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

Wed Jan 29 12:48:20 EST 2020

Not a bad idea Tim!

Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:27 Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I received this suggestion, after mentioning that gift memberships can
> be done via www.lp.org/gift [1]. Will leave it up to the website experts
> to say if it's easy and makes sense.
>
> Instead of having separate pages, which complicates things for the
> affiliate programs, why not just have the membership form collect
> separate sets of info for the member and the donor? With a checkbox that
> lets you skip the second set of questions for when they are the same
> person.
>
> Like how most online shopping sites collect separate shipping and
> billing info.
>
> So the member/donation form pages would look something like:
>
> Member:
> Name
> Address
> Email
> Phone
> [ ] I certify I do not support the initiation of force to achieve
> political and social goals.
>
> "As per FEC blah blah blah, we must collect information on the person
> paying for this donation"
>
> [ ] The member and the donor are the same person
> (If checked, autopopulates the name and contact info and skips you down
> to the occupation & employer fields)
>
> Donor:
> Name
> Address
> Email
> Phone
> Occupation
> Employer
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2020-01-29 09:02, joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > Sam,
> >
> > Currently there is at least one lizard who has become a full national
> member in Texas, so it might be a good idea to figure out our process.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joshua
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2020 8:51 AM, Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Who is actually advocating for pets/very young children to be voting
> members?  No one that I've seen.
> >
> > ---
> > Sam Goldstein
> > Libertarian National Committee
> > 317-850-0726 Cell
> >
> > On 2020-01-29 11:37, joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business wrote:
> > I'm with Francis and Lauren McKinnon on this.
> >
> > It's a great idea to have a novelty membership for pets, but a bad idea
> to give pets actual standing as members.
> >
> > This is a great way for states to pad their delegate numbers, but
> doesn't help us look serious at all.
> >
> > Can we add time to the agenda to discuss this in Reno? We should.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joshua Smith
> >
> > On Jan 28, 2020 5:51 PM, "francis.wendt--- via Lnc-business" <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Dear members of the LNC,
> >
> > So we went from being told that Dunlap Nelson was not a member, to him
> actually being a member in the December filings. Which brings back all of
> the questions as to the validity of our membership numbers, and if children
> and pets should be counted as sustaining membership. Because right now, to
> me, it looks like people are gaming the numbers for control of the party.
> This, unfortunately, makes me question the integrity of some of our
> members, and frankly, question if we really have right people to win
> elections.
> >
> > I appreciate that our members love their pets, but when it comes down to
> it pets should never have the same standing as our members. This shows they
> do. I don't mean to speak in hyperbole, but how can we expect voters to
> take us seriously if this is being broadcast in the manner that we are
> encouraging our new members to show off joining the party. We really need
> to look at our membership process, and not discuss band-aid fixes like
> selling pet merch.
> >
> > I'm here to represent the affiliate members of Region 1, and I know at
> least 1 affiliate that lost delegates between 2018 and 2020. I have no
> power to move items in the committee, nor do I think I have the power to
> request agenda time, but I implore anyone who does, please do so, because,
> as cute as it is, it also detracts from every sustaining member of the LP.
> >
> > My humble thoughts on this matter.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Francis Wendt
> > LNC Region 1 Alternate
> > 406.595.5111
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of Sam
> Goldstein via Lnc-business
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:54 AM
> > To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > Cc: Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of
> memberships redux
> >
> > 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,+A
> >>>> L+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
> >>>>> > >>> > > > <
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>> > >>> >
> >>>>> > >>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+A
> >>>> L+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > > > United States
> >>>>> > >>> > > > <
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>> > >>> >
> >>>>> > >>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+A
> >>>> L+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > > > Map It
> >>>>> > >>> > > > <
> >>>>> > >>> > > >
> >>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>> > >>> >
> >>>>> > >>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa%2C+AL+3
> >>>> 5406+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. *
> >>>>>
> >>>>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lp.org/gift
>