[Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

It seems enough agrees for an emeeting including Mr. Smith.

If we can get a date set down I can notice the emeeting.

I was planning on simply starting the email ballot after Christmas.  But
now there is a point of order over that.

I will make myself available for any date.

Let’s pick one and move forward.

I asked both publicly and privately for this to be paused until after
Christmas as a courtesy.  I am a Christian and don’t wish to be dealing
with this now.

But it appears scoring political points is more important than family or
courtesy- so once I know which thing to do, I will commence.

This is a shameful act of discourteousness to peers.

Here is where we stand.

The request for an emeeting (which I did interpret thusly as is obvious
with my comments in that thread that no one bothered to disabuse me of at
the time) is detective and void.

We have a fully sponsored email ballot though I am still unclear as Mr
Merced appears to have given it taken away and give it again?

However there is a point of order pending before I can start that ballot.

No one objected to emeeting including the original maker of the email
request.

The simplest way forward is to pick a date.

I am in a holding pattern until we either pick a date or the chair rules on
Mr O’Donnell’s point of order.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 3:54 PM joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Justin,
>
> The whole reason for the appeal, and the initial motion is that the rule
> is not clear cut to some on the board.
>
> But you're free to object.
>
> I'm not opposed to an E meeting. I said I would support it, but there has
> been no motion for one as of yet, and there IS a motion to appeal the
> ruling of the chair. If someone would like to amend the motion to hold the
> debate and vote over an e meeting. I would be fine with it. As I have
> stated prior to this.
>
>
> -Joshua
>
> On Dec 24, 2019 2:10 PM, "justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business" <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> If we want to be pedantic about forcing an appeal via email, instead of
> calling an emeeting which qould allow for proper debate, then I'll object
> to the appeal as being out of order, as the chairs ruling arose out of
> established rules and operative laws, not judgement, opinion or discretion.
> As such, under Roberts as explained by Demeter's Manual of Parliamemtary
> procedure, such an appeal is purely dilatory.
>
> "An assembly cannot contravene a bylaws provision by raising an appeal
> and voting to interpret the provision to mean something different than its
> clear meaning. If such an appeal is moved, the chair should rule it out of
> order immediately, without opening it to debate or putting it to a vote."
> -
> Demeter, George (1969). *Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and
> Procedure*, Blue Book, p. 131–132
>
>
> Justin O'Donnell
> LNC Region 8 Representative
>
> On Dec 24, 2019 4:57 PM, "joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business" <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Again, there has been no motion for an e meeting, and there was already a
> motion on the table to appeal the ruling of the chair that is being
> completely ignored.
>
> This is now the third time I have stated this motion with the correct
> amount of support, and according to RONR, I can just call the vote myself
> if it's not going to be respected. And I am fine with that.
>
> If we want a motion to hear the main motion (made by John before the
> appeal) we can make or amend John's motion after the vote for the appeal to
> be done over an E Meeting. I would support that, but we have to get back to
> that motion in the first place. Which I think we really should, and hope
> that my colleagues will support as well.
>
>
> -Joshua
>
>
> On Dec 24, 2019 1:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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. *
>
>
>
>
> --

*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. *