I am speaking with Nevada. I will be putting forth a new resolution. Or I may just put the original back up at our next meeting and urge supporters to attend in person to speak to the LNC personally if they can afford to travel to do so. I believe yours, while better than silence, is too weak and the last part is an unacceptable insertion of an LNC philosophical dispute. These are people's lives. A strong statement is needed. I'm truly disappointed we did not back up the affiliates who sent us a clear signal. Let's keep the LNC political games out of this. - Caryn Ann On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 2:26 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear that this is specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.

What do you propose for language?

Joshua A. Katz

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

I will co-sponsor the resolution but not the directive which frankly is a back door attempt for your prior push for us to be a DC lobbying group and an inappropriate insertion into this. No bueno.

Please divide this.

I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear that this is specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there are very few circumstances where it makes sense for the LNC to make public policy resolutions. However, such is appropriate when done in response to current events not addressed in our platform, and where there might be confusion as to whether or not our communications staff are empowered to express a position. I think the Cuba situation qualifies but, as I said, I was concerned by the wording of the proposal. I have made a new proposal below. I seek either cosponsors or proposed edits.

*Motion:* The Libertarian National Committee expresses concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. We further ask the U.S. government's State Department to place diplomatic pressure on the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges. We further ask that the State Department pressure for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention.

Finally, staff is directed to make use of, and build, relationships with staff at the State Department, staff employed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the House and Senate, and staff of the members of said committees, in order to transmit and lobby for the above requests.

Joshua A. Katz

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Because of the political games my colleagues seem to be playing I will be voting no on all future motions regarding this matter. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 25, 2017, at 3:56 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I echo Caryn Ann’s sentiments. Despite the politically-correct-speak tone of the revised wording, the first paragraph below appears to be more technically correct. I may co-sponsor but ONLY if the second non-germane and inappropriate second paragraph is moved to a separate motion where straight talk about the motive for this backdoor maneuver would open the door for serious discussion. I will wait for Caryn Ann’s new resolution before making a decision on co-sponsoring the revised version below.

Thanks to Sam’s suggestion to solicit input from affiliates, I received the attached response from Ed Wright, stalwart Iowa Libertarian and former LPIA chair. Re and I look forward to seeing Ed and Carla again in Des Moines at the March 25th 2017 LPIA state convention where we will celebrate Iowa’s inspirational achievement of major party status in the November 2016 elections.

Thoughts?

~David

Dec 10-13 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE

~David Pratt Demarest LNC Region 6 Representative Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 3:15 PM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Cuba proposal

I will co-sponsor the resolution but not the directive which frankly is a back door attempt for your prior push for us to be a DC lobbying group and an inappropriate insertion into this. No bueno.

Please divide this.

I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear that this is specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: I think there are very few circumstances where it makes sense for the LNC to make public policy resolutions. However, such is appropriate when done in response to current events not addressed in our platform, and where there might be confusion as to whether or not our communications staff are empowered to express a position. I think the Cuba situation qualifies but, as I said, I was concerned by the wording of the proposal. I have made a new proposal below. I seek either cosponsors or proposed edits.

Motion: The Libertarian National Committee expresses concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. We further ask the U.S. government's State Department to place diplomatic pressure on the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges. We further ask that the State Department pressure for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention.

Finally, staff is directed to make use of, and build, relationships with staff at the State Department, staff employed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the House and Senate, and staff of the members of said committees, in order to transmit and lobby for the above requests.

Joshua A. Katz

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

<Untitled attachment 00931.txt> <mime-attachment> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

We do not have a structure in place to do so and said structure is properly the subject of a separate discussion - which discussion has been on - and removed from - two separate meeting agendas. If such discussion and plans were important enough to be on two in-person meeting agendas that is where they belong - not backdoored in a resolution. There is no reason to shove it here. It could very easily be divided. -Caryn Ann On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

If a child went missing while walking home from school, what would be a more effective response by the parents:

1) Write a strongly worded chest-pounding resolution demanding that the child re-appear on the doorstep. Or,

2) Enlist the help of others to search for the child.

What is so offensive about suggesting we try to develop relationships that could potentially have real-world impact on the things we say are so important to us?

It may give us an emotional buzz to make pretty speeches demanding change, but what about actually changing the process so there is no longer a need to make the pretty speeches?

-Alicia

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

I will co-sponsor the resolution but not the directive which frankly is a back door attempt for your prior push for us to be a DC lobbying group and an inappropriate insertion into this. No bueno.

Please divide this.

I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear that this is specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there are very few circumstances where it makes sense for the LNC to make public policy resolutions. However, such is appropriate when done in response to current events not addressed in our platform, and where there might be confusion as to whether or not our communications staff are empowered to express a position. I think the Cuba situation qualifies but, as I said, I was concerned by the wording of the proposal. I have made a new proposal below. I seek either cosponsors or proposed edits.

*Motion:* The Libertarian National Committee expresses concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. We further ask the U.S. government's State Department to place diplomatic pressure on the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges. We further ask that the State Department pressure for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention.

Finally, staff is directed to make use of, and build, relationships with staff at the State Department, staff employed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the House and Senate, and staff of the members of said committees, in order to transmit and lobby for the above requests.

Joshua A. Katz

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Indeed, let's not play games with a real political situation. Scrolling back a few emails, I see a back and forth about the word "demand." To make demands upon those who will not learn of the demand, I consider to be game-playing. I oppose this practice of adopting resolutions that contain no provision for addressing the situation. It was asked earlier how we would deal with this resolution if it were our family or ourselves (possibly) unjustly detained. I'll answer that one - I would have no interest in words from the LNC, no matter how strong or weak, whether phrased as a demand or a request, whether verifiable or not verifiable - if there were no hope of those words impacting the facts. Such a resolution of condolences is appropriate for an ideological steering committee or other entity, but not for the board of a political party. If the board of a political party wished to speak up for me, in that situation, I'd ask - perhaps demand - that they take steps that could spring me, or else, respectfully, leave me alone. I cannot speak for these detainees, of course, but that is what I'd want in their shoes. Adopting pretty and ineffective language doesn't change the world. If you want to make demands of the State Department, you need to go to the State Department and convey that demand. While LNC-business is thrilling reading, I expect that no one at the State Department reads it - the NSA, maybe, but we're not making demands of them at the moment. And, yes, people listen better if they first know who the hell you are, who you represent, and why you're talking to them. I will vote no on any resolution that amounts to, in my view, a shout in the wilderness, intended for no one but our own members to hear. This party needs to speak with the intent of being heard, it needs to use its DC location to make its words relevant, or else we do a disservice even to those for whom we presume to speak. Either we are dealing with this because we want these men freed, or because we want to be seen wanting these men freed. If we are to speak, and I think we need to do so cautiously since, as has been freely discussed here, we don't know the facts, I prefer it be of the former type. That is, most likely, the last I will have to say on that subject unless and until I see another motion on the subject, unless I receive other edits or cosponsors. I will, despite my misgivings, count myself as a potential "sponsor" on a motion that consists of the first paragraph of my proposal, if others wish to cosponsor that. Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

Joshua to answer your specific question, I do not have specific language for that part, and I find that part completely mute unless a resolution passes, and I believe it properly the topic of discussion at an in-person LNC meeting as part of a larger discussion as has been debated before. IF we were to do one for this resolution it would be very specific to this resolution and not involve this larger structuring of "developing relationships" etc which speaks of a larger term focus change which you have been advocating for, and multiple others have opposed and thus so out of step with the narrow purpose of speaking on the issue of these jailed men.

I will vote no on any backdoor attempts. Let's not play games with a real political situation. The lobbying question is an important one that must be had separately and apart and in the larger context of the purpose of our Party, what our relationships should be with the old parties on the hill etc.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

We do not have a structure in place to do so and said structure is properly the subject of a separate discussion - which discussion has been on - and removed from - two separate meeting agendas. If such discussion and plans were important enough to be on two in-person meeting agendas that is where they belong - not backdoored in a resolution.

There is no reason to shove it here. It could very easily be divided.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

If a child went missing while walking home from school, what would be a more effective response by the parents:

1) Write a strongly worded chest-pounding resolution demanding that the child re-appear on the doorstep. Or,

2) Enlist the help of others to search for the child.

What is so offensive about suggesting we try to develop relationships that could potentially have real-world impact on the things we say are so important to us?

It may give us an emotional buzz to make pretty speeches demanding change, but what about actually changing the process so there is no longer a need to make the pretty speeches?

-Alicia

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

I will co-sponsor the resolution but not the directive which frankly is a back door attempt for your prior push for us to be a DC lobbying group and an inappropriate insertion into this. No bueno.

Please divide this.

I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear that this is specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there are very few circumstances where it makes sense for the LNC to make public policy resolutions. However, such is appropriate when done in response to current events not addressed in our platform, and where there might be confusion as to whether or not our communications staff are empowered to express a position. I think the Cuba situation qualifies but, as I said, I was concerned by the wording of the proposal. I have made a new proposal below. I seek either cosponsors or proposed edits.

*Motion:* The Libertarian National Committee expresses concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. We further ask the U.S. government's State Department to place diplomatic pressure on the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges. We further ask that the State Department pressure for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention.

Finally, staff is directed to make use of, and build, relationships with staff at the State Department, staff employed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the House and Senate, and staff of the members of said committees, in order to transmit and lobby for the above requests.

Joshua A. Katz

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

===his party needs to speak with the intent of being heard, it needs to use its DC location to make its words relevant, or else we do a disservice even to those for whom we presume to speak. === Precisely my objection. You concede this is a backdoor into your vision proposal. Completely not appropriate for this motion. I would reluctantly co-sponsor the first paragraph only. It is too weak in tone but better than nothing. I am seeking an alternate wording from the Nevada friend and affiliate board member who solicited my initial support. -Caryn Ann On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:09 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

The subject of how to put into effect once passed is properly a different subject - one you have attend ed before and was opposed. Backdooring it in this way is inappropriate gamesmanship when it can easily be divided. Insisting on it in one swoop is not proper if the concern is to do actually do something in way this body will be confuryabkd with.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:06 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, let's not play games with a real political situation. Scrolling back a few emails, I see a back and forth about the word "demand." To make demands upon those who will not learn of the demand, I consider to be game-playing. I oppose this practice of adopting resolutions that contain no provision for addressing the situation. It was asked earlier how we would deal with this resolution if it were our family or ourselves (possibly) unjustly detained. I'll answer that one - I would have no interest in words from the LNC, no matter how strong or weak, whether phrased as a demand or a request, whether verifiable or not verifiable - if there were no hope of those words impacting the facts. Such a resolution of condolences is appropriate for an ideological steering committee or other entity, but not for the board of a political party. If the board of a political party wished to speak up for me, in that situation, I'd ask - perhaps demand - that they take steps that could spring me, or else, respectfully, leave me alone. I cannot speak for these detainees, of course, but that is what I'd want in their shoes.

Adopting pretty and ineffective language doesn't change the world. If you want to make demands of the State Department, you need to go to the State Department and convey that demand. While LNC-business is thrilling reading, I expect that no one at the State Department reads it - the NSA, maybe, but we're not making demands of them at the moment. And, yes, people listen better if they first know who the hell you are, who you represent, and why you're talking to them.

I will vote no on any resolution that amounts to, in my view, a shout in the wilderness, intended for no one but our own members to hear. This party needs to speak with the intent of being heard, it needs to use its DC location to make its words relevant, or else we do a disservice even to those for whom we presume to speak. Either we are dealing with this because we want these men freed, or because we want to be seen wanting these men freed. If we are to speak, and I think we need to do so cautiously since, as has been freely discussed here, we don't know the facts, I prefer it be of the former type.

That is, most likely, the last I will have to say on that subject unless and until I see another motion on the subject, unless I receive other edits or cosponsors. I will, despite my misgivings, count myself as a potential "sponsor" on a motion that consists of the first paragraph of my proposal, if others wish to cosponsor that.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

Joshua to answer your specific question, I do not have specific language for that part, and I find that part completely mute unless a resolution passes, and I believe it properly the topic of discussion at an in-person LNC meeting as part of a larger discussion as has been debated before. IF we were to do one for this resolution it would be very specific to this resolution and not involve this larger structuring of "developing relationships" etc which speaks of a larger term focus change which you have been advocating for, and multiple others have opposed and thus so out of step with the narrow purpose of speaking on the issue of these jailed men.

I will vote no on any backdoor attempts. Let's not play games with a real political situation. The lobbying question is an important one that must be had separately and apart and in the larger context of the purpose of our Party, what our relationships should be with the old parties on the hill etc.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

We do not have a structure in place to do so and said structure is properly the subject of a separate discussion - which discussion has been on - and removed from - two separate meeting agendas. If such discussion and plans were important enough to be on two in-person meeting agendas that is where they belong - not backdoored in a resolution.

There is no reason to shove it here. It could very easily be divided.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

If a child went missing while walking home from school, what would be a more effective response by the parents:

1) Write a strongly worded chest-pounding resolution demanding that the child re-appear on the doorstep. Or,

2) Enlist the help of others to search for the child.

What is so offensive about suggesting we try to develop relationships that could potentially have real-world impact on the things we say are so important to us?

It may give us an emotional buzz to make pretty speeches demanding change, but what about actually changing the process so there is no longer a need to make the pretty speeches?

-Alicia

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

I will co-sponsor the resolution but not the directive which frankly is a back door attempt for your prior push for us to be a DC lobbying group and an inappropriate insertion into this. No bueno.

Please divide this.

I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear that this is specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.

- Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there are very few circumstances where it makes sense for the LNC to make public policy resolutions. However, such is appropriate when done in response to current events not addressed in our platform, and where there might be confusion as to whether or not our communications staff are empowered to express a position. I think the Cuba situation qualifies but, as I said, I was concerned by the wording of the proposal. I have made a new proposal below. I seek either cosponsors or proposed edits.

*Motion:* The Libertarian National Committee expresses concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. We further ask the U.S. government's State Department to place diplomatic pressure on the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges. We further ask that the State Department pressure for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention.

Finally, staff is directed to make use of, and build, relationships with staff at the State Department, staff employed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the House and Senate, and staff of the members of said committees, in order to transmit and lobby for the above requests.

Joshua A. Katz

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org