[Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
Craig Bowden
craig.bowden at lp.org
Sat Jul 21 13:37:10 EDT 2018
The purpose of the JC is understood. But I see zero way to have a
legitimate one, no matter what is done. There are arguments that even if
a ballot were sent out to delegates, because they were not elected at
Convention, that if a dispute arose, it could be argued that under our
rules, they are not legitimate.
I voiced near the beginning of everything, and left the discussion
because it was circular, with no direction for resolution. After
watching, and keep in mind this is my observation, I have found the
following on each recommendation made:
1. Vote to recognized the plurality election of the JC. As most of us
have agreed, we don't have the authority to recognize anything.
2. Appoint a JC. Again, agreed by most that this would be even worse
than the Top 7 recognition.
3. The Moulton solution. This was argued to be illegitimate because
there was no JC to create a new JC. At the adjournment, the old one was
dissolved.
4. Balloting delegates that were present/credentialed for the election.
This one, as I mentioned, could be argued as illegitimate since it was
not an election during convention.
Because we did not elect a Judicial Committee at the convention, there
is no way to not have a challenge in the future toward legitimacy.
From my perspective, there are no good solutions. Either we do something
that can be called into question or we have no JC until 2020, where we
could finish the election. Neither is optimal, but the most legitimate
course is to elect at a Regular Convention. Again, this is just from
what I have evaluated, perhaps someone else has a different view, but by
and large, from what I have heard from most delegates I know, as well as
most state executive committees, they want us to move on.
The fastest way to move on, since the top 7 were not acknowledged, is to
recognize that we do not have a JC and work diligently to improve our
election process so that we do not have this issue again. There are
splits along every proposed solution among our membership. We are
already starting to experience a small implosion because of the rifts on
every proposal that has been discussed.
Even among our own board, there are too many varying opinions for a
consensus. And from the Regional Representatives/Alternates, all are
giving differing information from their regions. In Region 1 alone,
there are those that oppose action by the LNC to do anything in regard
to the JC, and there are those that think we should accept the top
seven. This includes the opinion of the delegations from those states.
The only legitimate course I see is to not have one for two years and
work to stay in line with the SoP as a body, work together, and advance
liberty with everything we have.
Respectfully,
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate
On 2018-07-21 10:34, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> The right to elect a JC was not knowingly waived. The Party exists to
> give voice to and implement the Statement of Principles. The JC
> insures that.
>
> Having no JC is absolutely against the REST of the Bylaws.
>
> And I sure hope we never have to disaffiliate a state party in the
> coming two years as they have NO APPEAL.
>
> Want to see the Party implode? That is how you see the Party implode.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 10:20 AM Craig Bowden via Lnc-business
> <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> We have been going over this, in circles, for two weeks. The facts
>> are
>> the there were several balls dropped and we have no authority to do
>> anything, including a re-ballot.
>>
>> Article 8(1): "The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven
>> Party
>> members elected at each Regular
>> Convention..." While I understand this has been changed to reflect
>> non-Presidential years, the reality is that we do not have the
>> authority
>> to send out a ballot outside of a Regular convention under our
>> bylaws.
>>
>> We are going to have to deal with this at a Regular Convention. That
>> is
>> the reality. That is the hard bullet that we all must bite for our
>> parts
>> in the failure. Whether we didn't raise objections, didn't stay on
>> the
>> floor, or moved to adjourn before addressing.
>>
>> This is what we must accept. There is no JC.
>>
>> Craig Bowden
>> Region 1 Alternate
>>
>> On 2018-07-21 10:00, brent.olsen--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> Actually, I think rejection of the one which "exists" is
>> recognition
>>> that one was not elected and you can't just dictatorially say that
>>> because you were in the top seven in the voting at the convention
>> you
>>> are now the JC. It is a violation of the Bylaws. I challenge
>> their
>>> legitimacy. Same argument against us acknowledging them is in
>> place
>>> here - there was no proper election of them at convention.
>>>
>>> -Brent
>>>
>>> On 2018-07-20 21:47, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
>>>> I dont understand. Is your Region refusing to acknowledge that
>> there
>>>> is
>>>> a JC? Is it passive denial or a rejection of the one that
>> exists?
>>>> The
>>>> distinction is quite important because one does exist and a
>>>> rejection
>>>> is, in essence, a rejection of a part of the national party.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 21:11 Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>> <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd replied to John Phillips, he's the Region 6 rep.
>>>> Also, I've already stated my position. I'd wanted to have the
>> LNC
>>>> approve the top seven, I co-sponsored that motion. Only, when
>> took
>>>> the
>>>> discussion to my region, multiple members, including officers,
>>
>>>> state
>>>> chairs, VCs, etc, of Region 3 were adamant that under our
>> bylaws
>>>> there's no JC, and no way to get one. Me stating this on the
>> LNC
>>>> email
>>>> list is just that, me stating what my region has said, and
>> wants.
>>>> I've no idea why you're making comments about "do not turn
>> this
>>>> personal"?? I've said nothing personal. Don't project onto
>> me.
>>>> What I have done is point out that another regional rep isn't
>>>> speaking
>>>> for my region.
>>>> As for my reply to the LNC Secretary, the same. An officer
>> has a
>>>> particular role, otherwise, they have one vote, same as anyone
>> on
>>>> the
>>>> LNC. The LNC secretary asked people to confer with the
>> registered
>>>> parliamentarian, and I have, and I've also read his views on
>> this
>>>> subject. I went through the bylaws carefully, and got
>> feedback
>>>> from an
>>>> officer in my own state affiliate, officers from the other
>> state
>>>> affiliates in my region, etc. My statements are the result of
>>>> listening to the members in my region. I've done due
>> diligence on
>>>> this
>>>> issue. I've not going to take the time to listen to my region,
>> and
>>>> then
>>>> ignore them.
>>>> My representation and advocacy is for my region.
>>>> ---
>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-07-20 18:10, Richard Longstreth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My Region says that the Top 7 should be and we should move on.
>> We
>>>> cannot simply "You do your region, and I'll do mine."
>>>> First off, the person you said that to is an Officer.
>> Therefore,
>>>> her
>>>> Region in is the entirety of membership and she IS expressing
>> her
>>>> thoughts from her 'region'. Your words give off the air of
>>>> flippancy
>>>> and are borderline offensive to me as one whom the comments
>> were
>>>> not
>>>> directed toward. This is not how we should be interacting as
>>>> officers
>>>> and certainly not a way to advance the Party. We need to work
>>>> together,
>>>> not have an attitude of every region for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, there is a difference between our Regions, EVH. Mine
>> says
>>>> that the Top 7 are the JC yours says that we don't have a JC.
>> Both
>>>> situations cannot exist simultaneously and this NEEDS to be
>>>> resolved
>>>> and finalized for all members. I cannot tell my states that a
>> JC
>>>> exists
>>>> for Region 1 but not for Region 3; that is absurd.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I have dropped this discussion if we acknowledge that
>> the
>>>> JC
>>>> exists and is the Top 7 - something I abstained from
>> orginally, but
>>>> see
>>>> as the only logical solution going forward. If not, we need to
>>
>>>> discuss
>>>> this further which is the will of neither of our regions or
>> that of
>>>> the
>>>> general membership. Most want to move on from the issue. The
>> LNC as
>>>> a
>>>> body did not approve the Top 7. The former JC came up with a
>>>> solution
>>>> and that is to put the Top 7 in place. If we, as an LNC or
>> Regional
>>>> Representative do not acknowledge that solution we are
>> creating a
>>>> deep
>>>> divide in the Party.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts? Please do not turn this personal. I want to work
>> with you
>>>> to
>>>> find a resolution that suits all parties involved.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via
>>>> Lnc-business
>>>> <[2]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][3]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>> On 2018-07-20 13:26, [4]john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
>>>> Shrug. If I wanted to take it to a court of law I would
>> have
>>>> a
>>>> 50/50
>>>> shot imho, and that of the 8 lawyers I asked to look at
>> it.
>>>> Some
>>>> of
>>>> them thought they could win maybe 70%.
>>>> So i would say the argument for them being the JC is as
>> good
>>>> as
>>>> the
>>>> argument against.
>>>> However, the vast majority seem to want them from what I
>> see,
>>>> so
>>>> I fail
>>>> to see the issue that people keep making of this. Just
>> accept
>>>> it
>>>> and
>>>> move on, it is what we should have done from the
>> beginning.
>>>> On a personal note. Are we not Libertarians? I find the
>>>> arguments of
>>>> rules and legality disturbingly dogmatic. We argue all
>> the
>>>> time
>>>> about
>>>> changing bad laws and rules that have created a problem,
>> but
>>>> when
>>>> it
>>>> comes down to our rules failing we can't adjust? Seems
>> sort of
>>>> hypocritical to me, actually far more than sort of.
>>>> So my stance is this. I stand opposed to anything that
>>>> continues
>>>> to
>>>> drag this out. I stand opposed to anything other than
>>>> accepting
>>>> the
>>>> recommendation of the previous JC and what appears to me
>> to be
>>>> the will
>>>> of vast majority of our constituents. The correct route
>> in my
>>>> not so
>>>> humble opinion is that we accept them, get the hell out
>> of the
>>>> way,
>>>> move on, and hope we don't need them like the last LNC
>> didn't.
>>>> John Phillips
>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>> Cell [2]217-412-5973
>>>> ------ Original message------
>>>> From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
>>>> Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 11:32 AM
>>>> To: Caryn Ann Harlos;
>>>> Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn[3];[5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
>>>> Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
>>>> They can disagree all they want. But, there's no authority
>> for
>>>> them.
>>>> ---
>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>> On [4]2018-07-20 11:08, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>> There's a JC presently electing its chair that disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:24 AM Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no JC, so no resolution can be made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On [5]2018-07-20 08:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems that the JC took it upon itself to resolve - it
>> is
>>>> up
>>>> to the
>>>>>>> membership to complain about that if they wish. I
>> submit we
>>>> simply
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>> on about our jobs and stay out of it.
>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Richard Longstreth via
>>>> Lnc-business
>>>>>>> <[1[6]][6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am assuming that JC will be an agenda item in Phoenix.
>> If
>>>>>>> not,
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> we please add it? If not, are we done with that
>> discussion
>>>> and
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>> not having a JC or what are the next points of
>> discussion? I
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> fully resolve this issue the best we can and move
>> forward. I
>>>>>>> abstained
>>>>>>> last vote to approve but my mind is still not settled.
>>>>>>> There is no good solution here, but one of may state
>> chairs
>>>> put
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> simply:
>>>>>>> "I find this whole debacle with process to be
>> detrimental and
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> really care one way or the other how it pans out. Nobody
>> is
>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>> 100% on this as is evidenced by the gridlock on some of
>> the
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>> membership affecting votes from the LNC."
>>>>>>> We need to resolve and move forward.
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Richard Longstreth
>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
>> UT,
>>>>>>> WA,
>>>>>>> WY)
>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>> [1][2[7]][7]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>> [8]931.538.9300
>>>>>>> References
>>>>>>> 1. mailto:[3[9]][8]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>>>> Secretary
>>>>>>> - [4][10]Caryn.Ann.[11] Harlos at LP.org or[12]
>>>> Secretary at LP.org.
>>>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[13]
>>>> LPedia at LP.org
>>>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>>>> We defend your rights
>>>>>>> And oppose the use of force
>>>>>>> Taxation is theft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> References
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. mailto[14]:[9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> 2. mailto[15]:[10]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>> 3. mailto[16]:[11]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>> 4. mailto[17]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> IN LIBERTY,
>>>>> CARYN ANN HARLOS
>>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>> Secretary
>>>> -
>>>> [18]Caryn.Ann
>>>> .[19] Harlos at LP.org or[20] Secretary at LP.org.
>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[21]
>> LPedia at LP.org
>>>>>
>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>> _We defend your rights_
>>>>> _And oppose the use of force_
>>>>> _Taxation is theft_
>>>> They can disagree all they want. But, there's no
>> authority
>>>> for
>>>> them.
>>>> ---
>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>> On [22]2018-07-20 11:08, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>> There's a JC presently electing its chair that disagrees.
>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:24 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>> <[1[23]][12]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>> There's no JC, so no resolution can be made.
>>>> ---
>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>> On [24]2018-07-20 08:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via
>> Lnc-business
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> It seems that the JC took it upon itself to resolve -
>> it
>>>> is
>>>> up to
>>>> the
>>>>> membership to complain about that if they wish. I
>>
>>>> submit
>>>> we
>>>> simply
>>>>> go
>>>>> on about our jobs and stay out of it.
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Richard
>> Longstreth via
>>>> Lnc-business
>>>>> <[1][2[25]][13]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am assuming that JC will be an agenda item
>> in
>>>> Phoenix.
>>>> If
>>>>> not,
>>>>> could
>>>>> we please add it? If not, are we done with
>> that
>>>> discussion
>>>> and
>>>>> simply
>>>>> not having a JC or what are the next points
>> of
>>>> discussion?
>>>> I
>>>>> want
>>>>> to
>>>>> fully resolve this issue the best we can and
>> move
>>>> forward.
>>>> I
>>>>> abstained
>>>>> last vote to approve but my mind is still not
>>>> settled.
>>>>> There is no good solution here, but one of
>> may
>>>> state
>>>> chairs put
>>>>> very
>>>>> simply:
>>>>> "I find this whole debacle with process to be
>>>> detrimental
>>>> and
>>>>> don't
>>>>> really care one way or the other how it pans
>> out.
>>>> Nobody
>>>> is
>>>>> going
>>>>> to be
>>>>> 100% on this as is evidenced by the gridlock
>> on
>>>> some
>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>>> first
>>>>> true
>>>>> membership affecting votes from the LNC."
>>>>> We need to resolve and move forward.
>>>>> Richard
>>>>> --
>>>>> Richard Longstreth
>>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT,
>> NM,
>>>> OR,
>>>> HI,
>>>> UT,
>>>>> WA,
>>>>> WY)
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>> [1][2][3[26]][14]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>> [27]931.538.9300
>>>>> References
>>>>> 1.
>> mailto:[3][4[28]][15]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National
>> Committee
>>>> Secretary
>>>>> - [4][29]Caryn.Ann.[30] Harlos at LP.org or[31]
>>>> Secretary at LP.org.
>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[32]
>>>> LPedia at LP.org
>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>> We defend your rights
>>>>> And oppose the use of force
>>>>> Taxation is theft
>>>>>
>>>>> References
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. mailto:[5[33]][16]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> 2. mailto:[6[34]][17]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>> 3. mailto:[7[35]][18]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>> 4. mailto:[8[36]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> In Liberty,
>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>> Secretary
>>>> - [9][37]Caryn.Ann.[38] Harlos at LP.org or[39]
>> Secretary at LP.org.
>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[40]
>>>> LPedia at LP.org
>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>> We defend your rights
>>>> And oppose the use of force
>>>> Taxation is theft
>>>> References
>>>> 1. mailto[41]:[19]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 2. mailto[42]:[20]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 3. mailto[43]:[21]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 4. mailto[44]:[22]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 5. mailto[45]:[23]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 6. mailto[46]:[24]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 7. mailto[47]:[25]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 8. mailto[48]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 9. mailto[49]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>> References
>>>> 1. [26]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>> 2. tel:[27]217-412-5973
>>>> 3. mailto:;[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 4. tel:2018-07-20 11
>>>> 5. tel:2018-07-20 08
>>>> 6. mailto:][29]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 7. mailto:][30]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 8. tel:[31]931.538.9300
>>>> 9. mailto:][32]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 10. [33]http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 11. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 12. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
>>>> 13. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
>>>> 14. mailto::[34]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 15. mailto::[35]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 16. mailto::[36]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 17. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 18. [37]http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 19. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 20. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
>>>> 21. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
>>>> 22. tel:2018-07-20 11
>>>> 23. mailto:][38]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 24. tel:2018-07-20 08
>>>> 25. mailto:][39]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 26. mailto:][40]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 27. tel:[41]931.538.9300
>>>> 28. mailto:][42]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 29. [43]http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 30. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 31. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
>>>> 32. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
>>>> 33. mailto:][44]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 34. mailto:][45]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 35. mailto:][46]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 36. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 37. [47]http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 38. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 39. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
>>>> 40. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
>>>> 41. mailto::[48]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 42. mailto::[49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 43. mailto::[50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 44. mailto::[51]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 45. mailto::[52]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 46. mailto::[53]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 47. mailto::[54]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 48. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>> 49. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Richard Longstreth
>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT,
>> WA,
>>>> WY)
>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>> [55]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 931.538.9300
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Richard Longstreth
>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT,
>> WA,
>>>> WY)
>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>> [56]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 931.538.9300
>>>>
>>>> References
>>>>
>>>> 1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>> 4. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
>>>> 5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 7. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 8. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 10. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 11. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 12. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 14. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 15. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 16. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 17. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 18. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 19. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 20. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 21. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 22. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 23. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 24. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 25. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 26. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>> 27. tel:(217) 412-5973
>>>> 28. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 29. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 30. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 31. tel:(931) 538-9300
>>>> 32. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 33. http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 34. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 35. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 36. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 37. http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 38. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 39. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 40. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 41. tel:(931) 538-9300
>>>> 42. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 43. http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 44. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 45. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 46. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 47. http://Caryn.An/
>>>> 48. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>>> 49. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 50. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 51. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 52. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> 53. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 54. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 55. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 56. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> --
>
> --
>
> IN LIBERTY,
> CARYN ANN HARLOS
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
> 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_
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list