The people who recruited him and promoted him and could not figure out he was a freak, despite so many obvious ‘clues’ are trying to stay away from him, as he’s now become Libertarian Kryptonite with the smell of death and the look of F.E.C.E.S. on his face.

I have heard of no motion or action towards him, other than folks running away like a sink full of greasy water you drop soap into.

F.E.C.E.S. boy loves the attention, and is hoping to be a martyr, of course, so any motion or discussion will bring his F.E.C.E.S. smile and blush out.

For my part, I’ve felt protective of the LP ever since I first became an LP candidate in 2001. As for this new information that the youths in question appeared to be over 21 but in fact at least one was merely just shy of that birthday, that certainly puts a whole new light on your original conveniently-vague accusation about “minors”, which came in the context of MB’s 20-year-old crimes with 11- to 13-year-olds.

From what you’ve said, I don’t think you or any LPCA leader at these countless private parties put the LPCA at any legal risk whatsoever. So I don’t think you need to invoke the excuse that you weren’t a party officer during any of these countless events. I haven’t been an LPCA officer or candidate for a year, but I still can’t help feeling very protective of the LPCA — and that’s why I defend it and its members from unfair allegations, bad publicity, and bad precedents.

And I’ll continue to do so, no matter how often you call me “stupid” or “dense”.

“Top Two” is the DEATH of minor parties.

http://bit.ly/cn0IJW

http://bit.ly/d8lggS

This is not hyperbole – in a “blue” district, all the Ds have to do is to run a second D candidate, and all General Election ballot choices will be D.

Ditto for “red” districts.

And the Green, Libertarian, Constitution and Progressive Parties never see another ballot line.

We LIVE it here. Our alt parties are joining to (try to) support an independent candidate – where the candidate is only “sort of” okay with all of us – because the goal is to bust the two party lock.

800 comments or fight!

I was not an officer in the party at that point, so it was not my place. Officers are held to a higher standard, and as an officer in the party, I would not allow the party to be put at risk. Don’t be dense.

The onus is on the host to make sure he’s not breaking the law.

Your own words @23 above were: Countless occasions means over the course of a year, at least once a week and sometimes twice a week when I was at his house. Were there always people under 21 there drinking beer? Much of the time. Were all those events party related? No. Notwithstanding that some of those people were party officers and we did discuss party business, the only times I will call party-related were his barbecues where he handed out Libertarian literature, recruited people to the party and kept voter registration forms on hand to sign people up. Often party members (including officers on the excomm) were present for these events. The marijuana smoking took place in a separate room but it did involve those who were underage.

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

Now you say “I don’t make a point of carding my friends”.

It sounds like you need to make up your mind whether LP members mentioning the LP at a private barbecue at somebody’s home constitutes a “party-related event”, such that sharing alcohol there (or marijuana in a “separate room”) with minors who look 21 could expose the LPCA to “an expensive court case” and “bad press”.

LP members deserve to know how a Vice Chair candidate balances 1) alleged grave legal risk to the LP with 2) her own personal discomfort at “carding friends”. Thank you for clarifying that.

I “equated” nothing. I’m just trying to get at the facts behind your allegations that you and other LPCA leaders did nothing to stop a series of “party-related events” that you say posed a legal liability to the LPCA.

Personally, I have no problem with LP officers sharing alcohol or marijuana at private gatherings in their own homes with friends who appear to be 21 or older. That’s none of the LPCA’s business, just like it’s none of the government’s business.

Libertarians are generally a feisty bunch, so I trust that your comment about my “stupidity” won’t deter other LP members from asking you questions about how much personal discomfort you would risk as Vice Chair to protect the LP from legal liabilities.

Okay, you want an answer, here you go. The truth is, I didn’t know they were underage until after the fact. More to the point, until they were no longer underage. I don’t know about you, but I don’t make a point of carding my friends, particularly when they’re enjoying someone ELSE’s hospitality.

Bearing in mind that during that period, I was still living in NorCal, it came as a surprise to me that the birthday party we were planning for one of the people involved was his 21st birthday. Likewise with a few others who were more on the periphery.

As to the marijuana, since it was in amounts legal for the homeowner to have in possession (assuming he were NOT a convicted felon, as I did at the time), there was certainly no reason to turn anyone in.

Don’t try to make this about me or my campaign. It’s absolutely ludicrous that you would try to equate my not turning a fellow Libertarian in for an offense I wasn’t aware of with his convictions for child molestation.

By the way, I was not the one to raise this charge. Several other Libertarians were at his events. I also was not the one to give testimony about it since, as I say, I didn’t know about it until after the fact. So you’re barking up the wrong tree. This is one reason why I wasn’t going to dignify your stupidity with a response.

The causes for suspension would be none of the matters he discusses in his previous post, if I were advising the prosecution of Matthew.

Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was their 19-year-old scout leader. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he aptly called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when his court file first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him Vice Chair. He later resigned from that office, even though the cause stated for his suspension was that he “stood for election and was elected to Executive Committee on false pretenses”. The LPCA Judicial Committee overturned his suspension by a 5-0 vote. Barnes was also accused of “lying” to the ExCom, but the accusation turned out to be just that he violated an “understanding” floating in the air of a 3-person private conversation, carrying the “implication” that resigning from LPCA’s ExCom means never accepting county office even if his record is disclosed. As of January, Barnes holds no LPCA office at any level.

Those are the facts. Allegations about “threats” have never been detailed or substantiated, and may have no more substance than the “lying” accusation. LNC Vice Chair candidate Carolyn Marbry alleges that Barnes “gave illegal substances (alcohol and marijuana) to minors at party-related functions”, and that she “witnessed this on countless occasions”. She says Barnes thus exposed the LPCA to serious legal liability, but (as far as I know) she hasn’t explained why she apparently didn’t act to protect the LPCA from this alleged liability before Barnes’s record surfaced.

The JC had no choice but to aquit. As miss Marbury points out, there was more than enough good cause, and supporting evidence to expel Mister Barnes.

An unprofesional and inadequate prosecution is to blame.

In fact, I would venture to say that a mock trial held in a Junior High School civics class would have given an F to a student who submitted such a poorly thought out, organized and presented case file as the one presented by Matthew’s prosecution.

Embarrassingly to the current LPCA Board, several of it’s members saw fit to leak out the Prosecution’s case file against Barnes, in contravention of our ‘rules of the road’.

Worse yet, it was leaked for the precise reasons Robert’s Rules forbids such from happening.

We must not fall to the level of corrupt government, but as honorable Libertarians, we must follow our own rules and ethics.

Yes, let’s Expel Mister Barnes, I agree.

But let’s not lynch him because we don’t like him.
Make the case for Cause and then PROVE IT.

Again, Ms. Marbury is correct. We have to take our bitter medicine now and get it over.

If Chairman Naga had done this in September, we would not be wasting time on this matter today.

No more silly deals and messing around.

DO IT RIGHT and get it done.

The file contains not only the transcript of the plea bargain but also a transcript of his psychological evaluation in which he admits to the crimes. ADMITS TO THE CRIMES. So bickering about no contest pleas vs. guilty pleas is pointless. HE ADMITTED IT. Done.

You’re doing the same thing the kids do in my son’s ethics class, trying to hedge, trying to change up the scenario so you aren’t faced with the unpleasant ethical question of what to do about this situation. The situation is what it is. You have a convicted pedophile who hasn’t been convicted again in 20 years who has misrepresented his past and made threats against members of the excomm in phone calls and in person. He is a member of the party and his presence is causing harm to the party in the media and in terms of losing members of the leadership and of the party itself. At the same time, he makes meetings “fun,” as we’ve been told repeatedly, as if that matters, and he has contributed as an activist over the years. You have a candidate for public office who has made it clear they will stop running if he is not removed. What do you do?

The approach some of you seem to take is to pretend the charges were false (oh thank god!) so you don’t actually have to face this question. Call it hearsay (although legally the definition of hearsay does NOT include official court records). Or to niggle about the precise details of the situation or pretend that the evidence needs to meet a standard higher than that even required by courts. Or to comb through details until you can make it someone else’s fault. Or find a letter-of-the-law way to defeat the situation so you don’t have to face the ethical issues.

Face it. Take a good solid look at it. Make your choices from the facts, not from weaseling around trying to find a way to avoid the facts.