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

[Alicia Mattson]

The attached picture seems to show an LP membership card issued to Dulap
Nelson.  The resolution isn't high enough to clearly make out the
membership date, but it appears to be November?  Maybe it's a Photoshop
just for grins, dunno, but perhaps we need to check again...

-Alicia


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

> No Bishop Hayes, no Dulap Nelson
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
> ---
> Daniel Fishman
> Executive Director
> The Libertarian Party
> Join Us <http://www.lp.org/join>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 1:47 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > Ms Mattson I apologize if I was unclear.  I did not check the list -
> > speaking from my knowledge of the people involved only which is fallible
> .
> > Both Daniel and Resa know full well that pets cannot be members.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:43 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for checking those two names.  Are you just checking on the
> > list
> > > of sustaining members that Robert Kraus sent you as of the relevant
> date?
> > > If that's where you're looking, we also need to have Robert also check
> > the
> > > full membership database of 140k+ records as well when he gets a chance
> > to
> > > do so.  Only the sustaining membership list has the potential to impact
> > > delegate allocations, but they also shouldn't be listed as members,
> which
> > > will stay on our rolls from year to year.
> > >
> > > I'm not picking on the Chair here, but I thought of this only because
> at
> > > the 2018 convention Darryl Perry was waging a full campaign for
> delegates
> > > to vote for Zane Sarwark, so perhaps we should also check the database
> > for
> > > young names in that family as well.  It sounds as though Mr. Phillips
> may
> > > know other baby names we should also check.  It doesn't take very many
> > > people getting cute-sy to impact the delegation allocations.  This year
> > > Texas is particularly close to that threshold for another delegate.
> > >
> > > -Alicia
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:18 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
> > caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dulap is not a member.
> > > >
> > > > Though he is running for chair apparently
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:17 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
> > > caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Bishop is not a member. There are no animal members.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> > > >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I do object to animals and babies being counted as party members,
> as
> > I
> > > do
> > > >>> not believe they qualify under our bylaws.  If there were even 4
> such
> > > >>> entries in the count of sustaining members as of 10/31/19, then
> Texas
> > > is
> > > >>> entitled to one additional delegate seat for this convention.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> How many such "sustaining members" were included in the 10/31
> counts
> > > for
> > > >>> delegate allocation?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Our bylaws say, "Members of the Party shall be those persons who
> have
> > > >>> certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to
> > > achieve
> > > >>> political or social goals."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I love (most) dogs, but dogs are not persons, thus they cannot be
> > party
> > > >>> members.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Babies and other young children are incapable of having certified
> in
> > > >>> writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve
> political
> > > or
> > > >>> social goals.  The bylaw doesn't say that members are persons whose
> > > >>> parents
> > > >>> hope their children will later subscribe to those beliefs.  Won't
> it
> > be
> > > >>> fun
> > > >>> when the first pro-life member in the party purchases a membership
> on
> > > >>> behalf of an unborn child, and another faction argues that they're
> > not
> > > >>> eligible?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Alicia
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:57 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > I believe both Dulap Nelson and Bishop Hayes are both paid
> members.
> > > As
> > > >>> > are several people's babies.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I don't personally take issue with it. Just a point of
> information.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > John Phillips
> > > >>> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > > >>> > Cell 217-412-5973
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Dec 29, 2019 6:26 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> > > >>> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Person B cannot sign the membership certification on behalf of
> > > Person A
> > > >>> > when Person A is incapable of asserting what they do or do not
> > > >>> personally
> > > >>> > believe.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Do we really have animals listed in our membership database?
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > -Alicia
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via
> Lnc-business <
> > > >>> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > Their legal rights are under a guardian and the guardian must
> > sign
> > > or
> > > >>> > they
> > > >>> > > are not a sustaining member.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > *In Liberty,*
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> > > >>> Syndrome
> > > >>> > > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > > >>> > > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
> If
> > > >>> anyone
> > > >>> > > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> > > social
> > > >>> > faux
> > > >>> > > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:31 PM Erin Adams <erin.adams at lp.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > > There are beings who have received a gifted membership who
> can
> > > not
> > > >>> > sign
> > > >>> > > of
> > > >>> > > > their own volition who may in fact be being counted in the
> > > formula
> > > >>> > that
> > > >>> > > > decides delegate allocation.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > On Dec 29, 2019 3:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> > > >>> > > > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Mr Frankel is spot on.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > >>> > > > From: Libertarian Party <web at lp.org>
> > > >>> > > > Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM
> > > >>> > > > Subject: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of memberships
> > redux
> > > >>> > > > To: <chair at lp.org>, <alex.merced at lp.org>, <treasurer at lp.org
> >,
> > <
> > > >>> > > > secretary at lp.org>, <joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org>, <
> > > >>> sam.goldstein at lp.org>,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > > <
> > > >>> > > > alicia.mattson at lp.org>, <william.redpath at lp.org>, <
> > > >>> joshua.smith at lp.org>,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > > <
> > > >>> > > > richard.longstreth at lp.org>, <johnny.adams at lp.org>, <
> > > >>> > > steven.nekhaila at lp.org>,
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > <victoria.paige.lee at lp.org>, <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>, <
> > > >>> > > > dustin.nanna at lp.org>, <jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>, <
> > > >>> kenneth.olsen at lp.org>,
> > > >>> > <
> > > >>> > > > james.lark at lp.org>, <susan.hogarth at lp.org>, <
> > > john.phillips at lp.org>,
> > > >>> <
> > > >>> > > > phillip.anderson at lp.org>, <whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>, <
> > > >>> erin.adams at lp.org>,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > <
> > > >>> > > > justin.odonnell at lp.org>, <pat.ford at lp.org>
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > *Contact LNC members:*
> > > >>> > > >   Contact all LNC members
> > > >>> > > > Your Information
> > > >>> > > > *Subject*
> > > >>> > > >   Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
> > > >>> > > > *Affiliate*
> > > >>> > > >   Alabama
> > > >>> > > > *Name*
> > > >>> > > >   paul frankel
> > > >>> > > > *Email*
> > > >>> > > >   secretary at lpalabama.org
> > > >>> > > > *Phone*
> > > >>> > > >   (205) 534-1622
> > > >>> > > > *State*
> > > >>> > > >   Alabama
> > > >>> > > > *Address*
> > > >>> > > >   710 Chickamauga Cir
> > > >>> > > > <
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
> > > >>> > > > <
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > United States
> > > >>> > > > <
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Map It
> > > >>> > > > <
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa%2C+AL+35406+United+States
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > *Message*
> > > >>> > > >   Hello again LNC. My apologies for writing you all so
> > frequently
> > > >>> > about
> > > >>> > > > this but I’m not sure whether anyone else is going to raise
> > these
> > > >>> > points
> > > >>> > > > otherwise in your discussion or not. I’m again requesting a
> > > >>> forward to
> > > >>> > > the
> > > >>> > > > public list.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 1) “"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a
> > > >>> member.
> > > >>> > > Most
> > > >>> > > > importantly:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
> > > >>> > > > 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
> > certified
> > > >>> in
> > > >>> > > > writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve
> > > >>> political
> > > >>> > or
> > > >>> > > > social goals.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for
> > > >>> violating
> > > >>> > > the
> > > >>> > > > individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a
> > > >>> violation
> > > >>> > of
> > > >>> > > > the
> > > >>> > > > certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until
> this
> > > >>> person
> > > >>> > has
> > > >>> > > > served time and offered something to the people whose rights
> he
> > > >>> > violated,
> > > >>> > > > this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.””
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Actions which constitute the initiation of force are not
> > > >>> necessarily
> > > >>> > the
> > > >>> > > > same thing as supporting the initiation of force **to achieve
> > > >>> social
> > > >>> > and
> > > >>> > > > political goals**. There are various ways the latter can be
> > > >>> > interpreted.
> > > >>> > > > Taken in historical context, many have claimed that this was
> > > >>> merely a
> > > >>> > > > cover
> > > >>> > > > our butts statement to assure the government we were not
> > planning
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> > > > engage
> > > >>> > > > in terrorism on behalf of our radical agenda of social
> change,
> > > and
> > > >>> if
> > > >>> > any
> > > >>> > > > LP member did, that we would have their membership pledge to
> > > prove
> > > >>> > that
> > > >>> > > it
> > > >>> > > > was not in line with what we are about as an organization. To
> > > keep
> > > >>> > this
> > > >>> > > in
> > > >>> > > > perspective the party was created in the early 1970s when
> there
> > > >>> was a
> > > >>> > > rash
> > > >>> > > > of politically motivated domestic terrorism from the far
> left,
> > > >>> much as
> > > >>> > > > there now is from the far right.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Another plausible explanation is that it is a certification
> of
> > > >>> > opposition
> > > >>> > > > to initiation of force as seen in libertarian philosophy to
> > > achieve
> > > >>> > > social
> > > >>> > > > and political goals, which would amount to an anarchist
> pledge
> > or
> > > >>> > endless
> > > >>> > > > debates over whether various minimal government proposals are
> > > >>> somehow
> > > >>> > not
> > > >>> > > > initiation of force. Although I’m an anarchist myself, I
> would
> > > not
> > > >>> > want a
> > > >>> > > > pledge that excludes all non-anarchists from the party, Nor
> > > would I
> > > >>> > want
> > > >>> > > > endless purge trials over whether any members have expressed
> > > >>> support
> > > >>> > for
> > > >>> > > > policies which initiate force to achieve social or political
> > > goals
> > > >>> or
> > > >>> > > not.
> > > >>> > > > I hope we can all agree on that.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > One thing the pledge does **not** say is “I will not engage
> in
> > > >>> > initiation
> > > >>> > > > of force for any reason.” It’s an admirable standard and one
> I
> > > >>> would
> > > >>> > > > aspire
> > > >>> > > > to, but have fallen short of myself, regrettably. It does not
> > > even
> > > >>> say
> > > >>> > “I
> > > >>> > > > will not stand convicted in a court of law of criminal
> activity
> > > >>> > stemming
> > > >>> > > > from actions which initiate force.” That’s a far different
> > pledge
> > > >>> than
> > > >>> > > the
> > > >>> > > > one we all took, and while it’s also an admirable standard,
> I’m
> > > >>> also
> > > >>> > not
> > > >>> > > > the only party member who has regrettably fallen short of
> this
> > > >>> > standard.
> > > >>> > > > If
> > > >>> > > > we retroactively reinterpret the existing pledge as being
> that,
> > > and
> > > >>> > > > enforceable (whereas to my knowledge it never was before) my
> > > >>> expulsion
> > > >>> > > > trial ought to be scheduled as well, along with an expensive
> > > audit
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> > all
> > > >>> > > > other memberships and who knows how many other such trials.
> All
> > > the
> > > >>> > more
> > > >>> > > > so
> > > >>> > > > if we also have to investigate all potential new members as
> > well.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > However one interprets the membership pledge, there is no
> > > >>> enforcement
> > > >>> > > > mechanism in it, nor to my knowledge anywhere else in bylaws.
> > The
> > > >>> > > > historical and bylaws experts can correct me if I am wrong,
> but
> > > to
> > > >>> my
> > > >>> > > > knowledge we have NEVER had such a mechanism at the national
> > > >>> level. I
> > > >>> > > > think
> > > >>> > > > this is probably because people realized that having one
> could
> > > >>> open a
> > > >>> > > huge
> > > >>> > > > can of worms. Such a process has existed and been used at the
> > > state
> > > >>> > level
> > > >>> > > > in various states, to my knowledge only in a small handful of
> > > >>> cases.
> > > >>> > > > However, even those trials often prove to be very divisive
> and
> > > time
> > > >>> > > > consuming, eating up much time and good will at the state and
> > > local
> > > >>> > level
> > > >>> > > > and causing many other members to quit or scale back
> > involvement
> > > >>> > > > regardless
> > > >>> > > > of the outcome.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 2) “• (Roberts rules) Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies
> and
> > > >>> Trial
> > > >>> > of
> > > >>> > > > Their Members.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its
> > Members. A
> > > >>> > > > deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and
> > enforce
> > > >>> its
> > > >>> > own
> > > >>> > > > laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however,
> > being
> > > >>> > > expulsion
> > > >>> > > > from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a
> > permanent
> > > >>> > society,
> > > >>> > > > it has the right, for its own protection….”
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > However, this does not say what happens if the matter is not
> > > >>> addressed
> > > >>> > in
> > > >>> > > > the bylaws of an organization (“its own laws”). Since our
> > bylaws
> > > >>> don’t
> > > >>> > > > have
> > > >>> > > > an expulsion provision, I don’t see how this section creates
> > one
> > > >>> for
> > > >>> > us.
> > > >>> > > > It
> > > >>> > > > just says we have the right to make and enforce such a bylaw,
> > but
> > > >>> we
> > > >>> > have
> > > >>> > > > not done it. If something in Roberts creates a right to expel
> > > >>> members,
> > > >>> > > > this
> > > >>> > > > is not it.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 3) Gift memberships: Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
> > > >>> > > understanding
> > > >>> > > > is that gift memberships are not valid unless the person
> being
> > > >>> gifted
> > > >>> > > > signs
> > > >>> > > > the membership pledge of their own free volition, and is a
> > person
> > > >>> > capable
> > > >>> > > > of informed consent, regardless of who pays the attending
> fee.
> > > >>> > Otherwise
> > > >>> > > > it’s just a fundraising tool, but does not create a true
> > > >>> membership.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > As a reminder I also sent a second email which as far as I
> know
> > > was
> > > >>> > never
> > > >>> > > > forwarded to the list, correcting a factual matter in my
> first
> > > >>> email:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Thomas L. Knapp quoting my first letter: “As US Attorney,
> prior
> > > to
> > > >>> LP
> > > >>> > > > membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having
> > > consensual
> > > >>> > > sexual
> > > >>> > > > activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As
> > > part
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> > the
> > > >>> > > > prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that video public,
> allowing
> > > >>> > unrelated
> > > >>> > > > adults to watch the two underage children engaging in sexual
> > > >>> > activity."
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > TLK: My recollection is different -- or perhaps we're
> referring
> > > to
> > > >>> > > > different events. {p: no, error is mine; I misremembered
> what I
> > > >>> read
> > > >>> > > Knapp
> > > >>> > > > write about this, and he corrects it here p}
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > TLK: My recollection is that the incident happened after Barr
> > > left
> > > >>> > > > Congress, when he no longer held public office, and possibly
> > > while
> > > >>> he
> > > >>> > was
> > > >>> > > > affiliated with the LP. And my recollection of the incident
> is
> > > >>> this:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > In Georgia, trial evidence is a "public record."
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > A newspaper filed a request for the evidence in the case you
> > > >>> mention
> > > >>> > -- a
> > > >>> > > > cell phone video.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > A judge denied that request because of the content.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > As an op-ed columnist, Barr held that the law required the
> > > release
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> > the
> > > >>> > > > evidence, and that if anyone didn't like that, they should
> get
> > > the
> > > >>> law
> > > >>> > > > changed.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Which, as a side note, made Barr, not Mary Ruwart, the 2008
> > > >>> > presidential
> > > >>> > > > candidate who was on public record as supporting government
> > > >>> provision
> > > >>> > of
> > > >>> > > > child pornography on demand.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > But he was also right. "Don't like the rules, ain't gonna go
> by
> > > >>> them"
> > > >>> > is
> > > >>> > > > not a reasonable position for a judge, a bureaucrat, an
> > > >>> office-holder
> > > >>> > --
> > > >>> > > > or
> > > >>> > > > a party's national committee. (TLK)
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Paulie: OK I mangled that, will need to correct. But that
> > brings
> > > up
> > > >>> > > > another
> > > >>> > > > good point of consideration: Is merely *advocating* for the
> > > >>> initiation
> > > >>> > of
> > > >>> > > > force to serve political or social goals (or some specific
> > types
> > > of
> > > >>> > force
> > > >>> > > > involving teenagers, sex and or video) enough for the
> potential
> > > >>> > > > revocations/denial of membership being considered? Or does it
> > > have
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> > > > involve personal actions? In other words, the way I
> remembered
> > > what
> > > >>> > you
> > > >>> > > > wrote involved an actual action under color of law. This
> > > >>> refreshing of
> > > >>> > my
> > > >>> > > > memory makes clear it was mere advocacy in a newspaper
> column.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > In the case that stirred the current brouhaha on the LNC, I
> am
> > > not
> > > >>> > aware
> > > >>> > > > that the guy in prison who is trying to join the party is
> > > >>> *advocating*
> > > >>> > > for
> > > >>> > > > making what he is convicted of legal. In fact I do not know
> > what
> > > he
> > > >>> > > > thinks.
> > > >>> > > > He may be sincerely sorry and have turned a new leaf, he may
> > have
> > > >>> been
> > > >>> > > > railroaded, he may think he did nothing wrong, he may just
> > > believe
> > > >>> he
> > > >>> > had
> > > >>> > > > to do what he had to do due to economic reality. In another
> > case
> > > >>> > someone
> > > >>> > > > both practices and advocates routinely initiating force and
> > > >>> > normalizing
> > > >>> > > > it,
> > > >>> > > > and obviously fits both criteria - action and advocacy. In
> the
> > > >>> > corrected
> > > >>> > > > version, Barr engages in advocacy but to my knowledge no
> > action,
> > > at
> > > >>> > least
> > > >>> > > > none that I know of evidence for. How many of these qualify
> for
> > > >>> > > membership
> > > >>> > > > revocation under whatever standard people are proposing here?
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > For reference earlier I wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > As you may know, I read all your public emails, but try to
> > write
> > > >>> you
> > > >>> > > > sparingly (otherwise you'd get more emails from me than you
> do
> > > from
> > > >>> > your
> > > >>> > > > own current members, and if I was going to do that I should
> > have
> > > >>> run
> > > >>> > for
> > > >>> > > a
> > > >>> > > > new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in
> > 2012-4).
> > > I
> > > >>> > think
> > > >>> > > > the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits
> > my
> > > >>> > input. I
> > > >>> > > > hope you'll agree and share my thoughts with the public list.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Emotional cases make bad law, and those who sexually abuse,
> > > exploit
> > > >>> > and
> > > >>> > > > videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The
> > more
> > > >>> > > > fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any*
> authority
> > > to
> > > >>> > refuse
> > > >>> > > > a
> > > >>> > > > membership pledge and donation from *anyone* regardless of
> what
> > > >>> > > > reprehensible things they may have done in the past or even
> do
> > in
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> > > > present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no
> > such
> > > >>> > power,
> > > >>> > > > and thus it would be improper to refuse or refund a
> membership
> > > >>> > donation
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > pledge from anyone no matter who they are. I understand that
> > this
> > > >>> is
> > > >>> > the
> > > >>> > > > current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is
> > that
> > > >>> > > Robert's
> > > >>> > > > Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing
> > body
> > > >>> does
> > > >>> > > have
> > > >>> > > > the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership
> > > >>> donations.
> > > >>> > I
> > > >>> > > > don't remember the exact citation and I am not a
> > parliamentarian
> > > so
> > > >>> > I'll
> > > >>> > > > leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along
> > > with
> > > >>> > > > ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I
> > do
> > > >>> not
> > > >>> > > > remember a specific cite, only being told that it's there.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > A few things to consider:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 1) if you do open the door to membership revocation, it could
> > > well
> > > >>> > > > snowball. There have been many historic cases in other
> parties
> > > and
> > > >>> > > > organizations where it started small with a tiny number of
> > > obvious
> > > >>> > cases
> > > >>> > > > and then gradually grew to wide ranging membership purges
> that
> > > >>> > devastated
> > > >>> > > > those respective organizations and crippled them over time.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 2) But, it doesn't always have to. I am aware of a handful of
> > > state
> > > >>> > LPs
> > > >>> > > > which have revoked a very small number of individual
> > memberships
> > > >>> over
> > > >>> > the
> > > >>> > > > years, typically after some sort of internal judicial
> > procedure,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> > as
> > > >>> > > > yet
> > > >>> > > > I am not aware that they have devolved into massive
> membership
> > > >>> purges
> > > >>> > of
> > > >>> > > > the sort I would be concerned about.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 3) It's also an undeniable fact that individual members who
> > both
> > > >>> > advocate
> > > >>> > > > and practice initiation of force in violation of their
> > membership
> > > >>> > pledge
> > > >>> > > > and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the
> > > party
> > > >>> > > > embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our
> own
> > > >>> actual
> > > >>> > > and
> > > >>> > > > potential membership as a result; most of the public does not
> > > >>> > understand
> > > >>> > > > that we may not have the power to dissociate from members in
> > the
> > > >>> way
> > > >>> > they
> > > >>> > > > assume any organization can.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 4) This could potentially be an issue to take to the judicial
> > > >>> > committee.
> > > >>> > > > But, as at least those of you who have been on the board
> since
> > > the
> > > >>> > start
> > > >>> > > > of
> > > >>> > > > the term are aware, it's questionable whether we have one
> which
> > > was
> > > >>> > > > impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those
> of
> > > >>> you on
> > > >>> > > > bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting
> system
> > > >>> which
> > > >>> > > > caused
> > > >>> > > > this, even if it's just going back to the prior one.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 5) If you do open the door to membership removal/rejection in
> > > this
> > > >>> > > manner,
> > > >>> > > > please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we
> > want
> > > to
> > > >>> > > > establish the principle that once someone has been convicted
> > of a
> > > >>> real
> > > >>> > > > crime with victims they can't have a change of heart and
> > honestly
> > > >>> sign
> > > >>> > > the
> > > >>> > > > membership pledge, or that we should assume they don't mean
> it?
> > > >>> What
> > > >>> > if
> > > >>> > > > someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in
> fact
> > > >>> violate
> > > >>> > > > their pledge -- but does not make it an ongoing pattern of
> > > >>> behavior,
> > > >>> > nor
> > > >>> > > > advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If
> the
> > > >>> grounds
> > > >>> > > for
> > > >>> > > > membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge
> > is
> > > >>> > signed,
> > > >>> > > > do
> > > >>> > > > they include cases where those actions were done under color
> of
> > > >>> law,
> > > >>> > yet
> > > >>> > > > amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective?
> > > >>> Example:
> > > >>> > As
> > > >>> > > > US
> > > >>> > > > Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a
> teenage
> > > boy
> > > >>> > for
> > > >>> > > > having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and
> > > privately
> > > >>> > > > videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr's office
> > made
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> > > > video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two
> > underage
> > > >>> > > children
> > > >>> > > > engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but
> should
> > > >>> they
> > > >>> > have
> > > >>> > > > been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up
> > > >>> grounds
> > > >>> > for
> > > >>> > > > someone else to request a membership revocation for our past
> > > >>> > presidential
> > > >>> > > > candidate and life member (if my memory serves correctly) on
> > this
> > > >>> > basis?
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is
> > likely
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> > be
> > > >>> > > > taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the
> > best
> > > >>> venue
> > > >>> > to
> > > >>> > > > hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally
> > > >>> recognized
> > > >>> > > > judicial committee.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did.
> I
> > > hope
> > > >>> > they
> > > >>> > > > are of some help to you in considering these matters.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Paul Frankel
> > > >>> > > > 205-534-1622 currently open for voice calls 6 am - 9 pm
> > central,
> > > >>> text
> > > >>> > any
> > > >>> > > > time
> > > >>> > > > secretary at lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party
> > capacity
> > > >>> but I
> > > >>> > > > hope
> > > >>> > > > we'll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in
> > > >>> > Birmingham
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> https://lpalabama.org/event/2020-lp-alabama-state-convention-2020-02-28/
> > > >>> > > )
> > > >>> > > > https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli
> > > >>> > > > *Email Confirmation*
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >    - I want to receive email communication from the
> Libertarian
> > > >>> Party.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > --
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > *In Liberty,*
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> > > >>> Syndrome
> > > >>> > > > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect
> inter-personal
> > > >>> > > > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
> > If
> > > >>> > anyone
> > > >>> > > > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> > > >>> social
> > > >>> > faux
> > > >>> > > > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> *In Liberty,*
> > > >>
> > > >> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> Syndrome
> > > >> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > > >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> > anyone
> > > >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> > > faux
> > > >> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >
> > > > *In Liberty,*
> > > >
> > > > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> Syndrome
> > > > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > > > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> anyone
> > > > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> > faux
> > > > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> >
> > *In Liberty,*
> >
> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dulap Nelson LP membership card Nov 2019.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 98306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20200127/53dcc989/attachment-0001.jpg>