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

[Sam Goldstein]

Do we need to add a box to confirm that the applicant is a human?  Where 
in the Bylaws does it state that?

---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2020-01-28 01:10, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business wrote:
> I looked at the December file of contributions. Headquarters received
> membership dues at the end of December paid using PayPal from a Prof.
> Dulap Nelson. The boxes were checked for "To validate my membership, I
> certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or
> social goals.", "I am a United States citizen or a permanent resident
> alien." and "The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by
> another person or entity for the purpose of making this
> contribution.".
> 
> It got automatically processed like any other membership since all of
> the boxes were checked and nothing unusual to get flagged.
> 
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
> 
> On 2020-01-27 21:08, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business wrote:
>> 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. *
>>> >
>>>