ATTN Executive Committee: Resolution Condemning the Raid on Journalist Bryan Carmody's Home and Office in Connection with the Leak of the Adachi Police Report [1 Attachment]

Please find attached Thomas' motion introduced at our meeting yesterday. Seeing as it was not formally written to be voted on by the body then, we agreed to have the executive committee review this and make a decision.

Please note:
Because we are no longer in session, this shall be considered a special meeting of the executive committee, with permission for short notice granted by Ryder, Thomas and myself at yesterday's meeting. *Only the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer may vote.* The activists list is copied on this email for our decision to remain as open as possible.

I've taken a liberty of formally writing up the resolution on your behalf with the text written by Francoise and Starchild. If you object to this or wish to change the text of the motion, please withdraw it and/or offer a substitute.

Officers, please reply to this email within 48 hours with your vote of AYE or NO. The sooner the better so we may act swiftly.

Thank you,

Resolution Condemning the Raid on Journalist Bryan Carmody’s Home and Office in Connection with the Leak of the Adachi Police Report.pdf (57 KB)

Let us know what the voting results are. Also how you intend to publicize or resolution.Thanks,Françoise
Françoise Fielding, Esq., 820 Stanyan St. #5, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-386-8643

Thanks, Nick.

  I have a few suggested modifications on the wording of the third "whereas" clause, which currently reads:

Whereas on Friday May 10, 2019, the San Francisco police raided journalist Bryan Carmody's home and office where they seized check stubs, CDs, USB drives, computers, cell phones and
notebooks in an attempt to discover the source of a leaked confidential report on Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s death; be it

  I would suggest substituting the following wording:

Whereas on Friday May 10, 2019, San Francisco police raided the home and office of journalist Bryan Carmody, reportedly making an early morning no-knock entry into his home with guns drawn, and seized check stubs, CDs, USB drives, computers, cell phones and notebooks in an attempt to discover the source who leaked to him a police report on the death of SF Public Defender Jeff Adachi; be it

  The resolution is fine as written, and I'm not greatly attached to these changes; if there seems any reason to doubt the truth of the added details, then we shouldn't mention them. But in the absence of such doubts, I think it strengthens the case for condemnation to cite this evidence of inappropriate police conduct in the raid, in addition to the inappropriate rationale for conducting a raid in the first place.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

I’d be careful about the added “no knock guns drawn” stuff
While I understand that it could make our case more sympathetic to some people, it could also be the kind of wording that could turn some people off.
I tried to draft this in the most barebones simple kind of way so there could be no dispute about the fact that what happened was wrong. Anything we add gives people more room to disprove our argument
Just a thought. I realize that this is not up to me....

If I were a Exec Comm I would be wary of the “no knock guns drawn” stuff because it might seem that we are objecting to the manner of the search rather than to search and seizure itself. Would we be ok with it if the police had knocked on the door and kept their guns holstered. If not, then it seems distracting to mention it.

I am not greatly surprised that the police might do something like this, but let’s not forget that 2 judges (according to reports that I read) signed off on it and gave their permission by issuing a no knock warrant.
I would have preferred a statement condemning the judges for going along with this.


Thank you Les….good comment.


Thank you all for your input. I agree that it is succinct and captures the core of our objection as-is.

re: publicizing this, frankly, I could use some suggestions and help. My feeling is that it is appropriate to write a BRIEF article explaining a little more about the importance of the issue and why it conflicts with libertarian principles and send this out as a press release highlighting the resolution. I am getting in touch with some others in the LPC who might be able to provide some help. If anyone has some command of this and can help us make the most of this, please reach out to me.

We have 2 ayes so far, Ryder and Alex. I would like to give Thomas the opportunity to ack this before I add in my vote.

Thanks all,

I think it should certainly appear on our website. Perhaps letter to the editor of certain newspapers could mention our position
I would be reluctant to add much explanation until we find out more- particularly what information the judges based their approval on. I’d also like to know more about the judges- bias? Prior decisions? etc

Seeing as I can't get in touch with Thomas, and he is the maker of the motion, I'm going to assume the intention of this is to withdraw the motion I sent out and make a substitute motion for the resolution in the previous message. I like this resolution as well; it is more verbose but paints a clear picture of our objections. I am happy with it. I will offer one correction which is to correct the spelling of Carmody's name from Brian to Bryan.

So, here is where we stand:
* The original motion that I sent out on Sunday morning is withdrawn.
* The motion for a resolution in the previous message is now being considered.

Officers, please vote on the motion. I appreciate your prompt response so we can still take some advantage of the opportunity.

Thank you,

Aye from me as well.

That makes 3 ayes (Ryder, Thomas, Nick) and no response from Alex.

So, *it is resolved*. If you would like to help with a writeup on this for our website (something brief to supplement the resolution) please let me know ASAP!

*Whereas*, independent voices responsive to the people are needed in a democracy to inform the voters of abuses of power by those vested with authority, and

*Whereas* California government code Section 54950 states, “the people in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know and what is good for them not to know.. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created,” and

*Whereas* the California Constitution’s Sunshine Amendment, The California Journalist Shield Law, and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance establish principles of transparency in government and freedom of the press, and

*Whereas* the circumstances surrounding the death of San Francisco public defender Jeff Adachi are a State and local affair outside the scope of the delegated powers of the Federal constitution, and

*Whereas* the United States Supreme Court found in *Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins* that the California Constitution can establish broader rights and freedoms than enshrined by the first Amendment in the Federal Constitution, and

*Whereas* secret grand juries, knockless searches on journalists, the seizure of their business and personal property, judge and venue shopping, and law enforcement threats create a chilling effect on freedom of the press in their service to the public, and

*Whereas* law enforcement at all levels of government have a long and dark history of infringing on civil liberties through entrapment by process crimes such as “obstruction of justice”, and

*Wherea*s in an age of internet publishing We are all journalists,

*It is Resolved* by the Libertarian Party of San Francisco to express its severe concern over press reports regarding SFPD and Federal raids on journalist Bryan Carmody and the seizure of the tools needed to earn his living;

*It is Further Resolved* a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US Department of Justice, the San Francisco Police Department, the Office of the Mayor, and to news outlets in Northern California.

Thank you,

I had started to add, “Or is this the 21st century”? The meaning of a resolution calls for the subjunctive, just as the meaning of a prediction calls for the future. But because the subjunctive is marked only in the third-person singular in English, incorrect usage has come to prevail, just as it has for constructions like “You had better be careful.” There is no such tense as “had be,” but some grammarians still endorse it.

“Had better” is best understood as a phrasal mood auxiliary meaning “should”. Language isn’t logic and usage changes in time. In the oldest recorded English “he doesn’t want” would have been “he ne wanteth”. The evolution was
He ne wanteth
He ne wanteth nat
He wanteth nat
He doth nat want
He does not want

Each of these was considered “correct” at one time. Almost all our present day usages would have been condemned at some point in the past. Innovations were condemned as barbarous.

What is important is that the language be unambiguous and not misleading. I feel that Nick’ wording as is passes that test.


Yes, language changes, as do logic and mathematics. But adding imaginary values to logic is not the same thing as saying that post hoc ergo propter hoc is no longer a fallacy. The verb in question was “had be,” not “had better.” “Better” is an adverb not relevant to the tense. I said there was no such tense, and you haven’t named it. “You’d be” is a contraction of “You would be.” It was first unpacked into “You had be” by an ignoramus aspiring to formality beyond his education; then lots of other ignoramuses copied him, and now we have ignorant grammarians desperately rationalizing the usage. Grammar, like politics in a democracy, follows majority rule. Most people today insist that health care is a right, and that to deny it is just old-fashioned. If I was you, I would feel funny about favoring popular usage over correct usage. It seems a peculiar stand for the Party of Principle.

I did not name a tense because this expression is NOT a tense. It is a mood expression of preference.

“I will go” at one time meant “I want to go”. Then some ignoramus started using it as marker of future time and now it is accepted usage as the future tense. BTW German retains the original meaning in that “Ich will gehen” means I want to go and “Ich werde gehen” means I will go.

If I use an expression like “you had better go”, I am NOT violating anyone’s rights. If I advocate that health care is a right, I am violating the rights of those who will be forced to pay for it. Comparing majority rule in grammar usage with majority rule in political rights is totally inappropriate.


“Had be” is not a modal expression of preference. It is an auxiliary attached to what should be a past participle, rather than a present tense.

You are quite right about the ambiguity, and shift, between “will” and “want” in English, which is related to German. “Will,” in English, retains a meaning like “want.” That shift, like the growing use of “research” as a verb in the past 50 years, does no violence to grammatical principles.

It sounds as though, for you, the difference between grammar and politics is that the concepts of right and wrong are applicable in the latter but not in the former?

I published a press release for this resolution and will work on circulating it and fulfilling the directive of delivering a copy of this to the required parties. I am attaching a PDF copy of the resolution as well.

Thank you Thomas for the writeup as well as the resolution, and everyone involved for your input.


Resolution Condemning the Raid on Journalist Bryan Carmody’s Home and Office in Connection with the Leak of the Adachi Police Report.pdf (62.7 KB)

The proper expression is “had better be something” or “had better do something”.

“You had be careful” is meaningless, but “you had better be careful” is completely meaningful. I have often heard people use this expression and seen it in writing.

Are you saying that you do not see any difference between laws of grammar and political laws???


The verb in the sentence “You had better be careful” is had be. The adverb better does not change the tense. I’ve said that there is no such tense; you appear to have denied that the verb in that sentence has a tense, which is like saying a rose doesn’t have a color. When you learned conjugation, were there some verbs that were said to be unclassifiable with respect to tense?

Like you, I have often seen the expression “you had better be” in print.

I think both of us see some differences between the laws of politics and the laws of grammar. From what I can tell, you don’t believe the concept of right and wrong applies to grammar; I was checking that impression. On the subjunctive, I wonder whether you see any use for it at all. I notice you didn’t correct my “If I was you.” Should we abolish the imperative mood, too, while we’re at it? Instead of “You, be careful!” we say “You, are careful”?