[Lnc-business] update on timing
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jul 11 19:17:33 EDT 2018
As I am obviously still a contact for many in region 1 as the transition is
made, I am hearing from a lot of the same people. I really do not
appreciate being made the "bad guy" for asking reasonable questions and
having my motives questioned. I held back on asking as many questions as I
normally would because I knew that would happen. That should not be our
culture. Everyone should feel comfortable and free to ask questions in
order to discharge their duties.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Craig Bowden <craig.bowden at lp.org> wrote:
> For the record, I am the one who has aired the most concerns on the
> timeline since the requests came from Region 1 while I was acting as
> Representative. Three of the eleven states have specifically requested
> this. I have not hear from four. The remaining four are interested but not
> outright demanding it, just expressing interest.
>
> If you need to put anything on anyone, that is on me.
>
> Craig Bowden
> Region 1 Alternate
>
>
> On 2018-07-11 03:15, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>
>> Hi Alicia,
>> == I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of
>> the
>> Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of that
>> one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the one
>> in
>> which you seem to be unhappy with the result. ==
>> I am not unhappy with the result. I am unhappy with the way it was
>> handled. Please don't make accusations or assumptions. I hope all of
>> the races are audited and anyone in those races should not be involved
>> with that. I am sure you agree that margins of less than 20 votes are
>> significantly different than margins of 150 votes.
>> == You have recklessly asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty
>> screwed by this whole process", and that carries some pretty unfair
>> implications.==
>> The implications are that the At-Large candidates, which include a
>> region 1 candidate, were not proper. I have asserted that from the
>> beginning.
>> == You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
>> the person doing the work will make it go faster. ===
>> Alicia, now you are going overboard. I am entitled to ask, and that is
>> not heckling. I already begged your forgiveness if the intent came off
>> differently but now you are attacking me. I am not complaining you are
>> not done. I am asking for a timeframe. That is all. You could take
>> three months and I think that is reasonable.
>> == Your offer to "assist" is not practical, as any means for that to
>> happen would necessarily make it take longer, and thus it contradicts
>> your other complaint that it isn't happening fast enough.==
>> First I never complained it is not happening fast enough. And second,
>> it would seem desirable for me to assist to learn what you are doing.
>> That is part of a standard hand-off practice.
>> == You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when
>> I'd get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
>> working on t, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated
>> what was left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
>> complete as soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told
>> you nothing and have done nothing so far. ==
>> I am getting asked and asked and asked by members for a timeline. I
>> think you are reading into things that are not there. I have no doubt
>> that you have done an immense amount. I am not sure where this is
>> coming from, but it is not accurate.
>> ==In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the finishing
>> line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
>> information are being "ignored".==
>> The Utah Chair would like a timeline. He feels ignored.
>> And I don't think a timeline is unreasonable - such as "Dr. Buchman you
>> can expect that in two weeks."
>> That is all I am asking. I think this going on the attack here is not
>> appropriate. If *I* have one complaint (that is not transmitting a
>> complaint from a member) it would be that I should be included on this
>> process. That is part of training and handoff. And yes that may mean
>> things will take a little bit longer and that can be blamed totally on
>> me.
>> There is no need to go on the attack. I am not attacking you. I don't
>> attack you. I have only the utmost respect and admiration for your
>> skills as I have said numerous times which is one reason I do want to
>> be included in the process for training purposes.
>> I am not attacking you. Please stop attacking me. None of this is
>> productive. I already apologized if the tone of other requests came
>> off wrong. Please accept that.
>> However, a timeline is not unreasonable and I am requesting that on
>> behalf of members who keep asking me. A request that people involved
>> in an election not be involved in the recount is not unreasonable, in
>> fact, I am rather shocked that is not standard practice so I am
>> requesting an independent audit of any race in which an auditor was
>> also a candidate We would expect this of other organizations.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Caryn Ann,
>> I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of
>> the
>> Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of
>> that
>> one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the
>> one in
>> which you seem to be unhappy with the result. You have
>> recklessly
>> asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty screwed by this
>> whole
>> process", and that carries some pretty unfair implications.
>> You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
>> the
>> person doing the work will make it go faster. Your offer to
>> "assist"
>> is not practical, as any means for that to happen would
>> necessarily
>> make it take longer, and thus it contradicts your other complaint
>> that
>> it isn't happening fast enough.
>> You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when
>> I'd
>> get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
>> working on
>> it, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated what
>> was
>> left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
>> complete as
>> soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told you
>> nothing
>> and have done nothing so far. Today I finished the dozen states
>> that I
>> didn't get to yesterday. Next I need to write up my notes and
>> scan
>> some supporting documents. That's where things are, and it's
>> where
>> I'll pick up later today.
>> In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the
>> finishing
>> line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
>> information are being "ignored". That's just not a rational
>> description of the situation.
>> All of this just makes me think that this whole conversation is
>> more
>> about generating noise than anything else. Regardless, I'll
>> finish the
>> task soon and then move on to the rest of my to-do list.
>> -Alicia
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
>> Lnc-business
>> <[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> The At-Large results shouldn’t be a one-person audit in this
>> case.
>> And no one who ran should conduct it.
>> I continue to offer to assist.
>> There was no intent to have an inappropriate tone and if
>> anything
>> presented that way you have my abject apology.
>> What is being asked - by several state Chairs - is a
>> timeline. I
>> don’t
>> think that is unreasonable. They feel like they are being
>> ignored.
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:24 PM Richard Longstreth via
>> Lnc-business
>> <[1][2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> Thank you for your work Alicia. I appreciate your hasty
>> efforts
>> and
>> dedication in getting these items available as soon as
>> you
>> can.
>> Richard
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 05:09 Alicia Mattson via
>> Lnc-business
>>
>> <[1][2][3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> Ms. Harlos,
>> I indicated before that I would be traveling with a
>> full
>> schedule
>> and
>> only sporadic internet access, and would not return to
>> my
>> more
>> normal
>> routine until Monday. I got home from my trip Sunday
>> night,
>> and
>> starting in the wee hours of Monday morning you started
>> the
>> "Are
>> we
>> there yet?" messages about the At-Large details. Then
>> throughout
>> the
>> day it became rather unfair characterizations that I
>> was
>> saying
>> "well,
>> whenever" as though I'm blowing it off. That tone is
>> not
>> warranted nor
>> appreciated.
>> Yes, the state-by-state numbers that add up to the
>> totals
>> I
>> sent
>> do
>> exist, but providing that will not be the end of the
>> story.
>> If
>> all I
>> send is that, immediately the questions will begin
>> about
>> the
>> instances
>> where those numbers vary from the delegation tally
>> sheets
>> because
>> we
>> caught and corrected errors. Then while I am
>> researching
>> to
>> answer
>> those questions, we all know the internet gossip will
>> get
>> silly,
>> with
>> people not being careful to say only things they know
>> to
>> be
>> true
>> while
>> waiting on answers to the questions.
>> My usual practice is to do the post-convention audit as
>> part
>> of
>> building the convention minutes, which is near the end
>> of
>> my
>> to-do list
>> after having updated other minutes with timing
>> deadlines,
>> policy,
>> bylaws, platform, etc. Instead, so I can answer most
>> questions
>> on
>> at-large before they are asked, because there was a
>> very
>> close
>> outcome
>> that involves me, I've prioritized the audit of the
>> At-Large
>> race
>> to do
>> it mostly first...though I did also send updated
>> minutes
>> to
>> meet
>> a
>> posting deadline and update the Policy Manual earlier.
>> When I provide the state-by-state numbers, I'll scan
>> the
>> state
>> tally
>> sheets, plus provide my notes about what's different
>> between
>> the
>> two
>> and why so that those questions can be addressed
>> simultaneously
>> in one
>> message, rather than being spread out in different
>> places
>> at
>> different
>> times where people might miss some of it.
>> You're well aware of how long it took a team of 10
>> people
>> to
>> go
>> through
>> the Judicial Committee votes after the LNC meeting on
>> July
>> 2nd?
>> You
>> can deduce from that how long it takes one person to
>> give
>> the
>> At-Large
>> the second-pass, fine-tooth-comb treatment. Today I
>> spent
>> a
>> LARGE
>> number of hours on the project. I think I have about a
>> dozen
>> states
>> left to go, plus tally sheet scanning and writing up my
>> notes.
>> It
>> takes only a few seconds for you to ask, "Are we there
>> yet?", but
>> it
>> takes a lot longer to actually accomplish it.
>> I didn't have the crystal ball at the start of the
>> project
>> to
>> know
>> precisely how long I would get to work on it today, or
>> how
>> long
>> it
>> would take to complete. Rather than emailing the LNC
>> every
>> 30
>> minutes,
>> (and I haven't even taken time to comment on the two
>> email
>> ballots yet,
>> though I have a bit to say there), I'm focusing on just
>> getting
>> this
>> task done so I can move on to the next. It is a high
>> priority on
>> my
>> list, and when I finish it, I'll send it.
>> To others who have been asking about the rest of my
>> to-do
>> list,
>> I'm
>> doing this project first. In the case of adopted
>> resolutions,
>> please
>> recall that our convention forges ahead and adopts all
>> sorts
>> of
>> things
>> from the floor while the Secretary is trying to tally
>> election
>> results. I suppose I should be flattered that some
>> believe
>> I can
>> document those fully on the fly while I'm
>> simultaneously
>> aggregating
>> election results, and have completed minutes
>> immediately
>> following
>> adjournment, but that's a bit overly optimistic. I am
>> a
>> human
>> who is
>> constrained by the laws of time and space. I could
>> only
>> make
>> sparse
>> notes about the nature of other proceedings while I was
>> working
>> on
>> elections, and when I start building the convention
>> minutes,
>> I'll
>> have
>> to go back and review the recordings to verify that I
>> caught
>> all
>> the
>> relevant details. I have a large envelope of lots of
>> things
>> that
>> were
>> submitted in writing, so I'll fish out what was
>> actually
>> voted
>> on,
>> verify that the written submission matches what the
>> delegates
>> were told
>> they were voting on, etc.
>> Again, all these items are in the queue, and I'll get
>> to
>> them all
>> as
>> soon as I reasonably can now that I am back at home
>> with
>> my
>> usual
>> workspace, but it is unreasonable to expect it to all
>> happen
>> instantaneously.
>> -Alicia
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:[3][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>> Secretary
>> - [4]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:[5][6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[6][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[13]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 7. mailto:[15]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 8. mailto:[16]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>> - [17]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 16. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 17. 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 --------------
As I am obviously still a contact for many in region 1 as the
transition is made, I am hearing from a lot of the same people. I
really do not appreciate being made the "bad guy" for asking reasonable
questions and having my motives questioned. I held back on asking as
many questions as I normally would because I knew that would happen.
That should not be our culture. Everyone should feel comfortable and
free to ask questions in order to discharge their duties.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Craig Bowden <[1]craig.bowden at lp.org>
wrote:
For the record, I am the one who has aired the most concerns on the
timeline since the requests came from Region 1 while I was acting as
Representative. Three of the eleven states have specifically
requested this. I have not hear from four. The remaining four are
interested but not outright demanding it, just expressing interest.
If you need to put anything on anyone, that is on me.
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate
On 2018-07-11 03:15, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Hi Alicia,
== I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of
the
Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of
that
one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the
one
in
which you seem to be unhappy with the result. ==
I am not unhappy with the result. I am unhappy with the way it was
handled. Please don't make accusations or assumptions. I hope all
of
the races are audited and anyone in those races should not be
involved
with that. I am sure you agree that margins of less than 20 votes
are
significantly different than margins of 150 votes.
== You have recklessly asserted that "a region 1 candidate was
pretty
screwed by this whole process", and that carries some pretty unfair
implications.==
The implications are that the At-Large candidates, which include a
region 1 candidate, were not proper. I have asserted that from the
beginning.
== You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
the person doing the work will make it go faster. ===
Alicia, now you are going overboard. I am entitled to ask, and that
is
not heckling. I already begged your forgiveness if the intent came
off
differently but now you are attacking me. I am not complaining you
are
not done. I am asking for a timeframe. That is all. You could
take
three months and I think that is reasonable.
== Your offer to "assist" is not practical, as any means for that to
happen would necessarily make it take longer, and thus it
contradicts
your other complaint that it isn't happening fast enough.==
First I never complained it is not happening fast enough. And
second,
it would seem desirable for me to assist to learn what you are
doing.
That is part of a standard hand-off practice.
== You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when
I'd get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
working on t, I updated on the substantial progress I made,
indicated
what was left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
complete as soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have
told
you nothing and have done nothing so far. ==
I am getting asked and asked and asked by members for a timeline. I
think you are reading into things that are not there. I have no
doubt
that you have done an immense amount. I am not sure where this is
coming from, but it is not accurate.
==In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the
finishing
line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
information are being "ignored".==
The Utah Chair would like a timeline. He feels ignored.
And I don't think a timeline is unreasonable - such as "Dr. Buchman
you
can expect that in two weeks."
That is all I am asking. I think this going on the attack here is
not
appropriate. If *I* have one complaint (that is not transmitting a
complaint from a member) it would be that I should be included on
this
process. That is part of training and handoff. And yes that may
mean
things will take a little bit longer and that can be blamed totally
on
me.
There is no need to go on the attack. I am not attacking you. I
don't
attack you. I have only the utmost respect and admiration for your
skills as I have said numerous times which is one reason I do want
to
be included in the process for training purposes.
I am not attacking you. Please stop attacking me. None of this is
productive. I already apologized if the tone of other requests came
off wrong. Please accept that.
However, a timeline is not unreasonable and I am requesting that on
behalf of members who keep asking me. A request that people
involved
in an election not be involved in the recount is not unreasonable,
in
fact, I am rather shocked that is not standard practice so I am
requesting an independent audit of any race in which an auditor was
also a candidate We would expect this of other organizations.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation
of
the
Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of
that
one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the
one in
which you seem to be unhappy with the result. You have
recklessly
asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty screwed by this
whole
process", and that carries some pretty unfair implications.
You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
the
person doing the work will make it go faster. Your offer to
"assist"
is not practical, as any means for that to happen would
necessarily
make it take longer, and thus it contradicts your other
complaint
that
it isn't happening fast enough.
You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you
when
I'd
get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
working on
it, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated
what
was
left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
complete as
soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told you
nothing
and have done nothing so far. Today I finished the dozen
states
that I
didn't get to yesterday. Next I need to write up my notes and
scan
some supporting documents. That's where things are, and it's
where
I'll pick up later today.
In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the
finishing
line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
information are being "ignored". That's just not a rational
description of the situation.
All of this just makes me think that this whole conversation is
more
about generating noise than anything else. Regardless, I'll
finish the
task soon and then move on to the rest of my to-do list.
-Alicia
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
Lnc-business
<[1][2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
The At-Large results shouldn’t be a one-person audit in
this
case.
And no one who ran should conduct it.
I continue to offer to assist.
There was no intent to have an inappropriate tone and
if
anything
presented that way you have my abject apology.
What is being asked - by several state Chairs - is a
timeline. I
don’t
think that is unreasonable. They feel like they are
being
ignored.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:24 PM Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
<[1][2][3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you for your work Alicia. I appreciate your
hasty
efforts
and
dedication in getting these items available as
soon as
you
can.
Richard
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 05:09 Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[1][2][3][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Ms. Harlos,
I indicated before that I would be traveling with a
full
schedule
and
only sporadic internet access, and would not return
to
my
more
normal
routine until Monday. I got home from my trip
Sunday
night,
and
starting in the wee hours of Monday morning you
started
the
"Are
we
there yet?" messages about the At-Large details.
Then
throughout
the
day it became rather unfair characterizations that I
was
saying
"well,
whenever" as though I'm blowing it off. That tone
is
not
warranted nor
appreciated.
Yes, the state-by-state numbers that add up to the
totals
I
sent
do
exist, but providing that will not be the end of the
story.
If
all I
send is that, immediately the questions will begin
about
the
instances
where those numbers vary from the delegation tally
sheets
because
we
caught and corrected errors. Then while I am
researching
to
answer
those questions, we all know the internet gossip
will
get
silly,
with
people not being careful to say only things they
know
to
be
true
while
waiting on answers to the questions.
My usual practice is to do the post-convention audit
as
part
of
building the convention minutes, which is near the
end
of
my
to-do list
after having updated other minutes with timing
deadlines,
policy,
bylaws, platform, etc. Instead, so I can answer
most
questions
on
at-large before they are asked, because there was a
very
close
outcome
that involves me, I've prioritized the audit of the
At-Large
race
to do
it mostly first...though I did also send updated
minutes
to
meet
a
posting deadline and update the Policy Manual
earlier.
When I provide the state-by-state numbers, I'll scan
the
state
tally
sheets, plus provide my notes about what's different
between
the
two
and why so that those questions can be addressed
simultaneously
in one
message, rather than being spread out in different
places
at
different
times where people might miss some of it.
You're well aware of how long it took a team of 10
people
to
go
through
the Judicial Committee votes after the LNC meeting
on
July
2nd?
You
can deduce from that how long it takes one person to
give
the
At-Large
the second-pass, fine-tooth-comb treatment. Today I
spent
a
LARGE
number of hours on the project. I think I have
about a
dozen
states
left to go, plus tally sheet scanning and writing up
my
notes.
It
takes only a few seconds for you to ask, "Are we
there
yet?", but
it
takes a lot longer to actually accomplish it.
I didn't have the crystal ball at the start of the
project
to
know
precisely how long I would get to work on it today,
or
how
long
it
would take to complete. Rather than emailing the
LNC
every
30
minutes,
(and I haven't even taken time to comment on the two
email
ballots yet,
though I have a bit to say there), I'm focusing on
just
getting
this
task done so I can move on to the next. It is a
high
priority on
my
list, and when I finish it, I'll send it.
To others who have been asking about the rest of my
to-do
list,
I'm
doing this project first. In the case of adopted
resolutions,
please
recall that our convention forges ahead and adopts
all
sorts
of
things
from the floor while the Secretary is trying to
tally
election
results. I suppose I should be flattered that some
believe
I can
document those fully on the fly while I'm
simultaneously
aggregating
election results, and have completed minutes
immediately
following
adjournment, but that's a bit overly optimistic. I
am
a
human
who is
constrained by the laws of time and space. I could
only
make
sparse
notes about the nature of other proceedings while I
was
working
on
elections, and when I start building the convention
minutes,
I'll
have
to go back and review the recordings to verify that
I
caught
all
the
relevant details. I have a large envelope of lots
of
things
that
were
submitted in writing, so I'll fish out what was
actually
voted
on,
verify that the written submission matches what the
delegates
were told
they were voting on, etc.
Again, all these items are in the queue, and I'll
get
to
them all
as
soon as I reasonably can now that I am back at home
with
my
usual
workspace, but it is unreasonable to expect it to
all
happen
instantaneously.
-Alicia
References
1. mailto:[3][4][5][6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [4]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:[5][6][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[6][7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[7][8][9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. mailto:[9][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[10][11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[11][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[12][13]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[13][14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:[14][15]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:[15][16]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:[16]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [17]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:[17]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[18]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[19]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[20]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[21]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:[22]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:[23]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:[24]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:[25]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:[26]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:[27]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:[29]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. mailto:[30]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:[31]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:[32]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
17. mailto:[33]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [34]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:craig.bowden at lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
25. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
27. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
28. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
29. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
30. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
31. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
32. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
33. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
34. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list