[Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
john.phillips at lp.org
john.phillips at lp.org
Sat Jul 21 09:10:43 EDT 2018
Elizabeth, by all means, represent what you feel is the will of your region, just as I am doing.
The only part of my reply specifically directed at you was the first 2 paragraphs, which only addressed your statement about the legalities.
*for those tired of reading on this subject, it is about to get TLDR, skip to the end or just skip if you like*
Having said that, I did receive several responses echoing your statement regarding those legality/rules issues. However, those same replies also expressed dissatisfaction in the results. They responded that while those MAY represent the rules, they could see multiple interpretations. Most importantly it was unanimously and unambiguously expressed that having NO JC was never anyone's intent or desire, and that needed to be fixed somehow.
I also feel compelled to point out that those same thoughts have been echoed to me from Libertarian friends across the country, including a large number in your region where I have many friends and family.
While this response has not been unanimous, it has been far more than those who support the rules saying no JC, and again most importantly even those who agree with that interpretation follow up with that not being their intent or desire. The ones I reached out to were all delegates, and I received lots of voluntary input from others.
I even agree that is a possible interpretation of the rules. 100% correct that on the surface the rules can be read that way. However, I also point out we are way beyond those rules as there are: A) other interpretationsB) the very real interpretation that we also have to take into account that those rules never took this situation into accountC) having no JC is most definitely a violation of the SPIRIT and intent of those rules abd the people who drafted them.D) again, we are Libertarians and being able to recognize rules and laws that failed, then do something about it is who we are! Or at least supposed to be.
The intent and desire to have a JC has been close to unanimous, excepting a few hardcore anarchists who would vote NOTA on almost everything. As has the desire to get it done and move on. The only debate has been method. The largest # I have seen has supported some wording or other of taking top 7 with or without LNC approval.
A smaller # tho still significant likes an email ballot (tho very few want multiple rounds to reach a majority as per Ms Harlos' suggestion, most want just one round with take top 7 or no JC as the options). Most from region 1.
The no JC at all # does exist, mostly from 8, 5, and 3.
A very large percentage want us to just shut up and let it ride with the JC's recommendation/decision. From all over.
Did I poll every delegate? No, but well over 400 directly or watching their interactions on the subject.
So all that being TLDR. I stand by my stance, not just in my region, but nationally. I will accept the JC that has formed (however you want to phrase it coming about) and abide by their rulings.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Elizabeth Van HornDate: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 11:11 PMTo: Richard Longstreth;Cc: lnc-business at hq.lp.org;john.phillips at lp.org;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
I'd replied to John Phillips, he's the Region 6 rep.
Also, I've already stated my position. I'd wanted to have the LNC approve the top seven, I co-sponsored that motion. Only, when took the discussion to my region, multiple members, including officers, state chairs, VCs, etc, of Region 3 were adamant that under our bylaws there's no JC, and no way to get one. Me stating this on the LNC email list is just that, me stating what my region has said, and wants.
I've no idea why you're making comments about "do not turn this personal"?? I've said nothing personal. Don't project onto me.
What I have done is point out that another regional rep isn't speaking for my region.
As for my reply to the LNC Secretary, the same. An officer has a particular role, otherwise, they have one vote, same as anyone on the LNC. The LNC secretary asked people to confer with the registered parliamentarian, and I have, and I've also read his views on this subject. I went through the bylaws carefully, and got feedback from an officer in my own state affiliate, officers from the other state affiliates in my region, etc. My statements are the result of listening to the members in my region. I've done due diligence on this issue. I've not going to take the time to listen to my region, and then ignore them.
My representation and advocacy is for my region.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-07-20 18:10, Richard Longstreth wrote:
My Region says that the Top 7 should be and we should move on. We cannot simply "You do your region, and I'll do mine."
First off, the person you said that to is an Officer. Therefore, her Region in is the entirety of membership and she IS expressing her thoughts from her 'region'. Your words give off the air of flippancy and are borderline offensive to me as one whom the comments were not directed toward. This is not how we should be interacting as officers and certainly not a way to advance the Party. We need to work together, not have an attitude of every region for themselves.
Secondly, there is a difference between our Regions, EVH. Mine says that the Top 7 are the JC yours says that we don't have a JC. Both situations cannot exist simultaneously and this NEEDS to be resolved and finalized for all members. I cannot tell my states that a JC exists for Region 1 but not for Region 3; that is absurd.
Finally, I have dropped this discussion if we acknowledge that the JC exists and is the Top 7 - something I abstained from orginally, but see as the only logical solution going forward. If not, we need to discuss this further which is the will of neither of our regions or that of the general membership. Most want to move on from the issue. The LNC as a body did not approve the Top 7. The former JC came up with a solution and that is to put the Top 7 in place. If we, as an LNC or Regional Representative do not acknowledge that solution we are creating a deep divide in the Party.
Thoughts? Please do not turn this personal. I want to work with you to find a resolution that suits all parties involved.
Richard
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I was in favor of the LNC approving the top seven JC candidates. But,
my region isn't, and leadership has let me know that they think there's
no JC.
I'm not sure what you're going on about. I'm not arguing. Nor, am I
doing anything, other than stating what my region thinks.
You do your region, and I'll do mine.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
[1]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On 2018-07-20 13:26, john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
Shrug. If I wanted to take it to a court of law I would have a 50/50
shot imho, and that of the 8 lawyers I asked to look at it. Some of
them thought they could win maybe 70%.
So i would say the argument for them being the JC is as good as the
argument against.
However, the vast majority seem to want them from what I see, so I fail
to see the issue that people keep making of this. Just accept it and
move on, it is what we should have done from the beginning.
On a personal note. Are we not Libertarians? I find the arguments of
rules and legality disturbingly dogmatic. We argue all the time about
changing bad laws and rules that have created a problem, but when it
comes down to our rules failing we can't adjust? Seems sort of
hypocritical to me, actually far more than sort of.
So my stance is this. I stand opposed to anything that continues to
drag this out. I stand opposed to anything other than accepting the
recommendation of the previous JC and what appears to me to be the will
of vast majority of our constituents. The correct route in my not so
humble opinion is that we accept them, get the hell out of the way,
move on, and hope we don't need them like the last LNC didn't.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [2]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Caryn Ann Harlos;
Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn[3];lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
They can disagree all they want. But, there's no authority for them.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [4]2018-07-20 11:08, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> There's a JC presently electing its chair that disagrees.
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:24 AM Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
>
>> There's no JC, so no resolution can be made.
>>
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>
>> On [5]2018-07-20 08:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> It seems that the JC took it upon itself to resolve - it is up to the
>>> membership to complain about that if they wish. I submit we simply
>>> go
>>> on about our jobs and stay out of it.
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business
>>> <[1[6]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am assuming that JC will be an agenda item in Phoenix. If
>>> not,
>>> could
>>> we please add it? If not, are we done with that discussion and
>>> simply
>>> not having a JC or what are the next points of discussion? I
>>> want
>>> to
>>> fully resolve this issue the best we can and move forward. I
>>> abstained
>>> last vote to approve but my mind is still not settled.
>>> There is no good solution here, but one of may state chairs put
>>> very
>>> simply:
>>> "I find this whole debacle with process to be detrimental and
>>> don't
>>> really care one way or the other how it pans out. Nobody is
>>> going
>>> to be
>>> 100% on this as is evidenced by the gridlock on some of the
>>> first
>>> true
>>> membership affecting votes from the LNC."
>>> We need to resolve and move forward.
>>> Richard
>>> --
>>> Richard Longstreth
>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT,
>>> WA,
>>> WY)
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> [1][2[7]]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> [8]931.538.9300
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[3[9]]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>>> - [4][10]Caryn.Ann.[11] Harlos at LP.org or[12] Secretary at LP.org.
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[13] LPedia at LP.org
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> We defend your rights
>>> And oppose the use of force
>>> Taxation is theft
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1. mailto[14]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 2. mailto[15]:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> 3. mailto[16]:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> 4. mailto[17]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> --
>
> --
>
> IN LIBERTY,
> CARYN ANN HARLOS
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - [18]Caryn.Ann
.[19] Harlos at LP.org or[20] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[21] LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> _We defend your rights_
> _And oppose the use of force_
> _Taxation is theft_
They can disagree all they want. But, there's no authority for them.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [22]2018-07-20 11:08, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
There's a JC presently electing its chair that disagrees.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:24 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
<[1[23]]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
There's no JC, so no resolution can be made.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [24]2018-07-20 08:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> It seems that the JC took it upon itself to resolve - it is up to
the
> membership to complain about that if they wish. I submit we
simply
> go
> on about our jobs and stay out of it.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
> <[1][2[25]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I am assuming that JC will be an agenda item in Phoenix.
If
> not,
> could
> we please add it? If not, are we done with that discussion
and
> simply
> not having a JC or what are the next points of discussion?
I
> want
> to
> fully resolve this issue the best we can and move forward.
I
> abstained
> last vote to approve but my mind is still not settled.
> There is no good solution here, but one of may state
chairs put
> very
> simply:
> "I find this whole debacle with process to be detrimental
and
> don't
> really care one way or the other how it pans out. Nobody
is
> going
> to be
> 100% on this as is evidenced by the gridlock on some of
the
> first
> true
> membership affecting votes from the LNC."
> We need to resolve and move forward.
> Richard
> --
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
UT,
> WA,
> WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [1][2][3[26]]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> [27]931.538.9300
> References
> 1. mailto:[3][4[28]]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [4][29]Caryn.Ann.[30] Harlos at LP.org or[31] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[32] LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[5[33]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6[34]]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7[35]]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[8[36]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [9][37]Caryn.Ann.[38] Harlos at LP.org or[39] Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[40] LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto[41]:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto[42]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto[43]:richard.longstreth at lp.org
4. mailto[44]:richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. mailto[45]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto[46]:richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto[47]:richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. mailto[48]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
9. mailto[49]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
2. tel:217-412-5973
3. mailto:;lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. tel:2018-07-20 11
5. tel:2018-07-20 08
6. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. tel:931.538.9300
9. mailto:]richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. http://Caryn.An/
11. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
12. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
13. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
14. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto::richard.longstreth at lp.org
16. mailto::richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. http://Caryn.An/
19. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
20. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
21. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
22. tel:2018-07-20 11
23. mailto:]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
24. tel:2018-07-20 08
25. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:]richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. tel:931.538.9300
28. mailto:]richard.longstreth at lp.org
29. http://Caryn.An/
30. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
31. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
32. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
33. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
34. mailto:]richard.longstreth at lp.org
35. mailto:]richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. http://Caryn.An/
38. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
39. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
40. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
41. mailto::elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
42. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. mailto::richard.longstreth at lp.org
44. mailto::richard.longstreth at lp.org
45. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. mailto::richard.longstreth at lp.org
47. mailto::richard.longstreth at lp.org
48. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
49. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
-------------- next part --------------
Elizabeth, by all means, represent what you feel is the will of your
region, just as I am doing.
The only part of my reply specifically directed at you was the first
2 paragraphs, which only addressed your statement about the legalities.
*for those tired of reading on this subject, it is about to get TLDR,
skip to the end or just skip if you like*
Having said that, I did receive several responses echoing your
statement regarding those legality/rules issues. However, those same
replies also expressed dissatisfaction in the results. They responded
that while those MAY represent the rules, they could see multiple
interpretations. Most importantly it was unanimously and unambiguously
expressed that having NO JC was never anyone's intent or desire, and
that needed to be fixed somehow.
I also feel compelled to point out that those same thoughts have been
echoed to me from Libertarian friends across the country, including a
large number in your region where I have many friends and family.
While this response has not been unanimous, it has been far more than
those who support the rules saying no JC, and again most importantly
even those who agree with that interpretation follow up with that not
being their intent or desire. The ones I reached out to were all
delegates, and I received lots of voluntary input from others.
I even agree that is a possible interpretation of the rules. 100%
correct that on the surface the rules can be read that way. However, I
also point out we are way beyond those rules as there are:
A) other interpretations
B) the very real interpretation that we also have to take into account
that those rules never took this situation into account
C) having no JC is most definitely a violation of the SPIRIT and intent
of those rules abd the people who drafted them.
D) again, we are Libertarians and being able to recognize rules and
laws that failed, then do something about it is who we are! Or at least
supposed to be.
The intent and desire to have a JC has been close to unanimous,
excepting a few hardcore anarchists who would vote NOTA on almost
everything. As has the desire to get it done and move on. The only
debate has been method. The largest # I have seen has supported some
wording or other of taking top 7 with or without LNC approval.
A smaller # tho still significant likes an email ballot (tho very few
want multiple rounds to reach a majority as per Ms Harlos' suggestion,
most want just one round with take top 7 or no JC as the options). Most
from region 1.
The no JC at all # does exist, mostly from 8, 5, and 3.
A very large percentage want us to just shut up and let it ride with
the JC's recommendation/decision. From all over.
Did I poll every delegate? No, but well over 400 directly or watching
their interactions on the subject.
So all that being TLDR. I stand by my stance, not just in my region,
but nationally. I will accept the JC that has formed (however you want
to phrase it coming about) and abide by their rulings.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [1]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Elizabeth Van Horn
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 11:11 PM
To: Richard Longstreth;
Cc: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org[3];john.phillips at lp.org;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
I'd replied to John Phillips, he's the Region 6 rep.
Also, I've already stated my position. I'd wanted to have the LNC
approve the top seven, I co-sponsored that motion. Only, when took the
discussion to my region, multiple members, including officers, state
chairs, VCs, etc, of Region 3 were adamant that under our bylaws
there's no JC, and no way to get one. Me stating this on the LNC email
list is just that, me stating what my region has said, and wants.
I've no idea why you're making comments about "do not turn this
personal"?? I've said nothing personal. Don't project onto me.
What I have done is point out that another regional rep isn't speaking
for my region.
As for my reply to the LNC Secretary, the same. An officer has a
particular role, otherwise, they have one vote, same as anyone on the
LNC. The LNC secretary asked people to confer with the registered
parliamentarian, and I have, and I've also read his views on this
subject. I went through the bylaws carefully, and got feedback from an
officer in my own state affiliate, officers from the other state
affiliates in my region, etc. My statements are the result of
listening to the members in my region. I've done due diligence on this
issue. I've not going to take the time to listen to my region, and then
ignore them.
My representation and advocacy is for my region.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [4]2018-07-20 18:10, Richard Longstreth wrote:
My Region says that the Top 7 should be and we should move on. We
cannot simply "You do your region, and I'll do mine."
First off, the person you said that to is an Officer. Therefore, her
Region in is the entirety of membership and she IS expressing her
thoughts from her 'region'. Your words give off the air of flippancy
and are borderline offensive to me as one whom the comments were not
directed toward. This is not how we should be interacting as officers
and certainly not a way to advance the Party. We need to work together,
not have an attitude of every region for themselves.
Secondly, there is a difference between our Regions, EVH. Mine says
that the Top 7 are the JC yours says that we don't have a JC. Both
situations cannot exist simultaneously and this NEEDS to be resolved
and finalized for all members. I cannot tell my states that a JC exists
for Region 1 but not for Region 3; that is absurd.
Finally, I have dropped this discussion if we acknowledge that the JC
exists and is the Top 7 - something I abstained from orginally, but see
as the only logical solution going forward. If not, we need to discuss
this further which is the will of neither of our regions or that of the
general membership. Most want to move on from the issue. The LNC as a
body did not approve the Top 7. The former JC came up with a solution
and that is to put the Top 7 in place. If we, as an LNC or Regional
Representative do not acknowledge that solution we are creating a deep
divide in the Party.
Thoughts? Please do not turn this personal. I want to work with you to
find a resolution that suits all parties involved.
Richard
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
<[5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I was in favor of the LNC approving the top seven JC candidates.
But,
my region isn't, and leadership has let me know that they think
there's
no JC.
I'm not sure what you're going on about. I'm not arguing. Nor, am
I
doing anything, other than stating what my region thinks.
You do your region, and I'll do mine.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
[1][6]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On [7]2018-07-20 13:26, [8]john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
Shrug. If I wanted to take it to a court of law I would have a
50/50
shot imho, and that of the 8 lawyers I asked to look at it. Some
of
them thought they could win maybe 70%.
So i would say the argument for them being the JC is as good as
the
argument against.
However, the vast majority seem to want them from what I see, so
I fail
to see the issue that people keep making of this. Just accept it
and
move on, it is what we should have done from the beginning.
On a personal note. Are we not Libertarians? I find the
arguments of
rules and legality disturbingly dogmatic. We argue all the time
about
changing bad laws and rules that have created a problem, but when
it
comes down to our rules failing we can't adjust? Seems sort of
hypocritical to me, actually far more than sort of.
So my stance is this. I stand opposed to anything that continues
to
drag this out. I stand opposed to anything other than accepting
the
recommendation of the previous JC and what appears to me to be
the will
of vast majority of our constituents. The correct route in my
not so
humble opinion is that we accept them, get the hell out of the
way,
move on, and hope we don't need them like the last LNC didn't.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [2][9]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Caryn Ann Harlos;
Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn[3];[10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
They can disagree all they want. But, there's no authority for
them.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [4][11]2018-07-20 11:08, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> There's a JC presently electing its chair that disagrees.
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:24 AM Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
>
>> There's no JC, so no resolution can be made.
>>
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>
>> On [5][12]2018-07-20 08:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
wrote:
>>> It seems that the JC took it upon itself to resolve - it is up
to the
>>> membership to complain about that if they wish. I submit we
simply
>>> go
>>> on about our jobs and stay out of it.
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
>>> <[1[6]][13]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am assuming that JC will be an agenda item in Phoenix. If
>>> not,
>>> could
>>> we please add it? If not, are we done with that discussion and
>>> simply
>>> not having a JC or what are the next points of discussion? I
>>> want
>>> to
>>> fully resolve this issue the best we can and move forward. I
>>> abstained
>>> last vote to approve but my mind is still not settled.
>>> There is no good solution here, but one of may state chairs put
>>> very
>>> simply:
>>> "I find this whole debacle with process to be detrimental and
>>> don't
>>> really care one way or the other how it pans out. Nobody is
>>> going
>>> to be
>>> 100% on this as is evidenced by the gridlock on some of the
>>> first
>>> true
>>> membership affecting votes from the LNC."
>>> We need to resolve and move forward.
>>> Richard
>>> --
>>> Richard Longstreth
>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT,
>>> WA,
>>> WY)
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> [1][2[7]][14]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> [8][15]931.538.9300
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[3[9]][16]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>>> - [4][10][17]Caryn.Ann.[11][18] Harlos at LP.org or[12][19]
Secretary at LP.org.
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[13][20]
LPedia at LP.org
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> We defend your rights
>>> And oppose the use of force
>>> Taxation is theft
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1. mailto[14]:[21]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 2. mailto[15]:[22]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> 3. mailto[16]:[23]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> 4. mailto[17][24]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> --
>
> --
>
> IN LIBERTY,
> CARYN ANN HARLOS
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
[18][25]Caryn.Ann
.[19][26] Harlos at LP.org or[20][27] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[21][28]
LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> _We defend your rights_
> _And oppose the use of force_
> _Taxation is theft_
They can disagree all they want. But, there's no authority for
them.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [22][29]2018-07-20 11:08, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
There's a JC presently electing its chair that disagrees.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:24 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
<[1[23]][30]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
There's no JC, so no resolution can be made.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On [24][31]2018-07-20 08:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
wrote:
> It seems that the JC took it upon itself to resolve - it is
up to
the
> membership to complain about that if they wish. I submit
we
simply
> go
> on about our jobs and stay out of it.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
> <[1][2[25]][32]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I am assuming that JC will be an agenda item in
Phoenix.
If
> not,
> could
> we please add it? If not, are we done with that
discussion
and
> simply
> not having a JC or what are the next points of
discussion?
I
> want
> to
> fully resolve this issue the best we can and move
forward.
I
> abstained
> last vote to approve but my mind is still not
settled.
> There is no good solution here, but one of may state
chairs put
> very
> simply:
> "I find this whole debacle with process to be
detrimental
and
> don't
> really care one way or the other how it pans out.
Nobody
is
> going
> to be
> 100% on this as is evidenced by the gridlock on some
of
the
> first
> true
> membership affecting votes from the LNC."
> We need to resolve and move forward.
> Richard
> --
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR,
HI,
UT,
> WA,
> WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [1][2][3[26]][33]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> [27][34]931.538.9300
> References
> 1. mailto:[3][4[28]][35]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
> - [4][29][36]Caryn.Ann.[30][37] Harlos at LP.org or[31][38]
Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[32][39]
LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[5[33]][40]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6[34]][41]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7[35]][42]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[8[36][43]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [9][37][44]Caryn.Ann.[38][45] Harlos at LP.org or[39][46]
Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[40][47]
LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto[41]:[48]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto[42]:[49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto[43]:[50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
4. mailto[44]:[51]richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. mailto[45]:[52]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto[46]:[53]richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto[47]:[54]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. mailto[48][55]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
9. mailto[49][56]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. [57]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
2. tel:[58]217-412-5973
3. mailto:;[59]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. tel:[60]2018-07-20 11
5. tel:[61]2018-07-20 08
6. mailto:][62]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:][63]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. tel:[64]931.538.9300
9. mailto:][65]richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. [66]http://Caryn.An/
11. mailto:[67] Harlos at LP.org
12. mailto:[68] Secretary at LP.org.
13. mailto:[69] LPedia at LP.org
14. mailto::[70]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto::[71]richard.longstreth at lp.org
16. mailto::[72]richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. mailto:[73]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. [74]http://Caryn.An/
19. mailto:[75] Harlos at LP.org
20. mailto:[76] Secretary at LP.org.
21. mailto:[77] LPedia at LP.org
22. tel:[78]2018-07-20 11
23. mailto:][79]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
24. tel:[80]2018-07-20 08
25. mailto:][81]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:][82]richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. tel:[83]931.538.9300
28. mailto:][84]richard.longstreth at lp.org
29. [85]http://Caryn.An/
30. mailto:[86] Harlos at LP.org
31. mailto:[87] Secretary at LP.org.
32. mailto:[88] LPedia at LP.org
33. mailto:][89]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
34. mailto:][90]richard.longstreth at lp.org
35. mailto:][91]richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. mailto:[92]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. [93]http://Caryn.An/
38. mailto:[94] Harlos at LP.org
39. mailto:[95] Secretary at LP.org.
40. mailto:[96] LPedia at LP.org
41. mailto::[97]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
42. mailto::[98]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. mailto::[99]richard.longstreth at lp.org
44. mailto::[100]richard.longstreth at lp.org
45. mailto::[101]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. mailto::[102]richard.longstreth at lp.org
47. mailto::[103]richard.longstreth at lp.org
48. mailto:[104]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
49. mailto:[105]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
[106]richard.longstreth at lp.org
[107]931.538.9300
References
1. tel:217-412-5973
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:;john.phillips at lp.org
4. tel:2018-07-20 18
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
7. tel:2018-07-20 13
8. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
9. tel:217-412-5973
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. tel:2018-07-20 11
12. tel:2018-07-20 08
13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
15. tel:931.538.9300
16. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. http://Caryn.An/
18. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
19. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
20. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
21. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
23. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
24. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
25. http://Caryn.An/
26. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
27. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
28. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
29. tel:2018-07-20 11
30. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
31. tel:2018-07-20 08
32. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
33. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
34. tel:931.538.9300
35. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. http://Caryn.An/
37. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
38. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
39. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
40. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
41. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
42. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
43. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
44. http://Caryn.An/
45. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
46. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
47. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
48. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
49. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
50. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
51. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
52. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
53. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
54. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
55. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
56. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
57. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
58. tel:(217) 412-5973
59. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
60. tel:2018-07-20 11
61. tel:2018-07-20 08
62. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
63. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
64. tel:(931) 538-9300
65. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
66. http://Caryn.An/
67. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
68. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
69. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
70. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
71. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
72. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
73. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
74. http://Caryn.An/
75. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
76. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
77. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
78. tel:2018-07-20 11
79. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
80. tel:2018-07-20 08
81. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
82. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
83. tel:(931) 538-9300
84. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
85. http://Caryn.An/
86. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
87. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
88. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
89. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
90. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
91. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
92. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
93. http://Caryn.An/
94. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
95. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
96. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
97. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
98. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
99. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
100. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
101. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
102. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
103. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
104. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
105. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
106. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
107. tel:931.538.9300
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list