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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Mr. Fishman.

Ms. Mattson I do not have access to member lists to check or I would have.
I did however know that it would be absolutely absurd to think that Daniel
Hayes would ever do such a thing.

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:00 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/%3E+From:+Libertarian+Party++%0D%0A%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E%3E%3E+%3E+%3E?entry=gmail&source=g>
> <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. *
> > >
> >
>
-- 

*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. *