<div dir='auto'>I will point out to those weighing whether to object that it was the actions of the chair that set up this ruling.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If he had not directed the E.D. to process the application during ongoing discussion there would not yet be a membership to cause his bylaws interpretation.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The chair is a very intelligent man, and as such it<span style="font-family: sans-serif;"> is my OPINION - not known fact - that</span> he knew this would be the case, and did so intentionally. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In my experience, despite his rebuttal that while Rulings of the Chair only coming after a motion being is technically true, it is customary in every board I have worked with to give one, or at least what it would be, when asked. A custom I have witnessed being followed on this board. That custom not being followed here supports supports my opinion in my mind. Not only that, but it is my belief that a ruling could and should have been made at the time it was first brought to us.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">It is my opinion that we cannot allow this kind of manipulation by the chair to go unchallenged. </span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Even if I believe his motives were good, which I do, I will never be ok with the means. R</span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">egardless of how you vote on the original motion itself, I ask that you consider the appeal carefully.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">This is a large part of my consideration for going ahead with the appeal, as well as my other email. I find the bylaws in this case open to interpretation. I see the merits of both sides. I think that the interpretation that the bylaws specify requirements for the member, not require the party to accept is stronger. </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"> I think that as a political party we need to keep the political aspect in mind, as much as it sucks. This could easily be our Epstein moment, do we really want to jump in with both feet?</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">John Phillips<br>Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative<br>Cell 217-412-5973</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 24, 2019 7:57 AM, john.phillips@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">I do not object to that ruling. If we are asking it to be done by email, email rules should apply.<div dir="auto"><br /></div><div dir="auto"><br /><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">John Phillips<br />Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative<br />Cell 217-412-5973</div></div></div><div><br /><div class="elided-text">On Dec 23, 2019 9:05 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.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">Mail ballots have a seconding requirement of four cosponsors (or the
<br />
Chair), it would make sense that appealing a ruling of the Chair by mail
<br />
ballot would require the same number of seconds.
<br />
<br />
You could appeal this interpretation of the rules by the Chair, but at some
<br />
point this is going to become absurd.
<br />
<br />
-Nick
<br />
<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 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 <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 believe
<br />
> it is being well applied here. Boards exist to handle the situations where
<br />
> rules and standard procedures do not quite fit. I believe this 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 in an
<br />
> email, it is an issue that I believe is negligible. Mr Sarwark is free to
<br />
> speak whenever he chooses, nor do I believe much in the way of repetition
<br />
> of the same arguments is needed, though of course I welcome 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 people's
<br />
> willingness to see the positives of compromise - to be fair much 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 <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>
<br />
> Mr. Smith I too received emails with choice words about LNC 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 at an LPRC
<br />
> convention over this same issue (ie nothing triggers me more than harm to
<br />
> children). I felt I was doing the right thing. That I was on the side of
<br />
> the angels.
<br />
>
<br />
> In retrospect I demonstrated immaturity in treating my peers and I’m
<br />
> thoroughly embarrassed by that memory.
<br />
>
<br />
> Peers and friends don’t treat each other that way. You and I 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 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 <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>
<br />
> The order of operations for one. In an e-meeting members can attend.
<br />
>
<br />
> I ask you to please stop mischaracterizing those who disagree in 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 very upset.
<br />
> To the point of lifetime members threatening to ask for refunds and to be
<br />
> removed from our membership list. I have fielded call after call and
<br />
> message after message today with members upset that we wouldn't do
<br />
> something as basic as protect our organization and membership 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 motions be
<br />
> ignored while some of us are working to represent and protect our
<br />
> membership.
<br />
>
<br />
> What part of an appeal to the ruling of the chair cannot be handled
<br />
> adequately through email?
<br />
>
<br />
> -Joshua
<br />
>
<br />
> On Dec 23, 2019 3:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>
<br />
> I urge you to get sponsors for electronic meeting or wait until 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 ruling of the
<br />
> chair.
<br />
>
<br />
>
<br />
> There is no bylaw explicitly saying that we HAVE to accept someone's
<br />
> contribution. There is also not one stating that we cannot return a
<br />
> donation or terminate a membership.
<br />
>
<br />
> Do we not frequently refer to RONR for things that may not be covered in
<br />
> the bylaws like pretty much every other major organization or society? If
<br />
> so, this is a dog and pony show, and we have the authority to return the
<br />
> donation and terminate membership because that's covered on 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 as well to
<br />
> get that started, but I'm first appealing the ruling of the 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 supposed to
<br />
> limit
<br />
> the state. They have had many good reasons to violate it - and we now see
<br />
> the result.
<br />
>
<br />
> I think the mistake you are making is viewing this as about any particular
<br />
> person rather than the objective action.
<br />
>
<br />
> Our dogma and everything about our beliefs anathematizes the act of the
<br />
> victimization of children. The act can be condemned objectively and that
<br />
> is the Party position.
<br />
>
<br />
> There are also acts that many of us do in secret that are condemned (from
<br />
> minor to major).
<br />
>
<br />
> It is the same way the party doesn’t judge whether someone is libertarian
<br />
> enough - only whether a particular belief or act is consistent with
<br />
> libertarianism.
<br />
>
<br />
> If this were not so, anarchists could theoretically claim the pledge as an
<br />
> anarchist blood oath as some have claimed and call everyone else a
<br />
> statist.
<br />
>
<br />
> That is obviously not the correct path.
<br />
>
<br />
> All membership confers is the status of member in minimal compliance. It
<br />
> does not declare any person clean.
<br />
>
<br />
> We must respect that the delegates knew of these kinds of issues 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 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 sides.
<br />
> >
<br />
> > I will point out that under the logic presented Hitler and Stalin could
<br />
> > sign the form and be members were they still alive. So it is not the
<br />
> > weightiest of responses to me, though I will not say it is wrong, just
<br />
> > carries less weight.
<br />
> >
<br />
> > The question will come, are we a haven for those who prey on 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 what must
<br />
> be
<br />
> > done to earn that?
<br />
> >
<br />
> > Are we as Libertarians so bound in the dogma of our bylaws 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 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 be able
<br />
> to
<br />
> > wrap my conscience around that enough to continue to represent 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 <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br />
> wrote:
<br />
> >
<br />
> > Mr. Phillips please allow me to give some history here. The pledge WAS
<br />
> > never intended to be a gatekeeper to exclude people from the Party
<br />
> because
<br />
> > as David Nolan said, bad people will lie. While it legitimately
<br />
> reflects
<br />
> > our beliefs and it is hoped it is signed in sincerity of internal
<br />
> beliefs,
<br />
> > its purpose was to protect the Party from the government and to educate
<br />
> > members. Further, if any evil person reformed themselves, they could
<br />
> > legitimately sign the pledge. I doubt any of us are free from past
<br />
> > aggression. I have no idea of this individual's current state of
<br />
> > repentance, but such difficulties are exactly why that was 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 of any
<br />
> parent
<br />
> > that spanks their children - that is not a fallacious slippery slope, it
<br />
> is
<br />
> > one supported with evidence. I am NAPster purist as they 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 Syndrome
<br />
> > (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br />
> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other 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 Lnc-business <
<br />
> > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
> >
<br />
> > I question whether someone who has engaged in child prostitution can
<br />
> > legitimately sign the NAP. Would we have to accept Jeffrey 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, 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 certified in
<br />
> > writing
<br />
> > that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social
<br />
> > goals.
<br />
> > 2. The National Committee may offer life memberships, and must honor all
<br />
> > prior and future life memberships.
<br />
> > 3. The National Committee may create other levels of membership and
<br />
> shall
<br />
> > determine the contribution or dues levels for such memberships.
<br />
> > 4. “Sustaining members” are members of the Party who: a. During the
<br />
> prior
<br />
> > twelve months have donated, or have had donated on their 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 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 of the
<br />
> > LNC's
<br />
> > prerogative to issue directives overriding those of the Chair, though it
<br />
> > would not be in order if it had the effect of denying that person a
<br />
> > sustaining membership. Art. 4, Sec. 4 can be read as applying by the
<br />
> fact
<br />
> > of the person making the donation, even if the donation was subsequently
<br />
> > refunded. That's a somewhat strained reading of it, so it would be
<br />
> better
<br />
> > if the motion made it clear that it was a refund without a change in
<br />
> > sustaining
<br />
> > membership status.
<br />
> >
<br />
> > The latter half of the motion is out of order as the membership
<br />
> > application
<br />
> > has been processed.
<br />
> >
<br />
> > The mover has the option to rewrite the motion to fit within my
<br />
> > interpretation of the bylaws outlined above, appeal from the 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 Lnc-business <
<br />
> > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
> >
<br />
> > > A point I considered Caryn Ann and Alex, and appreciate. I considered
<br />
> > it
<br />
> > > moot as someone else had already made the name public, but 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 <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br />
> > wrote:
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > I would encourage you to add this to February agenda. The chair has
<br />
> > > indicated that discussion of non-public figures is not 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 Lnc-business <
<br />
> > > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > Given that the nature of this is no longer as time sensitive, I
<br />
> disagree
<br />
> > > with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can address, as was
<br />
> > > pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and I find
<br />
> the
<br />
> > > situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors for the
<br />
> > > following motion.
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > "The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the donation of
<br />
> > Royce
<br />
> > > Corley, and further not accept his membership application until after
<br />
> > the
<br />
> > > National Convention in May of 2020."
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it, to make a
<br />
> > > decision either in specific or in general about such situations, while
<br />
> > > addressing the current objections of several members of this board and
<br />
> > many
<br />
> > > of the party members currently.
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding 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 Asperger's 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 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 Syndrome
<br />
> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br />
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other 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 Syndrome
<br />
> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br />
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other 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 Syndrome
<br />
> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br />
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other 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 Syndrome
<br />
> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br />
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other 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 Syndrome
<br />
> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br />
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br />
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other 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>