[Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
Whitney Bilyeu
whitneycb76 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 23 17:00:44 EDT 2016
As I recall...
The decision to make this contribution came after some deliberation. The
discussion included comments on the merits and risks of such an
investment. Historical references, current situations, as well as future
controversies were considered, and ultimately the vote was 12 to 3, in
favor.
Discussion notes/factors considered:
-LNC funds are not expended on ballot access for Nevada, as they are in
many other states...at amounts well above $10,000...and likely without
winning candidates in those fields.
-John Moore is an incumbent, in a state WITHOUT straight-ticket voting.
-John Moore took a risk by joining us, and we can honor that risk with our
support.
-John Moore has raised a substantial amount of money on his own, indicating
commitment.
-An elected Libertarian is a necessity.
-If precedent is set by this decision, it should be based on the specific
circumstances in this case.
Whitney
On Oct 23, 2016 3:28 PM, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> I would not have voted for this motion if the LNC had not contributed to
Moore's campaign. You are correct in that
> the LNC has no business interfering in the internal affairs of an
affiliate for any reason, but the contribution made it
> our business.
>
> I was not at the meeting where the contribution was approved so I didn't
hear the presentation in favor
> of it. Can a member who was present give a synopsis?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> Member at Large
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
> Indianapolis IN 46260
> 317-850-0726 <317-850-0726> Phone
> 317-582-1773 <317-582-1773> Fax
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you on the clarification on who's asking for the censure. I do
think it would hold a bit more weight if the affiliate was officially
asking. This body's interference in affiliate matters has caused problems
before.
>>
>> My greatest concern, after considering this for days, is the setting of
precedent. Who's to say that a future LNC might censure for something far
less; for something legitimately disputed in the party or within the
broader philosophy?
>>
>> I don't recall the LNC ever censuring a candidate. In 2008, we had an
issue with a candidate in KY. We took care of it our way, and we didn't
look to the LNC to do anything, though many others did ask the LNC to
intervene. In that scenario, we were able to block the candidate from the
ballot line and that was that.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-10-22 00:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>
>>> The goal is for Libertarian candidates to not completely fundamentally
betray basic principles in such a flagrant manner and sabotaging the
efforts in a specific issue of the Party (the affiliate in this case). The
Motion itself says what we hope - for the candidate to take Libertarian
stances in the future. If he cannot, then switching to an affiliation that
accurately reflects his principles is a choice he would have to make. That
isn't our goal. But it certainly isn't our goal to assist a betrayal of
the affiliate and principles.
>>>
>>> I do not know if we have before. And if there is censurable behaviour
to a candidate that we have spent members' funds supporting, then yes. That
is something we should consider doing. Once again, we are the "party of
principle" and if voting for a 750 million dollar crony capitalist subsidy
isn't a censurable violation then we have truly lost our way. Asking for a
bright line rule is once again appropos to my pornography analogy. There
are a host of factors, and we know it when we see it.
>>>
>>> The LPNV has spoken to the candidate. He has given a public
explanation. This is public accountability.
>>>
>>> The affiliate has not officially asked National to censure. Some LPNV
members have. As have members elsewhere.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would submit that prior to censure, a conversation might be in order
to get more information. We don't even have all of the facts. Here's what
we know:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We have a candidate who is an elected official, was approved by an
affiliate to run as an L, and to which the LNC gave money.
>>>> 2. The candidate voted for 2 tax increases, the latter of which is to
entice a franchise in a monopoly to come to his district.
>>>> 3. The candidate claims 60% of his constituents supported the latter
one.
>>>> 4. The affiliate that nominated him is angry, has censured the
candidate, and has asked National to censure as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, if the goal is to get Moore to switch to some other affiliation
or to Independent, then certainly censure would be a good start. But I
think it might be good to speak to the elected official first.
>>>>
>>>> And the question about "what's the line for this body?" is extremely
relevant. Has this body ever censured a candidate or elected
Libertarian before? Is this a practice we want this body to make more
regular?
>>>>
>>>> Again, I'm not in favor of this cronyist garbage, and after Cincinnati
signed a similarly-stupid deal with the Bengals, and tied revenue to an
increased local sales tax, I just avoid buying things in Cincinnati when
possible.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-21 23:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And I would distinguish greatly a state candidate from our national
candidate which was ratified and consented to by delegates at a national
convention. A state candidate is ratified by those delegates (in most
states and in normal circumstances which do not involve a mid-term Party
affiliation switch). In such a case I give great deference to the
affiliate that welcomed and championed. And once again, Nevada has made
their absolute displeasure and sense of betrayal clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find what if's and mining the subjunctives to be unhelpful
personally. I do not know what kind of transgression would warrant in a
"what if" situation. I would say yes, we should always be willing. Our
duty is not to any elected person but to the Party itself and the
principles for which we stand. This is a clear egregious violation which
is somewhat like what some say about "pornography" - I know it when I see
it. I would ask if someone commits to be a Libertarian and acts completely
against Libertarian principles and received money from the National
Committee of said Party is that committing fraud against the body? If the
constituents feel defrauded (particularly since they elected a Republican,
not a Libertarian) then it is up to them to deal with, not us. Our
standing and duty is to the LP and the members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't a minor issue. This was major with a capital M. And
Nevada has made clear how they feel about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The minute was have the "uncensurable" we are doomed. We are the
"Party of Principle" and we need to have the backbone to at some point say
enough is enough, particularly when we spent $10K of our members' money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm glad that the dilemma is understood. And you did bring up the
other question I had, after further consideration; would we, as a body, be
willing to censure an elected Libertarian President Johnson? If this is
the case, how bad would the transgression need to be before this body
rebukes its own first elected President?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We really need to help give our candidates and elected officials,
to the limited extent that they exist, be successful champions for liberty.
And by "we", I mean every person who says they're a libertarian. If we
can't go out and help convince other people's minds, then we're failing as
activists and supporters. IMO, the root problem here is that 60% number.
Why do 60% of the people in Moore's district support this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I further discussed this with a few others this afternoon and
evening, I had another thought. If someone is elected to represent the
people of his district and fails to do so, would that person be engaging in
fraud against the constituents?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every candidate and elected official has negatives. I personally
prefer to focus on a candidate's positives, rather than dwelling on their
negatives. If the negatives exceed the positives, then I start looking for
an alternate course of action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-10-21 16:05, Demarest, David P. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your honest and thoughtful devil's advocate response
regarding the proposed censure of John Moore. We can, however, view
Assemblyman Moore's two egregious votes as an golden opportunity for LNC
members to think outside the box to examine root causes and design short
and long term solutions to the difficult dilemma faced by all Libertarian
politicians. The dilemma is how to reconcile the dictates of one's
Libertarian conscience with the realities of our current political
environment that is rife with the cronyism necessary to get elected or
reelected. The choice is between voting your conscience at the risk of not
being reelected or violating your conscience to get reelected and live to
fight another day in office.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would submit that Moore's violation of his conscience to get
reelected makes him part of the problem of spiraling cronyism that is
inexorably destroying our way of life and accelerating our economy and
society down the path of destruction that history demonstrates is the
inevitable fate of all compulsory territorial governments. Most of us
support Gary Johnson in spite of specific misgivings because it is obvious
that Gary is so much better than the other choices and would undoubtedly
make things far better than the other candidates. If Johnson is elected,
however, we know that despite his honestly about his platform, many of his
decisions will give us heartburn. Our short-term act of censuring Moore
will send a clear and unambiguous message that statist actions by
Libertarian officials to save political seats are unacceptable violations
of conscience that will not be tolerated. The proposed censure of Moore
will serve as an educational message for all present and future Libertarian
officials including those who switch from other parties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Long-term solutions require that we understand that cronyism does
not fare well in the competitive context of the free-market. By contrast,
cronyism is aggressively fostered in our current compulsory authoritarian
majority rule system. We as Libertarians face an uphill battle if we choose
to rely solely on a top-down legislative authoritarian approach to rescue
us from the tsunami of cronyism that will swamp our ship of state if we do
not reverse course promptly and with a sense of urgency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The crushing curse of cronyism will not be reversed until we
change the context of government to minimize instead of fostering cronyism.
To get straight to the point, that change in context to discourage cronyism
will not occur until we achieve competitive governance and competitive
social services. I would further submit that we must supplement our
top-down legislative strategy with a robust, bottom-up entrepreneurial
peaceful freedom revolution fueled by peer-to-peer technology. Then and
only then will we create the political climate necessary to elect
Libertarian officials to all levels of government and establish the
environment of competitive governance and social services that is an
absolute prerequisite if we seriously intend to minimize cronyism and save
our way of life for future generations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL,
MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:50 PM
>>>>>>>> To: ken.moellman at lpky.org; lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: William Redpath; Demarest, David P.
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have enough cosponsors for a ballot. I will argue for it in
the ballot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was an LPNV who last broached this action
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with me - I believe it has the support of the aggrieved affiliate
- and members- who's money we spent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second vote was expressly against something the LPNV was
opposed to actively for years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a betrayal of the LPNV. And I certainly did not vote (and
I argued zealously) to support a candidate - out of many worthy candidates
- who would take such crony capitalist anti/libertarian power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please allow me to take the Devil's Advocate position, since I
probably won't have a vote that counts anyway. I realize that this
position is unlikely to be popular.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Politics and philosophy can be a tough balancing act. Certainly,
there are instances of this problem with our presidential ticket (bake the
cake, for example) and probably every other campaign out there (vaccination
debate, etc.). Elected officials, and indeed individuals, are faced with
tough decisions between philosophy and reality all the time. Perhaps the
most famous was Jefferson's opposition to slavery while also owning slaves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assemblyman Moore reported that a poll of the constituents of his
district showed that about 60% of the constituents supported the deal,
including the associated taxes. Certainly, there could and should have been
a coordinated effort by the opposition to stop this deal by educating the
public. Based on the level of support reported within Assemblyman Moore's
district, those efforts were obviously unsuccessful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even taking what was said above into account, I personally
think Assemblyman Moore's greatest failing in this situation came was in
how he supported the deal. A statement about "While I personally do not
support this deal, I voted in favor because my constituents wanted me to do
so" could have been a very good moment. It would have provided an
opportunity to educate the public about the negatives of the deal and
hopefully prevent this type of situation from happening the next time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I ask these questions: Do you think that what John Moore did
was driven by philosophy, or by politics? Do you believe that John Moore
wanted higher taxes? As an elected representative, should he represent the
people of his district, or ignore those people in favor of his own
philosophy? Is it more wise to go against the constituency, especially
this close to election day, or is it more wise to fight another day when
your "army" is more organized and can help you win the day?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just something to think about. I'm not pleased at the idea of yet
another billionaire getting a taxpayer-funded stadium and I don't believe
they create enough economic activity to offset the costs. At least the
team name is appropriate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>>>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016-10-21 09:27, William Redpath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will also co-sponsor, as I was opposed to the $10,000 motion at
the LNC meeting in July 2016. Bill Redpath
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10/20/16, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request
for co-sponsors
>>>>>>>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>> Cc: david.demarest at firstdata.com
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 9:20 PM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
>>>>>>>>> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
>>>>>>>>> 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
>>>>>>>>> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11
>>>>>>>>> 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> li.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> div.yiv9175739729MsoNormal
>>>>>>>>> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 a:link, #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlink
>>>>>>>>> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed
>>>>>>>>> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>> div.yiv9175739729msonormal0
>>>>>>>>> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729
>>>>>>>>>
span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m-7093137337385855135gmail-s1
>>>>>>>>> {}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im
>>>>>>>>> {}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20
>>>>>>>>> {color:windowtext;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault
>>>>>>>>> {}
>>>>>>>>> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1
>>>>>>>>> {}
>>>>>>>>> #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your
>>>>>>>>> motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the
>>>>>>>>> $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore's
>>>>>>>>> two votes were egregious. Thoughts? Celebrate Life, Set the
Bar High
>>>>>>>>> and LIVE FREE! The Invisible Hand of
>>>>>>>>> Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
>>>>>>>>> Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpne.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=ZPO-4J67vwV6ByD7vb8knOZpRMrndul0DsYJwqVwT_0&e=>
>>>>>>>>> secretary at lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__centurylink.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=37Lwyhxfp0qUBXRvtP01RB9aT0NWx-ASCm0rjSNqLTk&e=>
>>>>>>>>> david.demarest at firstdata.com
>>>>>>>>> Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207 From:
Lnc-business
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday,
>>>>>>>>> October 20, 2016 7:45 PM
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject:
>>>>>>>>> [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
>>>>>>>>> co-sponsors
>>>>>>>>> Multiple
>>>>>>>>> party members including region 1 members have acted that the
>>>>>>>>> LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally,
>>>>>>>>> I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to
>>>>>>>>> handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this
>>>>>>>>> case, we spent National Party member's direct monies,
>>>>>>>>> and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone
>>>>>>>>> who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my
>>>>>>>>> responsibility to address this once members raised a
>>>>>>>>> concern:
>>>>>>>>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John
>>>>>>>>> Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to
>>>>>>>>> the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past
>>>>>>>>> month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days
>>>>>>>>> to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to
>>>>>>>>> support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian
>>>>>>>>> Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully
>>>>>>>>> opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to
>>>>>>>>> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense
>>>>>>>>> of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in
>>>>>>>>> motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our
>>>>>>>>> state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to
>>>>>>>>> censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes;
>>>>>>>>> and Whereas we wish to convey a strong
>>>>>>>>> message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting
>>>>>>>>> legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who
>>>>>>>>> decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of
>>>>>>>>> conscience, we do not welcome them if they
>>>>>>>>> intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and
>>>>>>>>> acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved
that the
>>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman
>>>>>>>>> Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases,
>>>>>>>>> requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution
>>>>>>>>> which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes
>>>>>>>>> him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held
>>>>>>>>> by members of the political party with which he has chosen
>>>>>>>>> to affiliate if he intends to remain a
>>>>>>>>> Libertarian.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> Liberty,Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>>> HarlosRegion 1 Representative,
>>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
>>>>>>>>> Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>>>>> Harlos at LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of
>>>>>>>>> ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party
>>>>>>>>> Radical Caucus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listinfo_lnc-2Dbusiness-5Fhq.lp.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=wWePA5Va1fCm0ttiTeJdIi3OtI4h0gCUBlEZrJ7f0XI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listinfo_lnc-2Dbusiness-5Fhq.lp.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=wWePA5Va1fCm0ttiTeJdIi3OtI4h0gCUBlEZrJ7f0XI&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=3CyYsd35iffGrxsilfZ1czCR0oVMAVvw5l_WxZNzv_Y&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=kihfP26osC5fZJDyE0H_cy-uN_zGxmLOgr0D6_xQQg0&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The information in this message may be proprietary and/or
confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and
deleting it from your computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
<http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
<http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161023/c21a91ed/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list