[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
brent.olsen at lp.org
brent.olsen at lp.org
Wed Aug 15 12:48:31 EDT 2018
Thought police? Seriously? That is about as disingenuous as the idea
that this is a purge! We are simply, as leadership within the party,
reaffirming our values, as they are stated in our platform and SoP. I
fail to see how this is so controversial. It is disappointing.
In Liberty,
K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
Alternate, Region 4
On 2018-08-15 09:42, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
> If its not a popularity contest then this is not needed. Just like if
> it is already in the platform it is not needed.
> Sad that so many people supposed to be freedom loving have found it
> ok
> to emulate "1984" and "Animal Farm" and be thought police.
> Especially
> considering the emulation of the Red Scare at the same time. At
> least
> "Lord of the Flies" would have been more entertaing for the
> spectators
> to watch.
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell [1]217-412-5973
>
> ------ Original message------
> From: Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
> Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 11:12 AM
> To: Steven Nekhaila;
> Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos;Lnc-Business;
> Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for Resolution to
> Re-Affirm The LP's Stance For Property Rights
> Precisely.
>
> It’s not a popularity contest.
>
> Guess how many people freak out the same way about our immigration
> position?
>
> More.
>
>
> Doesn’t matter.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:08 AM Steven Nekhaila
> wrote:
>
>> When it comes to the government bombing weddings, deporting immigrants
>> and
>> separating families, imprisoning innocent peaceful people, or
>> silencing
>> those who speak out when no one else does, we are proud and willing to
>> re-affirm our principles. Our Platform is our muscle, we need to flex
>> our
>> muscles every now and again. We must embody and preach our Platform,
>> or it
>> may as well collect dust in an old state run library.
>>
>> In Liberty,
>>
>> Steven Nekhaila
>> Region 2 Representative
>>
>> impotentes defendere liberatum non possunt
>> “Those without power cannot defend freedom”
>>
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2018 at 3:34 PM, > wrote:
>>
>> The brevity caucus keeps the exegesis of our Platform out.
>>
>> It becomes necessary to apply and explicate.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:29 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
>>
>> <[1[2]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Then why not a resolution saying that the LNC stands in support
>> of
>> our
>> LP platform? Because, I think it's pretty obvious that we do.
>> (Although, I know that the Radical caucus, Mises caucus, and
>> libsocs,
>> all have their *own* platforms. I support our LP platform, and
>> that's a
>> founding point of the caucus I'm in, that we don't have a
>> separate
>> platform, we instead embrace the LP platform.
>> Do all the board members in various caucuses want to come out in
>> favor
>> of the *LP Platform*? I like to see that resolution.
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> On [3]2018-08-14 15:07, Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business wrote:
>> > This resolution is an affirmation of that platform and it's
>> underlying
>> > principles. It serves simply to acknowledge rhetoric contrary
>> to
>> our
>> > platform and affirm that the Libertarian Party stands by the
>> messaging
>> > and platform adopted by it's delegates in convention, as
>> opposed
>> to
>> > those who would argue otherwise. It does not purge anyone, but
>> simply
>> > distances the LP from their economic views. They are members,
>> and
>> many
>> > will remain so, but the resolution is to affirm that their
>> outspoken
>> > beliefs do not represent the party as a whole. Some of these
>> > individual members are even candidates in profiled races, where
>> they
>> > are espousing ideas contrary to our platform, and it is
>> incumbent
>> upon
>> > this body to recognize that this is a risk to the integrity of
>> our
>> > messaging. An individual or a candidate may proclaim whatever
>> platform
>> > they wish, but when they claim that it is representative of
>> > Libertarian Ideology when it is clearly contrary to our
>> platform
>> and
>> > statement of principles, it requires an acknowledgement from
>> the
>> LNC.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Yours in Liberty,
>> >
>> > Justin O'Donnell
>> > LNC Region 8 Representative
>> > LPNH Alternate- LNC Platform Committee
>> > Chair- LPNH Platform Committee
>> > Candidate for US Congress, NH-2
>>
>> > [2][4]www.odonnell2018.org
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On [5]2018-08-14 15:01, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
>> wrote:
>> >> We have a platform that states what we stand for, and you were
>> the
>> >> platform committee chair for 2018. I was on that
>> committee,
>> as
>> >> were
>> >> several other members of this board.
>> >> Did we not do our duty? Did we leave the platform to be
>> ambiguous
>> >> and
>> >> confusing? I don't think so.
>> >> Our wonderful LP platform speaks for the LP, and tells
>> prospective
>> >> members where we stand. We educate from that document,
>> and I
>> know
>> >> that you understand this, as you were instrumental in doing
>> >> platform
>> >> plank posts on social media. You know that the platform
>> speaks for
>> >> us
>> >> on issues of property rights.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> >>
>> >> On [6]2018-08-14 14:55, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It is quite problematic that stating the Party's
>> foundational
>> >> Principles is controversial or thought to need a platform
>> change.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We have gone far from our roots.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Caryn Ann
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:51 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via
>> >> Lnc-business
>> >> <[1][3[7]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I also would have supported the first effort (with my
>> language
>> >> changes)
>> >> as it was a clear support of capitalism. Too bad that
>> wasn't
>> >> embraced.
>> >> On this list I've seen multiple times someone talk about
>> past
>> >> actions as
>> >> a reason, (we denounced that, so why not this?) the more
>> times I
>> >> see,
>> >> the more this looks like a grudge match.
>> >> As the players in this drama, and yes it's a big drama on
>> social
>> >> media,
>> >> are ones that have had an ongoing war-of-words with the
>> targets
>> >> of
>> >> this
>> >> suggested resolution. Only, some of the players also
>> happen
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> on
>> >> the LNC, and are now using that position to escalate.
>> >> I was willing to support a resolution that embraced
>> capitalism,
>> >> as I
>> >> live my life as a capitalist. It is my economic system of
>> choice,
>> >> and I
>> >> make an effort to teach this to others.
>> >> Too bad this isn't about championing the wonderful
>> economic
>> >> system
>> >> of
>> >> capitalism, but instead is about targeting a few noisy LP
>> >> members.
>> >> ---
>> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> >> On [8]2018-08-14 14:26, [9]john.phillips--- via
>> Lnc-business
>> wrote:
>> >> > This is not the same language as was presented and
>> discussed
>> >> earlier.
>> >> > Just to clarify for people who may just be skimming.
>> >> > I probably would have gone along with the first.
>> This
>> one
>> >> is
>> >> toxic
>> >> > and
>> >> > the language clearly meant to be be a purge.
>> >> > If it was just a supporting of property rights I
>> would
>> >> absolutely
>> >> > support it. This is far more than that, and
>> honestly
>> far
>> >> exceeds
>> >> > the
>> >> > scope of the duties of this body. It is a direct
>> change to
>> >> policy
>> >> > seriously impacts current members and activists.
>> >> > If you want a platform change take it to Austin.
>> That
>> is not
>> >> our
>> >> > job.
>> >> > I will be voting no on this, and urge everyone else
>> to
>> >> seriously
>> >> > consider whether they support a precedent of purging
>> groups.
>> >> Not to
>> >> > mention how many of you during the JC discussion
>> were
>> >> treading
>> >> very
>> >> > carefully about not exceeding our scope, a point
>> that
>> was
>> >> well
>> >> taken
>> >> > after reflection, will you be consistent here?
>> >> > John Phillips
>> >> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6
>> Representative
>> >> > Cell [1][10]217-412-5973
>> >> >
>> >> > ------ Original message------
>> >> > From: Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business
>> >> > Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 10:50 AM
>> >> > To: LNC-Business List;
>> >> > Cc: Steven Nekhaila;
>> >> > Subject:[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for
>> Resolution to
>> >> > Re-Affirm
>> >> > The LP's Stance For Property Rights
>> >> > Dear Colleagues,
>> >> >
>> >> > I invite you to co-sponsor the following resolution
>> which
>> >> disavows
>> >> > socialist & communist policies and re-affirms the
>> Libertarian
>> >> Party
>> >> > position on championing property rights.
>> >> >
>> >> > Co-Sponsors: Joshua Smith, Justin O'Donnel, and Caryn
>> Ann
>> >> Harlos
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party supports the free market
>> and
>> >> therefore
>> >> > the right of privatization of property as an extension
>> of
>> the
>> >> > individual;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, the Statement of Principles of The Libertarian
>> Party
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > supports the right to private property ownership,
>> including the
>> >> right
>> >> > to
>> >> > do business utilizing that property as capital;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party strongly supports the
>> rights of
>> >> > individuals to own private property including land,
>> structures,
>> >> natural
>> >> > resources and other private space through homesteading,
>> >> purchase,
>> >> and
>> >> > other lawful libertarian means;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, ownership of private property, including but
>> not
>> >> limited
>> >> to
>> >> > land and housing, does not require continual or
>> personal
>> use to
>> >> exist
>> >> > as
>> >> > justly owned property unless otherwise abandoned;
>> >> >
>> >> > WHEREAS, these have been part of the principles of the
>> >> Libertarian
>> >> > Party
>> >> > since its inception;
>> >> >
>> >> > THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that socialist and communist
>> >> property
>> >> > ownership schemes, including the collectivization of
>> property,
>> >> unlawful
>> >> > usurpation of property, and incorrect characterizations
>> of
>> >> private
>> >> > property, unless otherwise voluntarily agreed by all
>> parties,
>> >> are
>> >> > incompatible with the philosophy of the Libertarian
>> Party.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In Liberty,
>> >> >
>> >> > Steven Nekhaila
>> >> > Region 2 Representative
>> >> > Libertarian National Committee
>> >> >
>> >> > Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
>> >> > "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
>> >> >
>> >> > References
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. tel:[11]217-412-5973
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> In Liberty,
>> >> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> >> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
>> Secretary
>> >> - [2][12]Caryn.Ann.[13] Harlos at LP.org or[14]
>> Secretary at LP.org.
>> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[15]
>> 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:[4[16]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> 2. mailto:[5[17]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
>> - [6][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
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto[22]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 2. [23]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
>> 3. mailto[24]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 4. mailto[25]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 5. mailto[26]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 6. mailto[27]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
> [28]Caryn.Ann.[
> 29]
> Harlos at LP.org or[30] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[31] LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
> Precisely.
>
> It’s not a popularity contest.
>
> Guess how many people freak out the same way about our immigration
> position?
>
> More.
>
> Doesn’t matter.
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:08 AM Steven Nekhaila
> <[1[32]]steven.nekhaila at lp.org> wrote:
>
> When it comes to the government bombing weddings, deporting
> immigrants
> and separating families, imprisoning innocent peaceful people, or
> silencing those who speak out when no one else does, we are proud
> and
> willing to re-affirm our principles. Our Platform is our muscle, we
> need to flex our muscles every now and again. We must embody and
> preach
> our Platform, or it may as well collect dust in an old state run
> library.
> In Liberty,
> Steven Nekhaila
> Region 2 Representative
> impotentes defendere liberatum non possunt
> “Those without power cannot defend freedom”
>
> On Aug 14, 2018 at 3:34 PM, <[2]Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business>
> wrote:
>
> The brevity caucus keeps the exegesis of our Platform out.
>
> It becomes necessary to apply and explicate.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:29 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
>
> <[1][3[33]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Then why not a resolution saying that the LNC stands in support of
> our
> LP platform? Because, I think it's pretty obvious that we do.
> (Although, I know that the Radical caucus, Mises caucus, and
> libsocs,
> all have their *own* platforms. I support our LP platform, and
> that's a
> founding point of the caucus I'm in, that we don't have a separate
> platform, we instead embrace the LP platform.
> Do all the board members in various caucuses want to come out in
> favor
> of the *LP Platform*? I like to see that resolution.
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> On [34]2018-08-14 15:07, Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business wrote:
> > This resolution is an affirmation of that platform and it's
> underlying
> > principles. It serves simply to acknowledge rhetoric contrary to
> our
> > platform and affirm that the Libertarian Party stands by the
> messaging
> > and platform adopted by it's delegates in convention, as opposed
> to
> > those who would argue otherwise. It does not purge anyone, but
> simply
> > distances the LP from their economic views. They are members,
> and
> many
> > will remain so, but the resolution is to affirm that their
> outspoken
> > beliefs do not represent the party as a whole. Some of these
> > individual members are even candidates in profiled races, where
> they
> > are espousing ideas contrary to our platform, and it is
> incumbent
> upon
> > this body to recognize that this is a risk to the integrity of
> our
> > messaging. An individual or a candidate may proclaim whatever
> platform
> > they wish, but when they claim that it is representative of
> > Libertarian Ideology when it is clearly contrary to our platform
> and
> > statement of principles, it requires an acknowledgement from the
> LNC.
> >
> > ---
> > Yours in Liberty,
> >
> > Justin O'Donnell
> > LNC Region 8 Representative
> > LPNH Alternate- LNC Platform Committee
> > Chair- LPNH Platform Committee
> > Candidate for US Congress, NH-2
>
> > [2][4][35]www.odonnell2018.org
>
> >
> > On [36]2018-08-14 15:01, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
> wrote:
> >> We have a platform that states what we stand for, and you were
> the
> >> platform committee chair for 2018. I was on that committee,
> as
> >> were
> >> several other members of this board.
> >> Did we not do our duty? Did we leave the platform to be
> ambiguous
> >> and
> >> confusing? I don't think so.
> >> Our wonderful LP platform speaks for the LP, and tells
> prospective
> >> members where we stand. We educate from that document, and
> I
> know
> >> that you understand this, as you were instrumental in doing
> >> platform
> >> plank posts on social media. You know that the platform
> speaks for
> >> us
> >> on issues of property rights.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >>
> >> On [37]2018-08-14 14:55, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> >>
> >> It is quite problematic that stating the Party's
> foundational
> >> Principles is controversial or thought to need a platform
> change.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We have gone far from our roots.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Caryn Ann
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:51 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via
> >> Lnc-business
> >> <[1][3][5[38]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I also would have supported the first effort (with my
> language
> >> changes)
> >> as it was a clear support of capitalism. Too bad that
> wasn't
> >> embraced.
> >> On this list I've seen multiple times someone talk about
> past
> >> actions as
> >> a reason, (we denounced that, so why not this?) the more
> times I
> >> see,
> >> the more this looks like a grudge match.
> >> As the players in this drama, and yes it's a big drama on
> social
> >> media,
> >> are ones that have had an ongoing war-of-words with the
> targets
> >> of
> >> this
> >> suggested resolution. Only, some of the players also
> happen
> to
> >> be
> >> on
> >> the LNC, and are now using that position to escalate.
> >> I was willing to support a resolution that embraced
> capitalism,
> >> as I
> >> live my life as a capitalist. It is my economic system of
> choice,
> >> and I
> >> make an effort to teach this to others.
> >> Too bad this isn't about championing the wonderful
> economic
> >> system
> >> of
> >> capitalism, but instead is about targeting a few noisy LP
> >> members.
> >> ---
> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >> On [39]2018-08-14 14:26, [40]john.phillips--- via
> Lnc-business
> wrote:
> >> > This is not the same language as was presented and
> discussed
> >> earlier.
> >> > Just to clarify for people who may just be skimming.
> >> > I probably would have gone along with the first.
> This
> one
> >> is
> >> toxic
> >> > and
> >> > the language clearly meant to be be a purge.
> >> > If it was just a supporting of property rights I
> would
> >> absolutely
> >> > support it. This is far more than that, and honestly
> far
> >> exceeds
> >> > the
> >> > scope of the duties of this body. It is a direct
> change to
> >> policy
> >> > seriously impacts current members and activists.
> >> > If you want a platform change take it to Austin. That
> is not
> >> our
> >> > job.
> >> > I will be voting no on this, and urge everyone else
> to
> >> seriously
> >> > consider whether they support a precedent of purging
> groups.
> >> Not to
> >> > mention how many of you during the JC discussion were
> >> treading
> >> very
> >> > carefully about not exceeding our scope, a point that
> was
> >> well
> >> taken
> >> > after reflection, will you be consistent here?
> >> > John Phillips
> >> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6
> Representative
> >> > Cell [1][41]217-412-5973
> >> >
> >> > ------ Original message------
> >> > From: Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business
> >> > Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 10:50 AM
> >> > To: LNC-Business List;
> >> > Cc: Steven Nekhaila;
> >> > Subject:[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors for
> Resolution to
> >> > Re-Affirm
> >> > The LP's Stance For Property Rights
> >> > Dear Colleagues,
> >> >
> >> > I invite you to co-sponsor the following resolution
> which
> >> disavows
> >> > socialist & communist policies and re-affirms the
> Libertarian
> >> Party
> >> > position on championing property rights.
> >> >
> >> > Co-Sponsors: Joshua Smith, Justin O'Donnel, and Caryn
> Ann
> >> Harlos
> >> >
> >> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party supports the free market
> and
> >> therefore
> >> > the right of privatization of property as an extension
> of
> the
> >> > individual;
> >> >
> >> > WHEREAS, the Statement of Principles of The Libertarian
> Party
> >> > explicitly
> >> > supports the right to private property ownership,
> including the
> >> right
> >> > to
> >> > do business utilizing that property as capital;
> >> >
> >> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party strongly supports the
> rights of
> >> > individuals to own private property including land,
> structures,
> >> natural
> >> > resources and other private space through homesteading,
> >> purchase,
> >> and
> >> > other lawful libertarian means;
> >> >
> >> > WHEREAS, ownership of private property, including but
> not
> >> limited
> >> to
> >> > land and housing, does not require continual or personal
> use to
> >> exist
> >> > as
> >> > justly owned property unless otherwise abandoned;
> >> >
> >> > WHEREAS, these have been part of the principles of the
> >> Libertarian
> >> > Party
> >> > since its inception;
> >> >
> >> > THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that socialist and communist
> >> property
> >> > ownership schemes, including the collectivization of
> property,
> >> unlawful
> >> > usurpation of property, and incorrect characterizations
> of
> >> private
> >> > property, unless otherwise voluntarily agreed by all
> parties,
> >> are
> >> > incompatible with the philosophy of the Libertarian
> Party.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In Liberty,
> >> >
> >> > Steven Nekhaila
> >> > Region 2 Representative
> >> > Libertarian National Committee
> >> >
> >> > Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
> >> > "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
> >> >
> >> > References
> >> >
> >> > 1. tel:[42]217-412-5973
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> --
> >> In Liberty,
> >> Caryn Ann Harlos
> >> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
> Secretary
> >> - [2][43]Caryn.Ann.[44] Harlos at LP.org or[45]
> Secretary at LP.org.
> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[46]
> 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:[4][6[47]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> 2. mailto:[5[48]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [6][49]Caryn.Ann.[50] Harlos at LP.org or[51] Secretary at LP.org.
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[52] LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[7[53]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. [8][54]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 3. mailto:[9[55]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:[10[56]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:[11[57]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 6. mailto:[12[58]]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [13][59]Caryn.Ann.[60] Harlos at LP.org or[61] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[62] 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[63]:steven.nekhaila at lp.org
> 2. mailto[64]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto[65]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. [66]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 5. mailto[67]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. mailto[68]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. mailto[69]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. [70]http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 9. mailto[71]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 10. mailto[72]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 11. mailto[73]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 12. mailto[74]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 13. mailto[75]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> References
>
> 1. tel:217-412-5973
> 2. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. tel:2018-08-14 15
> 4. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 5. tel:2018-08-14 15
> 6. tel:2018-08-14 14
> 7. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. tel:2018-08-14 14
> 9. http://john.ph/
> 10. tel:217-412-5973
> 11. tel:217-412-5973
> 12. http://Caryn.An/
> 13. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
> 14. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
> 15. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
> 16. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 17. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 18. http://Caryn.An/
> 19. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
> 20. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
> 21. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
> 22. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 23. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 24. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 25. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 26. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 27. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 28. http://Caryn.An/
> 29. mailto:
> Harlos at LP.org
> 30. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
> 31. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
> 32. mailto:]steven.nekhaila at lp.org
> 33. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 34. tel:2018-08-14 15
> 35. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 36. tel:2018-08-14 15
> 37. tel:2018-08-14 14
> 38. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 39. tel:2018-08-14 14
> 40. http://john.ph/
> 41. tel:217-412-5973
> 42. tel:217-412-5973
> 43. http://Caryn.An/
> 44. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
> 45. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
> 46. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
> 47. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 48. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 49. http://Caryn.An/
> 50. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
> 51. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
> 52. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
> 53. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 54. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 55. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 56. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 57. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 58. mailto:]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 59. http://Caryn.An/
> 60. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
> 61. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
> 62. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
> 63. mailto::steven.nekhaila at lp.org
> 64. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 65. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 66. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 67. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 68. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 69. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 70. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
> 71. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 72. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 73. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 74. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 75. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list