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

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Apr 4 03:12:50 EDT 2018


Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds.  I could not take
your calls as I was recording live for the LP.  Also honestly, I am not
sacrificing any more family time for Arvin.  Any time I do will be getting
on the phone with members who now think the LP is not for them - that
non-edgelords need not apply.  Yes, I get those calls.

==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". ...When you refer
to
   "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking about?==

How members are taking it.  On Facebeast.

==   Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts other than
   what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not parents.==

Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy account and
research and see for yourself.

==The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the language
   given then as justification for censure, and now uses that language as
   justification for suspension (which was previously rejected).===

That is what citing is.  And it was rejected as not enough THEN, so
censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the progression of
professional discipline.

==The only
   thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
   ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he has
   disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted during
   the intervening weeks).===

First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber ContraPoints.
Excellent liberal commentator for people to get out of the Milo echo
chamber and hear good liberal defenses.  I don't agree with her, but I
respect her immensely.  She talks about the difficulty of dealing with
ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy things but then deny it.  There
comes a point where it is a body of evidence.  The analogy here is to how
gaslighting works NOT any idea that anyone here is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE
HERE IS) - just showing how these things work and how Libertarians are
often hoodwinked.  I can send you the link to her video - it is fantastic,
and I think you would love her as a person.  She reminds me of you with her
creative genius. Back to Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was
inexcusable for a leader of the LP.  Just like it would be inexcusable for
a leader of the ADL to make a "get into the ovens" "joke."  *Apologies and
alleged disavowing* (many many people do not believe it because again, he
goes on to talk about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking
away any genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy his
later disavowal either - I just don't.  I'm a wise old bird when it comes
to these mind games) *do not make everything okay. * This is repeated
behaviour and it is enough.  I was once in an abusive marriage.  Yes he
apologized.  Many times.  But there came a time when it was enough.  And my
ex genuinely wanted to do better (or convinced me he did) - Arvin has
promised us he will be worse.  His words ring hollow particularly when
coupled with a call to defend taking up arms and lethal force.

==Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
   apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he stood by
   the basic positions taken therein.===

He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.  That is
the charitable reading.  Or you are saying he passive aggressively just
said I am sorry you are such crybabies.  He is standing by this basic
position too - it is not very utilitarian to shoot up school boards and to
HIM it may not be proportional - but you know, they are the enemy and their
collaborators.  You simply have to read carefully.  Its in the very post
here - why do you think two people changed to YES - AFTER reading his
"defense."  Because it read like a fertilizer bomb.  Our words have
impact.  I watched some specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act
- mixing bad government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of
nuttiness and a big kaboom comes out.  Free speech is not consequenceless
speech.  That girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill
himself and he did - she didn't kill him.  He still had agency.  It is a
danger of free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good.  Our
words - as leaders - have influence.  We took these positions knowing
that.  Libertarians believe in responsibility.  Part of that responsibility
is that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party in the
US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS, "joke"
about murdering school board officials - when we run school board
officials!!!  By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators.  Many
anarchists of his POV think so.  This anarchist does not.

==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==

Then you conceded my point.  It was put in place as a barrier, a
protection, to OUR MEMBERS.  Which our Vice Chair blithely "joked away."
Not acceptable. Not okay.  And another note ends up in many members files
due to Arvin.  Its all fun and games until shit gets real. He either was so
obtuse and tone deaf to make such an inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his
past inappropriate comments about preferring that little girls get
impregnated by much older men with jobs rather than an equally confused
kid) OR he meant it.  OR potentially a combination of both.  "Jokes" are
often "funny" to the people who make them because there is some small grain
of truth in them to the maker and to the audience.  We laugh at
inappropriate stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the
problem is making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral
characteristics to be malignant or bad when it is just people being
people).  To wit, there are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink
hair.  I am not one of them. But people laugh when that joke is made
towards me.  It is funny because here is some truth. And then I get an
opportunity to show how stupid collectivization is.  What kernel of truth
did Arvin find SO FUNNY?  That he juxtaposed it with the murder of
children!?:!  As a political leader?????  There are people who make "rape
jokes."  I question what in the person exists for them to even consider
that a "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark
evil.  What underlying truth is there in this?  Not to mention that THIS IS
A PATTERN.  Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made posts that
follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more frequently
Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX.  So he then goes and says Bad Idea school
shootings.  Good Idea School Board Shootings, and no everyone is supposed
to magically know that THIS one was not serious.  That he broke character.
(it also troubles me that he admits he wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or
whatever silly name it is) is edgier so its all okay.....   so perhaps
helicopter ride jokes are also okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe
dudes to make them).

Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who rails
against gay people is found in bed with another of the same sex.  Not
because we think he should not have the right or any moral judgment about
the intimate act.  We rightly note the hypocrisy of a person who is part of
a movement that condemns others for such things doing such things.  We are
a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of force.  To have one of our
leaders make a joke out of our cardinal principle tickles the same sense of
wrongness.  Mother Theresa could get away with a nun joke.  She couldn't
get away with a joke about starving Indian children, even if she
apologized.  That is not thought police.  That is not unLibertarian.  It is
sheer meritocracy.

There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild.  You are
brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But you are off base here, and I think lost in a Libertopia where there are
not bad actors and trolls and destructive edgelords that act that way
because they enjoy what they put others through.  Our failure to see and
deal with is evidence that dangerous sociopaths (NO, that is not what I am
saying is going on here) would have a field day in "our world" because we
would buy their silver-tongued "explanations."  We have got the gentle as
doves part down pat.  We need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.

I'm done.  I have spilled my ration of digital ink.

What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts over it ooze
with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the High Septon -- the
Party will not be pure until she is stripped and paraded through the
streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that didn't always stick to
libertarian principles.  That isn't what he was elected to do.  He did have
recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved to disqualify them.  He did
not.  He can resign and not have the weight of this responsibility if he
wishes.  Life involves choices, and we chose these roles and
responsibilities.

This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school board"
"joke" is just the latest.  He was censured.  That is a probationary
warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds us
together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt of his
"joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day wondering about
how much homework they would have or if their crush was still mad at them -
not contemplating that those same bodies carefully dressed and ready would
within hours be cold and dead and the only clothing that would matter would
be the attire they would be buried in.

Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."



On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:

>    Caryn Ann,
>
>    My further responses interspersed below...
>
>    On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>      ==When you say "He defended the morality of violence against all
>    'enemy
>      collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I don't know to
>      which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know if I'd
>    interpret
>      them as you apparently are.==
>      I know how our members are.  Yes you are absent from the world of
>      social media - where the damage is happening.  He is opposed to
>      violence against the state because it doesn't work but goads people
>    to
>      follow the trail of when it is moral to use guns against these people
>
>    Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I don't use the
>    social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on Twitter, numerous
>    email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it would be cool
>    if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you refer to
>    "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking about?
>
>      --- my example of the joking abortion clinic bomber is apt - language
>      means something and has consequences.
>      == I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or defense
>      of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think non-pacifist
>      libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think it's necessarily
>    a
>      good idea, or the path I want to follow.==
>      I do too.  That was never the point.  You are not doing it in the
>      context of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against teachers AND
>      parents, and then claiming it was a "joke" and goading people to
>      consider just when they might pick up a gun against these people.
>
>    Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts other than
>    what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not parents.
>
>      ==The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having already
>      faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not to rely
>    on
>      that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a lot like
>      double jeopardy.===
>      It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a WARNING,
>    and
>      citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality works.
>
>      The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the language
>    given then as justification for censure, and now uses that language as
>    justification for suspension (which was previously rejected). The only
>    thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
>    ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he has
>    disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted during
>    the intervening weeks).
>
>      ==And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If he
>    hadn't
>      retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign, and if he
>      didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion for
>      suspension.==
>      Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and "retracting" them.
>      And promising more.  I think you are being gullible beyond belief and
>      excusing the inexcusable.
>
>    Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
>    apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he stood by
>    the basic positions taken therein. That's different than what he's
>    saying in this case � here's what he just posted on MeWe:
>    "Today, I�m being accused of advocating violence. Frankly,
>    that�s false. Like many of you, I have said that the Second Amendment
>    is for defending yourself against government. I�ve also, repeatedly
>    pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor likely
>    to work. I�ve advocated against violence, even morally justified
>    violence, repeatedly. I�ve even advocated against �legal�
> violence done
>    by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find nonviolent
>    work, rather than join the military.
>    I don�t advocate violence. I don�t support it. I don�t support
> �legal�
>    violence done by the state. I don�t support morally justified violence
>    against the state. I oppose violence in every form.
>    Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize and clarify
>    my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my opposition to
>    violence? Yes.
>    I�ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of you don�t
> agree
>    with them, but I haven�t said �Haha, just kidding,� because I was
> never
>    kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign policy is
>    immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because theft
>    is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp natural
>    rights that stem from self ownership as well as family rights, are
>    also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those positions.
>    But I�m not standing by a joke taken literally, because it is a
>    joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I�ve clearly stated,
> but
>    a joke nonetheless."
>
>      ===I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a strong
>      supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened
>      (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring some
>      minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership positions in
>      the party).==
>      I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to begin with
>    no
>      matter how much we would like it to be so.
>      From David Nolan, Interestingly, most people in the LP do not know
>    why
>      it was originally placed on membership applications. We did it not
>      because we believed that we could keep out "bad" people by asking
>    them
>      to sign--after all, evil people will lie to achieve their ends--but
>    to
>      provide some evidence that the LP was not a group advocating violent
>      overthrow of the gov't. In the early 70's, memories of Nixon's
>    "enemies
>      list" and the McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh in
>      people's minds, and we wanted to protect ourselves from future
>      witch-hunts.^[1][2]
>
>    I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test. It's better
>    than nothing, but the language leaves much room for interpretation.
>    Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something more
>    specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of civil
>    liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism questions.
>    Love & Liberty,
>                                         ((( starchild )))
>    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                               [1]RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                       (415) 625-FREE
>                                          @StarchildSF
>
>      On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild <[2]starchild at lp.org>
>    wrote:
>        Caryn Ann,
>                When you say "He defended the morality of violence against
>        all 'enemy collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I
>        don't know to which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know
>        if I'd interpret them as you apparently are.
>                I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or
>        defense of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
>        non-pacifist libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think
>        it's necessarily a good idea, or the path I want to follow.
>
>      "Given that this body already censured him using that same
>
>        language..."
>                The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having
>        already faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not
>        to rely on that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a
>        lot like double jeopardy.
>                And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If
>        he hadn't retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to
>    resign,
>        and if he didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion
>        for suspension.
>                I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a
>    strong
>        supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened
>        (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring
>        some minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
>        positions in the party).
>        Love & Liberty,
>                                          ((( starchild )))
>        At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                               [3]RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                       (415) 625-FREE
>                                          @StarchildSF
>        *Apologies for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but italics and
>        boldface still don't work on this list since our switch to new
>    email
>        servers.
>      On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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 <[1][4]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][2][5]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][3][6]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][4][7]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][5][8]www.VoteVohra.com
>
>            [5][6][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
>            (301) 320-3634
>
>          References
>
>              1. [2][7][10]http://mewe.com/
>
>              2. [3]mailto:[8][11]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
>              3. tel:317-850-0726
>
>              4. [4][9][12]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>
>              5. [5]mailto:[10][13]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
>         References
>
>            1. mailto:[11][14]RealReform at earthlink.net
>
>            2. [12][15]http://mewe.com/
>
>            3. mailto:[13][16]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
>          4. [14][17]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>
>          5. mailto:[15][18]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
>       --
>
>       --
>
>       In Liberty,
>
>       Caryn Ann Harlos
>
>       Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>
>       Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>
>        Washington)
>
>       - [16]Caryn.Ann. [2]Harlos at LP.org
>
>       Communications Director, [17]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:[19]starchild at lp.org
>
>       2. mailto:[20]RealReform at earthlink.net
>
>       3. [21]http://mewe.com/
>
>       4. mailto:[22]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
>       5. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>
>       6. mailto:[24]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
>       7. [25]http://mewe.com/
>
>       8. mailto:[26]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
>       9. [27]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>
>      10. mailto:[28]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
>      11. mailto:[29]RealReform at earthlink.net
>
>      12. [30]http://mewe.com/
>
>      13. mailto:[31]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
>      14. [32]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>
>      15. mailto:[33]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
>      16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
>      17. [35]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
>      --
>      --
>      In Liberty,
>      Caryn Ann Harlos
>      Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>      Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>    Washington)
>      - [36]Caryn.Ann. [3]Harlos at LP.org
>      Communications Director, [37]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. [4]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
>      2. [5]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>      3. [6]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>      4. [7]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>      5. [8]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>      6. [9]http://mewe.com/
>      7. [10]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>      8. [11]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>      9. [12]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>     10. [13]http://mewe.com/
>     11. [14]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>     12. [15]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>     13. [16]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>     14. [17]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>     15. [18]http://mewe.com/
>     16. [19]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>     17. [20]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>     18. [21]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>     19. [22]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>     20. [23]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>     21. [24]http://mewe.com/
>     22. [25]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>     23. [26]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>     24. [27]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>     25. [28]http://mewe.com/
>     26. [29]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>     27. [30]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>     28. [31]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>     29. [32]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>     30. [33]http://mewe.com/
>     31. [34]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>     32. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>     33. [36]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>     34. [37]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>     35. [38]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>     36. [39]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>     37. [40]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
>    1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>    2. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>    3. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>    4. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
>    5. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>    6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>    7. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>    8. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>    9. http://mewe.com/
>   10. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   11. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   12. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   13. http://mewe.com/
>   14. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   15. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   16. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   17. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   18. http://mewe.com/
>   19. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   20. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   21. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   22. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>   23. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   24. http://mewe.com/
>   25. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   26. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   27. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   28. http://mewe.com/
>   29. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   30. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   31. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   32. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   33. http://mewe.com/
>   34. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   36. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   37. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>   38. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>   39. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>   40. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>



-- 
-- 
*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 --------------
   Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds.  I could not
   take your calls as I was recording live for the LP.  Also honestly, I
   am not sacrificing any more family time for Arvin.  Any time I do will
   be getting on the phone with members who now think the LP is not for
   them - that non-edgelords need not apply.  Yes, I get those calls.
   ==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". ...When you
   refer to
      "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking
   about?==
   How members are taking it.  On Facebeast.
   ==   Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts other
   than
      what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not parents.==
   Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy account
   and research and see for yourself.
   ==The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the language
      given then as justification for censure, and now uses that language
   as
      justification for suspension (which was previously rejected).===
   That is what citing is.  And it was rejected as not enough THEN, so
   censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the progression of
   professional discipline.
   ==The only
      thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
      ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he has
      disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted during
      the intervening weeks).===
   First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber
   ContraPoints.  Excellent liberal commentator for people to get out of
   the Milo echo chamber and hear good liberal defenses.  I don't agree
   with her, but I respect her immensely.  She talks about the difficulty
   of dealing with ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy things but
   then deny it.  There comes a point where it is a body of evidence.  The
   analogy here is to how gaslighting works NOT any idea that anyone here
   is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE HERE IS) - just showing how these things
   work and how Libertarians are often hoodwinked.  I can send you the
   link to her video - it is fantastic, and I think you would love her as
   a person.  She reminds me of you with her creative genius. Back to
   Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was inexcusable for a leader of
   the LP.  Just like it would be inexcusable for a leader of the ADL to
   make a "get into the ovens" "joke."  Apologies and alleged disavowing
   (many many people do not believe it because again, he goes on to talk
   about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking away any
   genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy his
   later disavowal either - I just don't.  I'm a wise old bird when it
   comes to these mind games) do not make everything okay.  This is
   repeated behaviour and it is enough.  I was once in an abusive
   marriage.  Yes he apologized.  Many times.  But there came a time when
   it was enough.  And my ex genuinely wanted to do better (or convinced
   me he did) - Arvin has promised us he will be worse.  His words ring
   hollow particularly when coupled with a call to defend taking up arms
   and lethal force.
   ==Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
      apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he stood
   by
      the basic positions taken therein.===
   He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.
   That is the charitable reading.  Or you are saying he passive
   aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.  He is
   standing by this basic position too - it is not very utilitarian to
   shoot up school boards and to HIM it may not be proportional - but you
   know, they are the enemy and their collaborators.  You simply have to
   read carefully.  Its in the very post here - why do you think two
   people changed to YES - AFTER reading his "defense."  Because it read
   like a fertilizer bomb.  Our words have impact.  I watched some
   specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act - mixing bad
   government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of nuttiness and a
   big kaboom comes out.  Free speech is not consequenceless speech.  That
   girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill himself and he
   did - she didn't kill him.  He still had agency.  It is a danger of
   free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good.  Our words -
   as leaders - have influence.  We took these positions knowing that.
   Libertarians believe in responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is
   that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party in the
   US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS, "joke"
   about murdering school board officials - when we run school board
   officials!!!  By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators.  Many
   anarchists of his POV think so.  This anarchist does not.
   ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
   Then you conceded my point.  It was put in place as a barrier, a
   protection, to OUR MEMBERS.  Which our Vice Chair blithely "joked
   away."  Not acceptable. Not okay.  And another note ends up in many
   members files due to Arvin.  Its all fun and games until shit gets
   real. He either was so obtuse and tone deaf to make such an
   inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his past inappropriate comments
   about preferring that little girls get impregnated by much older men
   with jobs rather than an equally confused kid) OR he meant it.  OR
   potentially a combination of both.  "Jokes" are often "funny" to the
   people who make them because there is some small grain of truth in them
   to the maker and to the audience.  We laugh at inappropriate
   stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the problem is
   making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral characteristics to be
   malignant or bad when it is just people being people).  To wit, there
   are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink hair.  I am not one of
   them. But people laugh when that joke is made towards me.  It is funny
   because here is some truth. And then I get an opportunity to show how
   stupid collectivization is.  What kernel of truth did Arvin find SO
   FUNNY?  That he juxtaposed it with the murder of children!?:!  As a
   political leader?????  There are people who make "rape jokes."  I
   question what in the person exists for them to even consider that a
   "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark evil.
   What underlying truth is there in this?  Not to mention that THIS IS A
   PATTERN.  Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made posts that
   follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more
   frequently Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX.  So he then goes and says
   Bad Idea school shootings.  Good Idea School Board Shootings, and no
   everyone is supposed to magically know that THIS one was not serious.
   That he broke character.  (it also troubles me that he admits he
   wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or whatever silly name it is) is
   edgier so its all okay.....   so perhaps helicopter ride jokes are also
   okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe dudes to make them).
   Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who rails
   against gay people is found in bed with another of the same sex.  Not
   because we think he should not have the right or any moral judgment
   about the intimate act.  We rightly note the hypocrisy of a person who
   is part of a movement that condemns others for such things doing such
   things.  We are a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of force.
   To have one of our leaders make a joke out of our cardinal principle
   tickles the same sense of wrongness.  Mother Theresa could get away
   with a nun joke.  She couldn't get away with a joke about starving
   Indian children, even if she apologized.  That is not thought police.
   That is not unLibertarian.  It is sheer meritocracy.
   There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild.  You are
   brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice on
   Sunday.  But you are off base here, and I think lost in a Libertopia
   where there are not bad actors and trolls and destructive edgelords
   that act that way because they enjoy what they put others through.  Our
   failure to see and deal with is evidence that dangerous sociopaths (NO,
   that is not what I am saying is going on here) would have a field day
   in "our world" because we would buy their silver-tongued
   "explanations."  We have got the gentle as doves part down pat.  We
   need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.
   I'm done.  I have spilled my ration of digital ink.
   What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts over it
   ooze with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the High
   Septon -- the Party will not be pure until she is stripped and paraded
   through the streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that didn't
   always stick to libertarian principles.  That isn't what he was elected
   to do.  He did have recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved to
   disqualify them.  He did not.  He can resign and not have the weight of
   this responsibility if he wishes.  Life involves choices, and we chose
   these roles and responsibilities.
   This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school board"
   "joke" is just the latest.  He was censured.  That is a probationary
   warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds us
   together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt of his
   "joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day wondering
   about how much homework they would have or if their crush was still mad
   at them - not contemplating that those same bodies carefully dressed
   and ready would within hours be cold and dead and the only clothing
   that would matter would be the attire they would be buried in.
   Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."

   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild <[1]starchild at lp.org> wrote:

        Caryn Ann,
        My further responses interspersed below...
        On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
          ==When you say "He defended the morality of violence against
     all
        'enemy
          collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I don't
     know to
          which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know if I'd
        interpret
          them as you apparently are.==
          I know how our members are.  Yes you are absent from the world
     of
          social media - where the damage is happening.  He is opposed to
          violence against the state because it doesn't work but goads
     people
        to
          follow the trail of when it is moral to use guns against these
     people
        Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I don't
     use the
        social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on Twitter,
     numerous
        email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it would be
     cool
        if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you refer
     to
        "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking
     about?
          --- my example of the joking abortion clinic bomber is apt -
     language
          means something and has consequences.
          == I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or
     defense
          of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
     non-pacifist
          libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think it's
     necessarily
        a
          good idea, or the path I want to follow.==
          I do too.  That was never the point.  You are not doing it in
     the
          context of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against
     teachers AND
          parents, and then claiming it was a "joke" and goading people
     to
          consider just when they might pick up a gun against these
     people.
        Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts
     other than
        what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not
     parents.
          ==The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having
     already
          faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not to
     rely
        on
          that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a lot
     like
          double jeopardy.===
          It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a
     WARNING,
        and
          citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality
     works.
          The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the
     language
        given then as justification for censure, and now uses that
     language as
        justification for suspension (which was previously rejected). The
     only
        thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
        ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he
     has
        disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted
     during
        the intervening weeks).
          ==And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If
     he
        hadn't
          retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign, and
     if he
          didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion for
          suspension.==
          Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and "retracting"
     them.
          And promising more.  I think you are being gullible beyond
     belief and
          excusing the inexcusable.
        Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
        apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he
     stood by
        the basic positions taken therein. That's different than what
     he's
        saying in this case � here's what he just posted on MeWe:
        "Today, I�m being accused of advocating violence. Frankly,
        that�s false. Like many of you, I have said that the Second
     Amendment
        is for defending yourself against government. I�ve also,
     repeatedly
        pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor
     likely
        to work. I�ve advocated against violence, even morally
     justified
        violence, repeatedly. I�ve even advocated against �legal�
     violence done
        by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find
     nonviolent
        work, rather than join the military.
        I don�t advocate violence. I don�t support it. I don�t
     support �legal�
        violence done by the state. I don�t support morally justified
     violence
        against the state. I oppose violence in every form.
        Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize and
     clarify
        my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my opposition
     to
        violence? Yes.
        I�ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of you
     don�t agree
        with them, but I haven�t said �Haha, just kidding,� because
     I was never
        kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign policy
     is
        immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because theft
        is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp
     natural
        rights that stem from self ownership as well as family rights,
     are
        also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those positions.
        But I�m not standing by a joke taken literally, because it is a
        joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I�ve clearly
     stated, but
        a joke nonetheless."
          ===I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a strong
          supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be
     strengthened
          (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as
     scoring some
          minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
     positions in
          the party).==
          I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to begin
     with
        no
          matter how much we would like it to be so.
          From David Nolan, Interestingly, most people in the LP do not
     know
        why
          it was originally placed on membership applications. We did it
     not
          because we believed that we could keep out "bad" people by
     asking
        them
          to sign--after all, evil people will lie to achieve their
     ends--but
        to
          provide some evidence that the LP was not a group advocating
     violent
          overthrow of the gov't. In the early 70's, memories of Nixon's
        "enemies
          list" and the McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh in
          people's minds, and we wanted to protect ourselves from future
          witch-hunts.^[1][2]
        I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test. It's
     better
        than nothing, but the language leaves much room for
     interpretation.
        Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something more
        specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of civil
        liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism questions.
        Love & Liberty,
                                             ((( starchild )))
        At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                   [1][2]RealReform at earthlink.net
                                           (415) 625-FREE
                                              @StarchildSF
          On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
     <[2][3]starchild at lp.org>

      wrote:
          Caryn Ann,
                  When you say "He defended the morality of violence
   against
          all 'enemy collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I
          don't know to which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't
   know
          if I'd interpret them as you apparently are.
                  I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense
   or
          defense of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
          non-pacifist libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I
   think
          it's necessarily a good idea, or the path I want to follow.
        "Given that this body already censured him using that same
          language..."
                  The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and
   having
          already faced removal) using the same language is a good reason
   not
          to rely on that language referring to previous actions now.
   Seems a
          lot like double jeopardy.
                  And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable.
   If
          he hadn't retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to
      resign,
          and if he didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED
   motion
          for suspension.
                  I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a
      strong
          supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be
   strengthened
          (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring
          some minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
          positions in the party).
          Love & Liberty,
                                            ((( starchild )))
          At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                   [3][4]RealReform at earthlink.net

                                         (415) 625-FREE
                                            @StarchildSF
          *Apologies for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but italics and
          boldface still don't work on this list since our switch to new
      email
          servers.
        On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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
     <[1][4][5]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][2][5][6]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][3][6][7]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][4][7][8]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][5][8][9]www.VoteVohra.com
                [5][6][9][10]VoteVohra at gmail.com
                (301) 320-3634
              References
                  1. [2][7][10][11]http://mewe.com/
                  2. [3]mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
                  3. tel:317-850-0726
                  4. [4][9][12][13]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
                  5. [5]mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com
             References
                1. mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net
                2. [12][15][16]http://mewe.com/
                3. mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
              4. [14][17][18]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
              5. mailto:[15][18][19]VoteVohra at gmail.com
           --
           --
           In Liberty,
           Caryn Ann Harlos
           Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
     (Alaska,
           Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
            Washington)
           - [16]Caryn.Ann. [2]Harlos at LP.org
           Communications Director, [17]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:[19][20]starchild at lp.org
           2. mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net
           3. [21][22]http://mewe.com/
           4. mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
           5. [23][24]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
           6. mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com
           7. [25][26]http://mewe.com/
           8. mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
           9. [27][28]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
          10. mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com
          11. mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net
          12. [30][31]http://mewe.com/
          13. mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
          14. [32][33]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
          15. mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com
          16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
          17. [35][35]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
          --
          --
          In Liberty,
          Caryn Ann Harlos
          Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
     (Alaska,
          Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
        Washington)
          - [36]Caryn.Ann. [3]Harlos at LP.org
          Communications Director, [37]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. [4][36]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#
     cite_note-2
          2. [5]mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org
          3. [6]mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net
          4. [7]mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org
          5. [8]mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net
          6. [9][41]http://mewe.com/
          7. [10]mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
          8. [11][43]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
          9. [12]mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com
         10. [13][45]http://mewe.com/
         11. [14]mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
         12. [15][47]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
         13. [16]mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com
         14. [17]mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net
         15. [18][50]http://mewe.com/
         16. [19]mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
         17. [20][52]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
         18. [21]mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com
         19. [22]mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org
         20. [23]mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net
         21. [24][56]http://mewe.com/
         22. [25]mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
         23. [26][58]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
         24. [27]mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com
         25. [28][60]http://mewe.com/
         26. [29]mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
         27. [30][62]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
         28. [31]mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com
         29. [32]mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net
         30. [33][65]http://mewe.com/
         31. [34]mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
         32. [35][67]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
         33. [36]mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com
         34. [37]mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
         35. [38][70]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
         36. [39]mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
         37. [40][72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
     References
        1. mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net
        2. mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org
        3. mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org
        4. [76]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
     Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
        5. mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org
        6. mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net
        7. mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org
        8. mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net
        9. [81]http://mewe.com/
       10. mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
       11. [83]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       12. mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       13. [85]http://mewe.com/
       14. mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
       15. [87]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       16. mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       17. mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net
       18. [90]http://mewe.com/
       19. mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
       20. [92]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       21. mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       22. mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org
       23. mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net
       24. [96]http://mewe.com/
       25. mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
       26. [98]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       27. mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       28. [100]http://mewe.com/
       29. mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
       30. [102]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       31. mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       32. mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net
       33. [105]http://mewe.com/
       34. mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
       35. [107]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       36. mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       37. mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
       38. [110]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       39. mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
       40. [112]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [113]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [114]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:starchild at lp.org
   2. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   3. mailto:starchild at lp.org
   4. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   5. mailto:starchild at lp.org
   6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   7. http://mewe.com/
   8. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
   9. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  10. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  11. http://mewe.com/
  12. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  13. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  14. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  15. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  16. http://mewe.com/
  17. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  18. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  19. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  20. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  21. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  22. http://mewe.com/
  23. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  24. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  25. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  26. http://mewe.com/
  27. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  28. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  29. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  30. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  31. http://mewe.com/
  32. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  33. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  34. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  35. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  36. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
  37. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  38. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  39. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  40. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  41. http://mewe.com/
  42. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  43. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  44. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  45. http://mewe.com/
  46. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  47. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  48. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  49. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  50. http://mewe.com/
  51. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  52. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  53. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  54. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  55. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  56. http://mewe.com/
  57. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  58. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  59. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  60. http://mewe.com/
  61. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  62. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  63. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  64. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  65. http://mewe.com/
  66. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  67. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  68. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  69. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  70. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  71. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  73. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  74. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
  75. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
  76. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
  77. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  78. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  79. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  80. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  81. http://mewe.com/
  82. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  83. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  84. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  85. http://mewe.com/
  86. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  87. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  88. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  89. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  90. http://mewe.com/
  91. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  92. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  93. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  94. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  95. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  96. http://mewe.com/
  97. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  98. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  99. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 100. http://mewe.com/
 101. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 102. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 103. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 104. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 105. http://mewe.com/
 106. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 107. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 108. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 109. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 110. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 111. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 113. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 114. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list