[Flyboy]

Libertarian Party Presidential candicate Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb were arrested last night at the Presidential Debate. Badnarik was attempting to serve an Order to Show Cause regarding their exclusion from the debate. The parties to be served had refused service on at least one, and possibly two, previous occasions. Story and newsfeed available on Badnarik's site, http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346.

Seriously, folks, when we're arresting alternative candidates for trying to serve lawfully-issued court orders relating to why they were excluded from the public debates, what's gone wrong?

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
—Noam Chomsky

[IndianaDean]

Why should this surprise anyone? The Democrats and Republicans have brainwashed most of the people in the US for so long they will not tolerate third or fourth voices speaking out.
I realize they were trying to get arrested, but they were serving legal papers and the thugs in power don't want them speaking out, because people don't want to hear the truth about what's happening to our nation.

I will never vote for the main two parties. They are the parties of treason. They have violated the US Constitution for decades and are criminals.

[JohnBT]

"...two third-party presidential candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested."

"They did not have to post any bail - but were given tickets for “trespass” and “refusing a reasonable order from a policeman." "


The things people will do to get their name in the newspaper.

John

[Don Gwinn]

Not a surprise, sadly enough.

You know, if they weren't candidates for the office of President whose names are going to be on the ballots, I could see how you would think that trying to participate in a Presidential debate would be a publicity stunt.

Since both these men are candidates for President, I can't wait to hear how you justify saying they shouldn't have crossed that line.

:scrutiny:

[JohnBT]

Trying to participate is one thing, breaking the law by forcing their way in is the stunt I was referring to.

My guess is that they weren't on the guest list ( :) ), ignored a police order not to cross the barricade and got themselves arrested for tresspassing just to get some free publicity. The way some people call a 'public' debate you'd think just anyoldbody with their name on the ballot in a couple of states could waltz right in without an invite and grab a chair in front of the cameras.

My next best guess is that this 'public' debate was a privately-funded function and subject to the same tresspass laws as dinner at my house.

AFAIK, there is no right to tresspass to serve papers.

My third guess is you knew all of that already.

John

[Gray Peterson]

AFAIK, there is no right to tresspass to serve papers.

Depends on your state. Washington State, for example, does in fact allow tresspass to service legal papers. The reason for this is borne out by the facts in this particular case, where the CPD was basically denying acccess so they won't get served in order to frustrate the court system.

[Coronach]

My next best guess is that this 'public' debate was a privately-funded function and subject to the same tresspass laws as dinner at my house.I think we have a winner.

I'm not certain on the specifics of the format, but this is my understanding: it was a private event. If I want to hold a Presidential Debate in my basement, and I invite Kerry and Bush but exclude Nader and Badnarik, it will be trespess if Badnarik and Nader show up and force entry.

Now, as to paper service...that will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and also with the specifics of the situation. I'm not sure of the first, and none of us know the second.

Of course, it is a perfectly valid question to ask why the other two were excluded. But, if the candidates agree to debate each other and no one else, that is their right. They can decide not to debate at all.

Mike

[Flyboy]

As of now, not a single media outlet of note has bothered to mention this story. The only places I've seen it mentioned (besides the candidates' sites, and discussion boards like this one) are Indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org), where it rated a small mention on the right sidebar, and Slashdot (http://slashdot.org), which is running it as a front-page story. CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYTimes, WA Post, not a word--not even a buried story to search for. Nada.

This is the "free press" that's supposed to keep the government in check?

[tyme]

I sent a news tip to drudge (which he and/or his assistant are ignoring per usual) and emailed thesmokinggun about it (maybe there's an arrest report?). The St. Louis post-dispatch ran a story mentioning their stunt and subsequent arrest, but said nothing of the papers they were trying to serve.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/election2004/story/C5E191143DCACB1286256F2800113629?OpenDocument&Headline=Serious+meets+trivial+outside+debate

Of course they were trying to get arrested. Who cares? They shouldn't have been excluded from the debate.

Is the Commission on Presidential Debates really a private entity? Were there no public funds used for this event? I would find that a bit hard to believe.

[Thumper]

This is the "free press" that's supposed to keep the government in check?

They're out there, doing whatever it takes to maintain an audience. If people honestly dont care about a subject, the "free press" doesn't really care to report it.

Folks know who Lacy Peterson is...most wouldn't know Michael Bednarik if he showed up at their door.

[Flyboy]

CPD is a private entity, yes; their stated rules on candidate admission to the debates are A) Constitutionally electable, B) on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency (based on electoral college), and C) poll 15% in six polls (averaged). Badnarik and Cobb don't meet the third clause.

That said, the reason for the lawsuit changes things a bit. The Order to Show Cause was to show cause why Badnarik (and only Badnarik) should not be admitted to the third (and only the third) debate, in Arizona. Arizona recognizes three political parties, and has laws forbidding the use of public money for partisan purposes. The Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP) sued over Badnarik's exclusion not because a private group excluded him, but rather because Arizona State University will be spending approximately $2 million to host the debates. The complaint charges:

"In financing a Presidential debate on the campus of Arizona State University ('the debate') on October 13, 2004 that includes only Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry as participating candidates and excludes Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, a state entity is making a donation to two individual campaigns, through the Commision on Presidential Debates as a conduit, in violation of the Arizona Constitution's prohibition on making gifts to individuals or corporations."

The judge in the case decided that AZLP did, in fact, have a complaint worthy of a hearing, and ordered the defendants to appear for said hearing.

(The complaint, along with the judge's order, and certificates of service, is available at http://thelfactor.org/arizona_state_lawsuit.html.)

So, while the CPD is a private organization, and may admit or refuse anybody it wants to the debates, the use of public facilities and tax dollars for the debates puts some additional restrictions on them. If they don't like said restrictions, they're certainly free to rent a convention hall and finance the debates themselves; if they want to take public money and resources, though, they ought to be bound by the law concerning use of said resources, at least according to AZLP.

[CentralTexas]

how the police etc. are being used against these citizens exercising their legal rights.
Even worse is the support given here to this abuse of power and detriment to a fair election. I'm sure they would also rejoice if it was a single party system with just their candidate too.
Are we still a functioning nation or just appear to be to the masses?
CT

[JohnBT]

"exercising their legal rights"

The right to tresspass? The right to cross a police barricade? Please don't tell me that you believe that they have a right to go absolutely anywhere they like and that it's covered by the 1st Amendment. That's not what it says.

We are functioning as a nation. A nation of laws. They reportedly broke the law and were arrested. And because some people agree to abide by the rules you're calling some of us names? Now that makes a whole lot of sense.

John

[Coronach]

More to the point, in a fit of common sense, they were detained and cited and then released. They were, seemingly, not arrested.

Were they kept out of the forum for the debate? Yes they were. My God, call the militia.

Hey, I'm running for President, too. Does that mean I get to go inside?

Until there is a court order allowing them admission (or an agreement by the landlord or tenant of the space in question allowing the same), if they go inside it is trespass. And their rights are not being violated if they are stopped.

Mike

[Flyboy]

There was a court order; they were trying to serve it, just like they had three times prior. Arresting them for attempting service is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "na-na-na-na-na, I can't hear you!" Admittedly, an effective debate technique--if you're five years old. Somehow, I expected more from the CPD. My bad.

[bcbr]

Art Bell interviewing Libertarian candidate that was arrestted right now on coast to Coast Am;)

[CannibalCrowley]

Coronach More to the point, in a fit of common sense, they were detained and cited and then released. They were, seemingly, not arrested. detained by police = arrested

Of course this wouldn't be an issue if Bush and Kerry weren't afraid of what might happen if the clueless majority of voters was made aware of the other candidates.

[publius]

Is the Commission on Presidential Debates really a private entity? Were there no public funds used for this event? I would find that a bit hard to believe.


Yes, it is a private entity.

After the League of Women Voters refused to go along with duopoly party desires to have a low-risk, tightly controlled, non-debate infomercial, the problem that arose was that if you're going to have a dog and pony show, somebody has to put it on.

The government can't do it, because then you run into problems like the one at Arizona U.

Most private political entities have some sort of partisan affiliation, and would be unacceptable to one side or the other.

So they came up with the Commission for Presidential Debates. It sounds official, and it has one purpose: protecting the duopoly candidates from actual confrontation.

If they just limited inclusion to those on the ballot in enough places to win an electoral majority, we'd see 3 or 4 or maybe 5 candidates up there debating. Tacking on the 15% poll requirement is their way of saying it'll be a cold day in hell before any minor party is included.

[Coronach]

detained by police = arrestedNot exactly.

Ever had a speeding ticket?

Were you arrested?

Were you free to go, however, during the traffic stop?

Mike

[longrifleman]

The right to tresspass? The right to cross a police barricade? Please don't tell me that you believe that they have a right to go absolutely anywhere they like and that it's covered by the 1st Amendment.

I believe the debate was held on the campus of Washington University, ie public property. The rules for tresspass are a bit different.

This seems to me to be a case of two (or more) laws in conflict with each other. So the laws that promote the greatest diversity of debate and access to the political process are ignored while the laws limiting access are enforced. Why am I not surprised.

One aspect of this that should anger everyone is the press doing everything they can to supress access to the ideas and information that other parties will bring to the debate.

People here and at other RKBA sites should be especially sensitive to this since we fight the same thing daily with the truth about firearms.

[David Scott]

Just another example of how the 2 major political parties maintain their "closed shop". They've put up huge barriers to entry for any third political parties. If they were non-governmental entities, we might get the government to force them to open up, but since they run the government they aren't about to open the doors to their clubhouse on Capitol Hill.

This is why, every 4 years, I urge people to vote for BALANCE. If you have a Republican Congress, you must have a Democrat for President. This keeps either party from the worst excesses.

[CannibalCrowley]

Coronach

arrest
v - To seize and hold under the authority of law.
n - 1.a. The act of detaining in legal custody: the arrest of a criminal suspect.
b. The state of being so detained: a criminal under arrest.

[El Rojo]

Who cares? Two guys got arrested for trying to crash someone else's party. That is too bad for them. Sorry folks, I respect your dream of a third party one day saving us (or ruining us), but reality is, it ain't happening. But hey, keep the dream alive! :rolleyes:

[Wildalaska]

Cannibal as Coroanch correctly points out, there is a legal difference between arrest and detention, dictionalries notwithstanding

WildwalkingblackstoneAlaska

[CannibalCrowley]

Wildalaska Cannibal as Coroanch correctly points out, there is a legal difference between arrest and detention, dictionalries notwithstanding Maybe where you live.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/dpd/detroit_6_5.htm
In section II:An arrest occurs when an officer's words or actions would convey to a reasonable person that he or she is not free to leave.Even the Detroit PD defines it as: a taking of an individual into custody for further investigation, booking, or prosecution.

[Flyboy]

The audio recording of the attempt at service at the CPD's DC office has been posted; I listened to it, and CPD clearly knew that they were being served, and refused to accept it. Here's a copy of the tape:

[Flyboy]

Dumb thing didn't attach. Grab it from http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 instead; it's down at the bottom.

[WYO]

Serving papers is everyday stuff that doesn’t require fanfare. Entities are usually served through their designated agent for service of process. The agents are usually companies that specialize in acting as agent for service of process and they routinely accept service. In some instances you can mail the process. There is almost never a need to go out and hunt down someone to serve unless you are dealing with an individual. Even then, if someone ducks service, the courts routinely appoint someone to accept service for the duck. There is no need to breach the peace, and I would venture to say that, in most places, trespass and/or breach of the peace are not permitted to serve process. There is no doubt in my mind that the attempt to personally serve papers was nothing more than a grandstanding attempt to gain some free publicity.

Oh, and a citation is not an arrest, but that's been covered by others.

[Justin]

Not exactly.

Ever had a speeding ticket?

Were you arrested?

Were you free to go, however, during the traffic stop?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that by virtue of signing the traffic ticket you were agreeing to either

A)Pay the fine within a certain time limit.

or

B)Appear in court.

Failure to sign a traffic ticket results in being detained and booked down at the police station, doesn't it? Isn't the point of instituting something like this basically a way for the state to say "Yes, you've committed a crime, but it's a minor deal, and we have bigger fish to fry, so we're going to let you go if you agree to do the stuff stipulated on this bit of paper here."

[Flyboy]

No, a citation is not an arrest. Being taken to jail in a police van is an arrest. As detailed on the site, "[h]e is reported to be at some medium-security lockup at 7600 North Hall Street....He said that after he and Mr. Cobb were arrested, they were placed in a police van - then there was some delay as they threw some students in the van with them. The stories from two of them are posted in the prior two entries of this posting. Mr. Badnarik says that they sat in a cell for one to one and a half hours. He reported that the fingerprinting process was not as thorough as he had expected."

As to how they chose to serve papers: again, as detailed on Badnarik's site, this was the fourth time they'd attempted service. They attempted by FAX, e-mail, and personal service in DC (as noted above, with an audio recording of said attempt). Those attempts were rebuffed. On the site, they also explain why they didn't use a process server or sheriff.

Does anybody ever read the articles? Did I go to Slashdot by mistake?

[tyme]

Going to slashdot is always a mistake.

[Coronach]

Mr Crowley,

You are taking things out of context. What is fascinating is that, if one goes to the link you provided and finds the text you quoted, one will see that it has a footnote referenced. Looking at the footnote, one will see1. A brief investigatory stop based upon reasonably articulable suspicion is not an arrest. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). Now, while this clearly is not what happened to Badnarik, it is clear that there is indeed a distinction between a brief detention to investigate or issue a cite or summons.

Justin:

yes, you're quite correct. However, every time you are pulled over you are NOT arrested, just because you CAN be if you refuse to sign the ticket. Different jurisdictions will differ on the exact details...in some places it may be considered an arrest on the spot. Most places, however, it is not. You're issued a cite in lieu of an arrest, and the arrest is only done if you fail to comply with the procedure to be cited.

Witness, for instance, the flap over the candybar chewing woman on the DC metro. AFAIK, she was detained briefly to be issued a cite, and she chose to storm off, thus turning a detention (for the purpose of issuing a citation) into an arrest.

Mike

[Coronach]

Well, if he was cuffed, stuffed and removed from the scene, he was arrested. He was then, apparently, later released on a summons.

As always, gotta love how news reports vary from one to the other.

Mike

[c_yeager]

I believe the debate was held on the campus of Washington University, ie public property. The rules for tresspass are a bit different.

When a private entity rents a public building (technically paying money into the general fund and thus to the taxpayers) that building becomes private property for the duration of the agreed upon rental term. This is the same principle that keeps your landlord from storing his old engine parts in your apartment.

[Flyboy]

Except that CPD isn't renting the building; ASU is covering the costs, to the tune of about $2 million. In fact, that's the whole basis for the complaint. And the suit concerns the third debate, at ASU, not the second; Badnarik attempted to serve the CPD at the second, but that's not what the suit was over.

[tyme]

They should have a case for the previous two debates as well.

The CPD is a 501 (c)(3) and therefore must be non-partisan. I don't think their 15%-in-the-polls requirement is enough. They don't pay taxes, and the consequence is that they do not get to do whatever they want.

[Evil_Ed]

This isn't the first time something like this has happened either. The police were used in a previous presidential election to deny access to a conference room rented by the LP for a press conference in the same complex as a previous debate and the LP was denied access to the rooms they had PAID FOR and in fact arrested when they insisted that they be allowed in by showing the paperwork showing their right to be in the building. This is a long standing policy of descrimination under color of law by the CPD.