May 2020 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Certificate of Nomination
by Caryn Ann Harlos 09 May '20

09 May '20

Since I have had many conversations with many of you in favor of a bifurcated convention, I want to let you know of a fact that I only now became aware of which may change my support, and that is the certificate of nomination. My reason for supporting bifurcation is that we can avoid the deadline issues for several states, but if those states require a certificate of nomination from the national party, no we won't, because I cannot sign that certification until the nomination is ratified. I have been provided a sample couple and it requires me to swear to a duly held convention of the Party. Duly meaning lawfully under our bylaws. I will not commit perjury for this party or anyone else. I have not withdrawn my support at this point as I am waiting to hear debate. Seeing the written opinion of the professional parliamentarian that Mr. Hall eluded to is something I also would need to see. Perhaps that opinion would change my mind. I do know that a legal opinion from a non-parliamentarian does not. Particularly when I have over two decades of legal experience in contract law (which bylaws are a species of myself, and I believe his analysis is dead wrong - despite being a non-attorney myself, I think most attorneys will concede that many paralegals know just as much minus the piece of paper from the magical license bureau in the sky). If the LNC attempts to put me in a position where I cannot sign that certificate, I will be forced to retain personal counsel. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *

1 1

game played with JWMarriott Austin contract
by Alicia Mattson 09 May '20

09 May '20

Many concerns have been voiced here in recent days about actions which many feel are stepping across boundaries of the chair's proper role. There are probably people who know additional information but who don't say it lest they be cast as a rabble-rouser. Though I've debated it a bit, I've decided that with the happenings of late, I am going to share a couple of things that I know. It has been known since April 8 that the LNC was going to meet on May 2 to discuss the status of the convention which had been called for the JWMarriott in Austin over Memorial Day weekend. Yet, on April 27, only 5 days prior to the LNC's planned meeting to make a decision on the matter, the LNC Chair took a unilateral action which, had it been successful, would have cancelled the contract with the Austin hotel. On the afternoon of April 27, the LNC chair emailed the JWMarriott Austin a message which in part said, "our understanding is that JW Marriott Austin has invoked the 'Impossibility Clause' to terminate the Group Sales Agreement we executed in March 2018, and that Ms. Moreno’s April 26, 2020 email constitutes the 'written notice' of such termination specified therein. We are therefore writing to confirm that JW Marriott Austin’s termination of the Group Sales Agreement is 'without liability' as set forth in the Impossibility Clause." The rationale given was based on the hotel's inadvertent cancellation of our room block, and the apology which they sent to our delegates who had booked in the block. I particularly note that the language said that "our understanding is..." which implies that he is speaking on behalf of the LNC. The LNC had not been consulted on this. The LNC had a meeting scheduled in 5 days to deliberate the subject. The COC had not been consulted on this. This was the action of one person purporting to represent "our" understanding. The hotel wrote back again apologizing for the mistake with our guest room reservations, but they said essentially: make no mistake, we are NOT invoking the impossibility clause, we still have a contract with you and look forward to hosting your event. Bylaws Article 10.1 clearly states that the LNC sets the time and place of our national conventions. LNC Policy Manual 2.02.7 delegates a lot of matters to the Convention Oversight Committee, including making recommendations about sites, however the LNC clearly retains the sole authority to select a convention site. Since the LNC chose the time/place, the only power within the organization to change that decision also lies with the LNC. Had this email been successful in its purpose, the LNC would have had the decision made for them before our May 2 meeting even started. None of us are in the dark about the fact that this move would have completely changed that meeting in a way that leaned towards the chair's desired outcome. I think the chair overstepped in this matter. In addition, the COC has encountered a situation in which a staff member (whom I will not name because it's not fair to that person who did not ask to be put in the middle) was directed to get in between the COC and a potential backup venue we were contacting. This interference with the COC is a policy violation, is terribly unfair to the staff member in question, and given the other happenings it feels like an attempt to torpedo backup options, resulting in an increased likelihood of us moving in the direction the chair has said he wishes to go. I think my fellow LNC members should know about it when their authority to make decisions is being undermined in this way. According to the Peter Parker Principle, with great power comes great responsibility. The position of LNC Chair is just such a position. It gives a person direct control over staff members and all party assets. It is important for a chair to stay within the boundaries of the bylaws and LNC policy and resist the temptations that come with the title, particularly in times when the organization is stressed. -Alicia

3 4

can we just ratify it later?
by Alicia Mattson 09 May '20

09 May '20

The other main idea being floated is to use some online mechanism to choose a presidential ticket, but all other business will be at a later in-person event in which a motion to ratify the online activity can be taken up. Included in this idea is the question about RONR author team official interpretation 2020-1. Some discussions I've heard have suggested this approach as a compromise offer between the options of all-online vs. all-in-person. 1) The LNC only gets to call one convention every two years, and we can't dictate what a convention agenda will be. If we call a convention, then Convention Rule 1 specifies a starting agenda. The convention delegates control the agenda and can amend it as they wish with a 2/3 vote to suspend that rule. The LNC cannot dictate that only the presidential ticket may happen on this particular day, and all other business is prohibited until an in-person meeting. The first-listed characteristic of a deliberative assembly on RONR p. 1 is that the deliberative assembly "meets with freedom to act in concert, meeting to determine, in full and free discussion, courses of action to be taken in the name of the entire group." Previously adopted bylaws/rules can set some limits, but if a convention is called to order, the LNC has no power to set additional limits, including some requirement that the delegates agree to stop at a certain point and then adjourn to a future in-person date. If the LNC holds some sort of event at which it is dictating the items of business, it is not a convention. Given that Bylaws Article 14.1 says a presidential ticket nomination may ONLY be made at a regular convention, nominating at a thing which is not a convention is a serious matter. The LNC has no power to decide that the presidential ticket be chosen some other way. 2) The next question would probably be, "Okay, so it's not a convention, but if we use some sort of virtual process to make a selection and don't call it a convention, then can the LNC call an in-person convention for a later date and ratify the virtual selection? Doesn't RONR official interpretation 2020-1 say we can do that?" What does RONR official interpretation 2020-1 say? -------------------- 2020-1 ELECTRONIC MEETINGS AND RATIFICATION Q. Our bylaws do not authorize electronic meetings, and the rules in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) are controlling. If we nevertheless hold an electronic meeting, can actions taken by our officers to carry out decisions made at that meeting be ratified during a subsequent in-person meeting? A. Yes, an assembly can ratify "action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority." [RONR (11th ed.), p. 124, ll. 34-35.] This includes the ability to ratify action to carry out decisions made at an electronic meeting of a body for which such meetings are not authorized. Similar actions taken by an organization's staff can also be ratified. However, those who carry out decisions made at an unauthorized electronic meeting do so at their own risk; although the assembly can later ratify their actions at a proper meeting of the organization, it is under no obligation to do so. [Cf. p. 348, ll. 19-23.] -------------------- Note specifically that the final sentence of this answer is a cautionary note, that carrying out such unauthorized decisions involves RISK, and the later assembly is NOT OBLIGATED to ratify their actions. The phrase used in this answer about actions "in excess of their instructions" comes directly from a bullet list on p. 124-125 of RONR, cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable. Exceeding a budget would in most organizations be an example of actions in excess of their instructions which could be ratified. But not everything is subject to ratification. Continuing to p. 125 we find a paragraph of other things for which ratification is NOT applicable, and that list includes actions "in violation of its own bylaws, except that a provision for a quorum in the bylaws does not prevent it from ratifying action taken at a meeting when no quorum was present." If the action resulting from the invalid electronic meeting was, in and of itself, a bylaw violation, then it cannot be later ratified. We have a bylaw saying that the presidential ticket nomination must happen at a convention, and we cannot use ratify to cure the defect of it having happened some other way. As I noted above, some event called by the LNC in which the agenda is limited by the LNC is not a convention. 3) Next theory, "Well, I just think we should do it and ratify it later. There are two states which have something to be done before July 15, and we can argue that we had to. Our delegates will ratify it anyway, and we all move on." <START POLITICAL COMMENT> Though I do not know the status of all legal plans in the background, we have obtained some relief already in other states, and I do HOPE that the reason it seems we haven't yet sought judicial relief in those states is so that the plight of these two states can be leverage to influence our decision here. Even more so, I hope we've already started seeking relief and I'm just not aware of it yet.<END POLITICAL COMMENT> Please note that the RONR description of a motion to ratify says, "The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly." I've heard it theorized on social media that the action taken at the electronic event would be presumed valid until our delegates voted on the motion to ratify, but RONR clearly says otherwise. It says the action is NOT valid until it is ratified. Remember the risk warning given in the Q&A above. In the meantime we'd be putting our national officers and/or officers in those two affiliates (depending on paperwork req'd by that state) in the position of submitting paperwork to the state government attesting to something that isn't valid because it hasn't yet been ratified. I am not an attorney, but this option does not seem to me that it would eliminate risk related to these two states. It is not a given that the delegates at a later in-person real convention WOULD agree to ratify the decision made in the not-a-convention event. RONR notes they are not obligated to. If attendance at the real convention reflects a preference for a different candidate, they might turn around and nominate someone else. Then some states might have proceeded with placing Candidate A from the not-convention event on the ballot, and other states will place Candidate B from the real convention on the ballot. I just don't see things down this path that stand up to scrutiny. I think that to try to reduce risk in 2 states, we're creating risk in 50 states + DC. -Alicia

2 1

Site presentations
by Sam Goldstein 08 May '20

08 May '20

The Convention Oversight Committee wants to know if the LNC would like presentations at our meeting tomorrow from the various venues we are considering for the postponed physical convention approved by the committee last weekend. The presenters should be able to answers questions about what steps their venue will take to protect the safety of our delegates in addition to those about their bids. Please respond as soon as possible so we can get them scheduled. Thanks and Live Free, -- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee Convention Oversight Committee 317-850-0726 Cell

11 10

Recent Comments Concerning My Representation of the LNC
by Oliver Hall 08 May '20

08 May '20

Dear Libertarian National Committee Members: I generally refrain from posting to this list unless it relates to LNC legal matters, but Ms. Harlos' recent comments pertaining to me require a response. First, Ms. Harlos has suggested that it was improper for me to render a legal opinion on whether the LNC bylaws permit an online convention, and that I am "in danger of malpractice" for rendering the opinion that I did. That is incorrect. As counsel to the LNC, I am routinely called upon to construe contracts and other legal instruments and to provide legal opinions about them. My retainer agreement with the LNC expressly states that one of my duties is to "Construe the Libertarian Party Bylaws and other governing documents of the LNC." That is what I did here. In addition, the legal opinion that I gave is based on a careful review of the Bylaws, relevant provisions of Roberts Rules and other authorities, including the written opinion of a professional parliamentarian. My conclusion that the Bylaws do not prohibit an online convention is consistent with the text of the Bylaws, which are silent on the matter, and supported by the foregoing authorities. Furthermore, my conclusion was narrowly tailored: my opinion states that such a construction of the Bylaws is "disfavored" and should not be adopted except in emergency circumstances. Disagreement with that conclusion does not justify mischaracterizing it as malpractice. I should also emphasize that I did not and would not advocate for any of the options the LNC is considering. Instead, I reviewed each option and identified the legal issues and risks that each one raises. That is what the LNC retained me to do, and I have been doing it in multiple contexts for nearly five years. I represent the entire LNC. As such, I have a duty of loyalty to the LNC. I would never betray that duty. Any suggestion that I have committed malpractice, or that I would breach my duty of loyalty to my client, the Libertarian National Committee, is a serious accusation. It is also wrong, as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. That such accusations were made in a public forum is gravely disappointing to me. More important, it is a distraction at a time when I should be focusing on the critical legal work that the LNC and state party affiliates nationwide need me to do. It remains my honor and privilege to serve the LNC as your counsel, and I look forward to returning to that work immediately. Thank you for your time and consideration. -Oliver

4 6

Electronic Balloting For POTUS/VP
by joshua.smith＠lp.org 08 May '20

08 May '20

12 28

tomorrow's meeting
by Caryn Ann Harlos 08 May '20

08 May '20

Mr. Phillips put the LNC on notice that he is going to immediately move to executive session. Mr. Fishman can you preemptively set up a breakout room for that purpose since they cannot be set up on the fly? * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *

2 2

interpreting "place" of convention to be virtual
by Alicia Mattson 08 May '20

08 May '20

<NS> It is my ruling as Chair, and supported by the opinion of the Libertarian National Committee's special counsel, Oliver Hall, that “place” in the bylaws can mean a virtual convention in the situation where it is impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the party to travel to a physical location. As such, a virtual convention held on Memorial Day weekend would be a proper convention and compliant with the bylaws.</NS> Though there is no pending question before us to give cause for a ruling, let's suppose that there is intent to make a motion on Saturday which would give such occasion, and this is the ruling we hear from the chair. I know the chair will cut me off before I could say all of this in a meeting, so I'll hope you'll consider my thinking in advance. 1) When the argument is that we should make an interpretation, it is important to not stop reading RONR passages too early. RONR p. 588 - 591 gives some "principles of interpretation" and I hear lots of people quote the beginning of #1, "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws" and then stop reading there. Usually the arguments come from ignoring the first three sentences of the paragraph, but in this case let's focus on the fourth sentence. "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. When the meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation. If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with the other bylaws. ..." Also note principle #2, "When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning." Is it harmonious with our other bylaws to say that "place" includes an online convention? Well, our bylaws adopt RONR, which as I have noted before on RONR p. 97, "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present." With that in our parliamentary authority, if our bylaws do not authorize it, then our bylaws inherently prohibit it, and a bylaw amendment would have to be adopted to authorize it. Our bylaws also say that the LNC meets "at such times and places as may be determined by...," yet we understood we needed to put separate and clear language into our bylaws to allow electronic meetings for boards and committees. Principle of interpretation #4 would apply here to say that listing certain things serves to prohibit other things of the same class, so authorizing electronic meetings only for boards and committees would preclude it for conventions. We did not adopt language to authorize it for conventions, and interpreting the word "place" regarding the calling of conventions is certainly not sufficient to do it. We have other phrases in our bylaws which only exist with a physical location convention hall, such as: - "All members must wear the identification badge issued upon registration in order to be admitted to the Convention hall." (what must I wear to the virtual convention?) - our bylaws speak of delegates, "who are temporarily or permanently absent from the floor" (cyberspace does not have a floor, but convention halls do) - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, the 30-token rule for nominations involves the "affixing of signatures to a nominating petition" which is a physical interaction - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, it calls for voice votes which are absurd in an electronic meeting There are likely other instances, but you get the point that the interpretation of "place" as being virtual is NOT in harmony with other bylaws/rules which are physical in nature. I don't see that the principles of interpretation really give us a path to interpret that "place" includes a virtual meeting. 2) Let's get more basic than that, though. On PAGE ONE, we see that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of RONR begins (caps added by me for emphasis), "A deliberative assembly - the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law is generally understood to apply - has the following distinguishing characteristics: [...] The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for SIMULTANEOUS AURAL COMMUNICATION AMONG ALL PARTICIPANTS." RONR p. 97 repeats the thought that an electronic meeting, "does not lose its character as a deliberative assembly (see pp. 1–2) so long as the meetings provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area." RONR p. 5 (beginning principle) lists principal types of deliberative assemblies as including a convention. If there's no simultaneous aural communication, it's not a deliberative assembly, and it's not a convention. Besides the other serious problems, the Zoom-webinar which was tested earlier this week did NOT allow for simultaneous aural communication among all participants. The configuration is designed for information to only flow one direction, and all others merely observe. Delegates were only allowed to hear each other speak when the chair permitted it. Nor could we use the chat room to communicate directly with each other. We couldn't see who, or even how many were "present." By and large we had no idea what other delegates were doing. This configuration fails to meet a mandatory requirement of a deliberative assembly. It so egregiously undermines the ability of the delegates to exercise their fundamental rights. Each delegate was in an isolation cage, limited to information the chair decided to give us. That was not a valid deliberative assembly, was not a meeting of a deliberative assembly, and could not be a convention. The delegates have not ceded their rights in this way. When a subset of LNC members first evaluated electronic meeting options for boards/committees, we thoroughly evaluataed the ability of participants to know the status of other participants. Are they in the meeting at all? Is their microphone muted? Can the participants see whose hands were raised so we know who is being ignored? These features were very important to prevent a participant from being admin-blocked from participation. The Zoom-webinar configuration bulldozes all of those participant protections as well. I'm going to need something more concrete than "These aren't the droids you are looking for," to be convinced that the chair's ruling is correct, and I would enthusiastically vote to overturn such a ruling. -Alicia

5 10

Re: [Lnc-business] [COC 2018-20] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration
by Whitney Bilyeu 08 May '20

08 May '20

The COC's job is to plan a convention, in accordance with bylaws. The LNC is responsible for final decisions. No one is being forced to do anything, especially by the COC. It is not the COC's job to suggest a convention plan that is not in line with bylaws. The COC's job is to put together plans, offer options for the LNC to choose, and make suggestions where applicable. The LNC could have moved to change plans at any time...it didn't. The LNC could have voted this past Saturday to do something other than postpone......It didn't. If an LNC member wants something other than an in-person convention, in accordance with bylaws, they should move such. The LNC will decide.....again. On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:36 AM BetteRose via Conventions < conventions(a)hq.lp.org> wrote: > I believe it was the LNC that voted for the in person convention. The CoC > may have 'pushed' for that outcome but we didn't make the final decision. > > My concern is, that as deaths continue to rise we may again have to find > another venue and move the convention once again. This will be hard on > most of the delegates and won't play well in the press. I see that the > Democrats are already having trouble with that same issue. > > BetteRose Ryan > Publisher > Bent Briar Publishing <http://www.bentbriarbooks.com/> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alicia Mattson via Conventions <conventions(a)hq.lp.org> > To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> > Cc: Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson(a)lp.org>; Convention Oversight > Committee <conventions(a)hq.lp.org> > Sent: Sun, May 3, 2020 11:34 pm > Subject: Re: [COC 2018-20] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC > Consideration > > Well, I meant to send that to the COC email list, but I was going to come > here and say pretty much the same thing. > > From this forwarded message below, Valerie Sarwark wrote to us: "The > Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing suppression of > delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention." > > Force? Suppression of delegates? Those of differing opinions are > attempting to achieve their desired result, too. Is that force? > > We're getting a lot of email these days, and it's easy to skim and miss > details, so I wanted to highlight this. The demonizing of the COC is as > shameful as it is absurd. > > -Alicia > > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:28 PM Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson(a)lp.org> > wrote: > > Forwarding for those of you not on the LNC. The rhetoric being spewed > about the COC is becoming more and more outrageous. There was quite a bit > of it flung around during the Bylaws and Rules Committee meeting today as > well... > > -Alicia > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business* <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> > Date: Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:01 PM > Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration > To: <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> > Cc: <justin.odonnell(a)lp.org> > > > Attached is a letter to the LNC from a Region 8 Member and New Hampshire > delegate for the LNC's consideration. > > Justin O'Donnell > LNC Region 8 Representative > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Valerie Sarwark > Date: May 3, 2020 2:55 PM > Subject: Request for LNC Consideration > To: Justin.Odonnell(a)lp.org > Cc: Pat.Ford(a)lp.org > > Justin, > > As my regional representative, please forward this letter to the LNC > business list. > > Pat, > > Thank you for your responsible "no" vote in yesterday's meeting. > > > **** > Dear Members of the Board, > I am a delegate to the National Convention representing the state of New > Hampshire. This is the third convention to which I have the great privilege > of serving as a delegate. > I would like you to strongly consider retaining the original convention > dates and move to an electronic business meeting. The nomination of > presidential ticket and LNC positions should be filled as soon as possible > to ensure we have the strongest start to Election Day (which is only 180 > days from now). > The Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing suppression > of delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention. The country is > in the middle of a pandemic with many states not even open for gatherings > of over 10 people. The country is in the middle of an economic collapse > with millions unemployed and unable to pay rent. You are now asking these > people to somehow rearrange their schedules, spend more money and > potentially put their lives at risk. > In addition to the financial constraints on many of our delegates (the > majority of which are dues-paying members of the party), you are not > considering those affected by scheduling as far as their children. I have > spent YEARS as active as possible and trying to make the party a more > welcoming place for families. Although both my husband and I have been able > to work through this time, it seems financially irresponsible to drag the > entire family to a yet-to-be-determined site. With so many that are in the > same situation (or potentially worse off), would you feel comfortable > asking them to go into debt just so they can have their voices heard? > We’ve all blocked this time. We’re all ready for this meeting. We all want > to participate but we are now being told that we have to reschedule > everything within a couple of weeks. We are in the middle of an emergency > and forcing people to shuffle their schedules, lives, and finances around > is quite ridiculous. This isn’t about courage or principles. This is about > doing the best thing for the delegates that represent the party. Other > political meetings with greater participants have already occurred. > Shouldn’t we show the world that we are serious, considerate, innovative > and ready to adapt? > The best choice for some is not the best choice for all. An online > convention, held Memorial Day weekend, will not exclude delegates. You need > to consider the right thing to do for ALL of the delegates. > > Sincerely, > Valerie A. Sarwark > > > _______________________________________________ > Conventions mailing list > Conventions(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions > _______________________________________________ > Conventions mailing list > Conventions(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions >

11 24

Seeking co-sponsors for Resolution re: lockdowns and govt response to COVID-19
by Caryn Ann Harlos 07 May '20

07 May '20

Mr. Longstreth and Mr. Smith have already signed on. One more co-sponsor is needed. Whereas governmental bodies in the ongoing COVID-19 crisis have stepped beyond their rightful powers, and Whereas no person or organization can claim to hold the principles of liberty in times of peace and plenty who does not hold them as firmly in times of emergency, Be it therefore resolved that the Libertarian National Committee make known its opposition to tyranny in humanitarian’s clothing, affirming that: No "emergency," whether declared or undeclared, shall be used as a pretext or justification for the limitation of any of the rights and freedoms of the individual, or for the expansion of the powers of government or any of its agencies, representatives, or member institutions. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *

6 5