New Jersey Libertarian Party

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) died in the Senate yesterday, according to a statement from a representative of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The bill, which had already passed the House, would have allowed the government to snoop on private emails by granting companies the right to disseminate individuals’ sensitive, private information — like medical records — without their knowledge or consent.

Although CISPA likely won't be passed in its current form, Republicans and Democrats have a bad habit of resurrecting terrible Big Government legislation like this. This is the second year in a row that CISPA has been considered by Congress, and lawmakers have already said they're working on drafting new cybersecurity bills.

The Libertarian Party issued a release condemning CISPA earlier this week, which included this statement from Chairman Geoffrey J. Neale: "The provisions of CISPA are abhorrent and unacceptable in a free society. We must not only trash CISPA; we must repeal the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and every other law that violates our Fourth Amendment rights."

Why is it not surprising that in the wake of the horrific attacks in Boston, some in and elsewhere are clamoring to put the brakes on the first real attempt at much-needed immigration reform in years? Some are even going so far as to call for a “suspension” of student visas, which have absolutely nothing to do with the chain of events that resulted in two crazy guys killing four people and injuring hundreds more.

When something bad happens, blame immigration. It is just too easy politically to conjure up images of foreigners coming here — legally or illegally — as the cause of our problems. Make no mistake, our current immigration system is broken. If it wasn’t, we would not today be wrestling with the very real and very difficult question of how to deal with the 11 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the country today. If it wasn’t broken, the arbitrary annual ceiling on visas for highly-skilled workers would not have been hit in only five days. If legal immigration levels were allowed to be set by the marketplace, rather than by artificial limits negotiated by politicians and labor unions, maybe we wouldn’t need as much of that border “enforcement” everyone seems to love so much.

The Political Book Club monthly meeting will occur at the Lawrence Branch of the Mercer County Library on May 7th at 7:00 PM.

A member of the Libertarian Party will be on hand to discuss Libertarian philosophy.

Books to be discussed are For a New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard, and The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure by John Allison.

All are welcome.

A free audiobook version of a For a New Liberty is available at mises.org.

I was wondering. Should I refer to Ludwig von Mises as “von Mises”, instead of “Mises”? Should I change my name to Smiling von Dave?

We know that Keynes popularized an old blunder [one picked up by the Money Dis. crowd], one that was around for ages, the so called lack of Aggregate Demand. Say wrote his famous law to refute it, and I’m sure a little research will find it mentioned in the Stone Age cave drawings.

We’ve written many times about how wrong it is, in theory and reality. Now it’s time to see how Mises took care of it. Genius that he was, all he needed was one line to expose the key flaw in Keynes’s theory.

Unfortunately, when he wrote the one liner, he didn’t mention Keynes by name. He also wrote it in technical language, because he wasn’t addressing a lay crowd, but experienced economists. This may be why Mises’ argument is not well known. Luckily for our generation, and for mankind in general, Smiling von Dave is here to spell it all out.

On March 10th, the NJ Libertarian Party Police Accountability Project filed an Internal Affairs Complaint with the Stafford Township police department over an officer illegally reaching into the pockets of a suspect without a warrant or due cause.

On Tuesday we received a response from Chief Joseph Giberson, III in response to our complaint. Our complaint was "Not Sustained" because of the retirement of the offending officer his refusal to participate in developing facts in our complaint. However, as a result of our complaint, Chief Giberson has agreed to increase training of his officers in regards to the rules for terry frisks using the basis of our complaint as an example. See the response from Chief Giberson here.

Although a great number of libertarians are also secularists, there is still a great deal of wisdom to be gleaned for our cause in the pages of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Beyond religious content, the Bible provides a timeless perspective on human nature and the human condition, which is unchanging.

Therefore, it seems fitting that, during this Easter and Passover season, we take a fresh look at what the ancient texts have to offer to us friends of limited government and private property.

The first lesson, which is often tough for libertarians to swallow, is that liberty is not necessarily a popular idea.  From time immemorial, a great many people have been willing to trade essential liberty for the illusion of a strong ruler who is both a powerful protector and a benevolent caretaker.

Dear Editor:

I almost started to cheer when I saw Joe Phalon’s column (Phalon’s File) in the March 13 issue of the Suburban Trends regarding Mayor Bloomberg’s latest attempt to micromanage the lives of New Yorkers by banning large-sized soft drinks.

Sadly, Mr. Phalon’s commentary also included a snide comment regarding those who are concerned about the steady erosion of liberty here in America by making reference to the "paranoia of the tinfoil hat crowd."

I’ve attended many meetings, conferences, conventions and rallies of pro-liberty, pro-constitution and pro-historical truth groups for over 30 years and have yet to see anyone running around with a tinfoil hat on their head! Why is it that anyone who takes a consistent stand in defense of individual liberty gets made fun of by people like Joe Phalon or "comedians" like Bill Maher on HBO?

UPDATE: I received an updated version of this article from Ed. He was sentenced to nine months of jail for probation violations. He is temporarily out of jail so he can get his cancer treatments, however will need to return to jail soon.

Friends of Ed (including this author) have started a website to raise some money for Ed. See http://helpnjweedman.com and consider giving a donation.

----------

The National Libertarian Examiner has a story today on Edward Forchion. He has a hearing on Tuesday. It is still unknown whether or not he can make it to our convention as planned. If he is unable to attend I will try to get him to briefly address the attendees via speakerphone. We have received a letter from him from the Burlington County jail last week. Below is part of what he sent us. Hopefully we will be able to hear of his ordeal on Saturday.

In July of 1997 Governor Whitman signed into law a new Omnibus Crime Bill that revamped all of the criminal laws 2C:35-10. The criminal marijuana laws (N.J.S.2C:43-3(1)) described marijuana as a schedule 1 drug - "having no medical value". On 1/18/2010 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed into law the NJ Compassionate Use Act C.24:6I-2. The law, in part, reads:

The Legislature finds and declares that: (a) Modern medical research has discovered a beneficial use for marijuana in treating or alleviating the pain or other symptoms associated with certain debilitating medical conditions……(c) Although federal law currently prohibits the use of marijuana, the laws of 14 states permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and in Arizona doctors are permitted to prescribe marijuana. New Jersey joins this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens; ………(e) The purpose of the NJ Compassionate Use Act to protect from arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties, those patients who use marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians, primary caregivers, and those who are authorized to produce marijuana for medical purposes.

Please think about this - NJ now has two laws saying different things. One law the most current a medical law C.24:6I-2 recognizes marijuana's medical use. To me: wouldn't that render the older 2C:35-10 law that doesn't recognize medical use as outdated, obsolete, flawed at the very least, and outright unconstitutional at best? Shouldn't the state's Title 2C:35-10 marijuana laws be VOIDED for VAGUENESS, and nullified in violation of due process? How is it the state gets to prosecute citizens like myself under 2C:35-10 criminal statutes that falsely, in direct contrast to more recent law, that statutorily classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug having “no medical value”. Then simultaneously allowing, under the NJ Compassionate Use Act C.24:6I-2, other citizens to grow, distribute, and use it as a medicine? Equal protection, Due Process?

Sergeant Leonard Wolf, Internal Affairs Unit
Vineland City Police Department
111 N. Sixth Street
Vineland, NJ 08360
(via e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )

Dear Sergeant Wolf:

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and ask that you accept this letter as our Internal Affairs complaint.  We would like your agency to investigate whether Officer Louis J. Plantania and other personnel employed by your agency acted in accordance with department policy and the law regarding a warrantless search of a motor vehicle on May 25, 2011.

In February 2013, the Township of Readington (Hunterdon County), passed a "disorderly conduct" ordinance. More information and links to the ordinance and other related documents, including Township Attorney Sharon Dragan's half-hearted defense of the ordinance, are at the link in my reply to her.

One of my concerns involves part "c," which states:

Internal Affairs Unit
Neptune Township Police Department
25 Neptune Blvd.
Neptune, NJ 07753
(via e-mail only to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )

RE: Lieutenant Robert Mangold

Dear Sir or Madam:

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and ask that you accept this letter as an Internal Affairs complaint. We would like your agency to investigate whether Lieutenant Robert Mangold and other personnel employed by your agency acted in accordance with department policy and the law regarding a warrantless strip search of Daniel Dolan on October 8, 2011.

Attn: Sergeant Anthony Facchini
Union City Police Internal Affairs Unit
3715 Palisade Avenue
Union City, NJ 07087
via e-mail only to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Sergeant Facchini:

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and seek an Internal Affairs investigation into the circumstances surrounding a May 23, 2009 arrest of Juan C. Peguero of 514 3rd Street, Union City.  The Union City officers involved were Alex Ruperto, Jose Castillo and Damien DiFazio and Sergeants Dominick DePinto and John Dowling

Peguero's encounter with the Union City Police fits a familiar pattern:

1. The arrestee sues, claiming to have been brutalized by the police.  (In this case, Peguero claims that the officers were out looking for him "to punch [him] in the face."  When the officers found him, he was punched in the mouth by Officer Ruperto, causing his head to strike a concrete column and then beaten by other officers after he was on the ground.)

Director, Internal Affairs Unit
Stafford Township Police Department
260 East Bay Ave
Manahawkin, NJ  08050-3329
(via e-mail to Chief Joseph Giberson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please accept this e-mail as our Internal Affairs complaint against a Stafford Township police officer whose identity is not yet known to us. He is depicted on a video taken by a patrol car's dash-mounted camera as having patted down and reached inside the pockets of a man who was the subject of a December 26, 2012, 12:37 p.m. traffic stop.

We Are Change reported that:

“On Thursday January 25th, New Jersey police officers entered the apartment of Keith Pantaleon without permission, warning, warrant or explanation. After entering the apartment, they apparently had suspicion of him having a weapon, though none were visible. The police then searched his home and found multiple firearms. Keith is a legal gun owner who is registered and has permits for his firearms in multiple states. According to his close friends is currently going through the process of obtaining his permits for New Jersey.”

He was released from jail on February 28th and is facing multiple charges.

On February 19th the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police can conduct warrantless searches based on the police interpretation of a search dog. The court ruled that the dog doesn't even need formal certification.

The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforcement units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accurate drug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. - U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 9, 2013

In 2010 the University of California, Davis conducted a test of the effectiveness of drug and explosive testing dogs. Out of 144 searches of an empty room the dogs alerted 123 times - an 85% false positive result.

The courts have been watering down our Fourth Amendment rights for quite some time - almost always over the possession of a banned substance that shouldn't be illegal anyway.

• Carrol v. United States. In 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that automobiles can be searched without a warrant as long as the officer had probable cause. the search was limited to only the items the officers had probable cause to suspect. The rationale was that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile and that because an automobile may be moved a search may be necessary to preserve evidence. The case stemmed from federal officers pulling over a vehicle they thought contained alcohol.