[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Arvin Vohra]

This is a facile and flawed argument. A family can help decide when a
person is ready to be considered able to make decisions. This  is not the
same as a family instructing a child to have sex with someone.

Previous LP platforms had additional ways that a child could attain adult
status, against he wishes of his or her family.

Consider alcohol as a parallel. A family can say, "This person is ready to
buy alcohol." That is very different from injecting him or her with alcohol.


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:18 AM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:

> <CAH>  Where I think your statements are not an accurate representation of
> Vohra's arguments Alicia is that he was not arguing for proxy consent.  He
> was not arguing that families and culture could GIVE consent, he was
> arguing that they are in the best position to RECOGNIZE consent. </CAH>
>
> What is meant by statements like, "I don't believe that the government has
> any place in individual, sexual decisionmaking. Family, culture, and the
> individuals involved are the only people who should have any say of any
> kind."
>
> If the child is capable of understanding the situation and consenting, why
> does the family and culture have a role in the individual decision making
> at all?  To suggest that the family and culture have a role in the
> "individual" decision, the implication is that the child isn't otherwise
> capable of making an informed decision on their own and needs someone else
> to help them.  If that's the case, the answer should be a firm no, not a
> yes at the option of the family/culture.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> That has been a historical position in the Party - and an internal
>> dispute.  And for the LNC to specific argue that a government is needed is
>> purposefully saying that a common anarchist view is grounds for removal.
>> That is absolutely unacceptable.
>>
>> Also, in the historical progression of the planks on children's rights
>> and consent, the word adult has been consistently used, but it is obvious
>> from the history and contexts that it was not used to indicate NECESSARILY
>> some decree of the state and a state definition of adulthood (which could
>> change tomorrow) but on adulthood as characterization as no longer have
>> those rights in custodianship of parents, having obtained the necessary
>> development and understanding and responsibility to exercise those
>> choices.  Any other interpretation would be to argue that the prior
>> platforms called for violations of children, in contradiction to the
>> Statement of Principles.
>>
>> It is not our job to rule on internal disputes that have existed since
>> the beginning.  All Libertarians agree on the issue of consent.  And that
>> consent requires ability to consent.  The disagreement has been precisely
>> when that happens - and no matter how uncomfortable that makes any of us -
>> it is the reality of the history of this debate and HOW is that
>> determined.  Some Libertarians argue for clear legal proceedings of
>> emancipation.  What we clearly are NOT arguing for is rape, abuse, or
>> predation.
>>
>> We have NO authority to author a resolution favouring one side or another
>> in an internal dispute.  Put it before the delegates at convention to make
>> a resolution.  That is not our job.
>>
>> This is a serious issue and we cannot allow it to be used, purposefully
>> for not, for advancing one factional interest over another.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a quote from an email I sent to a region 1 chair two days ago.
>>> Also LPCO made it CLEAR they were not alleging a platform violation in
>>> their discussions.
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> My exact cause would be repeated inappropriate and reckless conduct
>>> bringing the Party, it’s candidates, and it’s principles into disrepute.
>>>
>>> I think the cause needs to be stated so that there is no ideological
>>> gaming in the Party - this isn’t about some clear departure from a
>>> libertarian item but about irresponsibility from an officer.
>>>
>>> As I said directly to Arvin, no you are not a martyr for being “too
>>> libertarian” I hold the same radical anarchist creed - it’s not too
>>> libertarian, it’s much jackass.  No discernment or discretion.=====
>>>
>>> So my proposed language for cause would be:
>>>
>>> *Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for
>>> cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National
>>> Committee;*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Whereas, Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra has engaged in repeated inappropriate
>>> and reckless conduct bringing the Party, its candidates, and it's
>>> principles into disrepute;*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Whereas, Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra has dealt with the subject of children
>>> and consent in a manner that has displayed callous disregard and actively
>>> given an impression through his words that predatory behaviour by adults is
>>> not a specific risk inevitably tied to the biological facts of maturity and
>>> development;*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Whereas, Vice Chair Arvin Vohra equated a clear example of fully
>>> consensual and voluntary sexual relations amongst adult men who have
>>> historically suffered the wrongful association with predators with that of
>>> a teenager and a partner at least ten years their senior in which there is
>>> a clear possibility of non-consent or predation;*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Whereas, this is merely the latest episode of Mr. Vohra making
>>> particularly inflammatory and insulting remarks, destructively stereotyping
>>> party members and large segments of the population,  a behavior completely
>>> at odds with our Party’s philosophy of recognizing and treating people as
>>> individuals and recognizing that the ultimate problem is government
>>> aggression, not other victims of its aggression; and*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Whereas, this pattern of behavior has caused such wide-spread offense
>>> that it makes it difficult for the LNC, its committees, and Party
>>> affiliates to focus on productive activities;*
>>>
>>> * Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee
>>> suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alicia I would not agree to that language.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I don’t think it is accurate in stating what he said.  And I don’t
>>>> think it is accurate in what the plank is intended.  This isn’t a platform
>>>> issue.  Making it so
>>>> is a shot across the bow and wil make it about being “too libertarian”
>>>> and fracture us.  I do not think the two states in Region 1 would agree to
>>>> that either.
>>>>
>>>> It factionalizes.
>>>>
>>>> 2. It is much more than that.  It is reckless lack of judgment and
>>>> harmful messaging.
>>>>
>>>> 4. It is an argument for the state.
>>>>
>>>> And I would hope that would never pass the JC.
>>>>
>>>> I would propose something much simpler and something we should ALL be
>>>> able to agree upon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:22 AM Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alicia, and everyone else too,
>>>>>
>>>>> Help me understand this process here.  The cause written below would
>>>>> be attached with the motion?  For the purpose of following the language
>>>>> where it says, "The National Committee may, for cause..."?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, then this looks appropriate. As, for me, it's not a particular
>>>>> action or statement of Arvin's, but the systemic long-time damage to the
>>>>> state affiliates (and recently even candidates) to conduct LP work,
>>>>> recruit, and go about the business of being a viable political entity.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-01-17 03:06, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> After spending time reading through the actual comments in question, I
>>>>> am willing to co-sponsor a motion for suspension.  I think this is a
>>>>> situation where it's a good idea to explain the cause in writing, since we
>>>>> wish to distance ourselves from a particular situation.  I've drafted the
>>>>> following language for consideration.  If there are ways to improve it, I'm
>>>>> open to hearing suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for
>>>>> cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National
>>>>> Committee;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, the Party's platform plank on Personal Relationships states
>>>>> that, "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual
>>>>> practices and personal relationships;"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, the Party's platform plank on Parental Rights states that,
>>>>> "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children
>>>>> according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be
>>>>> construed to condone child abuse or neglect;"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, children are particularly vulnerable members of society;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, Arvin Vohra, at times even using his title as LNC Vice Chair,
>>>>> has repeatedly made public statements downplaying the harm of sexual
>>>>> relationships between adults and children, and advocating allowing families
>>>>> (or "their culture") to somehow grant sexual consent on behalf of children;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, Mr. Vohra's actions have the effect of damaging and
>>>>> dissuading the campaigns of Libertarians who do believe in the limitations
>>>>> embodied by these Party Platform planks;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, this is merely the latest episode of Mr. Vohra making
>>>>> particularly inflammatory and insulting remarks, destructively stereotyping
>>>>> party members and large segments of the population – such as veterans and
>>>>> school teachers – a behavior completely at odds with our Party's philosophy
>>>>> of recognizing and treating people as individuals; and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas, this pattern of behavior has caused such wide-spread offense
>>>>> that it makes it difficult for the LNC, its committees, and Party
>>>>> affiliates to focus on productive activities;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee
>>>>> suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Alicia Mattson <
>>>>> alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think merely including "for cause" in the motion would be
>>>>>> sufficient, and I haven't found a RONR provision which says the nature of
>>>>>> the cause has to be explained in the motion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may, however, be a good idea to explain for the record what the
>>>>>> cause is, especially when an organization wants to distance itself from
>>>>>> public statements it disagrees with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding Caryn Ann's question about whether RONR requires that we
>>>>>> have a trial under Chapter 20 procedures, I've heard this question come up
>>>>>> before, and I've seen a written opinion from a member of the RONR
>>>>>> authorship team which explained that the Chapter 20 protocol is the
>>>>>> default, but when an organization takes the step of writing a different
>>>>>> bylaws provision about removal, that serves to override the Chapter 20
>>>>>> default process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the parliamentary question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at least
>>>>>>> need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with clarity
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> the cause is, since there is only the option for members to vote for
>>>>>>> or against it without the potential for amendment.  Members should be
>>>>>>> aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a
>>>>>>> suspension
>>>>>>> and that an appellate body would generally be looking to whether the
>>>>>>> appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to
>>>>>>> overturn a suspension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of
>>>>>>> suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause being
>>>>>>> able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> voting.  As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request an
>>>>>>> electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not the
>>>>>>> four that are required for an email ballot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/d77574b6/attachment-0002.html>