[Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 190711-1 MOTION TO CENSURE BENJAMIN LEDER

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

I vote no.

I do so for three independent reasons.

First:
I have listened to the recordings, read the transcripts, and read the 
materials emailed and otherwise provided on the Fakertarians facebook 
page. They are pretty damning, and while it is only one side of the 
story I find it compelling. But the allegations are not undisputed, and 
the LNC passing a resolution stating allegations as proven facts makes 
us vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit. If even one assertion in Mr. 
Smith’s self-admittedly written-in-a-rush pulled-from-Facebook-posts 
resolution turns out not to be true in absolutely every respect, we are 
spending party resources defending a lawsuit that we could lose. This 
ain’t beanbag: we are fiduciaries protecting assets and when we speak as 
an entity we have to not act recklessly. If you are not personally 
confident in every word Mr. Smith has written, then you should not let 
the LNC pass this.

Second
I take very seriously that the delegates have chosen not to grant the 
LNC any power to expel or suspend individual party membership, or to 
discipline individual party members. We can remove our own at-large 
representatives and officers, but that’s it. This is unusual, is not 
entirely something I agree with, but it is not an accident. Maybe 
they’re worried about the possibility of witch hunts with no due process 
and LNC members using this power on their enemies. Even when it comes to 
public policy resolutions, the Bylaws set a higher threshold requiring 
two-thirds. That is partly out of skepticism towards having the LNC 
spend a lot of time passing inoperative sense-of-the-body resolutions 
rather than setting long-term strategy and monitoring and strengthening 
our day-to-day activities.

There are a lot of Libertarians who say or do things that are seriously 
wrong, including in some cases committing real, not-victimless crimes. 
There have been instances of party members committing deadly serious 
violent crimes. Two days before this resolution was introduced, a former 
House candidate in Maine was arrested for attempted murder, and the 
Portland Press-Herald had this headline: “Former Libertarian House 
candidate from Bath charged with attempted murder.” (I have a daily 
Google Alerts set for “libertarian party” and I highly recommend it.) 
Alleged violence, bad effect on branding, public exposure. But it’s not 
reasonable or productive for us to vote on a symbolic censure at the 
national level every time. There are half a million registered 
Libertarians out there. Somewhat regularly there will be a local media 
story about some little-known past candidate or party member doing 
something awful. Everybody should be aware and alert to take appropriate 
action if there are red flags, and having the LNC debate a censure 
resolution is about as opposite as can be from taking steps to protect 
family and friends in a life-or-death situation.

Nor should we institutionally put our thumb on the scale with respect to 
the 21 Libertarian presidential candidates filed with the FEC plus 
others who say they’re running but haven’t filed. We are not a tribunal 
to judge accusations or complaints against them and hand out stamps of 
disapproval, no matter how well justified they may be. If the standard 
is violence or advocating violence or discussing violence, two 
candidates have actually gotten media attention for their distasteful 
comments or actions: Mr. Vohra has allegedly spoken favorably of 
violence on at least one occasion, and according to a TV documentary, 
Mr. McAfee has allegedly committed serious acts of violence. So whatever 
standard the sponsors want us to apply, they are applying them unevenly.

If some on the LNC plan to ask the next convention for the power to 
expel or discipline members, I would suggest that any censure 
resolutions we consider must be like Caesar’s wife. Totally above 
reproach. There should be clear guardrails that prevent witch hunts, 
clear standards that will be applied fairly to all violators in a matter 
than minimizes bias, and actual action steps other than issuing a public 
denunciation. This resolution falls short in all respects, and does not 
set a good example of where I want the see the LNC go.

Third:
Our state and local parties can (and regularly do) take appropriate 
actions to discipline or disassociate from individual party members 
whose bad actions merit it. It’s my understanding that the county party 
in this instance already ejected this person for his behavior, and the 
state party is going to consider if it wants to take any further action. 
The affiliate parties decide who to invite to their conventions for 
debates or speeches, and the delegates decide who they want to see 
participate in the debate at the national convention. The LNC very 
deliberately plays no role in the presidential nomination contest. That 
includes that it’s not our job to take to obscure, relatively unknown 
candidates and shine a public spotlight on them.

Credible threats of violence or other threatening behavior should be 
handled by law enforcement and the individuals concerned, not the 
Libertarian Party’s national committee. Barring somebody from events, 
removing them from state and local party positions, etc., are handled by 
the state and local parties, not us. Libertarians are highly capable of 
deciding who to ostracize without us trying to centrally plan it.

If this man does hurt himself or others, we will not be “safe” because 
we passed a resolution with no action items. We’d be Pontius Pilate. LNC 
resolutions by themselves are not action. I get that many Libertarians 
are distrustful of the police, often for justifiable reasons. But I do 
not see LNC denunciation as being effective at deterring him or shunning 
him or preventing future violence from this individual.

If staff get any media inquiries about Mr. Leder, they and the Chair 
know how to handle it. They can accurately say that he’s been kicked out 
of his local party, and when he sought nomination for public office he 
lost to NOTA. We do not need a vote like this for anybody to cite the 
membership pledge and explain that of course the LP abhors and does not 
tolerate violence of any sort.

I personally condemn everything I’ve seen of Mr. Leder’s comments. I 
hope anyone he has made to feel unsafe goes promptly to the right 
authorities. If Mr. Leder is violent, only getting law enforcement 
involved will save lives, not an LNC resolution. If Mr. Leder is 
mentally unbalanced, he cannot think rationally and this resolution will 
not protect him from further hurting himself or others. If Mr. Leder is 
an online troll, this resolution and the Judicial Committee appeal to 
follow are exactly what he wants: attention and martyrdom and lots of 
it.

Consequently, I vote against this resolution.


JBH

------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837

On 2019-07-11 13:25, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> BALLOT 190711-1 MOTION TO CENSURE BENJAMIN LEDER
> 
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> 
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by JULY 18, 2019 at 11:59:59 pm
> Pacific time.
> 
> Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Longstreth, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
> 
> =============================================
> 
> 
> Motion: WHEREAS, Mr. Benjamin Leder (Texas) is currently running to be
> elected as the Libertarian Party's nominee for President of the United
> States;
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, Mr. Leder has continually engaged in behavior that goes 
> directly
> against our core principles and is antithetical to the mission of any
> representative of the Libertarian Party;
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, He has made direct violent threats and approval of domestic
> terrorism against the Libertarian Party, including its National 
> Committee
> members, conventions, candidates, and members of local affiliates, in 
> cases
> not in self-defense, but in blatant aggression to achieve political 
> goals;
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, As examples of the above, he has published articles, appeared 
> in
> media, and  posted on social media clear threats of violence and 
> advocate
> of domestic terrorism on peaceful people,  including calling for an
> ""Oklahoma City style"" ending to not only the Democratic and 
> Republican
> conventions, but also of the 2020 Libertarian National Convention, thus
> putting in danger our staff, delegates, and family members;
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, He has made public, violent statements about killing peaceful
> people and ""leaving their bodies in contractor bags at the curb for 
> the
> garbage man"";
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, He has called for members who support the official Libertarian
> Party position of being anti-war to be physically battered;
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party absolutely repudiates non-defensive 
> violence
> and all aggression against peaceful people, and associating such 
> statements
> with our Party defames its members and brand; and
> 
> 
> RESOLVED, That the Libertarian National Committee condemns these 
> actions by
> Mr. Leder as completely abhorrent to the mission, platform, and 
> principles
> of the Libertarian Party.
> 
> =============================================
> 
> THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Majority.
> 
> 
> You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
> https://tinyurl.com/ballot190711-1.  Votes are noted with a link to the
> actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the 
> manual
> tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
> 
> Please notify me of any discrepancies.
> 
> *  In Liberty,*
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperberger's 
> Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can effect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social 
> faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know.  I am asking you to 
> help
> me - in a diverse world, we must work to meet each other halfway.*