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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Dulap is not a member.

Though he is running for chair apparently

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:17 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Bishop is not a member. There are no animal members.
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I do object to animals and babies being counted as party members, as I do
>> not believe they qualify under our bylaws.  If there were even 4 such
>> entries in the count of sustaining members as of 10/31/19, then Texas is
>> entitled to one additional delegate seat for this convention.
>>
>> How many such "sustaining members" were included in the 10/31 counts for
>> delegate allocation?
>>
>> Our bylaws say, "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."
>>
>> I love (most) dogs, but dogs are not persons, thus they cannot be party
>> members.
>>
>> Babies and other young children are incapable of having certified in
>> writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or
>> social goals.  The bylaw doesn't say that members are persons whose
>> parents
>> hope their children will later subscribe to those beliefs.  Won't it be
>> fun
>> when the first pro-life member in the party purchases a membership on
>> behalf of an unborn child, and another faction argues that they're not
>> eligible?
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:57 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I believe both Dulap Nelson and Bishop Hayes are both paid members.  As
>> > are several people's babies.
>> >
>> > I don't personally take issue with it. Just a point of information.
>> >
>> > John Phillips
>> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>> > Cell 217-412-5973
>> >
>> > On Dec 29, 2019 6:26 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
>> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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. *
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> --
>
> *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. *