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

Sun Jan 14 23:08:07 EST 2018

I was just literally applauding Caryn Ann's post below.  I stopped
applauding to type this message.

-Alicia

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180114/4d0914a5/attachment-0002.html>