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

[brent.olsen at lp.org]

Personally I see this all as being generally a non-issue (or at least it 
shouldn't be an issue)...  Neither pets nor children can cast votes at 
convention.  They are basically donors.  Many Sustaining Members are 
really nothing but donors...  A member who does not exercise membership 
rights does not impact the other members' rights.  Sure, perhaps it 
impacts state membership numbers, and therefore convention delegation 
sizes....  I don't see 500 people out signing their pets up as members, 
however, so the impact is minimal... And so what if they did?  That is 
$12,500 from people wanting to get membership cards for their pets....  
Besides, we should be moving away the club mentality of focusing on 
membership and instead focus on increasing the numbers of registered 
voters and the amount of money coming in from donors...  And therefore, 
talking about pet clothes is the only thing worth discussing when it 
comes to this issue....

In Liberty,
K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
Region 4 Alternate

On 2020-01-28 17:51, francis.wendt--- via Lnc-business 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. *
>>>> >
>>>>