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

[Alicia Mattson]

Daniel Hayes is not the only person who could have submitted it.  Our
personal knowledge about Daniel doesn't eliminate the possibility that
someone else might have.

-Alicia


On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:03 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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. *
>
>