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

[brent.olsen at lp.org]

Joshua,

Giving a lizard a membership doesn't make him a "voting member"....

-Brent

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. *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>