[Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Sun Aug 6 23:01:45 EDT 2017

Having the LNC have the power to not recognize groups that by their nature
are critical is a terrible idea.  Yes of course we can say there are
rules.  There are rules about the autonomy of affiliates too and many feel
that was breached in Oregon.

I will not support the LNC having that power.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:57 PM Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> I would like to suggest a counter-proposal.
>
> Perhaps, instead of seeking to stop some groups, we could instead adopt a
> policy on how to become an officially recognized caucus in the LP.  So we
> would have the ability to have separation from unrecognized cauci, and
> embracing of our recognized cauci.
>
> Creating such a system wouldn't be difficult. The rules and standards
> should be straight-forward enough, and the recognition can be terminated by
> either party at either time.  Recognition would be for specific time
> periods, and (obviously) renewable at the end of those time periods.
>
> Advantages: It's completely libertarian; we're choosing who to be
> associated with.  It also removes the question of IP from the scenario,
> which divides libertarians.
>
> I've also seen our members; the majority of them I would prefer to see
> only when clothed. But if they're libertarians who want to run around
> naked, then so be it.  Maybe the "two layers" caucus will pop up to counter
> them.
>
> ken
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> First - the sure way to make sure there are innumerable contraband memes
>> is to insinuate legal action akin to Hillary declaring war on an internet
>> frog,
>>
>> From a Region 1 member:
>>
>> To the members of the LNC:
>>
>> I am writing today to express my opposition to the suggestion that the
>> LNC begin sending cease and desist orders for use of the Libertarian Party
>> or logo for groups not officially recognized by the LNC.
>>
>> The precedent that would be set would have consequences far reaching and
>> would drive members away from association with the party. This would
>> include me, as I have worked hard establishing a county affiliate, a member
>> of a caucus, and as a candidate seeking the Libertarian nomination, all
>> three of which would qualify me or my association to have legal action set
>> against us.
>>
>> 1. Candidates are not recognized by the Libertarian Party until after
>> nomination. The bylaw and logo suggestion put forth by Secretary Alicia
>> Mattson that is being cited [5.1] would prevent someone like me, running a
>> highly effective campaign, from using the logo branding, name Libertarian
>> Party, etc. until nominated about 6 months from the General Election.
>>
>> This affects the branding image that is placed in voters' minds, and to
>> effectively run a statewide or federal race, the candidate and their team
>> would require one year to 18 months before the General to be effective in
>> their efforts.
>>
>> 2. Non-partisan candidates who are Libertarians would not be able to run
>> with the LP branding, because they are non nominated by parties. Some state
>> laws actually don't allow for candidates to seek a party nomination for
>> some races. However, my using things like the Eagle Torch, it fortifies a
>> positive image of the Libertarian Party as people start to affiliate that
>> image with one of action and good ideas.
>>
>> 3. County affiliates are not mentioned in the Bylaws, only states. This
>> means that affiliates, like the one I chair, would fall subject to this
>> enforcement action. This measure would centralize power and put the hard
>> work of our volunteers as a waste.
>>
>> For the last two years I have Chaired the Libertarian Party of Weber
>> County. We have done numerous outreach events and expanded dues paying
>> members to the party at the state and national levels. We have advocated on
>> behalf of Libertarian candidates, in many cases, paying for booth fees at
>> events and inviting them to table with us to ensure they get exposure in
>> the public
>>
>> We are also recognized as one of the biggest pushing forces in a ballot
>> initiative to have Medical cannabis on the ballot in 2018, including being
>> a co-sponsor of a debate in Weber County for voters to hear the pros and
>> cons. We help select the person to speak on the pro side, are putting some
>> of our own funds forward to assist in it being aired, and are helping with
>> the advertising.
>>
>> Having the catch all of not being recognized by you, puts us at risk with
>> all our efforts. Grassroots is the name of the game in politics to motivate
>> a dedicated base. As long as I am Chair, I will never ask permission from
>> anyone to advocate for liberty.
>>
>> 4. All a caucus is, is a group of members (members of the Libertarian
>> Party), who advocate issues that are acceptable by the the Statement of
>> Principles. The example given by Alicia Mattson as one that must be shut
>> down is the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus. So I ask you: who was harmed?
>> If they advocate that people not be incarcerated for being nude, or
>> "freeing the nipple" for women, where is the crime?
>>
>> While I am not personally a member of this specific caucus, they are a
>> specific issue focus group in the Libertarian Party. As they are members,
>> and there is no violation of the Statement of Principles, there is no cause
>> to go after them other than the fact that the Secretary finds this specific
>> group distasteful.
>>
>> I would rather explain to voters why it is important for the most extreme
>> to exist than have a group silenced, censured, or sued.
>>
>> 5. How can the Libertarian Party simultaneously advocate against groups
>> like Big Pharma in the use of the IP while going after their own membership
>> for IP? Ask yourselves that before you vote. If you support the measure of
>> Secretary Mattson, you are a hypocrite and will be called out for it.
>>
>> Remember that each one of you were elected by the body of the Libertarian
>> Party delegates, myself included. If you are going to take the
>> authoritarian route, you will be fought and a group inclined to advocating
>> liberty is going to defeat any one who pushes against us. We seek a world
>> free in our lifetime, not a world where we cannot advocate for like-minded
>> ideas using branding that is readily available for download. This helps the
>> LP, it does not harm it.
>>
>> In Liberty,
>> Craig Bowden
>> 2016 National Delegate
>> Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Weber County
>> Candidate for US Senate
>> PROUD member of the Radical Caucus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:02 PM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I sent that on accident during a pitstop when I stuck the phone in my
>>> pocket. It might have been a little Freudian.  It sums up what I think we
>>> need be saying relative to this subject.
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 6, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In light of this announcement, and I want to get this on the record
>>> before I speak, I notified the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus that I
>>> resign from my Board position in that group effective immediately  as this
>>> issue could cause an appearance of a conflict of interest as they may need
>>> to vote on any issue regarding this.  So my voting position in my disclosed
>>> conflicts in that group can be removed, I remain an active dues-paying
>>> member but have no vote in the governance. I remain the "owner" (as much as
>>> Facebook groups can be owned) of the discussion group Libertarian Party USA
>>> (Unofficial).  There are various inactive groups and pages I may "own" that
>>> also contain the name, but they are dormant.
>>>
>>> Now that that is out of the way.
>>>
>>> IMHO this is a complete waste of our time and unenforceable.  I will not
>>> vote to spend member money on this.  Here are some reasons:
>>>
>>> While we are stuck in the statist system we have, claiming ownership
>>> over "words" - words that existed in a political context way before we were
>>> even formed is an unethical use of state force.
>>>
>>> There are records of groups doing this for decades - scattered all over
>>> the internet.  Selective enforcement waives that right and can raise the
>>> suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that this is a politically motivated move.
>>> And if we don't ferret out every single use and are selectively doing so
>>> (such as the nudist group above) it definitely will be seen as political
>>> and nannying.
>>>
>>> I will have to do research on this, but I remember a kerfuffle a while
>>> ago about the "trade mark" not being registered until after the horse was
>>> way out of the barn.  This came up in Colorado when we were discussing the
>>> implication of the Oregon issue and interference in the autonomy of
>>> affiliates of whether the LPCO had an independent right to its name.
>>>
>>> So we go after candidates now too?  Which are using the logo before even
>>> being an official nominee?  Really?  That's a great way to keep our logo
>>> from being spread.
>>>
>>> No bueno.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oliver Hall's attention is requested for this email:
>>>>
>>>> LP Bylaws, Article 5.1, "No person, group or organization may use the
>>>> name "Libertarian Party" or any confusingly similar designation except the
>>>> Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status
>>>> or as otherwise provided in these bylaws."
>>>>
>>>> This provides a very narrow scope for use of our party name.  Yet one
>>>> only has to search on Facebook for the name "Libertarian Party", and you
>>>> will find many groups that are not the national party, and are not an
>>>> affiliate of the national party, but they use our party name to increase
>>>> their profile in search results, build their own following, and use the
>>>> group for their own purposes.
>>>>
>>>> One such example can be found here:  (fair warning - this page contains
>>>> varying degrees of nudity)
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/233590827023815/
>>>>
>>>> We also have a trademark on the name "Libertarian Party".  My
>>>> understanding of intellectual property law is that we need to actively
>>>> defend our right to the name or else over time we diminish our ability to
>>>> successfully defend it.
>>>>
>>>> Our bylaws don't mention the logo, but am I correct to presume that we
>>>> have also staked out a legal claim to our past and present logos?
>>>>
>>>> I also see other groups (not our affiliates) using our logo in their
>>>> memes, incorporated into their own logos, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Some of these could potentially be rectified by merely asking the
>>>> groups to cease using our name and/or logo.  Others might need to receive
>>>> cease-and-desist letters from our attorney.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to discuss this at our upcoming LNC meeting.  Perhaps it makes
>>>> sense to just make it part of the Special Counsel agenda item, since we'll
>>>> likely want to chat with Mr. Hall about it.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> *We defend your rights*
>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170807/e2b17a07/attachment-0002.html>