[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

====I think Arvin Vorha has no empathy for the members of this board.

I wish Arvin wish recognize the impossible situation he has put this board
in with only one solution that won’t damage the organization.

I ask Arvin Vorha to resign.====

THIS.

===Actually I am a “Grey” Libertarian.  ===

I knew it.  Daniel is a grey.

-Caryn Ann


On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:

> Agree, and if only....wishes worked.
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
> On 2018-01-16 20:45, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>
>
>
> I think Arvin Vorha has no empathy for the members of this board.
>
> I wish Arvin wish recognize the impossible situation he has put this board
> in with only one solution that won't damage the organization.
>
> I ask Arvin Vorha to resign.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
>
> It cuts both ways.
>
> Daniel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:17 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded.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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/f00385da/attachment-0002.html>