[Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Mon Aug 7 16:15:23 EDT 2017

===Again, this PAC business is a complete red herring.===

Yes because the joke FB group of the Nudist Caucus is OBVIOUSLY more
important than TWO LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGONS.

===It is based on a false narrative, created by the unwillingness of the
state and this body (despite decisions of its EC) to stand up to former
officers who, without any basis in reality other than a set of "bylaws"
never properly adopted, decided to pretend to be the leadership of their
party, and demanded that the LNC recognize them as such.  It has absolutely
nothing to do with the point at hand: should or should not this party
defend its intellectual property?  If the answer is yes, then you determine
who is using it without permission.  The decision shouldn't be based on who
will be found to have used it improperly.==

And the PAC is using it without permission.  I am not re-arguing the Oregon
case because my position has never been whether or not the interpretation
or the decision of the LNC was correct - My position is that the LNC had no
business to make it.  That is what most people's position is.  So if we are
going to talk about false narratives, let's stop confusing the issue.

==To be honest, I feel rather silly typing that final sentence.  For my
part, I hope my fellow board members recognize the absurdity of simply
walking away from our property or failing to police our trademarks.==  I

The absurdity and absolute ridiculousness of using a FB joke group that is
poking fun of the LNC as the political target is apparent. And this hasn't
been enforced in 16 years.  The elephant in the room has been openly
publishing things using that since 2006, and prior iterations since the
late 1970s.

==It is difficult for me to believe I'm in a conversation about this topic,
or that anyone can lob the attacks I've seen at this most basic fiduciary
responsibility.  We all talk a good game about stewardship, and I think
this is a much larger stewardship issue than, e.g., meeting in a meeting
room instead of a Dennys.==

It potentially is.  Let me lay out why some people are upset for those
following this:

It is certainly the job of any LNC member to bring up concerns that
potentially affect assets. That is the job. Even if we don't like the
statist implications - just like it was a legitimate debate whether or not
we would take federal funding. If I were concerned, I would bring it up.

But that is only telling part of the story - why are people upset?

Well let's say that for decades Organization A has been in a pendulum swing
between different groups. During this time, Organization A has let slide
hundreds of uses of the name "Organization A" - one example going back
decades. Some people from Group C really embarrassed some in Organization A
at a big event, but the body never voted to expel or take any action. What
the person did wasn't against core beliefs, was just in bad taste or
inappropriately used a forum- that person happens to be the poster-person
for Group C. There is also Group D that didn't do that, but some in
Organization A don't like them very much either.

Group C starts a few action groups as they would like to change
Organization A and used their name in the title - which could be seen as a
threat to the people presently in charge of A or an act of revenge. Group D
had been doing this in the open over a long period of time. Someone in A
uses one of those groups as an example of where they might want to take
legal action for an activity that Organization A was well aware of for
years and years and would have the added benefit of indirectly threatening
Group D without even having to name them.

The way this should have been handled is by not singling anyone out. And
for the love of God, not singling out your particular political
opponents.===

==As for the Party name, the way I read it, the bylaw is talking about
using in the sense of 'identifying as,' as in 'I am speaking for the LP'
'This group is the LP,' etc.  Certainly it doesn't mean referring to,
talking about, and so on. ==

I agree with you.  And the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus nor any others
is doing that YET THAT IS WHO WAS SINGLED OUT.

-Caryn  Ann

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:01 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
wrote:

> How pervasive is the alleged IP and branding fraud that this discussion is
> focused on? Is this a solution looking for a problem?
>
> Frankly, I am more concerned about a myopic authoritarian police-state
> mentality that could easily distract us from the much more important big
> picture ideological root-cause analysis that will pave the way to the
> innovative practical solutions and messaging technique strategy
> enhancements that are necessary to streamline our pursuit of freedom and
> accomplish our Libertarian mission of returning social services back into
> the private sector where they belong within our lifetimes before it is too
> late.
>
> Where's the 'fraud' beef? What is the relative priority of this
> distraction?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> On Aug 7, 2017 1:40 PM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Again, this PAC business is a complete red herring.  It is based on a
>> false narrative, created by the unwillingness of the state and this body
>> (despite decisions of its EC) to stand up to former officers who, without
>> any basis in reality other than a set of "bylaws" never properly adopted,
>> decided to pretend to be the leadership of their party, and demanded that
>> the LNC recognize them as such.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the
>> point at hand: should or should not this party defend its intellectual
>> property?  If the answer is yes, then you determine who is using it without
>> permission.  The decision shouldn't be based on who will be found to have
>> used it improperly.
>>
>> To be honest, I feel rather silly typing that final sentence.  For my
>> part, I hope my fellow board members recognize the absurdity of simply
>> walking away from our property or failing to police our trademarks.  It is
>> difficult for me to believe I'm in a conversation about this topic, or that
>> anyone can lob the attacks I've seen at this most basic fiduciary
>> responsibility.  We all talk a good game about stewardship, and I think
>> this is a much larger stewardship issue than, e.g., meeting in a meeting
>> room instead of a Dennys.
>>
>> It's an interesting move, to be sure, to cite the bylaw while arguing we
>> should completely ignore it.  Nonetheless, I think what I've said is in
>> line with the bylaw.  "The party or an organization to which the Party
>> grants affiliate status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws."  These
>> bylaws say that the LNC may freely delegate its powers.  The Policy Manual
>> allows for the use of Party resources (such as the logo, which is my
>> concern here) when permission is given by the state chair.
>>
>> As for the Party name, the way I read it, the bylaw is talking about
>> using in the sense of 'identifying as,' as in 'I am speaking for the LP'
>> 'This group is the LP,' etc.  Certainly it doesn't mean referring to,
>> talking about, and so on.  A candidate saying "I am seeking the Libertarian
>> nomination," is not using it in that sense.  A candidate saying "I am the
>> Libertarian candidate," when the nomination is contested, is doing so.  It
>> seems entirely reasonable to tell people not to do the latter.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oregon certainly does.  There is a PAC using our name.
>>>
>>> When I see that name at the top of the target list rather than a silly
>>> Facebook group - who is promoting our values- then I will cease to think
>>> that this more than political maneuvering.
>>>
>>> The utter foolishness of this tact astounds me.  And I moderate a
>>> libertarian discussion group.  I thought nothing could astound me.
>>>
>>> I'm sure donors will LOVE our efforts going to attack our own activists
>>> rather than say, candidate support or ballot access.
>>>
>>> And it's unenforceable.
>>>
>>> And this is going to be a fun convention in a way we won't like.  I
>>> don't think we could think of a worse way to provoke antics than actually
>>> targeting the Nudity Caucus.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:07 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am skeptical on IP.  Nonetheless, I believe that this board is not an
>>>> ideological sounding chamber, but a governing board, and takes its
>>>> fiduciary responsibilities in the real world, not our ideology.  I do not
>>>> think we're fulfilling our responsibilities if we acquire IP and then fail
>>>> to defend it.  In the case of purchased IP such as our logo, that amounts
>>>> to giving away money.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding pre-nomination candidates: Sure, we want to see our logo
>>>> being made visible far and wide.  So does, say, Cabot Cheeses.  But it
>>>> doesn't follow that Cabot will be thankful if some other cheese company
>>>> throws their logo onto their product.  The logo doesn't exist just to be
>>>> seen, but to function as a form of imprimatur.  To allow pre-nomination
>>>> candidates to use it (other than when the state affiliate has said they
>>>> can, which I am fine with) is to allow people to represent themselves as
>>>> being approved by us, with absolutely no process.
>>>>
>>>> The same holds for groups.  It is was mentioned somewhere in this
>>>> thread that, well, people can do research and see if the group actually
>>>> speaks for this party.  I disagree entirely.  No good advertisement rests
>>>> on the viewer doing further research, and people who are offended by the
>>>> group seeming to speak for us (such as the Augustus Invictus / Hoppe
>>>> Caucus) are not going to do further research - they're just going to
>>>> conclude they don't like us, and tell all their friends the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> RE:  Oregon:  Suffice it to say I disagree with just about everything
>>>> that's been said on the topic on this thread, but I'm also not sure it's
>>>> relevant anyway.  The fight in Oregon is over who the leadership is of the
>>>> affiliate, not who the affiliate is, and therefore I think it's a bit off
>>>> the point to refer to the PAC as relevant here.  The point remains, though
>>>> - whoever the leadership is, presumably they will decide to whom they grant
>>>> permission to use our IP.  All sides should agree, I would think, that
>>>> whoever is not the leadership (I am sure I know who that is, but seem to
>>>> have failed to convince this board) should not be able to give out
>>>> permission to use our IP.  I don't think the Oregon question, therefore,
>>>> has anything at all to do with how this matter should be decided.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:13 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170807/f448522c/attachment-0002.html>