Thank you, John. Although I don't expect it to change my stance on censure, I will give it a read and due consideration before voting. I'm glad you decided to share a redacted version, if the comments about the Nevada LP in the original were things that were better left unsaid in such a statement. I've included your attachment in this message so you don't have to send it to other LNC members separately, and as plain text at the bottom of the email for those who would rather read it in that form than open a separate document. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:22 AM, John Moore wrote:

Here is a redacted copy for you

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote: John,

If you do not choose to send a redacted statement, then I feel you leave me little choice but to rely on your original statement and make that public, because I would like to be informed at least to your immediate rationale for the votes in question, and I do not agree that this rationale should be hidden from our members. Although Tim may have told you (or he may not have, I am not sure) that he would keep the statement secret in accord with your wishes, I have made no such promise.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 4:08 PM, John Moore wrote:

...

Hi Tim,

Please pass on to members of the LNC,

I have no intention of sending a redacted statement. I have been present on two different occasions when the LNC used the "Executive session" to discuss issues in confidence and behind closed doors. This is no different in my view. If members choose not to read my statement that is their choice however they would then be casting a vote without being educated or having all of the facts.

It appears that the LNC has and is using a "Double Standard"

Thanks, John Moore Nevada State Assembly

On Oct 30, 2016 3:46 PM, "John Moore" <john.moore@lpnevada.org> wrote: Hi Starchild,

The LNC as well as every other political organization use the "Executive session" to discuss issues in confidence behind closed doors so I consider my statement to the LNC in that manner.

Thanks, John John Moore Nevada State Assembly

On Oct 30, 2016 12:27 PM, "Starchild" <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote: You're welcome John, and good to hear from you. Not infrequently when someone asks to tell me something in confidence, I will let them know it's better that they not tell me, because I don't want to be bound to keeping something secret if it turns out to be something that I think ought to be made public, not to mention it means more mental work for me to try to keep track of what I'm not supposed to tell others!

When it comes to representative organizations (of which the Libertarian Party is one), I believe in institutional transparency. I think secrecy is way overused, to the detriment of our party. Circumstances in which some members of a group have access to information that others do not tends to create a two-tiered or multi-tiered group in which insiders have more power, and that is anathema to bottom-up governance. One of the faults of party leadership, in my view, is that we have often been too insular and too much of the opinion that we can't trust ordinary LP members with information.

If you feel it is productive to share your views about the Nevada LP leadership with members of the LNC, my opinion is that other party members also ought to have the benefit of hearing those views, and that if you feel they cannot productively be shared with members of the public, then it is probably not productive to share them with the LNC either and I would suggest you redact them from your statement before you send it to us. Please note that I'm not arguing either for redaction or for sharing with the world in this case – not knowing what you may have to say, there's no way for me to know whether I would consider it in the best interests of the party and movement that you keep this information to yourself, or make it known to a wider audience.

But if we were to agree to accept your statement on the condition of keeping it secret, we would be putting ourselves in the position of receiving negative input about other Libertarian Party members without those members knowing what was being said about them or having any opportunity to respond to the points being made, and that does not seem fair or desirable. If Nevada LP officials had come to us while we were debating whether to donate to your campaign, and given us information critical of you but asked that we keep it secret, my response would have been similar.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 5:30 AM, John Moore wrote:

...

Thank you starchild for your response to my statement. The reason I have it marked as "confidential" is for the statements that I made regarding the Nevada Libertarian party leadership. I respect your opinion and input on this issue.

Thanks, John Moore Nevada State Assembly

On Oct 29, 2016 11:11 PM, "Starchild" <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote: Thanks Tim, that answers my question (i.e. he didn't say why he wants secrecy). Since votes on the motion are due Monday but that being Halloween I might forget if I wait until the last day, I'll probably vote tomorrow evening. If you (or John) have sent me the attached documents by then, I'll read them and take what he has to say into consideration when voting.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF

...

...

On Oct 29, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:

...

This is the e-mail I received from John Moore, but with the attachments removed. The documents attached started with a statement that he considers it to be a confidential document to be shared only with the Libertarian National Committee as well as all contents of his statement.

Tim Hagan

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: John Moore <john.moore@lpnevada.org> To: Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

Hi Tim,

Please pass the attached documents to the LNC. Please do not disseminate the contents with anyone outside of the LNC.

Thanks, John Moore Nevada Assembly

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr@yahoo.com> wrote: John,

As you've probably already heard, many Libertarians are disappointed and perplexed about your votes during the special session. Caryn Ann Harlos is moving the motion below in the Libertarian National Committee concerning your votes in support of tax increases. Let me know if you have anything you wish me to pass on to the LNC. She and her co-sponsors are asking for an e-mail ballot, so the debate and votes will be via e-mail during the next ten days.

Thanks, Tim Hagan

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@ hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:45 PM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-- 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 Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

<LNC Document Redacted.pdf>

To the Libertarian National Committee, I will address your concerns with how I voted on the two bills during the Special Session. The "more cops tax" Please get your facts correct before you or anyone else makes false statements. Not one member of the Nevada Assembly voted to increase any tax regarding the 'More cops tax" This bill only gave the Clark County commissioners permission if THEY CHOOSE to increase the sales tax in Clark County. It was an ENABLING bill NOT a tax increase of any sort. To date no tax increase has been done. So please once again, get your facts correct, don't play on words. The Convention center expansion / Stadium issue. I stand by my deciding vote 100% I polled 47% (13,000 people) out of 28,000 active voters in my district to see how they felt about the issue, 62% supported it 36% did not support it and 2% had no opinion of it. I represent FIRST and foremost the people of my district and not a political party. I have never and will never put party objectives above the will of the people that I represent. By choosing to censure me you are in FACT forcing your will upon me and everyone that does not agree with you. How is that true freedom or Liberty? NAP? Where were all of the Libertarians when it came time to testify during the Assembly hearings that were held during the special session? Only two, count them, two people from the libertarian party testified at the Assembly hearings. Even the Nevada state party chairman who was present chose not to testify before the Assembly. This bill will put thousands of out of work Nevadans back to work during the life of the construction of the stadium and the convention center expansion, 3-5 years. The expansion of the convention center is a must as Las Vegas is running out of convention space and many of the major conventions have stated that they will be forced to leave and go someplace else. CES for example brings over $160 million dollars to the Las Vegas local economy when they are here. That is not a small amount. When Governor Sandoval called me the morning of the vote to discuss the bill, I informed him that the vote would be very close but that I felt it did not have the votes to pass at the time of the conversation, however he had another proclamation waiting in case the measure failed and he would call us right back into another special session and this time the bill would only need a majority to pass instead of a two thirds majority. It would be an enabling bill and it would be exactly the same as the more cops bill, meaning it would give the Clark County Commission the authority to pass it if they chose to. This bill was going to pass with or without my deciding vote. This bill does not effect any Nevadian unless that person chooses to stay in a hotel and then the increase is approx. $1.25 per day. Please do not try and put forth the argument that indigent folks that stay in weekly hotels will be punished as a result. Some people tried to argue that those folks can not afford the deposits to rent an apartment or a house and that is why they are so called “forced” to stay in a weekly hotel. Even the weekly hotels charge a deposit prior to any stay. My response to those that find my deciding vote so “reprehensible” is this, Please do not attend any NFL game, UNLV game, concert or any other event that will be held at the stadium. Also do not patronize any business that may be built in and around the stadium as a result of the stadium being built. Do not attend any conventions that will be held at the convention center as a result of the expansion. Do not take any job that may be offered as a result of the stadium or convention center expansion because then you would be receiving a direct benefit of the very thing that you find so “reprehensible” and that would make you a true hypocrite. “Practice what you preach” You don't get to have it both ways. I hope this lengthy explanation helps you to understand my thought process and my deciding vote of which I stand by 100%. Thank you for your time, John Moore Nevada State Assembly