<div dir='auto'>That is a valid concern that I had not considered Ms Mattson. Thank you for pointing it out.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Perhaps something that will need to be looked at in the future. I believe Dulap did not join until after the deadline.<br><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 29, 2019 8:12 PM, Alicia Mattson 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">I do object to animals and babies being counted as party members, as I do
<br>
not believe they qualify under our bylaws. If there were even 4 such
<br>
entries in the count of sustaining members as of 10/31/19, then Texas is
<br>
entitled to one additional delegate seat for this convention.
<br>
<br>
How many such "sustaining members" were included in the 10/31 counts for
<br>
delegate allocation?
<br>
<br>
Our bylaws say, "Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
<br>
certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve
<br>
political or social goals."
<br>
<br>
I love (most) dogs, but dogs are not persons, thus they cannot be party
<br>
members.
<br>
<br>
Babies and other young children are incapable of having certified in
<br>
writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or
<br>
social goals. The bylaw doesn't say that members are persons whose parents
<br>
hope their children will later subscribe to those beliefs. Won't it be fun
<br>
when the first pro-life member in the party purchases a membership on
<br>
behalf of an unborn child, and another faction argues that they're not
<br>
eligible?
<br>
<br>
-Alicia
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:57 PM <john.phillips@lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> I believe both Dulap Nelson and Bishop Hayes are both paid members. As
<br>
> are several people's babies.
<br>
>
<br>
> I don't personally take issue with it. Just a point of information.
<br>
>
<br>
> John Phillips
<br>
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br>
> Cell 217-412-5973
<br>
>
<br>
> On Dec 29, 2019 6:26 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
<br>
> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> Person B cannot sign the membership certification on behalf of Person A
<br>
> when Person A is incapable of asserting what they do or do not personally
<br>
> believe.
<br>
>
<br>
> Do we really have animals listed in our membership database?
<br>
>
<br>
> -Alicia
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br>
> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> > Their legal rights are under a guardian and the guardian must sign or
<br>
> they
<br>
> > are not a sustaining member.
<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 Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:31 PM Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> >
<br>
> > > There are beings who have received a gifted membership who can not
<br>
> sign
<br>
> > of
<br>
> > > their own volition who may in fact be being counted in the formula
<br>
> that
<br>
> > > decides delegate allocation.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > On Dec 29, 2019 3:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br>
> > > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Mr Frankel is spot on.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
<br>
> > > From: Libertarian Party <web@lp.org>
<br>
> > > Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM
<br>
> > > Subject: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
<br>
> > > To: <chair@lp.org>, <alex.merced@lp.org>, <treasurer@lp.org>, <
<br>
> > > secretary@lp.org>, <joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org>, <sam.goldstein@lp.org>,
<br>
>
<br>
> > > <
<br>
> > > alicia.mattson@lp.org>, <william.redpath@lp.org>, <joshua.smith@lp.org>,
<br>
>
<br>
> > > <
<br>
> > > richard.longstreth@lp.org>, <johnny.adams@lp.org>, <
<br>
> > steven.nekhaila@lp.org>,
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > <victoria.paige.lee@lp.org>, <elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org>, <
<br>
> > > dustin.nanna@lp.org>, <jeffrey.hewitt@lp.org>, <kenneth.olsen@lp.org>,
<br>
> <
<br>
> > > james.lark@lp.org>, <susan.hogarth@lp.org>, <john.phillips@lp.org>, <
<br>
> > > phillip.anderson@lp.org>, <whitney.bilyeu@lp.org>, <erin.adams@lp.org>,
<br>
>
<br>
> > <
<br>
> > > justin.odonnell@lp.org>, <pat.ford@lp.org>
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > *Contact LNC members:*
<br>
> > > Contact all LNC members
<br>
> > > Your Information
<br>
> > > *Subject*
<br>
> > > Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
<br>
> > > *Affiliate*
<br>
> > > Alabama
<br>
> > > *Name*
<br>
> > > paul frankel
<br>
> > > *Email*
<br>
> > > secretary@lpalabama.org
<br>
> > > *Phone*
<br>
> > > (205) 534-1622
<br>
> > > *State*
<br>
> > > Alabama
<br>
> > > *Address*
<br>
> > > 710 Chickamauga Cir
<br>
> > > <
<br>
> > >
<br>
> >
<br>
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
<br>
> > > <
<br>
> > >
<br>
> >
<br>
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > United States
<br>
> > > <
<br>
> > >
<br>
> >
<br>
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Map It
<br>
> > > <
<br>
> > >
<br>
> >
<br>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa%2C+AL+35406+United+States
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > *Message*
<br>
> > > Hello again LNC. My apologies for writing you all so frequently
<br>
> about
<br>
> > > this but I’m not sure whether anyone else is going to raise these
<br>
> points
<br>
> > > otherwise in your discussion or not. I’m again requesting a forward to
<br>
> > the
<br>
> > > public list.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 1) “"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member.
<br>
> > Most
<br>
> > > importantly:
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
<br>
> > > 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in
<br>
> > > writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
<br>
> or
<br>
> > > social goals.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating
<br>
> > the
<br>
> > > individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation
<br>
> of
<br>
> > > the
<br>
> > > certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person
<br>
> has
<br>
> > > served time and offered something to the people whose rights he
<br>
> violated,
<br>
> > > this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.””
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Actions which constitute the initiation of force are not necessarily
<br>
> the
<br>
> > > same thing as supporting the initiation of force **to achieve social
<br>
> and
<br>
> > > political goals**. There are various ways the latter can be
<br>
> interpreted.
<br>
> > > Taken in historical context, many have claimed that this was merely a
<br>
> > > cover
<br>
> > > our butts statement to assure the government we were not planning to
<br>
> > > engage
<br>
> > > in terrorism on behalf of our radical agenda of social change, and if
<br>
> any
<br>
> > > LP member did, that we would have their membership pledge to prove
<br>
> that
<br>
> > it
<br>
> > > was not in line with what we are about as an organization. To keep
<br>
> this
<br>
> > in
<br>
> > > perspective the party was created in the early 1970s when there was a
<br>
> > rash
<br>
> > > of politically motivated domestic terrorism from the far left, much as
<br>
> > > there now is from the far right.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Another plausible explanation is that it is a certification of
<br>
> opposition
<br>
> > > to initiation of force as seen in libertarian philosophy to achieve
<br>
> > social
<br>
> > > and political goals, which would amount to an anarchist pledge or
<br>
> endless
<br>
> > > debates over whether various minimal government proposals are somehow
<br>
> not
<br>
> > > initiation of force. Although I’m an anarchist myself, I would not
<br>
> want a
<br>
> > > pledge that excludes all non-anarchists from the party, Nor would I
<br>
> want
<br>
> > > endless purge trials over whether any members have expressed support
<br>
> for
<br>
> > > policies which initiate force to achieve social or political goals or
<br>
> > not.
<br>
> > > I hope we can all agree on that.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > One thing the pledge does **not** say is “I will not engage in
<br>
> initiation
<br>
> > > of force for any reason.” It’s an admirable standard and one I would
<br>
> > > aspire
<br>
> > > to, but have fallen short of myself, regrettably. It does not even say
<br>
> “I
<br>
> > > will not stand convicted in a court of law of criminal activity
<br>
> stemming
<br>
> > > from actions which initiate force.” That’s a far different pledge than
<br>
> > the
<br>
> > > one we all took, and while it’s also an admirable standard, I’m also
<br>
> not
<br>
> > > the only party member who has regrettably fallen short of this
<br>
> standard.
<br>
> > > If
<br>
> > > we retroactively reinterpret the existing pledge as being that, and
<br>
> > > enforceable (whereas to my knowledge it never was before) my expulsion
<br>
> > > trial ought to be scheduled as well, along with an expensive audit of
<br>
> all
<br>
> > > other memberships and who knows how many other such trials. All the
<br>
> more
<br>
> > > so
<br>
> > > if we also have to investigate all potential new members as well.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > However one interprets the membership pledge, there is no enforcement
<br>
> > > mechanism in it, nor to my knowledge anywhere else in bylaws. The
<br>
> > > historical and bylaws experts can correct me if I am wrong, but to my
<br>
> > > knowledge we have NEVER had such a mechanism at the national level. I
<br>
> > > think
<br>
> > > this is probably because people realized that having one could open a
<br>
> > huge
<br>
> > > can of worms. Such a process has existed and been used at the state
<br>
> level
<br>
> > > in various states, to my knowledge only in a small handful of cases.
<br>
> > > However, even those trials often prove to be very divisive and time
<br>
> > > consuming, eating up much time and good will at the state and local
<br>
> level
<br>
> > > and causing many other members to quit or scale back involvement
<br>
> > > regardless
<br>
> > > of the outcome.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 2) “• (Roberts rules) Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial
<br>
> of
<br>
> > > Their Members.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A
<br>
> > > deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its
<br>
> own
<br>
> > > laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being
<br>
> > expulsion
<br>
> > > from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent
<br>
> society,
<br>
> > > it has the right, for its own protection….”
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > However, this does not say what happens if the matter is not addressed
<br>
> in
<br>
> > > the bylaws of an organization (“its own laws”). Since our bylaws don’t
<br>
> > > have
<br>
> > > an expulsion provision, I don’t see how this section creates one for
<br>
> us.
<br>
> > > It
<br>
> > > just says we have the right to make and enforce such a bylaw, but we
<br>
> have
<br>
> > > not done it. If something in Roberts creates a right to expel members,
<br>
> > > this
<br>
> > > is not it.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 3) Gift memberships: Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
<br>
> > understanding
<br>
> > > is that gift memberships are not valid unless the person being gifted
<br>
> > > signs
<br>
> > > the membership pledge of their own free volition, and is a person
<br>
> capable
<br>
> > > of informed consent, regardless of who pays the attending fee.
<br>
> Otherwise
<br>
> > > it’s just a fundraising tool, but does not create a true membership.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > As a reminder I also sent a second email which as far as I know was
<br>
> never
<br>
> > > forwarded to the list, correcting a factual matter in my first email:
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Thomas L. Knapp quoting my first letter: “As US Attorney, prior to LP
<br>
> > > membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having consensual
<br>
> > sexual
<br>
> > > activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As part of
<br>
> the
<br>
> > > prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that video public, allowing
<br>
> unrelated
<br>
> > > adults to watch the two underage children engaging in sexual
<br>
> activity."
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > TLK: My recollection is different -- or perhaps we're referring to
<br>
> > > different events. {p: no, error is mine; I misremembered what I read
<br>
> > Knapp
<br>
> > > write about this, and he corrects it here p}
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > TLK: My recollection is that the incident happened after Barr left
<br>
> > > Congress, when he no longer held public office, and possibly while he
<br>
> was
<br>
> > > affiliated with the LP. And my recollection of the incident is this:
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > In Georgia, trial evidence is a "public record."
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > A newspaper filed a request for the evidence in the case you mention
<br>
> -- a
<br>
> > > cell phone video.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > A judge denied that request because of the content.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > As an op-ed columnist, Barr held that the law required the release of
<br>
> the
<br>
> > > evidence, and that if anyone didn't like that, they should get the law
<br>
> > > changed.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Which, as a side note, made Barr, not Mary Ruwart, the 2008
<br>
> presidential
<br>
> > > candidate who was on public record as supporting government provision
<br>
> of
<br>
> > > child pornography on demand.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > But he was also right. "Don't like the rules, ain't gonna go by them"
<br>
> is
<br>
> > > not a reasonable position for a judge, a bureaucrat, an office-holder
<br>
> --
<br>
> > > or
<br>
> > > a party's national committee. (TLK)
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Paulie: OK I mangled that, will need to correct. But that brings up
<br>
> > > another
<br>
> > > good point of consideration: Is merely *advocating* for the initiation
<br>
> of
<br>
> > > force to serve political or social goals (or some specific types of
<br>
> force
<br>
> > > involving teenagers, sex and or video) enough for the potential
<br>
> > > revocations/denial of membership being considered? Or does it have to
<br>
> > > involve personal actions? In other words, the way I remembered what
<br>
> you
<br>
> > > wrote involved an actual action under color of law. This refreshing of
<br>
> my
<br>
> > > memory makes clear it was mere advocacy in a newspaper column.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > In the case that stirred the current brouhaha on the LNC, I am not
<br>
> aware
<br>
> > > that the guy in prison who is trying to join the party is *advocating*
<br>
> > for
<br>
> > > making what he is convicted of legal. In fact I do not know what he
<br>
> > > thinks.
<br>
> > > He may be sincerely sorry and have turned a new leaf, he may have been
<br>
> > > railroaded, he may think he did nothing wrong, he may just believe he
<br>
> had
<br>
> > > to do what he had to do due to economic reality. In another case
<br>
> someone
<br>
> > > both practices and advocates routinely initiating force and
<br>
> normalizing
<br>
> > > it,
<br>
> > > and obviously fits both criteria - action and advocacy. In the
<br>
> corrected
<br>
> > > version, Barr engages in advocacy but to my knowledge no action, at
<br>
> least
<br>
> > > none that I know of evidence for. How many of these qualify for
<br>
> > membership
<br>
> > > revocation under whatever standard people are proposing here?
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > For reference earlier I wrote:
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > As you may know, I read all your public emails, but try to write you
<br>
> > > sparingly (otherwise you'd get more emails from me than you do from
<br>
> your
<br>
> > > own current members, and if I was going to do that I should have run
<br>
> for
<br>
> > a
<br>
> > > new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in 2012-4). I
<br>
> think
<br>
> > > the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits my
<br>
> input. I
<br>
> > > hope you'll agree and share my thoughts with the public list.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Emotional cases make bad law, and those who sexually abuse, exploit
<br>
> and
<br>
> > > videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The more
<br>
> > > fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any* authority to
<br>
> refuse
<br>
> > > a
<br>
> > > membership pledge and donation from *anyone* regardless of what
<br>
> > > reprehensible things they may have done in the past or even do in the
<br>
> > > present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no such
<br>
> power,
<br>
> > > and thus it would be improper to refuse or refund a membership
<br>
> donation
<br>
> > > and
<br>
> > > pledge from anyone no matter who they are. I understand that this is
<br>
> the
<br>
> > > current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is that
<br>
> > Robert's
<br>
> > > Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing body does
<br>
> > have
<br>
> > > the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership donations.
<br>
> I
<br>
> > > don't remember the exact citation and I am not a parliamentarian so
<br>
> I'll
<br>
> > > leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along with
<br>
> > > ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I do not
<br>
> > > remember a specific cite, only being told that it's there.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > A few things to consider:
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 1) if you do open the door to membership revocation, it could well
<br>
> > > snowball. There have been many historic cases in other parties and
<br>
> > > organizations where it started small with a tiny number of obvious
<br>
> cases
<br>
> > > and then gradually grew to wide ranging membership purges that
<br>
> devastated
<br>
> > > those respective organizations and crippled them over time.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 2) But, it doesn't always have to. I am aware of a handful of state
<br>
> LPs
<br>
> > > which have revoked a very small number of individual memberships over
<br>
> the
<br>
> > > years, typically after some sort of internal judicial procedure, and
<br>
> as
<br>
> > > yet
<br>
> > > I am not aware that they have devolved into massive membership purges
<br>
> of
<br>
> > > the sort I would be concerned about.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 3) It's also an undeniable fact that individual members who both
<br>
> advocate
<br>
> > > and practice initiation of force in violation of their membership
<br>
> pledge
<br>
> > > and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the party
<br>
> > > embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our own actual
<br>
> > and
<br>
> > > potential membership as a result; most of the public does not
<br>
> understand
<br>
> > > that we may not have the power to dissociate from members in the way
<br>
> they
<br>
> > > assume any organization can.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 4) This could potentially be an issue to take to the judicial
<br>
> committee.
<br>
> > > But, as at least those of you who have been on the board since the
<br>
> start
<br>
> > > of
<br>
> > > the term are aware, it's questionable whether we have one which was
<br>
> > > impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those of you on
<br>
> > > bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting system which
<br>
> > > caused
<br>
> > > this, even if it's just going back to the prior one.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 5) If you do open the door to membership removal/rejection in this
<br>
> > manner,
<br>
> > > please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we want to
<br>
> > > establish the principle that once someone has been convicted of a real
<br>
> > > crime with victims they can't have a change of heart and honestly sign
<br>
> > the
<br>
> > > membership pledge, or that we should assume they don't mean it? What
<br>
> if
<br>
> > > someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in fact violate
<br>
> > > their pledge -- but does not make it an ongoing pattern of behavior,
<br>
> nor
<br>
> > > advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If the grounds
<br>
> > for
<br>
> > > membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge is
<br>
> signed,
<br>
> > > do
<br>
> > > they include cases where those actions were done under color of law,
<br>
> yet
<br>
> > > amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective? Example:
<br>
> As
<br>
> > > US
<br>
> > > Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy
<br>
> for
<br>
> > > having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and privately
<br>
> > > videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that
<br>
> > > video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two underage
<br>
> > children
<br>
> > > engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but should they
<br>
> have
<br>
> > > been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up grounds
<br>
> for
<br>
> > > someone else to request a membership revocation for our past
<br>
> presidential
<br>
> > > candidate and life member (if my memory serves correctly) on this
<br>
> basis?
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > 6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is likely to
<br>
> be
<br>
> > > taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the best venue
<br>
> to
<br>
> > > hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally recognized
<br>
> > > judicial committee.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did. I hope
<br>
> they
<br>
> > > are of some help to you in considering these matters.
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > Paul Frankel
<br>
> > > 205-534-1622 currently open for voice calls 6 am - 9 pm central, text
<br>
> any
<br>
> > > time
<br>
> > > secretary@lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party capacity but I
<br>
> > > hope
<br>
> > > we'll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in
<br>
> Birmingham
<br>
> > >
<br>
> https://lpalabama.org/event/2020-lp-alabama-state-convention-2020-02-28/
<br>
> > )
<br>
> > > https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli
<br>
> > > *Email Confirmation*
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > >
<br>
> > > - I want to receive email communication from the Libertarian Party.
<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>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>