[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jan 17 12:06:50 EST 2018
Since you start off mischaracterizing what I said, I decline.
Further none of that is relevant to the point at hand. I think Alicia
pretty much took care of that cost benefit (to you) fallacy.
And I decline to use the state as a benchmark for anything.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:56 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ms. Harlos,
>
> There is a range of views on statutory rape. Your view, which considers it
> essentially identical to first degree rape, is not one I agree with, or one
> that the law agrees with, or one that historical precedent agrees with. My
> view, that it is a matter for family and not the state, is also not one
> that the law agrees with. So let's settle this like good anarchists and use
> the state as a benchmark.
>
> I'll use your state as a benchmark (assuming you still live in Colorado),
> but apply the view that taxation is theft.
>
> To consider the currrent item under discussion, I'll use your state as a
> benchmark. 12 years of public school involves taking $120,000 from others,
> often against their direct wishes, over their objections, without their
> consent. Morally, that's the equivalent of theft of that amount, which in
> Colorado carries jail of up to 12 years and a $750,000 fine.
>
> In colorado, an adult who has sex with a 15 year old faces no penalty.
>
> An adult who has sex with a 14 year old to whom her or she is marrried
> faces no penalty.
>
> An adult who has non-marital sex with a 14 year old faces 1-12 years in
> prison, and a $2000 to $500,000 fine.
>
> An adult who uses force, whether married or otherwise, faces first degree
> (not statutory) rape charges.
>
> -Arvin
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> So...... to hell with the 14 year old. It’s all about me and that’s how
>> I should present it to the world.
>>
>> Is it better she just voluntarily committ suicide? That’s real cheap.
>>
>> I am as opposed to theft as you are. It doesn’t mean that I view
>> everything as a math equation and think it just fine to say it’s better
>> something horrible happens to someone else.
>>
>> How about humans are not balance sheets? That both SUCK and don’t need
>> to be quantified.
>>
>> How many rapes equal one theft? How about theft of a penny? What
>> happened to proportionality? Or being opposed to the transfer of misery.
>> WTAF.
>>
>> See how ruthless that is?
>>
>> THAT IS NOT OUR MESSAGE. That might be a ruthless objectivism but the LP
>> split from that in its first years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all -
>>>
>>> Just to make sure people know my view on the issue that Caryn Ann
>>> brought up: I do consider forcing others to pay for your kids to be a
>>> nonconsensual act, completely morally unjustifiable.
>>>
>>> To put it in degree perspective:
>>>
>>> 1. It is done to a stranger.
>>> 2. There is no hint of consent.
>>> 3. There is often direct, vocal opposition.
>>> 4. The act is backed up with very real threats of force, including the
>>> threat of being locked in a rape cage by the state if you don't comply.
>>> Said rape cages are known for first degree, not statutory, rape.
>>>
>>> -Arvin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm I manage to condemn the state every day without making people into
>>>> mere digits on an tax spending worksheet.
>>>>
>>>> The Cold Equations is a fantastic short story. But terrible politics,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180117/38a3b09b/attachment.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list