[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra
Daniel Hayes
daniel.hayes at lp.org
Thu Jan 18 01:19:04 EST 2018
Alicia is correct about this.
See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.
“If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited.”
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:21 AM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
Alicia is correct about this.
See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.
“If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of
the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that
nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.
There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done
that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws,
unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may
be done, all others being prohibited.”
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:21 AM, Alicia Mattson <[1]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 <[2]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
<[3]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
<[4]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
>> <[5]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
>>> <[6]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
>>>>
>>>> [7]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>> <[8]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
>>>>> <[9]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
>>>>>> <[10]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
>>>>>>> [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> [12]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> [14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
_______________________________________________
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
References
1. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
2. mailto:chair 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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
12. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
14. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
16. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
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
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list