The LNC recently received a report covering, among other things, claims the LNC funds were misappropriated and spent in ways not consistent with Party bylaws and LNC actions. I am not here speaking to the accuracy of the report’s analysis. Others have done that for me.
The report then advanced the false argument that since the amount that was lost, a substantial five-digit sum, would cost more than that sum to recover, assuming that it could be recovered at all, the LNC should not attempt to recover the funds.
The report then advanced the false argument that since the amount that was lost, a substantial five-digit sum, would cost more than that sum to recover, assuming that it could be recovered at all, the LNC should not attempt to recover the funds.
The argument is false and dangerous to the LNC. Why should donors send money to an organization that is on record as not attempting to protect their donations?
The LNC needs to attempt to recover the funds, in order to begin to restore credibility with its supporters.
The report should possibly be shared by someone who still cares for the LP with the DC Attorney General. After AM is prosecuted for non-profit fraud & other violations as expressed previously – so many violations – then that evidence can easily be used in a civil suite (or the prosecutor can be asked to make sure if found guilty that restitution is made to the LP – thus avoiding need for a civil suite). The IRS might also be interested in these so called payments & if taxes have been properly paid.
My irony meter is flying off the charts at a *Libertarian* party leaning on government agencies to go after people.
So what do you suggest?
As far as I know, both the civil law and criminal law functions of government are justified in cases of alleged financial fraud, embezzlement and the like. While some people who call themselves libertarians believe government shouldn’t exist at all and such behavior would be better dealt with through superior firepower, there is very little doubt that any attempt to do so in the real world of today would result in an unmistakable response from the entities which actually currently have that firepower superiority, which are in fact government agencies. So, I’d think turning to government agencies to resolve matters would make sense even if you don’t think they should exist at all in your ideal utopia.
What would the anarchist libertarians here suggest instead? Hopefully solely the civil law process, rather than either ignoring fraud/embezzlement on the one hand or suicide by cop on the other.
That’s not to take a position on the present underlying claims; I have none. But you can be for radical reduction of the size and scope of government at all levels and still believe that federal agencies should exist to investigate and prosecute fraud and embezzlement.
The LP is a libertarian party, not an anarchist party. The largest use of’anarchists would not do this’ has historically been by concern trolls trying to prevent something from happening. Actual anarchists who claim their principles apply now should not be welcome in the Libertarian Party, because the LP is as much a part of civil legal society as the FBI is. Persons who view anarchy as a direction should consider what the LNC should actually do.
Libertarians or libertarians are not against court systems to settle disputes between individuals or groups of individuals. we just believe they should be privatized.
Until then, we use what is available.
Most libertarians believe that government intervention in cases of fraud is appropriate.
Any organization that has had membership money taken through fraud should try to get that money back through all legal means possible.
Mr. Sarwark,
As a practicing attorney familiar with how the process works in both criminal and civil Law, will you please comment on Mr. Kraus’s comments in this thread?
In your opinion, are the findings in LNC report evidence of an actual crime, which it seems to be from my perspective as a non-lawyer, perhaps fraud and/or embezzlement, or just unethical behavior on the part of Mr. Padgett and Ms. McArdle?
Attempting to recover the money is not the only way to “restore credibility”.
For example, an organization can take concrete steps, through new rules, procedures, bylaws, bank restrictions, etc., to assure such an incident can never occur again.
While I am absolutely sympathetic with trying to get the money back, it really would cost a significant amount in attorney fees – unless a pro bono person could be found, who would do it out of the goodness of his or her heart, to help the LNC restore its credibility. Otherwise, I wouldn’t want National to dig itself even deeper in a hole just to prove a point.
Not attempting to rrcover stollen funds is likely to discourage donations in the future.
Why would I trust any group which stole from me or others ever sgain?
The entire Board/LNC had a Fiduciary Duty to be looking out for the welfare and funds of the Party too. There are more than one or two individuals who were asleep at the wheel during the prior LNC term. That could also be a consideration. There has apparently been a marriage between two involved parties. Married parties often are not required to testify against each other or at all. As not in with the in crowd, am not personally aware of exact happenings and what the facts and evidence are but am suggesting there could be more involved than meets the eye here.
What is the source of this, George?
Who wrote this?
Unsigned material is usually the Editor’s, namely mine.
There are recovery methods other than full-blown litigation that might be tried.
Thank you, George.
Well said and I agree.
The amount of money Angela McArdle embezzled from the Libertarian Party is irrelevant, really.
Not only does LNC need to attempt recovery of embezzled funds to begin to restore credibility with membership, whether litigation or the other means you speak about, but it’s a matter of principle as well.
I was hoping a certain attorney in NH would work pro bono, but I am not sure if the attorney need to be licensed in DC or Texas.