[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Jul 9 20:33:15 EDT 2018
I respectfully decline.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org> wrote:
> Caryn Ann,
>
> Just shut up about this already!
>
> Respectfully,
>
> ---
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> 317-850-0726 Cell
>
>
> On 2018-07-09 18:34, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>
>> PS: Before this vote ends, I am going to put something together to try
>> to convince you that this is actually one of the worst ways to solve.
>> My first issue - that of steering the delegates down that road with
>> at-large is unsolvable- at least unsolvable in any way that we would
>> ever do. If it were up to me, I would punt it all back to the
>> delegates.
>> The second issue - of how to handle this situation with the JC - well
>> we are trying to solve it now and I think we are solving it wrong both
>> ethically and procedurally.
>> And a remaining issue - is one where me and RONR come into conflict.
>> Rules are tools. Just because a rule allows something doesn't mean it
>> is right, and this is probably why the first issue is sticking in my
>> craw so badly. It is fundamentally NOT RIGHT to change the rules of an
>> election mid-way. There is a huge difference between majority and
>> plurality and our candidates deserve to know as it effects the way they
>> campaign. We treated them and their efforts as pawns, and it isn't
>> right.
>> I know some of you are thinking, just shut up about this already.
>> Well, I am a hard-nose on some things, and this is one of them. Just
>> like it was with the eternal secrecy clause last term.
>> The only way we are going to learn as an organization is if this is a
>> bit painful. And in so doing we will model over-the-top integrity to
>> our members rather than political expediency.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> ==I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the
>> state-by-state tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of delegates
>> didn't even vote in the two races because we put them off so long. In
>> the 2016 convention, whole states didn't cast votes in the At-Large and
>> JC races. Them's the rules - elections are won by those who stay and
>> vote - but oh my did we make it hard. The combination of voting
>> methodology, tabulation method, and scheduling left us in a bad
>> place.===
>> You mean we ran in front of a racing car and now are surprised we got
>> ran over?
>> But it is more than that. The delegates were led to make a decision in
>> a certain direction. There WERE other options. Whether or not one
>> agrees with the voting methodology, it is the methodology and its
>> intent was to use approval voting to show approval and we turned it on
>> its head. Why weren't the delegates given other options?
>> ==All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far as
>> actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable.
>> Other possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or us
>> filling the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even more
>> violative of the Bylaws and Rules.==
>> Are they all? I don't think so. And I do think my very real complaint
>> of how the delegates were steered in a certain direction is being
>> ignored at best (or maligned at worst).
>> ==The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
>> delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates and
>> the Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no doubt in my
>> mind that had they been asked they would have done the same for the JC.
>> A room of several hundred Libertarians were not coerced into doing that
>> - they went with what Nick suggested because that's what they wanted to
>> do. He just told them how.===
>> And that is where the dispute is. Most of the people there trusted us
>> (I use us as Nick was acting as the spokesperson of the LNC and this
>> isn't about Nick ultimately) not to tell them what they wanted. They
>> were presented with two choices in which they were led down a
>> particular path. You are an attorney Joe, you know exactly what I am
>> getting at here.
>> Do you really think that if they were offered a majority rising vote on
>> the spot to choose between options they would not have taken that? It
>> never ocurred to most of them that there WERE any other options. It
>> didn't immediately occur to me and I am well-versed in this stuff. It
>> stinks. If a government acted this way we would be all lathered up.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman
>> <[2]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the
>> state-by-state tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of
>> delegates didn't even vote in the two races because we put them off
>> so long. In the 2016 convention, whole states didn't cast votes in
>> the At-Large and JC races. Them's the rules - elections are won by
>> those who stay and vote - but oh my did we make it hard. The
>> combination of voting methodology, tabulation method, and scheduling
>> left us in a bad place.
>> All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far as
>> actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable.
>> Other possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or
>> us filling the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even
>> more violative of the Bylaws and Rules.
>> I do not dispute that one can reasonably argue that every JC
>> candidate was disapproved and that it should sit empty until 2022.
>> The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
>> delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates
>> and the Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no
>> doubt in my mind that had they been asked they would have done the
>> same for the JC. A room of several hundred Libertarians were not
>> coerced into doing that - they went with what Nick suggested because
>> that's what they wanted to do. He just told them how. They didn't
>> want the LNC fighting over who would fill the seats if they were
>> left vacant.
>> I doubt I'm going to convince you but I did want to write this to
>> emphasize that at least I am not sanguine or sweeping anything
>> blithely under the rug. I expect rethinking how we do elections will
>> be a big priority for many of us.
>> JBH
>> On 2018-07-09 16:46, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>
>> Suspension of the rules has to be specific and there is no way
>> around
>> the fact that we used the number 5 over and over.
>> This is taking things to an even deeper level of improper. I
>> object to
>> the whole at-Large process- I don’t think the delegates made an
>> independent choice and now to just infer this upon that is two
>> bridges
>> too far.
>> This is a big screwup and I won’t be part of sweeping it under
>> the rug.
>> It alarms me to no end how blithely the whole situation is being
>> taken.
>> There are people looking at us and seeing nothing different than
>> the
>> government we wish to reform.
>> There was a controversial election and at least one state chair
>> and
>> candidate has been asking for the state by state rallies with no
>> time
>> frame given him.
>> The whole thing was an affront to people expecting an entirely
>> different thing when they ran. I will not be sanguine about it.
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM Whitney Bilyeu
>> <[1][3]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
>> This point did come up immediately after adjournment, while Nick
>> was
>> still at the mic. I don't recall who brought it up, but the
>> statement
>> was made that it would follow the same procedure as At-Large at
>> that
>> point, since we were no longer in session.
>> No one raised the question prior to that.
>> Whitney Bilyeu
>> Region 7 Representative
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
>> <[2][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> Joshua they were not given a choice on this. The JC never
>> came
>> up.
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM
>> <[1][3][5]joshua.smith at lp.org>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> I vote yes. Given that the delegates were given the choice at
>> convention
>> just a few short days ago, I believe we should respect that
>> decision.
>> Thanks,
>> Joshua D. Smith
>> On 2018-07-07 22:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>> > We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the
>> LNC-Business
>> > list by July 14, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>> Co-Sponsors:
>> > Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Hagan, Merced, Van Horn
>> Motion:
>> Move
>> > that
>> > the Libertarian National Committee acknowledge the
>> election of
>> the
>> > following to the Judicial Committee for a four-year
>> term:
>> D.
>> Frank
>> > Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett,
>> Geoff
>> Neale,
>> > Jim
>> > Turney, and Tricia Sprankle. You can keep track of the
>> Secretary's
>> > manual tally of votes here:
>>
>> [1][2][4][6]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> > --
>> > --
>> > In Liberty,
>> > Caryn Ann Harlos
>> > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National
>> Committee
>> (Alaska,
>> > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah,
>> Wyoming,
>> > Washington)
>> > - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> > Communications Director, [3]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. [3][5][7]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> > 2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> > 3. [5][6][8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>> Secretary
>> - [6]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
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[7][9]joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 2. [8][10]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 3. [9][11]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 4. mailto:[10]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 5. [11][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 6. mailto:[12]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>> - [13]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
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[13]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[15]joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 4. [16]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 5. [17]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 6. [18]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 7. mailto:[19]joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 8. [20]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 9. [21]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 10. mailto:[22]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 11. [23]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 12. mailto:[24]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 13. mailto:[25]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> --
>>
>> JBH
>> ------------
>> Joe Bishop-Henchman
>> LNC Member (At-Large)
>> [26]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
>> [27]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
>>
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>> - [28]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
>> - [29]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
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 5. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 6. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 7. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 9. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 10. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 11. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 13. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>> 14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 15. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 16. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 17. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 18. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 19. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
>> 20. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 21. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> 22. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 23. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 24. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 25. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 26. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
>> 27. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
>> 28. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 29. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <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 --------------
I respectfully decline.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Sam Goldstein <[1]sam.goldstein at lp.org>
wrote:
Caryn Ann,
Just shut up about this already!
Respectfully,
---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell
On 2018-07-09 18:34, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
PS: Before this vote ends, I am going to put something together to try
to convince you that this is actually one of the worst ways to
solve.
My first issue - that of steering the delegates down that road with
at-large is unsolvable- at least unsolvable in any way that we would
ever do. If it were up to me, I would punt it all back to the
delegates.
The second issue - of how to handle this situation with the JC -
well
we are trying to solve it now and I think we are solving it wrong
both
ethically and procedurally.
And a remaining issue - is one where me and RONR come into conflict.
Rules are tools. Just because a rule allows something doesn't mean
it
is right, and this is probably why the first issue is sticking in my
craw so badly. It is fundamentally NOT RIGHT to change the rules of
an
election mid-way. There is a huge difference between majority and
plurality and our candidates deserve to know as it effects the way
they
campaign. We treated them and their efforts as pawns, and it isn't
right.
I know some of you are thinking, just shut up about this already.
Well, I am a hard-nose on some things, and this is one of them.
Just
like it was with the eternal secrecy clause last term.
The only way we are going to learn as an organization is if this is
a
bit painful. And in so doing we will model over-the-top integrity
to
our members rather than political expediency.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
==I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the
state-by-state tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of
delegates
didn't even vote in the two races because we put them off so long.
In
the 2016 convention, whole states didn't cast votes in the At-Large
and
JC races. Them's the rules - elections are won by those who stay and
vote - but oh my did we make it hard. The combination of voting
methodology, tabulation method, and scheduling left us in a bad
place.===
You mean we ran in front of a racing car and now are surprised we
got
ran over?
But it is more than that. The delegates were led to make a decision
in
a certain direction. There WERE other options. Whether or not one
agrees with the voting methodology, it is the methodology and its
intent was to use approval voting to show approval and we turned it
on
its head. Why weren't the delegates given other options?
==All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far
as
actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable.
Other possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members or
us
filling the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are even
more
violative of the Bylaws and Rules.==
Are they all? I don't think so. And I do think my very real
complaint
of how the delegates were steered in a certain direction is being
ignored at best (or maligned at worst).
==The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates
and
the Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no doubt in
my
mind that had they been asked they would have done the same for the
JC.
A room of several hundred Libertarians were not coerced into doing
that
- they went with what Nick suggested because that's what they wanted
to
do. He just told them how.===
And that is where the dispute is. Most of the people there trusted
us
(I use us as Nick was acting as the spokesperson of the LNC and this
isn't about Nick ultimately) not to tell them what they wanted.
They
were presented with two choices in which they were led down a
particular path. You are an attorney Joe, you know exactly what I
am
getting at here.
Do you really think that if they were offered a majority rising vote
on
the spot to choose between options they would not have taken that?
It
never ocurred to most of them that there WERE any other options. It
didn't immediately occur to me and I am well-versed in this stuff.
It
stinks. If a government acted this way we would be all lathered up.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman
<[2][3]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
I get the anger. I'm angry. When we ultimately do get the
state-by-state tallies, I'm sure we'll find that hundreds of
delegates didn't even vote in the two races because we put them
off
so long. In the 2016 convention, whole states didn't cast votes in
the At-Large and JC races. Them's the rules - elections are won by
those who stay and vote - but oh my did we make it hard. The
combination of voting methodology, tabulation method, and
scheduling
left us in a bad place.
All that said, I don't want to just be angry and complain. As far
as
actions that can be taken, this resolution is the most reasonable.
Other possibilities - revotes or mail votes of all Party members
or
us filling the JC seats or setting multiple JCs in motion - are
even
more violative of the Bylaws and Rules.
I do not dispute that one can reasonably argue that every JC
candidate was disapproved and that it should sit empty until 2022.
The contrary view admittedly rests on a thread of legality: the
delegates expressed their wish to take the top at-large candidates
and the Bylaws say the same applies for the JC. There's also no
doubt in my mind that had they been asked they would have done the
same for the JC. A room of several hundred Libertarians were not
coerced into doing that - they went with what Nick suggested
because
that's what they wanted to do. He just told them how. They didn't
want the LNC fighting over who would fill the seats if they were
left vacant.
I doubt I'm going to convince you but I did want to write this to
emphasize that at least I am not sanguine or sweeping anything
blithely under the rug. I expect rethinking how we do elections
will
be a big priority for many of us.
JBH
On 2018-07-09 16:46, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Suspension of the rules has to be specific and there is no way
around
the fact that we used the number 5 over and over.
This is taking things to an even deeper level of improper. I
object to
the whole at-Large process- I don’t think the delegates made an
independent choice and now to just infer this upon that is two
bridges
too far.
This is a big screwup and I won’t be part of sweeping it under
the rug.
It alarms me to no end how blithely the whole situation is
being
taken.
There are people looking at us and seeing nothing different
than
the
government we wish to reform.
There was a controversial election and at least one state chair
and
candidate has been asking for the state by state rallies with
no
time
frame given him.
The whole thing was an affront to people expecting an entirely
different thing when they ran. I will not be sanguine about
it.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM Whitney Bilyeu
<[1][3][4]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
This point did come up immediately after adjournment, while
Nick
was
still at the mic. I don't recall who brought it up, but the
statement
was made that it would follow the same procedure as At-Large
at
that
point, since we were no longer in session.
No one raised the question prior to that.
Whitney Bilyeu
Region 7 Representative
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
Lnc-business
<[2][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Joshua they were not given a choice on this. The JC
never
came
up.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM
<[1][3][5][6]joshua.smith at lp.org>
wrote:
I vote yes. Given that the delegates were given the choice
at
convention
just a few short days ago, I believe we should respect
that
decision.
Thanks,
Joshua D. Smith
On 2018-07-07 22:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the
LNC-Business
> list by July 14, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors:
> Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Hagan, Merced, Van Horn
Motion:
Move
> that
> the Libertarian National Committee acknowledge the
election of
the
> following to the Judicial Committee for a four-year
term:
D.
Frank
> Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett,
Geoff
Neale,
> Jim
> Turney, and Tricia Sprankle. You can keep track of
the
Secretary's
> manual tally of votes here:
[1][2][4][6][7]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National
Committee
(Alaska,
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana,
Utah,
Wyoming,
> Washington)
> - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, [3]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. [3][5][7][8]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> 2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 3. [5][6][8][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [6]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
References
1. mailto:[7][9][10]joshua.smith at lp.org
2. [8][10][11]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
3. [9][11][12]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
4. mailto:[10]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
5. [11][12][13]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
6. mailto:[12]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [13]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
References
1. mailto:[13][14]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
2. mailto:[14][15]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[15][16]joshua.smith at lp.org
4. [16][17]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
5. [17][18]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
6. [18][19]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
7. mailto:[19][20]joshua.smith at lp.org
8. [20][21]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
9. [21][22]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
10. mailto:[22]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
11. [23][23]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
12. mailto:[24]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
13. mailto:[25]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
JBH
------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)
[26][24]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
[27][25]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [28]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
- [29]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
References
1. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[27]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
3. mailto:[28]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
4. mailto:[29]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[30]joshua.smith at lp.org
6. [31]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
7. [32]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
8. [33]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
9. mailto:[34]joshua.smith at lp.org
10. [35]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
11. [36]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
12. [37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:[38]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
14. mailto:[39]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:[40]joshua.smith at lp.org
16. [41]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
17. [42]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
18. [43]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
19. mailto:[44]joshua.smith at lp.org
20. [45]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
21. [46]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
22. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
23. [48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
24. mailto:[49]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
25. mailto:[50]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
26. mailto:[51]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
27. [52]http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
28. mailto:[53]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
29. mailto:[54]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [55]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
References
1. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
4. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
7. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
8. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
11. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
12. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
13. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
14. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
17. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
18. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
19. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
20. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
21. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
22. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
23. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
24. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
25. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
28. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
29. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
30. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
31. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
32. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
33. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
34. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
35. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
36. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
39. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
41. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
42. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
43. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
44. mailto:joshua.smith at lp.org
45. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
46. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
47. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
49. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
50. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
51. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
52. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
53. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
54. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
55. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list