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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms Mattson I apologize if I was unclear.  I did not check the list -
speaking from my knowledge of the people involved only which is fallible .
Both Daniel and Resa know full well that pets cannot be members.



On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:43 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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. *
> >
> >
>
-- 

*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. *