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

Wed Jan 29 12:54:47 EST 2020

How can someone check the NAP box on behalf of another person??

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 11:48 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
>