First I’d like to say that by far the most important development in the libertarian race thus far is “The Libertarian Vote” study published by The Cato Institute. See: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735 Briefly, 20% of voters are libertarian leaning at the beginning of the election cycle (Gallup Governance Survey). 13% are reliably libertarian. 1% wind up actually voting Libertarian. My own conclusion is that 7% of the 20% are leftists. Further, I estimate the leftist vote as 27% which leaves 20% left, 20% right i.e. 40% possible progressive vote. If you understand this study, you understand a lot about the Progressive Alliance Strategy and what is happening with Ron Paul. Paul has tapped into this initial cycle 20%. It represents a kind of “glass ceiling” which no Libertarian can penetrate. This is why I believe it cannot last and Ron Paul cannot get the GOP nomination. Now, I believe, and I have read others about this, that Ron Paul’ s positions actually fit best in the Constitution Party. Kubby correctly describes Paul as a “right-wing libertarian” & I enjoyed his description of the Libertarian Party as like a plane with only a right wing. Kubby wants to reach out to leftists but he wants their vote and support but offers them little compared to an actual agreement (alliance).The Progressive Alliance Strategy calls for a left-libertarian presidential candidate OR a Green. Briefly, this strategy calls for cooperation between the inclusive Green and Libertarian Parties in order to garner the 40% progressive vote. One Green OR Libertarian on EVERY ballot, so as not to split the vote; first come, first served. The executive ticket is more complicated but the most simple strategy would be for the Green Party to endorse the Libertarian ticket as it will probably garner more ballot access. Clearly in all this Paul’s candidacy is an anomaly and an unfortunate complication. He is drawing libertarian support from the libertarians to the GOP. If we further assume a working hypothesis that there are about 50% right and left libertarians, Paul is getting most right and many left libertarian support (70%). I am convinced the LibertarianLists poll is fairly accurate. See: http://www.libertarianlists.com/surveyresult1 In all of this in my opinion Kubby’s endorsement of Ron Paul’s candidacy is a huge strategic blunder. He should call for, as I do, for libertarians to cease their support for Ron Paul. He is diverting libertarian support to the GOP. He is not a good progressive alliance candidate.In fact, if he gets the LP and/or the Constitution Party nomination, he could ruin (spoiler) a Progressive Alliance attempt at victory.”All Together Now” should mean all the LP candidates call for libertarians to cease support for Ron Paul. Kubby wants his cake & eat it too. He endorses Ron Paul yet says”I’m still running for president”. Also that if Paul wins the GOP nomination, he “…will withdraw, ask the party to nominate “None of the Above”… and work as a volunteer on Paul’s…campaign.” If not, he will”…continue preparing to give the LP the best presidential campaign I can…”. I, on the other hand, will not endorse Ron Paul and continue to offer all progressives the reasonable chance of election victory. For further information about my candidacy, See; http://www.robertmilnes.net
WE ARE IN TO WIN.
That’s all well and good, and his point is just as valid as anyone else’s on this topic, but this is as good a time as any to say that voters have a right to know about Robert Milnes’ very serious criminal record (which he doesn’t try to hide, to his credit, but it’s the nature of the crime about which voters have a right – and may even have a need – to be informed since he is running for President). Milnes spent about four years in federal prison. Here’s his description of what happened, from his biography page on http://www.robertmilnes4president:
But then I got tripped up by the FBI. They arrested me on charges related to several fan letters I had written to a local Philadelphia TV anchorwoman, Deborah Knapp. She had married present day Congressman Henry Bonilla, R-Texas. Of course I suspected this was a colateral attack on me by the FBI for political reasons, but I could not articulate that or convince my court appointed federal defender. He convinced me to plead guilty to one count. This was a big mistake. I was sent to FCI Butner, N.C. in 1985. I actually read “The Age of Surveillance” in prison! Eventually I got “maxed out” on mandatory parole in 1989
The 1 count I pleaded guilty to was 18 USC Section 876. Later I filed a pro se motion to withdraw guilty plea pursuant to 28 USC Section 2255 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32 (d). The federal defender was not authorized to assist me after probation violation & was ineffective anyway. This was denied through the US Supreme Court. My petitions for parole were all denied.
The crime with which he was charged, 18 USC 876, deals with threatening communications through the United States Mail. Here is the law, so you can read it for yourself:
Mailing threatening communications
(a) Whoever knowingly deposits in any post office or authorized
depository for mail matter, to be sent or delivered by the Postal
Service or knowingly causes to be delivered by the Postal Service
according to the direction thereon, any communication, with or
without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to
any other person, and containing any demand or request for ransom
or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, so deposits, or causes to be delivered, as
aforesaid, any communication containing any threat to kidnap any
person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of
another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than twenty years, or both.(c) Whoever knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered as
aforesaid, any communication with or without a name or designating
mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and
containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure
the person of the addressee or of another, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If such
a communication is addressed to a United States judge, a Federal
law enforcement officer, or an official who is covered by section
1114, the individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be
delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name
or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other
person and containing any threat to injure the property or
reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a
deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other
person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both. If such a communication is
addressed to a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement
officer, or an official who is covered by section 1114, the
individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
Kook.
I’ve known — or at least corresponded fairly regularly with — Bob Milnes for more than three years now, and I have to say that, based on my interactions with him, the criminal charge was most likely bullshit of some kind. He’s pretty far out, but I just don’t sense any potential violence there.
I’ve spent most of that three years explaining to him, over and over again, how and why the mechanics of partisan politics don’t lend themselves to a “Progressive Alliance” strategy of the type that he’s pitching.
I could see two “third parties” cross-nominating a presidential ticket, but at the state level it breaks down. Parties with ballot access often don’t have any choice as to whether or not to run candidates (the state holds a primary, anyone can file to run in that primary, and if the party organization doesn’t like it well, too bad — they’re running candidates whether they like it or not). Parties without ballot access use the goal of getting ballot access to recruit members and activists. One third party standing aside for another’s candidates would essentially be organizational suicide, or at best organizational absorption into another organization.
At least two LP candidates (Kubby and Jingozian) are specifically focusing on “left outreach,” and that’s a good thing. They’re emphasizing common ideological ground, which is the only way to create an “alliance.”
Milnes, on the other hand, seems to think that the key to an “alliance” is a mechanical matter and that if the mechanics can be handled then it will be no problem getting two parties to rally around a candidate whose platform is repugnant to the traditional constituencies of both parties. Neither Greens nor Libertarians seem to be especially interested in sticking around in Iraq to partition it, launching eugenics programs to turn American Indians into caucasians, or paying black Americans to move to Africa.
seeing the statute isn’t helpful without seeing the evidence, heh.
All of this talk about parties baffles me. Parties are clearly the PROBLEM, and thus they cannot by definition be the solution. If our policies incite hatred of Americans across the globe, the solution isn’t to increase the frequency/fervor of those policies! The solution is to change.
Ron Paul has managed to squeeze a bully pulpit for himself out of the republican party. Good for him. I would, however, be voting for him (and I have never voted in my 30 years of life) whatever party he was a “member” of.
I am not at all surprised that Milnes has a criminal record, and for stalking, no less. He is clearly mentally unstable — divorced from reality, a la Gene Chapman and the like.
How can “parties” be the problem? Parties are a natural market reaction to political realities. Legitimate parties are free associations of free people towards political ends. They have always existed and will always exist. THE PROBLEM is that the founders had a utopian view that parties wouldn’t come into being in America, or if they did, the founders thought their system of government and the vast landscape of the nation, would preclude factionalization into two parties, which they knew was the worst system of all. If parties HAD been written into the Constitution, the founders would have undoubtedly mandated a multi-party republic.
But “parties are the problem” is not true. Two parties monopolizing government and writing their own laws for their own protection is the problem.
Bret, thank you. The evidence was clear cut. I wrote the letters. I allocuted reluctantly to something I wasn’t sure about but was told I was guilty. One sentence in one letter, which even the judge misconstrued. There was no English language testimony, but plenty of quack psychiatric testimony. Turns out the one sentence was not a threat by definition in Black’s law dictionary. So I alone found this out & pursued a 2255 motion without incompetent federal defender. Well, I did have some jailhouse lawyer help. Of course I lost; how many prisoners pro se in forma pauperis petitions win? You quick to judge & self righteous types out there just try dealing with what I’ve gone through. & read The Age of Surveillance. Dirty tricks, anonymous phone calls etc. e.g. “police, there is a man (description of target) acting suspiciously. Walking down X street right now. He may have a gun.”I never saw as many cops come out of the woodwork at me in the one month I was on probation as in my whole life. They (FBI) knew I was a longtime although low level political activist & I would have to get a federal defender & would wind up convicted of something & they would get me violated promptly. The criminal justice system & mental health & government services are a nightmare like a field of land mines. Have fun out there all you believers in mine field justice & psychiatry & cutthroat politics which let you choose your oppressor.
Tom, your interpretation of my proposals is pretty good-spin. Why don’t you put the real-positive spin on them? Even the most rabid radicals are wondering what will happen if we precipitously withdraw from Iraq. Get out now! is a nice soundbite. The idea of getting the troops into defensive positions while promoting cease-fire & negotiations between the 2 main antagonists seems the best course of action. We long ago implemented programs to destroy (negative ugenics) Native Americans & isolate & (try to) make them caucasians. I propose trying the reverse now for their recovery. If an emmigration subsidy has the coincidental possibility of being the best course of action against AIDS, why bother to argue its controversial aspects while time flies & millions die?
A variation of the anonymous phone call to police scenario I just described may very well be what happened between Lee Harvey Oswald & Dallas police officer J.D. Tippett.
Hello, Mr. Milnes, it’s good to finally make your acquaintance. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain what happened with regard to your previous arrest and incarceration.
ElfNinos Mom, Hello. Glad to make your acquaintance. You are welcome. I am grateful for the opportunity to get some of that off my chest.
The pleasure is mine, Mr. Milnes. With all sincere respect, have you considered explaining the situation in more detail on your website? That would not only save the inevitable questions from being asked, it would also tend to discourage any gross mischaracterizations of what you experienced.
Milnes: What the F were you writing fan letters to a female news anchor? That alone is lame enough to disqualify you from public office.
ElfNinos Mom, Well, if you think that is in order, sure. But I thought I had explained it fairly well. How much more detail & what kind of detail would you suggest?
What I’m interested in are the verbatim statements made by Mr. Milnes so I can determine, in my own mind, whether they were threatening or not.
Then comes the judgment call on whether they were inappropriate or not — which is a related, but not legal, issue.
ElfNinos Mom, Stephen Gordon, I just put additional information on my website.
Thank you for sharing more information about the previous criminal charges against you, Mr. Milnes.
To my mind, the statement “Has your husband left you, D.? If so, good. It saves me the trouble of bouncing him out of the picture.” most certainly does NOT rise to the level of a threatening communication under 18 USC 876. In fact, that statement would rarely even result in a permanent restraining order.
I agree with you, Mr. Milnes. “Bouncing” and “bumping”, in that context, are two completely different things.
ElfNinos Mom, thank you for your opinion. These statutes are mostly applicable to cases of kidnapping, extortion and blackmail, which I clearly have nothing to do with.
It occurs to me that the expression, “Bounce him out of the picture” is slang for making a man into a cuckold.
It’s amazing that one can be convicted for crimes which require mens rhea yet one can demonstrate non mens rhea on the subject.
IanC, thank you for you comment which indicates some interest in my case. I note the functionalisminaction website with article about Kubby endorsing Ron Paul. It seems to significantly agree with me that this endorsement is a strategic mistake. There was no mention of mens rea to me. I had specifically asked my federal defender whether my past radical activism could be related to the charge/prosecution; he said no & that was pretty much the end of that. However the Supreme Court had recognized the advantage the government has by domestic surveillance in Alderson 1969. see:The Age of Surveillance. The issue of intent was discussed. I was told that since the element of intent was contained in the threat itself, any claim that I had no such intent was invalid. & that was pretty much the end of that. Add to that my inexperience and lack of legal education & the fact the victim had recently announced pregnancy & the psychiatric testimony was overwhelming, I was pressed to plead guilty. & that’s the way it was.
I did not see anything in Ian’s piece that said Steve Kubby’s endorsement of Ron Paul was a mistake.
Ian’s point, if I undertood it correctly, was that it would be a mistake to nominate Ron Paul for the Libertarian ticket again. Ron Paul has not expressed any interest in the LP nomination. If he were on track to actually win the Republican nomination, many Libertarians – which now include Steve Kubby – would back him in the general election.
However, despite moving up from 3rd tier to 2nd tier in the Republican field, Ron Paul is still very unlikely to become the NSGOP nominee, because the party establishment opposes him. Thus, we will almost certainly still need a LP candidate for POTUS next year, and Steve Kubby remains the best candidate seeking that nomination.
In terms of positioning himself to win the nomination, it was a good move.
Comments we have received have been overwhelmingly positive by a large margin.
Intent was a question of fact for the jury to decide, and not a question of law which should be decided prior to trial. Certainly there may have been a great deal of psychiatric testimony potential, and your attorney may have been quite intimidated by that and feared trial; but unless those psychiatrists were able to testify that you actually intended to harm her husband, their testimony really wasn’t pertinent to the charges, and the defense could perhaps have that testimony barred as purely inflammatory.
Even if the government had a psychiatric expert and the judge would not bar their testimony, there’s no reason why the defense could not present its own psychiatric evidence, or why the defense could not attack the prosecution psychiatrist’s credentials or track record of testifying for the government. There’s also no reason why the defense could not have attempted to use your previous activism as evidence that you were being railroaded. After all, the jury needs only reasonable doubt to acquit, so if you could have instilled reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether you actually intended to harm the guy, they’d have to acquit.
It’s the government’s responsibility to prove you guilty, after all, and not your responsibility to prove that you are not guilty. Frankly, I doubt the government would ever have brought the case at all, had it not involved a Congressman.
ElfNinos Mom, I was told the Postal Inspector had the case and was not moving on it so the FBI took it over. The husband was not a Congressman at that time. He was a news director at another (smaller) tv station I believe. Agreed, there is plenty to work with once you decide to fight it. But that’s not how it was presented to me. I wanted to fight it but that was constantly presented as hopeless.
pauliecannoli, what has me concerned is that all this support to Ron Paul when he doesn’t get the gop nomination will lead to his getting-in one way or another, draft etc., the lp and/or the Constitution nomination then we are stuck with a spoiler/dinosaur.