[Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jul 21 13:59:23 EDT 2018
So basically.... trust us?
That is the worst solution.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Craig Bowden <craig.bowden at lp.org> wrote:
> 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_
>>
>
>
--
--
*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 --------------
So basically.... trust us?
That is the worst solution.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Craig Bowden <[1]craig.bowden at lp.org>
wrote:
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
<[2]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][3]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][4]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][5]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On 2018-07-20 13:26, [4][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]richard.longstreth at lp.org
[8]931.538.9300
References
1. mailto:[3[9]][8][10]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][11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto[15]:[10][12]richard.longstreth at lp.org
3. mailto[16]:[11][13]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][14]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][15]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][16]richard.longstreth at lp.org
[27]931.538.9300
References
1.
mailto:[3][4[28]][15][17]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][18]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[6[34]][17][19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
3. mailto:[7[35]][18][20]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][21]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto[42]:[20][22]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto[43]:[21][23]richard.longstreth at lp.org
4. mailto[44]:[22][24]richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. mailto[45]:[23][25]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto[46]:[24][26]richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto[47]:[25][27]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][28]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
2. tel:[27]217-412-5973
3. mailto:;[28][29]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. tel:2018-07-20 11
5. tel:2018-07-20 08
6. mailto:][29][30]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:][30][31]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. tel:[31]931.538.9300
9. mailto:][32][32]richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. [33][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][34]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto::[35][35]richard.longstreth at lp.org
16. mailto::[36][36]richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. [37][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][38]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
24. tel:2018-07-20 08
25. mailto:][39][39]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:][40][40]richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. tel:[41]931.538.9300
28. mailto:][42][41]richard.longstreth at lp.org
29. [43][42]http://Caryn.An/
30. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
31. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
32. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
33. mailto:][44][43]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
34. mailto:][45][44]richard.longstreth at lp.org
35. mailto:][46][45]richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. [47][46]http://Caryn.An/
38. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
39. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
40. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
41. mailto::[48][47]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
42. mailto::[49][48]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. mailto::[50][49]richard.longstreth at lp.org
44. mailto::[51][50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
45. mailto::[52][51]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. mailto::[53][52]richard.longstreth at lp.org
47. mailto::[54][53]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][54]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][55]richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
References
1. mailto:[56]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto:[57]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. [58]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
4. mailto:[59]john.phillips at lp.org
5. mailto:[60]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:[61]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:[62]richard.longstreth at lp.org
8. mailto:[63]richard.longstreth at lp.org
9. mailto:[64]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:[65]richard.longstreth at lp.org
11. mailto:[66]richard.longstreth at lp.org
12. mailto:[67]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
13. mailto:[68]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. mailto:[69]richard.longstreth at lp.org
15. mailto:[70]richard.longstreth at lp.org
16. mailto:[71]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. mailto:[72]richard.longstreth at lp.org
18. mailto:[73]richard.longstreth at lp.org
19. mailto:[74]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
20. mailto:[75]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. mailto:[76]richard.longstreth at lp.org
22. mailto:[77]richard.longstreth at lp.org
23. mailto:[78]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. mailto:[79]richard.longstreth at lp.org
25. mailto:[80]richard.longstreth at lp.org
26. [81]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
27. tel:(217) 412-5973
28. mailto:[82]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
29. mailto:[83]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
30. mailto:[84]richard.longstreth at lp.org
31. tel:(931) 538-9300
32. mailto:[85]richard.longstreth at lp.org
33. [86]http://Caryn.An/
34. mailto:[87]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35. mailto:[88]richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. mailto:[89]richard.longstreth at lp.org
37. [90]http://Caryn.An/
38. mailto:[91]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
39. mailto:[92]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. mailto:[93]richard.longstreth at lp.org
41. tel:(931) 538-9300
42. mailto:[94]richard.longstreth at lp.org
43. [95]http://Caryn.An/
44. mailto:[96]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
45. mailto:[97]richard.longstreth at lp.org
46. mailto:[98]richard.longstreth at lp.org
47. [99]http://Caryn.An/
48. mailto:[100]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
49. mailto:[101]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
50. mailto:[102]richard.longstreth at lp.org
51. mailto:[103]richard.longstreth at lp.org
52. mailto:[104]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
53. mailto:[105]richard.longstreth at lp.org
54. mailto:[106]richard.longstreth at lp.org
55. mailto:[107]richard.longstreth at lp.org
56. mailto:[108]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_
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [109]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:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
6. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
13. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
14. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
18. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
20. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
21. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
22. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
24. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
25. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
28. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
29. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
30. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
31. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
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. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
42. http://Caryn.An/
43. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
44. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
45. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
46. http://Caryn.An/
47. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
48. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
49. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
50. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
51. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
52. mailto:richard.longstreth at 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:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
57. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
58. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
59. mailto:john.phillips at lp.org
60. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
61. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
62. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
63. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
64. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
65. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
66. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
67. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
68. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
69. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
70. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
71. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
72. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
73. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
74. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
75. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
76. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
77. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
78. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
79. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
80. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
81. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
82. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
83. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
84. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
85. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
86. http://Caryn.An/
87. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
88. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
89. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
90. http://Caryn.An/
91. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
92. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
93. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
94. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
95. http://Caryn.An/
96. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
97. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
98. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
99. http://Caryn.An/
100. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
101. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
102. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
103. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
104. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
105. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
106. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
107. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
108. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
109. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list