[Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for Motion to Censure

Thu Jun 16 14:06:49 EDT 2016

When I was a pre-teen, I recall forming a club with a few friends.  One of
our favorite activities, so far as I can remember, was kicking each other
out the club.  Ayn Rand had a similar club in NY.

Fast forward a few decades, and that's all in the past.  Now I join
organizations that are serious about their missions and accomplishments,
not petty infighting well described by the famous line "the fights are so
vicious because the stakes are so low."  Or, at least, that's what I could
hope, but apparently that hope was false.

Do you know what the currently-running promo for Steele and Ungar is?  They
usually run ads focusing on their theme of "we often disagree, but
sometimes we agree, and we're always civil."  Currently they are
illustrating that by running an ad with a voice-over about how they don't
always argue, and clips of various discussions they've had about Gary
Johnson and the LP, where they agreed - both were positive, both express a
desire to have Johnson in the debates, and both demand that he be included
in polls.

Meanwhile, Julie Mason did a full hour on her show last week about the LP.
Smerconish just the other day did a poll question - who is most likely to
be the next VP? - and prominently highlighted Weld when discussing the
options.  (Side note:  Smerconish said this morning that he had invited
Johnson and Weld to do an event with him and hadn't heard back, if someone
can pass that message on to the campaign.)

The nation is crying out for more options.  Disgust with the 2 criminal
parties has never been higher.  Polling data shows that people want a more
tolerant social policy (not more liberal) and a more responsible fiscal
policy (not more conservative).  Meanwhile, those in office, and the
candidates from the criminal parties, continue to push for more control and
less tolerance, every chance they get.  I oppose most gun control measures,
as do we all, but I'm far more concerned about current attempts to push for
the elimination of due process - which is the only way to get the right on
board with gun control: tie it into destruction of rights for the accused,
or to hatred of whatever group it is in vogue to hate.  Every event is
immediately answered with loud debate over whose rights to take away, and
how.

This is the perfect storm - a disparity between the rulers and the ruled, a
social milieu coming our direction, anger at the status quo.  It is our
job, as a board, to position that party to ride the current interest past
the Presidential election.  We have to turn the roof that is being blown at
us into a foundation without letting our walls collapse.  This is important
work, it is hard work, and it requires our primary attention.  However, it
is getting short shrift.  To an extent, this is understandable, since we
have time-critical ballot access concerns that are keeping most of us,
thankfully, away from our keyboards and out doing productive things.  It is
less understandable if we're going to set aside board governance tasks
for...whatever this is.

As Caryn said, I see little to nothing here that has anything to do with
the LNC.  Although few have noticed (cough), there's some disagreement
about how to handle certain other states.  We can all agree on one
fundamental premise, though - the LNC has nothing to say, other than to
disaffiliate a party, about the internal affairs of an affiliate that do
not impact the affiliate's relationship with the LNC.  Nothing that I can
see here has any bearing on the relationship between LA and the LNC.

There are two things, though, that I wish to comment on anyway.  First, I
am offended to see Richard Brown described as "Republican Brown."  There
are two implications here, both of them offensive.  Richard, who was the
parliamentarian for our national convention and did a great job, is being
labeled with his party affiliation, as a means of suggesting that he's some
sort of infiltrator.  He is nothing of the sort, and this blatant attack on
his professional impartiality is not just offensive, it also embarrassing.
The second implication is an attack on the parliamentary profession,
implying that the politics of a parliamentarian color their advice.  This
would imply that we have to always use Libertarian parliamentarians, which
is crude and reductive.

Second, I have no idea why, among these complaints, is listed the fact that
a campaign leader of some sort from another party felt that Wendy Adams was
interfering with their campaign.  We get that all the time - they usually
claim that we're messing things up for them by, well, existing.  Why on
earth would this party ever be asked to censure someone for harming a
campaign within a rival party - and with no evidence other than a complaint
letter?

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> LNC,
>
> A request has been made from Guy McLendon, a former LNC member and current
> LP member to put forth this motion to censure. In my role as a member of
> the LNC, I am forwarding this motion to be considered by mail ballot. I
> believe that it requires 3 additional cosponsors to go to a mail ballot. If
> you wish to cosponsor this motion for it to be considered by mail ballot,
> please indicate that to this list. The motion and supporting information
> follows:
>
> *********************************************
>
>
>
> Please motion on my behalf:  “Based upon evidence provided in the case
> ‘McLendon vs Hayes & Adams’, motion to censure Hayes for alleged blackmail,
> fraud and violations of the Libertarian principle of non-aggression, and to
> censure Adams for alleged violations of the Libertarian principle of
> non-aggression.”  Please forward this message to the LNC in its entirety
> with six attachments.
>
>
>
> Blackmail definition:
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blackmail
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail
>
>
>
> Fraud definition:
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
>
>
>
> When a LP member believes a credible risk is present that could threaten
> the integrity of our organization, and even the integrity of some aspects
> of our conventions, that member has a duty to blow the proverbial whistle.
> It’s my hope that you, the LNC & our members don’t condemn this messenger
> for requesting a motion to censure.
>
>
>
> Please consider these general questions about our organization when
> reviewing this material:
>
> ·         What's the value in having the pledge of non-aggression if we
> lack an internal judicial system capable of handling gross violations of
> the NAP against our own members?
>
> ·         Is the public court system the only recourse to LP internal
> victims?
>
>
>
> There are features of our recent 2016 National Convention that I perceive
> as very troublesome, but at this time I have insufficient hard evidence
> upon which to issue a formal complaint.  However, in convention planning
> meetings & teleconferences bullying tactics such as elevated voice levels
> have the potential to improperly influence decision making processes.
> Corroborating information is available upon request.
>
>
>
> Please protect the integrity of the LNC, and our national conventions.
>
>
>
> Respectfully yours in liberty,
>
> Guy McLendon
>
> Chairman Calcasieu Parish Louisiana
>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160616/a710b09b/attachment.html>