[Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Oct 23 23:04:11 EDT 2016


There has been such talk.  Primarily by me and Joshua.  And I will not vote
for or support an opaque committee.  I want this committee, but this
institutional fondness for opacity must be overcome as a condition for my
support.  Of course, I am but one person, but I am laying my cards on the
table.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

>
> There has been talk of creating a Candidate Support Committee.  I would
> suggest that this be a task given to that Committee in future elections.
> They will be working directly with candidates. They will have the best idea
> of which candidates qualify as both a serious candidate and a "good"
> Libertarian.
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-23 22:20, David Demarest wrote:
>
> How is candidate endorsement and vetting for endorsement handled by the
> LNC? Does the LNC need a candidate endorsement committee?
>
>
>
> The LP Radical Caucus has a strong candidate endorsement committee and
> process. All candidates requesting LPRC endorsement and campaign
> contributions must pass muster with the endorsement committee before their
> request is presented to the board where they must receive 100% approval. It
> is a stringent process and a responsibility that is taken very seriously.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *The Invisible Hand of Rational Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword
> of Government!*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Ken Moellman
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2016 8:37 PM
> *To:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* William Redpath <wredpath2 at yahoo.com>; Demarest, David P. <
> David.Demarest at firstdata.com>; lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
> co-sponsors
>
>
>
>
>
> I do think that larger the lesson here is that this body, in present and
> future forms, should do a better job of vetting where money is given. I
> think the Candidate Support Committee should be tasked with the creation of
> a qualifying checklist for vetting and recommending financial support for
> certain races. I think the idea of a candidate contract as a prerequisite
> for financial support from the LNC is reasonable (it even provides the
> candidates with some cover when the political pressure gets really high).
>
>
>
> I try not to dwell on the failures of the past, but on how to avoid them
> in the future.  Perform root cause analysis and implement procedures on how
> to avoid the problem in the future.  Having everyone get together and scold
> someone for a failure is not productive, nor is it conducive to a positive
> environment.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-23 20:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> A future tyrantatarian LNC will do what it wants anyways.  And we gave
> money to this campaign.  This is not at all a grey area and thus the
> analogies not even remotely relevant.
>
>
>
> The precedent that is being set now is that the LNC will never give money
> to another candidate again if we do not retain this right if we want to
> talk precedents.
>
>
>
> Living in a spirit of fear is the surest way to cripple and ideological
> movement.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I can point to specific members in the party who would claim:
>
>
>
> 1A. Anyone who supports mandatory GMO labeling isn't libertarian.
>
> 1B. Anyone who rejects GMO mandatory labeling isn't libertarian.
>
>
>
> 2A. Anyone who supports mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian.
>
> 2B. Anyone who rejects mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian.
>
>
>
> 3A. Anyone who supports keeping abortion legal isn't libertarian.
>
> 3B. Anyone who supports making abortion illegal isn't libertarian.
>
>
>
> Some of these members find these issues to be single-issue "disqualifiers"
> for being a libertarian.  And certainly others exist.
>
>
>
> Now, this case isn't as controversial; I'm not sure I know any
> libertarians who are pleased about a $750M project. But I fear that the LNC
> censuring a candidate is opening Pandora's Box. Think about 10 years from
> now, when some faction that's hot-and-bothered about one of these divisive
> issues listed above gets a majority on the LNC and decides to start
> censuring people under the precedent.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-23 19:01, Starchild wrote:
>
> I agree that the precedent we set here is a matter of concern. The
> precedent I'm concerned about is the possibility of a Libertarian
> officeholder casting votes like the ones in question and not facing serious
> repercussions from the party.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                    ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>
>                                   @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> I doubt NV would not support the censure.  A Nevada board member asked me.
>
>
>
> This is not blanket precedent.  We have money and it is egregious and we
> can't not do the right thing because we fear a tyrantatarian future LNC.
>
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016, 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
> <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 <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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161023/8e5227cc/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list