Brian Holtz // Jan 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
The only rule here is that a Party member may be suspended (i.e. expelled) “for cause”. I too would like to hear Debra’s answers to Mr. Ubble about what should constitute cause for expulsion.
LPCA Phrenologist // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:18 pm
If you as a 19-year-old troubled alcoholic fondled a young teenager, then by definition you as a 41-year-old with a subsequently clean record are nevertheless a permanent threat to all children and must be jailed for life for the good of society. If you ever shoplifted, you’re a lifelong klepto. If you ever played with fire, you’re a lifelong pyro. If you ever went streaking, you’re a lifelong exhibitionist. If you ever looked in a neighbor’s window, you’re a lifelong voyeur. None of these conditions can be reformed or controlled. Your mere existence is a threat to society. Your non-disclosure to anyone of anything that might disturb anyone is an act of force initiation. Until the LP can institute a truly Libertarian government that can legislate all these rules, the least we can do as a Party is to enforce them on our membership.
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:57 pm
The California Code says: 290.95. (a) Every person required to register under Section 290,
who applies for or accepts a position as an employee or volunteer with any person, group, or organization where the registrant would be
working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children, shall disclose his or her status as a registrant, upon application or acceptance of a position, to that person, group, or organization.
It’s illiterate to suggest that as an LPCA officer, Barnes “work[ed] directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or ha[d] supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”.
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 26, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Barnes’s 52-page court file did not actually say that Barnes was “unable to control himself”. The records in fact say he “represents a danger to young males in the community if untreated.” Also: “His therapeutic goal is to remember the abuse he believes he suffered at his father’s hands. He believes that as long as he is not consciously aware of his own abuse history he will continue to be dangerous.”
Nothing in Barnes’s 52-page file supports the recklessly false claim above that Barnes was “unrepentant”. The records in fact say: He stated he was severely depressed after having realized he had molested boys in his scout troop. He stated he was appalled by his behavior. [...] He acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions, and expressed some relief that he had been called to account
Tabling at JSA is of course not an “unaccompanied setting”. If an attorney or parole officer thinks that a college student is a “minor”, then that person is just as confused as Cohen himself so clearly is.
Cohen has offered no evidence of Barnes “lying”, but Cohen’s statement about Barnes being “unrepentant” is so recklessly false that it’s hard to see how it could not be a lie.
Cohen’s other vague and unsubstantiated smears should be evaluated by his record on the few claims he offers that can actually be checked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Cohen: I can pick out quotes from the court file to support my assertions, too.
Not for the “unrepetant” assertion, you can’t. Go ahead and try.
Ms. Marbry, a broken promise is not necessarily a “lie”. Are you claiming that Barnes told the ExCom he would refuse any county office nomination? Promising not to seek office isn’t actually the same thing as promising to refuse a nomination. Don’t make Cohen’s mistake of confusing what you feel with what you actually read or hear.
Had he had any integrity, he would have admitted the truth when originally confronted, expressed regret that his past might harm the image of the party and offered to resign.
That is apparently what Barnes did when he resigned from the ExCom. A press report said that his county LP knew about his record when they subsequently elected him. Was that report wrong?
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 26, 2010 at 8:03 pm
@48 note that when Bill Reed won 15% in his 2000 congressional race, there was no Democrat in the race. California Libertarians facing only one major-party opponent always score in double-digit percentages — as did the other two such LPCA congressional candidates that year.
LPCA Fact Checker // Jan 27, 2010 at 12:09 am
Mr. Trosper, the point @60 is simply that 15% (it was actually closer to 16%) in a race against only one major-party opponent is nowhere near as impressive as 15% against the usual set of two major-party opponents. It’s nice that you finished ahead of the other minor-party candidate, and you may very well have managed an excellent campaign, but let’s not pretend you would have beaten the Democrat if one had been running.
Ms. Marbry, if you have evidence that Barnes specifically promised to refuse any county officer nomination after his record became public, please share it. If you don’t have such evidence, then please tell us if this is the standard of mud-slinging you would like people to apply to allegations about you and your allies.
Even if you had evidence that Barnes made this specific promise, his subsequent breaking of it doesn’t necessarily mean he committed a “lie” when he made the promise. This is just a basic fact of English vocabulary.
Ms. Pyeatt, your sweeping statement that “Barnes never showed any remorse for his actions” seems to be either an outright lie, or evidence that you didn’t read the case file, or evidence that you just don’t care about truth in this case. Is there another possibility I”m missing?
Mr. Trosper, Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was 19. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His has expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when word of his record first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him. Shouldn’t we blame his county at least as much as him for the embarrassment of his again being an officer? If he should be expelled, shouldn’t his county also be dis-affiliated? (Same question to you, Ms. Marbry, especially since you say he “controls” his county affiliate.)
LG, it’s very revealing that you say fondling “sounds innocent enough” to you. Fondling an 11- or 13-year-old doesn’t sound “innocent” at all to the Fact Checker, but it’s also not quite the image that comes to mind when one hears “molested a child”. Do you care about the actual facts of this case, or are you trying to conjure witches? Speaking of facts, you claim that “LPCA Phrenologist” is Barnes, but Fact Checker happens to know that your claim is false. What else do you think you know about this case, but actually don’t?
Correction to my earlier comment above: the case file says Barnes didn’t become a substance abuser until after the crimes in question. (Who fact-checks the Fact Checker?)
Cohen, thank you for making my point: JSA tabling is done in crowded rooms, and so is obviously not a violation of the California law that you claim it to be. And please wake us when you’ve found those quotes from the case file saying Barnes was unrepentant.
LPCA Fact Checker // Jan 27, 2010 at 12:53 am
You wrote @61: the real goal was to get second place, not third. We accomplished that goal because we had a plan and worked hard toward achieving that goal.
That goal was most likely achieved as soon as it was determined that your other opponent was Natural Law rather than a Democrat. In 2000, California Libertarians out-polled their Natural Law opponents in 35 out of 44 congressional races.
Nobody is saying you didn’t work hard, or run a fine campaign. All I’m saying is that even a paper LP campaign in that race would have gotten double digits, and that it’s somewhat misleading to cite the 15% result out of the context of having only one major-party opponent.
LPCA Fact Checker // Jan 27, 2010 at 8:12 am
Ms. Marbry, I didn’t say Barnes isn’t respected and influential in the LPSBd. I simply asked why the LPSBd shouldn’t be dis-affiliated. Got an answer?
You plainly haven’t provided the evidence I asked for about this alleged Barnes promise. If you had, you could quote it. You can’t.
LG is the one here who said fondling sounds innocent enough; I agreed with Barnes that it’s heinous. When you put “only fondling” in quotes and pretend I wrote it, you reveal precisely why we shouldn’t trust your vague evasive hand-waving about Barnes’s alleged promises.
I never said their weren’t more allegations than the three Barnes pled to. Are you saying that Americans aren’t innocent until proven guilty, or that government prosecutors never strategically over-charge defendants? Are you suggesting the three unconvicted charges tipped this expulsion case in your mind?
XC, Libertarians don’t believe in secret evidence. If you can’t convince the JudCom and the membership of your claims about what happened behind closed doors, then why have JudCom review of expulsions at all?
LPCA Fact Checker // Jan 27, 2010 at 11:22 am
Cohen offers zero evidence for his libelous claim that the LPCA “endanger[ed] people’s children”. He cannot name a single such child.
Such mendacious attempts at Party defamation are what provoked the effort to expel Cohen from the LP. Before it rules on that expulsion, the LPCA Judicial Committee should review Cohen’s libelous charges above that 1) Barnes was “unrepentant” at his conviction, and 2) the LPCA “endanger[ed] people’s children” when it pressured Barnes to resign from ExCom but did not initially expel him or further publicize his record.
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 27, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Cohen still has not justified his libelous falsehoods @52: “The Defense agreed… So did Matthew’s Shrink. Even Matthew said he was unreformed, unrepentant and unable to control himself.”
Barnes’s 52-page court file did not say that Barnes was unable to control himself. The records in fact say he “represents a danger to young males in the community if untreated.” Also: “His therapeutic goal is to remember the abuse he believes he suffered at his father’s hands. He believes that as long as he is not consciously aware of his own abuse history he will continue to be dangerous.”
Barnes’s court file also did not suggest that Barnes said he was unrepentant. The records in fact say “He stated he was severely depressed after having realized he had molested boys in his scout troop. He stated he was appalled by his behavior. [...] He acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions, and expressed some relief that he had been called to account”.
Cohen was flatly wrong when he said that Barnes’s alleged (and unconfirmed) participation in LP tabling in a roomful of JSA high-school students constituted a violation of the statutory requirement that Barnes not “work directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”. And Cohen was hilariously wrong to claim that Barnes broke the law by attending college eventsfor an LP candidate.
As Ms. Marbry has pointed out, Cohen has zero evidence that Barnes has ever re-offended in the decades since his crimes. Nor has Cohen named a single child that the LPCA “endangered” by not expelling Barnes. As a former Vice Chair of the LPCA, Cohen’s charge that the LPCA “endanger[ed] people’s children” is irresponsible and arguably libelous.
LG, the facts of the case remain as follows. Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was their 19-year-old scout leader. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he aptly called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when his court file first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him.
You can shout all you want, but the facts remain what they are. No less, and no more. The LPCA JudCom is to be commended for judging this case on the merits and the facts, rather than joining the mob in their witch hunt. The LPSBd knows everything about Barnes that the mob knows, but they elected him to a county officer anyway. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in demanding Barnes’s expulsion needs to explain why they’re not also calling for the LPSBd to be disaffiliated.
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm
LP San Benito and LP Santa Barbara might disagree with you. I use the official California 2- and 3-letter county abbreviations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_California_State_Highways/County_Routes#Abbreviations. So I should have written LPSBD.
Similarly, I use LPCA, even though California Libertarians seem to think that they are the only LPC.
34 people at a monthly county LP meeting is very impressive. I doubt any other LPCA affiliate can make such a claim.
Broce Cuhen // Jan 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Anything good that a Libertarian has done, I’ve done at least as well at some unspecified and unverifiable time in the past. But this is not about me.
Anything bad that a Libertarian does, I warned about that person in vague ways at unspecified times to unidentified people. But this is not about my prescience.
It’s very embarrassing when unnamed present and past LP officers throw undescribed tantrums and yell at people so often that LP insiders have no idea what incident I might be talking about. It doesn’t happen in my soothing presence, but you can take my word that it’s happened, because I saw it. Or, I mean, you can call this or that LP insider and try to collect actual evidence for the rumor I’m spreading about it. I don’t bother assembling such actual evidence, because this is not about me.
It’s about civility and constructiveness, and avoiding needless controversy. That’s what I’m all about.
LPCA Fact Checker // Jan 28, 2010 at 1:19 am
Ms. Marbry, for the record, do you favor outlawing the provision of alcohol and marijuana to 17-year-olds? If so, do you also favor outlawing consensual sex between 17-year-olds and adults?
If any of this unsubstantiated mud you’re slinging about Barnes is true, why wasn’t it included in the stated “cause” for his suspension? The Fact-Checker’s information is that the cause was simply this: “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 first rule of witch-hunting is: make up your mind about what the accused is prejudged to be guilty of.
And the first rule of not sounding silly is: don’t agree with an anonymous commenter that anonymous commenting is “cowardly”.
The Fact-Checker cannot state conclusively that Barnes has not posted here. If Barnes has, then he’s sounded more reasonable and civil than his accusers.
Paulie, just how many free disconfirmations are you planning to hand out to people here trying to guess the identity of anonymous commenters? Is that really a precedent you want to set for IPR moderators?
LPCA Fact Checker // Jan 28, 2010 at 10:59 am
Hey, LG, I read in the paper that the trigger-happy conspiracy-nut LPNV Chair pulled a gun during a traffic stop and got himself shot for it.
Isn’t spreading unsubstantiated rumors fun? Who needs facts and evidence?
It’s a sad day when a Libertarian equates 1) consensual drugs and sex with 17-year-olds and 2) non-consensual molestation of 11-year-olds. The point of the LP is to challenge the ideology of the nanny state’s unjust laws, not defend it.
Keep fantasizing that nobody would defend Barnes from expulsion except Barnes himself or his “best buddy”, if that’s what it takes to rationalize your unfair and unjust witch hunt. As far as is known to the Fact Checker, none of the five JudCom members are associates of Barnes or even LPSBD members. But they together have over 100 years of experience in the LP, and they reportedly needed only 10 minutes’ deliberation to reach a 5-0 decision to cancel this witch hunt. You’ve already demonstrated a willingness to spread false assumptions about me; what false things will you be saying about them?
Where will it end, Debra? Why can’t Libertarians deal with each other just on the basis of facts and evidence? Why is that too much to ask?
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm
LG, there is an unsubstantiated claim above that Barnes “gave alcohol and marijuana to minors at party-related functions”. I didn’t say the claim was yours, I just asked you if it’s fun to see such unsubstantiated claims discussed as if they were facts.
If you’re against expelling Barnes, then I don’t understand your complaint against Hinkle/JudCom, because all they did was overturn the expulsion. I’ll keep asking until one of the brave witch-hunters has the courage to answer: why shouldn’t the LPSBD be disaffiliated for electing Barnes to county office after they knew his record?
It’s great that you’re a parent, but I bet I’ve been a parent more times over than you have. How dare you assume that child molestation bothers you more “as a woman” than it bothers a parent who might not be a woman? Do you have any idea how much such a comment sets back the cause of de-stereotyping women in the LP?
The Fact Checker is not omniscient, and still has no first-hand knowledge of any friendships between Barnes and the JudCom. How about applying your own fact-checking prowess to Ms. Marbry’s scandalous but unsubstantiated allegations — allegations that were conveniently omitted from the “cause” filed against him? Or would that spoil your “hunt”?
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:13 pm
LG, if you think that the only way a rumor can be false/inaccurate is for everyone who repeats it to be lying, then that explains everything I hadn’t understood about your defense of this attempted purge.
P.S. Holtz is surely not the only one in the LPCA who likes facts to be checked. If you’re fishing for more (dis)confirmations about my identity, I’ll leave those to Paulie.
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Doh! Thanks for revealing that LPCA Fact-Checker == LPCA Phrenologist.
In the future, be advised that the easiest way not to leak information is to not know it.
LPCA Fact-Checker // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Paulie, when a moderator confirms a previously-unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous poster about the identity of another anonymous poster, that leaks out information. An unsubstantiated claim is one piece of information, and confirmation of it is another.
No harm no foul, but if we’re going to endure the pain of anonymous trollers, let’s try harder to preserve the fun parts of anonymity. If an anonmous poster wants or needs any (dis)confirmation, let them ask for it.
LG, Holtz can speak for himelf, but as for Fact-Checker, you cannot quote him saying previously either that you are an embarrassment or that Barnes isn’t an embarrasment.
However, Fact-Checker will say that he is ashamed of much of the venom and unsubstantiated mud-slinging employed by Libertarians above to justify purging a member — especially when so much of the mud isn’t even part of the cause which allegedly justified the purge.
Brian Holtz // Jan 29, 2010 at 3:05 am
Matt Harris, you pick up the LPWV’s mail in Star City, right? Here’s the nearest offender to you, right in that town, at 1341 Bitonti St., apartment A4: http://www.wvstatepolice.com/sexoff/WebDetails_r07.cfm?OffenderID=278845
His name is Leonard D. Keith, and he was convicted of “1st Degree Sexual Abuse and Sexual Abuse by a Parent, Guardian or Custodian”. Are you going to kill him if you see him? Is that really the sort of announcement we want an LP state chair to be make in public?
Here is his picture, so you can be on the lookout for him.Brian Holtz // Jan 29, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Tom has it exactly right. Jill, what is the minimum number of members who need to hold their own membership hostage before the Party should cave in to their demands that somebody be purged?
Like so many scenes in LP-internal politics, this one brings to mind a Monty Python reference:
My counsel to Barnes opponents remains: a little less hysteria, and a little more evidence. The allegations that have been made against Barnes beyond his formal suspension cause sound pretty serious. The choice apparently was between 1) documenting those extra allegations and re-suspending him, or 2) quitting. What does taking option 2 tell us about the viability of option 1?
Brian Holtz // Jan 29, 2010 at 7:20 pm
PP, you can’t name a single LPCA member who has expressed “support” for Barnes’s pedophilia. The only thing being “protected” about Barnes is his right to be judged on the actual evidence for the cause claimed to justify his expulsion.
I’ll make this bet about Nolan: if he’s read this far, or if he’s talked to Mark Hinkle, then he’s surely changed his provisional judgment @70 that the LPCA JudCom “screwed up badly here”.
The JudCom statement is far too cryptic to just publish as-is, and I’m not going to be the first alternative-party activist who adds details of this story to the Google News index and archive. If George Phillies issues a statement on this matter that is less cryptic/elliptical than the JudCom’s, I’m sure some reporter here will cover it.
Brian Holtz // Jan 31, 2010 at 9:15 pm
While the use of links and quotes here is a welcome change from the usual practice on IPR, there’s zero basis here to ask whether Ms. Marbry did any of the alleged providing of alcohol.
