[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Arvin Vohra votevohra at gmail.com
Wed Jan 17 12:22:16 EST 2018 

quick corrections - my facts above were off (result of a google search).
Here's the correct info:

A person commits the crime of sexual assault if he or she is 10 years older
than a minor who is 15 or 16 years old. A person convicted of this crime is
guilty of class 1 misdemeanor sexual assault. Sexual assault is considered
an “extraordinary risk crime,” which allows for a more severe sentence. The
enhanced sentence for this extraordinary risk crime ranges from six to 24
months in jail or a fine of $500 to $5,000 or both.

The Felony: A person commits class 4 felony sexual assault if he or she is
at least 4 years older than a minor who is 14 years old or younger.2 This
extraordinary risk crime has a sentence range of two to eight years
inprison or a $2,000 to $500,000 fine or both.

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Since you start off mischaracterizing what I said, I decline.
>
> Further none of that is relevant to the point at hand.  I think Alicia
> pretty much took care of that cost benefit (to you) fallacy.
>
> And I decline to use the state as a benchmark for anything.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:56 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ms. Harlos,
>>
>> There is a range of views on statutory rape. Your view, which considers
>> it essentially identical to first degree rape, is not one I agree with, or
>> one that the law agrees with, or one that historical precedent agrees with.
>> My view, that it is a matter for family and not the state, is also not one
>> that the law agrees with. So let's settle this like good anarchists and use
>> the state as a benchmark.
>>
>> I'll use your state as a benchmark (assuming you still live in Colorado),
>> but apply the view that taxation is theft.
>>
>> To consider the currrent item under discussion, I'll use your state as a
>> benchmark. 12 years of public school involves taking $120,000 from others,
>> often against their direct wishes, over their objections, without their
>> consent. Morally,  that's the equivalent of theft of that amount, which in
>> Colorado carries jail of up to 12 years and a $750,000 fine.
>>
>> In colorado, an adult who has sex with a 15 year old faces no penalty.
>>
>> An adult who has sex with a 14 year old to whom her or she is marrried
>> faces no penalty.
>>
>> An adult who has non-marital sex with a 14 year old faces 1-12 years in
>> prison, and a $2000 to $500,000 fine.
>>
>> An adult who uses force, whether married or otherwise, faces first degree
>> (not statutory) rape charges.
>>
>> -Arvin
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So...... to hell with the 14 year old.  It’s all about me and that’s how
>>> I should present it to the world.
>>>
>>> Is it better she just voluntarily committ suicide?  That’s real cheap.
>>>
>>> I am as opposed to theft as you are.  It doesn’t mean that I view
>>> everything as a math equation and think it just fine to say it’s better
>>> something horrible happens to someone else.
>>>
>>> How about humans are not balance sheets?  That both SUCK and don’t need
>>> to be quantified.
>>>
>>> How many rapes equal one theft?  How about theft of a penny? What
>>> happened to proportionality?  Or being opposed to the transfer of misery.
>>> WTAF.
>>>
>>> See how ruthless that is?
>>>
>>> THAT IS NOT OUR MESSAGE.  That might be a ruthless objectivism but the
>>> LP split from that in its first years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all -
>>>>
>>>> Just to make sure people know my view on the issue that Caryn Ann
>>>> brought up: I do consider forcing others to pay for your kids to be a
>>>> nonconsensual act, completely morally unjustifiable.
>>>>
>>>> To put it in degree perspective:
>>>>
>>>> 1. It is done to a stranger.
>>>> 2. There is no hint of consent.
>>>> 3. There is often direct, vocal opposition.
>>>> 4. The act is backed up with very real threats of force, including the
>>>> threat of being locked in a rape cage by the state if you don't comply.
>>>> Said rape cages are known for first degree, not statutory, rape.
>>>>
>>>> -Arvin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm I manage to condemn the state every day without making people into
>>>>> mere digits on an tax spending worksheet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Cold Equations is a fantastic short story.  But terrible politics,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh the courage to say a 14 year old girl is better to be impregnated
>>>>>> by potential perv with a good job than a fellow young innocent fumbling his
>>>>>> way through a foolish act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much brave.  Many whistle.  Wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, let's see. Arvin has committed no crime, no violation of the
>>>>>>> SoP or bylaws and has not deserted to the enemy. His is being tried in
>>>>>>> public by some who think he has violated their personal moral code but
>>>>>>> primarily by those who are self-proclaimed political-correctness hypocrites
>>>>>>> who think it perfectly okay to misrepresent their personal dictates of
>>>>>>> conscience to achieve political goals, namely to avoid losing votes, a bad
>>>>>>> case of top-down get-elected-itis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This reminds me of McCarthyism but in reverse, persecution for being
>>>>>>> too Libertarian and risking scaring away voters, most of who could care
>>>>>>> less about Arvin. If you think carefully about it, Arvin is a whistle
>>>>>>> blower on those who are evading their responsibility to properly handle
>>>>>>> government-imposed moral dilemmas. Yes, indeedy, Arvin has made us very
>>>>>>> uncomfortable, and rightly so, for which we are persecuting him. Does the
>>>>>>> LNC want to achieve a reputation of punishing outspoken whistle blowers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arvin was elected by convention delegates, not by the LNC. This
>>>>>>> motion usurps the power of the delegates, all in the name of bowing to LNC
>>>>>>> internal fearmongering, at best. We need to demonstrate our courage and do
>>>>>>> things the right way, not the lynch-mob way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018 5:01 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>>
>>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Arvin Vohra
>>
>> www.VoteVohra.com
>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> (301) 320-3634
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180117/8a3c4260/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list