Judge Gray Announces for VP, Gary Johnson Endorses

Judge Jim Gray has officially announced his intention to seek the Vice Presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party at their national convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, this weekend. His statement follows in full:

Dear Convention Delegates:

In 2001 I first met Gary Johnson when he, as a sitting governor of the State of New Mexico, endorsed the original edition of my book, which is entitled “Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs” (Temple University Press, 2d edition, 2012). At the time when some governors who were ignorant of the issues were speaking nonsense about how we had to continue to put non-violent drug users in jail, and others who understood the issues were keeping silent, Governor Johnson was not only telling the truth, but he had the courage to act upon it.

In 2010 I had the honor to be on a panel about our failing educational system with Governor Johnson at “Freedom Fest” which, as you know, is a yearly forum in Las Vegas that discusses and promotes Libertarian values. At that time Gary made it clear to me that he understands the critical importance of re-introducing competition into the educational system, just as promoted by my all-time hero Dr. Milton Friedman.

Based upon those experiences, combined with the knowledge that he had actually vetoed more wasteful spending measures while governor than all other state governors combined – thus leaving New Mexico with a $1 billion surplus upon leaving office – I have been accurately quoted publicly as saying that Governor Gary Johnson is the most qualified person that I know of to be President of the United States.

Given the wrong-minded direction that our great country is now being taken by the two main political parties, I decided to take his election personally and do whatever I could for him to be elected. So when Gary asked me to be his running mate in this election, I simply had to agree. What an honor; what an opportunity; and what a necessity for our children, grandchildren and country!

I believe my background, experience and values will bring additional credibility and force to our team. I was an elected trial court judge for 25 years, federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, criminal defense attorney in the Navy JAG Corps, and Peace Corps Volunteer in Costa Rica. I formerly held a top secret clearance in the Navy, and was the recipient of National Defense, Vietnam Service and Combat Action awards while serving my country.

In addition, I have received the “Judge of the Year” award from the business litigation section of the local bar association, honorary degrees from two law schools, and the annual judge of the year award of my county’s chapter of the Constitutional Rights Foundation bears my name. I am married with four children, including one who was adopted from Vietnam while I was in the Navy, and am a member of the United Methodist Church. My Libertarian beliefs have been documented in my book “A Voter’s Handbook: Effective Solutions to America’s Problems” (The Forum Press, 2010), as have my teachings in a fun way to our children about the importance of ethics, staying in school and making good choices in my musical, which is entitled “Americans All,” and has been performed by several high schools as well as Vanguard University of Southern California.

So I directly request your invaluable support and vote at the upcoming Libertarian Convention as I seek the nomination to be your candidate for Vice President of the United States. I am committed to do whatever it takes to pursue this goal. But please do not vote for me, or for Governor Johnson, unless you are prepared to take this election personally as well, and help us in the days and months to come. With your help, together we can get this important work done!

Yours – and Ours – in Liberty

Judge James P. Gray (Ret.)

Governor Gary Johnson, whose website hosts Judge Gray’s statement, has already endorsed him. That statement can be found here.

122 thoughts on “Judge Gray Announces for VP, Gary Johnson Endorses

  1. Steven Wilson

    I hope their strategist take multiple roads rather than speed down drug free America boulevard. Single-centric campaigns get their fifteen minutes but that is it.

    Gary needs the Judge to speak about his military experience and use it to talk about ending the wars. This might tap into the Ron Paul nation that wants to end Militarism.

    Could also use the Judge to talk about separation of church and state, which could lend itself into marriage equality.

    I hope the Judge will stay away from the Fair tax. To have two of them at the same time would be…ugh.

  2. Richard Winger

    It is no longer so important to have a wealthy running mate, now that (thanks to the Speechnow.com decision) people may give as much money as they wish to organizations that make independent expenditures to promote a campaign.

  3. paulie

    From the Johnson campaign:

    Tuesday Night: Town Hall with Governor Gary Johnson
    & Libertarian Vice-Presidential Candidate
    Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

    Tuesday, May 1, 2012

    6:00 PM PT/ 7:00 PM MT/ 8:00 PM CT/ 9:00 PM ET

    Meet Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential nomination candidate Jim Gray on-line tomorrow night! Governor Johnson and Jim Gray will co-host a special on-line Town Hall Tuesday evening, May 1, at 9:00 p.m. ET / 6:00 PT.

    To participate, go to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com.

    Jim Gray, former Judge of the California Superior Court of Orange County, has announced he is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Vice-President of the United States. Presidential candidate Governor Johnson has strongly endorsed Jim Gray for the nomination.

    These informal on-line video chats are an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas regarding important issues of the day, and we urge you to participate if you can — and take advantage of this chance to get to know more about Jim Gray.

    If you do not have a web camera, you can still participate via text questions. If you have technical questions, please visit http://www.yowie.com/faq.

    If you can’t join us “live”, and would like to watch the video later, you can always go to Yowie.com to view my video archives.

    Again, go to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com tomorrow evening and join what I am sure will be a great discussion.

    Hope to see you on-line!

  4. NewFederalist

    “I hope the Judge will stay away from the Fair tax. To have two of them at the same time would be…ugh.”

    I heartily agree. I also hope they don’t make the entire campaign about legalization of pot. The economy is in meltdown so let’s put forth real free market solutions. Neither Obama nor Romney know what to do so I hope they make that the premier issue in the campaign.

  5. johncjackson

    Legal pot sounds like a free market solution to a lot of problems to me. There’s quite a market demand for it, and it isn’t free- ties up taxpayer money/ fed and local resources on policing/enforcement, creates incentives for crime/violence for private protection, destroys families/communities. Would certainly help the bottom 1%, families, tax payers, education, among many others.

  6. johncjackson

    Beyond that, the “Drug War” is one part of the whole War/Warrior culture and opposition to it is 100% required in any peace/anti-war party/movement.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    jcj@2,

    “I thought he had a wealthy guy in mind? or was that just some baseless speculation?”

    It was speculation, but I don’t think it was baseless. I’m pretty sure that the rumors to that effect came from within the campaign.

    And he may well have had a wealthy guy (or a list of wealthy guys in mind), and had no takers when he went down that list asking them.

    As Winger points out, SuperPACs can pick up some of the heavy lifting that a wealthy candidate on the ticket used to be needed for … but the composition of the ticket may affect who is willing to donate and how much.

    These $1 million campaigns the LP has been running recently are funded mostly by donations from within the party or its close sympathizers.

    The reason “ticket balance” is a good idea is that if you have more than one kind of Libertarian on the ticket, more than one kind of Libertarian or LP sympathizer may be enthused/inclined to donate.

    Johnson and Gray are, frankly, more alike than Barr/Root, and Johnson is probably leaving some significant radical LP member/sympathizer money on the table (just like Barr/Root did; the money Badnarik had trouble getting was the “credentials/gravitas” supporter money, as he was a relative unknown and his veep pick turned out to be … eccentric).

    My guess is that Johnson is hoping to make up the differential with lots of support from the cannabis legalization community, particularly in California, by having Gray on the ticket.

    And maybe that’s a good plan.

    To the extent that Johnson/Gray looks like a done deal, I’m both relieved and disappointed. Both emotions stem from the realization that I have no reason this year to reconsider my conclusion that electoral politics in general, and the LP in particular, is a waste of effort.

    The difference between watching the LP’s likely presidential effort this year and watching paint dry is that I can do the latter outdoors and maybe get a tan.

  8. Gene Berkman

    When Judge Jim Gray ran as the Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Senator from California in 2004, he called for bringing the troops home from Iraq, repealing the Patriot Act, and drastically cutting government spending, as well as ending the War on Drugs.

    Judge Gray’s campaign spoke to a variety of issues, but the focus was ending the War on Drugs. I expect the national campaign to be similar, just because ending the War on Drugs does distinguish Libertarians from the bipartisan party. At the same time, legalizing marijuana is alot more popular than it has been at any time in the past.

  9. Johnson/Gray '12

    I think it’s an excellent choice for Gary Johnson to run with a military veteran judge, it adds a lot of credibility to the ticket. We’ll see if the National LP can get them on all 50 ballots and get the TV exposure they need. I just hope Mitt Romney picks a clusterfuck of a VP that turns off the base and allows them to look elsewhere.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    10 j/g, the R base will swallow poison to unseat the “socialist/Muslim/non-native” Obama. GJ’s better target is the awake/alienated/independents. He may also have a shot in solid blue and res stage, if properly messaged…

  11. Andy

    “GJ’s better target is the awake/alienated/independents.”

    I’ve long said that the biggest potential support base for Libertarians are independents and non-voters.

  12. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Both emotions stem from the realization that I have no reason this year to reconsider my conclusion that electoral politics in general, and the LP in particular, is a waste of effort.”

    You certainly do spend a lot of time here commenting on what you consider to be a waste of effort.

  13. Andy

    Gene Berkman said: “Judge Gray’s campaign spoke to a variety of issues, but the focus was ending the War on Drugs. I expect the national campaign to be similar, just because ending the War on Drugs does distinguish Libertarians from the bipartisan party. At the same time, legalizing marijuana is alot more popular than it has been at any time in the past.”

    Unfortunately, Judge Gray opposes one of the best ways to fight the War on Drugs, and that is by informing all jurors of their right to nullify laws.

  14. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    Andy @13,

    Yes, I still have hobbies. Get over it.”

    Since you think that taking part in electoral politics is such a waste of time, maybe it’s time for you to get a new hobby instead of spending so much time on commenting on something that you think is a waste of time.

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    I believe in jury nullification, but, considering that Judge Gray spent his entire life in that system, I’m not surprised. Don’t most of us take pride in our occupation, and believe that what we’re doing matters? The fact that he’s so outspoken about drug laws is remarkable enough.

    I kind of say the same about Dr. Paul. Of course he is Pro-Life; the man is an obstetrician. They seem like similar situations to me.

  16. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Andy @16,

    And maybe it’s time for you to get your own life instead of trying to tell me how to run mine.”

    I’m not telling you how to run your life, I’m just pointing out that it’s kind of weird for a person who says that electoral politics is a waste of time to spend so much time commenting on electoral politics. Hey, if you want to waste time, continue to do so.

    There are a lot of things that I consider to be a waste of time, but I don’t spend hours and hours posting on message boards about them.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Sorry I was rude. Let’s look at it another way:

    Suppose I was once third assistant batting coach for the Chicago Cubs, because I dreamed of helping them get to the World Series.

    And suppose that I eventually decided they were never going to get to the World Series, or win if they did get there, and quit to do something else (develop, manufacture and sell a new line of bats, maybe).

    It does not follow from that that I must stop being interested in the Cubs, stop watching Cubs games, stop having friends who work or play for the Cubs, stop having opinions on what the Cubs might do to improve their chances of making their division playoffs, etc.

    For that matter, it doesn’t follow that I won’t continue to make myself available to individual Cubs players who want personal advice on bat selection, swing, etc., because they’re friends or because they’re willing to pay; or that I won’t feel bad for them when the Cardinals whip their asses.

    Not being interested in being ON the team any more doesn’t mean that I’m no longer interested IN the team or in anyone on it.

    I still have friends in the LP, and even though I think they’re wasting their efforts, I enjoy discussing things with them.

    I still admire the LP’s purpose, even though I don’t think that it’s doing a very good job of sticking to that purpose, and even though I am no longer convinced that electoral politics is the way they could achieve that purpose.

    If you think differently, well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that opinion isn’t going to change what I do. I’ll stop discussing and commenting on the LP when and if I get tired of doing so.

  18. Dora Nash

    Judge Gray is a solid, election proven Libertarian and an excellent choice for the Gary Johnson 2012 ticket. I am excited about this election and am eager to see these guys go toe to toe with the “other” guys.

  19. Sienna Gomez

    Judge Gray is a great choice for Gary Johnson and for the Libertarian Party. This is truly a great Libertarian ticket. Judge Gray has a history with the LP Party and was their US Senate in 2004. He has a clear track record of being a principled Libertarian. Gary Johnson has picked a credible running mate which will bolster his campaign to put the Libertarian Party on the map.

  20. Andy

    “Judge Gray has a history with the LP Party and was their US Senate in 2004. He has a clear track record of being a principled Libertarian.”

    Except for when it comes to jury nullification of law.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    25 A, I definitely do not see “jury nullification” as a matter of settled L theory. Nullification is a tactic, one fraught with all sorts of pitfalls. Justice is certainly a value that most/all Ls share, but whether including the notion of nullification with jurisprudence is or is not the optimal institutional configuration to deliver justice is an open question.

    To use Gray’s view on nullification as a litmus test is, therefore, poor judgment in my judgment.

  22. Andy

    “To use Gray’s view on nullification as a litmus test is, therefore, poor judgment in my judgment.”

    I disagree. While I can see from where it is that Judge Gray is coming, as in his fear that jury nullification could be used to prevent a guy who beats his wife from being convicted, however, I think that he’s wrong to oppose jury nullification, because I believe that not having juries who have the right to nullify laws, and who are informed of their right to nullify laws, is one of the best protections against government tyranny that there is. Could a jury ever make a bad decision, like say not convicting a man who is clearly guilty of beating his wife? Sure, it could happen, but I don’t believe that it is likely to happen. I think that the majority of people instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, and I don’t think that there are very many people who really believe that it is OK for a man to beat his wife. I believe that there’d be a lot more freedom right now if everyone knew about jury nullification than there is with this information being suppressed.

    I really think that jury nullification of anti-liberty “laws” is one of the most important issues that there is, and it should be one of the biggest issues for the Libertarian Party. Pushing jury nullification as a major issue would be a way for the Libertarian Party to have a big impact regardless of whether the party elects anyone to office or not.

  23. Mike Kane

    Andy, above, agreed totally.

    Saying that a jury shouldn’t be able to nullify because they might make a wrong decision is a pretty silly argument. Going down that road will lead to the question of why have jury trials at all? one sympathetic juror can cause a mistrial in any case. Using the non nullification argument, maybe we shouldn’t have juries at all.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    28 a: Could a jury ever make a bad decision…

    me: And yet you think it should be a LITMUS TEST! WOW! It’s very clear you’re not getting my point. Be more radical. What is justice? Is jurisprudence “justice”? Is jurisprudence libertarian? Are jury trials justice? Are jury trial libertarian? Always?

    You are talking tactics by saying: “[the] right to nullify laws, is one of the best protections against government tyranny that there is.”

    Is it? Are you sure? “Best” compared with what? Where is your evidence?

    You may think nullification is a good tactic, but a principle? Really? How so?

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    @27, @ 28,

    To add to what Andy is saying, jury nullification is more than just a “tactic.”

    The principle allegedly underlying the use of juries is that a reasonably large panel of the accused’s peers, in unanimous agreement after consultation, is a better way to determine guilt or innocence (and in at least some cases, specific penalty if the former) than the edict of a single judge who works full-time for the same employer as the prosecutor does.

    Absent the ability to do exactly that, “trial by jury” is a sham and mere propaganda — a jury becomes just a combination of rubber stamp and scapegoat. The judge — often in open collusion with the prosecution — makes the decision, but the jury is held out as publicly as responsible for that decision.

    Tactically, the issue may or may not be one that deserves spotlighting in a campaign, but:

    – If it does come up the choice is “I am for real trial by jury” or “I am for show trials in which jurors are judges’ meat puppets.” Gray, to his own discredit, has staked out the latter position.

    – If it does come up, it’s a chance for the libertarian to be the one on the side of long-established and time-tested principle with a overall honorable historical record (versus the Fugitive Slave Act and Alcohol Prohibition, to name two). Given libertarians’ tendency to get, in your estimation, a bit adventurous, one would think you’d welcome an issue where they can be both right AND moderate/conservative.

  26. Gene Berkman

    Anyone who thinks Jury Nullification is likely to end the war on drugs has never been in court on a drug charge. Any defense lawyer will tell you that a Judge is more likely to make a reasonable plea bargain in a drug case, because Judges see them all the time.

    The jury is picked from people who can afford to be on jury duty – retired people, and government employees. Juries are far more likely to convict in a drug possession case, because they are composed of older people who believe in “law & order.”

    Many years ago, when agitation for jury nullification started, John Dentinger (r.i.p.) pointed out that you are far more likely to get a jury nullification in a case of someone who bombed an abortion clinic than in the case of someone arrested with ten pounds of marijuana.

    Jury Nullification is a dangerous tactic for libertarians to pin their hopes on.

  27. Gene Berkman

    TK mentions the honorable record of Jury Nullification in the case of the Fugitive Slave Act,
    True, juries in the North often refused to convict escaped slaves and return them to the south. that was indeed one of the “causes” that South Carolina invoked in seceding. OK, one for Jury Nullification.

    In more modern times, juries in the South regularly refused to convict Klan members in cases of violence against Black southernors or civil rights workers.

    Byron de la Beckwith was found “not guilty” twice by all white juries in the murder of Medgar Evers, ultimately to be found guilty in 1994 by an integrated jury.

    Jury nullification is not necessarily the proven strategy for liberty that TK and others seem to think.

  28. Robert Capozzi

    31 tk: The principle … is that a reasonably large panel of the accused’s peers…is a better way to determine guilt or innocence…

    me: It MAY be a “better way,” but is it a “principle”?

    tk: The judge — often in open collusion with the prosecution — makes the decision….

    me: How “often”? If this is to be a PRINCIPLE in the NAP sense, we’d need to know, yes?

    tk: “I am for show trials in which jurors are judges’ meat puppets.” Gray, to his own discredit, has staked out the latter position.

    me: Is this overstatement for effect, or do you have evidence that Gray advocates “show trials.”?

    tk: …[nullification is a] long-established and time-tested principle…

    me: I don’t “oppose” your and Andy’s position on nullification. It has merits. I definitely do not support using it as a litmus test, because it is hardly a perfect means to the end of justice. Jurisprudence itself is also not a perfect means, and I’d say you kid yourself if you think it is. I guess we disagree, because these institutions sure look like tactics to me, based on radical inquiry into these matters!

    As a radical, I’ve ventured a bit out of Plato’s Cave, enough to know that much of the world does not employ the tactics of Anglo-American jurisprudential theory. How best to establish and maintain justice procedurally is not necessarily done best by the way its done now, with or without nullification.

    At least, that’s what my Inner Tullock tells me! ;-)

  29. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    So, “show trials” to the left of me, “runaway juries” on the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with Knapp. ;-)

  30. Robert Capozzi

    more still…

    I can understand using the “right” to tote machine guns in the subway as a litmus test WAY before I can jury nullification, from that NAP-solutist perspective. I suspect there are NAP-solutists who do not subscribe to jury nullification argument. In fact, I know a Rothbardian lawyer who doesn’t support jury nullification.

  31. Brian Holtz

    @35 EXACTLY the kind of media attention that this ticket will earn for the LP about The War On Some Drugs. Awesome!

    From the article:

    Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older. Eventually, the drug warriors are going to lose, and the country is going to win.

    It’s an opportune moment for a libertarian ticket to offer a serious, forceful critique of drug policy, for beyond fortuitous changes in public opinion, there’s an incumbent with broken promises and a lackluster record on the issue; and a Republican challenger who is even more of a drug warrior in his avowed positions and such a teetotaller personally that he eschews even caffeine.

    Are Johnson and Gray the right team to make this critique? Whatever their shortcomings, they’re ideal in this respect: one is an extreme athlete and health nut; the other is a veteran, former prosecutor, and judge who used to be a drug warrior and switched sides based on what he saw in his own courtroom.

  32. Andy

    “because I believe that not having juries who have the right to nullify laws, and who are informed of their right to nullify laws, is one of the best protections against government tyranny that there is.”

    Should read, “because I believe that having juries who have the right to nullify laws, and who are informed of their right to nullify laws, is one of the best protections against government tyranny that there is.

  33. Andy

    Gene Berkman said: “The jury is picked from people who can afford to be on jury duty – retired people, and government employees. Juries are far more likely to convict in a drug possession case, because they are composed of older people who believe in ‘law & order.'”

    I don’t agree with your reasoning here. Why? Because if jury nullification was common knowledge among the population there’d be a lot more people who’d be willing to do jury duty. There are millions of Americans who think that marijuana should be legal. There are millions of Americans who don’t like gun control laws. There are millions of Americans who don’t like the income tax. If even just a small percentage of the population who don’t agree with anti-liberty “laws” like I just mentioned knew about jury nullification, and knew that they could do something about it these bogs “laws” by sitting on juries, I think that you’d see a lot more than just big government loving “law & order” conformists on juries.

  34. Andy

    Robert Copozzi said: “It MAY be a ‘better way,’ but is it a ‘principle’?”

    I’d say that it is. Why? Because it goes against the statist notion that only government officials define what the law is, and that everyone has to do what government “officials” tell them to do.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    43 a, I see yer point. However, having 6 or 12 random people making arbitrary law could easily be viewed as MORE statist AND chaotic to boot.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    GB @ 33,

    “Jury nullification is not necessarily the proven strategy for liberty that TK and others seem to think.”

    I’m not sure how I “seem” to you to think that, since I didn’t mention strategy at all.

    On a tactical level, it’s something I can support.

    With respect to principle, I find opposition to it noxious and evil.

    Strategically, no, it’s not a cure-all that will free humanity by itself, and I’m skeptical as to whether or not it’s a major part of the solution.

  37. Andy

    “44 Robert Capozzi // May 1, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    43 a, I see yer point. However, having 6 or 12 random people making arbitrary law could easily be viewed as MORE statist AND chaotic to boot.”

    Does it make you feel any better when random people who say what the law is are politicians or bureaucrats?

  38. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Strategically, no, it’s not a cure-all that will free humanity by itself, and I’m skeptical as to whether or not it’s a major part of the solution.”

    I don’t think that jury nullification is the cure-all that will free humanity, but I do consider it to be a major part of the solution.

  39. Andy

    The Libertarian Party has been around since 1971 and we haven’t exactly had a lot of success when it comes to electing people to office. Sure, we’ve elected a tiny handful of people here and there, but not enough to really make much of a difference. I still think that the Libertarian Party serves a useful purpose as it is a good vehicle to educate people about the libertarian message, however, just educating people without giving them any solutions as to what they can do right now to effect change is not accomplishing enough.

    This is why I think that jury nullification ought to be one of the biggest issues that the party pushes. Whenever Libertarians talk about the drug war, gun control, or any other issue where the government is convicting people for victimless “crimes,” a good solution to give to people is that they can do something about it by serving on a jury and voting innocent any time anyone is facing prosecution under one of these bogus “laws.”

    Running for offices is nice, but the deck is usually so stacked against Libertarian Party candidates that everyone knows that they aren’t going to win. These candidates can still “spread the message” with their campaign, but the party would be far more effective if it gave people solutions to things that they can do right now to effect change in the direction of more individual liberty. Jury nullification gives people something that they can do. If everyone who thinks that marijuana should be legal knew about jury nullification the government would have far more difficult time convicting people for marijuana “offenses,” and so on and so forth.

  40. NewFederalist

    @46… I have never been empanelled because I kept getting booted for my known libertarian beliefs. In one instance the defense counsel used one of his challenges to boot me and it was a drug case! I hope he was a public defender because otherwise he was sure not worth what he was being paid.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    GB@46,

    “Has anyone who reads this blog ever served on a Jury? just curious.”

    I’ve been called up for jury duty, but was part of a large pool, only a few of whom even made it as far as getting to the stage of POSSIBLE selection (they call up more than enough people for every possible trial, but most cases settle on plea bargains before jury selection even starts, so most people get sent home without having done any more than sit in a large waiting area for 8 hours).

    Andy @48,

    I think we may be splitting hairs between “major” and “important.”

    I do consider it the latter, but not the former (as a sort of percentage factor of all the things that need to happen).

    I think one thing some people miss is that jury nullification can be a good thing even if it has bad outcomes.

    When jury nullification is used against bad laws, it makes it less likely that those laws will be vigorously enforced, which is a win, and may energize movements to repeal them, which is also a win.

    When jury nullification is used to free criminals who violate appropriate laws, such as racist murderers, it has the opposite effect. It calls attention to the problem and brings energy to bear on getting the right outcomes. A major energizing source for the civil rights movement in the south in the 1960s was the obvious fact that justice WASN’T being done.

  42. Ted Brown

    While I generally support jury nullification, I think that a good alternative would be to allow the jury to determine the sentence in every case. If they can decide life or death in a capital case, why can’t they decide a sentence (up to the maximum for a particular offense) in other cases? I think a jury would be more comfortable if they could convict that “victimless criminal” but then give him a $25 fine instead of a 25 year prison sentence. Then it would be obvious what the general public thinks of the seriousness of these offenses.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    47 a: Does it make you feel any better when random people who say what the law is are politicians or bureaucrats?

    me: Actually, that’s not quite how Anglo-American jurisprudence works. Pols write the laws and the justice system upholds them, sometimes with participation by juries. Law is also made by a layering of precedents, essentially, common law.

    Do I find that setup to be optimal? Probably not. Do I find this legal institutional complex to be ripe as an issue for L candidates to critique by advocating jury nullification? No. Why? Because the case for jury nullification is at once on the weak side IMO and is pretty obscure, putting the politics of the issue on the back burner at most.

    If GJ were a jury nullification advocate and he’s our nominee, would I vote for him? Yes.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    GB, I’ve been called to jury duty 2x. Both times, I objected to the oath’s reference to an “alleged omniscient being” on First Amendment grounds, and both times I was quickly excused.

  45. Stuart Simms

    GB@46

    I’ve been in the courtroom three times for Jury Duty and on a jury once. At least in Maryland, during vois dire, all the judges ask something like “if you find the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, will you vote to convict?” Anyone that states they won’t or may not is excused.

    Also I have heard the MSM refer to jury nullification as juries not convicting a defendant who is guilty by ignoring the evidence. I have never heard a member of the MSM refer to jury nullification as the jury finding that the law is wrong and shouldn’t be enforced. I happen to believe this is done intentionally.

  46. Be Rational

    Jury nullification is a good strategy to be used on an case by case basis in courtrooms and under appropriate circumstances, which would be rare, should be supported or even promoted in LP campaigns. It is also a minor issue overall and not likely to be important in the 2012 POTUS race.

    Judge Gray seems like a good prospective candidate for the LP – one I can support. No candidate is going to be the “perfect” NAP candidate on every issue and as humans we all have multitudes of flaws – probably a good thing.

    So, I can support Gray for VP – even with his waffling position on a national consumption tax of some kind which leaves the options open.

    Johnson, however, still has a deal breaker issue – the FAIR tax and its prebate – and I will not support him for the nomination and I will not support him if nominated unless he changes this position.

  47. Andy

    “It is also a minor issue overall and not likely to be important in the 2012 POTUS race.”

    People being prosecuted for victimless “crimes” is one of the biggest issues that there is. Jury nullification is one of the best ways to stop this.

    The Libertarian Party’s candidate for President is not going to even come close to winning the White House. The campaign funds are just not there to make this a reality. Given this fact, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President needs to not only spread the libertarian message, the candidate should also spread knowledge about things that people can do RIGHT NOW to help move society in a more libertarian direction, and one of the best ways to do this is to inform people of their right to nullify law as a juror, and to encourage people to get on juries and vote innocent any time the government tries to convict people on victimless “crimes”.

    “Johnson, however, still has a deal breaker issue – the FAIR tax and its prebate – and I will not support him for the nomination and I will not support him if nominated unless he changes this position.”

    I agree. When I looked into the Fair Tax plan a few years ago and found out what sham it is I vowed to not support any candidate for federal office who support toxic and misleading plan.

  48. Carol Moore

    Printable copy with supporting links at
    http://libertarians4peace.net/PressRelease5-01-12
    FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS PRESS RELEASE TO YOUR MEDIA CONTACTS
    _________________
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    May 1, 2012
    Contact: 202-635-3739
    LIBERTARIANS FOR PEACE ENCOURAGES STRONG NONINTERVENTIONIST CANDIDATES,
    CRITICIZES LIBERTARIAN PARTY “ISRAEL LOBBY” LEADER

    On the eve of the Libertarian Party’s 2012 National Convention – celebrating the party’s 40th anniversary – members of Libertarians for Peace caucus of the party encourage the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to promote the strong pro-peace and noninterventionist platform of the Libertarian Party which reads:

    American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

    * We applaud nominee for LP presidential candidate R. Lee Wrights who has made central to his campaign an unqualified pledge to stop all U.S. wars through ending foreign alliances, closing down military bases and bringing the troops home.

    * We applaud nominee Governor Gary Johnson’s strong opposition to the war in Afghanistan but want to hear him speak even more firmly against entangling alliances; unequivocably against the U.S. supporting in any way an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran; in full support of the U.S. quickly shutting down of Guantanamo detention camp and all foreign bases, as well as bringing all U.S. troops home. These positions have brought massive support for Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul – and the Libertarian Party candidate certainly can do no less.

    * We applaud Vice Presidential nominee Judge James P. Gray’s support for Palestinian human and property rights, and the right to self-determination in their own state, but hope Gray, like Johnson, also will adopt an even stronger noninterventionist stand.

    Libertarians for Peace also strongly criticizes statements by Wayne Allyn Root, the leader of the Libertarian Party’s small defacto “Israel lobby.” As the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate and/or as a Libertarian National Committee member Root publicly has stated: he is “as pro-Israel as any human being in the world can possibly be”; his rejection of Palestinian property rights crying he was “sickened and outraged by Obama’s demand for Israel to return to its 1967 borders”; arguments regarded as “Islamophobic”; that libertarians should not criticize Israel because Jews “provide a majority of the donations to Democratic politicians” and to Republicans and that only by taking such money can the Libertarian Party succeed; his endorsement of Gary Johnson with the statement that Johnson is “A Libertarian in every way…yet still a huge supporter of Israel.”
    For more information about these issues go to our web site libertarians4peace.net

  49. LISTEN anytime 24/7 to the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    @60 one correction, Judge Gray is not officially the VP nominee as of this moment. Otherwise I applaude your efforts. I am 100% in agreement with your direction!

    It is disturbing (if true) that the Judge opposes FIJA.

    As stated, NOW is the time to protest. After the Vote we need to start rowing in the same general direction !!!

    U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush

    End All Foreign Aid Including Israel: http://rongstad.blogspot.com/2011/02/end-all-foreign-aid-including-israel.html

    History of the Libertarian Party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQRzXd1UvQ&feature=related

    Media-?Opoly: http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/16796162

  50. Andy

    For those of you who don’t think that jury nullification is an important issue, or even that it is not really a libertarian issue: HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU ALL EXPECT US TO GET MORE FREEDOM RIGHT NOW? Winning elections is obviously not working out too well. Jury nullification is something that can happen RIGHT NOW without any Libertarians being elected to anything,

    I don’t think that electoral politics is the only way to go, in fact, our chances of swinging the pendulum in the direction of more individual freedom and less government by solely relying on electoral politics has little chance for success.

    I see electoral politics as a way to get a message out and to inspire people to take action. If we can win some elections along the way then great, but the deck is so stacked against any libertarian being elected to anything that I believe that it is foolish to rely on electoral politics as the only solution. I’m all in favor of libertarians (I used a small “l” here because I don’t care if a libertarian runs as a Libertarian or other some other party label or as an independent) running for office, particularly if they employee an intelligent campaign strategy and have a good message, but relying on electoral politics as the only means of getting out of the mess that we are in strikes me as naive and down right foolish.

    This is why I’m all in favor of jury nullification, counter-economics, tax resistance, arming for revolution, or anything else one can think of to resist tyranny.

    People who say things like, “We can’t inform jurors of their right to nullify laws, because some of them might let murderers or rapists or other real criminals go.” is just as ridiculous as saying that we can’t trust people with guns because some of the people may use them to commit crimes. Guns are a tool that can be used to stop tyranny, just as jury nullification is a tool that can be used to stop tyranny.

    I just can’t get enthused about a candidate who does not favor jury nullification.

    If you are facing time in prison over some BS victimless “crime” would you rather have a jury that knows about jury nullification, or would you prefer to wait until the next election comes around and hope that enough libertarians get elected to where you’ll be able to get out of prison early?

    I think that they choice is pretty clear (or at least it should be).

  51. Pingback: Judge Gray Announces for VP, Gary Johnson Endorses | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  52. Andy

    “It is disturbing (if true) that the Judge opposes FIJA.”

    It is true. I was sitting just a few feet away when he said it.

    So unless he changed his mind on the issue, he’s not in favor of jury nullification.

  53. Brian Holtz

    Carol seems to be spamming delegate email addresses — including an address of my wife that I don’t think has been used in an LP context except to register as a convention delegate.

    Carol, where are you getting these email addresses?

    (Posted from the “Top of the Rock” 5000 sq ft penthouse that Red Rock has given us our first night due to initial unavailability of the rooms we reserved. 2 hot tubs, 8 TVs, huge bar, kitchen, 20ft glass wall looking through a 120ft-long balcony, this place is off the hook.)

  54. Chuck Moulton

    Brian Holtz wrote (@65):

    Carol seems to be spamming delegate email addresses — including an address of my wife that I don’t think has been used in an LP context except to register as a convention delegate.

    I’ve gotten convention email from Carol Moore, George Phillies, Mark Rutherford, and Jim Burns — plus Gary Johnson, but I opted-in to that. Rutherford and Burns sent it to all my official capacity LPVA email addresses (I get 3 of each email). Moore and Phillies sent it to my main email address, which I assume they got from earlier correspondence rather than from a delegate data dump.

  55. Chuck Moulton

    Brian Holtz wrote (@65):

    (Posted from the “Top of the Rock” 5000 sq ft penthouse that Red Rock has given us our first night due to initial unavailability of the rooms we reserved. 2 hot tubs, 8 TVs, huge bar, kitchen, 20ft glass wall looking through a 120ft-long balcony, this place is off the hook.)

    Wow, Brian! Sounds like an incredible room! You lucked out!

  56. Robert Capozzi

    62 A: For those of you who don’t think that jury nullification is an important issue, or even that it is not really a libertarian issue: HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU ALL EXPECT US TO GET MORE FREEDOM RIGHT NOW?

    me: Paraphrasing Morpheus skooling Neo, freedom IS available right now by freeing your mind from the Matrix prison! ;-)

    It may be slightly more attainable to bring about jury nullification than it is for Ls to get elected, but I’d say only slightly. There are massive institutional obstacles amassed to maintain the guild that is jurisprudence industry.

    One could leaflet outside of courthouses to raise awareness. And we might get more OJ-type outcomes along with a few victimless-crime nullifications.

    Lennon was correct: “Whatever gets you through the night, is all right, all right.”

  57. George Phillies

    I out out a general comment that I could use a list of delegate email addresses. I had people ask if that was what I wanted, lament that they did not have it, and eventually received what I assumed was the valid list. My software recognized almost all of the names.The ‘From” and “To” were both me, which I assumed was a standard ‘we do not need to see bounces’ path which I do not offhand know how to set in FireFox,, but it seems that the list I was sent was not what I thought it was. I will when I am back in Massachusetts toss the list. Apologies if anyone was bothered. Yesterday was the last day of the term, and I have been extremely busy.

  58. George Phillies

    Historically datadumps have sometimes had phone numbers. Indeed, I was phoned by someone in the name submission process, asking for my phone number.

    If you think for a moment you will see the humor.

    The list I sent to Emily of our delegates was from our state membership list which mostly does not have phone numbers or emails for most people.

  59. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian @65,

    “Carol seems to be spamming delegate email addresses”

    Spam is unsolicited commercial bulk email.

    Emails to convention delegates about convention business are neither unsolicited (the bylaws are clear that any member can get the delegate list, so by becoming a delegate you’re agreeing to that) nor commercial, and are therefore not spam.

    I got an email from Gray this morning, and at first I was a little pissed about it, insofar as I’ve never given him my email address for that purpose. Then I realized that he was probably using a “likely delegates” email list based on past LP national conventions. That’s how it goes.

  60. Chuck Moulton

    Tom Knapp wrote (@72):

    Spam is unsolicited commercial bulk email.

    Emails to convention delegates about convention business are neither unsolicited (the bylaws are clear that any member can get the delegate list, so by becoming a delegate you’re agreeing to that) nor commercial, and are therefore not spam.

    I disagree that spam is only commercial. I get plenty of spam from candidates for public office all over the country who put me on an email list without me opting in.

    For example, I was added to the Santorum for President email list 3 different times even though I detest the guy. Each time I removed myself from the list and sent them a paragraph about how Santorum is the worst politician the earth has ever seen.

    I agree that the emails from Carol Moore, George Phillies, Mark Rutherford, and Jim Burns that I received the past few days were not spam. When I signed up to be a delegate, I implicitly agreed to be contacted with information to help me make decisions at the convention.

    However, Jim Burns has been sending emails for years to everyone listed in any position on any state LP website (probably county LP websites as well). Many of them are not delegates. I would consider that spam.

  61. JT

    Andy: “…the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President needs to not only spread the libertarian message, the candidate should also spread knowledge about things that people can do RIGHT NOW to help move society in a more libertarian direction, and one of the best ways to do this is to inform people of their right to nullify law as a juror…”

    Like me, you’ve said that Harry Browne was the best Libertarian candidate for President that the LP has ever had, Andy. I’ve heard and read many, many HB interviews and articles, but I can’t remember him talking about jury nullification. So obviously a candidate talking about jury nullification isn’t of utmost importance to you.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    CM@73,

    “I disagree that spam is only commercial.”

    And you’re free to disagree. I just hate to see the definition expanded to the point of meaninglessness as “any email I wish I hadn’t received.”

    Delegate or not, if you’re active enough in the LP to be listed as one of its officials on any of its web sites, presidential candidates have a legitimate interest in contacting you. You are likely one of the people who choose or influence delegates, and vote for the LP ticket, even if you’re not a delegate. They can’t blame you if you choose not to listen to them, but it’s not improper for them to try to talk to you.

  63. Andy

    “Like me, you’ve said that Harry Browne was the best Libertarian candidate for President that the LP has ever had, Andy. I’ve heard and read many, many HB interviews and articles, but I can’t remember him talking about jury nullification. So obviously a candidate talking about jury nullification isn’t of utmost importance to you.”

    I recall that Harry Browne was in favor of jury nullification, however, you are correct that he didn’t talk about it much. He should have, and frankly, it is an issues that libertarian candidates don’t bring up anywhere close to as much as they should.

    Ron Paul has talked about jury nullification, and that’s a good thing, but I think that he would be more effective if he made a bigger issue of it.

    I think that not grasping the concept of why jury nullification is a positive thing to protect liberty shows a flaw in one’s thinking.

  64. Robert Capozzi

    77 A: I think that not grasping the concept of why jury nullification is a positive thing to protect liberty shows a flaw in one’s thinking.

    me: And there it is! Wow! Are there other pointers to reveal the “flaws” in one’s thinking?

    * Liking pistachio ice cream
    * Preferring Star Trek: The Next Generation to the original
    * Enjoy watching a lacrosse match…

  65. Brian Holtz

    My complaint is not with the spammers. It’s with whoever apparently leaked the delegate email list to the spammers. A few days ago I sent the following to the Convention Oversight Committte, and was told that they didn’t have time to set up such a program this cycle.


    Every NatCon, Libertarians pay the government’s postal monopoly a lot of postage (and kill a lot of trees) to send mailings to delegates. I propose we supplement this government solution with a private one, by letting advertisers donate to the convention in exchange for the CoC forwarding emailings to any delegates for whom it has email addresses.

    For the 2007 LPCA convention, I paid the organizers $200 for them to forward to the delegates an email promoting my candidacy for the LPCA Executive Committee.

    Since I am running for Judicial Committee again, I’d be happy to donate a similar amount for the CoC to forward an email to all the delegates for whom it has addresses. (Advertisers of course would not have access to the addresses.) Here’s an example of what I’m thinking about:

    __________________________

    Subject: Ad to LP delegates: Holtz for Judicial Committee

    LP convention delegates are receiving this email ad as a free-market alternative to the government’s monopoly on snail mail. Advertising fees help defray convention costs. Neither the LP nor convention organizers endorse the advertiser’s message. For our advertising policy, click here. To opt out of such advertising, email i_prefer_government_snail_mail@libertywillwin.com.

    The policy could be as simple as this:

    Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Convention Oversight Committee endorse or support any candidate, product or service advertised to convention delegates. However, the Party provides a free-market alternative to the government’s monopoly on snail mail. Party members can already under Bylaw 11.6 request the names and postal addresses of all current and recent convention delegates. Without disclosing to advertisers the email address of any delegate, the CoC will forward advertisements to delegates whose email is on record and who have not opted out of this advertising channel. Advertising fees are currently $X per emailing, and will be used to defray convention costs. Advertisements are subject to the same standards of civility and appropriateness as are applied to convention vendors and to convention floor speakers. Delegates may opt out of these email ads via i_prefer_government_snail_mail@libertywillwin.com.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@79,

    “My complaint is not with the spammers. It’s with whoever apparently leaked the delegate email list to the spammers.”

    Do you have any reason to believe that that actually happened?

    For at least one national convention (I think it was 2004), I got the normal delegate list (without emails) as available to members on request, and spent many hours searching for likely emails for the names on it.

    I suspect someone with reasonable coding skills could semi-automate that process — run the delegate list through a script that Googles the name and the word “libertarian,” and perhaps the state, harvests any email addresses from the first page of results, and then the coder manually goes through and selects the most likely email address from those found for each name, and voila, delegate email list.

  67. Carol Moore

    Brian Holtz wrote (@65):
    … including an address of my wife that I don’t think has been used in an LP context except to register as a convention delegate…

    Brian, you know I’m on almost every state list or yahoogroup in the country and an inveterate email collector. Plus someone who did some independent email research sent me a couple dozen. Bottom line, you don’t know where your wife has been shaking that thing. Maybe Wayne does. Have your wife give me a call and I’ll get the details out of her, though I probably won’t share them with you. 202-635-3739

    Unfortunately, I won’t be stripping down and getting up on stage with the show girls at the RED ROCK. But I DID take quite a message from Wayne’s Harvard Speech and I’ve decided to PUSH PUSH PUSH and become the WAYNE ROOT OF THE RADICALS. Stop fighting and join the nonviolent radical decentralist secession movement NOW Brian. Half an hour on the phone with your wife and she’ll be there first.

  68. Carol Moore

    But seriously folks, it seems to me the National office gave me the lists with no or few questions asked in 1988, 1996 or 98 and 2004. So if there’s some new RULE out there that somebody broke and I got lucky on with a number of dozen emails, DO TELL. Chapter and verse and all that.

  69. Carol Moore

    So Brian, what about the Content. DO YOU AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ROOT TOOT TOOTIE has to say? Do you think Johnson and Gray can get a bit more hard core on noninterventionism? (Several people grilled them on that last night at the Town Hall.) Johnson HAS in fact gotten better in the last 3 months and that’s all we ask for – not perfection, just progress. Of course, Holtz on the Judicial committee isn’t my idea of progress… He’s a whale whose jumped on the LP ship and been sinking it ever since. Have your wife call me!!!

  70. Brian Holtz

    Carol, why so evasive? My question is simple: did you or did you not get a list of LPUS NatCon delegates that included my wife’s email address ( melisse AT brianslastname dot org )?

    If you’re unfamiliar with the rules about delegate lists, re-read @79.

    TK: Do you have any reason to believe that that actually happened?

    Re-read @65.

  71. JT

    Carol: “Unfortunately, I won’t be stripping down and getting up on stage with the show girls at the RED ROCK.”

    Thank god for small favors.

  72. Carol Moore

    a) All you write about the NATIONAL list is “My complaint is not with the spammers. It’s with whoever apparently leaked the delegate email list to the spammers. A few days ago I sent the following to the Convention Oversight Committte, and was told that they didn’t have time to set up such a program this cycle.” I don’t even know what that means. I see someone wrote the bylaws says any member can get the mailing list. I get the impression any member then can research and put names and emails of as many delegates they want together and pass them on to any other LP member they want.
    b) if your wife does not want to be contacted by me she should email me. I really can’t let you speak for her.
    c) But I will be putting any stray emails of people I don’t know or think want to hear from in a separate FYI file that probably will never be used again. (Plus the *only* 4 people who said remove me from your list!!)
    d) Now you stop being evasive on what you think of the CONTENT of the press release, babe.

  73. Brian Holtz

    Carol, you’re not reading what I’m writing, so I’ll just repeat the points you’re missing.

    1) The convention organizers are explicitly declining to give out email addresses of delegates. The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses. Did you get one that did?

    2) My wife’s email address isn’t anywhere on the internet, as far as she or I or Google knows.

  74. Carol Moore

    Knapp@80. So that’s how they do it. I just did it for a few people I wanted and didn’t have otherwise. Didn’t get too lucky. Getting that 400 person MEDIA list together has taken a couple years but it’s fairly up to date. But the bottom line is calling them up and bugging them to get on the air. That’s what Wayne Root and Cindy Sheehan did to get so much air time and that IS what CAROL MOORE will do when the time is right. Patience, Wayne, your follower in the ways of self-promotion will some day outshine the master. Hopefully without putting her foot in her mouth as much as the master does… ha ha ha…

  75. Carol Moore

    Brian Holtz // @88

    1) The convention organizers are explicitly declining to give out email addresses of delegates. The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses. Did you get one that did?

    And you are not reading what Knapp and me and others are saying. Anyone can research an email list from a name list. I don’t ask everyone who sends me some names from my private email list query or LIBS FOR PEACE GROUP, OR GRASSROOTS LIBS GROUP, of the LP RADICALS GROUP where they got them. Go to those places and ask everyone there – DID YOU STEAL THE LP’S EMAIL LIST AND GIVE PART OF IT TO CAROL MOORE OR ANYONE ELSE. You are more likely to get a definitive answer from there than from me. I’m not a forensic email expert.

    2) My wife’s email address isn’t anywhere on the internet, as far as she or I or Google knows.
    Your wife doesn’t remember every single place she EVER left an email address that someone might have put on line or remember every cc list she’s been on that some email collector might have picked up and passed around to who kows whom, does she? Not to mention anything she hasn’t bothered to tell you about.

    SO WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE *CONTENT* OF THE PRESS RELEASE?? Are you one of the Root supporters whose gotten disgusted (despite that big suite he got you??) with his self-promoting nonsense or not? Do you like noninteventionism or do you love and profit from foreign wars? Enquiring libertarians want to know.

  76. Eric Sundwall

    Spamming, nullification & hobbies . . . dur

    Doesn’t the convention determine the Veep?

    The Northern Columbia County Little League Opening Day is Saturday. Personally, I prefer just playing ball.

  77. Brian Holtz

    Carol:

    The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses. Did you get one that did?

    The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses. Did you get one that did?

    The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses. Did you get one that did?

    The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses. Did you get one that did?

    And if so, could you please tell us whether that list included my wife’s email address?

    Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

    P.S. She sent you an email about this, but she says you haven’t responded to her.

  78. Carol Moore

    Her email of 2:15 this am FYI and I’m seriously behind on my email with all the people wanting to discuss what an idiot Root is and what a jerk Starr is and what as Ass Lieberman is and what a loser Cohen is… I could go on and on but you get the picture…

  79. Carol Moore

    BOTTOM LINE: I think Brian Holtz is trying to find out WHAT LNC MEMBER passed out the list of delegates WITH emails to WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PEOPLE and CAROL MOORE GOT IT. Bottom line: I don’t know. I can’t help you. I got actually a couple lists of different lengths from a couple people that allegedy were or might be or might contain delegates names. No I won’t tell you their names or the name of everyone who may ever have sold or given me something naughty. Then I merged them all, cut out everything but email lists, deleted dupes and known felons (ha ha you know who i mean) and got a 1200 person list. Then I did a whole nuther 1000 of mine own separately for anybody who might have gotten missed. AFTER I sent out this I started hearing all sorts of feed back about discontent from Root from all sorts of people, current and former Root supporters. Once someone brought up this issue elsewhere yesterday, I got a couple of very interesting emails, but I won’t share those either. Looking forward for more enlightening emails from OUR exchange. So that’s the story. My woman’s intuition tells me Wayne better get the water torture board in his suite ready if he really wants to know where the delegates list with emails came from. I’m sure the 3 or 4 terrorized hardcore libertarians on the LNC would never have the nerve to do it. Is it true it takes a back stabber to know a backstabber? Yo No Se…

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@92,

    “The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses.”

    Actually it should.

    The point of making the delegate list available is so that those with convention business to communicate about can do so.

    The point of not including email addresses is to make it as expensive as possible to do so so that only the “right people. who we know from the country club,” get their messages out.

    Bad enough that you support violating the LP’s bylaws to force people who just want to be delegates to subsidize your vacation and party — now you’re belly-aching because you HEAR from them, too?

    Hey, maybe the Red Rock can re-assign someone from making sure you aren’t accosted by beggars on the sidewalk out front to screening your email so that TEH UNTOUCHABLES don’t trouble your beautiful mind.

  81. Jill Pyeatt

    The email Carol sent out about PEACE was the least spam I’ve seen all year. Thanks for sending it to me, Carol.

    Interesting, Alan and I got different mail re: the convention, and we both got very little. I got something from George Phillies, and something about Wrights’ campaign, and Alan got something from Rutherford’s campaign. I don’t know whether I should be glad we didn’t get more, or have my feelings hurt.

  82. Carol Moore

    While we are piling on here, I do want to make sure that it WOULD be a conflict of interest for anyone on the LNC or appointed by them who helped CHOOSE the Red Rock to accept COMPLIMENTARY rooms from them, right? I don’t want to unfairly infer as I did above that Root got such comps and as been passing them around to supporters, IF it’s against LNC policy. If it’s INLINE with LNC policy, sounds like a policy that needs to be changed.

    @97 What does “PLAS-like” mean?

  83. Brian Holtz

    TK@96, you’re smarter than this. Read the context. Yes, I wrote: “The delegate list that any member can request should not include email addresses.” I wrote it because, as I clearly explained, this is the current policy of the people controlling the list.

    That doesn’t mean I agree with the current policy. I in fact do not, and my proposal to the CoC was an effort to move away from the current policy.

  84. Jill Pyeatt

    Carol, I’ve posted the Libs 4 Peace press release as its own article. However, there’s a disclaimer that Johnson and Gray are not the actual nominees yet.

  85. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    The policy you advocate is just as silly as the current policy.

    The current policy is that the email addresses aren’t included in the delegate lists.

    The policy you advocate is charging hundreds of dollars for people pursuing convention agendas to email the delegates.

    Both of these policies make it more, rather than less, difficult and expensive to contact delegates.

    If you want to balance delegate privacy with facilitating communications, the best policy would be an opt-in-or-out policy. The delegate says “I want my email address released” or “I don’t want my email address released.” Problem solved.

    In none of the above cases, however, is it improper for someone with a list of delegate names to go outside the LPHQ environment to find addresses for those delegates.

    In the case of your wife’s address, perhaps a document custody/security lapse led to its inadvertent release “into the wild” at some point?

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    Since we’re way off-topic anyway, and since I don’t see an open thread, newsflash: Marc Montoni just posted on facebook that the credentials committee has chosen to seat the Reeves Gang’s “delegation” rather than the delegation designated by the LNC’s Oregon affiliate.

  87. NewFederalist

    Carol @ 99… before being banned from IPR Bob Milnes used to turn every thread into a discussion of PLAS (Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy). This thread has morphed so far from the original topic it reminded me of that.

  88. Robert Capozzi

    103 tk, hoo-boy. Maybe the JudComm can meet for yet another time. This is starting to feel like a serious compulsion!

  89. Jill Pyeatt

    I can’t BELIEVE the Reeves group has been seated. How could that have been rationalized?

    Apparently, M Carling was allowed to vote on it.

    Unbefuckinglievable.

  90. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@103,

    At this point, not really a Judicial Committee matter, as the delegates can handle it directly.

    Pretty bad, though — the vote was four to seat the Reeves Gang, three against, one absension. One of the “aye” votes was one of the Reeves Gang’s plaintiffs in the Oregon lawsuit (apparently that’s not a “conflict of interest” on the same level as doing your job on the Judicial Committee when you also happen to be seeking the presidential nomination, on an unrelated matter).

  91. Trent Hill Post author

    Surely the convention will overturn that vote, right? It seems like the Wagner group had more backing?

  92. Robert Capozzi

    tk, thanks, good point. Parliamentarian I’m not.

    I wonder did Wes “Flaming Middle Finger” Wagner and his posse pay for a package? How can he be denied a seat that he’s paid for?

  93. Carol Moore

    Jill Pyeatt @ 101 – sorry if didn’t make nominee clear; started with first one and then forgot. PLAS wise I’ve totally lost track of Brian the Beast Holtz point since I’ve spilled all the beans I know and care to spill. Dumb question. Can ordinary members pay $94 to watch the going on by delegates on the floor?

  94. Brian Holtz

    TK: The policy you advocate is just as silly as the current policy.

    Your policy would have delegates choose between:

    1) Don’t let me see any email advertising related to the convention.

    2) Leave my email address to the mercies of the spamosphere the first time any LP member requests a delegate list.

    My policy would add a third choice:

    3) Protect my email address but let the LP profit by offering convention advertisers an electronic alternative to the government’s tree-killing postal monopoly.

    So I’ll add to the Knapptionary:

    silly adj. of or relating to a privacy-protecting free-market alternative to government monopoly

  95. Thomas L. Knapp

    And I’ll add to the Holtzionary:

    free-market alternative, n. A method of ensuring that only the already well-funded get to talk to LNC convention delegates.

  96. NewFederalist

    “Milnes was never banned. Just ignored and cajoled.”

    I am sure he will be happy to hear that, Trent. He does still read this site and we’ll see just how long it takes him (or James Ogle, maybe?) to start posting again!

  97. Brian Holtz

    TK@115 only the already well-funded get to talk to LNC convention delegates

    No, delegates would still be free to accept spam.

    I’m just asking that delegates have a third choice that you don’t want them to have.

    Apparently, your ends (opposing enemies you see as “well-funded”) once again justify your means (restricting delegate choice).

  98. Carol Moore

    So Brian, assuming you aren’t making this up about the bylaws not allowing members to have delegate list emails and making them find them themselves, WHO DOES have the full list with the emails. After you got me thinking about it I ASSUMED it was LNC members. But now I wonder – is it only the secretary and whoever s/he gives it too? Now I’m getting curious as to IF the list I had in fact had the original LNC email list, WHO let cat out of bag. Since it IS more likely to be a ROOT ex-supporter than some radical. If you TRULY WANT TO KNOW, you’ll help us out by answering those simple questions. Thanks Brian.

  99. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@118,

    No matter how many times you play the “Knapp thinks the end justifies the means” card, it won’t be a winner for you, if for no other reason than because it is very apparent that you’re projecting your own values rather than describing mine.

    I have proposed that delegates should be able to choose whether or not they want to receive email from people with convention business to discuss.

    You’ve proposed using money as an artificial barrier to prevent those with convention business — and who have already paid for the delegate list — from communicating with delegates by uniformly omitting information from that list.

    The “spamosphere” bogeyman is a dog that doesn’t hunt. In the real world, we get thousands of ACTUAL spam emails a day already and filter them as best we can. Screeching that political communications to involved parties are “spam” doesn’t make it so, nor, even if they are problematic, are they likely significantly so for most people.

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carol @119,

    “WHO DOES have the full list with the emails.”

    Anybody Root wants to have it. He even got an LNC motion passed last year to allow his group to raid LPHQ for it anytime they don’t feel like they are getting the whole enchilada.

  101. Carol Moore

    So ONLY Root decides who gets the delegates list with emails? I know he passed a motion to let the LNCC get the funders list any time they wanted it.

Leave a Reply