[Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair)]

Oh, that wasn’t clear to me, if I have to choose, hen I prefer an e-meeting and if any appeals can be handled there with the public’s ability to voice their thoughts

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

> On Dec 24, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes there was Mr Smith.
> 
> Mr Merced both have enough with your vote so you need to choose which one -
> sorry
> 
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:37 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> There was never a motion to hold an E Meeting Mrs. Harlos. There was a
>> motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. I made it. Mr. Nekhaila, Mr.
>> Phillips, and Mr. Merced all seconded. So did Erin Adam's, who you said
>> could not second because of her Alt status. They may have said they are not
>> opposed to an E meeting, but that motion was not made, and there is
>> currently another motion on the table with the required amount of support.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Joshua
>> 
>> On Dec 24, 2019 1:29 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 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. *
>> 
>> 
>> --
> 
> *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. *