Denver Police Department "spy file" describes Libertarian Party as a "militia" type organization.

Libertarian Party ^ | 9/24/02 | LP.org

[BlessingInDisguise]

Colorado Libertarians amused and irritated at secret ‘spy file’ kept by Denver police

Colorado LP leaders say they are more amused than angry that a newly released Denver Police Department "spy file" describes the Libertarian Party as a "militia" type organization.

"A political party as a militia group? How ridiculous!" said John Berntson, State Chair of the Colorado LP. "Is this the quality of the law enforcement in Denver? Is Barney Fife running the shop?"

According to news reports, the Denver Police Department maintained files on approximately 3,200 Colorado citizens and 208 organizations from across the political spectrum.

The files, which were released to the public in early September, listed the Libertarian Party as a "Militia type organization, pro gun rights."

Former Colorado LP Publications Director Ari Armstrong said the analysis of the party as a militia-style group is flat out wrong.

"The Libertarian Party does not conduct or participate in military-style training," he noted. Instead, it runs candidates for public office, engages in political lobbying efforts, and "participates in peaceable demonstrations in support of individual rights.

"Why the Denver Police Department targeted for investigation the Libertarian Party for peaceably advocating the Bill of Rights remains a mystery," he said.

Overall, the revelation of a Libertarian Party police file was "not a surprise, but it's an outrage," said Armstrong. "Apparently, peaceably advocating the Bill of Rights warrants a police investigation."

The mischaracterization of the Libertarian Party's political nature does raise profound doubts about the intelligence of the Denver Police, said Berntson.

"The files themselves are laughable to the extent that they illustrate just how pathetically ill-informed the Denver P.D. is," he said. "They are also scary for the same reason.

"This is nothing more than government inefficiency and stupidity. This is Denver's tax dollars at their worst, and Denver's citizens should be appalled at their police."

The files became public knowledge this spring, and set off a firestorm of controversy throughout Colorado. Civil libertarians said the files were a worrisome invasion of privacy, similar to the surveillance files kept by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

In response, Denver Mayor Wellington E. Webb instructed the police department to destroy the files -- but only after giving copies to the individuals and organizations that had been monitored.

"It was very clear that something went wrong here," said Andrew Hudson, a spokesman for the mayor. "[Police] intelligence work is necessary, but has to be done right and in a way in which civil liberties aren't trampled."

Began in 1999, the spy files were in the form of a computer database. Records were kept on community activists, "social justice" organizations, and individuals who had attended political meetings and rallies.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Denver Police Department over the files.

The release of the files began in early September. About 300 people and representative of about 70 groups crowded into police headquarters to review their files.

Walter Schlomer, the Colorado LP's fundraising director, picked up a copy of the Libertarian Party's file on September 5.

"It's an outrage," said Schlomer. "In spite of no record of violence or illegal activity of any kind, the Denver P.D. felt it neessary to secretly spy on the LP and keep track of our activities."

In addition to describing the Libertarian Party as a "Militia type organization," and noting it was "pro gun rights," the brief file gave the LP a "Law Enforcement" classification. Police did not explain what that meant.

The file also listed the Libertarian Party's "AKA Name" as the "Denver Metro Libertarian Party," which is a local affiliate of the state LP. In a section labeled "Person Associations," five listings were blacked out.

"There are words and lines blacked out by what looks to be a black marker," said Schlomer. "These represent names in the first two lines and I'm not sure what in the next lines."

Responding to criticism about the files, the Denver Police Department acknowledged that some groups were improperly characterized as "criminal extremists." A police spokesman said untrained clerks mistakenly shoehorned every organization into the few options available in the software's limited menu.

The spokesman also said the department will continue to maintain "intelligence files" only on people who are suspected or convicted of criminal activity, and will have an outside consultant review the files for appropriateness.

[CJ Wolf]

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices. Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured. - TJ

And what is your point?

[Roscoe]

And what is your point?

That:

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
--Thomas Jefferson

Anarchism, in its various guises, is destructive of stable ownership and property rights.

[CJ Wolf]

Ok, your point is moot then. No one here is advocating Anarchism.

[Roscoe]

Angry nutjobs, like Rick Stanley or Claire Wolfe threatening a revolution if the voters continue to reject their cult philosophy, fit the bill.

[CJ Wolf]

And where are they here?

[Roscoe]

Rick Stanley, of Denver, Colorado, is the "revolutionary militia" and Libertarian Party candidate for the United States Senate. Libertarian activist Claire Wolfe, one of the cult's most popular and frequently quoted members, penned the notorious phrase, "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

[CJ Wolf]

Even though they advocate a violent revolution, (well rick may I don't know much about him, claire says we aren't there yet but tends to think about it longingly) it's not an anarchy type world they are after. They are (according to them) after a return to the ideals of a government bound by the constitution and the bill of rights. Primarily they wish to see all the inherent individual liberties restored because they percieve them to be gone or limited. Creating 'spy files' on opposing political factions only tends to gives them more ammo in which to reload and is a tantamount sign of tyranny in many societies.

However, I would acknowledge that pretty much all armed and violent revolutions go through a period of anarchy in one form or another. Is that what you are afraid of? An actual revolt and the transition period? Certainly you are not afraid of the stated libertarian endgoal of a return to a constitutionaly bound republic form of government. Or is that unfeaseable in this point in history in your experience and thoughts?

Personally I still think that we can work with in the system to restore those freedoms via elections, apparently there is 50% of registered voter that do not vote, if they decided to vote for a candidate with some dignity and sound ideas then the republican/democrat cult of corruption and greed would be trounced. But that isn't going to happen for with the current Libertarian causes, IMHO. So you really have nothing to worry about.

[Roscoe]

Even though they advocate a violent revolution, (well rick may I don't know much about him, claire says we aren't there yet but tends to think about it longingly) it's not an anarchy type world they are after.

"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

[CJ Wolf]

I don't think they voluntary support many of the laws on the books. Which is why they don't walk hoof and step with the current form. I'm sure you could find some nice founding father quotes on that subject to point to.

Did you read the whole post or just stop at that part?

[Roscoe]

They are (according to them) after a return to the ideals of a government bound by the constitution and the bill of rights.

Convicted Rick doesn't even know the difference between Denver and the federal government. Militia types often wear a "constitutionalist" mask.

[CJ Wolf]

I don't know much about the militia types and the various masks they wear. But since you bring it up, what should he do if he doesn't agree with the local laws, which I take by your comments that you think he believes is/are unconstitutional? Granted, these laws were passed by people that were elected. Hypothetically; do you think they (those militia folks) have a right to object to say... the right to bare arms? How should they attempt to get that right back to where it is just, at least by their eyes?

What would you like to see them do?

BTW what did Rick do to get convicted? I don't know anything about him...

[Roscoe]

But since you bring it up, what should he do if he doesn't agree with the local laws, which I take by your comments that you think he believes is/are unconstitutional?

The laws he deliberately violated were constitutional.

[CJ Wolf]

What did he do?

[Cato]

Ok then,

.....you can't forget what you never knew.-CATO

I really don't know what the comment about the Green Party is refering to.
You can tell me.

Thanx,
CATO

[Roscoe]

Senate candidate convicted on gun charge

By The Associated Press

May 16, 2002

Rick Stanley, a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate, was convicted today of unlawfully carrying a weapon after he went to a rally carrying a loaded handgun in a holster to make a point about gun laws.

The six-person jury deliberated just over an hour. Stanley faces up to a year in jail and a $999 fine at his sentencing on July 25.

Stanley said he will appeal and still plans to run for the Senate. A misdemeanor conviction would not bar him from holding office.

He argued the city ordinance prohibiting loaded weapons in public is unconstitutional.

"I tried to defend myself using the Constitution, and the judge wouldn't allow it," Stanley said. "This is a serious problem and the American people should know."

The Dec. 15 rally marked the 210th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, and Stanley said he brought the Beretta .38-caliber semiautomatic handgun to illustrate his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment During the trial, defense attorney Paul Grant argued that Stanley was carrying the weapon to defend himself because he had received several threats.

"You also have constitutional right to carry weapons for defensive purposes," Grant said.

[Reagan Man]

>>>The Republicans don't deserve control of the Senate.

Oh really.

Many of us conservatives, disgaree with you.

****************************************************

Well, I'll put it this way, this web site supports President Bush, supports our national defense efforts (including the war on terrorism), supports the effort to retake the Senate, supports the effort to confirm President Bush's judicial appointees, supports the effort to retake the congressional committees and the legislative agenda from the Democrats and or to increase the majority against the leftist caucus in the House, supports the effort to oppose the Democrats in every seat and office in the country and generally opposes the liberal/socialist left.

Democrats, liberals, socialists, and their ilk do not stand a chance on FR. They usually get nuked before they even get started. We don't need their perverted b/s or their anti-conservative, anti-freedom, cowardly anti-American propaganda. We get that crap all day long in every newspaper, newscast, TV show, movie, classroom, etc, we do not need it on FR. We are the opposition to these people.

Now, if people come on to FR spouting smear attacks against our candidates, calling them or us names, insulting us, insulting our positions and or generally working against our goals, then they are probably going to get kicked out. And I don't care what party they claim to be affiliated with. Liberals/socialists and their supporters or enablers are not wanted here and need not apply.

If the shoe fits....

668 posted on 9/23/02 8:04 PM Mountain by Jim Robinson The LINK

[Liberty Teeth]

In addition to describing the Libertarian Party as a "Militia type organization,"

Finally somebody to vote for.

[CJ Wolf]

That's a far cry from anarchy, from the article you listed it looks like he commited a crime to challenge the law in peacful way to overturn it in court. Lot's of people have done that in the past and made bad laws go away. He obviously believes in what he is doing and has faith in the system we have, for what other reason would he subject himself to the charge for if he didn't think he could legally challenge it? In your opinion what should he do instead?

[Roscoe]

He obviously believes in what he is doing

His challenge was idiotic. He was looking for headlines and ego gratification.

[CJ Wolf]

Ok looking for headlines for his campaign. Well that's a given with the libertarians, isn't it? They don't get much attention and can't afford to buy it.

So what should one do if they believe a law to be unconstitional and one that also infringes on a inalienable right? (BTW that's the one question I'd really like your view on)