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

[Alicia Mattson]

Thank you for checking those two names.  Are you just checking on the list
of sustaining members that Robert Kraus sent you as of the relevant date?
If that's where you're looking, we also need to have Robert also check the
full membership database of 140k+ records as well when he gets a chance to
do so.  Only the sustaining membership list has the potential to impact
delegate allocations, but they also shouldn't be listed as members, which
will stay on our rolls from year to year.

I'm not picking on the Chair here, but I thought of this only because at
the 2018 convention Darryl Perry was waging a full campaign for delegates
to vote for Zane Sarwark, so perhaps we should also check the database for
young names in that family as well.  It sounds as though Mr. Phillips may
know other baby names we should also check.  It doesn't take very many
people getting cute-sy to impact the delegation allocations.  This year
Texas is particularly close to that threshold for another delegate.

-Alicia


On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:18 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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. *
>
>