[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 17:17:31 EST 2018

It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed to,
to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can happen
to the Party.

But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating for a
decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back up
than if they are resolved, one way or the other.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:

> But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those angling
> for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t stop there.
> THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it won’t stop
> there.
>
> In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking about
> revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our original
> conversation and he said this:
>
> “ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating offenses
> with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them from a
> position of influence.”
>
>
> But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules and
> arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two
> years.. errr..
>
>
> This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick, including
> in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed), then they
> will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about what Arvin
> actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because it’s thirst
> is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for radicals other
> than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new saviors/overlords of
> the Party.
>
> Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the
> Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that
> discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and
> they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has
> pointed out this hypocrisy.
>
>
> Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who
> agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he
> actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.
>
> Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and those
> that took his head)? Who will start the purge?
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article that
> came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of one
> faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is from
> that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to
> mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical
> who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having
> the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.
>
> No. Bueno.
>
> All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist the
>> chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will not
>> address the parliamentary question.
>>
>> However, I wanted to second this:
>>
>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
>> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat,
>> I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair
>> play.  *We need to stop that culture. * Now.
>>
>> This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a
>> meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this
>> tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have several concerns here.
>>>
>>> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this incident
>>> who - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a
>>> radical anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four,
>>> but only have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.  I
>>> don't need a 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with
>>> it now that two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may have
>>> a decision soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to
>>> co-sponsor as long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.  That
>>> protects minority voices.
>>>
>>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
>>> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat,
>>> I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair
>>> play.  *We need to stop that culture.  Now.*
>>>
>>> But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think the
>>> motion is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a
>>> cause.  Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
>>> MUST (if it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the
>>> form of a trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but
>>> that is my reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
>>> though it seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>>>
>>> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as
>>> being out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have some
>>> proposed cause language.
>>>
>>> Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality
>>> of purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding factor is
>>> the Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
>>> supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same is true
>>> for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I spoke with the Chair of HI.  She supports removal.  Region 1: Utah
>>>>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>>>>>
>>>>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal opinion.
>>>>> I don't have that much power.  But this is where the issue of us being
>>>>> elected for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my
>>>>> advice.  They can take it or not, but they want it.  And I advise them on
>>>>> how to protect their own state if the LNC does nothing.  That is my job.
>>>>>
>>>>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>>>>>
>>>>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin Vohra
>>>>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian
>>>>> Party.  On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
>>>>> however the topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in
>>>>> discredit to the LP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This cannot continue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers.  One role
>>>>> cannot exist at the expense of the other.  The LP is not a hermetic
>>>>> association for the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a
>>>>> political organization with the intent to guide and influence our
>>>>> government and citizenry.  All political correctness aside, earning the
>>>>> credibility to do this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our
>>>>> audience, the American people.  Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot
>>>>> understand this fundamental constraint.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list.  Its time we heard the voices of
>>>>>> our members - anyone can follow their discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/k
>>>>>> Pps5ugbr1A
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were
>>>>>>> persuasive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting.  If this motion got four
>>>>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full word from
>>>>>>> region 1 in ten days.  Not gonna happen.  So even though I suspect they
>>>>>>> will not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1 support.  A
>>>>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know they can
>>>>>>> attend for public comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting).  I
>>>>>>> have three definite responses.  AZ asked to be recused.  AK is in favour of
>>>>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).  UT
>>>>>>> opposes.  The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed
>>>>>>> in (FYI I recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting.  I also said
>>>>>>>> in that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a
>>>>>>>> full hearing.  Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr.
>>>>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question.  I
>>>>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that
>>>>>>>> consideration is due.  I believe motions get clearer and better
>>>>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,
>>>>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise
>>>>>>>> motion.  (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be
>>>>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is
>>>>>>>> necessary.)  Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I
>>>>>>>> ask the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
>>>>>>>> According to RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate
>>>>>>>> (but may vote against it), but the seconder may speak against it in
>>>>>>>> debate.  Our email ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the
>>>>>>>> motion, the original maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors."  That
>>>>>>>> notwithstanding, it is my understanding that a cosponsor is in the position
>>>>>>>> of a seconder and may speak in debate against the motion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>>>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin.  That percent was reached last night.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their voice that I represent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this 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/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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/20180116/fcd10e34/attachment-0002.html>