[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 18:17:57 EST 2018

I don’t mean from CO.  But I think some state will.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:16 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> And we will be on record.
>
> Nothing should not be an option.
>
> More states are making resolutions.  The STATES are the Party - not us.
>
> They should find their power.
>
> CO was upset at the history of committee secrecy- they called national’s
> bluff.  We shall see what happens but those reps are not agreeing to secret
> email lists.  What’s national going to do?  Exclude a top ten affiliate?
> The birthplace of the Party?
>
> Same here.  Don’t be surprised if our inaction provokes at least a
> disaffiliation threat.
>
> And.  I wouldn’t blame them.
>
> It’s too much.
>
> Yes opportunists will opportune.  As inevitable as death and taxes (which
> is theft).
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:01 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> And say we suspend/remove him.  He will still be the Libertarian Senate
>> Candidate for Maryland.  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded. That
>> ship has sailed as the paperwork is filed with the Maryland Secretary of
>> State.
>>    Arvin’s not going to magically shut up if he gets suspended from the
>> LNC.  He likely will see a greater need to “teach everyone what
>> Libertarianism really is”.
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What solutions?  A resolution that satisfied no one and only let it
>> happen again?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tough decision and it will only get tougher if it goes to a vote that
>>> will result in perhaps irreparable repercussions to all on both sides of
>>> the issue. Not much happened last year when it died on the vine with no
>>> co-sponsors and gave everyone a chance to step back from the nuclear option
>>> abyss and saner minds space to work on solutions.
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2018 4:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m saying it’s interesting when this is brought up as a radical issue
>>> (not in this Body) yet the fact that the LNC member who might be one of the
>>> most visible radicals who in this case is the primary antagonist is missing
>>> from the narrative.
>>>
>>> Because it’s not as simple as that.
>>>
>>> We don’t need enemies.  We do it to ourselves.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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/kPps5ugbr1A
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/a82e3c25/attachment-0002.html>