her.

  198. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @240 Umm, Spinny,

    The only reason you probably supported Steele was only for political reasons. Personally you despised him because of his blackness, although I’m convinced you felt that way as much as he probably despised you. Just because you support a chair candidate while you’re in the same party doesn’t mean you have to personally like him at the same time.

    It’s all politics, dude. Own it.

    @244 George,

    You got that right. Spindero supported a Republican warmonger because, along with that fellow warmonger, they’re racists, homophobes, Theocrats, and foreign child murderers. They love the art of deflection, don’t they George?

    If Hitler were alive, the Republican Party would be praising him and extoling him. I know Eric (and maybe Bruce) would.

  199. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    I think that it would be unreasonable to adopt a policy of automatic suspension of Megan’s Law registrants, because Megan’s Law has caught many “victimless criminals” in its net, including some who might be very useful activists not in spite of, but BECA– USE of, their experience in that area.

    Right offhand, I’m thinking of a 17-year-old in Arizona who was prosecuted as a “sex offender” for “contributing to the deliquency of a minor” by showing that minor pornography. The minor involved was HIMSELF.

    Or any random teen busted down for “child pornography” because he or she sent a nude cell phone photo to a boyfriend/girlfriend.

    That aside, if there’s cause for suspension, the duty of party officers is to move for suspension, not run around cutting deals to avoid doing so.

    Todd@233,

    You write:

    “Aside from the legalese nonsense (which really doesn’t mean anything), the LPCA Judicial Committee’s actions on this deal appear, at least to me, pretty faulty. The reasoning for overturning the suspension has NOT been made clear.”

    If the Judicial Committee’s reasoning hasn’t been made clear to you, how do you know it’s faulty?

    I agree wholeheartedly that there should be more information available about the whole matter.

    In the absence of such information, we have to make educated guesses based on the information we have.

    Here are two pieces of information we have:

    – The Judicial Committee’s verdict was unanimous, 5-0. Not 4-1 or 3-2. Every member of the Judicial Committee agreed that the suspension should be overturned.

    To me, that says there was at least one fact that they all found compelling and upon which the verdict turned. If they were voting their personal biases, presumably there would be DIFFERENT biases at play, meaning different votes.

    – The release on the action, while not highly specific, says that “The Executive Committee not having met the burden of proof on the causes as stated, and the Judicial Committee not being empowered nor inclined to extend or substitute for the stated causes …”

    That’s not specific, but it is clear. The Executive Committee told the Judicial Committee “we suspended on the basis of X,” and then failed to prove X to the Judicial Committee’s satisfaction.

    It may be that one or more members of the Judicial Committee believed that suspension was warranted on the basis of Y or Z, or that X was provable, but the Judicial Committee’s job is not to substitute unstated cases for the stated ones, or to prove the stated cases for the parties arguing them. Its job is to rule on whether X is valid or not, and whether X was proven or not.

    “Even if the reasoning was valid and just (and I have to say, in this context, not just), it creates the appearance that the Libertarian Party is a hotbed of pedophilia and child rape.”

    The Judicial Committee’s job isn’t to steward the creation or non-creation of appearances. It’s to apply the bylaws to cases on appeal.

  200. Bruce Cohen

    Yes, the Toad now joins Mister Mark Selzer as comparing me to Hitler.

    Perhaps he wants to call me a “Nazi” also.

    Both Mister Selzer and Mister Dondero have a bad habit of calling people that, so they are all buddies in this misuse of the word.

    It’s so fun to make enemies by pointing out their lack of social graces.

    And I’m the bad one.

    We have:
    1. Chomo Guy*
    2. Embezzler Guy*
    3. Hijack Guy
    4. Cheater Guy
    5. Liar Guy
    Only recently on the LPCA Board with everyone looking the other way.

    The coverups and excuse making should end.

    * Already resigned.

  201. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @243 Gene,

    I totally agree with you 1000 percent.

    The LP has been, is, and will always be a joke for not being sympathetic to the plight of victims who have been victimized by predators like MB. While its old platform, just before its gutting in 2006, vehemently excoriated and criticized the judicial system that defended the rights of the accused, and I’m partly-quoting/partly-paraphrasing here, “having little to no concern for the victims and their families,” the Party has been advocating that nonsense for years in practice….DESPITE what its platform has said.

    It’s one reason I’m of the Libertarian Left and not of the Conservatoid “Libertarian Right” that includes Spindero and Blowhen.

    Hey, why have enemies when you have the now-pro-pedophile LPCA as a friend?

  202. Alan Pyeatt

    Zander and Ted have made the case for confidentiality, and since I have not resigned my position on the Exec Comm, my ability to comment on this case directly id very limited. However, I would like to point out that in general, neither the ExComm nor the JC has the authority to put anybody in jail, or impose criminal penalties of any kind. Under our present system of jurisprudence, that is the responsibility of law enforcement and the judicial system, not of any branch of the Libertarian Party at any level.

    Also generally speaking, voluntary associations are two-way streets. Since there is no public funding involved, I know of no legal statute or law that requires the Libertarian Party of California to associate with anyone with whom it chooses not to associate. Of course, any decision to terminate association with anyone should conform to the group’s governing rules, and those individuals involved in the decision can (and should) be held accountable to the members of the group no matter which course of action they choose.

    Now zoom out and take a look at the big picture: The Libertarian Party in California is standing at a crossroads. As Chairman Kevin Takenaga continually points out, in the current political climate, we have an opportunity to move forward and become the political force for freedom that we all (correction, MOST of us) have been working hard to become. Or we can become a nice little social club, endlessly debating trivia but irrelevant in this country’s headlong flight into fascism.

    I hope I can get a consensus on the ExComm to issue some kind of statement, in light of the fact that isolated factoids, half-truths and sheer misunderstandings are being discussed in public forums. Such a statement, of course, will conform to Robert’s Rules of Order and common-sense standards of decorum.

    In the meantime, I hope that everyone will take a look at where we stand in the tide of history, what personal traits, attitudes, and good judgment we expect of our leadership, and how (for that matter, WHETHER) we can convince the American public to support us in our fight to preserve our remaining freedoms, and recover those we have lost over the past several years.

    I hope everyone will take a look at LP Pragmatist’s post @ 171 again, and ask themselves whether their actions are contributing to the fight against tyranny, or the descent into it. that really is the bottom line.

  203. Bruce Cohen

    I applaud Mister Pyatt’s thoughtful statement.

    And I am surprised to hear he has not resigned.
    Many people are saying he has done so as fact, and I have repeated this.

    I am pleased to stand corrected, Mister Pyatt has not resigned.

  204. Brian Holtz

    LP Pragmatist, if you want to know about the winners in the LPCA, then spend more time reading http://Calfreedom.Net/, and less time generating traffic on IPR threads like this.

    Mr. Pyeatt, if you agree with Pragmatist, then why doen’t you work with your remaining fellow ExCom members to get more of CalFreedom’s positive stories about the LPCA posted on the LPCA web site? The most recent news on the LPCA site about Libertarians moving public policy in a libertarian direction is from 2006 — almost four years ago! CalFreedom has half a dozen such stories from the last six months alone, including a landmark victory that is not mentioned anywhere on the LPCA site:

    http://www.calfreedom.net/2009/10/san-diego-libertarians-defeat-citys.html

    This ExCom needs to spend less time purging members, and more time moving public policy in a libertarian direction.

    Mr. Trosper, please don’t presume I don’t defend one person’s rights just because I defend another’s. On the contrary, I was very vocal — but ultimately unsuccessful — in imploring Dr. Ruwart to explain how children would be protected from predators in Ruwarchistan: http://libertarianintelligence.com/search/label/Ruwart

    Tom, I of course meant any victimful Megan’s Law registrant. I’ve updated my comment above with “[victimful]”.

  205. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @250 Tom,

    You know perfectly damn well, and I remember this from my old LP activism in those days, that the LP doesn’t give a flying hoot about adhering to bylaws and procedures, at least not on a consistent level. The Party has always violated its own bylaws on a consistent basis.

    In the case of the LPCA Judicial Committee (even on the national level), it has always been a useless committee, not even doing much for the benefit of the Party on the grand scheme of things. Not that I can personally vouch for the LPCA Jud Comm (because I don’t live in California and have never been a member of that affiliate), but I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

    How do you know Jud Comm’s reasoning is not faulty? How do you know that they are not being personally biased on that? Not that I really care what happens to the LPCA and/or the entire Party (as I find this controversy humorous), but are you telling me that Jud Comm members have NEVER, to the best of your knowledge, allowed their personal biases to creep into their findings?

    I find that truly difficult to swallow. Not only that, that argument you’re presenting doesn’t really fly, AFAIC.

    Do you know for a fact that the Exec Comm didn’t supply the Jud Comm with the evidence in question? On what basis have you made that determination? Have you looked at the court files yourself? I know I haven’t, but I’ve been told some really horrible stuff happened to these kids.

    This is one of the reasons why politics, even in the LP, is hopeless. Factions will continue to fight, and there’s no hope in rescuing or “saving” the Party.

  206. Bruce Cohen

    I too, am painfully aware of times when Megan’s Law registrants are unfairly labeled and persecuted.

    Some time ago, I hired a staff member who ended up working for me for many years, who did have a sex crime conviction and is listed on Megan’s List.

    I felt, after discussing the situation with him and reading the court file that he was not only not a threat to myself or others, but the whole conviction was a farce and a non-issue.

    I do not summarily believe in every label our courts put on people.

  207. Thomas L. Knapp

    Todd @256,

    You write:

    “Do you know for a fact that the Exec Comm didn’t supply the Jud Comm with the evidence in question? On what basis have you made that determination? Have you looked at the court files yourself? ”

    No, I do not know for a fact that the Executive Committee didn’t supply the Judicial Committee with the evidence in question.

    For one, thing, since I don’t know what the CHARGE was (and neither do you), I can’t possibly know what the evidence for it would consist of.

    You refer to “court files” — and I have in fact carefully read the M!tt@w B*rnes file — but since I don’t know what the charge was I’m not going to assume that the charge involved that file, and since we have no account of the Judicial Committee hearing, I’m not going to assume that if the charge DID involve that file, that the file was in fact introduced as evidence.

    What I’ve said is simple: That given the 5-0 result, it seems reasonable to assume that there was some serious defect in the case rather than merely a unanimous set of biases. Biases tend to vary from person to person.

    @253, you write:

    “The LP has been, is, and will always be a joke for not being sympathetic to the plight of victims who have been victimized by predators like MB.”

    Apparently that’s one thing it has in common with the BTP’s national commitee circa 2008.

  208. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @258 Blowharder:

    Why do you care about the fact that I don’t care? You keep making more of a fuss about it than I have been. And you’ve been doing that for days on end.

    I just make a few comments on the matter, and you have the cajones to ask me why I “make a fuss about it”?

    You must have a large pair of them. I wonder if they’re infected with every single of STD that you contracted for every chick you slept with.

  209. Brian Holtz

    Barnett @246: As for Hinkle’s involvement with the “Starr Chamber,” that’s public knowledge within the LPCA circles. I have it on good authority that Hinkle was involved in that mess.

    I’m a pretty well-connected LPCA insider, and I have no idea what “involvement” you think Hinkle has had in any of the things for which people like to complain about Starr.

  210. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @261 Tom,

    “No, I do not know for a fact that the Executive Committee didn’t supply the Judicial Committee with the evidence in question.”

    Then why are you siding with the Jud Comm if you “do not know for a fact” that the Exec Comm failed to furnish the Jud Comm with that evidence in question? You’re taking a position without — and I mean, without – the facts of the case as well. True, I am too, and I’m guilty of it; in fact, I should be on the fence in reference to that standpoint, but the Exec Comm clearly found a reason to suspend MB.

    Why else would they suspend him if the Committee didn’t have legitimate grounds to do such a thing? Are we talking about a political axe to grind here?

    Obviously, that’s been made unclear as well….assuming that’s possibly the case.

    “For one, thing, since I don’t know what the CHARGE was (and neither do you), I can’t possibly know what the evidence for it would consist of.”

    I don’t know what the evidence consists of as well, and I never CLAIMED to know what the evidence says. I do know that there is a court file (correction on the previous use of the word “files”) stating specific charges against him, and a number of California Libertarians are privy to the details of that information. What that information entails exactly, I don’t know. But I do know that incriminating evidence against MB exists, and he has been convicted of and served time for three of the six charge rape charges of which he stood accused.

    If you don’t possibly know what the evidence in relation to the charges consist of, then why are you defending the decision of the Jud Comm due to the lack of information? You should be on the fence, not taking sides on this matter.

    “You refer to ‘court files’ — and I have in fact carefully read the M!tt@w B*rnes file — but since I don’t know what the charge was I’m not going to assume that the charge involved that file, and since we have no account of the Judicial Committee hearing, I’m not going to assume that if the charge DID involve that file, that the file was in fact introduced as evidence.”

    Ok, since you admit you read the file (assuming it is available to the public), what did the file say? Charges had to have been specified in the file. What charge had been made against Barnes?

    If we have no account of the Jud Comm hearing, then how can you properly conclude that their reasoning is valid and just in the absence of any pertinent evidence against Barnes? How do you know that the file was not introduced as evidence? Are you implying that the Exec Comm just had an axe to grind and made up a bogus charge against Barnes in an effort to purge him from the Committee? Do you have any proof of that? Does the Jud Comm have any proof of that?

    More and more questions are popping up as this entire circus continues.

    “What I’ve said is simple: That given the 5-0 result, it seems reasonable to assume that there was some serious defect in the case rather than merely a unanimous set of biases. Biases tend to vary from person to person.”

    Even if that’s true, there is nothing to substantiate and vouch for the theory that you just posited. Until the facts bear themselves entirely and all we can do is theorize and assume a lot of things that happened between now and the Jud Comm’s hearing, it’s irrational to make these kinds of judgments. I will remain on the fence on this matter until the facts present themselves.

    “Apparently that’s one thing it has in common with the BTP’s national commitee circa 2008.”

    That’s completely unfair, and you know it, Tom.

    For those of you who want to know what happened in the BTP, what happened at that time was that a woman who went by the name of Dagny Kira Smith went public, contacted me personally on Facebook about the charge, and I sent her claim to then-Chair Jim Davidson. He told me to contact John Wayne Smith, which is what I did.

    I asked Smith if the molestation charge was true, and he emphatically denied it. Taking his word for it and instead of siding against him with her and thinking that he was lying, I publicly told Smith that she was lying. I stood by my decision at the time.

    I came off as rude to her, and Tom called me out on it. Perhaps I could have handled it differently, and I wasn’t looking to have an ego over it. My reasons for doing so are at the BTP website @ http://www.bostontea.us.

    But that’s in the past. Why did you attempt to re-hash it?

  211. Look at the shiney monkey

    While our attention has been diverted, has anyone noticed that the California ExCom is quietly getting filled with appointees with only days before those seats would have been voted on by the membership?

  212. Bruce Cohen

    ELVIS COSTELLO – Blame It On Cain

    Once upon a time, I had a little money.
    Government burglars took it long
    before I could mail it to you.
    Still, you are the only one.
    Now I can’t let it slip away.
    So if the man with the ticker tape,
    he tries to take it,
    well this is what I’m gonna say.

    [Chorus:]
    Blame it on Cain.
    Don’t blame it on me.
    Oh, oh, it’s nobody’s fault,
    but we need somebody to burn.

    Well if I was a saint with
    a silver cup
    and the money got low
    we could always heat it up
    or trade it in.
    But then the radio that heaven will be wired to your purse.
    And then you can run down the wave band,
    coast to coast, hand in hand.
    Bad to worse, curse for curse,
    don’t be dissatisfied.
    So you’re not satisfied.

    [Chorus]

    I think I’ve lived a little too long
    on the outskirts of town
    I think I’m going insane
    from talking to myself for so long.
    Oh but I’ve never been accused.
    When they step on your face,
    you wear that good look grin.
    I gotta break out one weekend
    if I do somebody in.
    But every single time
    I feel a little stronger,
    they tell me it’s a crime.
    Well how much longer?

    [Chorus]

  213. VTV

    Wow…

    I am so glad I left all this behind me. I forgot just how utterly juvenile some of the elements in the LP could get. At least the LP in Michigan was awesome.

    I am surprised anyone is trying to blame Barr on anyone. It’s obvious from being someone who was there at the convention that the LP nomination just has to do with who’s delegates have travel expenses. I heard Barr’s people got together and bussed in. By the time of the convention most of the delegates already knew who they were voting for.

  214. Thomas L. Knapp

    Todd,

    I have not “defended” the Judicial Committee’s ruling.

    I’ve simply pointed out that the Judicial Committee’s statement offers reason to consider that perhaps there might be some basis for that ruling other than a desire to defend the actions of M!tt#w B@rn^s.

    The Judicial Committee says it overturned the suspension because the Executive Committee didn’t prove its case.

    We don’t know what the executive committee’s case WAS, nor do we know what evidence for that case the executive committee presented.

    All we know is that the Judicial Committee unanimously found that case and that evidence unpersuasive.

    It is a gi-fucking-normous leap from what we KNOW to the conclusion that all five members of the LPCA’s Judicial Committee are secretly NAMBLA activists who found against the suspension because they think pedophilia is hunky-dory.

  215. Thomas L. Knapp

    VTV,

    You write:

    “I heard Barr’s people got together and bussed in.”

    You heard wrong.

    That was a rumor, but the alleged buses never showed up.

    There was no last-minute flood of delegates filling empty seats in pro-Barr delegations.

    I was one of a number of people from other campaigns watching for such developments and preparing for a challenge to any attempts at mass delegation-packing. Those attempts never came.

  216. Average American

    Will this thread finally break the record of the legendary Angela Keaton thread last year, which had 700 messages?

    In order for that to happen, the Greens and Constitution Party people should join this thread and start their own inteal rnbickering. We also need for Robert Milnes, Don Lake, Catholic Trotskyist and The Last Conservative to crawl out from under their rocks and start posting their amazingly thoughtful comments here.

    Is it possible that “91%” and his other pseudonyms are actually the same person as Catholic Trotskyist or The Last Conservative? I doubt it, but is it possible?

  217. LibertarianGirl

    TK__A certain young lady called “Girl”
    Was accustomed base charges to hurl
    No evidence needed
    For a rumor well-seeded
    Certain words put her mind in a whirl

    me_ very clever…

    there once was a man named TK
    who hurled rumors at the Root everyday
    no evidence needed
    for a rumor well seeded
    he just says anything that he may

  218. Thomas L. Knapp

    LibertarianGirl,

    Nice try.

    Now — name a single “rumor” I’ve ever “hurled” at Root.

    You can’t, because I don’t hurl rumors, I make factual claims — and then I prove them.

  219. LibertarianGirl

    So , I need to apologize to Brian Holtz, I mistakenly thought he was sinner and saint on another thread . I thought this because he was at least 2 other pseudonyms on that thread that we’re defending Barnes and because when I suggested that S&S was Barnes himself , one of B’s pseudo’s said he knew FOR SURE it wasnt . I jumped to a conclusion and it was wrong , hasnt been my first , wont be my last but Im big enuf to admit when Im wrong so …
    I apologize Brian , while it appears we strongly disagree on this matter , I do respect you and on further analysis of that comment I can see it totally wasnt your style. sorry.

  220. David F. Nolan

    For what it’s worth, I’ve never known Tom Knapp to hurl unsubstantiated rumors about anyone. I don’t always agree with him, but Tom is a good writer and the closest thing to a legitimate investigative journalist we’ve got around here.

  221. LibertarianGirl

    I could go way way back and dig up the threads but i friggin hit a Mercedes Benz on the freeway yesterday and Im tired , achy and dont feel like it, but Im sure Tom will remember the banter he and I did , it was long ago and there was a lot of it.

    at the time I thought I won those arguments and I still do . But out of respect to WAR I will not mention his name even one more time on this thread.

  222. David F. Nolan

    L-girl and a fellow named Tom
    Exchanged words while defusing a bomb
    They got quite engaged
    While the rest were enraged
    And everything then went ka-boom!

    (OK, so “bomb” and “ka-boom” don’t quite rhyme. Sue me.)

  223. Brian Holtz

    Knapp is indeed generally very good on substantiation, but there is one occasion that still sticks in my craw. He has been known to say without any context that the 2008 LP nominee “publicly advocated government distribution of child porn on demand”.

    The actual fact of the matter is that Bob Barr merely called for Georgia state law to be followed in the case of a 17-year-old male convicted of child molestation for receiving video-recorded consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. Here was Barr’s so-called “advocacy”:

    The [federal Justice] department’s statement noted — correctly — that federal laws dealing with child pornography make the distribution thereof a crime. The federal government’s statement also correctly recognized, albeit implicitly, that Georgia law requires that “public records” (a term very broadly defined under state law) generally must be made available to the public.

    Insofar as both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions provide for trials in criminal cases to be open to the public, clearly it makes sense for the evidence in such cases to be similarly open to inspection by the public. Only if there is evidence that a court explicitly orders be kept under seal, such as might otherwise endanger life or an ongoing investigation, is it proper for a public official, such as a district attorney, to refuse to make records of a trial available publicly, following conclusion of the case.

    The Georgia Open Records Act is even more explicit. If the judge with jurisdiction over a case does not approve public inspection of the evidence, the person responsible for the maintenance of the evidence, including a district attorney, is then required by the law to make available a reproduction or copy.

    I don’t recall Tom ever admitting that his characterization was misleading. I now keep this example firmly in mind when I hear Tom make an inflammatory accusation against another Libertarian.

  224. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    I’m glad that sticks in your craw.

    The statement I made regarding Barr was strictly accurate — he advocated following the law, and the law required distribution of child pornography on demand by the state of Georgia.

    You may or may not have noticed, but usually when I pull that characterization out, it’s in retort to someone else’s observation that, while possibly strictly accurate, doesn’t reach the essential truth of the matter under discussion.

    Do I believe that Bob Barr likes the idea of government distribution of child pornography on demand? No, not any more than I believe that Mary Ruwart thinks that it’s okay to diddle kids. The attacks on her were just as silly — but sometimes not quite as strictly accurate — as my attack on Barr.

  225. Thomas L. Knapp

    There’s a person who goes by LG
    Though I’m told that her name starts with D
    And I don’t give a hoot
    If she stands up for Root
    Cause what happens there stays in LV.

  226. Ralph

    @284

    David, are you going to take any leadership beyond your occasional editorials in what many perceive as the growing if not soon fatal problems in the LP? Or is the good word to just muddle on as before ? A lot of people are wondering.

  227. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, for those of you not so discouraged by this that you are going to fade from doing real politics, I have posted at

    http://libertyforamerica.com/downloadabletrifolds.htm

    two trifolds thet are entirely downloadable and usable. They are presented as: trifolds with blank sides for local or state group information, MS-PUB files for people needing further editing, and full trifolds as examples of things that can be done.

    They match several major outreach events here in Massachusetts on ending the war on pot and on GLBT rights.

    Readers are welcome to them.

    These trifolds are an example of what our party should be doing at the national level, rather than perpetually bogging down in the sort of issues seen here.

  228. Brian Holtz

    Tom, on 2008-10-24, you made that allegation about Barr simply to make a ludicrously strained analogy with Ruwart: The mainstream media has given precisely zero attention to Bob Barr’s 2007 public advocacy of government distribution of child porn on demand. Why would anyone believe that they’d have been any more hyperbolic about Mary Ruwart’s 1998 non-advocacy of child porn?

    But in fact, Ruwart had reiterated in May 2008: Bans on child p0rn0graphy are like bans on drugs and prostitution. They don’t work. They only make a bad situation worse. We’ve driven the child p0rn0graphy market underground, where profits soar and criminals abound. […] We can limit abuse of children in the child p0rn0graphy trade by ending its prohibition. […] Courts are likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the p0rn0graphy producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.

    She thus stood by her statement in her book: Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life. When we outlaw child p0rn0graphy, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.

    Readers here can judge for themselves whether they can in the future trust Tom when he makes analogies between Libertarians he likes and Libertarians he doesn’t like.

  229. Sara

    I wonder if Bruce did have a thing with Todd? Considering everything that went on here. LOL.

  230. Todd Andrew Barnett

    There’s sadly a man named Brian
    Who has a penchant for lyin’
    He says bullshit for kicks
    Dangling carrots with sticks
    And then he comes back a-cryin’

    This isn’t my best limerick, but hey, it works! 😀

  231. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    I don’t consider the analogy “ludicrously strained” at all.

    Both were making sound arguments from particular principles.

    Barr’s argument was largely ignored even a year later, but taken correctly when it was noticed.

    Ruwart’s argument was dredged up a decade later and used to smear her as approving of child sex/child porn.

    The statement I made regarding Barr was strictly accurate. More accurate, indeed, than some of the statements made about Ruwart.

    As far as whom I “like” and “don’t like,” I happen to like both Bob Barr and Mary Ruwart.

  232. Brian Holtz

    Nice trifolds, George — good work.

    As long as we’re on a practical-politics interlude in the thread you asked to be created, I just set up my latest free Libertarian campaign site: http://www.rodriguezgoestowashington.com/. My queue for creating these is currently empty, so any LP candidate who wants one can have one on a first-come-first-served basis.

  233. Not-So-Average American

    Average American at 276, this person is a libertarian, and all libertarians are a bunch of commies. Fuck off.

  234. Gene Trosper

    Earlier today, I was made aware of an online discussion of Barnes at –of all places– a Craigslist political discussion forum. I have debated for hours whether to post the link here or not, but I have decided to go ahead and do it. The LPCA needs to know that Matthew Barnes’ continuing refusal to walk away and fade into the background is HARMING the party.

    Everyone can argue about technicalities all they wish (that seems to be the forte of Libertarians anyway), but the fact remains: Matthew Barnes is not an asset to the LPCA and is instead a millstone around the organization’s neck.

    Here is the link. It appears discussion started yesterday.
    http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/pol/

  235. William Shakespeare

    Catholic Trotskyist and Robert Milnes started a party with Lindsey Lohen
    they ran a presidential ticket of Todd Barnett and Bruce Cohen
    Ralph Nader was enraged
    Alan Keyes tore off a page
    And now they’re all fighting for Chuck Baldwin.

  236. Brian Holtz

    Tom, you have a reputation/image as a hard-nosed realist when it comes to practical politics. If you want to claim that the statements quoted above from Barr and Ruwart were roughly equivalent in terms of the risk of controversy/blowback to the LP over child pornography, well, then just digging yourself deeper into the lack-of-credibility hole.

    For example, you try now to dispute my characterization about your differential opinion of Barr and Ruwart, saying blandly that you like them both. Readers thus are conveniently not told that you call one of them “a dixiecrat rather than a libertarian”, and refused to vote for him.

    Again, readers can decide for themselves whether Tom feels free to mislead readers when it suits him.

  237. Another Cowardly Anonymous Poster

    #268 Please stop making stuff up. The CaExCom is not quietly filling seats.

    Stone Soup is Matthew Barnes.

  238. Bruce Cohen

    Sara@293 That’s really revolting.

    You Virginia Libertarians have nothing better to say? Ewwwww..

    Knight Bruce of the Jewboys is feeling nauseous.

  239. Bruce Cohen

    Holy cow the Craig’s List discussion is wild, folks. People are saying some amazing things, for example:
    http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/pol/1579516715.html
    “San Bernardino Libertarian Party is a cult really. I went to one of their meetings and they are way way out there. Even the California state party hates them. Children and adults should all stay away from them.”

    I can’t make this stuff up.
    My imagination isn’t good enough.

    I’ve been saying for a long time that Mister B*rn*s was bad news.

    I don’t have an enemies list like he and King Naga do, but I do have a big, loud mouth.

  240. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for posting the Craigslist link, Gene. As I said earlier, I do believe most people get what we were trying to do, although obviously it was not executed properly. If Matthew Barnes remains visibly active in the Libertarian party, it will harm us. Argue all you want, but that’s not solving things. The fact that I posted a long piece last night, and my husband posted this morning and hardly anyone noticed proves that nobody except Gene and LG really cares about what really happened. We were both on the Ca Ex Com and we both knew what went on, but yet you’re too busy arguing to take notice.

    This entire thread is unbelievable.

  241. Don Lake .......... Jim Lesczynski, 2008

    He categorically repudiates the content of the newsletters. But at best, the scandal shows stupendously poor judgment on Dr. Paul’s part.

    How do you let a newsletter go out in your name–a politician’s most valuable asset–without being aware of the content?

    As a long-time libertarian activist, I entirely understand that our movement has more than its fair share of nut jobs. The “mainstream” political movements and parties have their nutters too [almost certainly more than we do in absolute terms] but our numbers are so small to begin with that ours are more vocal and visible.

    When you’re working with a really tiny talent pool, you sometimes can’t be too choosy about your allies. But that’s all the more reason to exercise due diligence when it’s your name that’s on the line.

  242. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Pyeatt, I replied to both your posting and your husband’s. Neither of you have answered me. To say that “nobody except Gene and LG really cares about what really happened” is simply unfair.

    I followed a link from the uninteresting CraigsList discussion to the far more interesting San Bernardino County Sun discussion. There I read that on Dec. 28 a Bruce Cohen wrote: “Matt raped multiple young boys. Three of them, serially. When he was their Scoutmaster. He raped his younger relatives, too.”

    California law defines rape as involving “sexual intercourse”. There is no such allegation anywhere in MB’s court file.

    If Cohen really posted that, then he should be suspended from the LPCA until he either substantiates it or apologizes for it.

  243. LibertarianGirl

    Jill , if you ever decide to move to NV , the LPNevada would be honored to have you run and most certainly win a seat on our excom .

    you hold your head high , you did what was right.

  244. LibertarianGirl

    BH_Ms. Pyeatt, I replied to both your posting and your husband’s. Neither of you have answered me. To say that “nobody except Gene and LG really cares about what really happened” is simply unfair.

    me_ i think it’s a fair assessment youve bee working overtime defending Matt to the point of , on another thread minimizing his actions to the point of ridiculousness .

    you said under the pseudonym Phrenologist:

    “If you as a 19-year-old troubled alcoholic fondled a young teenager, then by definition you as a 41-year-old with a subsequently clean record are nevertheless a permanent threat to all children and must be jailed for life for the good of society.”

    me_ almost every word of that statement is a gross minimization. “troubled alcoholic” — the excuse minimization ; “fondled a teenager” — another mischaracterization , im gonna get gross but he jacked off little boys , not fondled , and since when are 11 yr olds teenagers Brian??

  245. Brian Holtz

    I already corrected the part about substance abuse. “Fondled” is the word from his court file; your gross words aren’t in there. In subsequent characterizations I just gave the age ranges: 11 to 13 years old. As I told you four days ago:

    LG, the facts of the case remain as follows. Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was their 19-year-old scout leader. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he aptly called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when his court file first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him. You can shout all you want, but the facts remain what they are. No less, and no more.

    Meanwhile, at the same time and place as Cohen above, you wrote: “there is a huge difference between legalizing prostitution and thinking its ok for an adult to rape a 12 yr old”.

    So please don’t lecture me about mischaracterizing MB’s crimes, Debra.

  246. Don Lake .......... Lib Grrl and other critics

    “His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him. You can shout all you want, but the facts remain what they are. No less, and no more.”

    Lot’s more, don’t worry ’bout the shouting, but what will the public whisper ???????

    Ron Paul and the 1988 newsletter, the road to ruin ………..

  247. LibertarianGirl

    ok , I accept that , technically rape means penetration , and I never meant to imply he penetrated those boys .
    to me i use it generally to mean a gross offense against another like:

    the gov rapes us with taxes

    I felt raped when i found out my home got robbed

    etc

  248. LibertarianGirl

    however , you have been working overtime defending him Brian . and Id just like to point out that I personally dont believe that all the cases he was caught and charged with are the only offenses he committed , do you?

  249. Alan Pyeatt

    Brian @ 314 – to reply to your post @ 257, we certainly DO need to improve our communication. Unfortunately, we are having some problems with CalFreedom due to our budget, so we will be going to an electronic format in the near future (I expected that we would already be there). Not only the LP, but the libertarian movement in general needs more/better media outlets. I have done some minor work in this area, and hope to help better fill this void in the future.

    BTW, Jill is off-line at the moment and probably won’t be back until later this evening.

    IMHO, it is not accurate to refer to this incident as a “purge.” Speaking only for myself, my goal has been to protect the party’s brand name, and our ability to fulfill our mission. Therefore, I think Gene’s post @ 301 is helpful in that it refocuses our attention on the implications of certain baggage that some individuals regrettably bring with them. We need to step outside the dynamics of our own organization, and look at how we are perceived by the American electorate.

    While I don’t agree with everything Jill says or thinks, my take on this whole issue is that libertarians have a tendency to get so bogged down in details and sparring with individuals that we are missing the big picture. So even if you want to quibble with details of her post @ 311, its spirit is entirely accurate. We need to focus on solutions and saving our democratic republic from real dangers, instead of quibbling among ourselves.

    Also, if we don’t reply to you, please don’t read too much into it. We have lives beyond the internet. Same for you Bruce; although I still have my suspicions or concerns as expressed on the Jim Duensing thread, I’m not trying to be rude by not replying, I’m just trying to conduct my life in the analog realm. BTW, I do appreciate your comments @ 256. Even though I am The Angry Ostrich. : )

  250. LibertarianGirl

    he stole their innocence Brian and that is a crime with permanent consequences , you say he has paid his debt but all I can ponder is how is actions fucked up those boys lives after the fact . I wonder if any of them became substance abusers because of it , I wonder if any of them became offenders to reclaim their powerlessness , I just wonder if they’re ok today.

  251. Brian Holtz

    When his record first circulated, I worked overtime to defend the LPCA from having someone with his record as a party officer. Now I’m working overtime to defend the LPCA from a precedent of purges based on flimsy charges, and to defend LPCA members from inaccurate or unsubstantiated allegations.

    If you don’t like to see me working overtime on that, then you and your allies should stop putting out so much stuff that cries out for correcting or substantiating.

    If you guys were doing it right, I wouldn’t have a thing to do here. Not one thing to do.

    Think about that, Debra.

  252. Brian Holtz

    Debra, your @323 is an argument that the ExCom (and you!) failed morally by not advocating immediate expulsion as soon as you folks learned of his criminal record.

    You need to make up your mind on that question once and for all, and quit waffling on it.

  253. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Pyeatt, being sincere and well-intentioned is not a guarantee that one is being fair, and isn’t making any serious mistakes.

    The answer here is very simple. ExCom should notify Barnes in writing that anyone with his record is subject to suspension whenever he is holding any LPCA office at any level.

    I would have no problem with that, and I bet JudCom wouldn’t either.

  254. Bruce Cohen

    Brian has decided to revive a near dormat discussion thread about the same matter.

    So, in the spirit of openness and transparency of the Libertarian tradition, I want to share said link with everyone:
    http://www.topix.net/forum/source/san-bernardino-county-sun/TVBUHKGFNPI9PNS5V

    Also, my correction about the colluquial use of the word ‘rape’ is addressed there in comment #78

    Originally four newspapers carried the story at least in their online editions, and they all sent the discussion to that ‘topix’ spot.

    So great, let’s get that one started again.

    How many internet discussion forums can we get going at once about this?

  255. Bruce Cohen

    Harkening back to Gene Trosper’s research about the online discussion at Craig’s List, interestingly enough, if one goes to Craig’s List Politics, and searches under [Libertarian] the words “child molester” pop up five times, even in Los Angeles and not just Inland Empire.

  256. Brian Holtz

    Cohen didn’t apologize, but I guess that would be asking too much from someone of his character.

    However, he did (mostly) correct his false accusation of “rape” — even while repeating yet again his malicious and unsubstantiated insinuation that MB has violated the law against his “working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”.

    Sigh.

  257. Bruce Cohen

    I’m not so sure how malicious or unsubstantiated that is, but it is a concern of mine, certainly. In this recent post on topix, I wasn’t ‘insinuating’ anything about the law, I was discussing the matter of him being around unnotified children and parents.

    That’s a concern for me, and I bet they would say it is a concern for them.

    No insinuations.

  258. Brian Holtz

    Bruce, you wrote: “I wonder what his Parole Officer would say of him being in a position of influence around minors, especially in his role as an elected official of the Libertarian Party of California.”

    Not only did you insinuate that he was violating the statutory restriction on him, but you also insinuated that the LPCA has placed him in a role that would violate that restriction.

    That’s despicable, Bruce. Why isn’t the truth enough?

  259. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Brian,

    You write:

    “you try now to dispute my characterization about your differential opinion of Barr and Ruwart, saying blandly that you like them both. Readers thus are conveniently not told that you call one of them ‘a dixiecrat rather than a libertarian.’ and refused to vote for him.”

    Nice try at making me responsible for your words.

    Here’s what you wrote:

    “Readers here can judge for themselves whether they can in the future trust Tom when he makes analogies between Libertarians he likes and Libertarians he doesn’t like.”

    Barr and Ruwart are both Libertarians (capital “L,” just like you used, denoting party membership rather than philosophical orientation). That’s a fact which I assume we can agree on.

    I like them both. That’s a factual claim which I’m qualified to make and which you’re not qualified to dispute unless you have access to some kind of probe implanted in my brain.

    I’m quite capable of liking Libertarians with whom I have significant ideological disagreements — even disagreements that I might believe invalidate their claims to being libertarians (small-l, signifying ideological orientation, not partisan affiliation).

    You and I have significant ideological disagreements. I like you.

    Bruce Cohen and I have significant ideological disagreements. I like Bruce.

    I am the friggin’ anti-Dondero ideologically, but I’ve broken bread with him before and I expect that I’ll do so again some time.

    The claim I made about Barr was strictly accurate and I didn’t make it because I “don’t like” him. I made it because I had a point to make, because it made that point, and because it was not only strictly accurate but irrefutably provable.

  260. LibertarianGirl

    BH_When his record first circulated, I worked overtime to defend the LPCA from having someone with his record as a party officer. Now I’m working overtime to defend the LPCA from a precedent of purges based on flimsy charges, and to defend LPCA members from inaccurate or unsubstantiated allegations.

    me_ really is that all your doing just defending the LPCA from bad precedent from purges??

    so you’re saying you havent defended Matts actions or tried to excuse them at all??

    but what about when you said this::
    If you as a 19-year-old troubled alcoholic fondled a young teenager, then by definition you as a 41-year-old with a subsequently clean record are nevertheless a permanent threat to all children and must be jailed for life for the good of society. If you ever shoplifted, you’re a lifelong klepto. If you ever played with fire, you’re a lifelong pyro. If you ever went streaking, you’re a lifelong exhibitionist. If you ever looked in a neighbor’s window, you’re a lifelong voyeur. None of these conditions can be reformed or controlled.

    me_ are you saying you were not minmizing his actions ?? are you saying you werent comparing his actions to those of a shoplifter??

    the above post is in fact entirely defending Matt and had nothing to do with protecting precedent , so please , quit talking out both sides of your neck.

    BH_Brian Holtz // Jan 31, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Debra, your @323 is an argument that the ExCom (and you!) failed morally by not advocating immediate expulsion as soon as you folks learned of his criminal record.

    You need to make up your mind on that question once and for all, and quit waffling on it.

    me_ um when I spoke about it at all , I was told by you and many others to mind my own business , my calling for anything where I carry no weight is moot.

    BH_If you don’t like to see me working overtime on that, then you and your allies should stop putting out so much stuff that cries out for correcting or substantiating.

    me _I dont have any allies in the CALP , and Ive said not 1 rumor , what I have said is that I believe the claims of intimidation and lies lodged by others . I mean lets face it – their word against a predators is really a no brainer.

  261. Brian Holtz

    Tom, nowhere in this thread have I claimed that the statements I’ve cited from you aren’t “strictly accurate”. What I’ve instead said is that the statements in question misled your readers, and invited them to believe things that differ significantly from what is actually the case. Namely:

    1) That Bob Barr advocates as a general policy that on-demand distribution of child pornography should be a service of government.

    2) That the statements quoted above from Barr and Ruwart were roughly equivalent in terms of the risk of controversy/blowback to the LP over child pornography.

    3) That you have no differential motivation or agenda in how you characterize the respective views of Barr and Ruwart.

  262. LibertarianGirl

    BH_What I’ve instead said is that the statements in question misled your readers, and invited them to believe things that differ significantly from what is actually the case.

    me_ Im agreeing with B on this one , for instance you brought up that Wayne had 22 complaints withe BBB misleading people to believe he had a bad business customer satidfaction . you never once mentioned he had all of those complained handled to 100% satisfaction with dispute resolution and in fact had a rating of A with the BBB. your statement wasnt exactly a lie but it was misleading propaganda-ish

  263. Gene Trosper

    @334 “Not only did you insinuate that he was violating the statutory restriction on him, but you also insinuated that the LPCA has placed him in a role that would violate that restriction.”

    To be fair, the LPCA didn’t put him in a position. However, I would venture to say the San Bernardino folk did so willingly after they knew of his molestation past.

  264. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    LG,

    You write:

    “I’m agreeing with B on this one , for instance you brought up that Wayne had 22 complaints withe BBB misleading people to believe he had a bad business customer satidfaction . you never once mentioned he had all of those complained handled to 100% satisfaction with dispute resolution”

    I never once mentioned that because it is a patently false that I would be embarrassed to be caught making and that you should be embarrassed to make yourself.

    At the time I covered Wayne’s BBB record, he had the highest customer complaint rate and the lowest satisfactory resolution rate of any business I compared him to, including every business that he asserted his record would look better than.

    Your problem, LG, is that you’re easy to bullshit. I’m not.

  265. Brian Holtz

    Debra, I have absolutely “defended” Barnes’s actions — for example, from your inaccurate characterization of “rape”. I have also repeatedly condemned Barnes’s actions as “heinous”, etc.

    Correcting false statements about action X does not mean that I defend the morality of action X.

    That one subsequently-corrected paragraph that you just can’t stop repeating was a hypothetical from me, rebutting the utterly unlibertarian idea from you and others that certain people can be considered effectively guilty of future crimes because of the nature of their past crimes. That sentiment is disgusting, and I will always oppose it. You tell me how many years you think MB should have got for his past crimes, and I probably won’t bother arguing for a lower number. But if you argue that he should be punished for future crimes you presume he will probably commit, then I will argue against that tyrannical idea to my last breath. So tell us now: do you reject prior restraint and all its works and empty promises?

    And yes, arguing against prior restraint has everything to do with protecting the LPCA — against the sick and evil precedent that members can be sanctioned for the mob’s predictions of the accused’s future crimes. My comment was aimed directly at you, after you were asked “Do you have evidence that Mr. Barnes is likely to commit further violent acts?” Your response was to shout: “THERE IS NO REFORMING BEING A PEDOPHILE”. If you think MB should be locked away for life, then have the courage to say so.

    I never told you that you can have no opinion on MB. I just pleaded with you not to do things that would help lead to his criminal record being publicly associated with the LPCA. Admit it: you’ve earlier said you didn’t think he should be suspended. So I don’t want to hear from you that somebody with his criminal record deserves to be suspended, unless you admit that your standards are changing on this case from day to day.

    You say: “I’ve said not 1 rumor , what I have said is that I believe the claims of intimidation and lies lodged by others.” Debra, saying “I believe [rumor X]” counts as spreading rumor X. That could not be any more obvious.

    I’d have to know more details about the crimes he confessed to in order to guess whether he committed more crimes than those. However, I do know that 1) he should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and 2) simply doubling or tripling the exact crimes he committed wouldn’t appreciably change my opinions about this case.

    Mr. Trosper, are you suggesting that the LPSBD has its Vice Chair “working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”? I’ve never heard of any LP affiliate anywhere that offers babysitting by its Vice Chair, and I seriously doubt that the LPSBD is going to offer such a service while MB holds that office.

    343 comments. What is there left to say on this case that hasn’t already been said?

    Well, there’s always room on IPR for more inaccurate or unsubstantiated allegations against one’s fellow Libertarians. Bring ’em on. I’ve got chunks of ’em in my stool. 🙂

  266. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Brian,

    “Liking” versus “not liking” two people is VERY different from having a “differential motivation or agenda” involving two people.

    If you’re suggesting that I look for ways to talk up candidates I support, and look for weaknesses to exploit versus candidates I oppose, you’re fucking-A right I do. That’s called “politics.”

  267. paulie

    Is it possible that “91%” and his other pseudonyms are actually the same person as Catholic Trotskyist or The Last Conservative? I doubt it, but is it possible?

    no. posted w/ authorization from “91%”

  268. Romor Monger

    I allege that Brian Holtz and Matthew Barnes are a pod people from Venus.

    I also allege that Bruce Cohen and LG, in fighting the Venusian pod infiltration, do not have the interests of Earth at heart. They’re actually Martian Fifth Columnists who plan to add Earth to their Red Empire, once the Venusian threat is defeated.

    I know this for a fact. I am right now holding in my hand a 5000 page document of proof, which I can’t show to anyone, because of confidentiality laws. But this document does exist, and anyone who denies it is either a Running Dog Martian or a Venusian Dupe.

  269. Brian Holtz

    Tom, what I wrote was: “Readers here can judge for themselves whether they can in the future trust Tom when he makes analogies between Libertarians he likes and Libertarians he doesn’t like.”

    Readers of course know that I’m not simply complaining that you’re an advocate.

    Just like they know that by “likes” I meant “supports” rather than “is congenial toward”.

    Readers of course know that what I’m suggesting is that you too often try to be as misleading as possible within the constraints of “strict accuracy”.

    And thank you for not denying that your “strictly accurate” statements didn’t conveniently tend to guide readers toward the three inaccurate conclusions I enumerated above.

  270. David F. Nolan

    @348 – I have an order of preference among the candidates, but I have not endorsed anyone, and will not until after the LNC Meeting in Austin. I plan to meet with each of them, and may “come out” after Austin. Mark is a personal friend, but I think this situation with B**** may have made him unelectable. Root-rot will use it to slime him every way he can.

  271. paulie

    David F. Nolan // Feb 1, 2010 at 1:44 am

    @337 – LNC Member At Large. Not aligned with any candidate for Chair … so far.

    Should we post a general announcement, or hold off until you have a formal announcement written up?

  272. Chuck Moulton

    I don’t currently live in California and I don’t have any inside knowledge of this situation going beyond what has been posted in this thread.

    I did live in California for a year though, serve on the LPCA’s Ex-Com, and befriend many of the people posting here. And I know enough about the LPCA’s bylaws and Robert’s Rules to give the judicial committee the benefit of the doubt (following procedure without condoning behavior).

    I just want to say that I appreciate the thoughtful logic of Brian Holtz and Tom Knapp. Keep up the good work, guys.

    I don’t mean to denigrate (by omission in my praise) the contributions of others who have chipped in with relevant comments and maintained decorum, but Brian and Tom are really the gold standard of constructively critical — while still respectful — discussion and this thread would have been much more readable if more had followed their examples.

  273. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “And thank you for not denying that your ‘strictly accurate’ statements didn’t conveniently tend to guide readers toward the three inaccurate conclusions I enumerated above.”

    I deny that all three of the conclusions you enumerate are inaccurate.

    Here are the conclusions that you claim I “invite” —

    “1) That Bob Barr advocates as a general policy that on-demand distribution of child pornography should be a service of government.”

    Anyone who bothered to read the evidence I presented for my ACCURATE claim could not plausibly reach such a conclusion.

    The reason I made the claim was demonstrative — it was more “strictly accurate” than most of the claims made regarding Ruwart on the same topic. I was inviting Ruwart’s critics to decide if they were willing to be as fuck-silly about Barr as they were willing to be about her. Most of them demurred, thus demonstrating their hypocrisy.

    “2) That the statements quoted above from Barr and Ruwart were roughly equivalent in terms of the risk of controversy/blowback to the LP over child pornography.”

    I wouldn’t say they were “roughly equivalent.” Ruwart has always been known as a radical libertarian, and radical libertarians have always been known as prone to questioning taboo.

    Barr, on the other hand, was a former congressman with a high profile. HIS advocacy of government distribution of child pornography on demand was MUCH more potentially controversial than was Ruwart’s.

    “3) That you have no differential motivation or agenda in how you characterize the respective views of Barr and Ruwart.”

    I’ve never invited anyone to believe that I have no differential motivations with respect to candidates. Why the hell would I attempt to conceal my stock in trade as a campaign operative? Make no mistake about it — I am the bastard child of Richard Jemmons and Libby Holden.

  274. Brian Holtz

    “Anyone who bothered to read the evidence I presented for my ACCURATE claim could not plausibly reach such a conclusion.”

    Duh — my entire point is that the evidence underlying your statement did not support the belief you were trying to create in people who did not bother to fact-check your statement.

    It’s beside the point that people were making inaccurate statements about Ruwart. You tossed your own credibility into the same hole when you did the same thing about Barr. You may think the ends somehow justified the misleading means, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t mislead.

    And you didn’t make this misleading claim in just this one context about Ruwart. You also used it in a completely different context, as part of an effort to — wait for it — demonstrate that Barr had a campaign strategy of appealing to racism.

    Come to think of it, this is sort of a signature Knapp polemical move: make an outrageously inflammatory and misleading statement, for which you have in your back pocket a little factoid that if necessary you will claim somehow makes your misleading statement “strictly accurate”. I’ve seen it often enough now that I read between your lines for the mental smirk that usually accompanies it, and usually don’t bother with the exercise of fact-checking it, because it never seems to pay off in me finding out to be true what you wanted me to believe.

    Coincidentally, M Carling likes to do a similar thing, but only in in-person social settings. He does it as kind of a parlor trick, to goad people into asking about his preposterous or inflammatory assertion, and then he’ll smile as he reveals the factoid or interpretation that makes his assertion true in some strained sense. If it’s just him and me, I sometimes turn the tables by not asking what he’s talking about, just to see him almost physically wrestle with the urge to volunteer an explanation. It’s all good clean fun.

  275. Mike Blessing

    Recently I’ve been getting emails about this Barnes character and how his being in a leadership position in the LPCA is going to destroy the credibility of LP state affiliates all over the country. I’m still wondering how this directly affects the LP of New Mexico, which is the one I’m currently affiliated with.

  276. Brian Holtz

    Chuck, I appreciate your generous comment — probably a lot more than you might think. I too also appreciate how Tom has spoken up on this topic, and your compliment to us both makes me realize this just wasn’t the time and place to gripe about Tom’s shot at Barr. Tom’s level of intellectual honesty is truly exemplary, and in fact downright inspirational. He makes one proud to be a Libertarian, and at a time like this we could sure use more Party members who can do that.

  277. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Duh — my entire point is that the evidence underlying your statement did not support the belief you were trying to create in people who did not bother to fact-check your statement.”

    And your point misses the point. With respect to Barr v. Ruwart (I don’t recall the other reference you mention, but I’ll go find it after this) I wasn’t trying to create the belief that you assert I was trying to create.

    Precisely the opposite, in fact — I was attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the Ruwart smear by showing that a strictly accurate claim along the same lines could be offered about Barr.

    That said, I’m comfortable with the reality of politics, which is that if you want to run for president, you’d better be good and ready to plausibly defend anything and everything you’ve ever said or done.

    Ruwart’s passage on child sexual issues was fair game — and so was Barr’s passage on child pornography.

    I was surprised as hell that Kubby didn’t get asked tougher questions. Hell, I was almost disappointed that he didn’t — he was prepared for those questions, because he got a through Knapp Oppo Research Colonoscopy.

    It is my considered opinion that LP members in general should play the part of House, and its presidential aspirations the part of the job applicants, in this clip (you just KNEW I would work a video in, didn’t you?):

  278. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Brian,

    Flattery will get you nowhere. Or not very far, anyway 😉

    To me, it’s fairly simple:

    I carry no brief for or against Mr. B@rn!s per se.

    I’m interested in the storm surrounding his suspension and reinstatement because that storm is revealing some institutional flaws and weaknesses that are almost certainly not unique to LPCA.

    The only thing that could be worse than the damage this whole thing is doing to LPCA would be for us not to learn the right lessons from it.

  279. Starchild

    Bravo, Brian Holtz @28:

    “My position is that none of the evidence used to purge a member should be withheld from the rest of the membership. If people attempting to purge a member fail to make their case to the JudCom, it’s up to them to make their case to the membership. It’s not the JudCom’s job to explain why any particular member should be allowed to continue to be a member. Nor is it the JudCom’s job to decide what member(s) should be thrown under a bus for the sake of our overall membership numbers or contribution levels or whatever. Expulsion should only be based on public evidence of the cause for expulsion. Period.”

    I feel the same. The danger inherent in allowing members to be expelled on the basis of secret evidence should be obvious.

  280. Starchild

    Also well said, Tom Knapp @229:

    “If the executive committee’s argument to the Judicial Committee for the suspension was ‘he didn’t keep his end of a deal that we had no legitimate authority to make on the LPCA’s behalf in the first place,’ then the Judicial Committee did exactly the right thing by overturning the suspension.”

  281. Gene Trosper

    #362 In the age of The Internet, People from all over the United States can readily see that a Libertarian was convicted of child molestation. All it takes is a few small leaps for the uninitiated to think “gee, those Libertarians seem like a bunch of child predators”.

    That’s now states like NM could be affected.

  282. Bruce Cohen

    Secret Evidence?
    Secret Charges?
    Secret Proceedings?
    Nooo…

    Who woulda thunk it?

    Gee, nobody, not even me.

    Friday my trial in front of the Judges of King Naga will take place.

    In fact, all those things are SO secret, even I, the Defendant don’t know them.

    But the King fears my mighty electrons might swoop across the Internet and if I knew these things maybe he can’t defeat the Bruce the Evil Jewboy.

    Expel Bruce!
    For the sage oracle embezzler Knight Selzer of the Turner Diaries has said Bruce is a Republican Plant and must be expelled from the Kingdom of Naga.

  283. Gene Trosper

    @343 “Mr. Trosper, are you suggesting that the LPSBD has its Vice Chair “working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”? I’ve never heard of any LP affiliate anywhere that offers babysitting by its Vice Chair, and I seriously doubt that the LPSBD is going to offer such a service while MB holds that office.”

    Brian, you’re obviously great at analyzing LP bylaws and counting now many angels dance on the head of a pin, but it’s becoming apparent that you do lack street smarts when it comes to things like, oh, putting children in harm’s way when it comes to convicted child molesters. I mean really: the LPSBD doesn’t have to offer babysitting. All it takes is a summer picnic attended by Libertarian families and their children. All it takes is a house party and BBQ where people may bring their children. Need I draw a picture for you?

    It’s one thing if Matthew Barnes is a member. It’s a whole other ballgame if he is willingly elected by the LPSBD as an officer where the opportunities to victimize children increase (we all know it’s generally the party officers which do things like organize events and act as speakers and cat-herders — which increase the chances of dealing with children).

    Let’s not play stupid and not play some sort of ongoing analytical game of “gotcha”: Matthew Barnes is an ongoing risk. has he committed any molestations since serving his sentence? No one except for Matthew Barnes can say. However, there is no “cure” for pedophilia. Therefore, the potential for relapse is always there.

    I’ll admit it: I want Matthew Barnes OUT of the LP. I’ll also admit that when the ExCom voted to suspend his membership, I was relieved. If it took a formal suspension to prevent him for holding any sort of leadership position, then great because Clearly Matthew Barnes is obstinate and is aggressively attempting to hold on to power within the LPCA. If he cared about the LPCA, he would cease and walk away. However, he continues making an issue, bringing harm to an organization he supposedly cares for.

    I do not care about Matthew Barnes. I care about his pre-pubecent victims who will always have to live with the crimes he perpetrated upon them.

  284. paulie

    Bravo, Brian Holtz @28:

    “My position is that none of the evidence used to purge a member should be withheld from the rest of the membership. If people attempting to purge a member fail to make their case to the JudCom, it’s up to them to make their case to the membership. It’s not the JudCom’s job to explain why any particular member should be allowed to continue to be a member. Nor is it the JudCom’s job to decide what member(s) should be thrown under a bus for the sake of our overall membership numbers or contribution levels or whatever. Expulsion should only be based on public evidence of the cause for expulsion. Period.”

    I feel the same. The danger inherent in allowing members to be expelled on the basis of secret evidence should be obvious.

    I missed that earlier, but let me add my voice to that. Secret trials are wrong, whether for accused terrorists or for accused…well, we can only speculate, not that it’s ever stopped anyone here.

  285. Starchild

    An anonymous contributor writes @270:

    “While our attention has been diverted, has anyone noticed that the California ExCom is quietly getting filled with appointees with only days before those seats would have been voted on by the membership?”

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I was not aware of it, but it doesn’t surprise me. I’ve long observed a gradual trend in the Libertarian Party toward centralizing power in the hands of bodies such as the California LP Executive Committee, at the expense of ordinary members.

    This observation led to Key Value #1 of the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grassrootslibertarians/).

    I agree with Brian Holtz @157 that “How we govern ourselves should set an example for how we’d govern in office.” I would put it even a bit more broadly — the way we organize ourselves should reflect the kind of society we want to create.

    We want a society where ordinary individuals are empowered participants, not a society where governance is largely in the hands of a few — therefore, our Bylaws should be designed to keep power in the LP firmly in the hands of ordinary members.

    Instead, we see changes and practices occurring that concentrate power at the top. Secrecy by decision-making bodies, including private email lists. Delegates being required to pay floor fees. The elimination of direct county representation on the California state Executive Committee. Smaller committees. The elimination of the ability for non-staffers to post comments on LP.org. Rule changes that make it more difficult for delegates in convention to affect the proceedings (e.g. requiring motions to be submitted to the Secretary in writing before being made). Limiting the ability of non-committee members to participate in a non-voting capacity at committee meetings. Et cetera.

    It is not a coincidence that this trend has been accompanied by a parallel trend of the party becoming less radical, less ideological, less libertarian. In the 15-plus years I’ve been involved with the LP, the party’s state and national leadership has always appeared to be less focused on libertarianism than the activists I’ve worked with at the grassroots level.

    I urge California LP members to speak out and stand up against this top-down trend, and demand changes which put more power back in the hands of ordinary party members. Including that any appointments to the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee made in the past 30 days be vacated, and the seats instead filled by election at the upcoming convention.

  286. Bruce Cohen's Guilty Conscience

    Bruce Cohen: For the sage oracle embezzler Knight Selzer of the Turner Diaries has said Bruce is a Republican Plant and must be expelled from the Kingdom of Naga.

    You’re equating Mark Selzer with the neo-Nazi Turner Diaries?

    I’ve seen Mark defend Israel on some listservs, years ago.

    For you, Bruce, to equate Mark with the Turner Diaries is a baseless, even recklessly baseless, and ugly charge.

    You are stooping very low in your attacks.

    I hope the “Kingdom of Naga” (aka, LPC Chair Kevin Takenaga) will note Bruce’s ugly and baseless smears.

  287. Not a Bruce or Todd Troll

    CA Executive Committee: Don’t kick Bruce out of the Party, just censure him and set him on FIRE!

  288. Brian Holtz

    Tom, I thought you get it, but maybe you don’t. While I had always respected MB, I’m not a particular friend of his, and I’ve never spent any time with him outside of LPCA ExCom meetings and convention floor proceedings. I’m not standing up for him per se, but rather for the ideas that 1) the charges and evidence used to purge a member should not be secret from other members, and 2) public accusations against members should not be made without substantiation.

    I’d do the same thing for a member who I don’t respect, or who I’ve documented lying about me. It’s about process, not people.

    Mr. Trosper, let me explain my point for the sarcasm-impaired: I’ve never heard of an LPCA function where being an LPCA officer meant you would have so much as five seconds alone with some member’s child.

    As for me not having “street smarts about putting children in harm’s way”, you have no idea what you’re talking about. As far as my three daughters are concerned, you Gene Trosper are a child molester until proven otherwise. Nobody at puberty or older gets to be alone with my daughters, at any time or for any reason, unless positive controls or positive knowledge is in place to ensure/vouch that the person can be trusted not to be a risk. This is Parenting 101.

    Any risk to children here has vanishingly little to do with whether MB is an LPCA officer, and has zero to do with whether MB has an LPCA membership card in his wallet. That risk is entirely up to MB’s social circle within the LPSBD.

    I too of course care about MB’s victims. If there’s something that you think the LPCA can do to actually help them, I’m waiting to hear it.

    Starchild, I’m glad you’re here to speak up for the principles of transparency and due process. However, we shouldn’t spread hysteria about ExCom conspiracies, any more than we should spread hysteria about MB. Our Bylaws clearly state: “Such appointments [for ExCom vacancies] shall be to complete the term of office vacated unless a convention meets sooner, in which case a new election shall be held for any position so filled.” The next convention is in two weeks. Chillax. 🙂

  289. Bruce Cohen

    BCGC@374
    Mark has defended Israel when it suited his purposes. Mark has even told people he was Jewish, when he was not.

    Mister Selzer has resigned from King Naga’s Knights of the Wobbly Table anyway.

    As far as me making claims about Mark?
    Sorry, but I have long publicly and openly stated that Mister Selzer not only has very bad manners and ethics but that he is an anti-semite.

    My opinions and assertions about this matter have been made on the record for years, even in front of Mister Selzer.

    Mark will rue the day when the whole sordid story does come out.

  290. Save the activists

    Isn’t it really the activists that are under attack?

    Is the precedent that we want set that you cannot carpool, arrange speakers, call a venue about pricing for an upcoming county activity, recruit your friends or engage in debate without becoming the target of public scrutiny in this party?

    Activists are not candidates.

    Not all internal representatives are public figures.

    Where is that line?

    If the line is not well defined, and someone wants to draw one ex post facto around someone, should that someone be immediately flushed into public scrutiny and coercion to obey the new line?

    RR outlines steps of investigation and trial and at what point what parts of those things become public.

    Those rules are completely overridden by the bylaws under some interpretations. That all of the things that the ExCom should do to lead up removing a membership are of no importance.

    Those rules make sure that if there is an accusation that the ExCom investigates it thoroughly for truth. They are strongly told that they should research both sides not just prosecute with prejudice.

    RR says that if there is a finding from the investigation that indicates that a member should have disciplinary action, then the ExCom should then go though a private trial with DUE PROCESS. That includes the notification of the accused of the charges and evidence included.

    If the ExCom fails to investigate without prejudice, they have failed their trust.

    If the ExCom refers a membership suspension having voted with their emotions;

    … if they ignore the sovereignty of each member and each affiliate and act as though they have a natural right to be judge, jury and executioner in one sitting;

    … if they vote on spurious charges and embrace an investigation that was prejudiced and a report of cause sight unseen

    …then they have failed their trust.

    If the JudCom get stuck with a moron prosecutor flinging feces in narcissistic glee, backed up with a team of clearly prejudiced and corrupt investigators offering evidence, and they do not return the suspension back to the ExCom, they have failed their trust.

    If all of us get to watch all that unfold, then nobody will be safe from any accusation.

    Right now, the process allows a rogue on the ExCom to push the most irresponsible accusations through in several days time and foist them onto the JudCom and then onto the membership for public viewing.

    The accused is presented with two choices:

    “Leave the party in public disgrace followed by the rumor mill”

    …or “Do as your told by your masters and we will let you lick our boots.”

    Parts of the process are supposed to be confidential to protect everyone, but you don’t get that if you ignore 95% of the rules. What you get is a total mess.

  291. BCGC

    As I recall, Mark Selzer was the Libertarian who invited Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League into the LPC.

    Mark defended and praised Irv Rubin and the JDL. And Rubin publicly praised Mark, calling him his friend.

    I don’t know what secret information you, Bruce Cohen, think you have. But it would be a very strange anti-Semite who promotes the JDL.

  292. Bruce Cohen

    ***FAIR WARNING***

    Any time anyone posts a lie about me here, for example: ‘Bruce Cohen pushed Richard Boddie out of the LP’, I will respond in kind with the truth about their charges and something in kind.

    The folks making stories up about me, like I ‘threaten’ people or such silliness, have gone largely ignored and unanswered for a decade.

    On the advice of many friends, I have primarily reserved the ink from my poison pen to discuss policy.

    For example:
    The second largest Libertarian Publication in the USA has stopped publishing six months or so ago.

    Now these very same people who are attacking me now, got hysterical when California Freedom Magazine skipped an issue when I was Editor.

    They called it a “Spectacular Failure” (Norm Westwell broadcast email headline quote) and some called for my ‘firing’ or worse.
    Forget the real reasons why the issue skipped, or that their choice (Brian Holtz says I can’t say ‘hand-picked- anymore) skipped them too.
    Can you say ‘double standard’? Of course you can!

    But now it’s to be swept under the rug, and lets all pretend there is no elephant in the room.

    Privately King Naga and his minions, including the now reinstated Knight Matthew Barnes, spun the news of the Libertarian Party of California shutting down their print publication like it was a good thing.

    I said it was a bad thing.

    Yeah and a restaurant could turn off their lights and not buy food to save money, too.
    That’s my opinion. I’m just sayin’.

    I oppose their policies and point out ethical lapses.

    Since when is speaking your mind a ‘crime’ so horrible it deserves a secret show/sham trial?

    I waive confidentiality, folks.
    Let anyone and everyone see whatever ‘evidence’ they have and hear their witnesses speak.

    Not counting today, there are only three working days before the ‘trial’.

    Let’s have it all out in the open.

    Let Kevin Takenaga and his close personal friend, adviser and confidant for over three years, Mister Matthew Barnes, explain to the world why I am so bad and dishonest and dangerous and point out with specificity all the bylaws and RONR rules I have broken.

    Let them.

    Bring it on.

  293. Bruce Cohen

    Matthew Barnes at 378? I’m guessing that’s him.

    What’s worse is he just out-argued Kevin Takenaga, his past King, on the facts of the case.

    And, in large part, is correct.

  294. Starchild

    On the main subject of this thread, I want to say that I am saddened by the extent to which some Libertarians appear to have bought into the irrational hysteria with which the society we live in tends to regard anything having to do with children and sexuality.

    There have been repeated references to the “victims” of M~tth#w B~rn#s. Is there any evidence that Matt’s sexual interactions with boys under the age of 18 were forced? Or are we expected to simply take the government’s arbitrary classification of anyone under 18 as a “child” at face value and assume that such persons are incapable of giving consent on the specific issue of anything to do with sexuality?

    I recently had a conversation with a woman who told me that she was masturbating from around *age 3* and that she was attracted to other girls in first grade and chasing them around trying to kiss them and jump on them (this behavior led to an “intervention” by her parents and a teacher in which she was informed that girls like boys, not other girls). In my own adolescence, I would have welcomed the arrival of a “Mrs. Robinson” in my life from about age 11 or 12 on. Hindsight being 20/20, I believe I was fully capable to have consented to sexual relations at that age, and think it could have done me a world of good. Granted M~tt abused his position of authority as a scout leader, which was wrong, but that isn’t the same thing as a clear-cut initiation of force.

    The backdrop to this whole affair is of course a society in which a witch-hunt mentality prevails. Where people convicted of crimes involving anything remotely associated with sex are forced to register as “sex offenders” and lose many of their basic rights *for life*. In Florida, dozens of “sex offenders” are living in a camp under an overpass due to the extreme restrictiveness of laws mandating where they can live. Other types of violent criminals are not treated this way (nor should they be).

    In one California prison alone (Coalinga State Mental “Hospital”), I am reliably told it was the case a couple years ago that around 700 Registered Sex Offenders (RSO’s) who have served their entire sentences are being held there against their will. You can read more about Coalinga and other information on the persecution of “sex offenders” at the site http://www.SexGulag.org. And indeed the facility in Coalinga, a prison calling itself a hospital, does bring to mind the old Soviet practice of locking dissidents up in mental institutions.

    Government often makes little or no distinction between who is really a threat to others and who is not. Even Bruce Cohen, who has been among M~tt B~rn#s’ accusers and uses a derogatory prison slang term for pedophiles (a troubling usage given that such individuals are often raped or assaulted by other prisoners while in the custody of the State), describes himself as “painfully aware of times when Megan’s Law registrants are unfairly labeled and persecuted.”

    Something as normal as taking photos of your children playing in the bathtub, urinating in public (“indecent exposure”), or even looking at ordinary porn, as Thomas Knapp recounts (@252), can get you criminalized as a “sex offender” and treated as a social pariah or some kind of monster.

    If pedophilia is a mental disorder, it is cruel and inhumane to treat those who suffer from this disorder as criminals. If it is not a mental disorder but simply a choice that anyone might make, then the many comments along the lines of “once a pedophile, always a pedophile” are inaccurate and unjust, and people should not be looked at as criminals for their actions of many years ago for which they have already paid the legal penalty.

    Personally, I think laws which discriminate strictly on the basis of age are irrational and wrong. People are individuals, and should be treated as individuals. If nature has a way of telling us who is an adult and who isn’t, it is puberty, not 18th birthdays.

    But countless stories like that of my acquaintance, of children who played “doctor” as children, et cetera, bear witness to the fact that even pre-pubescent children often do have sexual feelings and urges, and sometimes act on them, whether we find it comfortable and convenient or not. To assume that such children would never, could never, consent to any action categorized as “sexual” (touching, kissing, posing, etc.) when an older person is involved flies in the face of common sense.

    We don’t assume that children are incapable of giving consent when it comes to eating candy and other sweets — even though they are notorious for having bad judgment in this area. I recall many Halloweens and other occasions of gorging myself on candy bars, and by the time I was a teenager I had at least half a dozen cavities.

    Regulating the sexual behavior of dependent children, and by extension those who sexually interact with them, should be up to those who know and love them best — their parents and guardians. Not the State.

    I believe most of the harm experienced by those who have consensual sexual interactions as children comes not as a result of the interactions themselves, but from the guilt, shame, stigmatization, and other baggage foisted on them as a result of society’s f—-d-up attitudes, hangups, and phobias about sexuality.

    It’s interesting that anti-Semitism has come up repeatedly in this thread, while the form of bigotry more relevant to the subject at hand — against people who are sexually attracted to those much younger than themselves — is never mentioned. Whatever the supposed rationale for the attempt to kick M~tt B~rn#s out of the Libertarian Party, it seems clear enough that the *real* root cause is anti-pedophiliac bigotry.

    Because I’m expressing a very socially unpopular and even demonized point of view, let me be very clear. I’m not condoning any manipulative behavior by adults that is “taking advantage” of children. I recognize that age differentials where there is a young person involved often mean differentials in power and knowledge. Those who exploit these differentials to fulfill their own selfish desires without regard for their partners deserve the label “sexual predators” and should be fully made to pay for any harm they cause. Repeat offenders should be incarcerated for the safety of the community.

    I don’t take this stand for personal reasons — personally I am not sexually attracted to children. I simply recognize that the civil liberties of a group of people are being systematically violated as a result of their social marginalization and irrational demonization, in ways that all of us as libertarians should find alarming and appalling.

  295. Shooting for the Big Four Oh Oh!

    C’mon, gang — we can hit 400 posts if we all pitch in and try!

  296. Save the Newsletter

    @380 “Privately King Naga and his minions, including the now reinstated Knight Matthew Barnes, spun the news of the Libertarian Party of California shutting down their print publication like it was a good thing.”

    You are not checking your facts. MB defended the newsletter with emphasis.

    “B….. there is value in the paper version of the newsletter. He can easily share it
    with others. It’s easy to get others to read it, instead of asking people to visit a
    website. He suggests keeping some kind of printed form of the newsletter”

    and

    “MOTION: B….. moved to continue business as usual for the next six months, then change to quarterly print publication while continuing monthly online publication, and recommend that if in six months the publication becomes profitable, the ExCom reviews the decision.”

    http://ca.lp.org/artman/uploads/LPCA%20ExCom%20Minutes%20081213.pdf

  297. Starchild

    Brian Holtz writes @376:

    “Starchild, I’m glad you’re here to speak up for the principles of transparency and due process. However, we shouldn’t spread hysteria about ExCom conspiracies, any more than we should spread hysteria about MB. Our Bylaws clearly state: ‘Such appointments [for ExCom vacancies] shall be to complete the term of office vacated unless a convention meets sooner, in which case a new election shall be held for any position so filled.’ The next convention is in two weeks. Chillax.”

    Thank you for appreciating my comments in defense of transparency and due process. However I was not alleging any “conspiracy” by the ExCom, and I was hardly hysterical. I was simply commenting on a long-term continuing trend in the party.

    My recollection is that the LPC Bylaws did not formerly give the ExCom the power to fill its own vacancies by appointment in this manner. If so, then the Bylaw provision you cite is itself an instance of the trend I was discussing.

    Of course it’s possible that my memory on this is faulty. It would be interesting to see whether that section has been changed in recent years. Anybody have any old copies of the LPC Bylaws sitting around?

  298. Bruce Cohen

    Well, hey, SURPRISE Brian@345! I see King Kevin Takenaga was not followed over the cliff by Matthew Barnes.

    Since Kevin Takenagas (stated privately) main criteria for people he surrounds himself with is ‘loyalty’, maybe this is the real reason why he and Matthew Barnes broke up?

    Good to know I was wrong.
    Besides, my statement was intended to portray a group spin on why turning the interior restaurant lights off at night would save money.

    Interesting to know what the votes were and who voted how.

  299. LibertarianGirl

    Starchild__There have been repeated references to the “victims” of M~tth#w B~rn#s. Is there any evidence that Matt’s sexual interactions with boys under the age of 18 were forced? Or are we expected to simply take the government’s arbitrary classification of anyone under 18 as a “child” at face value and assume that such persons are incapable of giving consent on the specific issue of anything to do with sexuality?

    me_ r u kidding me ?? he was their scoutmaster , in a position of authority and the boys were 11 and 12. yes starchild , it is not ok to fondle an 11 year old when u are 19 and n0 even if the boy”consented” that does not make it ok .

  300. Save the Activists

    I cannot imagine MB being vassal to anyone. Have you met the guy?

    Did you notice the amazing amount of shit he is willing to endure?

    As has been insinuated I am willing to bet that there is a lot of ego behind that kind of endurance. Is ego a sin much less a bad sign?

    Have you seen how much work MB’s affiliated county has put into positive and constructive party building activities?

    Did you know that supporting the State Party has been in the SBCLP “Program” for several years?

    Did you know that the SBCLP actually follows their “Program” that their members tried to save the State Program Committee because their model helped them focus as a team?

    Perhaps your interpretation of “loyalty” was really a manifestation of a mandate to “make good things happen for good people,” and that the current state chair was simply a beneficiary of a growing team of “winning” activists bent on strengthening ties between counties, building a anarcho-synergistic team and trying their damnedest to set a good example amongst a political pond heavily clogged with authority mongering sjharks?

    Perhaps there are a lot of assumptions made and misdirections played regarding some enigmatic members’ motivations.

    But yet no-one has pointed to anything that MB has done to hurt them or their good efforts except that he “is” a dirty birdie.

  301. Bruce Cohen

    Matthew Barnes (save the activists)@ 389

    Nobody said you aren’t smart and crafty, Matthew. Nobody said you weren’t good at manipulating people.

    You clearly can be all those things at least some of the time.

    The problem is the dishonesty and bad behavior.
    The stuff about the deal you cut or didn’t cut and exactly how it was worded or not with Chairman/King Naga is irrelevant.

    The ‘charges’ you were brought up on were probably irrellevant too.

    Sorry, Matthew, but My ‘Freak’ alarm went off on you years ago, and it’s just taken everyone else a while to catch on.

    Please go away.
    That’s all I ever wanted when this thing started off. For you to get out of the Party forever.

    That’s still all I want.

    Please go.
    I’m sure you can find better places as an outlet for your energy and ‘talents’.

    And when you do, I’ll crawl back in my little hole and let King Naga mostly alone.

    Hey Mister Takenaga, properly expel Mister Barnes and I will put my poison laptop away and shut up about this.

    For now.

  302. Gene Trosper

    @376 Brian: bravo for coming out swinging like that. I’m *glad* you treat myself and others as potential threats to your family, which you obviously cherish. That is how I treat others as well, *especially* those with a clear history of victimizing others.

    @390 I can’t listen to the video, Tom, but being a fan of Stanhope, I think I know what it says. I’ll listen when I get home. For me, it’s not fear, it’s wrong verus right…good versus bad. It’s survival.

  303. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Tom, I thought you get it, but maybe you don’t.”

    I do.

    “While I had always respected MB, I’m not a particular friend of his, and I’ve never spent any time with him outside of LPCA ExCom meetings and convention floor proceedings. I’m not standing up for him per se”

    OK, so by way of questioning whether or not I get it, you issue the same disclaimer I did …?

    “but rather for the ideas that 1) the charges and evidence used to purge a member should not be secret from other members, and 2) public accusations against members should not be made without substantiation.”

    Agreed on both points. There’s a third one I’d throw in there:

    3) Activities which obviously carry potential risk to the party in terms of liability or reputation should not be ignored “every weekend or every other weekend for a year,” then milked for panic effect later when you’re not getting your way on something.

  304. LibertarianGirl

    anti-pedophilia bigotry?? ROFLMAO
    G*D Damn right , I am an anti -pedophilia bigot and may I always remain one.
    for the record , I am also a anti-nazi bigot
    an anti-rapist bigot , an anti warmonger bigot etc etc

  305. @383 To Starchild

    If this isn’t another handle for Mr. Barnes. A
    @383. Your very sick. Very disconcerting.

  306. LibertarianGirl

    Starchild is not a handle for MB . he is his own person and longtime LP activist. I agree with him most of the time but on this issue we are on very opposite sides of the fence.

  307. @398

    @383 is definitely not MB.

    Nor would MB ever join into such an argument. MB’s stance on children and sex might make even LG look like a moderate.

    Not that she would ever know.

    Obviously, to LG Mr. B is an object made corporeal only by her facebook prattling and imagination. The MB everyone is arguing about bears little resemblance to the figure she has hanged purely on rumor and her limited understanding of a 20 year old uncontested and untried court document.

  308. wants to know

    I have some questions for Mr. Holtz.
    1. Do you believe Mr. Barnes is an asset or a liability to the Libertarian Party of California?
    2. If you believe he is a liability, what do you plan on doing about it?
    I want straight answers.

  309. T. R. Ubble

    I can’t speak for Mr. Holtz. But didn’t he say above that he would support an across-the-board ban on office-holding by people with violent felony convictions (at least ones like Mr. Barnes’s)? That is, at any rate, quite consistent with insisting that Mr. Barnes, Mr. Cohen, and everyone else is entitled to procedural fairness.

  310. Gene Trosper

    @397 how about “anti-initiation of force bigot”? That pretty much covers all the bases.

    I oppose war, taxation and drug prohibition as much as I oppose secluding little boys in the hope of playing with their penises. Government doesn’t hold a monopoly on initiating force and victimizing people.

    I think with that, the discussion is pretty much over for me.

  311. Bylaws Answer

    @386 Starchild:
    My recollection is that the LPC Bylaws did not formerly give the ExCom the power to fill its own vacancies by appointment in this manner. If so, then the Bylaw provision you cite is itself an instance of the trend I was discussing.

    Of course it’s possible that my memory on this is faulty. It would be interesting to see whether that section has been changed in recent years. Anybody have any old copies of the LPC Bylaws sitting around?

    I believe the appointment was made by the operations committee.

    Bylaw 12. Section 3.
    The Operations Committee may, by unanimous vote, fill any vacant Party officer or Operations Committee position on an interim basis until a meeting of the Executive Committee is held.

    Which allows Mr. Seebeck to act as the Interim Southern Vice Chair and would require an election at the convention to fill the position for the remainder of the term per the Bylaws.

    http://www.ca.lp.org/references/bylaws/Bylaws2009-2010.pdf

  312. Bruce Cohen

    Matthew Barnes/Bylaws Answer @407 uses the San Bernardino Libertarian Party’s web link: ww.SBCLP.Org

    So, why doesn’t the LPCA’s Website link to the County Affilliate’s again?

    Broken Link Excuse?

    Child Molester or not, Mister Barnes has been reinstated and his County Party is in good standing, is it not?

    So can’t Webmaster Flash, King Naga just update the website so we can sent traffic to the County of Matthew Barnes?

    The Alive, Free, Happy folks deserve fair and equal treatment from the ‘open and transparent’ administration of King Naga, right?

  313. Not MB

    Bruce way off not MB here but keep guessing.

    I just checked the link off of the website and it worked for me so I am unsure to what you are referencing.

  314. Bruce Cohen

    Oh good, it’s been fixed.

    Holtz verfied, I think, correct me if I am wrong Brian the phrenologist, that the San Berdoo LP’s web link didn’t launch from the LPCAs website.

    I think, correct me if I’m wrong, Brian, that’s referred to as a ‘broken link’ in the GrandWebMasterFlash IT world he and Kevin live in.

    So good.

    Now it’s a ‘fixed link’.

    We like to see results.

    I asked and it got fixed.

    Nice work.

  315. Chairman Mao

    The thread is slowing down. We are getting close to being a record-breaking thread on IPR; we are probably in second place now, but we need to keep posting and insulting each other in order to make that happen.

  316. Haiku is fun

    LPC is dying
    Kiddie perv apologists
    Nail the coffin shut
    ~~when the media finds out~~

  317. Zander Collier

    @370
    Bruce, you are so mendacious in your arguments and logic, it’s a shame I didn’t proceed with your prosecution despite my resignation.

    To whom it may concern:
    Bruce Cohen was told, BY ME, on January 26th that with my resignation there was no one else who was going to be prosecuting him. He was told that in the absence of a prosecution that the JC would be summarily reinstating him.

    Since the LPCA Bylaws require 7-day notice of a hearing and therefore 7-days advance notice with the case file: the charges and the evidence, and since Cohen never received such a file on January 29th, he has been practically reinstated.

    That Bruce Cohen continues engaging in these disgusting smear tactics and character assassination vis-a-vis “Stone-Soup-Save-the-Activists Ba*n*s”, and “I’ve got a secret trial!!!”, that it really demonstrates why he should have been removed. Indeed the message now delivered to Cohen by the LPCA is “Be as bad as you like, make as many irresponsible statements as you like, be as big a tool as you possibly can: there are no repercussions.”

    Again, I resigned my position as Southern Vice Chair on the basis that the JC made an earthshatteringly ridiculous ruling based on the fact that “…or for cause” must somehow be found in the LPCA bylaws or in Robert’s Rules, and not the deliberate and reasoned accumulation of evidence and argument. “…or for cause” is now meaningless with the current makeup of the LPCA JC. They believe themselves akin to Supreme Court justices.

    And unlike Bruce Cohen, who has no visible means of support, Kevin was maintaining the website and is now simply more interested in his job performance where people actually PAY him to work, than in the LP where people insult him for his contributions.

    We tried to make the LP a competitive political machine, but the nuthouse here has so many misplaced priorities and is so much more interested in the social club, that it’s no wonder that the LP hasn’t ever been successful, and now with good, responsible leaders walking out, I don’t see how it ever can be.

  318. Bruce Cohen

    Hey I’m not working right now, no doubt, Zander. I’m also not accepting unemployment, food stamps, welfare or any medi-cal or whatever.

    So my visible means of support or not, has nothing to do with the website getting forgotten.

    And I am not ‘stone soup’ or ‘save the activists’.

    “Bruce Cohen was told, BY ME, on January 26th that with my resignation there was no one else who was going to be prosecuting him. He was told that in the absence of a prosecution that the Judicial Committee [JC] would be summarily reinstating him.” – Zander Collier…

    BS I’m over here on the Group W Bench.
    Right here on the Group W Bench, preparing for a trial, waiting for the Chair of the LPCA JC
    to answer my questions. Waiting for the Secretary to get his instructions from the Chair of the JC for the Defense’s ‘Motions of Discovery’.

    ‘The Matter Has Been Dropped’
    OH REALLY???!!!!
    Since when?

    Your email sounded more like a veiled half-hearted apology to me.

    You said you asked them to or whatever close to that, Brian Holtz can bust me for misquoting you, I really don’t care.

    But you said you wanted them to.
    NOBODY CONFIRMED THAT TO ME!

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s on.
    I’m sittin’ here on the bench
    The Group W Bench.

    And I have no strategy and I have no ideas what your plans are for my hanging, but I’m waiting for Friday.

    Friday, the TRIAL DATE you guys set for me WITHOUT EVEN ASKING if it was ok or if I was busy.

    Just set it and TOLD me I had to go to this TOP SECRET trial.

    Yeah, the trial where nothing is specified, everything is vague and top secret.

    So secret that at first I didn’t know you guys set a date for me.

    THEY HELD MY TRIAL BUT THEY DIDN’T INVITE ME!!!!!

    Isn’t it ironic?

    And now you complain that I’m still picking on you, Zander, and the good King Naga, and his Judicial Committee who FORGOT TO TELL ME THAT I AM REINSTATED!!!

    I can’t hardly stop laughing at the irony.

    Well, guess what?

    Somebody better tell me officially, with the exact name of Mark Hinkle, and not some wishful thinking you had in your resignation, Zander.

    Because as far as I’m concerned, it’s on.

    And if it’s off…

    Then I’m going to spill my guts and it’s going to be a bigger train wreck than it already is.

    This is fun.

    You aren’t changing anything in my world, Zander.

    I’m going to do what I’m going to do.

    And one way or another, within a very short period of time, the truth will come out.

    Hey, anyone have any pictures of Matthew Barnes and all these folks?

    Someone should put them on the wall of the convention all big like.

    If you guys are so weak and thin skinned that you can’t handle me complaining about how you run things, well…

    Maybe you shouldn’t.

    Get it together.

    If you guys were doing a good job, you wouldn’t care a word of what I said.

  319. Bruce Cohen

    I thought I would leave us all with a nice bit of musical entertainment from the band ‘LadyTron’.

    They only want you when you’re seventeen
    When you’re twenty-one
    You’re no fun
    They take a polaroid and let you go
    Say they’ll let you know
    So come on

    We only want you when you’re seventeen
    When you’re twenty-one
    You’re no fun

  320. Brian Holtz

    Tom @390, that Stanhope video on fear-mongering is pure genius. Everybody should watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oww4Ap3YZA

    Here goes Cohen again @370: making the unsubstantiated allegation that Mark Selzer is an “embezzler”. If Cohen really posted that, then he should be suspended from the LPCA until he either substantiates it or apologizes for it.

    Starchild, you’re not helping fact-based reason triumph over irrational hysteria when you question whether MB’s 11- to 13-year-old victims had force initiated against them. The case file says “He stated he was severely depressed after having realized he had molested boys in his scout troop. He stated he was appalled by his behavior. […] He acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions, and expressed some relief that he had been called to account”.

    Wants To Know asks me:

    1. Do you believe Mr. Barnes is an asset or a liability to the Libertarian Party of California?

    It’s a major liability for MB to be entrusted with any official responsibilities at any level of the LPCA.

    Is his mere membership a liability? There are a few people whose membership in the LPCA I consider a net liability to it, but so far I only advocate expelling them if they are prima facie guilty of unrectified or unrepentant force initiation. Like Cohen apparently libeling MB as a “rapist” or Mark Selzer as an “embezzler”. (I’m assuming for our purposes here that libel counts as aggression, but there are interesting libertarian arguments each way.)

    2. If you believe he is a liability, what do you plan on doing about it?

    What I’ve been doing since his record first surfaced: creating the circumstances to induce him to renounce all official LPCA responsibilities with the minimum amount of bad publicity for the LPCA that is consistent with due process, intra-party transparency, and human decency. Every LPCA member concerned about this matter should be trying to do the same thing, and while we won’t all agree on exactly how to do it, it’s clear that some people here aren’t trying to do anything remotely like this.

    We can talk about the exact meaning of “all official LPCA responsibilities”, but my basic idea is that I don’t want anybody to be able to truthfully say that the LPCA knowingly has a victimful child-molestation convict in charge of anything.

    Mr. Ubble, thanks again for providing a voice of reason here. We need all of those we can get.

    Zander, it’s more effective to prosecute somebody on airtight narrow grounds than on a broad but thin indictment that specifies everything you don’t like about the person. Remember, Saddam was hanged for just the 1982 Dujail Massacre, and Al Capone was sent away only for tax evasion. If you picked the wrong grounds and lost, there’s nothing in our rules against trying again with the right grounds.

    I don’t know what rules JudCom has adopted for the hearings that our Bylaws vaguely say they must hold, but RRONR Ch. 20 is very clear that the charges and evidence for at least a successful expulsion have to be revealed to the society while being withheld from the public. I would oppose any JudCom rule that contradicts that RRONR principle.

    I would also have a problem with any JudCom rules that allowed a rogue JudCom to muzzle all possible prosecution complaints that the JudCom got a decision wrong. I guess this is why a grand jury is an annually-rotated set of somewhat random citizens, and is not allowed to be a semi-permanent set of insiders who can protect the guilty. Since we are a political party and not a book club or stamp collecting society, we should default toward complete transparency, and only allow narrow pieces of evidence to be sealed under the most extreme circumstances. Being an activist in the LPCA is (or should be) a public endeavor, and our members should not expect us to freely associate with them if they can’t stand sunshine.

    I find it hard to believe that our JudCom has effectively deleted “or for cause” from our Bylaws. You saw the email from one of them citing the example of P@ul Irel@nd’s for-cause expulsion based on his written threats of violence against a member.

  321. Zander Collier

    You operate under the impression that my resignation included some kind of “half-hearted” apology. It did not. I never apologized to you, Bruce, because:
    1.) I am not sorry
    2.) I still believe you are a dangerous liability and think you should be removed from the LPCA
    3.) I think you’re filth and would not want to share any kind of group affiliation with you.

    Your actions here have only confirmed that.

    That the JC hasn’t let things drop is now no longer my concern, but there is no prosecution operating against you. If you would have just shut up instead of acting every bit the child, moron, and manipulator you are, I believe the whole affair would have been over.

    Stop blaming others for misfortunes you bring down on yourself.

    Who knows? Perhaps despite my effort to clean up the LP and get rid of both you and Barnes because you are both LIABILITIES to a political organization that is attempting to create SUCCESS in the political arena, perhaps the LP will, for now, have to settle for just half a cup instead of a full one.

    If the JC itself is indeed investigating you, I’ll send them over the evidence I’ve collected to this point, and see if the witnesses are still interested in testifying to your disgusting behavior.

  322. Bruce Cohen

    Brian, as I’ve said elsewhere, my use of the word ‘rape’ was not meant to reach the legal definition used in a courtroom.

    As far as using the word, “embezzler”, QUOTE ME.

    Read my pixels:
    BRUCE COHEN SAYS MARK SELZER IS AN EMBEZZLER.

    Now, before you poke the shiny monkey again, think hard.

    Do you want to raise me again?

    Because I will reraise you.

    Dealer confirms, Bruce Cohen just raised Brian Holtz one “EMBEZZLER”.

    Yeah, I said it.

    On the other hand, I’m glad to see Holtz agree with my advice for the LPCA.

    Re-suspend Matthew Barnes and do it right.
    If you guys are so busy at work because you don’t have the time to do the jobs you ran for, get some help.

    I’d be glad to do it, but your egos and conflicts would get in the way.

    In Summary:
    #1 There is no evidence in the court file to say that Mister Matthew Barnes penetrated the handful of ultra-young, probably pre-puberty boys he got sentenced to 8 for a sex crime for doing something with and to, you figure it out for yourself from the court file. Your LPCA Board Members all have copies, I do think they do, so contact the one you know and ask them to email it for you and YOU decide.

    Rape? Figuratively.

    #2 Mark Selzer embezzled money.
    Any one want to go deeper?

    #3 Great idea, Brian.
    Been saying it for weeks.
    The freakazoid Matthew Barnes is an all around dishonest, nasty guy, who King Naga didn’t have the common sense to stay away from. OK Good, whoops, I’ve done it too.
    Please suspend/expel the guy and do it right.

    And don’t worry.

    I don’t want to be involved in the LPCA.
    I’m not going to the Convention.

    You broke it, you bought it.

  323. Zander Collier

    @419
    “Zander, it’s more effective to prosecute somebody on airtight narrow grounds than on a broad but thin indictment that specifies everything you don’t like about the person.”

    MB was not tried based on things I did not like. He was tried based on mendacious actions done and witnessed. He was not tried on his political opinions. I believe the LP needs to be more than just 100/100 Libertarians. He was tried on bad things he did.

    Insofar that I was not successful, I am sorry.

  324. Bruce Cohen

    And now for some more musical entertainment, again from LadyTron!

    Destroy Everything You Touch

    Destroy everything you touch today
    Destroy me this way
    Anything that may desert you
    So it cannot hurt you

    You only have to look behind you
    At who’s underlined you
    Destroy everything you touch today
    Destroy me this way

    Everything you touch you don’t feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Shakes your hand
    Takes your gun
    Walks you out of the sun

    What you touch do not feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Destroy everything you touch today
    Please destroy me this way

    Destroy everything you touch today
    Destroy me this way
    Anything that may delay you
    Might just save you

    You only have to look behind you
    At who’s underlined you
    Destroy everything you touch today
    Destroy me this way

    Everything you touch you don’t feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Shakes your hand
    Takes your gun
    Walks you out of the sun

    Once you touch do not feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Destroy everything you touch today
    Please destroy me this way

    Everything you touch you don’t feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Shakes your hand
    Takes your gun
    Walks you out of the sun

    Once you touch you don’t feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Destroy everything you touch today
    Please destroy me this way

    Everything you touch you don’t feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Shakes your hand
    Takes your gun
    Walks you out of the sun

    What you touch you don’t feel
    Do not know what you steal
    Destroy everything you touch today
    Please destroy me this way

  325. Brian Holtz

    Zander, if mere mendacity were sufficient cause for expulsion from the LPCA, then the JudCom would be a full-time job.

    Cohen, calling someone a “rapist” in the context of their child-molestation conviction isn’t “figurative” — it’s unfair and malicious and cruel and a lie and libelous. Every time you exaggerate what MB plead guilty to, you are suggesting that you secretly don’t consider his actual crimes to be heinous enough for your ulterior purposes, and that your attacks on him are more about what you think he (and others) have done to you than what he actually did to any children.

    They say the judge in Bernie Madoff’s case didn’t get a single letter vouching for Madoff’s character. Is there anybody in the LPCA who is willing to publicly say they think Cohen is honorable or honest or well-mannered or civil or clever?

    Anybody at all?

  326. Zander Collier

    @424
    Brian,

    Yes, that may be true, but those who may be mendacious in the LP do not also bring the associated PR risk exposure and do not also repeatedly willingly expose the LP to easily avoidable PR liability in order to salve their own egos. It’s not a difficult calculus.

  327. MARY POPPINS

    Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
    Matthew Barnes the pedophile is really quite atrocious.
    He diddles with boys so young, they appear so precocious .
    Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

  328. Zander Collier

    @421
    “I don’t want to be involved in the LPCA.
    I’m not going to the Convention.”

    Then why do you care so passionately that your membership is reinstated?

  329. Bruce Cohen

    Zander, I didn’t even want to respond to your poorly thought out and even more poorly written set of two ‘Dear Bruce, you’re suspended’ letters.

    First the ‘announcement’.

    Then I answered “what for?”

    Then the next one with the vague laundry list.

    I didn’t really care, but folks you know, even some who work with you, asked me to fight it.

    And then you guys waste all this time and interfere with my life of living “with no visible means of support” with your show/sham trial because you can’t get your act together even to set a date and have proper guidelines for procedure and evidence.

    No wonder Barnes got off.

    WHY do I care?

    In two words: I DON’T!

    Not about my membership in this organization that’s rotten to the core.

    Liars and cheaters and embezzlers, oh my!
    Yeah, Mister Holtz, I said it, I mean it, sue me.

    I’m fighting the dishonest charges.

    Unless you admit you guys just hate me because you have thin skin and aren’t cut out for the job.

    Just like King Naga said to everyone in, where was it, Las Vegas?

    People were calling me, giggling, how Kevin was going around whining how “this job is so hard” and “nobody appreciates me”.

    Get over it.

    If I’m the toughest obstacle you have to make the LPCA successful, you have an easy drive.

    And if little old me with “no visible means of support” can upset all of your apple cart and get you all to freak out over here on the GROUP W BENCH, then you guys really don’t have your act together.

    I’m passionate about responding to your sham charges and your show trial.

    So everyone can see how petty and vain this whole group of King Naga and the Knights of the Wobbly Table are.

    Bring it on, Zander.
    I’m checking IPR every time I walk past my office door.

  330. Bruce Cohen

    I received some email suggesting I might explain the ‘Group W’ references.

    In keeping with the musical YouTube tradition here in the IPR Sandbox, this ‘Group W Bench’ comes from an old protest song by Arlo Guthrie.

    This was a war protest song that wove toghether several different threads into a colorful insight into society at that time.

    The whole song can run over 20 minutes depending on the version, so I’ll just post the part I found the most appropos and funny.

    This part picks up in the middle of the story.

    Arlo Guthrie – Alice’s Restaurant

  331. Brian Holtz

    Zander @425: exactly. It’s not the (alleged) mendacity per se, it’s the fact that the (alleged) mendacity is connected to the specific PR exposure of somebody with MB’s record being entrusted with official responsibilities at any level of the LPCA.

    If that PR exposure is so bad — as it arguably is — then that exposure itself is cause to suspend whenever suspension is the only way to remove the exposure.

    I appreciate your honesty above @57, but you pretty much torpedoed your mendacity charge in my eyes when you talked about the “implications” of an “understanding” that was in the air of an unrecorded private conversation MB had with only two other people. (You said MB did not “refute” your understanding of the conversation, but you didn’t say he didn’t dispute it either.)

    Reading between the lines of the JudCom press release, I would guess this is roughly why they overturned this suspension attempt, and why they practically invited another attempt with their talk of “extend or substitute for the stated causes”.

    Cohen, if Selzer is an embezzler, then show us the evidence. That you haven’t shown it screams that you don’t have it. Big surprise.

  332. Bruce Cohen

    The evidence is out there.
    Let’s get it on.
    Bring it on.
    I’m itchin’ to go.

    Where is the ring?
    Octagon, whatever. LOL

    Electronic forensic evidence and witnesses…
    Yeah, it’s out there.

    Not here on IPR, not today, but it’s coming out.

  333. Bruce Cohen

    The theme song for the Defense Team was deleted from this thread, I don’t know why.

    The song is by the band the Yeah Yeah Yeah’s,
    entitled ‘Heads Will Roll’.

    It’s a gratuitious reference to the Prosecution’s goals in the case.
    Off with Bruce Cohen’s Head!

    Here it is again without the lyrics in the posting.

    ________________________________________________________

    Yeah, Zander held a trial and forgot to invite me.
    Then, I’m exonerated, but nobody told me that, either.

  334. Bruce Cohen

    Hey Zander, I’m over here on the group W Bench, buddy.

    “I think you’re filth” is what you said about me.
    Niiiiice.

    Well, since when have I called YOU a name, buddy?

    You guys all picked this fight.

    You picked the time, the place and the weapons.

    Don’t blame me that I might have something to say about it, buddy.

    Now about your assertion that I’m off the hook for the expulsion, and it’s mean for me to keep picking on you and Kevin, etc…

    Out here on the farm where I have no visible means of support, I’m getting ready for the trial of the century so you and Kevin, King of Naga, can hold your petty little secret trial because you can’t take my heat.

    If you can’t take my heat, how can you handle the Republicans?

    I’m sittin’ here on the bench, the Group W bench. Waiting for you to bring it on.

    I’m expecting you to do a good job on my prosecution because I’m itching for a good fight.

    I don’t want anyone to say I got off because the prosecution blew it.

    Get your darn act together and don’t use some exuse like ‘Kevin has to work’ or ‘I’m depressed’ or ‘my bong fell down and it won’t get up’.

    We all have lives to live, bills to pay and mouths to feed.

    You guys wanted this fight with me and have been saying nasty petty secret West Wing insider game stuff about me for years.

    I think you all have some weird man crush on me like Dondero and the Hog and Frog, Toad Boarett.

    Buckle down and prosecute me.

    You have the edge here.
    You have all your friends on the ExCom, the mighty King Naga and all your witnesses.
    You have had lots of time to prepare and I have none.

    How much more do you guys want me to spot you?

    Let’s get this secret trial on.

    Bring it on, baby.

    Let’s see if my head rolls after it’s all over.

    Remember: Zander Collier says to Bruce Cohen – “I think you’re filth”.

    Sore loser/sour grapes it sounds like to ME.

  335. paulie

    Because Paulie is a deadhead and I’m a punk.

    My musical tastes are multifaceted. Punk rock is among the many things I listen to…

  336. Starchild

    Debra @388 takes issue with my questioning the use of the term “victims” to describe the teens or boys MB was involved with when we don’t know their attitudes toward what happened:

    “r u kidding me ?? he was their scoutmaster , in a position of authority and the boys were 11 and 12. yes starchild , it is not ok to fondle an 11 year old when u are 19 and n0 even if the boy ‘consented’ that does not make it ok .”

    My response — Whether or not what happened was “OK” is a different question from whether or not it was an initiation of force. Many things that don’t involve initiating force can still be wrong or bad in a spiritual or moral sense — for instance smoking 5 packs of cigarettes a day, or cruelly ridiculing a person who’s done nothing to deserve it.

    As I said, I *don’t* think it is okay for someone in a position of authority like assistant scoutmaster to engage in sexual interactions with a subordinate under those circumstances. But I don’t think it’s impossible that one or more of the teens/boys he was with made a responsible and fully consensual choice to take part in the fondling.

    ——————————

    And Brian Holtz @419 writes:

    “Starchild, you’re not helping fact-based reason triumph over irrational hysteria when you question whether MB’s 11- to 13-year-old victims had force initiated against them. The case file says ‘He stated he was severely depressed after having realized he had molested boys in his scout troop. He stated he was appalled by his behavior. […] He acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions, and expressed some relief that he had been called to account’.”

    My response — We don’t really know for sure that MB felt his actions were wrong, or if he did feel they were wrong, *why* he felt that way. Unless you are privy to further information that I am not, all we have to go on is what the psychiatrist who interviewed him in prison reported.

    It seems to me that a belief that the teens/boys were his victims is not the only possible explanation for why he might have reported to the psychiatrist that he felt appalled/depressed by his actions and glad to be called to account:

    • He may have felt regret due to a belief that social attitudes would ultimately make the experience a negative one for the teens/boys even if they freely engaged with him and enjoyed the experience at the time

    • He may have felt coerced, pressured, or manipulated into giving certain answers

    • He may have felt that he needed to admit wrongdoing and express contrition in order to escape a harsh legal penalty

    • He may have been wishing his attraction to teens or boys would go away, perhaps because he feared turning into his father who he reported had abused him

    • He may have felt guilt or shame as a result of his Mormon upbringing

    • He may have wanted to protect the teens/boys from being subject to whatever consequences they might experience if he said the acts were fully consensual (e.g. parental disapproval)

    Of course this is all speculation, and I don’t know the truth any more than you do. But I do believe in the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Nothing I’ve seen or heard so far has convinced me that MB was *necessarily* guilty of initiating force, yet many people seem to assume that he did.

  337. bruce's thirteen-year-old mexican whore

    bruce cohen came to my village in mejico…and inserted his peepee in my butthole…and he and un hombre quien se llama eric dondero made sex with me

    he say ‘whos your daddy?’
    again, he say ‘whos your daddy?’

    he came many time after that….my tummy feel so big, he the father of nuestros ninos..her name is mariposa

    we have twins…..i can feel it in mi tummy

    bruce’s thirteen-year-old mexican whore

  338. Todd Andrew Barnett

    Starchild,

    You mind if I throw a question your way? Just out of curiosity, have you read Barnes’ court file?

    If so, it might help if you knew what you were talking about. (Nothing personal though and no offense intended.)

  339. Todd Andrew Barnett

    “If so, it might help if you knew what you were talking about.”

    That actually should read:

    “If not, it might help if you knew what you were talking about.”

    That’s what you get for being fatigued.

  340. Not a Bruce or Todd Troll

    Bruce said, “Hey Zander, I’m over here on the group W Bench, buddy.”

    Ummm for such a war-mongering person you are not allowed to cite things from an anti-war song unless Group W means wuss or wimp. If so it applies to you greatly Bruce.

  341. Wayne Loves Bruce

    Brian Holtz: Is there anybody in the LPCA who is willing to publicly say they think Cohen is honorable or honest or well-mannered or civil or clever?

    I think Wayne Allyn Root thanked Bruce Cohen in the Acknowledgments page of his book, and the two men maintain friendly communication to this day.

    Root’s not quite in the LPCA — but he and his family were in the California delegation in 2008, and may be again in 2010, since Root probably can’t fit his whole family into the Nevada delegation.

    So Root is a “sorta LPCA member” who likes Cohen.

  342. Old Antifederalist

    At New Federalist, we are hoping to make this a record-breaking thread, iwht over 700 posts, but people seem to be not as active anymore. We need to come up with some more insulting remarks and poetry so people will keep posting and break the record.

  343. Old Antifederalist

    Punk rock is for commies only. The only true libertarian music is music that is only played by one instrument, because it doesn’t require cooperation. Punk bands require people to work together; that’s initiation of force.

  344. Old Antifederalist

    God told me tonight that Murray Rothbard is reading this thread from Heaven. He wanted to tell me a message from Rothbard, that you should abandon libertarianism and support the PLAS.

  345. Old Antifederalist

    Why isn’t Catholic Trotskyist here? He should come back from his mission. He knows how to put libertarians in their place, and everyone else for that matter.

  346. Old Antifederalist

    I’m going to bed now. I hope there will be more than 500 posts by the time I get up in the afternoon.

  347. Troll Relief Agency

    There is a major humanitarian crisis on IPR; there are many homeless trolls and they are hungry. Please feed them, or else you will burn in hell for causing suffering to such an unfortunate population.

  348. paulie

    require people to work together; that’s initiation of force.

    Not that I think you are that ignorant, but some people are, so: it’s only an initiation of force only if not all the people are working together by choice.

  349. Geof Gibson

    “Brian Holtz: Is there anybody in the LPCA who is willing to publicly say they think Cohen is honorable or honest or well-mannered or civil or clever?”

    Yes. I will say so to all of the above.

  350. Geof Gibson

    Regarding the quibble over rape, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines statutory rape as, “Sexual relations with a person who has not reached the statutory age of consent.”
    While I’m not a lawyer (thank God), CA probably has more refinements to the legal definition. Either way, MB had “relations” with minors which makes rape (statutory) a relevant term of description.
    Isn’t there really a larger issue here than arguing about how to describe actions which show judgement that clearly not appropriate to someone in a leadership position? Especially considering the serial nature of the crimes and the overwhelming statistics regarding recidivism of this type of behavior?

  351. Brian Holtz

    Geof, I already said what the larger issue is: creating the circumstances to induce MB to renounce all official LPCA responsibilities with the minimum amount of bad publicity for the LPCA that is consistent with due process, intra-party transparency, and human decency.

    Cohen’s dishonesty, ill-manneredness, incivility, and libelous accusations have only distracted from the larger issue.

    Which would be better for the LPCA: if 1) our leadership were united in calmly but forcefully relieving MB of his Party responsibilities, based on due process and airtight evidence, or 2) hysteria and railroading force some of our leadership to publicly rescue the due-process rights of someone with MB’s record?

    Again: every time Cohen and others exaggerate MB’s crimes, they in effect minimize his crimes in the eyes of those who know what MB actually plead guilty to. Cohen’s vendettas are more important to him than is the reputation of the LPCA, so he’s willing to force LPCA leaders to defend MB’s due-process rights just so that he can enjoy the spectacle.

    That’s sick, and I’m ashamed that I ever considered Cohen a friend. I’ve tried for several years to nudge him toward more civility and honesty, but I see now that it’s hopeless. I give up.

  352. Master of Indulgencies

    There is no one posting here that has any motivation other than to entertain themselves. This is the blogosphere not the Harvard School of Law.

  353. Question

    I have a question about “leadership” in reference to the LP.

    What exactly does that word mean in context to a bunch of anarchists and minarchists?

  354. Brian Holtz

    I’ve received information indicating that the minutes of the January 2010 LPSBD meeting will show that MB has resigned from all offices and committees of that affiliate. At this point, it appears that MB has no official responsibilities within the LPCA at any level.

    I commend Matt for putting the interests of the LPCA ahead of his own, by stepping down from official positions he could have fought to hold on to.

  355. Question

    You misunderstand my question.

    Are administrators “leaders”?

    The word indicates the capacity to inspire. Are libertarians inspired by gavels or moved by votes?

    Leaders show up with people. Officers show up with pencils.

    I would suggest using the word trust when it comes to LP offices, not leadership.

  356. Bruce Cohen

    Hey, the LPCA Board decided to get this out in the open. I didn’t put it in the news, they did.
    a) by taking from September to whenever to actually do something real.
    b) by not answering inquires from anyone.
    c) by making no statements to worried Members.
    d) by suspending me based on someone reprinting a private letter sent to a dozen people.
    Said letter not even having my name on it.

    This is not about me or my manners.

    The spectacle is not about me, or caused by me and I refuse to be blamed!
    LOL

    Speaking of ‘no official responsiblilities’:
    I have a question:
    Has Mister Barnes been removed from the LPCA Bylaws Committee yet?

    Inquiring Libertians want to know.

    No vendetta.

  357. Should have just asked weeks ago

    MB says that he hasn’t been in any committee or office for weeks.

  358. Dan Wiener

    473 posts on this topic so far? Impressive. As well as other possible adjectives.

    There’s a simple solution for those of you who object to the secrecy over the suspension and potential expulsion of a member: Amend the LPC Bylaws. Robert’s Rules of Order are only resorted to in the absence of specific Bylaws requirements. If the Bylaws were changed to explicitly require Judicial Committee hearings to be open, or all evidence and arguments to be published, or the JudCom to issue detailed explanations for its decisions. then that’s what would happen.

    We have a state convention every year at which the Bylaws can be amended, if enough delegates desire to do so. I personally see a lot of merit in the restrictions imposed by Robert’s Rules of Order, but that’s just me. We can certainly do it differently if that’s what this organization prefers.

  359. Brian Holtz

    Cohen, I didn’t say you put the MB scandal out in the open. (You do seem to be on everybody’s short list of suspects for initially circulating the Megan’s Law entry, and/or for tipping a newspaper to the story, but no evidence about this has surfaced, and you give such suspicions the hyperbolic penalty-of-perjury denials that you reserve for the few times when you actually stand by the your words write.)

    What I said was that your unfair, uncivil, ill-mannered, prima-facie-libelous public comments on this scandal helped create a hysteria around it that led to a public split in the LPCA’s leadership and and to a Google News entry about the suspension.

  360. Confused

    What does “Nolo Contendre” mean?

    Someone said its the same as guilty. Then another said that it’s not an admission of guilt. Which is it?

  361. Geof Gibson

    RE: Brian and Bruce. We could debate civility and manners ad infinitum (or over 500 blog posts). Regardless, how does one think the lame-stream media, as well as the total whack jobs at Kos and HuffPo will characterize the LP?
    If this “political party” isn’t prepared to handle something like this without it causing a public split in the “leadership,” then we really do deserve the miniscule support of the electorate that we’ve been able to muster.

  362. Brian Holtz

    Dan, I’ll repeat what I wrote @419: I don’t know what rules JudCom has adopted for the hearings that our Bylaws vaguely say they must hold, but RRONR Ch. 20 is very clear that the charges and evidence for at least a successful expulsion have to be revealed to the society while being withheld from the public. I would oppose any JudCom rule that contradicts that RRONR principle. I would also have a problem with any JudCom rules that allowed a rogue JudCom to muzzle all possible prosecution complaints that the JudCom got a decision wrong.

    If the JudCom had any written rules in place about suspension-hearing secrecy before these two recent suspensions, can you share them with us? In particular, can you tell us what parts of RRONR Ch. 20 the JudCom considers to be replaced by our Bylaw 5.5?

    In the absence of any such explicit rules on secrecy, I would argue that the spirit of our rule base is that the charges and evidence for even an attempted expulsion should be made available to the membership while simultaneously being withheld from the public.

  363. Bruce Cohen

    I waive confidentiality.
    I want open and transparent.

    I proved the offending email was not me, despite the accusations to the contrary.

    Fortunately, more than one Member of the Board of LPCA (ExCom) did call me about this to find out if it was me who sent it.

    After doing the IP address research, I was totally eliminated.

    Sorry, but you guys are all GrandWebMaster Flashes, aren’t you?

    I mean just check your headers on the email you got and check it geographically.

    I got accused of that repeatedly, mostly secretly, but some honest folks told me.

    Whatever, it’s against the rules to defend myself?

    I was the scapegoat from the beginning.
    Kevin never ASKED me.
    Folks just assumed and blamed. ME.

    Would the people who did ask me please stand up?

    Thank you.

  364. Bruce Cohen

    Geof @479
    If the ‘leadership’ had moved quickly to suspend/expel, and/or had responded to polite inquiries from people with standing and not on Kevin’s enemies list, this would not have happened.

    The delay, silence and finally weak response that was actually quite deceptively presented…
    And the discovery by all that Barnes was still around and involved…

    Is what got people going.

    And it wasn’t only me.
    My phone and email went crazy.
    Everyone wants to hide behind my skirts because Kevin and Company denigrate people for being ‘disloyal’.

    Sorry for being so ‘mean’, but I’m just sayin’…

    Fact is, Kevin got deluged with phone calls and email from what I hear, even back in September, I think it was, and I also hear, and tend to believe the people that tell me, that he NEVER answered.

    Some leadership.

    I know Kevin is SO busy making a living, Zander.
    Let me cuddle and comfort you both.

    Why did you guys volunteer if you didn’t have what it takes in time, courage and principle?

    Yeah, I’m so MEAN.

    I’d say it’s far more mean to remain silent about real world concerns over this situation.

    I’d say it’s far more mean to blame the messenger, or even to blame ME for BEING the messenger when I was not.

    Get out.

  365. Brian Holtz

    Once again, something Cohen says is demonstrably false.

    He says he “proved” the initial email from “Edward” wasn’t from him, but that’s not possible without access to internal Yahoo databases. All Cohen could have proved is that the email came from the account “edwardd1776@yahoo.com”. Anybody could have created that Yahoo account, including Cohen.

  366. Geof Gibson

    Bruce@482 –
    I couldn’t agree more that weak and delayed response is the major problem. If nothing else, it is the obligation of anyone in a leadership position to at least appear to be in charge. Even if that means saying, “I don’t know, I’ll look into it.”
    Bottom line, the leadership of the LPCA has clearly demonstrated the amateur nature we have come to expect. I’ve said this since I ran for office in 2006 when, as a first time candidate, I went looking for support and couldn’t get a damn bit of help save from Cohen, Richard Rider in San Diego, and some very thorough and professional information available from Holtz.
    Again, all pieces of the puzzle which leads to loser-tarianism.

  367. Geof Gibson

    Brian, now post 486 makes me wonder. While I could see one charging Bruce with hyperbole or ill manners, is it really the case that 1) he willfully misstated fact, or 2) everything (omnibus) he states must be disregarded?
    When this first became public, why was there not an immediate statement by the leadership? Why did said leadership let rumor and innuendo overtake them in the public sphere?
    To my previous (post 485) point, they did not even appear to be in charge or out front on the issue. OK, maybe the audience is small and insignificant now, but they’d better be ready when a libertarian governor or president is found in the hotel with the sheep.

  368. Dan Wiener

    Brian, the parties to the hearing (i.e., the Executive Committee which voted the suspension of membership, and the member who was suspended) are typically reminded early in the process that Robert’s Rules require confidentiality. In the past I have responded to inquiries about the actual expulsion of a member (as opposed to the restoration of a person’s membership), by telling those who are curious about what happened that they should direct their questions to the expelled member. Since the expelled member is no longer a part of the organization, he cannot be bound by Robert’s Rules. It’s up to him whether to reveal details of what went on, or to keep it to himself (perhaps to avoid further embarrassment).

    I think it’s pretty obvious just from this thread that publicizing everything to the membership base is functionally equivalent to publicizing it to the general public. If that’s what the LPC wants, fine: Change the Bylaws and make it so.

  369. Brian Holtz

    Geof, I didn’t say in either @484 or @486 that these two particular Cohen falsehoods were willful. Insufficient data in these two instances.

    The link says: “A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter.” I’ve elsewhere documented Cohen issuing willful falsehoods, e.g. about whether MB’s LPCA office puts him in violation of the statutory restrictions on such offenders.

    I’m not saying that everything Cohen says is probably false. I’m just saying that Cohen has surrendered his credibility.

    When this first became public, why was there not an immediate statement by the leadership?

    There was. The only news I’ve seen on this was the Nov. 6 article in the San Bernardino Sun, and it includes statements from the LPSBD leadership.

    Also, “we’re looking into it” is exactly what Zander told me on the day that the Megan’s Law entry first circulated. I assume the leadership said that to anybody who asked about it. You can’t seriously suggest that the LPCA should have issued a press release in response to something that was only circulating among insiders.

    If you want to see an LPCA leader fighting “rumor and innuendo in the public sphere”, then: hi, nice to meet you, my name is Brian Holtz.

    Why aren’t you complaining that much of that “rumor and innuendo in the public sphere” was created by other LP (ex)leaders, like Cohen (“rapist”), and Marbry (“alcohol and marijuana to minors at party-related functions”), and Pyeatt (“never showed any remorse”).

    It would have been counterproductive for the LPCA to officially fight all the “rumor and innuendo in the public sphere”, as that would have just publicized the scandal much more widely.

    Since you’re the only LPCA member who stood up to vouch for Cohen, you should ask yourself: have Cohen’s public comments on these matters on net helped the LPCA or hurt it?

    Dan, if a member leaks Party-internal information, that’s the member’s fault, not JudCom’s. RRONR Ch. 20 doesn’t make exceptions for large or leak-prone societies; it just flatly says that the assembly has to see the charges and evidence. Again: I don’t read our Bylaw 5.5 as reversing that principle, and I would disagree with any JudCom rule or practice that does so.

  370. Bruce Cohen

    Clearly, there is a time and a place within a society for confidentiality.

    The question here is about whether this particular situation merits confidentiality.

    Since confidentiality in this kind of Suspension/Expulsion matter/Trial/Hearing, whatever you want to call it, is to protect the Accused/Defendand/Suspended Member, [whatever exact term Mister Holtz will grant me the license to use precisely so I am not hair splittingly calling something the incorrect shade of extraordinarily dark dark grey acutally, dark, dark, dark…]

    Beginning again, forgive me…

    Since the confidentiality is to protect the Member, cannot said member waive the Confidentiality?

    And, just as sort of a mind puzzleish word problemy kind of legalish sort of discussiony point, let me pose another question:

    What does it seem to you like when the Prosecution wants the trial secret and the Defendant wants it out in the open?

    Shades of East Germany during the cold war!

    Everyone knows I want an open trial.
    I’m pretty much on the record.

    What parliamentarian floating around the sound of my pixels can answer this matter for me?

  371. Brian Holtz

    Yes, Cohen, “member” is the proper term to describe you.

    The confidentiality rule in Robert’s is explicitly to protect the society from libel liability. If you yourself publicize the charges and evidence against you, and waive any libel claims while doing so, then I would defend you from claims that you’ve broken the rules in Robert’s.

    JudCom may have other rules. You should demand them in writing, and tell us what they are.

  372. Dan Wiener

    Bruce, confidentiality is presumably intended to protect both the member and the organization. There is nothing presently in the rules which allows a member to waive this restriction. And if there was, it would effectively eviscerate the restriction, since the member would then be under intense social pressure to do so. (“Why are you insisting on confidentiality if you have nothing to hide?”)

    If your membership is terminated, then the organization no longer has the ability to enforce the provisions of Robert’s Rules. Expulsion is the maximum penalty an organization can mete out, so what’s it going to do? Expel you a second time? At that point you are free to decide whether you want to keep things secret or reveal all.

  373. SBCLP Member

    The wikipedia article Tom linked is interesting.

    “This means that a Nolo contendere conviction typically may not be used to establish either negligence per se, malice, or whether the acts were committed at all in later civil proceedings related to the same set of facts as the criminal prosecution.”

  374. Troll Relief Agency

    Almost 500 posts! But we need more feeding of the trolls and less boring legal discussion. And we also need people to post faster before this thread gets off the first page of IPR.

  375. Trust Me

    Does the end of one’s membership end their expectations of trust placed while a member or as an officer?

    I do understand that this is the maximum penalty for the Party to mete, but is it really the maximum penalty that might be met overall?

    Perhaps Party officers need to sign confidentiality agreements. So that they cannot just be elected into a position, quit the party, spill all to the public (true or not) with the authority of “having been” an officer, then rejoin as if nothing happened and with no expectation of truth.

  376. Gary Chartier

    @497, the last thing we need is more secrecy, it seems to me. Anything that creates greater opportunities for people in power to require critics and sources of unsettling information to keep silent ought to be discouraged.

  377. Principle

    @499

    Good point on the surface, however is public disclosure of an “accusation” really the best idea until a determination of “truth” is made?

    If the accusation is not true, there are libel and slander issues the Party (as well as individuals involved ). Acting with “impropriety” also exposes the organization and individuals to action in court.

    It also poses the potential for a “witch hunt” atmosphere where a determination of truth could become impossible. Witnesses could adjust their willingness to testify, or have their recollections affected by the perceived expectations of their peers.

  378. Bruce Cohen

    OK, so what if all parties to the action agree?
    How about then?

    Or what if the body votes to unseal?

    Principle is very wise and I learned something.

  379. Gary Chartier

    @500, it seems as if the simplest way to avoid these problems would be to put in place partial or complete contractual waivers of liability for the disclosure of information at multiple stages of the process.

  380. Old Antifederalist

    Keep chugging along. We’re over 500 now. It doesn’t look like we’ll make it to 700, but we’re definitely the second biggest thread in IPR history. Congratulations everyone.

  381. Principle

    Robert Rules lays out very specific instructions for discipline which have been ignored according to Mr Cohen.

    He said that there was no investigation that charges were thrown at him willy-nilly and ratified by the ExCom without due-process.

    The LPC bylaws say:

    Bylaw 5, Section 5
    “The Executive Committee shall have the power to suspend a County or State Central Committee membership for failure to maintain all the qualifications of membership established in Section 1, or for cause. Notification of the suspension is subject to written appeal within fifteen days of notification. Failure to appeal shall terminate the membership. The Executive Committee may reinstate memberships terminated under this section. The term “cause” as used in this section shall include, but not be limited to,the following:

    A.Intentionally involving, or threatening to involve, legal authorities in any non-civil dispute against the Party or one of its affiliates;
    or
    B.Having unpaid debts over ninety days old outstanding to the Party.

    Section 6 (2/3 required to amend)

    Upon appeal by a County or State Central Committee member, the Judicial Committee shall hold a hearing concerning the suspension. Following the hearing, the Judicial Committee shall rule either to terminate the membership or to restore the membership.”

    But the appeal to the JC comes last AFTER the ExCom makes a determination. So what are the rules up to that point?

    Right now, there are none respected and this seems to be in direct violation to our bylaws. Our bylaws state that Roberts Rules apply where we do not override them.

    Roberts Rules says:
    “For the protection of the society and the members alike, however, the basic steps which, in any organization, make up the elements of fair disciplinary process should be understood. Any special procedures established should be built essentially around them, and the steps should be followed in the absence of such provisions. As applying to offenses elsewhere than in a meeting, the important steps are as follows:”
    (I now paraphrase)
    Confidential Investigation by a Committee
    Report of Resolutions Either Exonerating the Accused or Preferring Specific Charges
    Formal Notification of the Accused
    Trial (presumably by the ExCom)
    Assembly’s Review of Trial Committee’s Findings

    One thing that Mr. Cohen is not apparently aware of though is that confidential and secret testimony IS allowed. That sometimes witnesses are afraid of repercussions. There are rules for that also.

    It is my understanding, however, that the JC does not follow nor apply ANY of Roberts Rules. I do not know why. I do not see anything in the bylaws that sever the rules for discipline. Roberts Rules itself says that if there are rules in the bylaws for discipline that they should clarify and not usurp the process outlined.

  382. Born Again Non-Voter

    When this first became public, why was there not an immediate statement by the leadership? Why did said leadership let rumor and innuendo overtake them in the public sphere?

    Agreed. The LPCA should have called a press conference in September. They should have invited TV stations and radio and newspapers.

    They should have admitted having a Megan’s Law person on Excom, they should have expressed their horror and desire to protect children at all costs, and they should have announced what steps they were taking toward that end.

    The public would have admired the LPCA for being forthright, transparent, and honest with voters — and would also have forgiven the LPCA for an honest mistake.

    Instead, the LPCA leadership ran like roaches hiding light.

    The LPCA leadership acted as though they too, along with MB, were guilty, and had something to hide.

    Libertarian Girl, and some others, keep fretting over a “PR disaster.” But there is no PR disaster in mistakenly having a pedophile on Excom. The real PR disaster in the attempted coverup — which I assume LG would support.

    Kevin Takenaga has proven to the public that the LPCA is a dishonest organization, one that covers up its dirt.

    Takenaga has proven to the public that Libertarians are no more honest than Demopublicans.

    The public is now justified in thinking: If the LP hide this from us until they were found out, what else are they hiding?

    The public is justified in thinking the LP cares more about PR than about honesty.

  383. Brian Holtz

    I don’t now which is sillier: 1) to say that declining to publicize something is the same as hiding it, or 2) to think that if the LPCA “called a press conference” over MB’s initial resignation, so much as a single reporter would have shown up.

    “Libertarians Elect Known Child Molester To Party Office” is a far juicier story, and Google News indicates that no other outlet picked up that story from the San Bernardino County Sun.

    Hasn’t there been enough ravaging of human lives in this story, that the LPCA should have tried to inflict even more while amateurishly trying to score some allegedly positive publicity over it?

  384. LibertarianGirl

    ROFLMAO , born again you’re kidding right ??

    is born again one of those character pseudonyms that says shit just for laughs or is he/she serious?? the first half seems like a spoof for sure then it gets kinda serious , I just cant tell .

  385. Christina Tobin

    It’s time to focus on CA’s top-two primary (which is expected to be called an open-primary in order to confuse voters): Proposition 14.

    The measure is not a true open primary, but instead would implement the system used in Louisiana since 1975. It provides that political parties would no longer have nominees for Congress or state office. Instead, all candidates would run in a June primary, and all voters would use that single type of ballot. Then, only the two top vote-getters could run in November.

    That system makes it even easier for incumbents to get re-elected, than the existing system in California. In Louisiana, in all the years that system was used for Congressional elections, only one incumbent was ever defeated for re-election (not counting 1992, when two incumbent US House members had to run against each other in two districts due to redistricting).

    Washington used that system for the first time in 2008. Out of 123 state legislative races, and 8 statewide state races, and 8 US House races, only one incumbent in any of these races was defeated in the primary, and he had a scandal and would probably have lost in any system. For the first time, no minor party or independent candidates appeared on the November ballot for either Congress or for statewide state office, for the first time since Washington has been a state.

    The particular measure on the June 2010 ballot in California even says write-in votes will never be counted in November for Congress or state office, so minor party and independent candidates could not even run write-in campaigns.

    The measure also makes it drastically more difficult for ballot-qualified minor parties to remain on the ballot. It changes the test for party retention, from polling 2% for any statewide race in a midterm year (a fairly easy test), to instead requiring parties to have about 100,000 registered members, in order to remain on the ballot. Peace & Freedom, the nation’s largest ballot-qualified socialist party, only has about 58,000 registered members, so it would lose its place on the ballot.

    Richard Winger of Ballot Access News quotes the top-two primary as ” the biggest threat to the existence of minor parties in over 50
    years.”

    If the CA top-two primary passes in June 2010, third party and independents will no longer cease to exist.

    Ralph Nader, Fair Vote, Free & Equal, Californian’s for Electoral Reform (CFER), etc. STRONGLY oppose the Top-Two primary | Proposition 14. The reason this initiative got on the ballot is because Gov. Arnold Schwartzenager cut a back room budget deal with Senator Abel Maldonado last year.

    I’ve been recruited by Richard Winger to run for CA Libertarian Party Secretary of State. Richard Winger is my campaign manager & this race will focus on STOPPING the top-two primary: Proposition 14, FAVOR Instant Run-Off voting (IRV) and educate everyone about electoral reform. This campaign will launch nationwide on February 15th, 2010.

  386. Michael H. Wilson

    Christina glad to see something productive on here. We have this nonsense in Washington as you mention and thanks for your efforts on this.

    The Top Two Primary is simply suppression of those the state doesn’t approve of. We need a simpe sound bite to use. Maybe work the word censorship in there some how.

  387. @507 Brian

    Libertarians Elect Known Child Molester To Party Office” is a far juicier story, and Google News indicates that no other outlet picked up that story from the San Bernardino County Sun.

    Where is this story, I couldn’t find it. Do you have the link. Is the title you have correct?

  388. Christina Tobin

    Thank you Michael for your comment. I spoke at the Washington State Libertarian Party Convention last March. I enjoyed meeting leading activists Ruth Bennett and Rachel Hawkridge!

    Richard Winger & are looking forward to working with positive activist like yourself and many others nationwide!

  389. SBCLP member

    The story in the Sun was factually incorrect and the reporter had a hard time finding anyone willing to say anything bad about anyone.

    The crowd he tried to interview is far more interested in getting petitions like TRC 2010 on the ballot and candidates supported. They are also very interested in stopping top 2.

    Christina will be happy to find hard working, experienced and team oriented activists in at least one county organization in this state. They are still strong and growing despite the best nefarious efforts of S..b.ck, C.h.n, M.rbry and Tr.sp.r.

    Christina may find more people in Riverside willing to help also. It seems there has been a recruiting drive down there. Some parts of Los Angeles is also starting to get new blood as well.

    Rumors and reports that Ventura county is starting to grow again are making their way around.

    Want a healthy Party? Don’t spend your time in front of a computer. If you want to succeed, the key is not engaging in internal sabotage. The game is about people.

    Bring a friend to your next county meeting.

  390. Gene Trosper

    @514 NEFARIOUS???? I’m not the one who decided to molest little boys. Your idea as to what’s nefarious is seriously deluded…and at least have the balls to spell out my name fully and correctly.

  391. If the moderator don't like

    Maybe because they are force to be polite on that website. Some people get deleted you know if the moderator choose to. DUH.

  392. Principle

    @516

    There is a telling difference when the only real dirt you can dig up is a quarter of a century old and reaches into someones childhood and turns out to be not factual but hearsay.

    Some people in their 40s still haven’t grown past the political and social understanding they had in high school.

    Some people are into politics because they want to help effect positive change on their lives and the lives of those around them.

    Others are involved in politics because it gives their predatory side a framework to harm people and not run a foul of the law.

  393. Say what?

    518: “and turns out to be not factual but hearsay.”

    Court files are not hearsay. He *is* a convicted pedophile.

    19 is not a child, but 12 is, and 12 was the age of his victims. Why are you trying to minimize the nature of the crime or pretend they did not happen? Accept it.

    He *admitted* to victimizing these kids as well as two others earlier in his life. So all the amateur lawyering about “no contest” is also moot.

    He admitted to committing the crimes in his statement to the psychologist. He committed the crimes. Accept it.

  394. SBCLP=Clueless Barnes Cultists

    Hey, #518: are you really that clueless? I thought the LP consisted of rational people who fights to protect the rights of others from being violated? How about the rights of kids from being messed up mentally for life because Matthew Scott Barnes couldn’t keep his hands off their private parts? People defending Barnes are sick!

  395. Brian Holtz

    SBCLP member @514, it’s unfair to suggest (“nefarious”) that any of the people you named think that what they are doing in connection with this controversy is inconsistent with the best interests of the LPCA.

  396. Fact

    You say…
    that a court file says…
    that a psychologist says…
    that MB said…

    hearsay.

    The court file you supposedly reference is nearly 20 years old and was never tested for actuality. It was compiled with the purpose of creating a conviction. There is no rebutal or trying of the evidence. It is hearsay not only by legal definition (and it is) but by any sane and rational examination.

    You, personally, have NO CLUE what happened 25 years ago to the then children who are now sending their own kids to college and planning on grandchildren. They have no interest in you championing their long forgotten and long ago resolved pain.

    Meanwhile MB has a large circle of friends and allies that you have paralyzed as they deal with your emotional pissings and sociopathic intentions. They bare the brunt of your attacks as you do not really seek to hurt MB alone but everyone possible using him as an excuse.

    You are Cheney, MB is some sod you labeled terrorist of the day and the rest of us are the middle east taking your clusterbombs.

    I know that that this FACT spoils your fun.

    There are issues that you have natural authority and responsibility to fight. There are people who, in your name and mine, are right now doing mass murder across the globe. You have a natural ethical DUTY to fight them.

    But, in this forum you concentrate and consume our time on an “activist leader” who has a 25 year old unrepeated stain and a long track record of positive action since.

    Why? Because it is far easier for you to shoot the people circled in wagons with their backs exposed to you than it is to try and hit the moving targets that return fire from outside.

    You are lazy, decrepit and sick yourself.

    You hurt people for your own egotistical amusement and I think you are a coward, a bully and a very likely a predator yourself.

  397. Say what?

    That’s a huge leap of logic. You’re assuming that it must be false based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Based on your own wishful thinking.

    I’m basing my opinions on the evidence in the court file. Which of us is using facts, and which of us is getting emotionally involved and lazy?

    Precisely what evidence do you have that it’s false, as opposed to the evidence gathered and presented to the court that it is true, including his own admission? What possible evidence do you have to say it’s not true when the psychologist has his own admissions and evaluations of his frame of mind AT THE TIME?

    Yes, it was 22 years ago. That doesn’t make it untrue. Your assertion is that it’s untrue or of questionable truth, and it is not. This is the only point of contention here.

    I think you’re taking this awfully personally for someone who is ostensibly looking at this “factually” or “objectively.”

    All I said is, the court file speaks for itself. It contains his admissions, it contains his psychological evaluation. If you simply cannot reconcile defending him if you know he’s guilty, then here’s a thought. Stop trying so hard to defend him by fantasizing about how it isn’t true and start taking a hard look at the facts. I would respect you more for accepting the truth and deciding to defend him anyway than this fantasyland approach.

    Your hysterical ad hominem attacks render you unworthy of further reply.

  398. M. McMahon

    @523

    You are either simply and stubbornly misinformed or you have been lied to.

    I PERSONALLLY retrieved the file from the LA archives building to verify the claims made in the e-mail that started this whole mess. That is, I went online the the Los Angeles Superior Court Website, looked up the charges and case number, went down to the archives, requested the file, argued with a lazy government employee, watched him retrieve it and bring it to me.

    I then called Beau Cain at the CALP office and informed him that the file was present at the archives. Mr. Cain then informed me that, because of the inevitability that some Barneslover would question the chain of custody, CAME DOWN TO GET IT HIMSELF. I then had the archive employees photocopy the file for myself, informed them that someone would be down shortly to view the file, and left.

    Comparisons of files that others have recieved differ from mine ONLY in that the State Party redacted the names of the victims from their copy of the file.

    I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing account is true and correct.

    You are on the WRONG side of this.

  399. Another Cowardly Anonymous Poster

    #523: Who is the “you” you’re referring to in your silly post? Maybe you haven’t noticed that no one from the Ex Com has posted for over 100 posts. You’re wasting your time because the people you want to speak to have gone on to their busy lives.

    Go back to worshipping MB, and, hey, take your kids along, since he’s nothing to worry about.

  400. Thomas L. Knapp

    “He *admitted* to victimizing these kids as well as two others earlier in his life.”

    In fairness, the claim that at least one of those “two others” was “victimized” isn’t borne out by the court file.

    Two kids of roughly the same age engaging in sexual contact isn’t “victimization” of one by the other unless there’s some kind of severe competence or authority disparity. The court file refers to no such disparity in claiming that B!rn*s, at 15, “molested” his 15-year-old nephew.

  401. Another Cowardly Anonymous Poster

    # 527: The similarity in age with his nephew was noted by others. However, that nephew was NOT listed as one of the six charges against Barnes, nor part of the three he pled guilty to. Those children were 11 and 12.

  402. LibertarianGirl

    Does anyone believe the 6 incidents with the 11 and 12 yr olds and the incidents with family i.e in total all the incidents he got caught for are the only incidents he committed??

  403. Brian Holtz

    Anyone guilty of N crimes of child molestation can be assumed to be guilty of N+1 crimes of child molestation. Thus, all child molesters can be assumed guilty of infinitely many crimes of child molestation.

    Does anyone believe that prosecutors don’t routinely over-charge cases to give themselves more chips at the plea-bargaining table?

    Do Libertarians believe in presumption of innocence, or not?

    Um, Debra, the who-hates-pedophiles-the-most contest is over, and the good news is that you tied for first place. Congratulations.

  404. LibertarianGirl

    and you tied for first for the “How many Ways can we defend and Minimize a molesters actions ” prize.

    I believe in the presumption of innocence , I also believe in common sense.

    Im still laughing at Starchilds characterization that this comes down to anti-pedophilia bigotry…LOL , yay I tied for first!!!

    you can trust me with your kids folks!

  405. David F. Nolan

    @515 – The article Brian links to is almost illiterate. And it refers to the Almodovar campaign as “recent” when in fact it was in 1986 or so! They must be really desperate to smear the LP.

  406. Brian Holtz

    Debra, I repeat: I am only defending 1) the LPCA from a precedent of purges based on flimsy charges, and 2) LPCA members from inaccurate or unsubstantiated allegations.

    To suggest that I am defending child molestation per se is grossly unfair.

  407. LibertarianGirl

    B , I read posts under your pseudonym that we’re def doing more than that . the one in particular , which I wont cut and paste AGAIN , attempted to with every word grossly minimize the actions.

    but theres no need , we are obviously on opposite sides of the fence on this one , Im glad we agree on many other things , and I repect your opinions.

    peace

  408. Brian Holtz

    Debra, if you can repeat yourself, then I can too: That one subsequently-corrected paragraph that you just can’t stop repeating was a hypothetical from me, satirizing the utterly unlibertarian idea from you and others that certain people can be considered effectively guilty of future crimes because of the nature of their past crimes. That sentiment is disgusting, and I will always oppose it. You tell me how many years you think MB should have got for his past crimes, and I probably won’t bother arguing for a lower number. But if you argue that he should be punished for future crimes you presume he will probably commit, then I will argue against that tyrannical idea to my last breath.

    So my big unforgivable crime was using a hypothetical case to argue against unlibertarian ideas of prior restraint.

    Meanwhile, you libeled MB as a “rapist”, even though you surely knew that what he was not convicted of rape.

    It’s not at all obvious to me that we’re on opposite sides of the fence here. First you defended those saying expel MB, then you said MB shouldn’t be expelled, and later you said he should. Now we know he’s resigned all LPCA offices at all levels, so I have no idea where you stand on expelling MB today.

    Except I’m pretty sure you hate pedophiles. I think I’ve figured that part out.

  409. LibertarianGirl

    BH__satirizing the utterly unlibertarian idea from you and others that certain people can be considered effectively guilty of future crimes because of the nature of their past crimes.

    me_ part of it was satire , the part where you said all shoplifters will always shoplift etc

    the first part was not satire , you said , troubled alcoholic fondled teenagers , to me that is a gross minimization and rationalization wth every word.

    BH__ But if you argue that he should be punished for future crimes you presume he will probably commit, then I will argue against that tyrannical idea to my last breath.

    me_ depends on what you mean by punish . Not for future crimes but the ones in the past should , IMO , suffer some lifelong consequences , like not allowed around children , not allowed to be a spokesmen for us etc.

    BH_Meanwhile, you libeled MB as a “rapist”, even though you surely knew that what he was not convicted of rape.

    me_ statutory rape is rape .
    webster says:sexual intercourse with a person (girl or boy) who has not reached the age of consent (even if both parties participate willingly)
    plus I dont believe it was consensual becuz of his power position .

    BH_First you defended those saying expel MB, then you said MB shouldn’t be expelled, and later you said he should

    me_ I was fine with the deal Zander cut with him as long as he wasnt in office , when he reneged I was then for expulsion.

    BH__Now we know he’s resigned all LPCA offices at all levels, so I have no idea where you stand on expelling MB today.

    me__ I see no reason to expel him now .

    and yes , I hate pedophiles , I am a proud anti-pedo-bigot . LOL

  410. Gene Trosper

    @538 It’s not so much a “punishment for future crimes” on my part, but rather having more empathy and understanding for the victims who will always have to deal with those crimes for the rest of their lives. Those people are more important than the perpetrator, IMHO, so my sympathies will ALWAYS rest with them. You see, I see lots of talk about why Libertarians should judge Matthew Barnes and how he has “paid for his crime” (not enough, in my estimation), but where has been the Libertarian voice for crime victims? Governments don’t hold a monopoly on the initiation of force and it would be refreshing to see Libertarians recognize that fact.

    The continual defense of Matthew Barnes gives the perception that Libertarians don’t care about the victims of molestation. The concept shouldn’t be terribly difficult to grasp.

  411. Brian Holtz

    Debra, fondling isn’t intercourse. It just isn’t. Rape is not the same crime; he was not charged with any “sexual penetration” crime. That’s section 289; MB was convicted under section 288. Does truth matter, or not?

    Mr. Trosper, how does falsely calling MB a “rapist” helps his victims? What precisely should the LPCA do for MB’s victims — whose identity we don’t even know? If you think the courts failed to impose enough punishment/restitution on MB, then specifically how much more would be enough, and who should administer it?

    If you don’t want to see MB defended at all for anything, then don’t be part of the mob spewing hysterical and exaggerated accusations against him. Isn’t the truth he confessed to awful enough? The hysterical need to exaggerate what he did gives the perception that the exaggerators don’t think that what he actually was convicted of was awful enough to justify what they’re trying to do to him.

    It’s silly to say that defending MB from false accusations suggests that Libertarians think “governments hold a monopoly on the initiation of force”. On the contrary, I’ve accused private parties here of libel, which many Libertarians say is initiation of force.

    Correction: Debra, you’re in fact losing the who-hates-pedophiles-the-most contest. Matt Harris, Chair of the LPWV, publicly wrote on IPR Jan. 29: “if a pedophile were to join the LPWV, I would haul them out into the street and beat them to death just as I would should I come across such a person in any other venue.”

    So Gene, Debra, you have to either match this level of hysteria, or explain to us why you “defend pedophiles” (from being killed on sight). Don’t you “care about the victims of molestation”?

  412. sunshinebatman

    So after the Ca LP announces they warmly welcome pedophiles to the ranks . . .

    . . . they attempt damage control by announcing their plan to help the RNC & DNC by overturning a nonpartisan primary system?

    Pathetic.

  413. Michael Seebeck

    sunshine @543,

    You really ought to study up on top-two/Prop 14 before saying such nonsense. The simple analysis is that it tries to create a non-partisan election system while still requiring partisan voting totals to maintain ballot access for said nonpartisan election. That doesn’t make any sense, third party issues aside. Had top-two reformed the ballot access to make it more nonparitsan and level-playing-field universal (file and you’re on, no fees, no signatures) and remove the ballot access requirements that currently exist for politcal parties in partisan races (like the 2% in a statewide race to keep it), then maybe you’d have an argument. But it doesn’t; therefore you don’t have an argument.

    Analyzing this stuff is part of my “nefarious” duties in the LPCA to create policy positions on ballot initatives. The LPCA XC opposes top-two unilaterally and unanimously, and for good reason.

  414. Innocence

    Who established guilt in MBs case? Nolo Contendre is not an admission of guilt.

    Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what the conviction rate is in California for people who merely get as far as arraignment?

    What do you think the conviction rate is if the accused gets as far as jury selection?

    Take a guess.

    In the mean time, please take a moment to browse this timely publication:
    http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/InnocenceProject_250.pdf

    And consider a gift to The Innocence Project next time you want to hold your own trial and lynching. It will help with the karma.

  415. NOLO CONTENDERE==GUILTY

    #546: “Who established guilt in MBs case? Nolo Contendre is not an admission of guilt.”

    The Court and the Prosecutor sure thought so…and so did Barnes. So does that law thingy. They ALL said he was guilty.

    From my transcript:

    MS. RASH (prosecutor): Mr. Barnes, your attorney indicates that you wish to plead no contest to Counts 1,2 and 4 of the amended felony complaint. Is that what you wish to do at this time?

    THE DEFENDANT (Barnes): Yes, I do.

    MS. RASH: Do you understand that you are pleading guilty to felony counts and that you face a maximum state prison sentence of 24 years on those three counts alone? Do you understand that?

    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

    MS. RASH: Okay. We’ve discussed, however, that the plea agreement would be that you would be agreeing or we would all be agreeing that you would receive no more than eight years on state prison on this particular case in exchange for your early plea of guilty. Is that you understanding?

    THE DEFENDANT: That is my understanding.

    California Penal Code 1016-3: Nolo contendere, subject to the approval of the court. The court shall ascertain whether the defendant completely understands that a plea of nolo contendere shall be considered the same as a plea of guilty and that, upon a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall find the defendant guilty. The legal effect of such a plea, to a crime punishable as a felony, shall be the same as that of a plea of guilty for all purposes.

  416. Guilt

    @547
    Your quote is from the penal code titled “PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL”.

    It is not the rules of evidence.

    Peruse this:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801

    Then find a lawyer to explain it to you. Because you are obviously not one. If you have been calling someone a pedophile in public based on hearsay you are potentially in jeopardy of civil action. It could even be criminal if it leads to significant harm to another or malice can be demonstrated. The Megan’s Law database has some serious rules attached to its use for instance. The criminal matter is even more complicated due to the nature of the charges and if victims are affected.

    The finding of guilt in a nolo plea is not the same as the finding of guilt through a jury preponderating evidence and it is not the same as an admission of guilt when you are using the prosecutorial argument as evidence.

    The question being bandied about is not whether MB was punished by society but, whether you can establish the detailed fact of what happened that lead up to that conviction.

    You cannot do it through the court document.

    Unless you are close enough to MB or the victims to get a first hand picture, you have nothing but what federal rules for evidence classify as hearsay. It was generated by professionals to do one thing: procure a conviction. I am not claiming they are at fault. That is their job; but, that is the motivation they had.

    If you are engaging in these questions of details and facts from a quarter of a century ago, as Mr. Holtz points out you are missing your position in this. The facts here are simply none of your business and you are distracted from where your authority really lay.

    For your own sake it is important to realize what position you put yourself in by going where you do not belong. It is even more important to understand what can happen if you begin projecting your imagination onto a public forum in terms of allegations.

    It is especially important if you hold a position of authority or trust. If you use that position to launch accusations that turn out to be libelous (to submit hearsay as fact for instance), the entire organization is put at risk.

    Lets look at why this is important to this discussion:

    A nolo plea is not usually recommended for deal making. The plea itself is a chip. If MB made a nolo plea he did so disadvantaging his bargaining position compared to simply choosing to enter a plea of guilty. Judges tend not to be as forgiving to nolo pleas compared to a contrite guilty plea. There is hearsay evidence offered in posts above that indicate that MB was contrite at the time. There must be a reason MB did not take the easy road.

    The document the person describes having fetched from the court house is a proof of a conviction; a record of authority to use force in libertarian terms. It is not proof that any of the evidence presented to the court was factual.

    If you know what you are looking at, that court document has “uh-oh” written all over it for anyone trying to use it as proof of past events.

    It is even more precarious for people making accusations in the present tense.

    This is why it is important to handle these things carefully before putting them into the public if you ever do.

    The LPC probably made all the right decisions up to the point where apparently someone or someones went on a witch hunt.

    Which leads to the important point for Libertarians in all of this:

    The other place that your authority lay is in determining who is in a trust relationship to you.

    I would be careful of trusting MB. There are some nasty rumors going around him though they seem to be very old.

    I would also be careful of trusting people that indiscriminately spread this news around. They may have put the party in a very vulnerable position especially if they used it to harrass, pursue, coerce, or purjure MB’s current character with malice. If they did those things while in a position of trust or authority, there could be very serious ramifications.

    No wonder there were resignations.

  417. Another Cowardly Anonymous Poster Pyeatt

    We know it’s you, Matt Barnes, in # 548, and your threats are getting tiresome. You are the one keeping things drummed up and in the public. Everyone else has abandoned this thread, but you just keep posting your ridiculous musings for the trolls to read.

  418. Brian Holtz

    @548, I’m not a lawyer, but I assume that libel trials are decided by juries. No jury is going to convict anyone of libeling MB for saying that he is guilty of the three crimes for which he was convicted. Indeed, the San Bernardino Sun said pretty much exactly that: “Barnes, 41, pleaded guilty in 1993 to three counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old, according to court records. The crimes were committed in the summer of 1987, when Barnes was 19.”

  419. Guilt

    @550
    Was the Sun story factually correct? Why did you skip the part of the story where the paper indentures themselves by saying they don’t have the facts or records?

    Did MB “pleased guilty” or was the reporter less than diligent in more than their spelling?

    Also your example for a “libel trial” is too narrow and does not address my point (It also mistakenly calls the resolution of a tort case a “conviction” for instance).

    The problem is not in showing the criminal conviction. That appears to be fact (though all I have here is people’s demi-anonymous hearsay). But, rather the fallacious problem of projecting fanciful detail and arguments about force, fraud, rape, or stupid horny teenagers into 25 year old hearsay.

    It is my contention that no-one should be into that level of detail including anyone defending MB in such a public place. I think that you are correct: it is a distraction from the real issue.

    @549
    To attack the point maker instead of the point is the fallacy of ad hominem.

    There is nothing threatening in the post. I am responding to the conversation thread regarding why the LPC made the decisions they did and why disciplinary procedures in an organization should be carefully managed.

    So far the LPC looks smart and a few individuals look culpable.

    It is a very reasonable discussion for the public sphere. (I love Heinlein)

  420. Gene Trosper

    @542 I do not recall ever calling Matthew Barnes a rapist. If you have proof that I called him a rapist, please post it so my memory can be jogged. I make no apologies for my viewpoints on pedophiles.

  421. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Trosper, I didn’t say that you had ever called MB a “rapist”. You issued a general complaint that the defenses of MB here don’t help his victims, and one of the things I’ve defended him from is that word “rapist”. So I asked how him getting called that name helps his victims — i.e. whether he should be defended from that false accusation.

    If you don’t want to answer my questions @524, I’d be elated to let the matter drop.

    Guilt @551, I’m only here to correct false, exaggerated, or unsubstantiated accusations against the LPCA and its members. I don’t see any point in publicly debating legal technicalities with anonymous commenters.

  422. Bruce Cohen

    Last night, the LPCA Judicial Committee considered my suspension as a member of the Libertarian Party of California by its board.

    By a 5-0 vote the decision was made to restore my membership. The Judicial Committee concluded that the LPCA Executive Committee “presented no cause for the membership suspension.” I thank the LPCA Judicial Committee for their due consideration of the facts presented and the logical conclusion they drew.

    While I have been at times a harsh critic of the current administration, I want to make clear that behind this strong opinion is a sincere desire for the state party to succeed in impacting the political climate. It is my hope that the LPCA Executive Committee will focus on building the party and that the upcoming convention will vote in competent people to do precisely that.

    Bruce Cohen
    http://www.GetBruce.com
    http://www.GetBruce.BlogSpot.com
    949 813-8001
    866 OC Bruce

  423. A. Waitin Grandkids

    I agree with the Sister; that’s very nice Bruce.
    Do tell us when you get married, or at least engaged.

    Love, Mommy.

  424. XC

    When Zander Collier left,he stated to the Ex-Comm that he thought that the Cohen Case should go by the wayside, that Bruce could continue to stay on the M@77h3w B@rn3s situation. It is apparent that his wishes came to pass as no Ex-Comm member stepped up to challenge Cohen at the Judicial Committee hearing. If B@rn3s stays, Cohen should stay and warn us to be wary of B@rn3s.

    @ Zander, Jill, Allan, Mark; Come back an help fix the bylaws so this does not happen again!

    Our most important job is to develop candidates, help them run, and get them elected.

    If not now, when?

    Lets hear it for Z & the S’s.
    For Liberty,

  425. Bruce Cohen

    Allen Pyatt says he`didn’t resign, though folks who knew him on the Board (XC) said he had.

    I take him at his word.

    The bylaws do need to be improved in several ways, certainly, but they aren’t the problem.

    The inablility to answer the phone, return calls or emails, or to make timely decisions is the problem.

    The lack of vision or planning puts the current team into constant crisis management mode.

    Which, for some people, some of the time, is fine.

    Personally, I work well under a deadline, or in emergency situations.

    These guys on the LPCA Board can’t/don’t/won’t handle crisis management and there’s the rub.

    With no real plan or experience in this sort of ‘businessy’ kind of enterprise, they can’t cope.

    There are a few good people left in King Naga’s Sodom.

    Let them not look back as they walk away.

  426. Bruce Cohen

    Just to add some gasoline to a fire that’s not quite out, here is some musical comedy relief:

    You need the program to watch the video:
    http://ca.lp.org/excommembers.shtml

    This is really funny if you see which person is represented by my ‘casting call’ as they appear.

    Harper Valley Junior High School – Libertarian Party of California
    Widow – Bruce Cohen
    Teenage Daughter – Ginger his Akita
    The PTA’s Note – Zander’s ‘indictment’
    The PTA – Executive Committee*
    The PTA Meeting – Bruce Cohen’s Suspension/Expulsion Trial
    [In an alternate universe, the Long Beach Convention.]
    Miniskirt – Bruce’s Big Mouth
    Drinking – Bruce’s Big Mouth
    Running Around – Bruce’s Big Mouth
    Bobby Taylor – Kevin Takenaga
    Mrs. Taylor – Richard Newell
    Mr. Baker – Don Cowles
    Widow Jones – Mark Selzer**
    Mister Harper – Matthew Barnes
    Shirley Thompson – Zander Collier III**

    * Incorrectly so named, should be “Board of Directors”
    ** Resigned

  427. what huh?

    Mr Cohen, have you considered molesting some Boy Scouts?

    The LPCa might just reconsider your suspension . . .

  428. Not Impressed

    From what I have read on IPR it appears to me that Mr. Cohen’s experience in crisis management is wholly in escalation.

  429. Bruce Cohen

    WH?@560 The LPCA JC reinstated my Membership unanimously.

    The entire ‘trial’, private JX executive session too almost exactly 30 minutes from the beginning until the decision was rendered in writing and in my email box.

    Not 47 Hours and 59 minutes like with Matty.

    NI@561 It wasn’t my crisis.

    It was Kevin and Company.

    All I did was mostly privately discuss my wishes for them to expel the guy for cause.

    I am on the outside and they have been working with this guy for years. The problem has been since september, so five months and it’s still an issue.

    No escalation from me.

    If they followed my advice in the first place, I would have had nothing further to say.

    The secrecy and hush hush attitude and the zero action caused a lot more people than me to have concerns and discuss the situation.

    Thanks for letting me clear the air.

  430. Bruce has faults

    But young boys are not one of them.
    Bruce Cohen prefers grown women instead of Boys. Maybe he has complaints from women. But certainly he is not going to go after young boys. Bruce has his faults, but going after boys is not one of them. It is sick for someone to think Bruce went through this trouble to complain about Mr. Barnes and then mention Bruce is interested in boys. Very sick. Very sick.

    @560 Are you Mr. Barnes himself or his friend.

  431. Carolyn Marbry

    I find it amusing that even while Barnes admits to having committed these acts, people are still trying desperately to pretend they didn’t happen or that there is some mitigating circumstance.

    The file contains not only the transcript of the plea bargain but also a transcript of his psychological evaluation in which he admits to the crimes. ADMITS TO THE CRIMES. So bickering about no contest pleas vs. guilty pleas is pointless. HE ADMITTED IT. Done.

    You’re doing the same thing the kids do in my son’s ethics class, trying to hedge, trying to change up the scenario so you aren’t faced with the unpleasant ethical question of what to do about this situation. The situation is what it is. You have a convicted pedophile who hasn’t been convicted again in 20 years who has misrepresented his past and made threats against members of the excomm in phone calls and in person. He is a member of the party and his presence is causing harm to the party in the media and in terms of losing members of the leadership and of the party itself. At the same time, he makes meetings “fun,” as we’ve been told repeatedly, as if that matters, and he has contributed as an activist over the years. You have a candidate for public office who has made it clear they will stop running if he is not removed. What do you do?

    The approach some of you seem to take is to pretend the charges were false (oh thank god!) so you don’t actually have to face this question. Call it hearsay (although legally the definition of hearsay does NOT include official court records). Or to niggle about the precise details of the situation or pretend that the evidence needs to meet a standard higher than that even required by courts. Or to comb through details until you can make it someone else’s fault. Or find a letter-of-the-law way to defeat the situation so you don’t have to face the ethical issues.

    Face it. Take a good solid look at it. Make your choices from the facts, not from weaseling around trying to find a way to avoid the facts.

  432. Bruce Cohen

    Carolyn is 100% correct here. Matthew should be brought up on Suspension charges and tried properly, legally and fairly.

    The JC had no choice but to aquit. As miss Marbury points out, there was more than enough good cause, and supporting evidence to expel Mister Barnes.

    An unprofesional and inadequate prosecution is to blame.

    In fact, I would venture to say that a mock trial held in a Junior High School civics class would have given an F to a student who submitted such a poorly thought out, organized and presented case file as the one presented by Matthew’s prosecution.

    Embarrassingly to the current LPCA Board, several of it’s members saw fit to leak out the Prosecution’s case file against Barnes, in contravention of our ‘rules of the road’.

    Worse yet, it was leaked for the precise reasons Robert’s Rules forbids such from happening.

    We must not fall to the level of corrupt government, but as honorable Libertarians, we must follow our own rules and ethics.

    Yes, let’s Expel Mister Barnes, I agree.

    But let’s not lynch him because we don’t like him.
    Make the case for Cause and then PROVE IT.

    Again, Ms. Marbury is correct. We have to take our bitter medicine now and get it over.

    If Chairman Naga had done this in September, we would not be wasting time on this matter today.

    No more silly deals and messing around.

    DO IT RIGHT and get it done.

  433. Brian Holtz

    The verified facts of the case remain as follows.

    Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was their 19-year-old scout leader. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he aptly called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when his court file first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him Vice Chair. He later resigned from that office, even though the cause stated for his suspension was that he “stood for election and was elected to Executive Committee on false pretenses”. The LPCA Judicial Committee overturned his suspension by a 5-0 vote. Barnes was also accused of “lying” to the ExCom, but the accusation turned out to be just that he violated an “understanding” floating in the air of a 3-person private conversation, carrying the “implication” that resigning from LPCA’s ExCom means never accepting county office even if his record is disclosed. As of January, Barnes holds no LPCA office at any level.

    Those are the facts. Allegations about “threats” have never been detailed or substantiated, and may have no more substance than the “lying” accusation. LNC Vice Chair candidate Carolyn Marbry alleges that Barnes “gave illegal substances (alcohol and marijuana) to minors at party-related functions”, and that she “witnessed this on countless occasions”. She says Barnes thus exposed the LPCA to serious legal liability, but (as far as I know) she hasn’t explained why she apparently didn’t act to protect the LPCA from this alleged liability before Barnes’s record surfaced.

  434. Bruce Cohen

    Mister Holtz is 100% accurate about this matter.

    The causes for suspension would be none of the matters he discusses in his previous post, if I were advising the prosecution of Matthew.

  435. Should have been reported

    In agreement. It should have been reported to the proper authorities. I suggest that this be done from now on in the future. Also note, a person who sees this could also be an assessory to the fact.

  436. Gary Chartier

    Should have been @569, is it your view that libertarians (and Libertarians) should in general report non-violent felonies to the authorities? And which authorities are proper?

  437. What an idiot

    When there is a liability issue. YES! Did you know some kids are diabetic, what do you think giving alcohol does to a diabetic for example, if some of these kids are too young to understand. There is also a LAW. Follow the LAW. Do not give alcohol to minors.

  438. Carolyn Marbry

    You still beating that strawman, Holtz?

    Okay, you want an answer, here you go. The truth is, I didn’t know they were underage until after the fact. More to the point, until they were no longer underage. I don’t know about you, but I don’t make a point of carding my friends, particularly when they’re enjoying someone ELSE’s hospitality.

    Bearing in mind that during that period, I was still living in NorCal, it came as a surprise to me that the birthday party we were planning for one of the people involved was his 21st birthday. Likewise with a few others who were more on the periphery.

    As to the marijuana, since it was in amounts legal for the homeowner to have in possession (assuming he were NOT a convicted felon, as I did at the time), there was certainly no reason to turn anyone in.

    Don’t try to make this about me or my campaign. It’s absolutely ludicrous that you would try to equate my not turning a fellow Libertarian in for an offense I wasn’t aware of with his convictions for child molestation.

    By the way, I was not the one to raise this charge. Several other Libertarians were at his events. I also was not the one to give testimony about it since, as I say, I didn’t know about it until after the fact. So you’re barking up the wrong tree. This is one reason why I wasn’t going to dignify your stupidity with a response.

  439. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Marbry, I don’t see how my questions can involve a “strawman” when I simply quoted what you said about the legal liability you alleged, and asked what you did about it.

    Your own words @23 above were: Countless occasions means over the course of a year, at least once a week and sometimes twice a week when I was at his house. Were there always people under 21 there drinking beer? Much of the time. Were all those events party related? No. Notwithstanding that some of those people were party officers and we did discuss party business, the only times I will call party-related were his barbecues where he handed out Libertarian literature, recruited people to the party and kept voter registration forms on hand to sign people up. Often party members (including officers on the excomm) were present for these events. The marijuana smoking took place in a separate room but it did involve those who were underage.

    The legal age for drinking alcohol is 21 in CA, Mr. Holtz, and if the party is busted for providing alcohol even to 20 year olds, it’s still a problem for us. Pot for non-medical use is also illegal in CA, same thing. All it takes is someone deciding to press charges because someone gave their 18 year old pot at one of our events, and we have an expensive court case to defend and potential bad press.

    Now you say “I don’t make a point of carding my friends”.

    It sounds like you need to make up your mind whether LP members mentioning the LP at a private barbecue at somebody’s home constitutes a “party-related event”, such that sharing alcohol there (or marijuana in a “separate room”) with minors who look 21 could expose the LPCA to “an expensive court case” and “bad press”.

    LP members deserve to know how a Vice Chair candidate balances 1) alleged grave legal risk to the LP with 2) her own personal discomfort at “carding friends”. Thank you for clarifying that.

    I “equated” nothing. I’m just trying to get at the facts behind your allegations that you and other LPCA leaders did nothing to stop a series of “party-related events” that you say posed a legal liability to the LPCA.

    Personally, I have no problem with LP officers sharing alcohol or marijuana at private gatherings in their own homes with friends who appear to be 21 or older. That’s none of the LPCA’s business, just like it’s none of the government’s business.

    Libertarians are generally a feisty bunch, so I trust that your comment about my “stupidity” won’t deter other LP members from asking you questions about how much personal discomfort you would risk as Vice Chair to protect the LP from legal liabilities.

  440. Michael H. Wilson

    Instead of splitting hairs wouldn’t it be better to take the time to write to our Congress people, local politicians and state legislators. If not how about giving me 150 reasons not to.

  441. Carolyn Marbry

    I already answered you, Holtz. I was not aware that those who were partaking were underage until they were no longer underage, at which point there was nothing FOR me to do about it.

    The onus is on the host to make sure he’s not breaking the law.

  442. Carolyn Marbry

    “LP members deserve to know how a Vice Chair candidate balances 1) alleged grave legal risk to the LP with 2) her own personal discomfort at “carding friends”. Thank you for clarifying that.”

    I was not an officer in the party at that point, so it was not my place. Officers are held to a higher standard, and as an officer in the party, I would not allow the party to be put at risk. Don’t be dense.

  443. Rachel H

    @543 – PLEASE tell me you’re not supporting Top Two?

    “Top Two” is the DEATH of minor parties.

    http://bit.ly/cn0IJW

    http://bit.ly/d8lggS

    This is not hyperbole – in a “blue” district, all the Ds have to do is to run a second D candidate, and all General Election ballot choices will be D.

    Ditto for “red” districts.

    And the Green, Libertarian, Constitution and Progressive Parties never see another ballot line.

    We LIVE it here. Our alt parties are joining to (try to) support an independent candidate – where the candidate is only “sort of” okay with all of us – because the goal is to bust the two party lock.

  444. Brian Holtz

    Ms. Marbry, I’m just trying to figure out what changed between now and the last of the “countless occasions” you saw alcohol and marijuana being shared with underage youths at private events hosted in the home of an LPCA leader. Your answer seems to be twofold: 1) the youths didn’t appear at the time to be underage but you somehow have since learned otherwise (and learned that others knew otherwise), and 2) you’ve come to feel protective of the LP since you decided a few months ago to run for Vice Chair.

    For my part, I’ve felt protective of the LP ever since I first became an LP candidate in 2001. As for this new information that the youths in question appeared to be over 21 but in fact at least one was merely just shy of that birthday, that certainly puts a whole new light on your original conveniently-vague accusation about “minors”, which came in the context of MB’s 20-year-old crimes with 11- to 13-year-olds.

    From what you’ve said, I don’t think you or any LPCA leader at these countless private parties put the LPCA at any legal risk whatsoever. So I don’t think you need to invoke the excuse that you weren’t a party officer during any of these countless events. I haven’t been an LPCA officer or candidate for a year, but I still can’t help feeling very protective of the LPCA — and that’s why I defend it and its members from unfair allegations, bad publicity, and bad precedents.

    And I’ll continue to do so, no matter how often you call me “stupid” or “dense”.

  445. Bruce Cohen

    Matthew B is cruising the Convention with his usual Fecal Eating and Canary Eating Smile. ( F.E.C.E.S.)

    The people who recruited him and promoted him and could not figure out he was a freak, despite so many obvious ‘clues’ are trying to stay away from him, as he’s now become Libertarian Kryptonite with the smell of death and the look of F.E.C.E.S. on his face.

    I have heard of no motion or action towards him, other than folks running away like a sink full of greasy water you drop soap into.

    F.E.C.E.S. boy loves the attention, and is hoping to be a martyr, of course, so any motion or discussion will bring his F.E.C.E.S. smile and blush out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *