[Lnc-business] Fwd: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of memberships redux

[Alicia Mattson]

Person B cannot sign the membership certification on behalf of Person A
when Person A is incapable of asserting what they do or do not personally
believe.

Do we really have animals listed in our membership database?

-Alicia


On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Their legal rights are under a guardian and the guardian must sign or they
> are not a sustaining member.
>
> *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 Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:31 PM Erin Adams <erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
>
> > There are beings who have received a gifted membership who can not sign
> of
> > their own volition who may in fact be being counted in the formula that
> > decides delegate allocation.
> >
> > Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
> >
> > On Dec 29, 2019 3:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Mr Frankel is spot on.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Libertarian Party <web at lp.org>
> > Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM
> > Subject: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
> > To: <chair at lp.org>, <alex.merced at lp.org>, <treasurer at lp.org>, <
> > secretary at lp.org>, <joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org>, <sam.goldstein at lp.org>,
> > <
> > alicia.mattson at lp.org>, <william.redpath at lp.org>, <joshua.smith at lp.org>,
> > <
> > richard.longstreth at lp.org>, <johnny.adams at lp.org>, <
> steven.nekhaila at lp.org>,
> >
> > <victoria.paige.lee at lp.org>, <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>, <
> > dustin.nanna at lp.org>, <jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>, <kenneth.olsen at lp.org>, <
> > james.lark at lp.org>, <susan.hogarth at lp.org>, <john.phillips at lp.org>, <
> > phillip.anderson at lp.org>, <whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>, <erin.adams at lp.org>,
> <
> > justin.odonnell at lp.org>, <pat.ford at lp.org>
> >
> >
> > *Contact LNC members:*
> >   Contact all LNC members
> > Your Information
> > *Subject*
> >   Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
> > *Affiliate*
> >   Alabama
> > *Name*
> >   paul frankel
> > *Email*
> >   secretary at lpalabama.org
> > *Phone*
> >   (205) 534-1622
> > *State*
> >   Alabama
> > *Address*
> >   710 Chickamauga Cir
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> >
> > Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> >
> > United States
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> >
> > Map It
> > <
> >
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa%2C+AL+35406+United+States
> >
> >
> > *Message*
> >   Hello again LNC. My apologies for writing you all so frequently about
> > this but I’m not sure whether anyone else is going to raise these points
> > otherwise in your discussion or not. I’m again requesting a forward to
> the
> > public list.
> >
> > 1) “"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member.
> Most
> > importantly:
> >
> > • 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.
> >
> > Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating
> the
> > individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of
> > the
> > certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has
> > served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated,
> > this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.””
> >
> > Actions which constitute the initiation of force are not necessarily the
> > same thing as supporting the initiation of force **to achieve social and
> > political goals**. There are various ways the latter can be interpreted.
> > Taken in historical context, many have claimed that this was merely a
> > cover
> > our butts statement to assure the government we were not planning to
> > engage
> > in terrorism on behalf of our radical agenda of social change, and if any
> > LP member did, that we would have their membership pledge to prove that
> it
> > was not in line with what we are about as an organization. To keep this
> in
> > perspective the party was created in the early 1970s when there was a
> rash
> > of politically motivated domestic terrorism from the far left, much as
> > there now is from the far right.
> >
> > Another plausible explanation is that it is a certification of opposition
> > to initiation of force as seen in libertarian philosophy to achieve
> social
> > and political goals, which would amount to an anarchist pledge or endless
> > debates over whether various minimal government proposals are somehow not
> > initiation of force. Although I’m an anarchist myself, I would not want a
> > pledge that excludes all non-anarchists from the party, Nor would I want
> > endless purge trials over whether any members have expressed support for
> > policies which initiate force to achieve social or political goals or
> not.
> > I hope we can all agree on that.
> >
> > One thing the pledge does **not** say is “I will not engage in initiation
> > of force for any reason.” It’s an admirable standard and one I would
> > aspire
> > to, but have fallen short of myself, regrettably. It does not even say “I
> > will not stand convicted in a court of law of criminal activity stemming
> > from actions which initiate force.” That’s a far different pledge than
> the
> > one we all took, and while it’s also an admirable standard, I’m also not
> > the only party member who has regrettably fallen short of this standard.
> > If
> > we retroactively reinterpret the existing pledge as being that, and
> > enforceable (whereas to my knowledge it never was before) my expulsion
> > trial ought to be scheduled as well, along with an expensive audit of all
> > other memberships and who knows how many other such trials. All the more
> > so
> > if we also have to investigate all potential new members as well.
> >
> > However one interprets the membership pledge, there is no enforcement
> > mechanism in it, nor to my knowledge anywhere else in bylaws. The
> > historical and bylaws experts can correct me if I am wrong, but to my
> > knowledge we have NEVER had such a mechanism at the national level. I
> > think
> > this is probably because people realized that having one could open a
> huge
> > can of worms. Such a process has existed and been used at the state level
> > in various states, to my knowledge only in a small handful of cases.
> > However, even those trials often prove to be very divisive and time
> > consuming, eating up much time and good will at the state and local level
> > and causing many other members to quit or scale back involvement
> > regardless
> > of the outcome.
> >
> > 2) “• (Roberts rules) Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of
> > Their Members.
> >
> > 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A
> > deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own
> > laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being
> expulsion
> > from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society,
> > it has the right, for its own protection….”
> >
> >
> > However, this does not say what happens if the matter is not addressed in
> > the bylaws of an organization (“its own laws”). Since our bylaws don’t
> > have
> > an expulsion provision, I don’t see how this section creates one for us.
> > It
> > just says we have the right to make and enforce such a bylaw, but we have
> > not done it. If something in Roberts creates a right to expel members,
> > this
> > is not it.
> >
> > 3) Gift memberships: Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
> understanding
> > is that gift memberships are not valid unless the person being gifted
> > signs
> > the membership pledge of their own free volition, and is a person capable
> > of informed consent, regardless of who pays the attending fee. Otherwise
> > it’s just a fundraising tool, but does not create a true membership.
> >
> > As a reminder I also sent a second email which as far as I know was never
> > forwarded to the list, correcting a factual matter in my first email:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thomas L. Knapp quoting my first letter: “As US Attorney, prior to LP
> > membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having consensual
> sexual
> > activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As part of the
> > prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that video public, allowing unrelated
> > adults to watch the two underage children engaging in sexual activity."
> >
> > TLK: My recollection is different -- or perhaps we're referring to
> > different events. {p: no, error is mine; I misremembered what I read
> Knapp
> > write about this, and he corrects it here p}
> >
> > TLK: My recollection is that the incident happened after Barr left
> > Congress, when he no longer held public office, and possibly while he was
> > affiliated with the LP. And my recollection of the incident is this:
> >
> > In Georgia, trial evidence is a "public record."
> >
> > A newspaper filed a request for the evidence in the case you mention -- a
> > cell phone video.
> >
> > A judge denied that request because of the content.
> >
> > As an op-ed columnist, Barr held that the law required the release of the
> > evidence, and that if anyone didn't like that, they should get the law
> > changed.
> >
> > Which, as a side note, made Barr, not Mary Ruwart, the 2008 presidential
> > candidate who was on public record as supporting government provision of
> > child pornography on demand.
> >
> > But he was also right. "Don't like the rules, ain't gonna go by them" is
> > not a reasonable position for a judge, a bureaucrat, an office-holder --
> > or
> > a party's national committee. (TLK)
> >
> > Paulie: OK I mangled that, will need to correct. But that brings up
> > another
> > good point of consideration: Is merely *advocating* for the initiation of
> > force to serve political or social goals (or some specific types of force
> > involving teenagers, sex and or video) enough for the potential
> > revocations/denial of membership being considered? Or does it have to
> > involve personal actions? In other words, the way I remembered what you
> > wrote involved an actual action under color of law. This refreshing of my
> > memory makes clear it was mere advocacy in a newspaper column.
> >
> > In the case that stirred the current brouhaha on the LNC, I am not aware
> > that the guy in prison who is trying to join the party is *advocating*
> for
> > making what he is convicted of legal. In fact I do not know what he
> > thinks.
> > He may be sincerely sorry and have turned a new leaf, he may have been
> > railroaded, he may think he did nothing wrong, he may just believe he had
> > to do what he had to do due to economic reality. In another case someone
> > both practices and advocates routinely initiating force and normalizing
> > it,
> > and obviously fits both criteria - action and advocacy. In the corrected
> > version, Barr engages in advocacy but to my knowledge no action, at least
> > none that I know of evidence for. How many of these qualify for
> membership
> > revocation under whatever standard people are proposing here?
> >
> > For reference earlier I wrote:
> >
> >
> > As you may know, I read all your public emails, but try to write you
> > sparingly (otherwise you'd get more emails from me than you do from your
> > own current members, and if I was going to do that I should have run for
> a
> > new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in 2012-4). I think
> > the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits my input. I
> > hope you'll agree and share my thoughts with the public list.
> >
> > Emotional cases make bad law, and those who sexually abuse, exploit and
> > videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The more
> > fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any* authority to refuse
> > a
> > membership pledge and donation from *anyone* regardless of what
> > reprehensible things they may have done in the past or even do in the
> > present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no such power,
> > and thus it would be improper to refuse or refund a membership donation
> > and
> > pledge from anyone no matter who they are. I understand that this is the
> > current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is that
> Robert's
> > Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing body does
> have
> > the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership donations. I
> > don't remember the exact citation and I am not a parliamentarian so I'll
> > leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along with
> > ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I do not
> > remember a specific cite, only being told that it's there.
> >
> > A few things to consider:
> >
> > 1) if you do open the door to membership revocation, it could well
> > snowball. There have been many historic cases in other parties and
> > organizations where it started small with a tiny number of obvious cases
> > and then gradually grew to wide ranging membership purges that devastated
> > those respective organizations and crippled them over time.
> >
> > 2) But, it doesn't always have to. I am aware of a handful of state LPs
> > which have revoked a very small number of individual memberships over the
> > years, typically after some sort of internal judicial procedure, and as
> > yet
> > I am not aware that they have devolved into massive membership purges of
> > the sort I would be concerned about.
> >
> > 3) It's also an undeniable fact that individual members who both advocate
> > and practice initiation of force in violation of their membership pledge
> > and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the party
> > embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our own actual
> and
> > potential membership as a result; most of the public does not understand
> > that we may not have the power to dissociate from members in the way they
> > assume any organization can.
> >
> > 4) This could potentially be an issue to take to the judicial committee.
> > But, as at least those of you who have been on the board since the start
> > of
> > the term are aware, it's questionable whether we have one which was
> > impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those of you on
> > bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting system which
> > caused
> > this, even if it's just going back to the prior one.
> >
> > 5) If you do open the door to membership removal/rejection in this
> manner,
> > please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we want to
> > establish the principle that once someone has been convicted of a real
> > crime with victims they can't have a change of heart and honestly sign
> the
> > membership pledge, or that we should assume they don't mean it? What if
> > someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in fact violate
> > their pledge -- but does not make it an ongoing pattern of behavior, nor
> > advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If the grounds
> for
> > membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge is signed,
> > do
> > they include cases where those actions were done under color of law, yet
> > amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective? Example: As
> > US
> > Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for
> > having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and privately
> > videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that
> > video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two underage
> children
> > engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but should they have
> > been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up grounds for
> > someone else to request a membership revocation for our past presidential
> > candidate and life member (if my memory serves correctly) on this basis?
> >
> > 6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is likely to be
> > taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the best venue to
> > hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally recognized
> > judicial committee.
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did. I hope they
> > are of some help to you in considering these matters.
> >
> > Paul Frankel
> > 205-534-1622 currently open for voice calls 6 am - 9 pm central, text any
> > time
> > secretary at lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party capacity but I
> > hope
> > we'll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in Birmingham
> > https://lpalabama.org/event/2020-lp-alabama-state-convention-2020-02-28/
> )
> > https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli
> > *Email Confirmation*
> >
> >
> >    - I want to receive email communication from the Libertarian Party.
> >
> > --
> >
> > *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. *
> >
> >
> >
>