[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 18:50:25 EST 2018

Oh the courage to say a 14 year old girl is better to be impregnated by
potential perv with a good job than a fellow young innocent fumbling his
way through a foolish act.

Much brave.  Many whistle.  Wow.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
wrote:

> Well, let's see. Arvin has committed no crime, no violation of the SoP or
> bylaws and has not deserted to the enemy. His is being tried in public by
> some who think he has violated their personal moral code but primarily by
> those who are self-proclaimed political-correctness hypocrites who think it
> perfectly okay to misrepresent their personal dictates of conscience to
> achieve political goals, namely to avoid losing votes, a bad case of
> top-down get-elected-itis.
>
> This reminds me of McCarthyism but in reverse, persecution for being too
> Libertarian and risking scaring away voters, most of who could care less
> about Arvin. If you think carefully about it, Arvin is a whistle blower on
> those who are evading their responsibility to properly handle
> government-imposed moral dilemmas. Yes, indeedy, Arvin has made us very
> uncomfortable, and rightly so, for which we are persecuting him. Does the
> LNC want to achieve a reputation of punishing outspoken whistle blowers?
>
> Arvin was elected by convention delegates, not by the LNC. This motion
> usurps the power of the delegates, all in the name of bowing to LNC
> internal fearmongering, at best. We need to demonstrate our courage and do
> things the right way, not the lynch-mob way.
>
> On Jan 16, 2018 5:01 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>
> And say we suspend/remove him.  He will still be the Libertarian Senate
> Candidate for Maryland.  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded. That
> ship has sailed as the paperwork is filed with the Maryland Secretary of
> State.
>    Arvin’s not going to magically shut up if he gets suspended from the
> LNC.  He likely will see a greater need to “teach everyone what
> Libertarianism really is”.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> What solutions?  A resolution that satisfied no one and only let it happen
> again?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Tough decision and it will only get tougher if it goes to a vote that will
> result in perhaps irreparable repercussions to all on both sides of the
> issue. Not much happened last year when it died on the vine with no
> co-sponsors and gave everyone a chance to step back from the nuclear option
> abyss and saner minds space to work on solutions.
>
> On Jan 16, 2018 4:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I’m saying it’s interesting when this is brought up as a radical issue
> (not in this Body) yet the fact that the LNC member who might be one of the
> most visible radicals who in this case is the primary antagonist is missing
> from the narrative.
>
> Because it’s not as simple as that.
>
> We don’t need enemies.  We do it to ourselves.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed to,
> to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can happen
> to the Party.
>
> But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating for
> a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back up
> than if they are resolved, one way or the other.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>
> But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those angling
> for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t stop there.
> THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it won’t stop
> there.
>
> In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking about
> revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our original
> conversation and he said this:
>
> “ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating offenses
> with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them from a
> position of influence.”
>
>
> But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules and
> arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two
> years.. errr..
>
>
> This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick, including
> in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed), then they
> will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about what Arvin
> actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because it’s thirst
> is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for radicals other
> than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new saviors/overlords of
> the Party.
>
> Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the
> Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that
> discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and
> they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has
> pointed out this hypocrisy.
>
>
> Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who
> agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he
> actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.
>
> Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and those
> that took his head)? Who will start the purge?
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article that
> came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of one
> faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is from
> that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to
> mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical
> who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having
> the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.
>
> No. Bueno.
>
> All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist the
> chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will not
> address the parliamentary question.
>
> However, I wanted to second this:
>
> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat,
> I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair
> play.  *We need to stop that culture. * Now.
>
> This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a
> meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this
> tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> I have several concerns here.
>
> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this incident
> who - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a
> radical anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four,
> but only have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.  I
> don't need a 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with
> it now that two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may have
> a decision soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to
> co-sponsor as long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.  That
> protects minority voices.
>
> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat,
> I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair
> play.  *We need to stop that culture.  Now.*
>
> But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think the
> motion is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a
> cause.  Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
> MUST (if it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the
> form of a trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but
> that is my reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
> though it seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>
> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as being
> out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have some
> proposed cause language.
>
> Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality of
> purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding factor is
> the Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
> supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same is true
> for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> I spoke with the Chair of HI.  She supports removal.  Region 1: Utah (no);
> Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>
> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal opinion.  I
> don't have that much power.  But this is where the issue of us being
> elected for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my
> advice.  They can take it or not, but they want it.  And I advise them on
> how to protect their own state if the LNC does nothing.  That is my job.
>
> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>
> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin Vohra
> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian
> Party.  On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
> however the topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in
> discredit to the LP.
>
>
>
> This cannot continue.
>
>
>
> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers.  One role cannot
> exist at the expense of the other.  The LP is not a hermetic association
> for the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a political
> organization with the intent to guide and influence our government and
> citizenry.  All political correctness aside, earning the credibility to do
> this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our audience, the
> American people.  Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot understand this
> fundamental constraint.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> FYI - LPCO has an open email list.  Its time we heard the voices of our
> members - anyone can follow their discussion
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were persuasive.
>
> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting.  If this motion got four
> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full word from
> region 1 in ten days.  Not gonna happen.  So even though I suspect they
> will not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1 support.  A
> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know they can
> attend for public comment.
>
> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting).  I have
> three definite responses.  AZ asked to be recused.  AK is in favour of
> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).  UT
> opposes.  The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed
> in (FYI I recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting.  I also said in
> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a
> full hearing.  Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr.
> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question.  I
> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that
> consideration is due.  I believe motions get clearer and better
> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,
> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise
> motion.  (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be
> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is
> necessary.)  Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>
> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I ask the
> Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.  According to
> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate (but may
> vote against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate.  Our
> email ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion, the
> original maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors."  That notwithstanding,
> it is my understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder
> and may speak in debate against the motion.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin.  That percent was reached last night.
>
> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".
>
> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>
> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their voice that I represent.
>
> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
>
>
> --
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180116/b5c9b435/attachment.html>