[Lnc-business] Agenda in Phoenix

[Craig Bowden]

If we do things that we are not allowed to do by our own rules that we 
agree to, under any of the proposed solutions thus far, how could we be 
trusted to begin with? If we take action outside of our scope, that is 
also a breach of trust, correct?

Do we not rail against the government for not following the 
Constitution?
Do we not rail against exceeded authority of the President in use of 
Executive Orders?
Do we not rail against the breaches in Common and Natural Law?
Do we not use bylaws to support our arguments?

If the answer to any of these is "yes," then how do we as a body get to 
break our own rules? While the principle exists is that a JC should 
exist as a check and balance on the LNC, we failed to elect them through 
our own rules. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Even in RONR: "47. Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous. No 
motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, 
or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is 
adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void. No rule that 
conflicts with a rule of a higher order is of any authority..."

Our bylaws specify the method for election of the Judicial Committee. 
Nothing we do can change that without a time machine.

Keep in mind, I agree that we should have one, but I am presenting that 
I see no method to do so. There are no provisions in the bylaws, nor in 
RONR, for us to proceed. It is frustrating. It is painful. There could 
be consequences, though I pray there will not be.

The only option I saw presented that does not conflict with our bylaws 
would be a temporary committee for an appellate procedure absent a 
Judicial Committee, where we accept the Top 7 to fill the role until 
2020. The only downside is that there is no binding authority for their 
decisions. We would have to accept voluntarily, as the LNC, that they 
would be able to overturn our decisions if appealed.

This would at least mean that the largest section of delegates would 
have had some say in the procedure, which could lessen potential 
consequences.

Respectfully,
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate

On 2018-07-21 11:59, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> 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 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_