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

Sat Jan 13 23:12:33 EST 2018

I believe recall is an unalienable right of any voting body, Bylaws or not,
if not explicitly and knowingly waived.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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/faa319a2/attachment-0002.html>