[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jan 17 22:50:32 EST 2018
Update on Region 1.
UT (thought was no but might have misunderstood/ setting up a conference)
CO (told informally it is yes)
HI yes
KS yes
AK yes
Out of the 4 yeses, three of them made their support conditional on this
not being made a Platform battle but to focus on behaviour and conduct
unbefitting the position along with reckless lack of judgment. Those
states absolutely reject any possibility of this being a mod v rad wedge
situation or the LNC taking a side in the longstanding internal dispute
except to affirm that aggression is unacceptable - which is after all the
point.
HI believes this is so serious and reckless that they want a removal by any
route it can be done.
As such, if I get two more yes votes I will support the position of removal
but will not support any cause that crosses the line into factional
advocacy of state v no state solutions and exactly when individuals obtain
full custodianship of their own rights.
Region 1’s position - so far - is to say that arguing over the weeds of
libertarian philosophy is irrelevant here - leaders are not in place to be
shockingly “right”- they are also to be wise and responsible.
tldr; it’s the repeated behaviour
It does look like I’ll get the 6 votes for support conditional upon an
acceptable statement of cause.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
Update on Region 1.
UT (thought was no but might have misunderstood/ setting up a
conference)
CO (told informally it is yes)
HI yes
KS yes
AK yes
Out of the 4 yeses, three of them made their support conditional on
this not being made a Platform battle but to focus on behaviour and
conduct unbefitting the position along with reckless lack of judgment.
Those states absolutely reject any possibility of this being a mod v
rad wedge situation or the LNC taking a side in the longstanding
internal dispute except to affirm that aggression is unacceptable -
which is after all the point.
HI believes this is so serious and reckless that they want a removal by
any route it can be done.
As such, if I get two more yes votes I will support the position of
removal but will not support any cause that crosses the line into
factional advocacy of state v no state solutions and exactly when
individuals obtain full custodianship of their own rights.
Region 1’s position - so far - is to say that arguing over the weeds of
libertarian philosophy is irrelevant here - leaders are not in place to
be shockingly “right”- they are also to be wise and responsible.
tldr; it’s the repeated behaviour
It does look like I’ll get the 6 votes for support conditional upon an
acceptable statement of cause.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra at gmail.com>
wrote:
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
<[2]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
<[3]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
<[4]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
<[5]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
<[6]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
<[7]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 <[8]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
<[9]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
<[10]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
>> <[11]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
>>> <[12]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
>>>>
>>>>
[13]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugb
r1A
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>> <[14]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
>>>>> <[15]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
>>>>>> <[16]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
>>>>>>> [17]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> [18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> [20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> [21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [22]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [23]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[24]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[25]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[26]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[28]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[30]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[32]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
--
Arvin Vohra
[34]www.VoteVohra.com
[35]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[36]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[37]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
7. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
8. mailto:chair at lp.org
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
12. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
13. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
16. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
17. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
22. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
24. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
25. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
26. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
28. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
29. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
30. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
32. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
33. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
34. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
35. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
36. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
37. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list