[Lnc-business] Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF.

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jan 13 23:10:55 EST 2018


I also want to correct something, I said 3/4 earlier when I meant 2/3. Got
my fractions mixed up in my head.

I have one state, Arizona, that asked to be left out of the decision and
not be counted against any numbers needed due to the state chair being on
the judicial committee and thus a conflict of issue, also with one of the
main protoganists being in AZ, he felt it was better for the rest of the
region to examine.  It doesn't change my numbers, it is still six votes
needed.

Or 2/3 of the region 1 delegates at last convention.

I want to be perfectly clear - my anger and call for resignation has
nothing to do with whether or not we should question age of consent laws.
That has been an acceptable party position for decades.  I don't support
them. The issue is consent, not age, though the two are very very related,
but an individualistic system requires people to be treated as such.  That
is not the issue.  The issue is his lack of judgment, accountability, and
recklessness which to me, have disqualified him  IF that is what the
members want.  It is more than enough cause.

We have lost our minds if we don't see the issue here.  If principles mean
we lose all of our sense and waste and piss away volunteer efforts and
money, we should just give up now.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Not directly but indirectly and it makes a certain justice sense.
>
> The indirect precedent is when there were issues in AZ and disaffiliation
> occured - the national party members in that state were asked which group
> they prefer the national party to affiliate with.  That is a decision that
> belonged to the LNC but they asked the members.
>
> Also indirectly we have other things in our bylaws that are appealable by
> a certain number of delegates who went to last convention.  Making that the
> same target audience preserves member voices and give the option to recall.
>
> The members can appeal bad resolutions, how can they not appeal terrible
> behaviour by their elected representatives?
>
> I am now considering a bylaws amendment because this honestly is binding
> the rights of members IMHO.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Recall survey sounds interesting. Is there a precedent?
>>
>> Whitney
>>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2018 4:42 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 9 states makes it really hard and I expect the same time issues.
>>
>> If Patrick or anyone intends on any motion I submit it is a futile
>> gesture until regional states have time.
>>
>> BTW I know I have a minority opinion on this interpretation but I think
>> the provision that allows 10% of the delegates of prior convention to
>> appeal any LNC action includes any lack of action and I would encourage it.
>>
>> I would ideally like to see a recall survey sent to the 2016 delegates.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:07 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <
>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, and as there's exactly four states in Region 3, it's a little
>>> easier, but still not easy.  (Also, thanks, btw)
>>>
>>> Just got an update from LPMI, and their bylaws prevent an email vote
>>> (asynchronous voting).  They would need to meet in person or have a
>>> conference call to pass a resolution. Their next scheduled meeting is is in
>>> February.  (I have heard privately from some officers in LPMI, and they're
>>> very unhappy with the Arvin situation and would like to be able to take
>>> action.)
>>>
>>> Still no word from LPKY.
>>>
>>> All over social media is arguing and strife over this mess.  Some are
>>> seizing this situation to grandstand and pot stir, furthering the
>>> reach. This is the situation. Not a pleasant one.
>>> ---
>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-01-13 14:55, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>
>>> PS my requirements are similar
>>>
>>> 3/4 of Region 1  Chairs
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 3/4 petition by region 1 delegates from 2016
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:47 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elizabeth kudos for doing what a regional should.
>>>>
>>>> I am having a similar discussion with Region 1.
>>>>
>>>> They opposed action before.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:21 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Patrick,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you're aware, I'm fairly new on the Libertarian National Committee,
>>>>> as I was appointed to be LNC Region 3 Representative, a little over a
>>>>> month ago.  It's an honor to be given their trust in representing
>>>>> LP-Indiana, LP-Ohio, LP-Michigan and LP-Kentucky on the LNC.  I take my
>>>>> "representative" role seriously, and the LP state affiliates within my
>>>>> Region are my constituency.
>>>>>
>>>>>  1) On November 11, 2017, the Libertarian Party of Indiana (LPIN)
>>>>> State Central Committee (SCC) unanimously passed a resolution which
>>>>> culminated in, "...the immediate resignation of Mr. Vohra from his position
>>>>> in party leadership."
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, January 12, 2018, the Indiana state chair wrote to me, "Indiana
>>>>> does support and request that very action", regarding Bylaws Article 6.7, a
>>>>> motion to suspend Arvin Vohra.
>>>>>
>>>>>  2) On January 12, 2018 the Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPOH) Executive
>>>>> Committee passed a resolution which culminated in, "The LPO calls for the
>>>>> IMMEDIATE resignation of Mr. Vohra from his positions in party leadership.
>>>>> Failing that, the LPO calls on the LNC to remove (through the formal
>>>>> suspension process) Mr. Vohra before more damage can be done."
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) I've informed the state chairs of Region 3 that I'd need a clear
>>>>> directive to make a motion per bylaws article 6.7 regarding suspending
>>>>> Arvin Vohra. (With the understanding that the motion might not get to a
>>>>> vote, or pass, if voted upon.)  Two of the four state affiliates in Region
>>>>> 3 have told me they want this action taken.  Since attempting to suspend an
>>>>> officer of the LP is a serious matter, I told the state chairs in Region 3
>>>>> that I'd need at least 3 of the four states to agree on the action to be
>>>>> taken.  At this time, I await direction from LPMI and/or LPKY.  (LPMI has
>>>>> taken the issue into discussion and hopefully will let me know
>>>>> their decision soon.)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why I've not made public comments regarding the controversy
>>>>> surrounding Arvin Vohra.  I represent the four states in Region 3, which
>>>>> means it's not my place to direct them, but it's the reverse, they direct
>>>>> me.  If the consensus of Region 3 is to make a motion to the LNC, I shall
>>>>> do so.  If that happens, it will be another opportunity for anyone on the
>>>>> LNC to second such a motion.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>>>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-01-13 09:46, Patrick McKnight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the party and your
>>>>> thoughtful comments on this latest embarrassment to our organization. As
>>>>> you know, I made a motion to remove Arvin last year. Unfortunately, not one
>>>>> member of the LNC felt comfortable supporting my motion at the time. I hope
>>>>> that changes now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>> LNC Region 8 Rep
>>>>> Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180113/c06e3aed/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list