[Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr Merced added his name.

The issue now is a tie between emeeting and email ballot.  However I think
the emerging request is defective as it contains no date.

I cannot make that ruling.  Thus, I wrote the chair.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:46 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> There may however be a defect in the emeeting request in that no date
> specified.
>
> I will be writing the chair for guidance today.  I will not be dealing
> with this until after Christmas.
>
>
>
> - Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:43 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at 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. *
>>
>> --
>
> *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. *