[Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
John Phillips
john.phillips at lp.org
Sat Jul 21 10:46:37 EDT 2018
OOPS, I apologize for hijacking another thread on this subject. I
really need to quit using my phone for email.
Other than that, I have made my points, rest my case, and unless there
is a motion on the subject, pretty well done with it. Motions I would
support -
1 round of email balloting to approve or disapprove of the top 7, JC
recommendation, however you want to phrase it. I would reiterate that I
would like this to be ONLY the people credentialed at the close, as
people who de-credentialed before that knowingly gave up their votes and
should not magically get a new one.
or
Accepting the recommendation/ruling of the JC previous or the self
declared - though I would prefer previous. Careful phrasing in this case
to acknowledge that we are simply stating that we accept that
ruling/recommendation, not that we are making a ruling ourselves. I
guess this would be more of a resolution?
The JC declaring themselves has unfortunately taken away from us the
option to do nothing and let it ride to 2020. They have forced the
issue. While I am not fond of their phrasing, I can not argue with
their intent. So sitting on the fence is no longer an option. If
someone has an different idea than the 2 I suggested, I would consider
them, but my main concern would be quickness of resolution. If someone
wants to move that we do not recognize them, and hold that the office is
vacant until 2020, I will oppose that and volunteer to write a minority
report on the decision if it passes. However at this point the entire
party is looking for AN ANSWER, and it is our job to give one. I
reiterate, sitting on our asses and doing nothing is no longer an option
imho.
I will not make a motion myself, as I am not versed enough in writing
them at this time. Also the fact that I would support either of the
other two, slight preference to the second, but I see the value in the
first.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
On 7/21/2018 8:33 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> What John expressed was an EQUITABLE action, not an action in LAW. to
> use the legal analogy.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org <mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> You nailed it.
>
> Money quotes:
>
> ===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.===
>
> == 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.===
>
> One correction: I am amenable to many different email options,
> not just a multi-round vote.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org <mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>> wrote:
>
> Elizabeth-
>
> =="rob people of it's right"==
>
> It is what happened. It doesn't require a design to do so.
>
> ===Nor, is there a right to force members to accept breaking
> the bylaws. ===
>
> Put the decision to them since it is *their* rights being
> affected.
>
> ==equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.==
>
> I am using the legal definitions:
> https://patch.com/florida/templeterrace/court-of-law-vs-court-of-equity-why-it-matters-to-you-9
> <https://patch.com/florida/templeterrace/court-of-law-vs-court-of-equity-why-it-matters-to-you-9>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:10 AM, john.phillips--- via
> Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>[3];john.phillips at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> >>> [8][15]931.538.9300
> >>> References
> >>> 1. mailto:[3[9]][16]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> >>> 2. mailto[15]:[22]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> >>> 3. mailto[16]:[23]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> > [27][34]931.538.9300
> > References
> > 1.
> mailto:[3][4[28]][35]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> > 2.
> mailto:[6[34]][41]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> > 3.
> mailto:[7[35]][42]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 2. mailto[42]:[49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 3. mailto[43]:[50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 4. mailto[44]:[51]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 5. mailto[45]:[52]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 6. mailto[46]:[53]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 7. mailto[47]:[54]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 7. mailto:][63]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 8. tel:[64]931.538.9300
> 9. mailto:][65]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 15. mailto::[71]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 16. mailto::[72]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 24. tel:[80]2018-07-20 08
> 25. mailto:][81]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 26. mailto:][82]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 27. tel:[83]931.538.9300
> 28. mailto:][84]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 34. mailto:][90]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 35. mailto:][91]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 42. mailto::[98]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 43. mailto::[99]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 44. mailto::[100]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 45. mailto::[101]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 46. mailto::[102]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 47. mailto::[103]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> [107]931.538.9300
>
> References
>
> 1. tel:217-412-5973
> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 3. mailto:;john.phillips at lp.org
> <mailto:john.phillips at lp.org>
> 4. tel:2018-07-20 18
> 5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:john.phillips at lp.org>
> 9. tel:217-412-5973
> 10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 14. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 15. tel:931.538.9300
> 16. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 22. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 23. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 31. tel:2018-07-20 08
> 32. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 33. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 34. tel:931.538.9300
> 35. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 41. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 42. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 49. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 50. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 51. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 52. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 53. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 54. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 63. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 64. tel:(931) 538-9300
> 65. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 71. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 72. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 80. tel:2018-07-20 08
> 81. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 82. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 83. tel:(931) 538-9300
> 84. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 90. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 91. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 98. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 99. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 100. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 101. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> 102. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 103. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> <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
> <mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org>
> 107. tel:931.538.9300
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or
> Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> /We defend your rights/
> /And oppose the use of force/
> /Taxation is theft/
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or
> Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> /We defend your rights/
> /And oppose the use of force/
> /Taxation is theft/
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or
> Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> /We defend your rights/
> /And oppose the use of force/
> /Taxation is theft/
-------------- next part --------------
OOPS, I apologize for hijacking another thread on this subject. I
really need to quit using my phone for email.
Other than that, I have made my points, rest my case, and unless there
is a motion on the subject, pretty well done with it. Motions I would
support -
1 round of email balloting to approve or disapprove of the top 7, JC
recommendation, however you want to phrase it. I would reiterate that
I would like this to be ONLY the people credentialed at the close, as
people who de-credentialed before that knowingly gave up their votes
and should not magically get a new one.
or
Accepting the recommendation/ruling of the JC previous or the self
declared - though I would prefer previous. Careful phrasing in this
case to acknowledge that we are simply stating that we accept that
ruling/recommendation, not that we are making a ruling ourselves. I
guess this would be more of a resolution?
The JC declaring themselves has unfortunately taken away from us the
option to do nothing and let it ride to 2020. They have forced the
issue. While I am not fond of their phrasing, I can not argue with
their intent. So sitting on the fence is no longer an option. If
someone has an different idea than the 2 I suggested, I would consider
them, but my main concern would be quickness of resolution. If someone
wants to move that we do not recognize them, and hold that the office
is vacant until 2020, I will oppose that and volunteer to write a
minority report on the decision if it passes. However at this point
the entire party is looking for AN ANSWER, and it is our job to give
one. I reiterate, sitting on our asses and doing nothing is no longer
an option imho.
I will not make a motion myself, as I am not versed enough in writing
them at this time. Also the fact that I would support either of the
other two, slight preference to the second, but I see the value in the
first.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
On 7/21/2018 8:33 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
What John expressed was an EQUITABLE action, not an action in LAW. to
use the legal analogy.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
John,
You nailed it.
Money quotes:
===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.===
== 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.===
One correction: I am amenable to many different email options, not
just a multi-round vote.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Elizabeth-
=="rob people of it's right"==
It is what happened. It doesn't require a design to do so.
===Nor, is there a right to force members to accept breaking the
bylaws. ===
Put the decision to them since it is *their* rights being affected.
==equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.==
I am using the legal definitions: [3]https://patch.com
/florida/templeterrace/court-of-law-vs-court-of-equity-why-
it-matters-to-you-9
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:10 AM, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business
<[4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
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][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org[3];[6]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][7]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][8]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On [7]2018-07-20 13:26, [8][9]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][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][11]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][12]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> [8][15]931.538.9300
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[3[9]][16][13]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
>>> - [4][10][17]Caryn.Ann.[11][18] [14]Harlos at LP.org
or[12][19]
[15]Secretary at LP.org.
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[13][20]
[16]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][17]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> 2. mailto[15]:[22][18]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> 3. mailto[16]:[23][19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>> 4. mailto[17][24]:Caryn.Ann.Harlo[20]s at LP.org
> --
>
> --
>
> IN LIBERTY,
> CARYN ANN HARLOS
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary -
[18][25]Caryn.Ann
.[19][26] [21]Harlos at LP.org or[20][27] [22]Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[21][28]
[23]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][24]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][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]][33][26]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> [27][34]931.538.9300
> References
> 1. mailto:[3][4[28]][35][27]richard.l
ongstreth at lp.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
> - [4][29][36]Caryn.Ann.[30][37] [28]Harlos at LP.org
or[31][38]
[29]Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[32][39]
[30]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][31]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6[34]][41][32]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7[35]][42][33]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[8[36][43]]Caryn.Ann.Ha[34]rlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [9][37][44]Caryn.Ann.[38][45] [35]Harlos at LP.org or[39][46]
[36]Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[40][47]
[37]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][38]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto[42]:[49][39]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto[43]:[50][40]richard.longstreth at lp.org
4. mailto[44]:[51][41]richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. mailto[45]:[52][42]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto[46]:[53][43]richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto[47]:[54][44]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. mailto[48][55]:Caryn.Ann.Harlo[45]s at LP.org
9. mailto[49][56]:Caryn.Ann.Harlo[46]s at LP.org
References
1. [57][47]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
2. tel:[58]217-412-5973
3. mailto:;[59][48]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. tel:[60]2018-07-20 11
5. tel:[61]2018-07-20 08
6. mailto:][62][49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:][63][50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. tel:[64]931.538.9300
9. mailto:][65][51]richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. [66][52]http://Caryn.An/
11. mailto:[67] [53]Harlos at LP.org
12. mailto:[68] [54]Secretary at LP.org.
13. mailto:[69] [55]LPedia at LP.org
14. mailto::[70][56]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto::[71][57]richard.longstreth at lp.org
16. mailto::[72][58]richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. mailto:[73]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. [74][59]http://Caryn.An/
19. mailto:[75] [60]Harlos at LP.org
20. mailto:[76] [61]Secretary at LP.org.
21. mailto:[77] [62]LPedia at LP.org
22. tel:[78]2018-07-20 11
23. mailto:][79][63]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
24. tel:[80]2018-07-20 08
25. mailto:][81][64]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:][82][65]richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. tel:[83]931.538.9300
28. mailto:][84][66]richard.longstreth at lp.org
29. [85][67]http://Caryn.An/
30. mailto:[86] [68]Harlos at LP.org
31. mailto:[87] [69]Secretary at LP.org.
32. mailto:[88] [70]LPedia at LP.org
33. mailto:][89][71]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
34. mailto:][90][72]richard.longstreth at lp.org
35. mailto:][91][73]richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. mailto:[92]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. [93][74]http://Caryn.An/
38. mailto:[94] [75]Harlos at LP.org
39. mailto:[95] [76]Secretary at LP.org.
40. mailto:[96] [77]LPedia at LP.org
41. mailto::[97][78]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
42. mailto::[98][79]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. mailto::[99][80]richard.longstreth at lp.org
44. mailto::[100][81]richard.longstreth at lp.org
45. mailto::[101][82]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. mailto::[102][83]richard.longstreth at lp.org
47. mailto::[103][84]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][85]richard.longstreth at lp.org
[107]931.538.9300
References
1. [86]tel:217-412-5973
2. mailto:[87]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:;[88]john.phillips at lp.org
4. [89]tel:2018-07-20 18
5. mailto:[90]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. [91]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
7. [92]tel:2018-07-20 13
8. mailto:[93]john.phillips at lp.org
9. [94]tel:217-412-5973
10. mailto:[95]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. [96]tel:2018-07-20 11
12. [97]tel:2018-07-20 08
13. mailto:[98]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. mailto:[99]richard.longstreth at lp.org
15. [100]tel:931.538.9300
16. mailto:[101]richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. [102]http://Caryn.An/
18. mailto: [103]Harlos at LP.org
19. mailto: [104]Secretary at LP.org.
20. mailto: [105]LPedia at LP.org
21. mailto:[106]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. mailto:[107]richard.longstreth at lp.org
23. mailto:[108]richard.longstreth at lp.org
24. [109]mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
25. [110]http://Caryn.An/
26. mailto: [111]Harlos at LP.org
27. mailto: [112]Secretary at LP.org.
28. mailto: [113]LPedia at LP.org
29. [114]tel:2018-07-20 11
30. mailto:[115]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
31. [116]tel:2018-07-20 08
32. mailto:[117]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
33. mailto:[118]richard.longstreth at lp.org
34. [119]tel:931.538.9300
35. mailto:[120]richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. [121]http://Caryn.An/
37. mailto: [122]Harlos at LP.org
38. mailto: [123]Secretary at LP.org.
39. mailto: [124]LPedia at LP.org
40. mailto:[125]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
41. mailto:[126]richard.longstreth at lp.org
42. mailto:[127]richard.longstreth at lp.org
43. [128]mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
44. [129]http://Caryn.An/
45. mailto: [130]Harlos at LP.org
46. mailto: [131]Secretary at LP.org.
47. mailto: [132]LPedia at LP.org
48. mailto:[133]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
49. mailto:[134]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
50. mailto:[135]richard.longstreth at lp.org
51. mailto:[136]richard.longstreth at lp.org
52. mailto:[137]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
53. mailto:[138]richard.longstreth at lp.org
54. mailto:[139]richard.longstreth at lp.org
55. [140]mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
56. [141]mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
57. [142]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
58. [143]tel:(217) 412-5973
59. mailto:[144]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
60. [145]tel:2018-07-20 11
61. [146]tel:2018-07-20 08
62. mailto:[147]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
63. mailto:[148]richard.longstreth at lp.org
64. [149]tel:(931) 538-9300
65. mailto:[150]richard.longstreth at lp.org
66. [151]http://Caryn.An/
67. mailto: [152]Harlos at LP.org
68. mailto: [153]Secretary at LP.org.
69. mailto: [154]LPedia at LP.org
70. mailto:[155]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
71. mailto:[156]richard.longstreth at lp.org
72. mailto:[157]richard.longstreth at lp.org
73. [158]mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
74. [159]http://Caryn.An/
75. mailto: [160]Harlos at LP.org
76. mailto: [161]Secretary at LP.org.
77. mailto: [162]LPedia at LP.org
78. [163]tel:2018-07-20 11
79. mailto:[164]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
80. [165]tel:2018-07-20 08
81. mailto:[166]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
82. mailto:[167]richard.longstreth at lp.org
83. [168]tel:(931) 538-9300
84. mailto:[169]richard.longstreth at lp.org
85. [170]http://Caryn.An/
86. mailto: [171]Harlos at LP.org
87. mailto: [172]Secretary at LP.org.
88. mailto: [173]LPedia at LP.org
89. mailto:[174]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
90. mailto:[175]richard.longstreth at lp.org
91. mailto:[176]richard.longstreth at lp.org
92. [177]mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
93. [178]http://Caryn.An/
94. mailto: [179]Harlos at LP.org
95. mailto: [180]Secretary at LP.org.
96. mailto: [181]LPedia at LP.org
97. mailto:[182]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
98. mailto:[183]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
99. mailto:[184]richard.longstreth at lp.org
100. mailto:[185]richard.longstreth at lp.org
101. mailto:[186]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
102. mailto:[187]richard.longstreth at lp.org
103. mailto:[188]richard.longstreth at lp.org
104. [189]mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
105. [190]mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
106. mailto:[191]richard.longstreth at lp.org
107. [192]tel:931.538.9300
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [193]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or [194]Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - [195]LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [196]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or [197]Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - [198]LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [199]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or [200]Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - [201]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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. https://patch.com/florida/templeterrace/court-of-law-vs-court-of-equity-why-it-matters-to-you-9
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
9. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
13. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
14. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
15. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
16. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
17. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
19. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
20. mailto:s at LP.org
21. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
22. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
23. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
24. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
25. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
28. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
29. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
30. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
31. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
32. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
33. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
34. mailto:rlos at LP.org
35. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
36. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
37. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
38. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
39. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
41. mailto:richard.longstreth 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:s at LP.org
46. mailto:s at LP.org
47. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
48. mailto:lnc-business at hq.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. http://Caryn.An/
53. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
54. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
55. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
56. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
57. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
58. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
59. http://Caryn.An/
60. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
61. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
62. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
63. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
64. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
65. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
66. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
67. http://Caryn.An/
68. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
69. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
70. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
71. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
72. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
73. mailto:richard.longstreth 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. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
79. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
80. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
81. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
82. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
83. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
84. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
85. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
86. tel:217-412-5973
87. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
88. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
89. tel:2018-07-20
90. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
91. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
92. tel:2018-07-20
93. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
94. tel:217-412-5973
95. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
96. tel:2018-07-20
97. tel:2018-07-20
98. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
99. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
100. tel:931.538.9300
101. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
102. http://Caryn.An/
103. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
104. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
105. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
106. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
107. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
108. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
109. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
110. http://Caryn.An/
111. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
112. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
113. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
114. tel:2018-07-20
115. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
116. tel:2018-07-20
117. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
118. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
119. tel:931.538.9300
120. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
121. http://Caryn.An/
122. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
123. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
124. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
125. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
126. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
127. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
128. mailto:mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
129. http://Caryn.An/
130. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
131. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
132. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
133. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
134. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
135. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
136. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
137. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
138. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
139. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
140. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
141. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
142. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
143. tel:(217)
144. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
145. tel:2018-07-20
146. tel:2018-07-20
147. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
148. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
149. tel:(931)
150. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
151. http://Caryn.An/
152. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
153. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
154. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
155. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
156. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
157. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
158. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
159. http://Caryn.An/
160. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
161. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
162. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
163. tel:2018-07-20
164. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
165. tel:2018-07-20
166. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
167. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
168. tel:(931)
169. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
170. http://Caryn.An/
171. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
172. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
173. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
174. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
175. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
176. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
177. mailto:mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
178. http://Caryn.An/
179. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
180. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
181. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
182. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
183. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
184. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
185. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
186. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
187. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
188. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
189. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
190. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.or
191. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
192. tel:931.538.9300
193. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
194. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
195. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
196. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
197. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
198. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
199. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
200. mailto:Secretary at LP.org
201. mailto:LPedia at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list