ACTION ITEM - Protest to Free Julian Assange! Thursday 12/16, Noon-4pm / LPSF resolution supporting WikiLeaks?

There's going to be a protest for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange this Thursday:

WHEN: Thursday December 16, noon to 4pm
WHERE: 1 Sansome Street at Market, near the British consulate
DETAILS: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=110765495662010

    Given the international furor surrounding WikiLeaks and Assange, I expect strong media coverage.

  I had already been thinking it would be desirable for the LPSF to adopt a resolution in support of WikiLeaks, and this demonstration would be a perfect occasion to read such a resolution. Therefore I urge the LPSF officers to adopt a resolution ASAP. Here is a quick stab at some language, however I am open to suggestions for making it better:

I'm not an officer but support the resolution....

Mike

Dear Starchild;

The resolution as written would be better served if issued by the LNC as the
against the LPSF. Such a resolution by the LPSF requires all 4 Ex Comm members
to agree and I do believe for practical contact and response purposes Jawj is
out of the loop email wise.

Ron Getty

Dear All;

BTW: my first reaction to the proposed wikileaks resolution was that's great
now the LPSF can have an international policy just like the San Francisco Board
of Supervisors has an international policy. The same ho hum reaction would
happen as happens whenever the Board issues some resolution which never has a
thing to do with the problems ailing San Francisco.

Better yet do a opinion poll using Joomla or Zoomerang or Survey Monkey.

Ron Getty

Sorry Ron....regardless of the Liberty activity LPSF activists choose as their platform, it is the job of the LPSF ex-comm to support them as long as they operate within the non-aggression principle...which this so clearly does. And it is good marketing for the LPSF brand. Leaders of a group cannot criticize others for lack of activism when activists ask them for support and can't get it or have to fight for it.

And by the way....while "eyes may roll"...when the Board of Supervisors votes against war and other atrocities, I clap out loud not caring one bit if the issue exists outside of SF. What is right is right no matter where it originates. And there is enough in the realm of bad ideas out there good ones shouldn't be criticized because they don't have appropriate jurisdiction.

Now unless someone has a pretty good reason why the ex-comm can't support this...can we please get this done?

Mike

So Ron...are saying the LPSF Ex Con needs a little "enhancement" to rise to the occasion for Starchild's request? Is it being suggested the LPSF doesn't have what it takes to get this done so the request has to be forwarded to others more capable and appropriate than our LPSF? That would be VERY disappointing.

Mike

Dear Mike;

Lets say all 4 members of the Ex Comm agree on the wording of the resolution
without a lot of back and forth among all 4 ex comm and all 4 ex comms approve
to whom does this resolution get sent who will air it publish it broadcast it or
whatever?

As a matter of record some of the statements in Starchild's proposed Resolution
are in contravention of hard facts regarding Julian and his arrest and his
warrant for arrest issued by Interpol as well as the charges. See Lew Rockwell
for some of the actual facts surrounding the alleged sexual crimes and also
review Swedish law where the original charges were lodged. Also think honeypots
for entrapment.

If you are going to issue a resolution at least have the hard core base facts
correct.

My earlier statement regarding Jawj being basically out of the LPSF-activists
email loop still stands and she is one of the 4 votes required.

Ron Getty

Dear Mike;

see the earlier emails and following emails for a response. No enhancement is
required. As mentioned for the third time now Jawj who would be one of the 4
votes required is out of the basic lpsf-activists email loop based on personal
preferences regarding emails and a personal disdain towards emails and email
responses.

Ron Getty

Thank you Ron and your opinion is much appreciated…but if anyone has objections to the wording, then the appropriate response is to speak up…not kick the can to the LPC.

And if the ex-com is stuck because a member is unreachable, then it’s fault of the ex-com and perhaps the by-laws for not accommodating this. I realize all members are volunteers but there really needs to be something in our structure to accommodate situations like this.

And frankly, if the LPSF can’t make this happen after discussion and agreement regarding wording, regardless of Jawj’s being out of communication, then the case that government could get the right things done if only the right people had control goes right out the window. Anarchists 1 - Gradualist Libertarian Conservatives 0.

Ron and Starchild (and anyone else)….please discuss the wording and come to agreement. If Starchild wants to do the work needed to represent us, then LPSF should help him get the materials he needs to do that.

Any disagreements?

Mike

See message just sent…I would hope the LPSF ex-com is a little more “reality based” than Congress.

Mike

And if the ex-com is frozen due to the absence of a member, then I suggest we have an vote to fill the position temporarily while Jawj is incommunicado. I am personally running to be that substitute. If the leadership of the LPSF agrees and that the voting can take place via the activists list, then let’s please move forward.

Again….any objections?

Mike

Right now I am _SO_ happy to no longer be Chair. :slight_smile:

Rob

PS. I've told Angela Keaton that I'm willing to sign onto her /
Antiwar.com's efforts regarding Wikileaks. If LPSF can't do this, I
encourage all individual Libertarians to go to
http://wikileaksisdemocracy.org

PPS. So, Mike are you a member of LPC? Their bylaws require that all of our
officers be LPC members. And if you are, then why the heck weren't you
already serving as an officer? LPSF elections are January 8! :slight_smile:

Dear Mike;

When the Ex Comm was given authorization to make money or other decisions
outside of the LPSF business meeting the agreement was it had to be by all 4
members and all 4 agreeing. If you think such things should be less than 4 come
to a LPSF meeting and propose the change to less than 4.

Personally speaking I would vote against it and stand for the 4. As it is we are
very lucky to have Jawj agreeing to be secretary. So we wanted to have a
secretary as against none and secretary Jawj was not available for emergency ex
comm decisions then so be it.

If you want a secretary who would be ready willing and able to totally fulfill
all the duties then bring that person forward to the January elections meeting.
So long as they are a registered resident Libertarian voting in SF and sign the
non-agression agreement and pay their $25 bucks.

As far as the wording I do not have the time to do the necessary fact checking
and re-wording and getting an okay before thursday at noon.

If Starchild wants to present the resolution to the gathered crowd but leave out
the LPSF name he is free to do so and get crowd approval.

Ron Getty

Dear Mike;

Your temporary election resolution is out of order as the dues paying membership
would have to vote on it after being duly informed ahead of time as to the
material change in election by-laws and duties and responsibilities of an ex com
member. Which also would have to be in conjunction with State LPC by-laws.

No winging it allowed. ... :slight_smile:

Ron Getty

Now I am off to bed as I have to get up at 5:00 in the morning - Good Night To
All and Good Resolution To All.

Ron Getty

As I said…Anarchists 1 - Gradualist Libertarian Conservatives 0

Mike

Well Ron, and All, I have no prospects of being off to bed for a while, since I have a lot of work to catch up on. So, please excuse me for not jumping into this earlier.

Starchild, you seemed to agree with Jawj at our last meeting that this Activist List should not deal in decision making. We seemed to have agreed to discuss this subject, change bylaws, and all the rest -- in spite of my pleas that the Activist List as a platform for decision making is an essential tool of the LPSF.

Said that, I am assuming that if Jawj is to stay consistent, she will decline to allow a "vote" of the ExCom to make a decision on this resolution.

Thank you to Mike for offering to be ExCom member for a day. However, I do not feel that strategy would set a good precedent.

Now, my own personal idea about ExCom duties and Wikileaks: Good leadership would suggest that the ExCom use its ability to make decisions without vote at a meeting only when as a group the ExCom feels the majority of the membership would agree with the decision. I do not feel comfortable that this would be the case with this particular resolution.

Marcy

OK Ron…it is clear…the Ex-Com needs some “enhancement”.

By the way….I will have my own LTE published in this week’s issue of the SF Business Times to address this WikiLeaks issue. See below.

Mike

Mike,

I'd like to see this LTE on the LPSF website. Can you let me know when it's
available on the SF Business Times website?

Rob

According to the editor...it will be in this Friday's edition.

Mike