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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

It does effect delegate numbers, and that is an issue.  Is it minimal, yes.

*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 Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:18 PM brent.olsen--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

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