September 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Re: [Lnc-business] [Statechairs] LNC Affiliate Support Committee - 2015 Poll
by Guy McLendon 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

In the words of the Joker from the Batman series … “Why soooo serious?” I do not concur at all with your observations, or conclusions … but at the same time, there’s no value in haggling over our differences. Guy From: Statechairs [mailto:statechairs-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Brett H. Pojunis Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 3:47 PM To: Paul Hugenberg III Cc: LP-State Chairs; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org; lnc-asc(a)lp.org Subject: Re: [Statechairs] LNC Affiliate Support Committee - 2015 Poll Hi Paul, I agree, polls and surveys are important but ONLY if you actually do something with it. We went through this last year and a lot of time was spent on this. Then NOTHING happened and it was a waste of time. Now we are all going to waste more time instead of acting on the information that we have from last year. Best, Brett H. Pojunis Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada The Political Party - Founder 1771 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 201 A Las Vegas, NV 89119 702.763.9301 | Office (direct) 702.325.7426 | Las Vegas Mobile 202.505.3606 | Washington D.C. Mobile brett(a)pojunis.com www.LPNevada.org www.PoliticalPartylv.com On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Paul Hugenberg III <paul.hugenberg(a)gmail.com> wrote: Found polls and surveys very helpful. I hope this goes well. In Ohio, we will finish our survey on the 12th. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1evKpQbNu3zKNZoYCQBU-yb-vP9Bd5jvDlAyPIR1Cmi… <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1evKpQbNu3zKNZoYCQBU-yb-vP9Bd5jvDlAyPIR1Cmi…> &w=1 On Sep 11, 2015 4:27 PM, "Brett H. Pojunis" <brett(a)pojunis.com> wrote: Hey Mark, I think that you are misunderstanding the purpose of this poll. You will receive a call from someone on the committee inquiring about what services you would like the National party to provide. Then they will be presented to the LNC. Then about this time next year you will get an additional phone call asking what services you would like to see from the National party. Just sayin' Best, Brett H. Pojunis Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada The Political Party - Founder 1771 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 201 A Las Vegas, NV 89119 702.763.9301 | Office (direct) 702.325.7426 | Las Vegas Mobile 202.505.3606 | Washington D.C. Mobile brett(a)pojunis.com www.LPNevada.org www.PoliticalPartylv.com On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Mark Glogowski <mglogowski08(a)gmail.com> wrote: One of the services I would expect from the NLP probably should not wait for the results of a poll to be released before it is discussed and considered. The Democrats and Republicans have free reign of the media concerning their candidates - pre-convention / pre-primary. Why do we not challenge this situation with our own candidates that have declared. It is my understanding that the LP already has 11 or more individuals who have declared their candidacy for President on the Libertarian line. Why are their names not being broadcast by the NLP as fast as the candidates step forward? Why are some of our candidates holding back? Are they truly letting the IRS control the timing of their candidacy? What kind of nonsense is that? We should have some mechanism that will let the average 'registered Libertarian' hear about our candidates NOW so that they become as familiar with Libertarian names and those candidates' goals as they are becoming with the Democrat's and Republican's candidates. Let's level the playing field ourselves by changing our expectations and our actions concerning what we do to promote Libertarian candidates. Mark Glogowski, Ph.D Chairman, Libertarian Party of New York On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Guy McLendon <guy(a)mclendon.net> wrote: In attendance: Beth Vest Vicki Kirkland Michael Pickens Guy McLendon Andy Burns Called to order 8:15pm, 9/10/2015 Motion by Vicki to approve 6 questions as attached. Seconded. Motion carries unanimous. Motion to adjourn by Vicki at 8:40PM. Seconded. Motion carries. Guy McLendon Cell 832-372-8131 Res 337-626-1012 _______________________________________________ Statechairs mailing list Statechairs(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Statechairs mailing list Statechairs(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Statechairs mailing list Statechairs(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] My comments on the Judicial Committee's actions
by doug＠vikingmetals.com 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

What happen if the next JC overturns this one...and then the next one overturns that one? Doug Craig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Lnc-business] My comments on the Judicial Committee's actions From: Daniel Wiener <wiener(a)alum.mit.edu> Date: Sep 15, 2015 8:06 PM To: "lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org" <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> CC: Having read the recent Judicial Committee decision regarding Oregon, and Nick Sarwark’s response, I have several comments to make: 1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The fundamental dispute in 2011 was over the LNC Executive Committee’s motions which (1) recognized that the state Bylaws in effect since March 15, 2009 were in fact the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon; and (2) that based on those Bylaws and the available evidence, the slate of officers led by Tim Reeves were in fact the officers of the LPO. It was the position of the LNC that no disaffiliation had taken place; the LPO remained the state affiliate, and the LNC was simply identifying who the legitimate officers were. The Judicial Committee (including as one of its members Nick Sarwark) instead ruled by a 4-3 vote that the LNC had “constructively disaffiliated” the LPO, and that the state affiliate was whoever the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as the state affiliate. The Oregon Secretary of State’s office understandably did not want to be caught in the middle of an intra-party dispute. The SoS’s default position was that it recognized whoever the last known Chair of the LPO reported to them to be the current or new Chair. When that failed to resolve matters, the SoS issued a brief letter on September 29, 2011 (see attached) which said *“We understand that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”* On that basis, the SoS continued its default position of recognizing Wagner as the Chair of the LPO. The Judicial Committee has now rescinded the Judicial Committee decisions of August 25, 2011 and September 23, 2011, and ruled that *“Rescinding our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Those decisions found that on May 21, 2011, Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.”* 2. POTENTIAL PROCEDURAL DEFECTS *Nick claimed*: *“**There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior decision four years after the fact, etc. Any one or more of those would make the decision we received invalid.”* *My response*: Although Nick does not spell out details of those claimed defects, I’m sure there will be considerable argument by people on both sides as to whether they exist. Similarly, back in 2011 there was a great deal of criticism (some of it from me) regarding procedural defects in the original Judicial Committee’s actions. In fact the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution by a 12-5 vote on November 21, 2011 in which it expressed the *“**sense of the Libertarian National Committee that the decision by four members of the Judicial Committee in its 4-3 declaration regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon constituted a violation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and that the Judicial Committed has acted outside of its limited authority, which is clearly and explicitly defined in the Libertarian Party Bylaws”. *The entire text of that resolution is attached. Notwithstanding those procedural defects in the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling and the LNC’s strong disagreement with the Judicial Committee’s actions, *the LNC nonetheless abided by that decision*. The LP’s web site lists the Wagner group’s web site under its Oregon page, and they have been receiving data dumps from national. I personally have supported that position, and I also authored a resolution immediately after the last national convention which tried to tamp down the controversy over the credentialing of delegates in the Oregon delegation by expressing the *“**sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey its regrets to Libertarian Party of Oregon.”* The entire text of that resolution is also attached. It required a lot of wordsmithing and compromising to come up with language which could obtain a majority, but in the end I managed to get a 9-7 vote in its favor. *Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, the LNC needs to abide by the Judicial Committee’s decisions.* Under our Bylaws there is no higher body to appeal to, other than the next national convention which has the power to alter the Bylaws and elect a new Judicial Committee. 3. DIRECT EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE’S DECISION As noted above, the Judicial Committee specifically stated that its rescission “*leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon*. That means that there was no “constructive disaffiliation” and that the LPO Chair at that time was Tim Reeves, not Wes Wagner. It also voids the Judicial Committee’s finding in 2011 that *“the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state, in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon.” *And it voids the JC’s 2011 assertion that *“the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s secretary of state, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6 disaffiliation power to do otherwise.”* So where does that leave us now? Based on the JC’s latest decision, Lars Hedbor is not currently the Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, since he has not been elected under the rules and procedures of the LPO Bylaws which the LNC Executive Committee’s motion recognizes as being in effect. And Tim Reeves no longer is the LPO Chair. The Judicial Committee’s current decision suggests that *“common sense would indicate that any process that respects the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the March 2009 Bylaws until March 9, 2013 and the March 2013 Bylaws thereafter) should produce a legitimate successor to Tim Reeves as Chairperson.”* And that may well be “common sense”. But note that the Judicial Committee carefully refrained from identifying who that “legitimate successor” is. Maybe it’s Ira Epstein, if indeed he was elected Chair according to the LPO Bylaws currently and legally in effect. It’s an internal matter for the Libertarian Party of Oregon to determine, and the only way it would reach the LNC is if that determination is seriously called into question. In that case the LNC will have to identify the correct LPO officers and web site for the purposes of sending data dumps and listing the LPO web site on the national page. (As the JC noted, Bylaws Articles 6, 8, 11, and 12 also contain provisions which require such identification.) The immediate actions which I believe should be taken are as follows: - The Secretary of the Libertarian Party should convey the information to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office that the Judicial Committee has rescinded the previous decision that “*has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon*.” - The national office should delete http://www.lporegon.org/ from its http://www.lp.org/state/oregon page, and cease sending data dumps to the individuals listed at http://www.lporegon.org/index.php/state-committee. - Let’s remember that there was a third motion in 2011: *“The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to resolve their disagreements.” *How about if we make one more stab at implementing that? Maybe we can find one or more people to serve as neutral arbitrators or facilitators, who would be acceptable to both factions (I can think of some possibilities). There’s a huge amount of bad blood and personality conflicts on both sides, so it would probably be best not to include Tim Reeves, Wes Wagner, Richard Burke, and perhaps others who I’m not familiar with in the negotiations. To the extent that the LNC will be involved, we should also exclude Nick Sarwark and Alicia Mattson. 4. CONCLUSION We are all sick and tired of dealing with the Oregon dispute, and wish it would just go away. But it isn’t going away. I don’t hold out a lot of hope that further negotiations or arbitration can produce an acceptable solution, but I think it’s at least worth another shot. Daniel Wiener _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

My comments on the Judicial Committee's actions
by Daniel Wiener 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

Having read the recent Judicial Committee decision regarding Oregon, and Nick Sarwark’s response, I have several comments to make: 1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The fundamental dispute in 2011 was over the LNC Executive Committee’s motions which (1) recognized that the state Bylaws in effect since March 15, 2009 were in fact the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon; and (2) that based on those Bylaws and the available evidence, the slate of officers led by Tim Reeves were in fact the officers of the LPO. It was the position of the LNC that no disaffiliation had taken place; the LPO remained the state affiliate, and the LNC was simply identifying who the legitimate officers were. The Judicial Committee (including as one of its members Nick Sarwark) instead ruled by a 4-3 vote that the LNC had “constructively disaffiliated” the LPO, and that the state affiliate was whoever the Oregon Secretary of State recognized as the state affiliate. The Oregon Secretary of State’s office understandably did not want to be caught in the middle of an intra-party dispute. The SoS’s default position was that it recognized whoever the last known Chair of the LPO reported to them to be the current or new Chair. When that failed to resolve matters, the SoS issued a brief letter on September 29, 2011 (see attached) which said *“We understand that the Judicial Committee of the National Libertarian Party has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”* On that basis, the SoS continued its default position of recognizing Wagner as the Chair of the LPO. The Judicial Committee has now rescinded the Judicial Committee decisions of August 25, 2011 and September 23, 2011, and ruled that *“Rescinding our ruling in Wes Wagner vs. the Libertarian National Committee leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Those decisions found that on May 21, 2011, Tim Reeves was properly elected Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon then in effect.”* 2. POTENTIAL PROCEDURAL DEFECTS *Nick claimed*: *“**There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior decision four years after the fact, etc. Any one or more of those would make the decision we received invalid.”* *My response*: Although Nick does not spell out details of those claimed defects, I’m sure there will be considerable argument by people on both sides as to whether they exist. Similarly, back in 2011 there was a great deal of criticism (some of it from me) regarding procedural defects in the original Judicial Committee’s actions. In fact the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution by a 12-5 vote on November 21, 2011 in which it expressed the *“**sense of the Libertarian National Committee that the decision by four members of the Judicial Committee in its 4-3 declaration regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon constituted a violation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and that the Judicial Committed has acted outside of its limited authority, which is clearly and explicitly defined in the Libertarian Party Bylaws”. *The entire text of that resolution is attached. Notwithstanding those procedural defects in the 2011 Judicial Committee ruling and the LNC’s strong disagreement with the Judicial Committee’s actions, *the LNC nonetheless abided by that decision*. The LP’s web site lists the Wagner group’s web site under its Oregon page, and they have been receiving data dumps from national. I personally have supported that position, and I also authored a resolution immediately after the last national convention which tried to tamp down the controversy over the credentialing of delegates in the Oregon delegation by expressing the *“**sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey its regrets to Libertarian Party of Oregon.”* The entire text of that resolution is also attached. It required a lot of wordsmithing and compromising to come up with language which could obtain a majority, but in the end I managed to get a 9-7 vote in its favor. *Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, the LNC needs to abide by the Judicial Committee’s decisions.* Under our Bylaws there is no higher body to appeal to, other than the next national convention which has the power to alter the Bylaws and elect a new Judicial Committee. 3. DIRECT EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE’S DECISION As noted above, the Judicial Committee specifically stated that its rescission “*leaves standing the 2011 decisions of the Libertarian National Committee and its Executive Committee concerning the Libertarian Party of Oregon*. That means that there was no “constructive disaffiliation” and that the LPO Chair at that time was Tim Reeves, not Wes Wagner. It also voids the Judicial Committee’s finding in 2011 that *“the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state, in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon.” *And it voids the JC’s 2011 assertion that *“the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s secretary of state, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6 disaffiliation power to do otherwise.”* So where does that leave us now? Based on the JC’s latest decision, Lars Hedbor is not currently the Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, since he has not been elected under the rules and procedures of the LPO Bylaws which the LNC Executive Committee’s motion recognizes as being in effect. And Tim Reeves no longer is the LPO Chair. The Judicial Committee’s current decision suggests that *“common sense would indicate that any process that respects the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the March 2009 Bylaws until March 9, 2013 and the March 2013 Bylaws thereafter) should produce a legitimate successor to Tim Reeves as Chairperson.”* And that may well be “common sense”. But note that the Judicial Committee carefully refrained from identifying who that “legitimate successor” is. Maybe it’s Ira Epstein, if indeed he was elected Chair according to the LPO Bylaws currently and legally in effect. It’s an internal matter for the Libertarian Party of Oregon to determine, and the only way it would reach the LNC is if that determination is seriously called into question. In that case the LNC will have to identify the correct LPO officers and web site for the purposes of sending data dumps and listing the LPO web site on the national page. (As the JC noted, Bylaws Articles 6, 8, 11, and 12 also contain provisions which require such identification.) The immediate actions which I believe should be taken are as follows: - The Secretary of the Libertarian Party should convey the information to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office that the Judicial Committee has rescinded the previous decision that “*has left it up to this office to decide which of your competing groups will be recognized by the state as the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon*.” - The national office should delete http://www.lporegon.org/ from its http://www.lp.org/state/oregon page, and cease sending data dumps to the individuals listed at http://www.lporegon.org/index.php/state-committee. - Let’s remember that there was a third motion in 2011: *“The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to resolve their disagreements.” *How about if we make one more stab at implementing that? Maybe we can find one or more people to serve as neutral arbitrators or facilitators, who would be acceptable to both factions (I can think of some possibilities). There’s a huge amount of bad blood and personality conflicts on both sides, so it would probably be best not to include Tim Reeves, Wes Wagner, Richard Burke, and perhaps others who I’m not familiar with in the negotiations. To the extent that the LNC will be involved, we should also exclude Nick Sarwark and Alicia Mattson. 4. CONCLUSION We are all sick and tired of dealing with the Oregon dispute, and wish it would just go away. But it isn’t going away. I don’t hold out a lot of hope that further negotiations or arbitration can produce an acceptable solution, but I think it’s at least worth another shot. Daniel Wiener

1 0

Fwd: Judicial Committee Ruling regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon
by Nicholas Sarwark 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

FYI for the members of the LNC. -Nick ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: M Carling <mcarling(a)gmail.com> Date: 2015-09-13 19:21 GMT-07:00 Subject: Judicial Committee Ruling regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon

2 1

Fwd: Judicial Committee Ruling regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon
by Alicia Mattson 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

I'm forwarding information I received from the Judicial Committee. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: M Carling <mcarling(a)gmail.com> Date: 2015-09-13 19:21 GMT-07:00 Subject: Judicial Committee Ruling regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon To: Nicholas Sarwark <Chair(a)lp.org>, Alicia Mattson <secretary(a)lp.org>, johannstein(a)gmail.com, "Tim Reeves (timothy.reeves(a)tenthamendmentcenter.com)" <timothy.reeves(a)tenthamendmentcenter.com>, lhedbor(a)gmail.com, wes.wagner(a)gmail.com Cc: phillies(a)4liberty.net, Rob Latham <freeutahns(a)gmail.com>, Rob Power < robpower(a)robpower.com>, AR Wolf <arwolf(a)arwolf.com>, Rebecca Sink-Burris < rebecca.sinkburris(a)gmail.com>, Dianna Visek <dianna.visek(a)gmail.com>, steven r Linnabary <linnabary51(a)gmail.com>, rwsully <rwsully(a)att.net>, Brian Holtz <brian(a)holtz.org>, jimpgray(a)sbcglobal.net, "Lee Wrights ( rleewrights(a)gmail.com)" <rleewrights(a)gmail.com>, Mark Hinkle < mark(a)garlic.com>, Dan Wiener <wiener(a)alum.mit.edu>, Dan Karlan < dankarlan(a)earthlink.net>

1 0

Fwd: One phone call can help stop the California Bitcoin License
by Daniel Wiener 11 Sep '15

11 Sep '15

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is employing an interesting technology from Callpower.org for influencing elective representatives. A short digression: When it comes to actually influencing a representative at any level of government, there's a general hierarchy: An in-person visit carries the most weight, followed by a personal phone call, followed by a hand-written snail-mail letter, followed by an individually-written email, followed by a boilerplate email, followed by a name listed on a petition. (I may be forgetting something.) In other words, elected representatives use these communications as proxies to try to estimate the level of (and intensity of) public support or opposition to a measure. So if a constituent (and it's important that it be a constituent from that representative's district) takes significant time and action to contact a representative, that may mean that there are X number of other constituents who are similarly concerned, where "X" depends on the method of contact. I just received the email shown below regarding a bill in California to license Bitcoins. In this case I was directed to a web site where I filled in my name, address (to automatically determine who my State Senator was), and phone number. When I pressed the "Call Now" button I received a call to my phone, with a message telling me that I was about to be connected to my State Senator and should express my opposition to AB 1326, and to press the Star key when I was ready. I did so, the call was made, and I talked to the staff person who was fielding telephone calls and explained what a terrible idea AB 1326 was. I gave her my name, email address, and made clear that I lived within the State Senator's district. This can be very powerful, at least until it becomes so commonplace that representatives begin discounting telephone calls. So it's something to keep in mind; we may have occasion to use it in the future. Dan Wiener ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rainey Reitman | EFF Activism Team <action(a)eff.org> Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:03 AM Subject: One phone call can help stop the California Bitcoin License To: Daniel Wiener <wiener(a)alum.mit.edu> This is a friendly message from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. View it in a web browser <https://supporters.eff.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=1141>. [image: Electronic Frontier Foundation] Dear Daniel, Big news: our activism campaign against the California virtual currency license—A.B. 1326—is making big waves in Sacramento. With your help, we’ve demonstrated widespread opposition to the bill and the short-sighted restrictions it threatens to impose. But today is a crucial day in the fight against California’s virtual currency license. It's the last day that A.B. 1326 could be voted on in 2015. After today, the California Senate will go on break until January of next year. Can you call your senator and tell them to oppose any attempt to rush this bill through on the last day of the session? A powerful new campaign site will make it easy for you to call to stop the bill: No Bitcoin License <https://nobitcoinlicense.org/> The site is hosted by Taskforce.is <https://taskforce.is/> and uses CallPower <http://callpower.org/> technology to connect you to your state senator. If you are in California, just visit the website, enter your phone number, and you’ll be connected to your lawmaker’s office. There’s a super-short script on the site that you can follow. *Let's make this a victory* In the last few weeks, EFF supporters have bombarded the California legislature with emails and phone calls against A.B. 1326, helping slow the bill. EFF also organized Bitcoin companies and nonprofits in a coalition letter <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/digital-rights-groups-team-tech-compa…> showcasing the opposition to the proposal, and we brought virtual currency experts to Sacramento for a lobby day <https://twitter.com/EFF/status/639199701384884224> against the bill. All of this is having a huge impact, and the bill is tottering on the verge of being converted into a 2-year bill, which would give us more time to fight the worst of the bill’s components. But the bill's author continues to resist this commonsense measure and has thus far refused to officially change the status of A.B. 1326. *That means the bill could be voted on today. Let's finish this session with a unified voice from the digital rights community: No Bitcoin license.* Help us make sure that the California legislature doesn’t pass this misguided bill. Please pick up the phone and make a call today: https://nobitcoinlicense.org Thanks for helping us fight for user rights, Rainey Reitman EFF Activism Team Read more about the bill. <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/license-kill-innovation-why-ab-1326-c…> <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/license-kill-innovation-why-ab-1326-c…>Support our work. <https://supporters.eff.org/donate/support-eff-virtual-currency-innovation> [image: Footer] Electronic Frontier Foundation, 815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 USA EFF appreciates your support and respects your privacy <https://www.eff.org/policy>. Unsubscribe from all mail <https://supporters.eff.org/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=8373&qid=4140…> or change your email preferences <https://supporters.eff.org/update-your-contact-info?cid1=235538&cs=066c2c6f…> . -- *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)

1 0

FW: 11/14-15 Orlando Meeting Info
by Robert Kraus 11 Sep '15

11 Sep '15

Just a reminder to please make hotel reservations ASAP as this is a busy time of year and rooms are limited. Thanks!!! All, Here are the full details of the next LNC Meeting in sunny Orlando Florida What: LNC Budget Meeting and Pre-convention Walk-thru When: Sat Nov 14 9 am – 6 pm and Sun Nov 15 9 am - ? Where: The Rosen Centre Resort and Conference Centre 9840 International Dr, Orlando, FL 32819 http://www.rosencentre.com/ Reserve: Via this link: https://bookings.ihotelier.com/Rosen-Centre/bookings.jsp?hotelID=2018 <https://bookings.ihotelier.com/Rosen-Centre/bookings.jsp?hotelID=2018&group…> &groupID=1478441 Or call (407) 996-9840 and ask for LNC Pre-planning Board Meeting (Group ID 1478441) Rate: $95 per night includes full buffet breakfast, complimentary in room wi-fi, complimentary parking, free shuttle w-in 3 mile radius which includes Sea World and Universal Studios. Note – $10 per extra person (so 2 in a room = $105, 3 in a room = $115, etc.) Directions: http://www.rosencentre.com/location-and-transportation/ (note – shuttle doesn’t pick up at airport) Dining: http://www.rosencentre.com/dining-and-recreation/ Other: Pre-convention walk thru currently planned for 5 pm Fri Nov 13th subject to change depending on sales person / conference center availability over weekend. Please keep eye out on our event page for additional details and possible happy hour or other related events: https://www.lp.org/lnc-budget-meeting-1115 Live Free! Robert Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations Operations(a)LP.org Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231 Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians

1 0

LNC Affiliate Support Committee - 2015 Poll
by Guy McLendon 10 Sep '15

10 Sep '15

In attendance: Beth Vest Vicki Kirkland Michael Pickens Guy McLendon Andy Burns Called to order 8:15pm, 9/10/2015 Motion by Vicki to approve 6 questions as attached. Seconded. Motion carries unanimous. Motion to adjourn by Vicki at 8:40PM. Seconded. Motion carries. Guy McLendon Cell 832-372-8131 Res 337-626-1012

1 0

One election, one voter
by Scott L. 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

This is a great article. It proves: 1. EVERY vote matters 2. Triple check everything! http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/college-student-would-be-sole-vote r-in-cid-sales-tax/article_6702c44b-0243-51f8-861c-1df0b462cd92.html Hat tip Brett Bittner. Scott Lieberman

1 0

Emailing: MEMBERSHIP-AUG-15
by Robert Kraus 05 Sep '15

05 Sep '15

Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: MEMBERSHIP-AUG-15 Note: The latest membership report is attached.

1 0