<div dir='auto'><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">I support the appeal and the e meeting as long as the e meeting deals SPECIFICALLY with what actions are taken concerning a refund and "expungement" of membership or not. </span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 24, 2019 10:20 AM, "john.phillips--- via Lnc-business" <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">As always, a well thought out and thought provoking statement sir.<br /><br /><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">John Phillips<br />Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative<br />Cell 217-412-5973</div></div><div><br /><div class="elided-text">On Dec 24, 2019 10:14 AM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Dear All,
<br />
<br />
Between preparations for the holidays and "hell week" coming up in the
<br />
Florida Keys it has already been a busy week, and with the latest
<br />
controversy a troubling past few days.
<br />
<br />
I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and it has weighed on me
<br />
as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida, the last thing I
<br />
want to do is promote an internet lynch mob and attack an individual of
<br />
which I am not his judge nor jury.
<br />
<br />
I want to start off by expressing my sheer dissappointment at the
<br />
individuals name becoming public. Here is a man, through whatever
<br />
cascading torrent of events in his life, felt the need to dispatch a
<br />
signed NAP and a $25 check to the Libertarian Party in the hopes that we
<br />
would fight for him in some way or serve as a part of a greater
<br />
political purpose in his life. Or perhaps he's mad at the world and
<br />
thinks we could make it worse, I do not know. Nor do I know the
<br />
circumstances of his case, the only thing I know is the conviction by
<br />
the State. Sex trafficking minors, or pimping 16 year old girls on
<br />
Backpages. That was his crime, and now he is currently incarcerated, his
<br />
name is being spread on social media by an organization he applied for,
<br />
an organization which could have simply turned him down or blindly
<br />
accepted his money.
<br />
<br />
It was not the right decision to make this case public, transparency is
<br />
not always our best option and not every member needs a say in every
<br />
decision the LNC makes. Furthermore, does joining the Libertarian Party
<br />
now constitute the fact that your past may be publicly scrutinized and
<br />
remain available on an online list forever with strangers who get to
<br />
debate about your character?
<br />
<br />
I am assuming our Executive Director may be more cautious in the future
<br />
as to bring certain issues to the board, or simply confide with the
<br />
Chair or a few select members on advice before taking action.
<br />
<br />
Is that the culture we want to set for the board? Where all
<br />
controversial issues become public and a point of contention amongst us
<br />
and our members? I would think not.
<br />
<br />
Some day, there will be a point where we cannot afford to vet every
<br />
single individual who joins our organization, that point may have
<br />
already passed. However, there does come times when we receive a choice,
<br />
and that choice should be given the full weight of repercussions and
<br />
must not be taken lightly when it does come. Now, the Non-Aggression
<br />
Pledge was designed to distance ourselves from people who do do terrible
<br />
things in our name if/when it does happen, but what if they've already
<br />
done something?
<br />
<br />
Now, do we allow this individual, who we have made the center of an
<br />
avoidable feeding frenzy, to join our organization or do we reject his
<br />
membership and/or donation?
<br />
<br />
After much thought into the issue, I must consider who I owe my
<br />
allegiance to, which is the membership. The membership will not benefit
<br />
from one convicted and currently incarcerated man from becoming a member
<br />
at the expense of the organization's reputation, of which directly
<br />
effects the standing of our members. Our reputation is everything, and
<br />
must be protected with care and molded like a great artist. We cannot
<br />
leave our reputation to chance or gossip. We must not allow the Party to
<br />
look weak and allow our membership to suffer because of the consequences
<br />
of the LNC making this public (regardless of what our decision would
<br />
have been). Many members in Florida believe this is a waste of time, and
<br />
I agree. However, to many members, child abuse, despite whatever
<br />
arguments may be made that the acts could have been consensual or that
<br />
they could have been underprivileged, are just excuses to those who hear
<br />
child abuse.
<br />
<br />
Thus, I have made the decision to co-sponsor the motion on the floor as
<br />
well as join in appealing the ruling of the Chair.
<br />
<br />
Let is be a lesson to us all.
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Liberty,
<br />
<br />
Steven Nekhaila
<br />
Region 2 Representative
<br />
Libertarian National Committee
<br />
<br />
Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
<br />
"Those without power cannot defend freedom"
<br />
<br />
On 2019-12-24 09:38 AM, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
<br />
> I will point out to those weighing whether to object that it was the
<br />
> actions of the chair that set up this ruling.
<br />
>
<br />
> If he had not directed the E.D. to process the application during
<br />
> ongoing discussion there would not yet be a membership to cause his
<br />
> bylaws interpretation.
<br />
>
<br />
> The chair is a very intelligent man, and as such it is my OPINION -
<br />
> not known fact - that he knew this would be the case, and did so
<br />
> intentionally.
<br />
>
<br />
> In my experience, despite his rebuttal that while Rulings of the Chair
<br />
> only coming after a motion being is technically true, it is customary
<br />
> in every board I have worked with to give one, or at least what it
<br />
> would be, when asked. A custom I have witnessed being followed on this
<br />
> board. That custom not being followed here supports supports my
<br />
> opinion in my mind. Not only that, but it is my belief that a ruling
<br />
> could and should have been made at the time it was first brought to
<br />
> us.
<br />
>
<br />
> It is my opinion that we cannot allow this kind of manipulation by the
<br />
> chair to go unchallenged. Even if I believe his motives were good,
<br />
> which I do, I will never be ok with the means. Regardless of how you
<br />
> vote on the original motion itself, I ask that you consider the appeal
<br />
> carefully.
<br />
>
<br />
> This is a large part of my consideration for going ahead with the
<br />
> appeal, as well as my other email. I find the bylaws in this case
<br />
> open to interpretation. I see the merits of both sides. I think that
<br />
> the interpretation that the bylaws specify requirements for the
<br />
> member, not require the party to accept is stronger.
<br />
>
<br />
> I think that as a political party we need to keep the political
<br />
> aspect in mind, as much as it sucks. This could easily be our Epstein
<br />
> moment, do we really want to jump in with both feet?
<br />
>
<br />
> John Phillips
<br />
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>
<br />
> On Dec 24, 2019 7:57 AM, john.phillips@lp.org wrote:
<br />
>
<br />
>> I do not object to that ruling. If we are asking it to be done by
<br />
>> email, email rules should apply.
<br />
>>
<br />
>> John Phillips
<br />
>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>>
<br />
>> On Dec 23, 2019 9:05 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business
<br />
>> <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>
<br />
>>> Mail ballots have a seconding requirement of four cosponsors (or
<br />
>>> the
<br />
>>> Chair), it would make sense that appealing a ruling of the Chair
<br />
>>> by mail
<br />
>>> ballot would require the same number of seconds.
<br />
>>>
<br />
>>> You could appeal this interpretation of the rules by the Chair,
<br />
>>> but at some
<br />
>>> point this is going to become absurd.
<br />
>>>
<br />
>>> -Nick
<br />
>>>
<br />
>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:51 PM joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business <
<br />
>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>
<br />
>>>> It requires one second.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Can you direct me to the section in RONR that says "an appeal to
<br />
>>> the
<br />
>>>> ruling of the chair requires 4 seconds"?
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Thanks,
<br />
>>>> Joshua
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 6:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<br />
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> It would require four sponsors in my understanding.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I would seek the chairs guidance however as that is not my call.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:35 PM <john.phillips@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Yes the bylaws limit our power and they should, however I do not
<br />
>>> believe
<br />
>>>> it is being well applied here. Boards exist to handle the
<br />
>>> situations where
<br />
>>>> rules and standard procedures do not quite fit. I believe this
<br />
>>> is one of
<br />
>>>> those cases.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> As I believe the appeal must be seconded I will do so.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> While the order of operations normal in an appeal is difficult
<br />
>>> in an
<br />
>>>> email, it is an issue that I believe is negligible. Mr Sarwark
<br />
>>> is free to
<br />
>>>> speak whenever he chooses, nor do I believe much in the way of
<br />
>>> repetition
<br />
>>>> of the same arguments is needed, though of course I welcome
<br />
>>> anyone to do
<br />
>>>> so. 7 days of time allows ample opportunity.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I believe I will leave it at that, as I am AGAIN disappointed in
<br />
>>> people's
<br />
>>>> willingness to see the positives of compromise - to be fair much
<br />
>>> of which
<br />
>>>> was not in this group.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> John Phillips
<br />
>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 6:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<br />
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Mr. Smith I too received emails with choice words about LNC
<br />
>>> overreach.
<br />
>>>> That does not excuse me to treat you or anyone indecorously.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Keeping one’s cool is an important part of leadership.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I learned that the hard way when I quite literally lost my shit
<br />
>>> at an LPRC
<br />
>>>> convention over this same issue (ie nothing triggers me more
<br />
>>> than harm to
<br />
>>>> children). I felt I was doing the right thing. That I was on
<br />
>>> the side of
<br />
>>>> the angels.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> In retrospect I demonstrated immaturity in treating my peers and
<br />
>>> I’m
<br />
>>>> thoroughly embarrassed by that memory.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Peers and friends don’t treat each other that way. You and I
<br />
>>> are both.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> -Caryn Ann
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:05 PM <joshua.smith@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> You'll have to take that characterization up with our membership
<br />
>>> and the
<br />
>>>> state chairs I've spoken with. Those words did not come from me.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Thanks,
<br />
>>>> Joshua
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 4:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<br />
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> The order of operations for one. In an e-meeting members can
<br />
>>> attend.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I ask you to please stop mischaracterizing those who disagree in
<br />
>>> good
<br />
>>>> faith.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> -Caryn Ann
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM <joshua.smith@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> This thing is public and causing a lot of our membership to be
<br />
>>> very upset.
<br />
>>>> To the point of lifetime members threatening to ask for refunds
<br />
>>> and to be
<br />
>>>> removed from our membership list. I have fielded call after call
<br />
>>> and
<br />
>>>> message after message today with members upset that we wouldn't
<br />
>>> do
<br />
>>>> something as basic as protect our organization and membership
<br />
>>> from
<br />
>>>> associating with a child predator. Several from state chairs.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> It won't wait till February, and I'm not going to watch TWO
<br />
>>> motions be
<br />
>>>> ignored while some of us are working to represent and protect
<br />
>>> our
<br />
>>>> membership.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> What part of an appeal to the ruling of the chair cannot be
<br />
>>> handled
<br />
>>>> adequately through email?
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> -Joshua
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 3:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<br />
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I urge you to get sponsors for electronic meeting or wait until
<br />
>>> Feb.
<br />
>>>> appeals cannot be adequately handled by email.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> -Caryn Ann
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM <joshua.smith@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I'd like to start this email off with a motion appealing the
<br />
>>> ruling of the
<br />
>>>> chair.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> There is no bylaw explicitly saying that we HAVE to accept
<br />
>>> someone's
<br />
>>>> contribution. There is also not one stating that we cannot
<br />
>>> return a
<br />
>>>> donation or terminate a membership.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Do we not frequently refer to RONR for things that may not be
<br />
>>> covered in
<br />
>>>> the bylaws like pretty much every other major organization or
<br />
>>> society? If
<br />
>>>> so, this is a dog and pony show, and we have the authority to
<br />
>>> return the
<br />
>>>> donation and terminate membership because that's covered on
<br />
>>> pages 643-644,
<br />
>>>> being the first two pages on Discipline in Chapter XX.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> If we must follow those procedures, I will gladly make a motion
<br />
>>> as well to
<br />
>>>> get that started, but I'm first appealing the ruling of the
<br />
>>> chair as there
<br />
>>>> was a motion made by Mr. Phillips with a second.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> In liberty,
<br />
>>>> -Joshua
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 2:13 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br />
>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> The bylaws limit our power. Just as the constitution was
<br />
>>> supposed to
<br />
>>>> limit
<br />
>>>> the state. They have had many good reasons to violate it - and
<br />
>>> we now see
<br />
>>>> the result.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I think the mistake you are making is viewing this as about any
<br />
>>> particular
<br />
>>>> person rather than the objective action.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> Our dogma and everything about our beliefs anathematizes the act
<br />
>>> of the
<br />
>>>> victimization of children. The act can be condemned objectively
<br />
>>> and that
<br />
>>>> is the Party position.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> There are also acts that many of us do in secret that are
<br />
>>> condemned (from
<br />
>>>> minor to major).
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> It is the same way the party doesn’t judge whether someone is
<br />
>>> libertarian
<br />
>>>> enough - only whether a particular belief or act is consistent
<br />
>>> with
<br />
>>>> libertarianism.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> If this were not so, anarchists could theoretically claim the
<br />
>>> pledge as an
<br />
>>>> anarchist blood oath as some have claimed and call everyone else
<br />
>>> a
<br />
>>>> statist.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> That is obviously not the correct path.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> All membership confers is the status of member in minimal
<br />
>>> compliance. It
<br />
>>>> does not declare any person clean.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> We must respect that the delegates knew of these kinds of issues
<br />
>>> for
<br />
>>>> decades and never gave us that power.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> They can choose to do so in Austin.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> I will not grasp power not explicitly given to us. That was my
<br />
>>> raison
<br />
>>>> d’être for being on the LNC to begin with.
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> -Caryn Ann
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:57 PM <john.phillips@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>> That question was a cut and paste from a member.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> I see both sides on this. So I am debating my next step.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> My motion was a compromise one to attempt to reconcile both
<br />
>>> sides.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> I will point out that under the logic presented Hitler and
<br />
>>> Stalin could
<br />
>>>>> sign the form and be members were they still alive. So it is
<br />
>>> not the
<br />
>>>>> weightiest of responses to me, though I will not say it is
<br />
>>> wrong, just
<br />
>>>>> carries less weight.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> The question will come, are we a haven for those who prey on
<br />
>>> children?
<br />
>>>> Or
<br />
>>>>> do we flatly reject those actions?
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> It will also come, do we believe in second chances, and if so
<br />
>>> what must
<br />
>>>> be
<br />
>>>>> done to earn that?
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> Are we as Libertarians so bound in the dogma of our bylaws
<br />
>>> that we will
<br />
>>>>> not look at interpretations to do what is right?
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> Those questions will weigh heavily on my soul, and then in
<br />
>>> which
<br />
>>>> priority
<br />
>>>>> do I place them?
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> If we are to be a haven for predators, I do not know if I will
<br />
>>> be able
<br />
>>>> to
<br />
>>>>> wrap my conscience around that enough to continue to represent
<br />
>>> this
<br />
>>>> party.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> This will take some thought.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> John Phillips
<br />
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<br />
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br />
>>>> wrote:
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> Mr. Phillips please allow me to give some history here. The
<br />
>>> pledge WAS
<br />
>>>>> never intended to be a gatekeeper to exclude people from the
<br />
>>> Party
<br />
>>>> because
<br />
>>>>> as David Nolan said, bad people will lie. While it
<br />
>>> legitimately
<br />
>>>> reflects
<br />
>>>>> our beliefs and it is hoped it is signed in sincerity of
<br />
>>> internal
<br />
>>>> beliefs,
<br />
>>>>> its purpose was to protect the Party from the government and
<br />
>>> to educate
<br />
>>>>> members. Further, if any evil person reformed themselves,
<br />
>>> they could
<br />
>>>>> legitimately sign the pledge. I doubt any of us are free from
<br />
>>> past
<br />
>>>>> aggression. I have no idea of this individual's current state
<br />
>>> of
<br />
>>>>> repentance, but such difficulties are exactly why that was
<br />
>>> never the
<br />
>>>>> purpose of the pledge as originally intended.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> Just recently we had a few members calling for the expulsion
<br />
>>> of any
<br />
>>>> parent
<br />
>>>>> that spanks their children - that is not a fallacious slippery
<br />
>>> slope, it
<br />
>>>> is
<br />
>>>>> one supported with evidence. I am NAPster purist as they
<br />
>>> come, but we
<br />
>>>> are
<br />
>>>>> not the judgment throne of God.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br />
>>> Syndrome
<br />
>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
<br />
>>> If anyone
<br />
>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
<br />
>>> social
<br />
>>>> faux
<br />
>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM john.phillips--- via
<br />
>>> Lnc-business <
<br />
>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> I question whether someone who has engaged in child
<br />
>>> prostitution can
<br />
>>>>> legitimately sign the NAP. Would we have to accept Jeffrey
<br />
>>> Dahmer or
<br />
>>>>> Timothy Mcveigh's applications?
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> John Phillips
<br />
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 2:35 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
<br />
>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> Dear All,
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> I'm going to start with the relevant section of the Bylaws,
<br />
>>> since it
<br />
>>>> makes
<br />
>>>>> it easier to reference for those reading:
<br />
>>>>> "ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
<br />
>>>>> 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
<br />
>>> certified in
<br />
>>>>> writing
<br />
>>>>> that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
<br />
>>> or social
<br />
>>>>> goals.
<br />
>>>>> 2. The National Committee may offer life memberships, and must
<br />
>>> honor all
<br />
>>>>> prior and future life memberships.
<br />
>>>>> 3. The National Committee may create other levels of
<br />
>>> membership and
<br />
>>>> shall
<br />
>>>>> determine the contribution or dues levels for such
<br />
>>> memberships.
<br />
>>>>> 4. “Sustaining members” are members of the Party who: a.
<br />
>>> During the
<br />
>>>> prior
<br />
>>>>> twelve months have donated, or have had donated on their
<br />
>>> behalf, an
<br />
>>>> amount
<br />
>>>>> of at least $25; or b. Are Life members."
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> The person mentioned in the motion has met the conditions set
<br />
>>> forth in
<br />
>>>> the
<br />
>>>>> bylaws (Art. 4, Sec. 1 and 4) to be a sustaining member of the
<br />
>>>> Libertarian
<br />
>>>>> Party as of the date that the contribution and attached signed
<br />
>>>>> certification were processed.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> It may be in order to refund the person's contribution as part
<br />
>>> of the
<br />
>>>>> LNC's
<br />
>>>>> prerogative to issue directives overriding those of the Chair,
<br />
>>> though it
<br />
>>>>> would not be in order if it had the effect of denying that
<br />
>>> person a
<br />
>>>>> sustaining membership. Art. 4, Sec. 4 can be read as applying
<br />
>>> by the
<br />
>>>> fact
<br />
>>>>> of the person making the donation, even if the donation was
<br />
>>> subsequently
<br />
>>>>> refunded. That's a somewhat strained reading of it, so it
<br />
>>> would be
<br />
>>>> better
<br />
>>>>> if the motion made it clear that it was a refund without a
<br />
>>> change in
<br />
>>>>> sustaining
<br />
>>>>> membership status.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> The latter half of the motion is out of order as the
<br />
>>> membership
<br />
>>>>> application
<br />
>>>>> has been processed.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> The mover has the option to rewrite the motion to fit within
<br />
>>> my
<br />
>>>>> interpretation of the bylaws outlined above, appeal from the
<br />
>>> ruling of
<br />
>>>> the
<br />
>>>>> Chair, or ask for time on the agenda in February.
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> Yours truly,
<br />
>>>>> Nick
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:47 AM john.phillips--- via
<br />
>>> Lnc-business <
<br />
>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> A point I considered Caryn Ann and Alex, and appreciate. I
<br />
>>> considered
<br />
>>>>> it
<br />
>>>>>> moot as someone else had already made the name public, but
<br />
>>> still had
<br />
>>>>> qualms
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> I agree on not using it going forward.
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> John Phillips
<br />
>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 7:40 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<br />
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br />
>>>>> wrote:
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> I would encourage you to add this to February agenda. The
<br />
>>> chair has
<br />
>>>>>> indicated that discussion of non-public figures is not
<br />
>>> appropriate for
<br />
>>>> a
<br />
>>>>>> public list.
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM john.phillips--- via
<br />
>>> Lnc-business <
<br />
>>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> Given that the nature of this is no longer as time
<br />
>>> sensitive, I
<br />
>>>> disagree
<br />
>>>>>> with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can
<br />
>>> address, as was
<br />
>>>>>> pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and
<br />
>>> I find
<br />
>>>> the
<br />
>>>>>> situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors
<br />
>>> for the
<br />
>>>>>> following motion.
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> "The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the
<br />
>>> donation of
<br />
>>>>> Royce
<br />
>>>>>> Corley, and further not accept his membership application
<br />
>>> until after
<br />
>>>>> the
<br />
>>>>>> National Convention in May of 2020."
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it,
<br />
>>> to make a
<br />
>>>>>> decision either in specific or in general about such
<br />
>>> situations, while
<br />
>>>>>> addressing the current objections of several members of this
<br />
>>> board and
<br />
>>>>> many
<br />
>>>>>> of the party members currently.
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding
<br />
>>> alternative
<br />
>>>>>> wording.
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> John Phillips
<br />
>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br />
>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> --
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as
<br />
>>> Asperger's Syndrome
<br />
>>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect
<br />
>>> inter-personal
<br />
>>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
<br />
>>> If
<br />
>>>> anyone
<br />
>>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some
<br />
>>> other social
<br />
>>>>> faux
<br />
>>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>>
<br />
>>>>> --
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br />
>>> Syndrome
<br />
>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br />
>>> anyone
<br />
>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
<br />
>>> social faux
<br />
>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> --
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br />
>>> Syndrome
<br />
>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br />
>>> anyone
<br />
>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
<br />
>>> social faux
<br />
>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> --
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br />
>>> Syndrome
<br />
>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br />
>>> anyone
<br />
>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
<br />
>>> social faux
<br />
>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> --
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br />
>>> Syndrome
<br />
>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br />
>>> anyone
<br />
>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
<br />
>>> social faux
<br />
>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> --
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br />
>>> Syndrome
<br />
>>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br />
>>> anyone
<br />
>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
<br />
>>> social faux
<br />
>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
>>>>
<br />
</p>
</blockquote></div><br /></div></blockquote></div><br></div>