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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Phillips, my comment was not intended as an aspersion on you but for
you to consider that others would take it as an aspersion on them.  ALL of
us have had loose lips on this list about people which has been a huge
issue in this current controversy where a name was put forth that never
should have been.

Also to consider that it is not a joke to influence delegate counts - which
things like purchasing welcoming packages do not do.  Others would take
influencing delegate counts in that way as fraud and would harm the
reputation of those people, particularly someone who is the chair of the
convention committee.

There are also posts about the lizard taking over FB accounts, locking his
mom out of the house, and terrorizing all chonky females.  Meaning,
obviously jokes that are pretending he is a person, just like the joke he
is running for chair.

My point is that we need to be more careful when talking about other people.

With regards to children, I have been told since I joined the party that
such has always been allowed.  That is beyond my pay grade and I trust the
chair will issue a directive.

It is not the same thing to have a child as a delegate and having a child
as a member since being a delegate does not require they be a national
member or sign any pledge if their own state party does not require that.
I personally have no issue with a guardian signing on a child's behalf as
they do for nearly everything they are not yet capable of doing for
themselves.  Perhaps that is because such a thing is seeped in my religious
culture in which babies are baptized based upon the faith and promise of
their parents but that the child, when they get old enough can repudiate.
Also we argue that although children always have full human rights, they
cannot yet exercise them fully, being held in custodianship for them by
their parents or guardians.  Particularly since the main point of the
pledge is not as a blood oath.

*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 Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 8:09 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Noted.  Just another reminder for everyone my points on this particular
> thing all come from the "If we do X, then these related points also need to
> be addressed" aspect.
>
> I personally don't care particularly. I am merely pointing out potential
> ramifications of things others are bringing up, and potential answers to
> same.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On Dec 31, 2019 8:48 AM, Erin Adams <erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Since we allow children to act as delegates, Im not sure disallowing
> memberships from them is reasonable either.
>
> On Dec 31, 2019 7:59 AM, "john.phillips--- via Lnc-business" <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Again. My statements were based on direct statements made by the people in
> question.
>
> While it is possible I misunderstood/misremembered Mr Hayes - who did
> purchase a welcoming committee package so a membership is not as
> questionable as you imply, the statements about the lizard are still public
> posts on FB.
>
> I am not in the habit of questioning friend's about the accuracy of their
> personal statements regarding their own harmless activities.
>
> I do not appreciate a couple things in your words Caryn Ann;
> 1. The implication that I was somehow making accusatory statements without
> foundation, because there was ample foundation as pointed out above.
>
>  2. That I was accusing any particular person of impropriety in these
> cases, I said I had no problem with it, so no impropriety was stated or
> implied.  Or related, that doing what I consider a cute and harmless
> thing reflects somehow badly on the people in question.  I think it
> reflects well actually.  It shows their dedication, their interest, and a
> bit of humor. Especially since I specifically stated I had no issue with
> the practice, save Ms Mattson's concern which I acknowledged as one I had
> not thought of.
>
> It does however reflect poorly on the party if we let people think they
> have purchased something that was/will be disallowed. In particular the
> child memberships, which under Ms Mattson's statement might be a problem.
> Even then all I said was that it was something that we should address
> later, which could be as simple a thing as creating a separate membership
> division, such as a "dependent membership" that would address the concerns
> and still allow a bit of fun.
>
> I will operate under the assumption that aspersions directed at me were
> unintended and not take them personally, merely correct them.
>
> Regardless those 2 are not the only ones I have heard/seen discuss doing
> so, and the number grows exponentially if we also consider memberships for
> children, so if it is to be considered not allowed, it should be addressed
> merely to avoid unintentional fraud.  Again - later.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On Dec 31, 2019 3:57 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> In the context of Mr. Phillips' information, it seemed clear to me that
> the
> suggestion was that both Resa and Daniel signed up their pets.  I knew
> that
> was absurd.  I do not think if LNC members had heard about other people
> will nilly submitting other people's pets as members that this would have
> been raised immediately.
>
> Before we start publicly saying people's pets are members which reflects
> horribly on those people to the detriment of their reputation, inquiry
> should have been made in private to Mr. Fishman.  We have become pretty
> chatty about suspicions against people on this list that needs to tone
> down.  IMHO.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> *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 Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:04 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > 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. *
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>