<div dir='auto'>The reality is that we really have no way of knowing who an applicant for membership is when they apply</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 30, 2019 8:17 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">Thank you, I was going by statements of their owners, not actual membership lists.<div dir="auto"><br /></div><div dir="auto">Same thing with the babies. I have seen members statements about getting memberships for their children and grandchildren after they were born.</div><div dir="auto"><br /></div><div dir="auto">If those statements were not correct, my apologies.<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><br /><div class="elided-text">On Dec 30, 2019 7:48 AM, Daniel Fishman 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">No Bishop Hayes, no Dulap Nelson
<br />
<br />
[image: image.png]
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[image: image.png]
<br />
---
<br />
Daniel Fishman
<br />
Executive Director
<br />
The Libertarian Party
<br />
Join Us <http://www.lp.org/join>
<br />
<br />
<br />
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 1:47 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br />
lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
<br />
> Ms Mattson I apologize if I was unclear. I did not check the list -
<br />
> speaking from my knowledge of the people involved only which is fallible .
<br />
> Both Daniel and Resa know full well that pets cannot be members.
<br />
>
<br />
>
<br />
>
<br />
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:43 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
<br />
> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
>
<br />
> > Thank you for checking those two names. Are you just checking on the
<br />
> list
<br />
> > of sustaining members that Robert Kraus sent you as of the relevant date?
<br />
> > If that's where you're looking, we also need to have Robert also check
<br />
> the
<br />
> > full membership database of 140k+ records as well when he gets a chance
<br />
> to
<br />
> > do so. Only the sustaining membership list has the potential to impact
<br />
> > delegate allocations, but they also shouldn't be listed as members, which
<br />
> > will stay on our rolls from year to year.
<br />
> >
<br />
> > I'm not picking on the Chair here, but I thought of this only because at
<br />
> > the 2018 convention Darryl Perry was waging a full campaign for delegates
<br />
> > to vote for Zane Sarwark, so perhaps we should also check the database
<br />
> for
<br />
> > young names in that family as well. It sounds as though Mr. Phillips may
<br />
> > know other baby names we should also check. It doesn't take very many
<br />
> > people getting cute-sy to impact the delegation allocations. This year
<br />
> > Texas is particularly close to that threshold for another delegate.
<br />
> >
<br />
> > -Alicia
<br />
> >
<br />
> >
<br />
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:18 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
<br />
> caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br />
> > wrote:
<br />
> >
<br />
> > > Dulap is not a member.
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > Though he is running for chair apparently
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:17 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
<br />
> > caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br />
> > > wrote:
<br />
> > >
<br />
> > >> Bishop is not a member. There are no animal members.
<br />
> > >>
<br />
> > >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
<br />
> > >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br />
> > >>
<br />
> > >>> I do object to animals and babies being counted as party members, as
<br />
> I
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> > achieve
<br />
> > >>> political or social goals."
<br />
> > >>>
<br />
> > >>> I love (most) dogs, but dogs are not persons, thus they cannot be
<br />
> 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
<br />
> > or
<br />
> > >>> social goals. The bylaw doesn't say that members are persons whose
<br />
> > >>> parents
<br />
> > >>> hope their children will later subscribe to those beliefs. Won't it
<br />
> be
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> 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.
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> > Person A
<br />
> > >>> > when Person A is incapable of asserting what they do or do not
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> sign
<br />
> > 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
<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
<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>
<br />
> > >>> wrote:
<br />
> > >>> > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > There are beings who have received a gifted membership who can
<br />
> > not
<br />
> > >>> > sign
<br />
> > >>> > > of
<br />
> > >>> > > > their own volition who may in fact be being counted in the
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> redux
<br />
> > >>> > > > To: <chair@lp.org>, <alex.merced@lp.org>, <treasurer@lp.org>,
<br />
> <
<br />
> > >>> > > > secretary@lp.org>, <joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org>, <
<br />
> > >>> sam.goldstein@lp.org>,
<br />
> > >>> >
<br />
> > >>> > > > <
<br />
> > >>> > > > alicia.mattson@lp.org>, <william.redpath@lp.org>, <
<br />
> > >>> 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>, <
<br />
> > >>> kenneth.olsen@lp.org>,
<br />
> > >>> > <
<br />
> > >>> > > > james.lark@lp.org>, <susan.hogarth@lp.org>, <
<br />
> > john.phillips@lp.org>,
<br />
> > >>> <
<br />
> > >>> > > > phillip.anderson@lp.org>, <whitney.bilyeu@lp.org>, <
<br />
> > >>> 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 />
> > >>> >
<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 />
> > >>> >
<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 />
> > >>> >
<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 />
> > >>> >
<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
<br />
> frequently
<br />
> > >>> > about
<br />
> > >>> > > > this but I’m not sure whether anyone else is going to raise
<br />
> these
<br />
> > >>> > points
<br />
> > >>> > > > otherwise in your discussion or not. I’m again requesting a
<br />
> > >>> forward to
<br />
> > >>> > > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > public list.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > 1) “"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a
<br />
> > >>> member.
<br />
> > >>> > > Most
<br />
> > >>> > > > importantly:
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
<br />
> > >>> > > > 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
<br />
> certified
<br />
> > >>> in
<br />
> > >>> > > > writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve
<br />
> > >>> political
<br />
> > >>> > or
<br />
> > >>> > > > social goals.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for
<br />
> > >>> violating
<br />
> > >>> > > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a
<br />
> > >>> violation
<br />
> > >>> > of
<br />
> > >>> > > > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> necessarily
<br />
> > >>> > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > same thing as supporting the initiation of force **to achieve
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> merely a
<br />
> > >>> > > > cover
<br />
> > >>> > > > our butts statement to assure the government we were not
<br />
> planning
<br />
> > >>> to
<br />
> > >>> > > > engage
<br />
> > >>> > > > in terrorism on behalf of our radical agenda of social change,
<br />
> > and
<br />
> > >>> if
<br />
> > >>> > any
<br />
> > >>> > > > LP member did, that we would have their membership pledge to
<br />
> > prove
<br />
> > >>> > that
<br />
> > >>> > > it
<br />
> > >>> > > > was not in line with what we are about as an organization. To
<br />
> > keep
<br />
> > >>> > this
<br />
> > >>> > > in
<br />
> > >>> > > > perspective the party was created in the early 1970s when there
<br />
> > >>> was a
<br />
> > >>> > > rash
<br />
> > >>> > > > of politically motivated domestic terrorism from the far left,
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > achieve
<br />
> > >>> > > social
<br />
> > >>> > > > and political goals, which would amount to an anarchist pledge
<br />
> or
<br />
> > >>> > endless
<br />
> > >>> > > > debates over whether various minimal government proposals are
<br />
> > >>> somehow
<br />
> > >>> > not
<br />
> > >>> > > > initiation of force. Although I’m an anarchist myself, I would
<br />
> > not
<br />
> > >>> > want a
<br />
> > >>> > > > pledge that excludes all non-anarchists from the party, Nor
<br />
> > would I
<br />
> > >>> > want
<br />
> > >>> > > > endless purge trials over whether any members have expressed
<br />
> > >>> support
<br />
> > >>> > for
<br />
> > >>> > > > policies which initiate force to achieve social or political
<br />
> > goals
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> would
<br />
> > >>> > > > aspire
<br />
> > >>> > > > to, but have fallen short of myself, regrettably. It does not
<br />
> > even
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> pledge
<br />
> > >>> than
<br />
> > >>> > > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > one we all took, and while it’s also an admirable standard, I’m
<br />
> > >>> 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,
<br />
> > and
<br />
> > >>> > > > enforceable (whereas to my knowledge it never was before) my
<br />
> > >>> expulsion
<br />
> > >>> > > > trial ought to be scheduled as well, along with an expensive
<br />
> > audit
<br />
> > >>> of
<br />
> > >>> > all
<br />
> > >>> > > > other memberships and who knows how many other such trials. All
<br />
> > the
<br />
> > >>> > more
<br />
> > >>> > > > so
<br />
> > >>> > > > if we also have to investigate all potential new members as
<br />
> well.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > However one interprets the membership pledge, there is no
<br />
> > >>> enforcement
<br />
> > >>> > > > mechanism in it, nor to my knowledge anywhere else in bylaws.
<br />
> The
<br />
> > >>> > > > historical and bylaws experts can correct me if I am wrong, but
<br />
> > to
<br />
> > >>> my
<br />
> > >>> > > > knowledge we have NEVER had such a mechanism at the national
<br />
> > >>> level. I
<br />
> > >>> > > > think
<br />
> > >>> > > > this is probably because people realized that having one could
<br />
> > >>> open a
<br />
> > >>> > > huge
<br />
> > >>> > > > can of worms. Such a process has existed and been used at the
<br />
> > state
<br />
> > >>> > level
<br />
> > >>> > > > in various states, to my knowledge only in a small handful of
<br />
> > >>> cases.
<br />
> > >>> > > > However, even those trials often prove to be very divisive and
<br />
> > time
<br />
> > >>> > > > consuming, eating up much time and good will at the state and
<br />
> > local
<br />
> > >>> > level
<br />
> > >>> > > > and causing many other members to quit or scale back
<br />
> involvement
<br />
> > >>> > > > regardless
<br />
> > >>> > > > of the outcome.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > 2) “• (Roberts rules) Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and
<br />
> > >>> Trial
<br />
> > >>> > of
<br />
> > >>> > > > Their Members.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its
<br />
> Members. A
<br />
> > >>> > > > deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and
<br />
> enforce
<br />
> > >>> its
<br />
> > >>> > own
<br />
> > >>> > > > laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however,
<br />
> being
<br />
> > >>> > > expulsion
<br />
> > >>> > > > from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a
<br />
> 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
<br />
> > >>> addressed
<br />
> > >>> > in
<br />
> > >>> > > > the bylaws of an organization (“its own laws”). Since our
<br />
> bylaws
<br />
> > >>> don’t
<br />
> > >>> > > > have
<br />
> > >>> > > > an expulsion provision, I don’t see how this section creates
<br />
> one
<br />
> > >>> for
<br />
> > >>> > us.
<br />
> > >>> > > > It
<br />
> > >>> > > > just says we have the right to make and enforce such a bylaw,
<br />
> but
<br />
> > >>> we
<br />
> > >>> > have
<br />
> > >>> > > > not done it. If something in Roberts creates a right to expel
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> gifted
<br />
> > >>> > > > signs
<br />
> > >>> > > > the membership pledge of their own free volition, and is a
<br />
> 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
<br />
> > >>> membership.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > As a reminder I also sent a second email which as far as I know
<br />
> > was
<br />
> > >>> > never
<br />
> > >>> > > > forwarded to the list, correcting a factual matter in my first
<br />
> > >>> email:
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > Thomas L. Knapp quoting my first letter: “As US Attorney, prior
<br />
> > to
<br />
> > >>> LP
<br />
> > >>> > > > membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having
<br />
> > consensual
<br />
> > >>> > > sexual
<br />
> > >>> > > > activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As
<br />
> > part
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > to
<br />
> > >>> > > > different events. {p: no, error is mine; I misremembered what I
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > left
<br />
> > >>> > > > Congress, when he no longer held public office, and possibly
<br />
> > while
<br />
> > >>> he
<br />
> > >>> > was
<br />
> > >>> > > > affiliated with the LP. And my recollection of the incident is
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > release
<br />
> > >>> of
<br />
> > >>> > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > evidence, and that if anyone didn't like that, they should get
<br />
> > the
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > >>> them"
<br />
> > >>> > is
<br />
> > >>> > > > not a reasonable position for a judge, a bureaucrat, an
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> brings
<br />
> > up
<br />
> > >>> > > > another
<br />
> > >>> > > > good point of consideration: Is merely *advocating* for the
<br />
> > >>> initiation
<br />
> > >>> > of
<br />
> > >>> > > > force to serve political or social goals (or some specific
<br />
> types
<br />
> > of
<br />
> > >>> > force
<br />
> > >>> > > > involving teenagers, sex and or video) enough for the potential
<br />
> > >>> > > > revocations/denial of membership being considered? Or does it
<br />
> > have
<br />
> > >>> to
<br />
> > >>> > > > involve personal actions? In other words, the way I remembered
<br />
> > what
<br />
> > >>> > you
<br />
> > >>> > > > wrote involved an actual action under color of law. This
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > not
<br />
> > >>> > aware
<br />
> > >>> > > > that the guy in prison who is trying to join the party is
<br />
> > >>> *advocating*
<br />
> > >>> > > for
<br />
> > >>> > > > making what he is convicted of legal. In fact I do not know
<br />
> what
<br />
> > he
<br />
> > >>> > > > thinks.
<br />
> > >>> > > > He may be sincerely sorry and have turned a new leaf, he may
<br />
> have
<br />
> > >>> been
<br />
> > >>> > > > railroaded, he may think he did nothing wrong, he may just
<br />
> > believe
<br />
> > >>> he
<br />
> > >>> > had
<br />
> > >>> > > > to do what he had to do due to economic reality. In another
<br />
> 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
<br />
> action,
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> write
<br />
> > >>> you
<br />
> > >>> > > > sparingly (otherwise you'd get more emails from me than you do
<br />
> > from
<br />
> > >>> > your
<br />
> > >>> > > > own current members, and if I was going to do that I should
<br />
> have
<br />
> > >>> run
<br />
> > >>> > for
<br />
> > >>> > > a
<br />
> > >>> > > > new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in
<br />
> 2012-4).
<br />
> > I
<br />
> > >>> > think
<br />
> > >>> > > > the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits
<br />
> 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,
<br />
> > exploit
<br />
> > >>> > and
<br />
> > >>> > > > videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The
<br />
> more
<br />
> > >>> > > > fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any* authority
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> in
<br />
> > >>> the
<br />
> > >>> > > > present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no
<br />
> 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
<br />
> this
<br />
> > >>> is
<br />
> > >>> > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is
<br />
> that
<br />
> > >>> > > Robert's
<br />
> > >>> > > > Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing
<br />
> body
<br />
> > >>> does
<br />
> > >>> > > have
<br />
> > >>> > > > the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership
<br />
> > >>> donations.
<br />
> > >>> > I
<br />
> > >>> > > > don't remember the exact citation and I am not a
<br />
> parliamentarian
<br />
> > so
<br />
> > >>> > I'll
<br />
> > >>> > > > leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along
<br />
> > with
<br />
> > >>> > > > ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I
<br />
> do
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > well
<br />
> > >>> > > > snowball. There have been many historic cases in other parties
<br />
> > and
<br />
> > >>> > > > organizations where it started small with a tiny number of
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> > state
<br />
> > >>> > LPs
<br />
> > >>> > > > which have revoked a very small number of individual
<br />
> memberships
<br />
> > >>> over
<br />
> > >>> > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > years, typically after some sort of internal judicial
<br />
> procedure,
<br />
> > >>> and
<br />
> > >>> > as
<br />
> > >>> > > > yet
<br />
> > >>> > > > I am not aware that they have devolved into massive membership
<br />
> > >>> purges
<br />
> > >>> > of
<br />
> > >>> > > > the sort I would be concerned about.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > 3) It's also an undeniable fact that individual members who
<br />
> both
<br />
> > >>> > advocate
<br />
> > >>> > > > and practice initiation of force in violation of their
<br />
> membership
<br />
> > >>> > pledge
<br />
> > >>> > > > and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the
<br />
> > party
<br />
> > >>> > > > embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our own
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> the
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > the
<br />
> > >>> > start
<br />
> > >>> > > > of
<br />
> > >>> > > > the term are aware, it's questionable whether we have one which
<br />
> > was
<br />
> > >>> > > > impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those of
<br />
> > >>> you on
<br />
> > >>> > > > bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting system
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> > this
<br />
> > >>> > > manner,
<br />
> > >>> > > > please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we
<br />
> want
<br />
> > to
<br />
> > >>> > > > establish the principle that once someone has been convicted
<br />
> of a
<br />
> > >>> real
<br />
> > >>> > > > crime with victims they can't have a change of heart and
<br />
> honestly
<br />
> > >>> sign
<br />
> > >>> > > the
<br />
> > >>> > > > membership pledge, or that we should assume they don't mean it?
<br />
> > >>> What
<br />
> > >>> > if
<br />
> > >>> > > > someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in fact
<br />
> > >>> violate
<br />
> > >>> > > > their pledge -- but does not make it an ongoing pattern of
<br />
> > >>> behavior,
<br />
> > >>> > nor
<br />
> > >>> > > > advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If the
<br />
> > >>> grounds
<br />
> > >>> > > for
<br />
> > >>> > > > membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge
<br />
> is
<br />
> > >>> > signed,
<br />
> > >>> > > > do
<br />
> > >>> > > > they include cases where those actions were done under color of
<br />
> > >>> law,
<br />
> > >>> > yet
<br />
> > >>> > > > amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective?
<br />
> > >>> Example:
<br />
> > >>> > As
<br />
> > >>> > > > US
<br />
> > >>> > > > Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage
<br />
> > boy
<br />
> > >>> > for
<br />
> > >>> > > > having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and
<br />
> > privately
<br />
> > >>> > > > videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr's office
<br />
> made
<br />
> > >>> that
<br />
> > >>> > > > video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two
<br />
> underage
<br />
> > >>> > > children
<br />
> > >>> > > > engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but should
<br />
> > >>> they
<br />
> > >>> > have
<br />
> > >>> > > > been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up
<br />
> > >>> 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
<br />
> this
<br />
> > >>> > basis?
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > 6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is
<br />
> likely
<br />
> > >>> to
<br />
> > >>> > be
<br />
> > >>> > > > taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the
<br />
> best
<br />
> > >>> venue
<br />
> > >>> > to
<br />
> > >>> > > > hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally
<br />
> > >>> recognized
<br />
> > >>> > > > judicial committee.
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> > > > Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did. I
<br />
> > 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
<br />
> central,
<br />
> > >>> text
<br />
> > >>> > any
<br />
> > >>> > > > time
<br />
> > >>> > > > secretary@lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party
<br />
> capacity
<br />
> > >>> but I
<br />
> > >>> > > > hope
<br />
> > >>> > > > we'll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in
<br />
> > >>> > Birmingham
<br />
> > >>> > > >
<br />
> > >>> >
<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
<br />
> > >>> Party.
<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.
<br />
> If
<br />
> > >>> > 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 />
> > >>> > >
<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
<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 />
> > > *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 />
> --
<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 />
</p>
</blockquote></div><br /></div></blockquote></div><br></div>