[Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair)]

I also support the appeal and the emeeting, this won’t die down till one of these things happen. I do generally echo the thoughts of Regional Reps O’Donnell and Nekhalia on how this overall was handled.

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

> On Dec 24, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
> I urge the chair to call an e-meeting.
> 
> I do not agree, but many are now suspecting that this public shameful
> display is politically motivated and designed to set up a social media
> campaign against our chair.
> 
> I thankfully have little clue what is going on with FB since I have been
> avoiding it for a few months now except for very disciplined and limited
> sessions.
> 
> My life is better for it.
> 
> Our ED sent this privately.  No one LNC member or even several had the
> right to make this into a public shitshow without every attempt to avoid.
> The lack of judgement is abysmal.
> 
> Discipline for private individuals is private.
> 
> How hard is that to understand?
> 
> It is not this man that hurt our reputation.  It is the reckless acts of a
> few that have.
> 
> -Caryn Ann
> 
> Mr. Nekhaila - we are the Party of individual not collective rights.  I
> find that collective argument alarming.  Who’s next to be sacrificed?  The
> allegedly tiny percentage of anarchists?
> 
> Mark my words.  You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.
> 
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 9:45 AM Erin Adams via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I support the appeal and the e meeting as long as the e meeting deals
>> SPECIFICALLY with what actions are taken concerning a refund and
>> "expungement" of membership or not.
>> 
>> On Dec 24, 2019 10:20 AM, "john.phillips--- via Lnc-business" <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> As always, a well thought out and thought provoking statement sir.
>> 
>> John Phillips
>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>> Cell 217-412-5973
>> 
>> On Dec 24, 2019 10:14 AM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila at lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Between preparations for the holidays and "hell week" coming up in the
>> Florida Keys it has already been a busy week, and with the latest
>> controversy a troubling past few days.
>> 
>> I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and it has weighed on me
>> as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida, the last thing I
>> want to do is promote an internet lynch mob and attack an individual of
>> which I am not his judge nor jury.
>> 
>> I want to start off by expressing my sheer dissappointment at the
>> individuals name becoming public. Here is a man, through whatever
>> cascading torrent of events in his life, felt the need to dispatch a
>> signed NAP and a $25 check to the Libertarian Party in the hopes that we
>> would fight for him in some way or serve as a part of a greater
>> political purpose in his life. Or perhaps he's mad at the world and
>> thinks we could make it worse, I do not know. Nor do I know the
>> circumstances of his case, the only thing I know is the conviction by
>> the State. Sex trafficking minors, or pimping 16 year old girls on
>> Backpages. That was his crime, and now he is currently incarcerated, his
>> name is being spread on social media by an organization he applied for,
>> an organization which could have simply turned him down or blindly
>> accepted his money.
>> 
>> It was not the right decision to make this case public, transparency is
>> not always our best option and not every member needs a say in every
>> decision the LNC makes. Furthermore, does joining the Libertarian Party
>> now constitute the fact that your past may be publicly scrutinized and
>> remain available on an online list forever with strangers who get to
>> debate about your character?
>> 
>> I am assuming our Executive Director may be more cautious in the future
>> as to bring certain issues to the board, or simply confide with the
>> Chair or a few select members on advice before taking action.
>> 
>> Is that the culture we want to set for the board? Where all
>> controversial issues become public and a point of contention amongst us
>> and our members? I would think not.
>> 
>> Some day, there will be a point where we cannot afford to vet every
>> single individual who joins our organization, that point may have
>> already passed. However, there does come times when we receive a choice,
>> and that choice should be given the full weight of repercussions and
>> must not be taken lightly when it does come. Now, the Non-Aggression
>> Pledge was designed to distance ourselves from people who do do terrible
>> things in our name if/when it does happen, but what if they've already
>> done something?
>> 
>> Now, do we allow this individual, who we have made the center of an
>> avoidable feeding frenzy, to join our organization or do we reject his
>> membership and/or donation?
>> 
>> After much thought into the issue, I must consider who I owe my
>> allegiance to, which is the membership. The membership will not benefit
>> from one convicted and currently incarcerated man from becoming a member
>> at the expense of the organization's reputation, of which directly
>> effects the standing of our members. Our reputation is everything, and
>> must be protected with care and molded like a great artist. We cannot
>> leave our reputation to chance or gossip. We must not allow the Party to
>> look weak and allow our membership to suffer because of the consequences
>> of the LNC making this public (regardless of what our decision would
>> have been). Many members in Florida believe this is a waste of time, and
>> I agree. However, to many members, child abuse, despite whatever
>> arguments may be made that the acts could have been consensual or that
>> they could have been underprivileged, are just excuses to those who hear
>> child abuse.
>> 
>> Thus, I have made the decision to co-sponsor the motion on the floor as
>> well as join in appealing the ruling of the Chair.
>> 
>> Let is be a lesson to us all.
>> 
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Steven Nekhaila
>> Region 2 Representative
>> Libertarian National Committee
>> 
>> Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
>> "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
>> 
>>> On 2019-12-24 09:38 AM, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> I will point out to those weighing whether to object that it was the
>>> actions of the chair that set up this ruling.
>>> 
>>> If he had not directed the E.D. to process the application during
>>> ongoing discussion there would not yet be a membership to cause his
>>> bylaws interpretation.
>>> 
>>> The chair is a very intelligent man, and as such it is my OPINION -
>>> not known fact - that he knew this would be the case, and did so
>>> intentionally.
>>> 
>>> In my experience, despite his rebuttal that while Rulings of the Chair
>>> only coming after a motion being is technically true, it is customary
>>> in every board I have worked with to give one, or at least what it
>>> would be, when asked. A custom I have witnessed being followed on this
>>> board.  That custom not being followed here supports supports my
>>> opinion in my mind. Not only that, but it is my belief that a ruling
>>> could and should have been made at the time it was first brought to
>>> us.
>>> 
>>> It is my opinion that we cannot allow this kind of manipulation by the
>>> chair to go unchallenged.  Even if I believe his motives were good,
>>> which I do, I will never be ok with the means.  Regardless of how you
>>> vote on the original motion itself, I ask that you consider the appeal
>>> carefully.
>>> 
>>> This is a large part of my consideration for going ahead with the
>>> appeal, as well as my other email.  I find the bylaws in this case
>>> open to interpretation.  I see the merits of both sides. I think that
>>> the interpretation that the bylaws specify requirements for the
>>> member, not require the party to accept is stronger.
>>> 
>>> I think that as a political party we need to keep the political
>>> aspect in mind, as much as it sucks.  This could easily be our Epstein
>>> moment, do we really want to jump in with both feet?
>>> 
>>> John Phillips
>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 24, 2019 7:57 AM, john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I do not object to that ruling. If we are asking it to be done by
>>>> email, email rules should apply.
>>>> 
>>>> John Phillips
>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 9:05 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business
>>>> <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Mail ballots have a seconding requirement of four cosponsors (or
>>>>> the
>>>>> Chair), it would make sense that appealing a ruling of the Chair
>>>>> by mail
>>>>> ballot would require the same number of seconds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You could appeal this interpretation of the rules by the Chair,
>>>>> but at some
>>>>> point this is going to become absurd.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Nick
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:51 PM joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business <
>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It requires one second.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you direct me to the section in RONR that says "an appeal to
>>>>> the
>>>>>> ruling of the chair requires 4 seconds"?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Joshua
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 6:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It would require four sponsors in my understanding.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would seek the chairs guidance however as that is not my call.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:35 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes the bylaws limit our power and they should, however I do not
>>>>> believe
>>>>>> it is being well applied here.  Boards exist to handle the
>>>>> situations where
>>>>>> rules and standard procedures do not quite fit.  I believe this
>>>>> is one of
>>>>>> those cases.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As I believe the appeal must be seconded I will do so.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> While the order of operations normal in an appeal is difficult
>>>>> in an
>>>>>> email, it is an issue that I believe is negligible.  Mr Sarwark
>>>>> is free to
>>>>>> speak whenever he chooses, nor do I believe much in the way of
>>>>> repetition
>>>>>> of the same arguments is needed, though of course I welcome
>>>>> anyone to do
>>>>>> so.  7 days of time allows ample opportunity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe I will leave it at that, as I am AGAIN disappointed in
>>>>> people's
>>>>>> willingness to see the positives of compromise - to be fair much
>>>>> of which
>>>>>> was not in this group.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John Phillips
>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 6:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mr. Smith I too received emails with choice words about LNC
>>>>> overreach.
>>>>>> That does not excuse me to treat you or anyone indecorously.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Keeping one’s cool is an important part of leadership.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I learned that the hard way when I quite literally lost my shit
>>>>> at an LPRC
>>>>>> convention over this same issue (ie nothing triggers me more
>>>>> than harm to
>>>>>> children).  I felt I was doing the right thing.  That I was on
>>>>> the side of
>>>>>> the angels.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In retrospect I demonstrated immaturity in treating my peers and
>>>>> I’m
>>>>>> thoroughly embarrassed by that memory.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Peers and friends don’t treat each other that way.  You and I
>>>>> are both.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:05 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You'll have to take that characterization up with our membership
>>>>> and the
>>>>>> state chairs I've spoken with. Those words did not come from me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Joshua
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 4:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The order of operations for one.  In an e-meeting members can
>>>>> attend.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ask you to please stop mischaracterizing those who disagree in
>>>>> good
>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This thing is public and causing a lot of our membership to be
>>>>> very upset.
>>>>>> To the point of lifetime members threatening to ask for refunds
>>>>> and to be
>>>>>> removed from our membership list. I have fielded call after call
>>>>> and
>>>>>> message after message today with members upset that we wouldn't
>>>>> do
>>>>>> something as basic as protect our organization and membership
>>>>> from
>>>>>> associating with a child predator. Several from state chairs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It won't wait till February, and I'm not going to watch TWO
>>>>> motions be
>>>>>> ignored while some of us are working to represent and protect
>>>>> our
>>>>>> membership.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What part of an appeal to the ruling of the chair cannot be
>>>>> handled
>>>>>> adequately through email?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Joshua
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 3:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I urge you to get sponsors for electronic meeting or wait until
>>>>> Feb.
>>>>>> appeals cannot be adequately handled by email.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd like to start this email off with a motion appealing the
>>>>> ruling of the
>>>>>> chair.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There is no bylaw explicitly saying that we HAVE to accept
>>>>> someone's
>>>>>> contribution. There is also not one stating that we cannot
>>>>> return a
>>>>>> donation or terminate a membership.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do we not frequently refer to RONR for things that may not be
>>>>> covered in
>>>>>> the bylaws like pretty much every other major organization or
>>>>> society? If
>>>>>> so, this is a dog and pony show, and we have the authority to
>>>>> return the
>>>>>> donation and terminate membership because that's covered on
>>>>> pages 643-644,
>>>>>> being the first two pages on Discipline in Chapter XX.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we must follow those procedures, I will gladly make a motion
>>>>> as well to
>>>>>> get that started, but I'm first appealing the ruling of the
>>>>> chair as there
>>>>>> was a motion made by Mr. Phillips with a second.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In liberty,
>>>>>> -Joshua
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 2:13 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The bylaws limit our power.  Just as the constitution was
>>>>> supposed to
>>>>>> limit
>>>>>> the state.  They have had many good reasons to violate it - and
>>>>> we now see
>>>>>> the result.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think the mistake you are making is viewing this as about any
>>>>> particular
>>>>>> person rather than the objective action.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Our dogma and everything about our beliefs anathematizes the act
>>>>> of the
>>>>>> victimization of children.  The act can be condemned objectively
>>>>> and that
>>>>>> is the Party position.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are also acts that many of us do in secret that are
>>>>> condemned (from
>>>>>> minor to major).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is the same way the party doesn’t judge whether someone is
>>>>> libertarian
>>>>>> enough - only whether a particular belief or act is consistent
>>>>> with
>>>>>> libertarianism.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If this were not so, anarchists could theoretically claim the
>>>>> pledge as an
>>>>>> anarchist blood oath as some have claimed and call everyone else
>>>>> a
>>>>>> statist.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is obviously not the correct path.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All membership confers is the status of member in minimal
>>>>> compliance.  It
>>>>>> does not declare any person clean.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We must respect that the delegates knew of these kinds of issues
>>>>> for
>>>>>> decades and never gave us that power.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They can choose to do so in Austin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will not grasp power not explicitly given to us.  That was my
>>>>> raison
>>>>>> d’être for being on the LNC to begin with.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:57 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That question was a cut and paste from a member.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I see both sides on this.  So I am debating my next step.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My motion was a compromise one to attempt to reconcile both
>>>>> sides.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will point out that under the logic presented Hitler and
>>>>> Stalin could
>>>>>>> sign the form and be members were they still alive.  So it is
>>>>> not the
>>>>>>> weightiest of responses to me, though I will not say it is
>>>>> wrong, just
>>>>>>> carries less weight.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The question will come, are we a haven for those who prey on
>>>>> children?
>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>> do we flatly reject those actions?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It will also come, do we believe in second chances, and if so
>>>>> what must
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> done to earn that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Are we as Libertarians so bound in the dogma of our bylaws
>>>>> that we will
>>>>>>> not look at interpretations to do what is right?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Those questions will weigh heavily on my soul, and then in
>>>>> which
>>>>>> priority
>>>>>>> do I place them?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If we are to be a haven for predators, I do not know if I will
>>>>> be able
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> wrap my conscience around that enough to continue to represent
>>>>> this
>>>>>> party.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This will take some thought.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John Phillips
>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mr. Phillips please allow me to give some history here.  The
>>>>> pledge WAS
>>>>>>> never intended to be a gatekeeper to exclude people from the
>>>>> Party
>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> as David Nolan said, bad people will lie.  While it
>>>>> legitimately
>>>>>> reflects
>>>>>>> our beliefs and it is hoped it is signed in sincerity of
>>>>> internal
>>>>>> beliefs,
>>>>>>> its purpose was to protect the Party from the government and
>>>>> to educate
>>>>>>> members.  Further, if any evil person reformed themselves,
>>>>> they could
>>>>>>> legitimately sign the pledge.  I doubt any of us are free from
>>>>> past
>>>>>>> aggression.  I have no idea of this individual's current state
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> repentance, but such difficulties are exactly why that was
>>>>> never the
>>>>>>> purpose of the pledge as originally intended.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just recently we had a few members calling for the expulsion
>>>>> of any
>>>>>> parent
>>>>>>> that spanks their children - that is not a fallacious slippery
>>>>> slope, it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> one supported with evidence.  I am NAPster purist as they
>>>>> come, but we
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> not the judgment throne of God.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>>>>> Syndrome
>>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
>>>>> If anyone
>>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>>>>> social
>>>>>> faux
>>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM john.phillips--- via
>>>>> Lnc-business <
>>>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I question whether someone who has engaged in child
>>>>> prostitution can
>>>>>>> legitimately sign the NAP.  Would we have to accept Jeffrey
>>>>> Dahmer or
>>>>>>> Timothy Mcveigh's applications?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John Phillips
>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 2:35 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
>>>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm going to start with the relevant section of the Bylaws,
>>>>> since it
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>> it easier to reference for those reading:
>>>>>>> "ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
>>>>>>> 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
>>>>> certified in
>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>> that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
>>>>> or social
>>>>>>> goals.
>>>>>>> 2. The National Committee may offer life memberships, and must
>>>>> honor all
>>>>>>> prior and future life memberships.
>>>>>>> 3. The National Committee may create other levels of
>>>>> membership and
>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>> determine the contribution or dues levels for such
>>>>> memberships.
>>>>>>> 4. “Sustaining members” are members of the Party who: a.
>>>>> During the
>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>> twelve months have donated, or have had donated on their
>>>>> behalf, an
>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>> of at least $25; or b. Are Life members."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The person mentioned in the motion has met the conditions set
>>>>> forth in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> bylaws (Art. 4, Sec. 1 and 4) to be a sustaining member of the
>>>>>> Libertarian
>>>>>>> Party as of the date that the contribution and attached signed
>>>>>>> certification were processed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It may be in order to refund the person's contribution as part
>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> LNC's
>>>>>>> prerogative to issue directives overriding those of the Chair,
>>>>> though it
>>>>>>> would not be in order if it had the effect of denying that
>>>>> person a
>>>>>>> sustaining membership. Art. 4, Sec. 4 can be read as applying
>>>>> by the
>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>> of the person making the donation, even if the donation was
>>>>> subsequently
>>>>>>> refunded.  That's a somewhat strained reading of it, so it
>>>>> would be
>>>>>> better
>>>>>>> if the motion made it clear that it was a refund without a
>>>>> change in
>>>>>>> sustaining
>>>>>>> membership status.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The latter half of the motion is out of order as the
>>>>> membership
>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>> has been processed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The mover has the option to rewrite the motion to fit within
>>>>> my
>>>>>>> interpretation of the bylaws outlined above, appeal from the
>>>>> ruling of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Chair, or ask for time on the agenda in February.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:47 AM john.phillips--- via
>>>>> Lnc-business <
>>>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A point I considered Caryn Ann and Alex, and appreciate.  I
>>>>> considered
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> moot as someone else had already made the name public, but
>>>>> still had
>>>>>>> qualms
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree on not using it going forward.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John Phillips
>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 7:40 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would encourage you to add this to February agenda.  The
>>>>> chair has
>>>>>>>> indicated that discussion of non-public figures is not
>>>>> appropriate for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> public list.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM john.phillips--- via
>>>>> Lnc-business <
>>>>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Given that the nature of this is no longer as time
>>>>> sensitive, I
>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>>>> with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can
>>>>> address, as was
>>>>>>>> pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and
>>>>> I find
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors
>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>> following motion.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the
>>>>> donation of
>>>>>>> Royce
>>>>>>>> Corley, and further not accept his membership application
>>>>> until after
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> National Convention in May of 2020."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it,
>>>>> to make a
>>>>>>>> decision either in specific or in general about such
>>>>> situations, while
>>>>>>>> addressing the current objections of several members of this
>>>>> board and
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>> of the party members currently.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding
>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>> wording.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John Phillips
>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as
>>>>> Asperger's Syndrome
>>>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect
>>>>> inter-personal
>>>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
>>>>> If
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some
>>>>> other social
>>>>>>> faux
>>>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>>>>> Syndrome
>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>>>>> social faux
>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>>>>> Syndrome
>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>>>>> social faux
>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>>>>> Syndrome
>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>>>>> social faux
>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>>>>> Syndrome
>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>>>>> social faux
>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>>>>> Syndrome
>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>>>>> social faux
>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
> 
> *In Liberty,*
> 
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *