<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size:12.8px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">---So it just takes a majority of those voting to pass this motion which is well less than 50% of the LNC at this time. I think that would be a horrible precedent to set, especially for such an important subject.---</span><div>
<br></div><div>Does an express abstention factor in to the vote total/ratio?</div><div><br></div><div>Whitney</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So it just takes a majority of those voting to pass this motion which is well less than 50% of the LNC at this time. I think that would be a horrible precedent to set, especially for such an important subject.<br>
<br>
This is a very bad idea and should have been open to a debate at our next meeting. There is nothing urgent confronting the LNC at this point that would require a pretend JC with no actual Bylaws authority or enforcement ability.<br>
<br>
Please vote No and let's talk about the situation next month.<br>
<br>
Live Free,<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Sam Goldstein<br>
Libertarian National Committee<br>
317-850-0726 Cell<br>
<br></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
On 2018-07-31 10:02, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I vote yes.<br>
<br>
In practice this is very similar to the idea of an Appeals Committee.<br>
Seems to be the best solution to the situation that the convention<br>
delegates created.<br>
<br>
---<br>
Tim Hagan<br>
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee<br>
<br>
On 2018-07-31 04:58, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
REMINDER - This ballot will expire on AUGUST 1, 2018.<br>
<br>
I have noted the following (please inform me of any corrections):<br>
<br>
Voting AYE: Harlos, Longstreth, Merced, Nekhaila, Olsen, Phillips<br>
<br>
Voting NAY: Goldstein, Lyons<br>
<br>
Express Abstentions: None<br>
<br>
Not Voting: Bilyeu/Adams, Bishop-Henchman, Hagan, Lark/Hogarth,<br>
Mattson, Redpath, Sarwark, Smith, Van Horn/Nanna<br>
<br>
For a current tally of 6-2.<br>
<br>
Notes: Region 8 Representative Hewitt has not voted so Alternate<br>
Olsen's vote stands.<br>
<br>
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:<br>
<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting</a><br>
<br>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Jeff Lyons via Lnc-business<br>
<<a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 2018-07-25 20:40, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I vote yes, from my understanding this does not appoint them as the<br>
judicial committee which if successfully elected by delegates we’d be<br>
bound to follow.<br>
<br>
Instead this just says the LNC will voluntarily bind itself to the<br>
decisions of the top 7 vote getters in matters in which a JC would<br>
operate.<br>
<br>
This seems to me an effort to self-regulate in a spirit that Best<br>
represents an effort to represent the wishes of the delegation to the<br>
extent such can be discernible with the existing votes.<br>
<br>
This motion does not say they are the JC but just that we will hold<br>
their deliberations voluntarily binding in same way we’d be<br>
mandatorily bound had they’d successfully been elected.<br>
<br>
An unfortunate compromise, but the best one I’ve seen. It isn’t the<br>
LNC Creating new powers but voluntarily putting a back stop on its<br>
existing ones temporarily since no other backstops exist formally for<br>
the time being.<br>
<br>
Alex Merced<br>
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Jul 25, 2018, at 2:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business<br>
<<a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
It is better than having zero protection at all for the members. And<br>
IF after making this agreement, anyone who voted to then renege I<br>
would hope would not be re-elected. This "JC" has already submitted<br>
it appellate rules.<br>
<br>
Our Party structure NEVER imagined an unaccountable LNC.<br>
<br>
-Caryn Ann<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Sam Goldstein <<a href="mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org" target="_blank">sam.goldstein@lp.org</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
I vote No on this motion.<br>
<br>
1. The Bylaws are clear that only delegates at convention can elect the<br>
Judicial Committee<br>
2. The Top Seven mentioned in this motion were not approved by margins<br>
of at<br>
least 60% of the<br>
delegates so would not meet the precedent set by the last JC of<br>
requiring<br>
a majority approval of delegates<br>
3. There is no provision in either the Bylaws or Policy Manual of how<br>
this<br>
pretend JC would function, whether it<br>
would follow Appellate rules set by the last JC or would dream up its'<br>
own rules that this motion would<br>
have the LNC be bound to follow<br>
4. This has essentially already been rejected by the LNC per the motion<br>
to<br>
recognize the Top Seven as the JC (which I voted<br>
in favor of but have reconsidered)<br>
<br>
Please consider my points before you vote on this motion. The entire<br>
purpose of the Judicial Committee is to have a body<br>
that is not beholden to the LNC. There is no guarantee that if the<br>
pretend<br>
JC makes a decision objectionable to the LNC that<br>
the LNC cannot just reverse this motion by a majority vote.<br>
<br>
---<br>
Sam Goldstein<br>
Libertarian National Committee<br>
317-850-0726 Cell<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 2018-07-25 13:23, Craig Bowden via Lnc-business wrote:<br>
<br>
Yes<br>
<br>
Craig Bowden<br>
Region 1 Alternate<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 2018-07-25 06:06, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:<br>
<br>
We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business<br>
list by AUGUST 1, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors:<br>
Harlos,<br>
Longstreth, Merced, Phillips Motion: Move that the Libertarian<br>
National<br>
Committee agree to be bound by the decisions of the top-seven<br>
vote-getters for the Judicial Committee at the 2018 Convention as if<br>
they were elected in the normal course of convention business and<br>
follow the procedures and rules set forth in our Bylaws. It is<br>
acknowledged that this agreement is not binding upon any member or<br>
affiliate. You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of<br>
votes<br>
here: [1]<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lncvoti<wbr>ng</a><br>
--<br>
In Liberty,<br>
Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -<br>
[2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org.<br>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org<br>
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:<br>
We defend your rights<br>
And oppose the use of force<br>
Taxation is theft<br>
<br>
References<br>
<br>
1. <a href="https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting</a><br>
2. mailto:<a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
In Liberty,<br>
Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -<br>
Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org.<br>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org<br>
<br>
<br>
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:<br>
We defend your rights<br>
And oppose the use of force<br>
Taxation is theft<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I could get behind this solution, once we ensure this never happens again.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
In Liberty,<br>
Jeff Lyons<br>
<br>
Region 8 Alternate<br>
(Acting Region 8 Rep)<br>
<br>
Libertarian Assoc. of MA<br>
Membership Director<br>
<a href="http://www.lpmass.org/join" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.lpmass.org/join</a><br>
<br>
Daniel Fishman for Auditor<br>
Campaign Manager<br>
<a href="http://www.AuditMassachusetts.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.AuditMassachusetts.<wbr>com</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
--<br>
In Liberty,<br>
Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -<br>
Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org.<br>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org<br>
<br>
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:<br>
We defend your rights<br>
And oppose the use of force<br>
Taxation is theft<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><i><font color="#000000">Whitney Bilyeu</font></i><div><font color="#f1c232">Libertarian National Committee</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Region 7 Representative</font></div><div><font color="#f1c232">281.433.4966</font></div><div><br></div></div></div>
</div>