[Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 13:47:54 EDT 2016
As I said, I'm not ready to commit myself on the structure of the committee
until I have a better grasp on what I would like it to do. If I think its
discussions will be primarily strategic, I will not want to require it do
that in public. I envision the committee carrying out strategic directions
from the LNC; it's still an open question in my mind where the line between
the two will sit. One thought that occurred to me this morning, which I
had not thought of before, is the fact that the LNC will have to adopt its
strategic directions to the committee in open session since our rules
prohibit us from making decisions in executive session. I haven't figured
out how to handle that yet.
As I indicated before, what matters to me most on transparency is making
sure that members have the ability to judge the LNC and its members.
Committee appointees are not subject to a vote of the general membership
and so I see less value there. This is, on the other hand, why it is
important to me that (non-bylaws-mandated) committees, as much as possible,
execute plans constructed by the LNC - so that big-picture items,
high-level strategy, etc., are made by those who can be judged and
reelected or not. I believe in empowered committees, but within the
bounds, primarily, of tactics, with strategic direction coming from the LNC.
Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:
> I highly suggest you have protections for transparency in place in this
> committee or it is a nightmare waiting to happen.
>
> And though others *may* place less importance on member sentiment than I
> seem to - an opaque Committe will deeply disturb an active constituency and
> in my own opinion - violate hard won member rights.
>
> It truly bothers me to say that the institutional reassertion of
> reluctance to transparency, institutional bias to not say anything strong
> or fiercely principled, and the institutional inertia in general is making
> me feel like the only sane course of action is to be Dr. No. and I hate to
> see that because it serves nothing to move things forward - but does serve
> to keep things at least not arguably worse off.
>
> This is a new age - one of Wikileaks and millennials who do not trust or
> like hierarchal secrecy.
>
> On Monday, October 24, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Forwarded on behalf of David Demarest.
>>
>> I will have more to write on this topic later, but for now, let me note
>> that I plan to have a motion to introduce in December. I don't see any
>> rush at this point to do it by email ballot. When I have drafted it, I
>> will distribute my proposal for comment.
>>
>> I'll state ahead of time that my support for such a committee is not
>> conditioned on any other policies being passed, and I do not fully agree
>> with the comments about transparency for this particular committee either,
>> at least, at the moment. Once I've thought through the committee question
>> more fully, I'll have a more fully developed position on how it should
>> operate.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest at firstdata.com>
>> Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
>> co-sponsors
>> To: "lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org" <IMCEAMAILTO-lnc-business-boun
>> ces+40hq+2Elp+2Eorg at firstdata.com>
>> Cc: "Cari L. Garcia (GarciaCL at C-IV.org)" <GarciaCL at c-iv.org>, "
>> ken.moellman at lpky.org" <ken.moellman at lpky.org>, "Starchild (
>> sfdreamer at earthlink.net)" <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>, "William Redpath (
>> wredpath2 at yahoo.com)" <wredpath2 at yahoo.com>, "planning4liberty at gmail.com"
>> <planning4liberty at gmail.com>, "chair at lp.org" <chair at lp.org>, "
>> vicechair at lp.org" <vicechair at lp.org>, "secretary at lp.org" <
>> secretary at lp.org>, "Demarest, David P." <David.Demarest at firstdata.com>,
>> David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
>>
>>
>> A Candidate Support Committee might encompass the following functions,
>> many of which are overlapping:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Candidate recruitment
>>
>> 2. Candidate vetting for endorsement
>>
>> 3. Candidate endorsement
>>
>> 4. Endorsed candidate training
>>
>> 5. Endorsed candidate campaign financial contributions
>>
>> 6. Endorsed candidate logistical support
>>
>> 7. Endorsed candidate promotional support
>>
>> 8. Endorsed candidate moral support
>>
>>
>>
>> In the wake of Assemblyman Moore’s votes, the question from my
>> perspective is NOT whether we need such a committee. My question is whether
>> or not the significant responsibilities and workload suggest that two
>> committees might be warranted. I recognize, however, that separation of the
>> overlapping tasks might be more trouble than it is worth. It makes more
>> sense to start with just one committee, see how that works out and expand
>> to two committees if necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would cosponsor a motion to create an LNC Candidate Support Committee
>> (CSC) with the proviso that the motion to create the committee address
>> Caryn’s transparency concerns and her objections to creating an opaque
>> committee. I would be glad to help those who are expert in the wording of
>> motions develop such a motion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> *The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now*
>>
>>
>>
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2016 10:04 PM
>> *To:* Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>> *Cc:* David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>; lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
>> William Redpath <wredpath2 at yahoo.com>; Demarest, David P. <
>> David.Demarest at firstdata.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
>> co-sponsors
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>> *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-m6375615
>> 45514884297m-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
>>
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=sFlBSNJ5YFQLbBKiYgsK710B1u0bKPZMBnBXmPKf97U&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=Dsq0GlrCsMNzgLxjh8U9oFjceY5Hdkt3hubPo2otzcM&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=sFlBSNJ5YFQLbBKiYgsK710B1u0bKPZMBnBXmPKf97U&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=Dsq0GlrCsMNzgLxjh8U9oFjceY5Hdkt3hubPo2otzcM&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=sFlBSNJ5YFQLbBKiYgsK710B1u0bKPZMBnBXmPKf97U&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=Dsq0GlrCsMNzgLxjh8U9oFjceY5Hdkt3hubPo2otzcM&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=sFlBSNJ5YFQLbBKiYgsK710B1u0bKPZMBnBXmPKf97U&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=Dsq0GlrCsMNzgLxjh8U9oFjceY5Hdkt3hubPo2otzcM&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=SA5Vn7SCygjLg7JTnM7cxeGxFkp3vWWMy1n4GMHg-s8&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=cCFr4Csdt-oYijwqme17FxwM3RWxW6xmElqiEi0S-0U&s=SA5Vn7SCygjLg7JTnM7cxeGxFkp3vWWMy1n4GMHg-s8&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *In Liberty,*
>>
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at 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/20161024/c583e24f/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list