[Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Well I need clarification on what exactly everyone is sponsoring.

And I will not be dealing with it until after Christmas.

So a list of names and what they are sponsoring will need to be given to
me.  It is not my job to guess.

I have sponsored an emeeting for the appeal AND the underlying issue but I
will add my name to either.

The resistance to an emeeting and a rush to email does not look good IMHO.
I have yet to hear a good argument as to how email - completely discouraged
in RONR - is better.  It only favours those who have endless time to write
and it provides little more than social media fodder.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:23 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> To clarify to clear up social media innuendo:  yes it was EVH who
> unilaterally made it public.
>
> However she is not to be used as an excuse or scapegoat for everyone who
> took it as an open door to throw out all their discretion to the wind and
> throw around this name.
>
> That fault is theirs not EVH.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:04 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Merced, I need your clarification.
>>
>> There are two issues here.
>>
>> One is the appeal over email vote.
>>
>> The other is the appeal by emeeting.
>>
>> Those two seem to me to be mutually exclusive.  Which of the two are you
>> supporting?
>>
>> -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 Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 1:40 PM Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via
>> Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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. *
>>>
>>> --
>
> *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. *