[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 18:33:22 EDT 2018


Alicia, and you can let me know privately, I would be very interested in
hearing what wording you would have preferred.  Sadly if this doesn't pass,
I predict Arvin will once again tell everyone to hold his beer.  I was
right last time.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Starchild--
>
> ==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
>    you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle,===
>
> Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying something different
> later.  He defended the morality of violence against all "enemy
> collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.
>
> ==   yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
>    accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
>    brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute" appears
>    to take it as a given==
>
> Given that this body already censured him using that same language, it IS
> a given.
>
>
> ==And does anyone really believe that an
>    ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough to
>    "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
>    entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.==
>
> I do.  The Party founders did.  Your statements are in ignorance of the
> history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.
>
>   == What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
>    routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
>    greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
>    members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
>    someone occasionally going too far.==
>
> I don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an
> exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take strongly libertarian
> positions.  This is not an either/or.
>
> But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about violence in
> the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable.  Let's say a pro-lifers
> routinely called doctors murderers and accessories to murder (or let's say
> - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about bombing an abortion clinic
> --- how would that fly?  Like a lead zeppelin.  Just like this does.
>
> Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get to walk all
> over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to
> disassociate.  The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary government will
> not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of our own problems.
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
>>    Arvin,
>>
>>    As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of your social media
>>    post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of your previous
>>    posts, actually did appear to advocate for the initiation of force.
>>    Since the post at that time had apparently not been made public, and
>>    was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we would not risk
>>    damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it up here and
>>    thereby making it public and an official party matter, but rather call
>>    for your resignation as individuals.
>>
>>    While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral � as opposed to
>>    practical � justification for defensive violence against individuals
>>    who are causing aggression, not all government personnel fit into that
>>    category. There are Libertarian Party members and others serving on
>>    school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not increase it,
>>    and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence against such a
>>    broad category of people in government would amount to a willingness to
>>    sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in contravention of
>>    their individual rights.
>>
>>    However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post, and said
>>    enough here about routinely arguing against the use of violence against
>>    the State and for the use of minimal force and the nonviolent approach
>>    advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to make that
>>    disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to attack the LP,
>>    now that it has been officially raised in a motion here, they will have
>>    to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by one LP official
>>    who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his words as having
>>    been a joke in poor taste.
>>
>>    While I wish you would better think some of these things through before
>>    posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on a social media
>>    site, not in the name of the party, which the member has clearly
>>    retracted and apologized for as having been an inappropriate joke, as
>>    sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office. Mere poor
>>    judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via one's personal
>>    social media accounts seems less important to me on the whole than poor
>>    judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party matters, and if I
>>    had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you would not come
>>    out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent state of mind,
>>    which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy libertarian sentiment
>>    against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather than a lack of
>>    it. I accept your retraction and apology.
>>
>>    From the wording of the motion for suspension, it appears that some
>>    members of this body are again seeking your involuntary removal �
>> this
>>    time without the due process of holding a meeting � on account of
>>    previous posts for which you have already been censured.
>>
>>    Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is sloppy and contains
>>    inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
>>    you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle,
>>    yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
>>    accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
>>    brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute" appears
>>    to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in contravention of
>>    this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also inaccurate to
>>    speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>>    disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles into disrepute is
>>    not the same as bringing the principles themselves into disrepute. The
>>    principles stand regardless of how often or how egregiously members of
>>    society violate them. And does anyone really believe that an
>>    ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough to
>>    "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
>>    entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.
>>
>>    What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
>>    routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
>>    greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
>>    members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
>>    someone occasionally going too far.
>>
>>    I vote no on the motion.
>>
>>    Love & Liberty,
>>
>>                                       ((( starchild )))
>>
>>    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>>                            [1]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>>                                     (415) 625-FREE
>>
>>                                        @StarchildSF
>>
>>    On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
>>
>>      Since some were unable to see my video response to this, here is
>>      something else I posted on mewe on this issue:
>>      As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again working to
>>      suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate joke I made on
>>      [1]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already
>>    apologized
>>      for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I don't
>>      advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that
>>      obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
>>      But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive dissonance
>>      that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear
>>      taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation is
>>      theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the
>>    message).
>>      We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights.
>>      We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are
>>      for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this
>>      issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative
>>    groups,
>>      to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the same
>>      argument.
>>      We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use
>>    the
>>      money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and
>>      government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns are
>>      necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
>>      I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I
>>      consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters
>>      who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny
>>    that
>>      would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self
>>      defense?
>>      Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless crime
>>    not
>>      enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked up
>>    in
>>      such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have
>>    your
>>      money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not
>>    enough?
>>      What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second
>>    Amendmend
>>      for what it was designed for?
>>      Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to ever
>>      advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I
>>      believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not
>>      needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long as
>>      the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement
>>    arm,
>>      I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few
>>    minutes.
>>      As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also
>>      consider it against my personal principles to use a greater response
>>      than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force,
>>    which
>>      is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.
>>      But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence immoral?
>>      God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under
>>    threat
>>      of violence.
>>      Respectfully,
>>      Arvin Vohra
>>      Vice Chair
>>      Libertarian Party
>>      On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt
>>    <[2]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
>>      wrote:
>>        I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
>>      On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
>>        Yes
>>        ---
>>        Sam Goldstein
>>        Libertarian National Committee
>>        [3]317-850-0726 Cell
>>        On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>        We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>           Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at
>>        11:59:59pm
>>           Pacific time.
>>           Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Redpath,
>>           Hewitt, O'Donnell
>>           Motion:
>>           WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force
>>        as its
>>           cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that
>>        they
>>           neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve
>>    political
>>        or
>>           social goals.
>>           RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin
>>        Vohra
>>           from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
>>        unacceptable
>>           conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>>           disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating
>>        lethal
>>           violence against state employees who are not directly
>>    threatening
>>           imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our
>>        membership
>>           pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our
>>        movement and
>>           the security of all of our members without their consent.
>>           -Alicia
>>      --
>>      Arvin Vohra
>>      [4]www.VoteVohra.com
>>      [5]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>      (301) 320-3634
>>    References
>>      1. [2]http://mewe.com/
>>      2. [3]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>      3. tel:317-850-0726
>>      4. [4]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>      5. [5]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> References
>>
>>    1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>    2. http://mewe.com/
>>    3. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>    4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>    5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>



-- 
-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
   Alicia, and you can let me know privately, I would be very interested
   in hearing what wording you would have preferred.  Sadly if this
   doesn't pass, I predict Arvin will once again tell everyone to hold his
   beer.  I was right last time.

   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Starchild--
   ==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
      you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression
   Principle,===
   Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying something
   different later.  He defended the morality of violence against all
   "enemy collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.
   ==   yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
      accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
      brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute"
   appears
      to take it as a given==
   Given that this body already censured him using that same language, it
   IS a given.
   ==And does anyone really believe that an
      ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough
   to
      "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
      entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.==
   I do.  The Party founders did.  Your statements are in ignorance of the
   history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.
     == What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
      routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
      greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
      members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
      someone occasionally going too far.==
   I don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an
   exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take strongly
   libertarian positions.  This is not an either/or.
   But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about violence
   in the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable.  Let's say a
   pro-lifers routinely called doctors murderers and accessories to murder
   (or let's say - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about bombing an
   abortion clinic --- how would that fly?  Like a lead zeppelin.  Just
   like this does.
   Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get to walk all
   over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to
   disassociate.  The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary government
   will not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of our own
   problems.

   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild <[2]starchild at lp.org> wrote:

        Arvin,
        As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of your social
     media
        post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of your
     previous
        posts, actually did appear to advocate for the initiation of
     force.
        Since the post at that time had apparently not been made public,
     and
        was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we would not
     risk
        damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it up here
     and
        thereby making it public and an official party matter, but rather
     call
        for your resignation as individuals.
        While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral � as
     opposed to
        practical � justification for defensive violence against
     individuals
        who are causing aggression, not all government personnel fit into
     that
        category. There are Libertarian Party members and others serving
     on
        school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not increase
     it,
        and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence against such
     a
        broad category of people in government would amount to a
     willingness to
        sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in
     contravention of
        their individual rights.
        However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post, and said
        enough here about routinely arguing against the use of violence
     against
        the State and for the use of minimal force and the nonviolent
     approach
        advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to make that
        disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to attack the
     LP,
        now that it has been officially raised in a motion here, they
     will have
        to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by one LP
     official
        who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his words as
     having
        been a joke in poor taste.
        While I wish you would better think some of these things through
     before
        posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on a social
     media
        site, not in the name of the party, which the member has clearly
        retracted and apologized for as having been an inappropriate
     joke, as
        sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office. Mere poor
        judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via one's
     personal
        social media accounts seems less important to me on the whole
     than poor
        judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party matters,
     and if I
        had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you would not
     come
        out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent state of
     mind,
        which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy libertarian
     sentiment
        against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather than a
     lack of
        it. I accept your retraction and apology.
        From the wording of the motion for suspension, it appears that
     some
        members of this body are again seeking your involuntary removal
     � this
        time without the due process of holding a meeting � on account
     of
        previous posts for which you have already been censured.
        Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is sloppy and
     contains
        inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
        you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression
     Principle,
        yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
        accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
        brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute"
     appears
        to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in
     contravention of
        this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also inaccurate
     to
        speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian Party
     into
        disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles into
     disrepute is
        not the same as bringing the principles themselves into
     disrepute. The
        principles stand regardless of how often or how egregiously
     members of
        society violate them. And does anyone really believe that an
        ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is
     enough to
        "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
        entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.
        What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
        routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a
     far
        greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of
     party
        members and members of society alike from State violence, than
     does
        someone occasionally going too far.
        I vote no on the motion.
        Love & Liberty,
                                           ((( starchild )))
        At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                [1][3]RealReform at earthlink.net
                                         (415) 625-FREE
                                            @StarchildSF

      On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
        Since some were unable to see my video response to this, here is
        something else I posted on mewe on this issue:
        As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again working to
        suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate joke I made on
        [1][4]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already
      apologized
        for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I
   don't
        advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that
        obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
        But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive
   dissonance
        that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear
        taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation
   is
        theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the
      message).
        We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred
   rights.
        We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they
   are
        for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this
        issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative
      groups,
        to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the
   same
        argument.
        We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use
      the
        money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and
        government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns
   are
        necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
        I've routinely argued against any violence against the state,
   since I
        consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun
   supporters
        who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny
      that
        would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self
        defense?
        Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless
   crime
      not
        enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked
   up
      in
        such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have
      your
        money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not
      enough?
        What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second
      Amendmend
        for what it was designed for?
        Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to
   ever
        advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I
        believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not
        needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long
   as
        the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement
      arm,
        I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few
      minutes.
        As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also
        consider it against my personal principles to use a greater
   response
        than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force,
      which
        is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.
        But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence
   immoral?
        God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under
      threat
        of violence.
        Respectfully,
        Arvin Vohra
        Vice Chair
        Libertarian Party
        On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt
      <[2][5]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
        wrote:
          I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
        On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
          Yes
          ---
          Sam Goldstein
          Libertarian National Committee
          [3]317-850-0726 Cell
          On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
          We have an electronic mail ballot.
             Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at
          11:59:59pm
             Pacific time.
             Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein,
   Redpath,
             Hewitt, O'Donnell
             Motion:
             WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of
   force
          as its
             cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify
   that
          they
             neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve
      political
          or
             social goals.
             RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends
   Arvin
          Vohra
             from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
          unacceptable
             conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party
   into
             disrepute, including making and defending a statement
   advocating
          lethal
             violence against state employees who are not directly
      threatening
             imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our
          membership
             pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our
          movement and
             the security of all of our members without their consent.
             -Alicia
        --
        Arvin Vohra
        [4][6]www.VoteVohra.com
        [5][7]VoteVohra at gmail.com
        (301) 320-3634
      References

          1. [2][8]http://mewe.com/
          2. [3]mailto:[9]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
          3. tel:317-850-0726
          4. [4][10]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
          5. [5]mailto:[11]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     References
        1. mailto:[12]RealReform at earthlink.net
        2. [13]http://mewe.com/
        3. mailto:[14]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

      4. [15]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
      5. mailto:[16]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [17]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [18]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [19]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [20]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

References

   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   2. mailto:starchild at lp.org
   3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   4. http://mewe.com/
   5. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
   6. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   7. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
   8. http://mewe.com/
   9. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  10. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  11. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  12. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  13. http://mewe.com/
  14. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  15. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  16. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  18. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  19. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list