The Secretary race at the Libertarian Party National Convention was between Rob Power of California and Alicia Mattson of Tennessee. Outgoing Secretary Bob Sullentrup endorsed Mattson. The final results were:
Rob Power: 194 (42.27%)
Alicia Mattson: 265 (57.73%)
The Treasurer’s election was conducted after the Secretary’s race, which pitted James Oaksun of Maine against Aaron Starr of California.
James Oaksun: 319 (70.58%)
Aaron Starr: 133 (29.42%)
The LNC At-Large elections and Judicial elections are to occur tomorrow. The banquet, at which Michael Munger of North Carolina is the keynote speaker, occurs tonight.
this aint about defending anything for anyone , it’s about having the last word.
this argument became circular a long time ago , aint nobody budging on their perceptions and nobody is changing their minds.
its just a waste of everyones time , yours included
Debra, I’m against people airing embarrassing facts about the LP more than is necessary, but I’m also against people exaggerating those facts, or using such exaggerations to promote purges. Smears and purge advocacy won’t go unanswered on my watch.
Brian , for someone who says they wanted this to go away , and that we were doing ourselves damage by airing this laundry , you sure have alot to still say about it . Perhaps you should take the advice you gave me and just stop talking about it . there is nothing to argue if you just dont argue.
You implied that somehow I generated a smokescreen for the Phillies discussion.
The screed @134, with its charges of ?pure vendetta and the spite and malice behind them? in the Barnes case, is what generated the smoke that was used as a screen.
@134 was written by you, not by any New Path “minion”.
And guess what: new smoke about the original smoke can screen just as well as the original smoke did. Congratulations.
My opinions about LPCA disciplinary process were aired in the long Feb. thread.
Civil liability is not the same as criminal liability. Insurance is for civil liability.
BH@228:
“You clearly re-opened this can of worms for this particular thread, and I cannot respect your assertions to the contrary.”
@217 You stated:
“…if was you (or someone using a variant of your name) who at @134 created the smokescreen which allowed George to ignore my two…”
You implied that somehow I generated a smokescreen for the Phillies discussion. This I deny fully.
If you are saying that a statement I made gave purchase to others to create a smokescreen for Phillies, I see that as reasonable analysis and opinion. That was not the statement I responded to.
My point was that disciplinary hearings are outlined in Robert’s Rules for a reason. Just having a bylaw that lets you set your own proceedings is not enough to write them off wholesale. I also assert that disciplinary hearings used cavalierly or manipulated for vendetta are a recipe for disaster.
It is a darned important point. As far as I know, insurance will not cover criminal actions nor ones that are demonstrable as deliberately malicious. Maybe there is a Ghengis Khan policy out there… I don’t know.
Ms. Pyeatt, I was talking @180 about the “the problem of a non-officer LP member offering both alcohol and LP membership forms to teenagers at his home to attend a private party that the LPCA in no way promoted.” I stand by my statement that “the LPCA has no legal exposure in such cases”, and I invite you to find an attorney who would say otherwise. I’m not an attorney, but I know what lawsuits are like. The water board on which I serve spends at least an hour every month in closed session about a case in which we are threatened with a lawsuit and will be taking to mediation next month.
I can’t agree that it constitutes a “vendetta” just because I publicly object to having a top LPCA leader repeatedly making statements like these. I would better understand what you mean by “hilarious” and “style” if you told us which of those ten statements you’d like to see more of from an LPCA Vice Chair. A simple list of integers will suffice. 🙂 Readers are free to assume you’re embarrassed by any of the ones you don’t list.
If you want to identify the “vendetta” here, then look at the person who says things like:
And that’s just in this thread alone. Seebeck regularly stalks me around IPR attempting personal insults — I mean, displaying his “style” and “humor”. And that’s just the stuff we see with his name on it. One might wonder if any of the pseudonymous poison inundating IPR comes from his IP address. I’ve never issued a pseudonymous insult toward Mike here on IPR, and I release the IPR moderators here to confirm or deny my claim. I wonder if Mike has the honor and courage to say/do the same thing?
Holtz was not there during the Executive Committee sessions and one of my biggest outrages over the whole episode is that he wrote an article for the Judicial Committee that actually had some bearing on the case. Unbefuckinglievable.
I can’t agree with you that an LPCA member should be able to be purged on the basis of trust-me-you-had-to-be-there evidence. Any ExCom that wants to purge somebody while I’m an LPCA member — or any JudCom that wants to uphold such a purge — better be prepared to place a convincing case in front of the membership — at least in closed session at the convention. If they’re not thus prepared, then I will be objecting as strenuously as I can — even if the purge victim is someone in whom I’m profoundly disappointed (like Cohen and Barnes) or with whom I’ve had sharp public disagreements (like Cohen and Barnes). That was the case with these two purges, and while I doubt that our JudCom needed any help in reaching that conclusion, I’m proud that they’ve said my brief to that effect was the best they received.
Gene, thanks for clearing my name. It’s good to know that when you “stood up and cheered” Mike’s tantrum and smears against me @210, you weren’t suggesting that I’m one of the “obsessive, data crunching, hair splitting, ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ types” that you bravely specified for criticism in your very next sentence. 🙂
Trouble, my comment @129 was purely about abstract principles of JudCom procedure. Your screed @134 featured charges of “pure vendetta and the spite and malice behind them” in the Barnes case. You clearly re-opened this can of worms for this particular thread, and I cannot respect your assertions to the contrary.
BH@217:
“Trouble @211, if was you (or someone using a variant of your name) who at @134 created the smokescreen which allowed George…”
That post was in response to you on the side topic of JudCom procedure and the importance of Roberts Rules. It named no names, called no one out, and there was no context for insult established in the conversation.
###
Back to the man who called the man on the man:
One avenue that Phillies might have also taken, was to get elected a Treasurer that he could trust to be more forthcoming to member requets.
Personally, the act of going to the man seems not only premature but unfounded from the description I’ve read about the lead up. I would less trust a person who resolves things through the “guys with guns”.
In response to Mr. Knapp who earlier stated that the non-anarchists may not believe it, I maintain that there are always answers that do not involve violence.
Some are REALLY hard. Some may even reasonably argue that in some cases it is not worth the cost or risk otherwise. This incident does not seem to be one of those, nor could it in any context that I can see be one of those.
I would like to understand why Dr. Phillies decided to involve the threat of violence in this matter.
@215 Your name was purely used as reference. Beyond that, I wasn’t referring to you. However, if you wish to identify with the group of people the LP could use less of, then feel free.
Freedom of association, you know.
gp, I look forward to your expose’ on LimoGate. This time, however, I’d urge you to do some actual analysis, rather than cherrypicking one factoid from an FEC filing without any providing granularity and (opportunity) cost analysis.
Near as I can tell, you have a propensity for reading FEC reports and leaping to conclusions. Your expose’ of LimoGate was not especially damaging, and it may well be that the Barr campaign was not run as efficiently as possible. Your narcing to the FEC on a non-issue has probably hurt your intra-party credibility, but I must say you seem utterly remorseless about (IMO) reckless disregard for the party and its future.
Hear Hear!
Brian @ 180: The LP absolutely can be sued over the Barnes affair, from many directions. The Executive Committee is exposed as a group, but we’re also exposed as individuals. I’m not sure why you have a vendetta against Mike Seebeck, but he is hilarious and is an effective leader. He obviously has a different style than you do, but then so does Ernest Hancock and so do I. That doesn’t make us any less capable of forwarding the cause of Liberty.
At the risk of making an enemy of Holz, I’ll remind everyone that he was not there during the Executive Committee sessions and one of my biggest outrages over the whole episode is that he wrote an article for the Judicial Committee that actually had some bearing on the case. Unbefuckinglievable.
Now, I implore all of you: Let’s get over this. It was a very big deal to me and all of us involved. Carolyn is right: it’s been dealt with in case something comes up in the future, most of us involved have made peace with Matt, and now we all have work to do toward getting this country back on the track of Liberty.
Who keeps bringing this up? It reminds me of Don Grundmann who always brings the subject of homosexulatity into everything. It just distracts everyone fromt he important work we should be doing.
OK, Carolyn, I guess we’re in violent agreement with my point (@178, @186, @189, @192, @194) that the private parties chez Barnes are moot with respect to our shared belief that Barnes should be excluded from LPCA office/candidacy but not from LPCA membership. Because of that mootness, the alleged LPCA legal exposure created by the private parties seemed interesting only to the extent that such exposure might be invoked to justify expulsion if he as a non-officer continued them. My mistake was in assuming this was the only possible reason to be interested in legal exposure from private parties chez Barnes. I remain uninterested in the substance-sharing at the private parties he ran while he was an officer, because we already had far stronger grounds from excluding him from being an officer.
Barnes AKA Trouble apparently doesn’t realize that Marbry, Seebeck and McMahon have nothing to do with New Path. Seebeck and McMahon never did. Shows you how far out of the loop he is and how bizarre his sense of political strategy and his own importance are.
Holtz, apparently you missed where I spent most of that 41 sentence reply and most replies since saying that I never saw Barnes do anything in appropriate with the small children, a point I’ve reiterated many times because you seem to keep missing it, and that the whole thing has been dealt with. You seem to have likewise missed the part where I said that while it does open the party up to potential legal exposure, the booze and pot issue is not worth more than a “Hey, can you not give pot or booze to people under 21 while you’re doing outreach?” and I really don’t know why that became so important.
As I said, read what I said not what you wish I’d said. Same for you, Barnes AKA Trouble.
In the matter of the FEC criminal complaint against the LP, “importance” is a feature of facts and questions about them, rather than about who generated said facts/questions. I’ll let the comment-counter be my first-order metric for how “important” this discussion’s facts and questions are.
I suspect — but of course cannot prove — it was your tendency to entangle personalities and facts that led in the first place to your premature filing of the criminal complaint against the Party. A strong hint for such entanglement is the device of extravagantly not “naming names” when everybody who’s anybody knows precisely who you’re talking about. As we read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis: “Paralipsis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack.”
But hey, one rationalization (“importance”) for not answering a question is fundamentally just as good as any other (e.g. buried-by-LPSB-drama)…
@217 You overrate your importance in the world. Given your debating habits, you are being given here the full attention you deserve, plus five or ten lines.
@216
No, Limousine services is that other guy. In fact, it is still that other guy, and we’ll be covering that in a future Liberty For America.
Trouble @211, if was you (or someone using a variant of your name) who at @134 created the smokescreen which allowed George to ignore my two questions @146 (and repeated @189, and presaged @133 @130 and @116). Do you seriously think George isn’t smart enough to use your smokescreen to avoid giving straight answers to those two questions?
tk: Does anyone know that part of the equation?
me: Thank you, Thomas. Citing disembodied, raw numbers means nothing. What are they for? What do they do? What are the opportunity costs? What are the qualitative considerations?
Thankfully, there are no lines that say “limo services,” although I would not be surprised that someone from National took a cab on a business trip rather than walking from the airport! The spendthrifts! 😉
Gene, I’ll be grateful if you can find and quote any angels-on-pinhead sins in the facts I lay out here in @215. I’ll take your silence as a clean bill of health. 🙂
Mike, I’ve not issued a word of criticism of the level of effort you’re exerting as either Southern Vice Chair generally, or in the Prop 14 campaign in particular. All I criticized was the extra effort you put into being boorish and childish (“underpants”, anuses) while you’re holding down your magical I’m-temporarily-not-LPCA-Southern-Vice-Chair button.
I embarrassed you about it, and so you desperately tried to browbeat me while changing the subject: “BTW, thanks for the ZERO calls made on the phone bank last week.”
So then I embarrassed you again by explaining how much money I donated to the Prop 14 campaign, and how much work for liberty I was doing as a Libertarian in elective office during the week you asked me about.
You say: “Did I do any calls? No, I didn’t because my priorities within the LPCA were set on other things”. Well, that’s my story too. I don’t tell you how to allocate your freedom-fighting efforts, so I’m just going to laugh when you try to tell me how to allocate mine. And you don’t get to say I “didn’t step up” on Prop 14 until you cut me a check reimbursing me for the $500 I contributed toward anti-Prop-14 ads. So my first advice to you for your work as Southern Vice Chair: don’t browbeat LP donors, and don’t tell Libertarians in elected office that they’re not doing enough work for freedom. If you’re not sure whether that’s good advice, feel free to check it with Kevin.
I’ve done zero “after-the-fact QBing” about our Prop 14 campaign — and in fact donated $500 to it and publicly praised the ad that our team put together.
Yes, being an LPCA Vice Chair is hard work, but I don’t see where smearing our donors and office-holding Libertarians is part of the job description. I don’t buy your apparent belief that nobody is allowed to criticize your performance unless they’re willing to take over your job. That’s like Root saying nobody can criticize what he says on TV unless they are on TV as much as he is. If you can’t handle fact-based criticism of your actions while you hold LP office, then don’t run for the job.
I’m proud of the work I did to help stop Hancock’s Chair campaign. He finished in first place in the straw poll at the leadership conference in February. I went to work telling delegates some undisputed facts about the Chair we’d be stuck with for the next two years, and when I was done, Hancock got only 16% of the vote. Mission accomplished.
During that same time, I was Vice-Chair of the LPUS Platform Committee and worked hard to make sure that the Platform repairs that I led in 2008 were preserved in 2010. Mission accomplished.
I also campaigned to reverse a purge of two LPCA members, to defend the LPCA JudCom that effected the reversal (ever hear of Mark Hinkle?), to defeat a candidate for LPCA rep to LNC, and to get myself elected to LPUS JudCom. Missions accomplished.
I also completed a six-month project to prove that the LPCA’s $15K/yr paper newsletter could be replaced (if the ExCom cared to) with a more timely and more informative electronic version, using zero dues money and only one volunteer’s labor — mine. Mission accomplished.
I also set out to build the LP’s most feature-rich system for free campaign sites, and built four of them for LPCA candidates. Mission accomplished.
I also once again generated and distributed per-district RegLib contact spreadsheets for the scores of LPCA candidates who tried to run for office in the current election cycle. Mission accomplished.
All of these missions were accomplished while I’ve been serving on my town’s water board and drafting the ordinance that as I described above will repeal ten pages of regulations and certifications imposed on our residents by Sacramento. Oh yeah, and I set up a Yahoo Group to network together the 13 Libertarians across America who hold elective office on water/soil/resource district boards, so that we can try to replicate each other’s real-world successes.
I’ll be at party work later today, starting with Hinkle’s Senate race. What are YOU going to do for Liberty today?
What, you weren’t embarrassed enough by the answer I gave — and that you utterly ignored — about what I did for liberty last week? OK: I’ve already been hard at work on Hinkle’s campaign. Who do you think single-handedly has built and maintained Mark’s campaign web site? Who do you think single-handedly built and maintained Mark’s campaign site for his 2008 Assembly race? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the same guy who donated $100 to Mark for his Chair race — which he in turn contributed to the LP’s Prop 14 campaign. So that’s 600 of my dollars that ended up in our Prop 14 campaign — for which you say I “didn’t step up”.
The job of LPCA Vice Chair is indeed extremely hard. My advice is to not make it even harder, by posting about underpants and anuses and accusing LP donors and office-holders of “mental illness”. Unless, of course, you keep chanting “unorthodox” and hand-wave about how you “switch hats” right before you do anything uncivil or embarrassing…
Mike,
You did a superb job with very limited resources and time. We came much closer to winning than earlier polling would have suggested; almost all the undecided voters were won over to our side. My own efforts were the mailing — which some of you will have seen — on behalf of California and Illinois, a Facebook ad campaign that generated over 800,000 general impressions and 80,000 targeted at California Facebook readers with libertarian inclinations, and a diary at Daily Kos to stir up the progressive Democrats, which to judge from later diaries and their comments had some positive effect in that community.
I am sorry that your state party is plagued by the posting trolls who are attacking you and other people who worked for us and against the referendum; I could name three names. Eventually that sort of behavior disrupts a blogging community, which is why you are welcome at GoldAmericaGroup.
Finally, it is truly unfortunate that, over a year ago, libertarians in parts of Northern California who tried to raise concern about Proposition 14 were told not to worry about the matter by the ballot access experts that they relied upon.
George
I was told to come here and read Mike Seebeck’s response to Holtz @210. All I want to do is stand up and cheer. While Mike and I currently have different ideas about party-based politics, I will say that the LP has needed many more Mike Seebecks and much less of the obsessive, data crunching, hair splitting, “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” types.
I’m going to say this one more time, as gently as possible:
It is the business of each individual who chose to register with LibertyManager and make volunteer calls against Prop 14 — or to NOT do so — to divulge or not divulge their activity or lack of same.
If those with access to the call center registration/activity list persist in naming people who did make calls, or in using the fact that this or that person did not make calls as a tool of political combat, it will be a cold day in hell before I ever make another volunteer call through that system … and I guarantee that there are additional prospective volunteers who won’t become ACTUAL volunteers once they become aware that their personal information may be abused in that way.
BH@208:
“It’s unfair to throw around phrases like “New Path minions”.”
I disagree. Minion is a word that they invoked.
Secondly, when their Slate Leader is exposed for his wanton and destructive assaults on the LP, up pop three people Marbry, McMahon, and Seebeck. They obfuscate their leader’s attack on the LP by dusting up unrelated drama, that they were instrumental (if not generative) in creating. This is no where near the first time these same actors played the same gambits.
Their associations are clear; their message is united; and the motivations self illustrated.
Minion is an obvious and appropriate, if not understated for the level of nefariousness it should illustrate, label.
“browbeat LP officeholders and anti-Prop-14 donors that they didn’t make enough phone calls in a campaign where we needed 300,000 more votes to win”
What planet are you on?
I browbeat nobody. I cheerlead (sans pom-poms), encourage, cajole, beg, ask, plead, and piut out calls to action. I coordination, communicate, and organize. I defend the Party from idiots without and within as well. And I do activist things to help along the way beyond the administrative stuff. That’s the elected office in a nutshell.
While you, Brian, were off doing hit pieces on Ernie Hancock, I was doing everything I possibly could to marshal forces to beat this thing. Some people responded to the calls to action, of me doing my Bylaws-stated job of coordinating the region activities. Many more did not, including you, even though you’re not in my region. That and getting our convention delegation organized, travel, the convention itself, my 14-hour a day job and commute, and afterwards working the ad buy out of airplane seats, more work, and topping it off with a head cold that stole my voice courtesy of the wonderful St. Louis weather. Plus personal affairs of being a provider, husband, and father, and fitting in meals, sleep, and the occasional dog ear scratch.
Ain’t nobody who’s got anything to complain about me on this, let alone the likes of you, Brian.
At the time of the phone bank we had no idea of the raw numbers at the end. Nobody did, not even you, Mr. 65-35, and at least my prediction of 52 was a helluva lot closer to the final 54 than yours based on the street feel I was getting. The effort was worked to the best of the abilities of those that were working it, and I for one am damned proud of all of us who stepped forward while being very disappointed in those that didn’t. Your after-the-fact QBing is extremely lame and simply illustrates your own weak arguments and character. End game here? I stepped up, so did others, and you didn’t, and being called on that galls you.
Me, I have a job I was elected to do, and it’s probably one of the hardest jobs in the entire LP from sheer geography, demographics, and time. And I do it. Sometimes unorthodox, but I do it. I could have easily have said no, but I didn’t, and here I am.
I also know what hat I’m wearing at all times and am able to differentiate between them, and that also drives you nuts.
Did I do any calls? No, I didn’t because my priorities within the LPCA were set on other things by agreement with the Chair and other Party leaders, because I’m not good at it, and because of the constraints listed above. That’s why Lidia made some–it’s that Team Seebeck thing we do so well at. But complaining about my actions, when in fact you know little to nothing of what I do down here, when YOU got called out for your inaction, is simply trying to distract from your own failures.
Even Mark Hinkle, while campaigning for both national chair and his State Senate race, made calls. You have no excuses, period.
As far as party-building, I challenge you to do my elected job, Holtz. Run for Northern Vice-Chair next year and prove me wrong, if you have the guts. I doubt you’re up to it. That’s why I hold you in such contempt all the time. You’re entitled to your opinion, and you yap it all the time here. But you really need to learn, Brian, when to simply admit you’re wrong and then shut up and move on. This is one of those cases.
Fans? Me? I’m not used to that and not comfortable in a celebrity-like status. I certainly didn’t expect such in my elected office within the party, considering the general antipathy against government-type folks. Apparently I must be doing something right, despite complaints to the contrary…
I’m off to the dentist and dealing with some personal issues, and then I’ll be at party work later today, starting with Hinkle’s Senate race. What are YOU going to do for Liberty today?
Whether or not the IT expenses are “too high” is a function of what the LP gets for them.
Does anyone know that part of the equation?
For example, if spending $3000 on “email marketing” — presumably this amounts to paying a service like Constant Contact to keep the LP on the right side of the spam line, etc., and perhaps paying professionals to write fundraising pitches — brings in $10k in contributions the LP would not otherwise have realized, or generates votes for LP candidates that would not otherwise have been cast at a low per-vote cost, or whatever, then that’s a lot different than just “we blew $3k.”
It’s unfair to throw around phrases like “New Path minions”. IIRC, none of George’s New Path slate-mates says the FEC criminal complaint was the right thing to do, and the only two who have commented on it at all have now repudiated it to various extents. There were lots of excellent ideas in the New Path plan, and the criminal complaint doesn’t change that.
George is right that these IT expenses are too high — at least 3X, and as much as 10X. I hope Hinkle and Oaksun and Benedict take a hard look at them.
He wants an FEC filing, he gets an FEC filing, from Liberty for America http://LibertyForAmerica.com:
“Where Your Money Went —
LNC April 2010
The LNC began April with $150,318.40 cash on hand, had $191,140.18 in income and $91,675.68 in expenditures, and ended the month with $249,782.90 cash on hand. Total income to date for the year was $608,468.45. However, that income number includes very considerable income corresponding to the National Convention; we must wait to see how matters ended up.
On the bright side, buried in that $91K in expenses was a Facebook Ad Charge for $229.69. That was the spending on real politics.
The Watergate Offices cost $10.5K.
Information Technology expenses included:
Email Marketing Services 3000.00
LP.org Website Management 2600.00
Computer and Server Repair and Maint. 1403.75
Phone and Data Services 1187.18
Website Hosting Service 649.00
Email Server Hosting 574.00
Cable Services 220.00
You see here over $10,000 a month for various information technology activities. The IT experts on the New Path Team were completely staggered by the large size of these numbers relative to what we are buying.
You can expect more details in future issues. Also, expect broader coverage. In particular, the Massachusetts “Small Government” people, who I have largely ignored since 2002, showed up by letter at the LNC convention, with endorsements for Chair candidates. Thank you for reminding me of your existence; we’ll be covering your spending activities again.”
word cotton! let it go away…
Yes, if the New Path minions are done dusting up obfuscating drama; Lidia wisely pulls her spouse out of the fire, lets get back to Mr. Phillies, Ms. Marbry, Mr. Seebeck and the FEC filing.
BH: you’ve dwelled on his hosting of private parties with minors invited
CM: I dwelled on nothing. I answered the questions asked.
@156 I asked OKW what’s the age of the youngest “minor” that you “know” was at Barnes’s home?
You replied @157 with a 41-sentence discourse on the case. You’ve repeatedly emphasized the legal exposure to the LPCA from his private parties — exposure that the ExCom simply ignored in its cause for suspension. You’ve called me “obtuse” for disagreeing about that legal exposure. I’ve explained why I think the topic of the parties is moot, and that my only interest in them is disambiguating what people mean by “minors” and “teenagers”.
take a look at who keeps insisting that there couldn’t possibly have been minors there when he wasn’t there to know.
Who? You can’t mean me, because all I’ve done is ask questions about what “minors” means, and point out the difference between 13-year-olds and 19-year-olds.
Lidia, amen to the need to do “serious party-building”. I just don’t think serious party-building involves the Southern Vice Chair talking about skulls, underwear, and anuses, or trying to browbeat LP officeholders and anti-Prop-14 donors that they didn’t make enough phone calls in a campaign where we needed 300,000 more votes to win.
Ralph, my proposed ordinance is at http://wiki.marketliberal.org/LosAltosHillsWaterBudgeting. A couple details have changed since then, but it’s still on track to repeal the onerous model ordinance that you see linked there.
yawn, tired old story
@ 199 Brian, do you have a copy of your 1 page ordinance online? Thank you.
Mike…. has *fans*??
Aside from that, can we possibly quit discussing MB all over once again? We just got our collective rear ends handed to us by the voters this week, and if we don’t do some seriously incredible Party building we won’t even be a qualified Party in CA in a few years. Get that through your skulls, everyone.
And oh, by the way, Mike didn’t make phone calls because I was, you can’t make phone calls from two phones in this house without hearing garble from the other phone call, and he might also have been busy with ad buys, a media event in Costa Mesa, and other activity in attempts to nix Prop 14. You didn’t see him stumbling though the door at 10 at night because he’s been to yet another affiliate begging people to step up to the plate.
Holtz, I dwelled on nothing. I answered the questions asked. If you want to take a look at who’s dwelling on it, take a look at who keeps insisting that there couldn’t possibly have been minors there when he wasn’t there to know.
Seriously, people, don’t we have politics to do or something?
Mike, it’s untenable to say that OWK42 didn’t advocate Barnes’s expulsion. @139 “he” emphatically over-endorsed the ExCom’s stated rationale for “tossing” Barnes: The real issue is that a pedophile breached trust, lied, and put the CALP in a position of risk, and then when he was tossed, he had a temper tantrum over it, and then the JC screwed it all up by not making the pedophile prove his appeal and instead made the CALP reprove its case when they weren’t the ones appealing.
If you have some special insight that “he” in fact thinks that Barnes should not be suspended if not an officer, then I’m glad to know that “he” agrees with me.
Any such insight would also be appreciated if it shed light on “his” claim that I’ve committed “outright lying”. “He” seems to have fled from my challenge to substantiate that scurrilous charge. (I quote he/his because you used the masculine pronoun for OWK42, while I make no suggestions about “his” identity.)
That sure is a magical switch you have, that you can toggle whenever you want to do something embarrassing to the LPCA. If you would have lent it to Matt Barnes, you could have saved us all a lot of trouble.
But why should you toggle it at all, when your “superior wit” about underpants and anuses reflects so positively on the LPCA? Again: make up your mind — why was my flyer a “hit piece” if all it did was quote your “humor”, without a single word editorializing either for or against you?
thanks for the ZERO calls made on the phone bank last week
According to the site, I made precisely as many as you did. But I also donated $500 to the LPUS toward its advertising campaign to stop Prop 14. And I didn’t once use data about volunteer phone logs to browbeat any LP donor or any of the LPCA’s mere dozen-or-so holders of public office. Good job, Mr. Southern Vice Chair. Still, I apologize for not making some calls in a race that you said would be close and I said would not be close and was then lost by more than 300,000 votes.
You wanna know what I did in the last week besides donating for LP airtime on Prop 14? I attended our town Planning Commission meeting to watch them approve the ordinance I drafted that will replace ten pages of irrigation regulations and certifications with a simple economic incentive to conserve water. Then I worked a booth at our town picnic so I could explain to residents how the Libertarian on the water board is cutting red tape and restoring their freedom to decide how they use the water they buy. Then I wrote for our town Water Conservation Committee a well-received article explaining how free markets and property rights are the best answer for our water challenges. Then I stopped by the Water Board to sign $300,000 in checks in my capacity as a Director of our water board. Then I attended our monthly board meeting and consolidated the board’s agreement with the recommendation of my subcommittee that we should not spend a million dollars on a proposed-but-unnecessary water treatment facility.
And during that whole time, I managed not to make any postings on high-traffic political sites that insult people by talking about their underpants or anus.
Because I don’t have a magic switch like the one issued to our Southern Vice Chair.
(That “serious” enough for ya? 🙂 I try to go easy on the humor, because even clever humor can be perceived as rude when it’s exhibited in the end zone. But never doubt that I enjoy every minute of whatever you see me doing.)
Mr. Southern Vice Chair@197:
“But in the T-shirts case, the county Vice-Chair did exactly that, breaking the rules and getting it all wrong.”
Wow. Those are some allegations that you not quite but almost made. A common trait among the New Path Slate it seems.
Brian, it appears from this screen that OWK42 was merely stating that Barnes was dishonorable, and to paraphrase, that with his own foreknowledge he never should have put himself or others in those situations in the first place. I don’t see a call for expulsion there.
As far as the honor part goes, OWK42 is correct. Proper ethics requires such disclosure in advance and avoidance of such situations if at all possible.
As for Carolyn and Mike leaving SBDLP, when the only way to call a meeting is to have the Chair do it and one is called not only not by the Chair but after the explicit refusal of the Chair to call one for the stated purpose on the T-shirts, you better believe that’s a problem.
But in the T-shirts case, the county Vice-Chair did exactly that, breaking the rules and getting it all wrong. That was the last straw, so they quit. Not in shame, but in disgust and anger for being pilloried for doing things the right way by those doing it wrong.
The agents of the Continental Congress raised men and funds for their army by going tavern to tavern, buying rounds and speaking to the hearts of men.
From this we derive that the secret to a successful insurgent political movement is free beer and a good schtick.
Earth to Holtz @170:
As I’ve said many times before, and I say so here again:
When I speak in my capacity as a Party Officer, I will put that title behind it.
When I do not, I do not.
Get that through your thick skull once and for all.
And if you can’t handle a superior wit, tough. “Lighten up, Francis.” Many people can, which is why your hit piece on me backfired into humor. That and I simply took it head on and dismissed it in front of everybody.
You take things WAY too seriously, Brian.
BTW, thanks for the ZERO calls made on the phone bank last week. Your effort to help the Party is greatly appreciated.
To Mike @171: Thanks for the vote of confidence, my friend.
I still don’t see where anyone was calling for his expulsion, and I certainly am not.
My admittedly long reply was meant to put actual information out there that is fact as opposed to the endless speculation, guesses and insinuation that OWK seemed inclined to muck about with, and to call it resolved and stop bothering about Barnes.
I guess I miscalculated the inability of people to read what I said instead of what they wished I would say.
Anyway, taking the two quotes you gave above as evidence of someone calling for him to be expelled, especially implying that *I* am calling for his expulsion as well, is oddly out of character for someone who is a notorious hair-splitter and literalist.
Who here is calling for him to be expelled especially over parties?
This anonymous hero was clearly arguing for expulsion:
One Who Knows @139: “Having a convicted pedophile working outreach at events with minors present puts the CALP at risk of liability for lawsuit”
One Who Knows @155: “The Young Leaders Conferences or whatever they were called, the barbecuses at Barnes’s home with minors present, you get the picture.”
I then @156 simply asked OWK for the youngest age of said “minors”, and you replied @157 with a 41-sentence monograph on the Barnes case and the private parties he used to host. At that point, the mudslide was in full pyroclastic flow.
@188, beats the hell out of me… Someone made a statement, Holtz asked a question about it, I offered what info I had on it, and shazam, suddenly something that was resolved a long time ago is back to being the big topic of discussion.
Once again… let’s drop it.
One more time. Who here is calling for him to be expelled, especially over parties? I think you’re having an argument with yourself here because nobody else is saying anything of the kind.
Michael, good question. This diversion was sparked by somebody anonymously questioning whether I as a JudCom member “ought to shut up about Judicial Committee jurisdiction on issues of any sort” — i.e. the Platform, the Bylaws, the presidential ticket, and the actions of the LNC and its officers and affiliates. Ain’t gonna happen. Back in that hijacked discussion, my last questions remain unanswered:
1) If not even Ruwart or Wrights thought that any LP duespayer money might be missing, how can an FEC criminal complaint be plausibly considered an effort to protect LP duespayer money?
2) When George alerted the FEC that “channeling $10,000 from the Barr Leadership Fund through the LNC would appear to have served as a device for evading campaign contribution limits from the Barr Leadership Fund to the Barr 2008 campaign”, wasn’t he asking the State to enforce against fellow Libertarians a law against a victimless crime?
Carolyn, I don’t need to know even one single thing about these parties — parties that the ExCom didn’t bother mentioning in its cause for suspension — to keep saying that Barnes’s conviction is sufficient to exclude him from being a LPCA candidate or officer.
I can believe every single thing you’ve reported about these parties and not believe that they are grounds to expel Barnes from the LPCA.
I consider the question of the private parties Barnes hosted while an officer to be moot — just as the ExCom apparently did, by not mentioning them in their cause for suspension. You keep bringing up these parties, but neither daily parties nor zero parties would change my opinion about whether such a felon 1) should be allowed to be an officer/candidate or 2) should be allowed to be a member.
My only interest in the parties has been 1) to distinguish between 19-year-olds and 13-year-olds, and 2) to assert that private parties hosted in the private homes of non-officer members pose zero legal liability to the LPCA.
We now return you to mud and gossip about the LPSB, already in progress.
Sorry for my being a total putz but why is this issue even being discussed on this thread?
The ethanol people are looking to steal more from us and the unemployment figures are a joke. Aren’t there better things to discuss?
Hold on, who’s saying he should be expelled?
I’ve been saying through this entire discussion since it came up again that it’s been dealt with and folks should drop it. Now that the by-laws change is in place, it’s a moot point.
Again, I was not the one to bring it up. But because I was willing to put my name by what I said and answer as an eyewitness for what I had personally seen, I became the whipping girl for this topic.
Fine, I’m nice and strong, I can handle it.
I know what I saw (and I have been forthcoming in saying what I did NOT see, as in, I did NOT see him act inappropriately with children at his barbecues).
You are welcome to believe that you can judge the situation better from never having set foot at one of his barbecues or having had much interaction with him or with the San Bernardino party than I can, having been an officer in the inner circle and experienced the workings of that party myself.
If that makes you happy, mazel tov. It seems dodgy to me, though, especially since other people besides just Mike and myself were there and saw the same things.
I don’t really know what you think I’m getting out of this, that I would make this up or try to attack someone who was once a friend.
Mike and I were not going to believe any of this until we saw for ourselves what the facts of his conviction were. We were all set to defend Matt if the charges turned out to be made up or false even though we were no longer friends. They were not.
You keep deflecting this away from the central fact of his conviction and the potential legal trouble that could cause the party and back to the issue of his providing alcohol and drugs to minors as if that was the central point of the whole business. It wasn’t. That’s *a* potential point of liability, not *the* potential point of liability.
You’re smarter than that, Holtz.
Barnes WAS an officer
He isn’t any more, and won’t be again. I was talking about whether he should be expelled, as we all agree he shouldn’t be an officer or candidate.
These stories about private parties at his house weren’t even part of the ExCom’s stated cause for suspension, which was that “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.”
The “speculation” here consists of overblown fears that the LPCA could be sued because of private parties at a private home.
As for who in this discussion can be suspected of selective beliefs about the case, I leave that for readers to decide.
@180: ““This kind of thing”? The LPCA was able to buy an insurance policy that covered them against the problem of a non-officer LP member offering both alcohol and LP membership forms to teenagers at his home to attend a private party that the LPCA in no way promoted?
Yes, I think the LPCA has no legal exposure in such cases.”
Now you’re being obtuse. Furthermore, Barnes WAS an officer, both on the excomm and as a county party vice chair, and he was using these events for outreach.
Speculate all you want about the nature of the events and about what happened. Bottom line is, you weren’t there, Holtz. As you pointed out to One Who Knows, not having been there to see for yourself pretty well knocks you out of contention for being able to speak intelligently about what went on. You’re relying on he-said-she-said, and you’re choosing what you want to believe. That’s to be expected. But don’t pretend to have all the facts or even as many of the facts as those of us who WERE there.
In shame. Heh. We resigned because we were told Barnes and the other officers circumvented us (chair and treasurer) to authorize a purchase of t-shirts the county central committee had voted overwhelmingly AGAINST buying because (supposedly) there was a mistake in the order that had the supplier print up the shirt pattern that was NOT authorized. We opted not to be part of his “machinations” and my resignation letter says as much. Sabotage the party? No, Matt, only your authoritarian control over it through bullying the officers to do your bidding.
Again, nice try. Matt. There are members of the county party who are well aware of EXACTLY how this went down who aren’t willing to lie for you. Your ex-wife won’t lie for you. The treasurer who preceded me and then took over when I resigned won’t lie for you.
You’re playing kitchen sink again, just as you did with the judicial committee hearing. This isn’t about me, this isn’t about Mike, and you may be surprised to discover, it isn’t about you. It really was about protecting the party from liability, and NOT to do with you serving alcohol or drugs to minors. I honestly don’t know why that was the point that kept being raised as significant. To my mind, it was just one more example of a marked lack of judgment, but as I said, certainly not a hanging offense, not worth more than Kevin pulling you aside and saying, hey, don’t give alcohol or pot to kids when you’re talking about Libertarian stuff.
Wasn’t I ALSO the one who suggested that the whole business was done and that people should stop dragging his name through the mud? I guess if he wants to drag his own name through the mud or have his minions do it for him, that’s his call. I’m done talking about this.
So Barnes threw parties at his house, a tradition started before he joined the party, invited Libertarian friends and voila, they become official Libertarian events.
Notice how the young people are trans-morphing into family and friends. The children are now nieces and nephews. Many of Barnes’ close friends identify as an extended family as well. Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen-year-olds? Mr. McMahon is conflating a different time and place, which is sad and unfortunate because he is about to involve even more people into his personal Greek tragedy.
Mr. McMahon was not invited to Mr. Barnes’ home until he was 18 except as the guest of an adult clearly acting in loco parentis. Then it was at social events only. That adult was aware of the rule. People very close to him testified at Barnes’ hearing of being aware of the in loco parentis rule. They were aware because they had brought people under 21 whom they needed to be responsible for though not a parent.
Mr. McMahon seems to have a deep set of fantasies built up around a Svengali-like figure he has in his mind. I can not hardly wait to find out what communistic mind control exercises turns out to really be. I am guessing Baseball practice, is the coach wearing a turbin and purple robes? those eyes… those eyes…
Who else other than Mr. McMahon and Ms. Marbry are testifying to this liquor and drug induced quasi-communist personality cult?
BTW in the few years that Barnes was involved in his local party. Membership meetings went from 3 to hovering near 30 are and still growing. There is no mind control cult.
Mr. McMahon and Ms. Marbry left the county in shame when their machinations to sabotage party events was exposed. The details are in the county minutes.
Any questions about axes to grind?
“This kind of thing”? The LPCA was able to buy an insurance policy that covered them against the problem of a non-officer LP member offering both alcohol and LP membership forms to teenagers at his home to attend a private party that the LPCA in no way promoted?
Yes, I think the LPCA has no legal exposure in such cases.
There’s a reason why the excomm got insurance to indemnify themselves against this kind of thing, Brian.
He wasn’t just serving it to 20 year olds. He served it to 15, 16 and 17 year olds. Still think it’s perfectly defensible?
If the LPCA gets sued because alcohol was consumed by a 20-year-old at a private party where the host passed out an LP membership or registration form, then I hope I’m an officer at the time so I can defend the case pro se. I’ve always wanted to rack up a slam-dunk courtroom win.
You can’t just run someone in 20 years later and shoot them.
By the way, this is why I support the death penalty. The person you punish decades later is in a very real sense not the same person as the one who committed the crime.
@168: Yes, we codified it in a by-laws change put together by Seebeck, Starr and myself. The reason we put that in there? So we *wouldn’t* have to worry about “that guy we don’t know” surprising us. The only way he could find his way into power is if no one knows about his crimes. The problem is, Barnes was elected AFTER people knew he was a convicted felon.
I wasn’t talking about fears going forward. I was explaining the rationale behind being worried about having a known convicted felon with victims serving as an officer which LED to that codification.
When it comes to serving alcohol, under 21 is illegal. I don’t like the law, either, so save your breath. But people have been prosecuted for serving alcohol to their own under-21-year-old children and their children’s friends in their homes. While I don’t agree with this level of enforcement of the law, still, it IS the law, and if someone representing the party or at an event tied to the Libertarian Party is engaging in this behavior, it puts the party at risk legally. We may not like the law, but unless we want huge legal bills, we need to abide by it while we work to change it.
Caesar’s wife, right? You have to admit, it’s easier to be taken seriously in our efforts to change these laws if we don’t come off as scofflaws.
Same with pot.
As far as non-violent felonies with victims, one could articulate that someone committing fraud against a corporation or insurance company is committing a non-violent felony that has a victim — the corporation. People were concerned that those with a “spreadsheet number” mistake in their past would be barred from serving except by special vote of the excomm.
Capozzi @170: Nobody is suggesting that homosexuality or race is something to be cured. The point is that pedophilia, for whatever reason, does not respond very well to treatment because it’s a deeply engrained sexual behavior, much like homosexuality or heterosexuality. The difference is that homosexuality and heterosexuality in and of themselves do not require the involvement of someone who either cannot give consent or who can be easily manipulated into given less than informed consent. That’s coercion in the best case, violence in the worst case.
Are there pedophiles who no longer offend? Sure. Is Barnes one of these? Quite possibly.
Does that information change the public perception that having a pedophile as a party officer means we condone the behavior or make them more trusting of our message? Nope. Does it protect the party from even false allegations of impropriety? Nope.
Barnes wants this to be a personal issue and all about him, but it’s not, not for me. It’s about protecting the party from legal exposure (press, liability, expense) that it really can’t afford.
Mike, I agree that some crimes merit the death penalty. However, it would be simply monstrous to say that Barnes deserved the death penalty, or to say that people should be punished for future crimes that they haven’t committed.
I have no need to posture about the seriousness of Barnes’s crimes. If fantasizing that I don’t feel any disgust about them helps you rationalize your disagreement with my defense of his due process rights, that’s fine with me.
You Seebeck fans need to make up your mind about my “hit piece”. If all I did was showcase his sparkling wit, then it couldn’t have been a “hit piece”, and my publishing his quotes can’t make me “dishonorable”.
Just today, somebody called “Prop 14 Supporter” commented on IPR: “The primary election is the first round of the general election. That’s constitutionally correct and logically correct. Get over it Seabeck, et al.”
The LPCA Southern Vice Chair’s reponse included this: In Colorado in the previous decade, while you were still figuring out how to put on your political short pants right-side out and frontwards (which obviously was a failure), we were nominating candidates without a primary at convention and did just fine without a primary. […] But since you are a Prop 14 Suppository, meaning you take your statist meds up your behind along with your head, you probably like less freedom. I suggest the first one-way plane to North Korea would be in order for you since you hate freedom and republican government so much.
MM: …but to believe that a pedophile can reform is exactly like saying there is a cure for homosexuality or for being black.
me: Hmm, seems to me that gayness or blackness are not things to be cured. Pedophilia IS something to be cured, as it’s aggressive behavior. It may well be difficult, but stopping that behavior has been accomplished. You overstate, yes?
Carolyn, I’ve agreed all along that people with victimful convictions should indeed be judged as unworthy to represent other Libertarians, either as officers or as candidates. I don’t understand the point of worrying about “the guy we don’t know”; we’ve codified our policy, and we can look up people on the Megan’s Law website, but I’m not sure what else you would have us do. I’m not sure what you mean by a victimful felony that doesn’t involve violence or coercion. If you’re talking about fraud, I’d still want to include that in the rule, as long as the rule continues to allow case-by-case exceptions.
I wish you and others would be more specific when you talk about “underage teenagers”. Nineteen-year-olds are adults, period, and if the government doesn’t like that, well, the whole point of the LP is to stand up to government on questions like that. For me, the rebuttable presumption of adulthood flips around age 16, and I can’t really understand how anybody would advocate a number more than two years higher or lower.
One Who Knows, I plead guilty to caring more than most people do about “being correct”. So I’m going to challenge you to document me ever committing an “outright lie”, because I know you cannot, and I’m confident you won’t even try. I’ll also plead guilty to “hit pieces on individuals” if that’s what you want to call my efforts to publish undisputed facts about people like Ernest Hancock or Mike Seebeck or Paul Ireland when they run for LP office. Facts are facts, even when you don’t like to hear them.
McMahon: to believe that a pedophile can reform is exactly like saying there is a cure for homosexuality or for being black
Pedophilia is indeed a deeply-rooted psychological disorder. But if you’re seriously asserting that someone can be innately or irrevocably a criminal, well, I would almost call that the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen a Libertarian say — except I was just reminded of the three gentlemen linked above…
Paulie, your libertarian socialists are 100/100 libertarians, not socialists in the sense in which my graphic uses the term. Where the Nolan Chart breaks down regarding “socialism” is when liberty-lovers disagree in their axioms about property rights: how property may be justly acquired, whether capital may be private property, whether non-excludable resources must in some sense be public property, the status of “intellectual property”, the status of uncreated spatial resources like land/spectrum/orbits, the alienability of your property rights in your body and future choices, etc.
(Now OWK will explain how the previous paragraph is evidence of my “mental illness”…)
There’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about socialism, provided all participation is voluntary.
Well, libertarian socialists are for 100% personal and economic freedom – they just have different ideas of what they want to do with theirs than free market libertarians.
So on the one hand, they would be right at the top of libertarian, on the other that would exclude them from being socialists. What to do?
@164: Right in the middle of the word Damn, I think. 🙂
Where do libertarian socialists fit in this?
Not at all, Tom. I just didn’t think it was worth bringing something relatively minor like that to anyone’s attention.
I’d point out I wasn’t the one to bring ANY of this to anyone’s attention.
“Did I see him allow people under 21 to drink beer or smoke pot at his home? Yes. Did I have a problem with it? Not until I didn’t get my way in his expulsion proceedings.”
There, fixed that for ya.
That, Brian Holtz, is why *you* are not honorable.
Your obsession with always having to be correct about everything to the extent of spinning, word-twisting, arguing, and even outright lying, not to mention hit pieces on individuals, all merely prove the point.
Your obsession with labelling everyone and everything with some pseudo-label just shows you have a mental illness of the OCD type and need professional help.
And you wonder why those of us in the World Society of Who Knows simply look at you and laugh while sadly shaking our heads…
To my knowlege Barnes never went to anything close to a Youth Leadership anything. Someone is making stuff up.
Events that Barnes did go to always involved a truck load of people (that he recruited) and many others were present constantly when he did party activities.
Many people wondered why he insisted on not ever being alone… Those who were not close enough to him to know about his teenage transgressions a quarter century ago, now get it and despite the rudeness in which it was thrust on them, still love him.
The BBQs at his home were personal affairs. Large but still they were invite with guests only. All minors at those affairs had to have a parent with them or someone acting in loco parentis because alcohol was available without a bartender.
In the party, Barnes worked hard, took no credit, and recruited and fostered scores of still active libertarians and this IPR post is all he has to show for it. His last election to the ExCom was a 80% approval.
Ms. Marbry was not anywhere near Barnes when his friends’ kids were <18. She is relating hearsay very poorly. Everyone around Barnes thinks that Ms. Marbry has her own axe to grind because she has been grinding axes quite loudly after inserting herself into his private life and family circle.
Truth is Barnes took a lot of very expensive steps to shield the party from even the accusation of liability. The only harm that was caused in all of this for anyone, was the publicity deliberately caused by party officers for their own political purpose as Barnes refused their blackmail.
###
If you are a member and you have questions Barnes will answer them to a respectful degree of alacrity. He does not post in public regarding personal issues, especially ones that involve other people such as his past does.
If you ask questions that detail his childhood as it involves others you will be told: "None of your business."
If you ask him what he thinks of sex with children, he will vehemently tell you that to have sexual relations with anyone before they are sexually mature is harmful and wrong; that it can only happen through force or fraud.
He will add that to have sexual relations with anyone of significant age difference is wrong on the face of it and prone to abuse, and he does not see himself ever finding an exception to that rule for himself.
You will also find that Barnes is very sorrowful for the people who suffered shock on learning of his childhood past. His sorrow for what he did nearly 25 years ago is the exclusive business of a very small number of people, none of which read IPR.
Holtz, the youngest I saw there was probably 4 or 5 years old. Bear in mind that there were a lot of people with families, including his now ex-wife’s sister and her children. There were other kids who were around 10 to 12, from the look of them.
He recruited a lot of the young people in his cadre when they were 15 or 16. By now, almost all of them are over 21, but most were not during the time I was involved.
I’m answering this because I was at many of the barbecues, and my partner was at one time one of those 15-16 year olds in his core group. I have no way of knowing if One Who Knows (or Thinks S/he Knows) was ever at one of his barbecues or not.
Did I ever see him act inappropriately with the young children? Never. Did I ever see him put a beer into the hand of a small child? I don’t think so, but if he did, it was to take it to the child’s parents. Did I see him allow people under 21 to drink beer or smoke pot at his home? Yes. Did I have a problem with it? Not when it was just a private gathering and not a Libertarian function.
When it’s a party function, however, I believe it puts the party at potential legal risk.
Do I think that by itself would warrant removal as an officer of the party? Not unless it caused actual harm to the party — someone files a lawsuit or something. Up to that point, it would warrant one of the officers telling him not to do that anymore.
Did the multiple count conviction for pedophilia (and the psychological report) warrant grounds for removing him as an officer and keeping him from being involved with outreach, especially to minors? I would say yes, not because I believe he would reoffend — I have no evidence that he has or would — but because pedophilia and the “repeat offender” baggage tied to it is not something that the party can afford to be associated with, especially not publicly. And unfortunately, the information did reach the newspapers.
Pedophilia is something of a witch-hunt crime right now, if you take my meaning. Even though technically, we consider a suspect innocent until proven guilty, in practice, someone accused of pedophilia, especially one with a history of conviction, is guilty until he proves himself guilty because the crime raises such a level of disgust and horror in most people’s minds. I’m not suggesting he didn’t commit the crimes for which he was convicted — his confession in the plea bargain and the psychological report clearly indicates that he did. I’m saying that even if he never touched a hair on another kid’s head, if that kid’s family decided to charge him, he’d have a devil of a time defending himself because of this societal bias. If they named the LP in the lawsuit, the LP would likewise have a devil of a time winning, and the cost of defense alone could break the bank.
Is it fair? No, but it’s reality. The party simply cannot afford to defend itself against these kinds of things. It also can’t afford the bad press that comes of having a former boy scout leader who molested young boys in his charge as an officer of the party.
Barnes probably won’t reoffend. I’m not worried about Barnes as an individual. I’m worried about the next guy, the guy we don’t know, the convicted rapist, the convicted murderer we don’t want to “judge,” who gets himself elected to office, does a lot of outreach, and starts using the party as a hunting ground. We simply can’t take that risk, not for the sake of the party, and not for the sake of the potential victims.
That’s why Barnes and other folks who commit felonies involving victims cannot be allowed to serve as officers of the party unless there are really amazing extraordinary circumstances involved.
I’m pretty sure we’ve beaten this dead horse to a pulp now. The JudComm and the CA state convention already addressed it. Barnes is no longer in office, there’s a by-law in place that prevents those who have been convicted of felonies involving victims from running for party office in the state of CA. I’ve already submitted an amendment to that by-law (which I helped to write) to further narrow the scope to VIOLENT OR COERCIVE felonies involving victims.
“One Who Knows”, what’s the age of the youngest “minor” that you “know” was at Barnes’s home?
An “honorable person” deals in credible facts, not anonymous smears.
“The conversation was about why JudCom proceedings and disciplinary hearings should be rare and handled carefully.”
Exactly. The California Judicial Committee didn’t handle it carefully and as a result arrived at exactly the wrong conclusion. They’ve even admitted they disregarded everything he said in the hearing, yet they claimed they overturned the suspension because the Executive Committee didn’t prove its case–yet the case wasn’t theirs to prove in the first place since they weren’t the ones appealing! Their lack of attention to the process being followed carefully and correctly is what caused the incorrect result! If Barnes did not prove his case, then the appeal should have failed.
Making sure the process is correct and followed is not a vendetta, but it is making sure things operate properly.
“What outreach events with minors are you talking about?”
The Young Leaders Conferences or whatever they were called, the barbecuses at Barnes’s home with minors present, you get the picture. Old stuff. Old news. And indefensible because of foreknowledge on Barnes’ part of his pedophilia yet he still chose to be around potential victims instead of being honorable and not put them into harm’s way. An honorable person would have simply not been in the position to be near kids in the first place instead of being there and hiding it. If he wanted to be that wat he should have been a Catholic priest.
“Brian Holtz // Jun 10, 2010 at 9:35 am
We non-anarchists disagree with the “always” part.”
TRUE libertarians agree with the “always” part – the ones who don’t are called STATISTS!
re #137:
Thank you, LG. Glad somebody actually reads this blog as opposed to just hollering about things that are done and can’t be changed anyway.
This is a blog, right? She said in her middle-aged baby boomer, and yet somehow incredibly charming fashion.
We non-anarchists disagree with the “always” part.
There are always other answers than involving the “guys with guns”.
Tom, here’s how the “formula” works:
1. Pick an opponent of the person being accused of impropriety. (If you’re not sure who’s an opponent of who, then use Mr. Oaksun’s handy chart, or note it when e.g. Ruwart posts an essay opposing Starr’s re-election.)
2. Then note that said opponent is reported as wanting the impropriety investigated. (“Mr. Wrights, Dr. Ruwart, and Mr. Karlan all stated that they thought it need to be cleared up and asked that our attorney and our FEC consultant be present at our St. Louis meeting.”)
3. Then note that said opponent is reported satisfied with the results of the investigation. (“At the meeting, further questions were asked, answered, and my colleagues seemed to be satisfied with the answers that we got.”)
So in the Wrights affair, it would work this way:
If not even Starr thought that the Secretary’s job as “recording officer of the Party” “keep[ing] such minutes and records as necessary” was to follow the rule that “a National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party”, then how could that rule plausibly be read as binding?
That would have been a slam-dunk argument in the Wrights case.
147Thomas L. Knapp // Jun 10, 2010 at 2:56 am
“If not even Ruwart or Wrights thought that any LP duespayer money might be missing, how can an FEC criminal complaint be plausibly considered an effort to protect LP duespayer money?”
Interesting formula. Question for you:
If not even Ruwart or Wrights thought that the bylaws allowed the Secretary to unilaterally remove members from the LNC, how could the bylaws be plausibly so read?
Note that I never attempted that kind of bullshit argument from authority in the referenced case. Why are you trying it out here?
me _ in the references case , which BTW was also bullshit , just from the “other side” there were several LNC members being vocal and opposing the attempted purge . Capozzis point is Ruwart and Wrights and IMO almost all others would not sit quietly or idly by if they thought there was a gaping misappropriation of funds. They did not , therefore if Aarons word wasnt enuf , Ruwart and Wrights opinions oughta be.
gp 144, I’ll address my point in 140 AFTER you address the issue that CM and I are discussing in 143 and 140. What were you thinking prior to filing your complaint with the FEC? If the disembodied fact that you found in FEC filings was an act of malfeasance, did you think that people like Hawkridge, Ruwart and Wrights were just going to let it go? Did you consider additional steps, like going to state chairs, going public with questions about the expenditures, sending private emails to all the LNC indicating your concerns? Why did you feel compelled at the time to go to the government? Did you consider that going to the government could damage the LP for a considerable amount of time AFTER your complaint, since IF you had “exposed” an illegal act, the LP would likely come under ongoing FEC scrutiny? Today, do you not see that your story about this event does not hold water, and that IF you want to salvage your reputation, you need to either fully explain what you did or man up and admit that you acted hastily and rashly?
“If not even Ruwart or Wrights thought that any LP duespayer money might be missing, how can an FEC criminal complaint be plausibly considered an effort to protect LP duespayer money?”
Interesting formula. Question for you:
If not even Ruwart or Wrights thought that the bylaws allowed the Secretary to unilaterally remove members from the LNC, how could the bylaws be plausibly so read?
Note that I never attempted that kind of bullshit argument from authority in the referenced case. Why are you trying it out here?
George, my point was that by the end of executive session, Hawkridge had apparently backed away from the position that Starr had done anything wrong — whether losing $10K or libeling Barr’s treasurer. She also said that her “colleagues seemed to be satisfied with the answers that we got.”
if you grant Holtz’s implication that no one thought the Barr campaign filings were false
I’m mystified how you could misread me so completely. I said @130 that it seemed that “nobody on the LNC — not even vocal Starr critics Ruwart and Wrights — thought there was a possibility that duespayer money was unaccounted for”. I of course meant that everybody on the LNC thought the mistake was on the Barr campaign side — i.e. that the LNC had not lost any duespayer money. I reiterated this @133: “A primary purpose of the executive session(s) was presumably to satisfy the LNC that the Barr campaign was incorrect and that no dues money was ‘unaccounted for’. It apparently worked.”
So I ask again:
1) If not even Ruwart or Wrights thought that any LP duespayer money might be missing, how can an FEC criminal complaint be plausibly considered an effort to protect LP duespayer money?
2) When you alerted the FEC that “channeling $10,000 from the Barr Leadership Fund through the LNC would appear to have served as a device for evading campaign contribution limits from the Barr Leadership Fund to the Barr 2008 campaign”, weren’t you asking the State to enforce against fellow Libertarians a law against a victimless crime?
Holtz writes:
SENTENCE A: “Rachel ended up “disowning [her] allegation that the Treasurer had implied that the Barr campaign was less than honest in their filings”.
SENTENCE B: At that point, it seems there was nobody on the LNC — not even vocal Starr critics Ruwart and Wrights — who thought there was a possibility that duespayer money was unaccounted for.”
Sentence B has nothing to do with sentence A.
Sentence A discusses if Rachel thought that either Treasurer was badmouthing the Barr filings.
Sentence B discusses if anyone thought that money had gone from the LNC to Barr.
These two topics are unrelated. Mr. Holtz’s inability to recognize that his remarks do not make sense is odd.
In fact, if you grant Holtz’s implication that no one thought the Barr campaign filings were false — that’s a hypothetical, which I suspect is wrong* — well, then you are obliged to suppose that people thought that the Barr filings were true. In particular, the filing disclosure said — as we now know, incorrectly — the Barr campaign had received $10,000 in real money in some form from the LNC.
*In fact, I am confident that the people on the LNC who believed that there had been no transfer were extremely confident that the Barr campaign filings were wrong.
As it turned out, of course, the Barr Campaign had made an inadvertent error in how they filled out their campaign filings, dealing with a recherche issue in campaign finance law, and the error had the unfortunate effect of generating the illusion that they had received $10,000 fro m the LNC, as opposed to $10,000 as a gift in kind in the form I gather of petitioning services.
It is unfortunate that the Barr campaign Treasurer reported that he ahd been told that there had been a wire transfer, when there had not, but sometimes mistakes are made.
“posting all sorts of twisted allegations about the Barr campaign in that timeframe”
Care to name some? I don’t think so, but I am will to let you repeat the claim. Then I get to discuss my allegations again. In fact, since you have brought it up, I think my factual financial reports on the Barr spending, from their FEC reports, are going to have to be published again.
Your claim that I had no proof is baloney. Let me repeat the proof. We had the Barr FEC report. We asked the Barr campaign if they had received the money, and they specified in writing how it was transferred and who in National knew about it.
Capozzi @ 140, I’ve already made clear my position on this. I can’t and won’t try to defend Phillies in this regard since I know no more about his state of mind or his motivations when he filed the complaint than you. If you want to know what Phillies was thinking, ask him.
RC_” premature whistleblowing.”
me_my first husband had that problem:)
OWK@139:
“Having a convicted pedophile working outreach at events with minors present puts the CALP at risk of liability for lawsuit, and you call that a non-issue?”
That’s a new allegation that I had not heard. What outreach events with minors are you talking about?
The conversation was about why JudCom proceedings and disciplinary hearings should be rare and handled carefully.
Got some vendetta going?
cm: I would point out that Phillies wasn’t privy to the executive session, either, so expecting him to act on information he didn’t have is unreasonable.
me: True, up to a point. However, given the pyrotechnics on the LNC, it would be extremely reasonable to assume that Hawkridge, Ruwart, and Wrights at minimum would not let a major potential mis- or malfeasant act go unchallenged, don’t you agree? I have too much respect for GP’s intellect to believe he would not have reached the same conclusion prior to his narcing to the FEC.
That is, unless GP was not thinking straight at the time, which is my operative assumption. There is evidence of this, as he was posting all sorts of twisted allegations about the Barr campaign in that timeframe. Coupled with his long history of accusations against the party’s leadership, it certainly appears that we have an otherwise well-meaning party faithful who seems hellbent on “exposing” and otherwise tearing down national LP leadership.
This form of tearing down — narcing to the FEC — is over the line, especially when we consider that he only had questions, not proof, of malfeasance. My most generous interpretation is that this is a case of premature whistleblowing.
The real problem in CA was that the ExCom appointed “prosecutors”, not a “manager” to investigate issues. The people so entrusted to find truth that the ExCom might make a good decision, instead proceeded to manufacture problems that did not exist so that they could build a case out of nothing.
Oh, bullshit, Barnes, or whoever you are. Having a convicted pedophile working outreach at events with minors present puts the CALP at risk of liability for lawsuit, and you call that a non-issue? All it takes is one accusation and lawsuit, whether it be true or false…
The real issue is that a pedophile breached trust, lied, and put the CALP in a position of risk, and then when he was tossed, he had a temper tantrum over it, and then the JC screwed it all up by not making the pedophile prove his appeal and instead made the CALP reprove its case when they weren’t the ones appealing. That would have been entirely avoidable had Barnes simply been an honorable man and kept his word, or even better, not made the disgusting choice to be a pedophile in the first place and then hide it and lie about it when it became public and it mattered.
Tom Stevens gave the stupidest speech at the convention , Jim Duensing was predictably the most contentious , however his point of order asking if the electronic voting machines were just fancy pencils did make me laugh my ass off…
Kate , why dont you stop trying to simplify everything with a good idea , us Libertarians like to over think , analyze , debate and Roberts rule eachother to death- sheesh! LOL
OK here is an idea:
The JC is not available for consulting, apparently.
Let’s change the bylaws so they are. If GP had consulted with them early on, perhaps this whole thing could have been avoided.
Early-on consultation with an ethics committee is very useful. I have been a licensed civil engineer since 1992, and have consulted with our state board maybe 3 times, when I was not sure what to do about an issue. They were helpful and informative, and may have saved me from a violation or two, for all I know.
As I understand, it the JC doesn’t have much to do anyway. We elect them, they hardly ever meet. This would give them something productive to do while the rest of us increase the net amount of freedom in the world.
Just a thought.
And would it kill the LNC to have a brief session with the JC before each meeting?
Note that the LPCA Bylaws don’t provide for its JudCom to define its own procedures. The LPUS Bylaws give its JudCom broad latitude to define its own rules of procedure.
I was about to vouch that purging doesn’t work in the LP, at any level, but didn’t somebody report that Tom Stevens just got purged from the LPNY?
BH@128:
While those few items you listed about JudCom procedure are troubling, there is more that Robert’s Rules delineates about such actions.
All of Robert’s Rules strenuously worded rules regarding discipline serve another purpose and that is to protect the organization from liability.
Imagine the liability if an accuser used the party to ruin a foe, that then caused them to be murdered by a jealous spouse based on a lie…
Imagine were the party to disseminate a lie that causes someone to lose their business…
Imagine a “prosecutor” that broke the law, committed fraud, executed illegal wiretaps, or exposed the identity of rape victims, used other nefarious tactics in their vendetta that could be linked to their official duties, etc…
The real problem in CA was that the ExCom appointed “prosecutors”, not a “manager” to investigate issues. The people so entrusted to find truth that the ExCom might make a good decision, instead proceeded to manufacture problems that did not exist so that they could build a case out of nothing.
Both cases in front of the CaLP were pure vendetta and the spite and malice behind them put the party in a precarious position, exposing it and many of its officers and some hapless members to criminal and civil liability.
Criminal investigations, and using the ExCom or LNC to remove your political foes through these sorts of actions is dangerous on the face of it. Robert’s Rules advises against using disciplinary hearings except in the most dire of circumstances and then only with the greatest of care and caution for erring on the side of safety.
The LP at several levels, uses disciplinary hearings as frequent play things and one day, if we keep putting vindictive people on those boards and we keep blithely encouraging the games they play with positions of trust, we will get bit for it HARD.
Tom, we’ve been over this before: Regarding whether an LNC vote is void if it?s not a roll call, see ?Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order?, RRONR pp. 243-244.
My “nevertheless” wasn’t about George knowing what happened in closed session. It was about George knowing that after the closed session, no LNC member — not even Hawkridge, Ruwart, or Wrights — thought there might be missing dues money.
The minutes show that the executive session(s) were described on the agenda as follows:
Telephone Discussion with LNC Counsel Gary Sinawski (executive session) 2pm
Telephone Discussion with FEC Consultant Paula Edwards (executive session) 3pm
If you can spot any “lies” in there to justify a nefarious “secret session”, then your eyes are better than mine.
You can use the “liar (or mistaken)” trick only so many times before it gets tedious. Perhaps realizing this, you now embed it in a truism: “if the Barr campaign was correct, then Starr was lying (or mistaken)“. A primary purpose of the executive session(s) was presumably to satisfy the LNC that the Barr campaign was incorrect and that no dues money was “unaccounted for”. It apparently worked. So you could argue that George’s FEC complaint was an attempt to force the Barr campaign explain its finances better, but it’s not really plausible to argue that it was an attempt to track down missing dues money.
If neither Ruwart nor Wrights can be interested in a Starr-lost-$10K-of-dues story, then there’s neither smoke nor fire there, it’s just somebody playing with FEC matches.
If I’m an officer of an LP affiliate and I think $10K of LPUS money might be missing, I’ll ask my regional rep or an at-large rep to investigate. If they won’t do it, or if I have reason not to trust their report that nothing is amiss, then I would take those reasons to other affiliate officers, or to the Judicial Committee, or maybe even to IPR. Somewhere along the way, I might suggest to the LNC that an apparent mistake by the Barr campaign is subjecting it to possible FEC problems. Only then would I use the nuclear option of filing a criminal complaint against the Party — after I made sure nobody could accuse me of escalating a feud instead of exhausting all reasonable intra-party and non-government options.
Capozzi @126 said, “And — reiterating — given the contentiousness of the last LNC, I suspect that IF the matter had substance, I’d be shocked if other LNC members would not have intervened to ensure that fiduciary responsibilities were being upheld. Even if they failed to rectify the situation, I suspect it would have become a major and ongoing bone of contention. It appears there WAS NO issue, only an accounting misunderstanding/snafu that was fixed…not much ado about nothing.”
Me: Only problem with this analysis is that nobody but LNC members were there in that executive session, so nobody really knows what was said or not said, done or not done.
Executive session is bound by secrecy, so we have again the he-said-she-said, this time literally, about what went on, with the rest of the LNC members having to stand silent or risk being punished for breaking that confidentiality themselves.
I would point out that Phillies wasn’t privy to the executive session, either, so expecting him to act on information he didn’t have is unreasonable.
Brian,
You write:
—–
It was alleged above that “the LNC went into secret session on the basis of a public lie”. By Rachel’s own account, the topic of the closed session was Rachel’s email advising the Barr campaign’s treasurer to consider looking into libel charges against the LNC’s treasurer. While that’s not a “personnel matter”, prospective legal action is indeed usually a valid reason for a closed session.
—-
Prospective legal action is, indeed, a valid reason for an executive session.
The reason publicly stated, however, was “personnel matter.”
In other words, the allegation is correct.
—–
Rachel ended up “disowning [her] allegation that the Treasurer had implied that the Barr campaign was less than honest in their filings”. At that point, it seems there was nobody on the LNC — not even vocal Starr critics Ruwart and Wrights — who thought there was a possibility that duespayer money was unaccounted for. Nevertheless, George
—–
What do you mean, “nevertheless George …” George had no legitimate way of knowing what occurred in that executive session.
To the extent that Hawkridge “disown [ed her] allegation that the Treasurer had implied that the Barr campaign was less than honest in their filings,” the obvious conclusion on the basis of the PUBLICLY available evidence was that if the Barr campaign was not being less than honest (or inaccurate), the Treasurer was being less than honest (or inaccurate) — because there still remained on file two FEC reports, one from the Barr campaign and one from the LNC, which made irreconciliable claims.
“George called for the mass expulsion from the LNC of the members who in Dec 2007 voted without objection to invite Ron Paul”
There’s no such thing as “voting without objection.” Either they voted, or they didn’t. They didn’t — despite the fact that the bylaws require a roll call vote on all substantive motions.
It was alleged above that “the LNC went into secret session on the basis of a public lie”. By Rachel’s own account, the topic of the closed session was Rachel’s email advising the Barr campaign’s treasurer to consider looking into libel charges against the LNC’s treasurer. While that’s not a “personnel matter”, prospective legal action is indeed usually a valid reason for a closed session.
Rachel ended up “disowning [her] allegation that the Treasurer had implied that the Barr campaign was less than honest in their filings”. At that point, it seems there was nobody on the LNC — not even vocal Starr critics Ruwart and Wrights — who thought there was a possibility that duespayer money was unaccounted for. Nevertheless, George filed his criminal complaint, and then went on to formally endorse Rachel and informally (“remember our friends”) endorse Ruwart and Wrights.
This is reminiscent of when George called for the mass expulsion from the LNC of the members who in Dec 2007 voted without objection to invite Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination and to let Paul supporters use Ballot Base to make calls in the NH primary. One of those LNC members was Angela Keaton, whose encouragement George said was the reason he ran for Chair for the fifth time in six conventions.
To back up my nominators’ respective promises of me practicing transparency and also driving people crazy, here is something I recently wrote to my fellow JudCom members:
In the recent LPCA JudCom case that overturned a couple expulsions, a few troubling procedural issues were evident:
In the real world, it makes sense that a newly minted Judicial Committee member (why is still a mystery) really ought to shut up about Judicial Committee jurisdiction on issues of any sort, lest he stick his foot in his mouth and create a conflict of interest later.
…would NOT have intervened…
cm, LNC members all get one vote. If one member believes that there was a serious misappropriation of funds, I’d hope that that member has the strength to challenge a verbal bully. And — reiterating — given the contentiousness of the last LNC, I suspect that IF the matter had substance, I’d be shocked if other LNC members would not have intervened to ensure that fiduciary responsibilities were being upheld. Even if they failed to rectify the situation, I suspect it would have become a major and ongoing bone of contention. It appears there WAS NO issue, only an accounting misunderstanding/snafu that was fixed…not much ado about nothing.
This teachable moment brought to you by Patience, Forgiveness & Compassion, LLC 😉
tk, sounds to me like we’re still on the same team. Whether it’s “factual” that we’re not would seem to be a matter of opinion and interpretation 😉
@122: Not Redpath. And the bat was metaphorical. The incident was mentioned in either Hawkridge’s or Phillies’ reply to the Barber letter. I believe it was Hawk’s reply.
Bob,
It’s not a matter of “feeling.” It’s a matter of fact. And it’s nothing to be sorry over.
At this time, while I am de jure still an LP member and likely to remain one for awhile, I am de facto ambling toward the door that leads away from electoral/party politics entirely.
I expect that I’ll continue to comment on LP affairs for awhile, but I’m already doing so from an increasingly detached perspective.
So, while we’re presumably still on the same meta-team (“The Freedom Movement”), when it comes to the LP I am in the process of walking from the dugout to the stands.
tk: …attention has taken the form of internal intimidation under cover of secret proceedings.
me: For real? Was Redpath played by Robert DeNiro dressed as Al Capone brandishing a bat?
tk: I said: “Last I checked, we’re all on the same team.” and you commented, “Check again.”
me: So sorry you feel that way.
Tom, since George is not an anarchist and is not going to write off the LP, we’re back to my claim that you effectively argued that George had no choice but to call the cops. That argument still fails.
“Last I checked, we’re all on the same team.”
Check again.
Brian,
You write:
“So when you have ‘probable cause to suspect the theft by embezzlement of $10k from the LP’s treasury,’ your preferred choices would be either ‘give up and leave the matter unresolved’ or wait for something to ‘magically drop from the sky?'”
You include one element relevant to the decision, but leave out another:
Element 1: I have probable cause to suspect the theft by embezzlement of $10k from the LP’s treasury.
Element 2: I have brought the matter to the attention of the LNC and that attention has taken the form of internal intimidation under cover of secret proceedings.
Being an anarchist, my default course would indeed be to “give up and leave the matter unresolved” — and to write off any financial or personal investment I had made in the organization as an educational loss — rather than to involve the state.
Dr. Phillies is not an anarchist.
tk: Correct. He did so last, not first.
and
tk: Phillies didn’t reach conclusions. He asked questions.
me: Sorry, Tom, you are torturing the language with technically true statements that — all in — grossly misrepresent the situation. For ex., yes, GP’s “last” act in this unfortunate fact set was to go to the FEC, but it was obviously NOT his “last option.” Someone with his energy and contacts could EASILY have kept this an intra-party affair.
And to say the GP didn’t reach a conclusion assumes that his FEC complaint was NOT a conclusion, but — what — some sort of compulsion? He CONCLUDED that SINCE his friend on the LNC could not get a satisfactory (for them) answer, he CHOSE to go to the government to get his “questions” answered.
But if we don’t want to learn from Nixon, how about Shakespeare? Protesting too much is quite often an indication of a guilty mind.
Last I checked, we’re all on the same team. Say we’re a baseball team, say the Phillies 😉 One player suspects another of using ‘roids. He could confront the player directly; he could go to the manager; he could go to the league. If, however, he went to the cops, methinks he’d have a REAL hard time in the clubhouse. Or batting practice!
TK_Why is it any more “egregious” to invoke the state on one matter in which it has asserted a monopoly (the investigation and prosecution of crimes) than in another (driving on “public” roads, for example
me_ your using and blocking roads metaphor story was interesting but thats not what you said… you said that invoking FEC prosecution was as statist as driving on roads , and I stand by the fact that thats ridiculous
So when you have “probable cause to suspect the theft by embezzlement of $10k from the LP’s treasury”, your preferred choices would be either “give up and leave the matter unresolved” or wait for something to “magically drop from the sky”? Wow.
The argument @114 — that George couldn’t tell LP delegates about his evidence because it might trigger an FEC investigation, so he needed to trigger an FEC investigation — doesn’t pass the laugh test. George in fact threw the kitchen sink into the criminal complaint he filed, when he alerted the FEC how “channeling $10,000 from the Barr Leadership Fund through the LNC would appear to have served as a device for evading campaign contribution limits from the Barr Leadership Fund to the Barr 2008 campaign”.
The JudCom has jurisdiction to decide “whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws”. It’s not obvious whether “decision” should mean 1) only actual votes of the LNC, or 2) any action or inaction of the LNC, in the conduct of its “plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds”, that contravenes the Bylaws. A reasonable argument could be made for (2), so I can’t really buy the argument that no appeal to the JudCom could be attempted.
It is indeed not trivial to organize an appeal by 10% of NatCon delegates or 1% of sustaining members, but that’s by design. However, if there really is “probable cause” to believe that somebody at LNC is embezzling Party funds, then Libertarians would likely be eager to join such an appeal. For the recent convention, several of us showed that it’s quite feasible to contact hundreds of NatCon delegates. The cost of my mailing was about $0.50/delegate, and the charges I was publicizing were not nearly as serious as embezzlement of Party funds. I would hope that a prospective Chair would have more confidence both in 1) the evidence for his accusations against LP leaders, and 2) the willingness of LP delegates to take such accusations seriously.
“Tom, you gave @106 a farcical list of George’s choices, and effectively said that filing a criminal complaint against the LP was the only one that made sense.”
I said no such thing, “effectively” or otherwise. In point of fact, I myself would more likely have decided that option #1 or #2 was preferable to option #3. George decided otherwise, and his choice is defensible.
“Bob called BS on that, pointing out that George could have gone to the state chairs or to the membership.”
In other words, George could have invoked a probable self-initiated FEC investigation — and likely a wider-ranging and more invasive one than the one which occurred — indirectly, instead of manning up and laying out the facts under his own name.
“Others have pointed out that George could have gone to the JC.”
It’s not possible to “point out” something that’s not true. You’re ON the Judicial Committee now. You should consider reading the bylaws so that you understand what your jurisdiction is.
If i’m right in surmising that the mistake and correction were on the Barr campaign’s side, then here’s the best defense I can construct of George’s actions.
George was willing to believe — as all but at most one of the LNC apparently believed — that the LNC had made no such donation and that the Barr campaign was mistaken to baldly assert otherwise (without any documentary evidence). However, unlike with the LNC, George had no leverage on the Barr campaign, and the only way he could get it to straighten out its records was to file an FEC complaint against it. Naming the LNC in the complaint was pro forma, because the basis for the complaint was the inconsistency between the filings of the two.
People familiar with the case and the players can decide for themselves how plausible such a defense would be. But it’s a much stronger case than the argument that George’s only options in dealing with the LNC were 1) quit 2) await magic 3) call the cops.
Tom, you gave @106 a farcical list of George’s choices, and effectively said that filing a criminal complaint against the LP was the only one that made sense. Bob called BS on that, pointing out that George could have gone to the state chairs or to the membership. Others have pointed out that George could have gone to the JC. (George quibbles that his path of appeal to the JC might be difficult, but he ignores that the appeal process itself could have shaken loose his answers if he did it right.)
The bottom line here is that George got his answer, which time proved was right: no such donation from the LNC happened. George and apparently only one LNC member chose not to believe that answer, and the two of them apparently decided they needed to personally audit that answer. When George wasn’t satisfied with the financial records that were handed over for that self-appointed audit, he called the cops.
Holtz, on the other hand, knows damn well that he’s up to — and it’s nauseating.
“these were public documents that GP used to reach his (apparently false) conclusions.”
Phillies didn’t reach conclusions. He asked questions.
“Saying he had no choice holds no water, because he obviously did.”
Which is precisely why I said no such thing — nor did he.
You strike me as someone who doesn’t lie, but rather convinces himself that counter-factual claims are true so that he can make them in good conscience. The result is no different, though.
With respect to putting someone in prison, you know, that depends whether or not they are guilty of anything.
Right, because it’s not like anyone in American prisons are innocent — or guilty of a victimless “crime”. To paraphrase Abbot Arnold Amaury before the massacre of Béziers: “Indict them all. Let the FEC sort them out.” 🙂
It’s IMO histrionical to say that Hawkridge was “strong-armed.” If it was in Executive Session, she probably should not be characterizing it as such. As she had allies, as I understand it, on the LNC, so this account isn’t credible. I find it incredulous that folks like Ruwart and Wrights would have just stood by if Hawkridge were being stonewalled, particularly on a matter of some magnitude and sensitivity.
If GP felt that advising the Chair that his concerns were NOT being addressed AND it was futile to inform them that he was inclined to go to the FEC, he had MANY other options beside the “nuclear” one he chose. He could have gone to state chairs; he could have gone public…these were public documents that GP used to reach his (apparently false) conclusions.
It just wasn’t cool to narc on the party. Trying to justify this reckless act only makes matters worse. Saying he had no choice holds no water, because he obviously did. This was not a life-or-death situation, where acting had to be done immediately.
Richard Nixon learned decades ago that the coverup is worse than the crime, yet Brother Phillies apparently didn’t get that memo. Sticking to this no choice story is transparently false, like Nixon saying I am not a crook.
Fess up and admit that an error in judgment was made. Blame it on haste. And move on.
I am saying the Judicial Committee has no apparent jurisdiction, and there was no way to collect the needed signatures.
With respect to putting someone in prison, you know, that depends whether or not they are guilty of anything. As the LNC demonstrated, correcting your filings as was actually needed does settle things.
“youre comparing driving on roads to filing a criminal complaint that could potentially ruin a career and put someone in a cage??”
Did or did not Mr. Starr (or some other unknown party) steal $10,000 from the LNC?
I think that the answer is “no, he (they) did not.”
But, he had ample opportunity to establish that up front. Instead decided to stonewall Phillies and strong-arm Hawkridge.
If he didn’t want to be put at exceedingly minor risk of a ruined career and a cage, maybe he should have ANSWERED THE FUCKING QUESTIONS that Dr. Phillies was entitled, as a member, to ask and have honestly answered.
Dr. Phillies would have more than happy to get where he wanted to go on the “private road” (by asking the board to explain the matter), and indeed tried to take that road in the first place.
Mr. Starr and Co. barricaded that road off and put a big DETOUR sign in front of the entrance.
Then they barricaded the outer road (appeal to the Judicial Committee) by hiding any appealable acts behind the wall of an executive session held under false pretenses so that their activities there could not be known, let alone appealed.
Dr. Phillies’ choices were:
1) To give up and leave the matter unresolved;
2) To sit and wait to see if a new road magically dropped from the sky; or
3) To take the available remaining road.
He chose the third option.
I feel dirty when someone uses my name to propel the force of the state against another… especially a Libertarian.
George so basically youre saying it would have been too hard and time consuming to gather the sigs to get a JC hearing and that filing a criminal complaint was just easier?
TK_Why is it any more “egregious” to invoke the state on one matter in which it has asserted a monopoly (the investigation and prosecution of crimes) than in another (driving on “public” roads, for example
me_ seriously?- youre comparing driving on roads to filing a criminal complaint that could potentially ruin a career and put someone in a cage?? seriously?? Look i dont know what scale of ‘invoking statism’ you use , but for me snitching to the man is way WAY worse than using a public road . thats the most ridiculous argument youve made in a long time.
““Why wasn’t the JC consulted?””
One of us has read the Bylaws.
The Judicial Committee has an enumerated list of duties. ‘consulting’ is not one of them. It has an enumerated list of things that may be appealed to it. I do not see one here.
The path to getting the Judicial Committee to sign is the signature route. The Judicial Committee will not accept ipetition — see the Wrights expulsion. Getting paper signatures of the requisite percentage of the delegates or members is either impractical or inordinately expensive, even ignoring that the ask the members for their signatures you would need a membership list, which you are unlikely to be able to get.
That route makes no sense.
LG,
You write:
“why couldnt it have been an honest mistake , which is what it ended up being”
It turned out to have been a mistake.
If it had been an honest mistake, the FEC would never have become involved. It became a dishonest mistake when, instead of explaining the mistake, the LNC went into secret session on the basis of a public lie and used that secret session to bully one of its own members to stop asking questions.
“Why wasn’t the JC consulted?”
I can think of at least a couple of good reasons.
The first is that the basis for consulting the Judicial Committee is an act of the LNC. The reason Phillies went to the FEC was because he could not determine what acts the LNC had committed or not committed. How do you appeal an unspecified act?
The second is that going to the Judicial Committee would have been far more public (due to the membership/delegate petition signature gathering requirement) and therefore far more likely to produce a wider variety of public accusations ultimately resulting in a more detailed, thorough and potentially damning investigation by the FEC.
“why didnt George threaten [to go to] the FEC if he didnt get answers he wanted”
How do you know he didn’t?
“invoking the state in a criminal matter is one of the most egregious acts there is … and i find it ironic , that some anarchist-leaning folks think it’s ok”
Why is it any more “egregious” to invoke the state on one matter in which it has asserted a monopoly (the investigation and prosecution of crimes) than in another (driving on “public” roads, for example)?
And what makes you think I think it’s “ok?”
I don’t — life in a state-dominated society is like a repeating loop of the winter of 1846 in Donner Pass. Understanding that a resort to cannibalism may be necessary and even appropriate under the circumstances isn’t the same as approving of the circumstances themselves.
to me ,and this is just me , invoking the state in a criminal matter is one of the most egregious acts there is. its everything we’re supposed to be against , and i find it ironic , that some anarchist-leaning folks think it’s ok when the recipient is the a well known opponent.
TK_is probable cause to suspect the theft by embezzlement of $10k from the LP’s treasury.
me_ a mistake- why couldnt it have been an honest mistake , which is what it ended up being. why didnt George threaten the FEC if he didnt get answers he wanted b4 actually went to the man . why wasnt the JC consulted?
Brian,
You write:
“What ‘crime’? What ‘theft’? You just told us that any such transfer would be both legal and commendable.”
No.
“The LNC gave $10k to the Barr campaign” would be legal and commendable.
“The Barr campaign got $10k from the LNC, but the LNC did not authorize and such transaction and either doesn’t know or won’t admit that it occurred” is probable cause to suspect the theft by embezzlement of $10k from the LP’s treasury.
“Again: if the Barr campaign could make its accounts grow by $10K without the LNC’s accounts shrinking by $10K, then where’s the victim?”
If that could happen, it would be great. A whole lot of math and economic theory says that it can’t happen — and instead of explaining what did or did not happen, the LNC went into Nixon White House mode over the issue.
Keep in mind that this was the same LNC which had pulled a not dissimilar feat of prestidigitation mere months earlier — making an LNC member disappear without an apparent loss in quantity of LNC members (and in clear violation of the bylaws).
why was the JC not consulted?
noone should have their memberships taken away over this .noone.
George is surely right @94 that past difficulties between him and the LNC explain why each side failed to give the other the benefit of the doubt. But invoking state force against the Party is the nuclear option, and its use cannot be justified merely by 1) he-said-she-said claims and 2) excuses about existing bad blood with the party leadership.
Carolyn is right @89 that this comes down to he-said-she-said. The prescription for such a factual dispute is sunshine, not invoking state prosecution of the LP. If I ever have a question about LNC filings that I think the LNC is stonewalling on, you can be sure that everyone reading this will hear how that stonewalling exposes the LP to FEC prosecution before I go and actually invoke that prosecution.
P.S. George’s criminal complaint wasn’t limited to his concerns about accounting for duespayers’ money. He also alerted the FEC how “channeling $10,000 from the Barr Leadership Fund through the LNC would appear to have served as a device for evading campaign contribution limits from the Barr Leadership Fund to the Barr 2008 campaign”. How does throwing that chunk of meat in front of the FEC constitute protecting anyone from force or fraud?
With respect to (b), the other lines had been exhausted. It had been clearly determined that asking the LNC led to being subject to personal abuse and no other outcome. In addition, contrary to the false claims from Georgia, Rachel Hawkridge did not get to see the bank statements–she got to see a few days offragmentary filings.
With respect to ‘going to the chair’ there was already entirely adequate experience with trying to negotiate with the chair in 2008, namely we tried to negotiate about ballot access for Massachusetts. We made a deal. The Chair, without telling our state committee, signed pre-convention a completely different deal with a local petitioning firm, as a result of which Massachusetts people wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on pointless extra signature gathering.
@89 I suggest you try reading the bylaws…it’s the line about Roberts covering all other cases. The rest is in Roberts.
Actually, we did go to both sides. And we obtained the written statement from the Barr campaign that the money had been moved via a wire transfer. We also found that the Barr Treasurer and the LNC Treasurer were talking back-channel to set up an abusive attack on Rachel Hawkridge.
Ignoring some interesting legal questions related to threatening peopleas Mr Capozzi proposes, at some point you have to draw a line.
The take-away from this debacle, IMHO, is to treat every inquiry seriously. Even if you have to fake it
tk: [GP] did so last, not first. First, he tried to get an explanation from the LNC. Instead, he got stonewalling, executive session entered under false pretense, and bullying of the LNC member inquiring on his behalf.
me: I respect that you actually believe this, but I don’t find it credible. If Phillies felt that the LNC’s stonewalling was unacceptable, why did he simply not go to, say, the Chair and say, “This is unacceptable. I need an explanation. If you won’t make public a plausible explanation, I have no choice but to go to the FEC.”
This would have been the honorable move. If this or something like this had happened, I would be satisfied that going to the FEC was in fact the LAST option. IMO, Phillies jumped the gun and exposed the LP to criminal investigation that could have damaged the LP for YEARS.
I can’t imagine how he did what he did with a clear conscience. It appears to be at best a hasty move designed to “get ’em,” not a healthy motive, IMO.
cm, yes, it would take a LOT of time and energy to unpack all these charges and countercharges.
IMO, b) is the salient point. It’s of course a judgment, but my take is no, he didn’t exhaust all his options.
Rather than address the point, George was stonewalling about it before the convention, and now it appears he’s back on his brand of warpath, second-guessing and labeling the new LNC out of the gates.
This, IMO, is most unfortunate, for the party and apparently for George. He’s obviously a bright and dedicated fellow, and on matters of political analysis, I have great respect for his views. However, he seems to behave like someone with a whopper of a chip on his shoulder, leading to deeply dysfunctional acts like this FEC move.
Now would be an excellent time for him to do some introspection. A contrite, baggage-free Phillies would be welcomed with open arms from many quarters in the party. A hostile, accusatory, now litigious gadfly will continue to lose credibility.
His choice.
@85 & 86, yeah, that pretty well sums it up. That’s why I listened to what Starr had to say from his point of view, let him tell me his side of the story. There are several sides to this story, and nobody has a corner on the truth market here. The more I hear about it, the more convoluted and he-said-she-said it gets.
The points of contention seem to be
a) Whether or not it’s EVER appropriate to invoke law enforcement to solve a party problem.
b) Whether or not Phillies exhausted all other reasonable avenues of investigation before pursuing the complaint with the FEC.
c) Whether or not having this complaint pending while he was running for chair constituted a conflict of interest.
and for a tiny handful of folks,
d) Whether or not he and Hawkridge should be suspended as members due to “initiation of force” in invoking law enforcement.
For what it’s worth, word from someone on the by-laws committee is that there simply is no provision in the by-laws for removing members. So this is extremely unlikely.
Okay, knowing all this, you can do as I did and beat your head against the wall trying to find facts and objective information on these points, but after you sort through the piles of emails and stories from the principal players and whatnot, it boils down to taking people at their word, and the stories conflict, plain and simple.
Then it comes down to who and what you WANT to believe, and that’s no way to pursue justice.
Allowing that there are two sides to this story that are irreconcilable, and allowing that the FEC did not see fit to pursue the matter further and most of all allowing that the delegates spanked both sides for causing a row by not electing either one of them, it seems like the issue’s been dealt with for now, as much as it can be.
BH: If you claim that you got $10K from me, but none of my money is missing, how does that constitute any of my money being ‘unaccounted for’?
TK: […] Either way, there’s no reason that Person A shouldn’t want to know what the answer is.
Translation: either way, there’s not a dollar of LP duespayer money that was “unaccounted for”.
He wanted to find out whether or not a crime — specifically, theft of LP contributors’ monies — had occurred.
What “crime”? What “theft”? You just told us that any such transfer would be both legal and commendable. Make up your mind.
Again: if the Barr campaign could make its accounts grow by $10K without the LNC’s accounts shrinking by $10K, then where’s the victim?
1) George didn’t want any crime prosecuted.
2) You should know better than to try to pull this kind of bullshit with me by now. Have I ever not shut you down cold when you do it?
I nominate these two statements for the Robert Milnes Memorial Grasp-on-Reality Award.
consult the government authority
Oh, that’s what we’re calling it now when we file a criminal complaint against the LP? “Consulting”?
Brian,
You write:
“If you claim that you got $10K from me, but none of my money is missing, how does that constitute any of my money being ‘unaccounted for?'”
If Person A is a contributor to Membership Organization B, and Campaign C claims to have received money from B that B does not acknowledge having paid, then there are two possibilities:
– Campaign C is incorrect or lying; or
– Membership Organization B is incorrect or lying.
Either way, there’s no reason that Person A shouldn’t want to know what the answer is.
When Membership Organization B’s board closes ranks, publicly lies about its reasons for going into executive session and doesn’t provide a plausible answer to the question, Person A is fully justified in taking additional actions to get answers.
In this case, the logical next step was to consult the government authority to which both Membership Organization B and Campaign C reports its receipts and expenditures.
The only format under which that authority allows for such an inquiry is labeled a “criminal complaint.”
George didn’t want any crime prosecuted. He wanted to find out whether or not a crime — specifically, theft of LP contributors’ monies — had occurred.
You should know better than to try to pull this kind of bullshit with me by now. Have I ever not shut you down cold when you do it?
OTOH, I would be careful not to put myself in a position where someone could file a complaint. When you are in the public eye, you need to be, like Ceasar’s wife, above suspicion.
OK. the melatonin is kicking in. going to sleep.
OK. To be fair, if someone had filed a complaint that would end my career and put me behind bars, I would be pretty pissed off, too. Especially since we are all supposed to be on the side of liberty.
there still apparently being $10,000 in the members’ money unaccounted for
If you claim that you got $10K from me, but none of my money is missing, how does that constitute any of my money being “unaccounted for”?
It is not illegal for the LNC to give money to the presidential campaign, and in fact it would have been completely in order for that to have happened.
Ah, so the “crime” that George wanted prosecuted was that an LP candidate got a legal and commendable donation from the LP without the LP having that amount deducted from its accounts. Quel horreur!
LG,
It is not illegal for the LNC to give money to the presidential campaign, and in fact it would have been completely in order for that to have happened. Phillies did not allege that the LNC “illegally” did something that’s entirely legal.
Phillies saw a discrepancy:
The Barr campaign claimed, in its FEC reports, to have received $10,000 from the LNC.
The LNC, it its FEC reports, did not claim to have sent $10k to the Barr campaign.
Nor did the minutes of any recent LNC meetings reflect authorization of any such transfer.
So, he ASKED about it. Specifically, he asked an LNC member, Rachel Hawkridge, to make inquiries.
The Barr campaign’s treasurer responded to Hawkridge’s inquiry to the effect that yes, in fact, he believed that the campaign had received $10k from the LNC.
The LNC responded to Hawkridge’s inquiry by going into executive session under the false claim of a “personnel matter” so that Aaron Starr could berate Hawkridge, then declined to explain why and how the Barr campaign had apparently received money that the LNC had not authorized and that the treasurer had not reported to the FEC.
His questions remaining unanswered, and there still apparently being $10,000 in the members’ money unaccounted for, Phillies went to the police authority for federal elections funds — the FEC — as a last recourse to find out what the hell was going on, since the LNC declined to explain itself.
He filed a “criminal complaint” because that was the only category of FEC paperwork which his inquiry fit into, not because he was trying to send someone to jail.
If you read the FEC’s account of its investigation, you’ll discover what actually happened, and why the FEC wisely used its prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute anyone. The laundry got washed because Phillies took it to the laundromat and put a quarter in the machine when nobody else would. Do you want your party’s laundry clean, or do you want it piled around the house attracting bugs?
oh and theres no such thing as lying unintentionally , you’re either lying or your mistaken or your correct:)
Im not lying , tell me where Im mistaken . Was the complaint about an alleged transfer of funds or not?
LG,
You write:
“Phillies filed a criminal complaint”
Correct. He did so last, not first. First, he tried to get an explanation from the LNC. Instead, he got stonewalling, executive session entered under false pretense, and bullying of the LNC member inquiring on his behalf.
“alleging the LNC and Starr had illegally given 10,o00to the Barr campaign”
He alleged no such thing. So, you’re either lying intentionally, or you’re lying unintentionally (e.g. you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about so you’re just making shit up). Which?
ok wait , I lied , I lie all the time about my age, just sayin:)
@73 , its regular for our Chair , which is why he and I have had ongoing issues for some time
I don’t lie . Phillies filed a criminal complaint alleging the LNC and Starr had illegally given 10,o00to the Barr campaign . Had the allegation been true , and you know Phillies was wishing it was , it would have meant the end of Starrs career as a CPA an landed him behind bars. exactly where do you accuse me of lying?
It’s not nice to lie, LG.
it was about Phillies trying to land him in a cage and essentially calling him a criminal
What was the screaming match about, anyway?
LG @66, is it common for the chair to exert pressure like that on delegates to vote one way or another?
In other news: Aaron and I had a conversation at the convention about the reason he was so angry, and I listened to what he had to say. Predictably, his perspective was different, his understanding of the chain of events varies tremendously from other reports, and he felt very wronged by what happened.
I listened to what he had to say and told him that rather than fume and be angry about it, he should write an article expressing his point of view and defending himself if he really felt it necessary to do so, but that standing around being angry and hurt wasn’t going to help anything. I told him that, at the end of this convention, it was very possible he may find himself sitting at the same table with the people he was so angry with, and that all of them would need to put this behind them and pull together for the sake of the party.
He seemed to take that to heart. Then again, I believe that was well BEFORE the chair’s debate, so maybe not.
~~ C
Didn’t Robert Heinlein say that revenge was a dish best served cold?
He is right. About a lot of things.
Damn!!! ouch – ( the sound a cat makes when its fighting mad)—–
>Most people missed the inimitable Mr. Starr getting in my face and screaming at me, at the top of the escalator after the chair debate<
This wouldn't be on You Tube, would it?
Damn! I am sorry I missed this Convention. Here I thought it was going to be boring and it sounds like one of the more interesting ones.
And a personal message to the "young lady he was with who was trying to wave him away.."
Welcome to the rest of your life, my dear.
Keep your financial data secret. Use condoms. If you need surgery, be sure you have a good support system.
Kate O'Brien
Chair and CEO
The Fortunate 500
LG @ 66: “I always miss the good shit”.
The story of my life…(excluding my husband and son, of course!)
coercion would include something that would make them vote for Root , his outburst almost cost them voting for Root after JohnJay stepped down. he was just pissed .
Shouldn’t delegates be free to vote however they wish? What is the state chair doing trying to coerce them?
I always miss the good shit. our table was heated as well with two what we thought were shoe-ins for Root , because they had indicated that , defecting to vote for John Jay. Chairman Silvestri was super-duper mad at them, me not liking that kind of stress walked away . not his best persuasive moment!:)
Aaron did almost all the talking. Except the young lady he was with trying to wave him away.
Since he was not running out of steam, I finally gave him a ‘have a nice day’ and walked off.
Id have to say that was an inevitable ,understandable and justified exchange .
The George and Aaron show has been relocated away from the LNC and to a time slot about 3am in the morning, so as to not infect the rest of us.
Any other children need to be sent to the time-out corner?
I overheard a bit of the George/Aaron exchange. It seemed to be nothing more that the same charges/defenses that have been tossed around over the LNC/Barr paperwork discrepancies.
It just happened to be face to face between the two of them. And understandably a bit heated.
LG asks:
If I had to guess, I think Aaron was pissed that George filed a complaint with the FEC. But I’ll defer to George if he cares to share with the group.
George, this sounds like a great story, and I’d be pleased to hear it.
@54 Capozzi, that comment makes me love you all over again. Who’da thunk Jim D would bring us together?
I love this new spirit animating the Party. People seem willing to laugh again, even if only at Jim and Dondero. That’s got to be a Good Thing!
about what George?
@30
Most people missed the inimitable Mr. Starr getting in my face and screaming at me, at the top of the escalator after the chair debate.
LG,
Yep, I grew out the hair and beard.
The reason?
I didn’t want any more mic time at the convention than I absolutely had to take (which amounted to speaking for or against a few bylaws/platform proposals).
Starting a couple of months ago, I had had several tentative inquiries of the “will you nominate/second me for election to X?” variety, and a few hints of possible additional inquiries of the sort coming my way.
So, I informed actual and likely querents of the sort that I would look like Grizzly Adams — except that I’d be wearing a t-shirt featuring a Hunter S. Thompson quote that comes off as rather … fringe — and that I’m the last person they’d want to see on a stage saying nice things about them.
It worked.
As soon as I got home, I shaved my head and reduced the beard back to its normal chin coverage area.
Trent,
You write:
“So you think he was justifiably angry. This is precisely what you said–and yes, I saw that you also said that you didn’t think he handled it well. But i’m sorry, the anger he displays in that video is not justifiable by the fact that someone touched his chairs…”
His anger was justifiable on grounds of the fact that someone was fucking around on property he had rented, around valuable property he owned, without his permission.
If you disagree, then tell me that you wouldn’t be angry if you caught me wandering around in your house without asking you first.
His particular mode 0f expressing his anger made him look worse than any of the alleged or actual perpetrators, and accomplished little or nothing.
well, looking on the bright side, there was no mention or display of rebar, so we can take this as a win and move along.
Guess i’d better make some new posts for the day. lol. Im whiped out after the weekend.
Me, too! We felt awful to be home all weekend.
I hope you had a good time once you got there!
Jill , Im disappointed I didnt get to meet you!
His son Liam has beautiful hair!
Knapp grew his hair back and nobody recognized him…
To and REgarding Trent Hill // Jun 1, 2010:
Mister Hill, often displaying the same cynical tactics that Tommy ‘From Da Ole Neighborhood’ Knappster learned from word twister Doctor George Phillies, is talking about Tom ‘BTP’ Knapp.
Consider the source, dude, consider the source, and hope fully you’ll do it almost immediately (like I did with Phillies) and it will not take about two years (like with me and the Knappster)!
Jill Pyeatt // Jun 1, 2010:
“Davidson’s outburst in a public setting, with children right there, was completely unacceptable, so much so that I question the man’s sanity …..”
[Oh come on Ms Pyeatt, ya never visited California, Bruce Cohen, Brian Holtz; ever chatted with any one from Sandy Ego County LP (Ed Tessiler, Richard Rider ……..) ??????????? Just another day in Left Coast Lib Land! *personal experience* and * multiple documentation* …….]
What you said was:
“Do I think he was justifiably angry that in a building full of alleged libertarians his property was not respected? Yes.”
So you think he was justifiably angry. This is precisely what you said–and yes, I saw that you also said that you didn’t think he handled it well. But i’m sorry, the anger he displays in that video is not justifiable by the fact that someone touched his chairs…
In what way, exactly, is this arguing with the opposite of what you said, Tom? You said you think his anger was justifiable–I’m disagreeing.
Robert Capozzi // Jun 1, 2010:
“Lake, sorry, I can’t relay anything to those gents …..…”
[ well *Ronald Reagan voice over* there ya go again ……..]
[ I have evidence that these imperfect human beings, bringing on death and destruction (and history) over a penny sales tax, were throwing a hissy fit. ]
[A large portion of the Declaration of Independence goes into to details on the abuses of (Donald Grundmann icon and) measurably insane George III the Coo Coo King. So I beg to differ ………]
Trent,
You write:
“By this time he had realized that none of his things were taken (or even touched) and that indeed someone else entirely had taken the chairs, not the AOCS people.”
Maybe he had realized that. I hadn’t. And I still don’t. My understanding is that chairs were missing from his booth area. I know that Tamara had taken two of them. I don’t know if other chairs were missing or not; my understanding was (and, so far is) that he walked up and saw the AOCS people messing around in his space.
“And yet, for some unfathomable reason, both he and you think that it was justifiable to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs?”
This will make the third time that I have said the opposite. When you’re ready to argue with what I’ve said instead of the opposite of what I’ve said, I’ll be waiting.
Mr Davidson’s outburst in a public setting, with children right there, was completely unacceptable, so much so that I question the man’s sanity.
“Do I think he was justifiably angry that in a building full of alleged libertarians his property was not respected? Yes.”
Um justifiably angry? No. By this time he had realized that none of his things were taken (or even touched) and that indeed someone else entirely had taken the chairs, not the AOCS people. And yet, for some unfathomable reason, both he and you think that it was justifiable to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs? Superman can’t make leaps that your logic is attempting.
Finally the delegates saw through Aaron’s complete hogging of the mike, asking for people to pass motions and THEN amend them…LOL!, getting recognized by Redpath every time he stood up, and being a general ‘know-it-all’ I will say this Mr. Star…. a few members of the delegation observed you looking at the vote counts during the LNC Judicial committee vote behind Mr. Sullentrup and then going over to your delegation and conferring with them. If that shit ever happens again you are going to get called out on that. People ARE paying attention Bro.
Lake, sorry, I can’t relay anything to those gents…they are long dead. We weren’t there, so we can’t know if those gents were prone to hissy fits. Some of them were slaveowners, so I generally don’t hold them up as role models, although I’d agree they had admirable qualities.
tk, I got the first part. It’s the SECOND part that I was commenting on:
“Do I think he was justifiably angry that in a building full of alleged libertarians his property was not respected? Yes.”
The anger was not only misdirected, it sounds as if it made a dysfunctional situation more dysfunctional. It may well be UNDERSTANDABLE that an L had a fit of rage that (apparently) some Ls didn’t respect another L’s property, but it surely does not sound to be justified, IMO.
Robert Capozzi // Jun 1, 2010:
“…………. Anger is never justified.”
Plz relay to Jefferson, Franklyn, Madison, Monroe, Adams (Samuel), Adams (John), Washington, Paine …………
Bob,
You write:
“Now other players justify the player A’s angry screed based on a hypothetical action and reaction by the inappropriately accused brothers.”
Which part of:
“Do I think that his meltdown was the most effective response? No.”
Did you not understand the first time?
tk, now THERE is a teachable moment if ever there was one. Player goes ballistic at a brothers who hadn’t even done the deed. Now other players justify the player A’s angry screed based on a hypothetical action and reaction by the inappropriately accused brothers.
More deeply, what purpose was served by going ballistic? Milk does not go back in the container after it’s spilt if one yells at it.
Anger is never justified.
There was a 2-3 person crew. They were very professional and not very intrusive. No word on if/when footage will be released.
May I ask an off-topic question? I haven’t seen any posts about the cameras working on the reality show with Wayne Root – were they there? Were they intrusive? How did all that go, anyway?
Thanks to Tom and all the IPR folks for the great coverage!!
Trent,
Did I say the AOCS people touched Jim’s stuff?
In point of fact, I know who took the chairs, and it wasn’t them. It was my spouse, Tamara Millay. Seating ran short at the Tim Slagle show; since the hotel staff didn’t seem inclined to address the situation, she went out to look for chairs and grabbed the closest ones.
She apologized to Jim; he didn’t accept the apology as sufficient, but he was already on a roll with the AOCS people and I guess didn’t feel the need to switch tracks at the moment.
The tables AND THE SPACE BEHIND/UNDER THEM, etc., were rented by the vendors. For the duration of the rental period, that space was the property of the renting vendor.
My educated guess here is that it was not the chairs per se that Jim was upset about. It was that people — including AOCS, apparently, and including Tamara — felt free to wander onto his property without a second thought.
Aside from the general principle involved, he almost certainly had his inventory — goods that he had manufactured or purchased at his own expense, and that he intended to sell at a profit — stored either behind or under the vendor table when the convention wasn’t in session. He could have lost a great deal of money in a short period of time.
Do I think that his meltdown was the most effective response? No.
Do I think he was justifiably angry that in a building full of alleged libertarians his property was not respected? Yes.
If the AOCS people had come walking down the hall and discovered someone ratfucking around their table with a few hundred one-ounce silver rounds stored underneath it, do you think they’d have just shrugged it off? I don’t.
Tom,
Actually I dont believe the AOCS people touched Jim’s stuff–they wanted to get the chairs from behind the tables by the walls. They’ve indicated to me that they werent even actually taking the chairs behind HIS booth.
Trent,
The only children present were mine.
Both of them were scholars of profanity long before they met Jim — and I was free to take them elsewhere if I didn’t want them to hear what he was saying.
I integrated the incident in question into the kids’ unschooling curriculum. It nicely reinforces two important lessons:
1) Don’t mess with other people’s stuff; and
2) Master your temper rather than letting it master you.
By which he means–the American Open Currency Standard guys who wanted chairs from behind his booth and didn’t ask.
For THAT, he went off on a tirade which included probably 50 profane words, shouted, in the middle of a nice hotel, in the presence of children.
No, of course not. I was yelling at the AOCS communists who ransacked my booth for the things they wanted.
The little kid in the video above in @11 is Tom Knapp’s son, Liam. I’m sorry I accused him of being a girl. Is that who Jim was yelling at?
I thought the banquet was excellent. Michael Munger gave a great speech. He has a vision for the LP beyond the ballot access struggle. Meaning, we need to grow the party to point where ballot access is no longer a issue.
And Mary Ruwart made fund raising arm twisting portion of the banquet fun and entertaining
Short Circuit @ 20: Glad to see you’ve given yourself an appropriate name.
And by all means, please give us your insights on how to be a “winner.” So we can do the opposite, and avoid turning into a bunch of “woe is me” cry babies.
Virtually everyone is glad Oaksun won, judging by the final vote tally.
I’m glad Oaksun won. He was the only officer candidate I endorsed, though there were others I supported.
Reaching down through the At-Large members, New Path only elected one person to the LNC. I already had commitments to support four candidates, so I did not run again. Mind you, with 13 At-Large candidates, subjecting the delegates to one more set of nominating speeches would have seemed to be cruel and unusual punishment of the long-suffering delegates.
My major work of the day was circulating a one-pages on Massachusetts ballot access and other issues to counter a Texas-size pile of lies attacking the Massachusetts Libertarian organization in a completely false way.
George
“So, what was the story of the rant that you posted, Trent? Was he yelling at that little girl?”
Apparently someone wanted to grab the chairs behind Davison’s booth and he went…apeshit.
[a] wonderful message
[b] gross lack of ethics
[c] such poor execution
To comment #8 – The mood’s been electric at various NatCons and the LP is still essentially a group of losers deluded about its prospects.
Aaron, stop posting on IPR. Yeesh.
One would hope this would put an end to Rob’s Power-trips, but those who know him know otherwise.
While delegates thankfully rejected Wayne Allyn Root for chair, there is a good chance that he may get on the Libertarian National Committee.
While Aaron Starr was decisively sent packing as Treasurer, many who favor a more top-down, more conservative approach for the party than is desirable, remain on the committee.
We did not make the best possible choice for chair, which would have been Ernest Hancock (he came in third). And we’ve only elected one of the good candidates running on George Phillies “New Path” slate.
So while I think these results are cause for cautious optimism, my emphasis would be on cautious. We are not out of the woods yet.
You’re right, Trent. Of course, Hinkle was far and away the selection most likely to make both of those camps feel their points of view are respected and valued: there’s never been a more radical chair in terms of libertarian ideology nor a more conventional chair in terms of personal style.
I think the sense of unity really should be attributed to the two radical ends, ironically enough. Ernie Hancock and Wayne Root (along with their factions) were gentlemen in their concession speeches. Each of them exuded enthusiasm and graciousness–I applaud their attitudes.
Glad to hear it, Less. We entered the CA State Convention divided, and came out pretty much unified. Very good news to see some of these divisions healing up.
We’ll need the unity, too, so we can become relevant in the fight before it’s completely lost.
So, what was the story of the rant that you posted, Trent? Was he yelling at that little girl?
Why in the world didn’t her parent or parents remove her? She shouldn’t have heard that.
Jeez.
At-large nominations are scheduled to begin at 8:45 AM.
I want to second Seebeck: the atmosphere has been electric, and given what would have been expected to be a conservative bias in a non-presidential year, the signs are great for a change of direction.
And the mood at the banquet was unbelievable: not just the money raised, but a real sense of optimism and unity.
BTW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7oohvN8JqI
Jim Davidson, showing how nice of a guy he is. Warning: Language.
Michael Seebeck, I was not at Denver but I was a candidate and followed the convention closely on CSPAN & have had much time to ponder it. What is different?
We’ll be covering At-Large elections tomorrow–does anyone know when exactly they’ll occur? As for regional elections, I hope I can catch wind of them through my various IPR reporters and maybe the twitter feed.
The trouncing of Starr was really the only win the New Path slate had all weekend. I dont expect them to get an at-large win either.
Wow.
Just wow.
And I was there.
Folks who are not have no idea how electric this all is here–a totally different vibe than Denver. Tomorrow’s LNC and JC elections are gonna be something!
After losing Powers for Secretary, I was pacing around the convention hall while they counted the vote. When the vote was about to be called, I was rocking back and forth mumbling loudly that Starr was going to win. Those results came up and I ran as fast as I could to James. BOOYA!
I think the results for the officer elections were all very good. Hinkle wasn’t my first choice, but like most of the delegates he was my second.
Brian, what’s your opinion on Root losing? I’m just wondering.
Hmmm… Overall, I think the results are a lot better than I expected.
While I personally (had I been able to attend) would have voted for NOTA in the chair’s race, Hinkle is a long-time friend of mine and I think he will do okay as chair.
I also have known Mark Rutherford for over two decades, and I think he’ll do well.
The one that I find to be a good result is the Treasurer’s race. Starr has been a somewhat fair Treasurer, but he has been assembling a pretty long train of entirely unnecessary baggage behind himself, and that baggage train resulted in a rather trouncing reproach by the delegates.
All in all, a decent enough result. Can’t wait to see how the At-Large and Regional elections go.
Jason,
I meant ridiculous in the sense that it was unexpected, by me at least. I was pleased to see Oaksun over Starr.
Sullentrup endorsed Mattson in his nominating speech for her.
Not ridiculous.
The delegates sent another message.
Power and Mattson’s race was close. But Oaksun scoring 70% over Starr, the incumbent, that’s ridiculous.