<div dir='auto'>Some were not wishing to address the appeal in the emeeting, just the underlying motion.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So I agree clarification would be helpful.</div><div dir="auto">I would go either way.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Also while I think waiting until Reno is too long, I have no objection to holding pushing it off until after new years. Let everyone drop this garbage for the holiday.</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 3:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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"><p dir="ltr">Mr. Merced, I need your clarification.
<br>
<br>
There are two issues here.
<br>
<br>
One is the appeal over email vote.
<br>
<br>
The other is the appeal by emeeting.
<br>
<br>
Those two seem to me to be mutually exclusive. Which of the two are you
<br>
supporting?
<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 faux
<br>
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 1:40 PM Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via
<br>
Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> I also support the appeal and the emeeting, this won’t die down till one
<br>
> of these things happen. I do generally echo the thoughts of Regional Reps
<br>
> O’Donnell and Nekhalia on how this overall was handled.
<br>
>
<br>
> Alex Merced
<br>
> Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
<br>
>
<br>
> > On Dec 24, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br>
> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> >
<br>
> > I urge the chair to call an e-meeting.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > I do not agree, but many are now suspecting that this public shameful
<br>
> > display is politically motivated and designed to set up a social media
<br>
> > campaign against our chair.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > I thankfully have little clue what is going on with FB since I have been
<br>
> > avoiding it for a few months now except for very disciplined and limited
<br>
> > sessions.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > My life is better for it.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Our ED sent this privately. No one LNC member or even several had the
<br>
> > right to make this into a public shitshow without every attempt to avoid.
<br>
> > The lack of judgement is abysmal.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Discipline for private individuals is private.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > How hard is that to understand?
<br>
> >
<br>
> > It is not this man that hurt our reputation. It is the reckless acts of
<br>
> a
<br>
> > few that have.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > -Caryn Ann
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Mr. Nekhaila - we are the Party of individual not collective rights. I
<br>
> > find that collective argument alarming. Who’s next to be sacrificed?
<br>
> The
<br>
> > allegedly tiny percentage of anarchists?
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Mark my words. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.
<br>
> >
<br>
> >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 9:45 AM Erin Adams via Lnc-business <
<br>
> >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> I support the appeal and the e meeting as long as the e meeting deals
<br>
> >> SPECIFICALLY with what actions are taken concerning a refund and
<br>
> >> "expungement" of membership or not.
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> On Dec 24, 2019 10:20 AM, "john.phillips--- via Lnc-business" <
<br>
> >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> As always, a well thought out and thought provoking statement sir.
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> John Phillips
<br>
> >> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br>
> >> Cell 217-412-5973
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> On Dec 24, 2019 10:14 AM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
<br>
> wrote:
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> 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>
> >>
<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>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>