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

Sat Jan 13 23:26:19 EST 2018

Also, if we say, nah, nothing wrong with our vice chair saying he PROBABLY
would not have sex with a fourteen year old (with no qualification - I
would hope it is obvious that today the RULE is that 14 year olds are not
proper romantic interests for grown men - the theoretical fully competent
individual in a 14 year old body with no possibility of power coercion is
fantasy akin to me winning the lottery), then when will we issue an apology
to Roy Moore?

https://www.lp.org/sane-alternative-roy-moore-libertarian-ron-bishop-senate/

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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/f15aecfb/attachment-0002.html>