[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Feb 26 23:52:22 EST 2018


On a related note, Mr. Brown opined that such a person would need to assert
that the member would have to take a hat at the beginning of a meeting and
stick with that for that whole meeting and could not jump back and forth
with each vote.  On the LNC that would not be true because the PM specific
allows for "free substitution" of alternates that do not require an actual
absence.  However the Policy Manual does not give that to committees.  At a
Platform Committee meeting a primary would have to be actually absent
(rather than constructively absent like a failure to email vote).  I am not
yet settled as to whether then though a declaration has to be made once and
stuck to.  If there is no prejudice to the rest of the body then I see no
reason why hats couldn't change at the onset of a vote, so my
interpretation is more liberal than Mr. Brown's.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to clear up any
> confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
>
> First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking questions
> about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from many
> people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have thought of
> every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee.  If anyone wants the
> specifics of that, please write me.  The situation is not exactly parallel
> to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me to understand how
> eveyrone would see certain principles.
>
> My first question:
>
> ==Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a
> regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And what are
> they?  Both?  The “superior” position?==
>
> I asked about our Bylaws.  Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical situation
> I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the specific scenario I gave
> here which was specific, *can a person be a regional rep for one region
> and an alternate for another separate region.   *
>
> Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person
> could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is permitted. ==
>
> I would ask here then why has that never happened?  It seems to me that
> the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent and defies
> the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be available if their
> primary is not present.  Incoherent or absurd interpretations do not seem
> to me to be the intent of a rule.  So, next convention, could I run for
> Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7 alternate and on the
> unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick that, you really
> are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that?  Is there not a presumption
> of sense of purpose?
>
> The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a present
> regional rep was appointed as Treasurer.  It is my fault for not being
> clear I am referring to elections at convention.  Can a regional
> representative run for Treasurer too?  This actually is a very pertinent
> question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1 and an officer
> position which I told him was not possible even if I were crazy enough to
> do it.  But am I wrong?  Do I have that option?  Can anyone really say that
> is what our Bylaws really meant?  If so then our Bylaws need to be
> significantly longer because all kinds of absurd interpretations result.
> Now I can think of a contrary argument - normally I would say if it doesn't
> say it is allowed, it is not.  That is the commonsense approach.  Joshua
> you seem to be arguing that if it isn't forbidden it is permitted.  What is
> the justification for that?  Does not context, intent, and history matter?
> I am not a conjoined twin.  An officer has different and potentially
> conflicting responsibilities.  When absurd output comes out of input, that
> is a  clear clue the input is false.  But here is a piece of contrary
> evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate people.  So if
> it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after it
> demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants your position
> weight Joshua.  And if that is the case, our Bylaws have a huge problem,
> and now I have another option to consider - instead of declaring for one or
> the other, as the meme goes, why not both?  I don't think even 1% of our
> membership would think that is at all what was ever intended.
> Theoretically then all of the Regionals could be one person?  If not, why
> not?   You can confine your answer to elections at conventions not mid-term
> appointments because that was my intent.
>
> So to continue with my questions:
>
> ==Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes - theoretically
> could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that something our
> Bylaws intended to allow? ==
>
> Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
> concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term appointment
> historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged.  But let's speak to that
> historical appointment.  It happened, was it right?  What was the
> justification?  Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is indeed a
> precedent.
>
> That leads to the crux of my question:
>
> ==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
>
> Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8 Alternate and
> that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that our Bylaws
> never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an alternate).  There
> is an email ballot.  When do I have to declare what capacity I am voting
> as?  Before voting starts?  At any time?  Can I withdraw my vote as one
> position and then turn around and vote as the other?
>
> Let's look at these various scenarios:
>
> *Before Voting Starts*
>
> If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense.  It raises issue
> of procedure but that is a separate issue.
>
> *At any time?  (and this is the most directly parallel to the situation on
> the Platform Committee)*
>
> That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and the
> previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us guidance in
> both letter and spirit.  The reason for that is a foundation of fairness
> and proper representation.  In fact all of Robert's has that as a
> foundation.  Protection of people and rights.
>
> The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have an
> inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot have.
> How so?
>
> Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes.  And if I like
> that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can gamble that
> they won't and amplify my preference.  No one else can do that.  It is
> patently absurd and unfair.
>
> *Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
> the other?  (this is also directly parallel to the question on the Platform
> Committee)*
>
>
> What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and changes their
> vote to something I don't like.  Can I then withdraw my vote as Region 8
> alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID VOTE???   There is a
> big problem there, and I would like to see that answered.
>
> And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its head.
> And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got the Region 1
> primary position later and Region 8 was not made explicitly aware of this
> so that they consented to the compromise of their use of their alternate?
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for possible
> inequities in the system.  Why does the maker of a motion get to speak
> first?  Etc.  But *that is available to everyone similarly situated.*
> That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe parliamentary
> law is any different.
>
> I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
> accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their voting
> rights, and  deprive an appointing body of its choice of representative"
> is a completely unacceptable attack.
>
> I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect *everyone.*
>
> We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst possible
> speculations on motives.
>
> Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner.  I would truly
> like to hear what you have to say.  I have consulted early on with Richard
> Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra details too as I have
> groked it more.
>
> As I see it there are two issues:
>
> 1.  When must the hat be declared?
>
> 2.  Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and lead up
>> to my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.
>>
>> I will be more clear a bit later.
>>
>> But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said clearly said
>> my reason for asking.
>>
>> There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that has some
>> points of comparison to a hypothetical here.
>>
>> And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my actual
>> desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion.  That was absolutely and
>> utterly uncalled for.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And Alicia that was unwarranted.  Please do not impugn my motives or
>>> make this personal.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz <
>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters how the
>>>>>> vote
>>>>>>    is counted.  Given that, I would conclude that the system the LNC
>>>>>> used
>>>>>>    is correct, and the member should specify in which capacity they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>    voting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz
>>>>>>    <[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not be
>>>>>> both,
>>>>>>    which leads me to conclude that it is permitted.  However, the
>>>>>>    fundamental rule applicable is that of "one person, one vote," not
>>>>>> "one
>>>>>>    position, one vote."  Hence, such a person could not vote twice.
>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>    on an email ballot, supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,") it
>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>    counted only once.  Should the rep for whom they are an alternate
>>>>>> vote,
>>>>>>    that's clear anyway.  Should that rep not vote, the point is that
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>    vote cannot count for both the region they represent and the region
>>>>>>    they alternate for.  I don't see that it matters, mathematically,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>    one they count for - the real variable is whether the rep votes,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>    is not under the control of this rep/alternate.
>>>>>>    As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate) this
>>>>>> person
>>>>>>    is an LNC member, with all that entails.  For example, they could
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>    assert their alternate status and serve in a position not otherwise
>>>>>>    open to an LNC member.
>>>>>>    Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies.  I have no
>>>>>> idea if
>>>>>>    the bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any
>>>>>> ambiguity in
>>>>>>    which to resort to intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>>    <[2]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Hypothetical question:
>>>>>>         Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>      a
>>>>>>         regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And
>>>>>>      what are
>>>>>>         they?  Both?  The “superior” position?
>>>>>>         If so, how would that work in an email vote?
>>>>>>         There are multiple practical issues.
>>>>>>         Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on
>>>>>> platcomm
>>>>>>      and
>>>>>>         will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and
>>>>>>      opinions can
>>>>>>         lead to insights.  How the LNC would hypothetically handle
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>      be a
>>>>>>         helpful piece of information.  The parallels are not exact but
>>>>>>      would
>>>>>>         give insight.
>>>>>>         Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
>>>>>>      theoretically
>>>>>>         could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that
>>>>>>      something
>>>>>>         our Bylaws intended to allow?
>>>>>>         Any and all insight appreciated.
>>>>>>         I would be more than happy to detail what issues of
>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>         inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting in
>>>>>> my
>>>>>>      first
>>>>>>         hypothetical.
>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>         In Liberty,
>>>>>>         Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>>         Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>> (Alaska,
>>>>>>         Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>>>>>      Washington)
>>>>>>         - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>>>>>>         Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>>>         Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>>>         A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>>>         We defend your rights
>>>>>>         And oppose the use of force
>>>>>>         Taxation is theft
>>>>>>      References
>>>>>>         1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>>>>         2. [4]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> References
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>>>>>>    2. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>>>>>    3. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>>>>    4. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   On a related note, Mr. Brown opined that such a person would need to
   assert that the member would have to take a hat at the beginning of a
   meeting and stick with that for that whole meeting and could not jump
   back and forth with each vote.  On the LNC that would not be true
   because the PM specific allows for "free substitution" of alternates
   that do not require an actual absence.  However the Policy Manual does
   not give that to committees.  At a Platform Committee meeting a primary
   would have to be actually absent (rather than constructively absent
   like a failure to email vote).  I am not yet settled as to whether then
   though a declaration has to be made once and stuck to.  If there is no
   prejudice to the rest of the body then I see no reason why hats
   couldn't change at the onset of a vote, so my interpretation is more
   liberal than Mr. Brown's.

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to clear up
   any confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
   First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking questions
   about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from many
   people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have thought
   of every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee.  If anyone wants
   the specifics of that, please write me.  The situation is not exactly
   parallel to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me to
   understand how eveyrone would see certain principles.
   My first question:
   ==Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a
   regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And what are
   they?  Both?  The “superior” position?==
   I asked about our Bylaws.  Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical
   situation I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the specific
   scenario I gave here which was specific, can a person be a regional rep
   for one region and an alternate for another separate region.
   Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a
   person could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is
   permitted. ==
   I would ask here then why has that never happened?  It seems to me that
   the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent and
   defies the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be available if
   their primary is not present.  Incoherent or absurd interpretations do
   not seem to me to be the intent of a rule.  So, next convention, could
   I run for Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7 alternate and
   on the unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick that,
   you really are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that?  Is there
   not a presumption of sense of purpose?
   The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a present
   regional rep was appointed as Treasurer.  It is my fault for not being
   clear I am referring to elections at convention.  Can a regional
   representative run for Treasurer too?  This actually is a very
   pertinent question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1 and an
   officer position which I told him was not possible even if I were crazy
   enough to do it.  But am I wrong?  Do I have that option?  Can anyone
   really say that is what our Bylaws really meant?  If so then our Bylaws
   need to be significantly longer because all kinds of absurd
   interpretations result.  Now I can think of a contrary argument -
   normally I would say if it doesn't say it is allowed, it is not.  That
   is the commonsense approach.  Joshua you seem to be arguing that if it
   isn't forbidden it is permitted.  What is the justification for that?
   Does not context, intent, and history matter?  I am not a conjoined
   twin.  An officer has different and potentially conflicting
   responsibilities.  When absurd output comes out of input, that is a
   clear clue the input is false.  But here is a piece of contrary
   evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate people.  So
   if it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after it
   demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants your
   position weight Joshua.  And if that is the case, our Bylaws have a
   huge problem, and now I have another option to consider - instead of
   declaring for one or the other, as the meme goes, why not both?  I
   don't think even 1% of our membership would think that is at all what
   was ever intended.  Theoretically then all of the Regionals could be
   one person?  If not, why not?   You can confine your answer to
   elections at conventions not mid-term appointments because that was my
   intent.
   So to continue with my questions:
   ==Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes - theoretically
   could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that something
   our Bylaws intended to allow? ==
   Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
   concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term appointment
   historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged.  But let's speak to that
   historical appointment.  It happened, was it right?  What was the
   justification?  Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is indeed
   a precedent.
   That leads to the crux of my question:
   ==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
   Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8 Alternate and
   that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that our
   Bylaws never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an
   alternate).  There is an email ballot.  When do I have to declare what
   capacity I am voting as?  Before voting starts?  At any time?  Can I
   withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as the
   other?
   Let's look at these various scenarios:
   Before Voting Starts
   If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense.  It raises
   issue of procedure but that is a separate issue.
   At any time?  (and this is the most directly parallel to the situation
   on the Platform Committee)
   That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and the
   previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us guidance
   in both letter and spirit.  The reason for that is a foundation of
   fairness and proper representation.  In fact all of Robert's has that
   as a foundation.  Protection of people and rights.
   The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have an
   inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot
   have.  How so?
   Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes.  And if I
   like that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can
   gamble that they won't and amplify my preference.  No one else can do
   that.  It is patently absurd and unfair.
   Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
   the other?  (this is also directly parallel to the question on the
   Platform Committee)
   What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and changes
   their vote to something I don't like.  Can I then withdraw my vote as
   Region 8 alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID VOTE???
    There is a big problem there, and I would like to see that answered.
   And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its head.
   And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got the
   Region 1 primary position later and Region 8 was not made explicitly
   aware of this so that they consented to the compromise of their use of
   their alternate?
   _________________________________________________
   Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for possible
   inequities in the system.  Why does the maker of a motion get to speak
   first?  Etc.  But that is available to everyone similarly situated.
   That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe
   parliamentary law is any different.
   I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
   accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their voting
   rights, and  deprive an appointing body of its choice of
   representative" is a completely unacceptable attack.
   I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect everyone.
   We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst possible
   speculations on motives.
   Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner.  I would truly
   like to hear what you have to say.  I have consulted early on with
   Richard Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra details too
   as I have groked it more.
   As I see it there are two issues:
   1.  When must the hat be declared?
   2.  Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
   Thoughts?

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and lead
   up to my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.

   I will be more clear a bit later.

   But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said clearly
   said my reason for asking.

   There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that has
   some points of comparison to a hypothetical here.

   And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my actual
   desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion.  That was absolutely
   and utterly uncalled for.

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   And Alicia that was unwarranted.  Please do not impugn my motives or
   make this personal.

   Thank you.

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz
   <[6]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:

        Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters how the
     vote
        is counted.  Given that, I would conclude that the system the LNC
     used
        is correct, and the member should specify in which capacity they
     are
        voting.
        Joshua A. Katz
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz
        <[1][7]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
        I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not be
     both,
        which leads me to conclude that it is permitted.  However, the
        fundamental rule applicable is that of "one person, one vote,"
     not "one
        position, one vote."  Hence, such a person could not vote twice.
     So,
        on an email ballot, supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,") it
     will be
        counted only once.  Should the rep for whom they are an alternate
     vote,
        that's clear anyway.  Should that rep not vote, the point is that
     their
        vote cannot count for both the region they represent and the
     region
        they alternate for.  I don't see that it matters, mathematically,
     which
        one they count for - the real variable is whether the rep votes,
     which
        is not under the control of this rep/alternate.
        As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate) this
     person
        is an LNC member, with all that entails.  For example, they could
     not
        assert their alternate status and serve in a position not
     otherwise
        open to an LNC member.
        Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies.  I have no
     idea if
        the bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any
     ambiguity in
        which to resort to intent.
        Joshua A. Katz
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[2][8]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
             Hypothetical question:
             Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person
     could be
          a
             regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?
     And
          what are
             they?  Both?  The “superior” position?
             If so, how would that work in an email vote?
             There are multiple practical issues.
             Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on
     platcomm
          and
             will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and
          opinions can
             lead to insights.  How the LNC would hypothetically handle
     would
          be a
             helpful piece of information.  The parallels are not exact
     but
          would
             give insight.
             Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
          theoretically
             could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that
          something
             our Bylaws intended to allow?
             Any and all insight appreciated.
             I would be more than happy to detail what issues of
     fundamental
             inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting
     in my
          first
             hypothetical.
             --
             In Liberty,
             Caryn Ann Harlos
             Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
     (Alaska,
             Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
          Washington)
             - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
             Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
             Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
             A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
             We defend your rights
             And oppose the use of force
             Taxation is theft
          References
             1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
             2. [4][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
     References
        1. mailto:[10]planning4liberty at gmail.com
        2. mailto:[11]carynannharlos at gmail.com
        3. mailto:[12]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
        4. [13]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   7. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   8. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
   9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  11. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  12. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  13. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list