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

[Alicia Mattson]

Thank you, Dan, for checking the actual membership database to confirm with
facts, rather than leaving us to operate with things heard on social media
or presumptions.

-Alicia


On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 5:48 AM Daniel Fishman via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> No Bishop Hayes, no Dulap Nelson
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
> ---
> Daniel Fishman
> Executive Director
> The Libertarian Party
> Join Us <http://www.lp.org/join>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 1:47 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > 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. *
> >
>