[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 22:45:06 EST 2018

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:34 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
wrote:

> Is a grey like a confederate?  Asking for us Damn Yankee Caucus folks...
> ; )
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
>
> On 2018-01-16 22:08, Caryn Ann Harlos 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.====
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180117/1bae56c1/attachment-0002.html>